PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by REMISNE

Yes some firemen do have training with explosives. Fire rescue crews have cutting torches and sawsalls.

I belong to a fire rescue crew - we have sawzalls and cutting torch on my truck. But we don't demolish buildings! In fact if too dangerous to enter
a structure we pull back a safe distance and wait...

I suggest you do some research before posting about something you seem to know nothing about.

Perhaps should take some of your own advice ......

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I don't KNOW for a fact the Pentagon has people on the roof with Stinger missiles

This shows your ignorance how Air Defence missiles are used (just like your ignorance of the other garbage you posted)- what good would Stingers be on the roof of the target you want to protect? You do not deploy your Air Defence assets on top of the target you want to protect, by the time you had identified your target, considered if it was a threat or not, acquired it, and launched , when you hit it its momentum would result in it hitting the target anyway!

If the people at the Pentagon DID NOT, have AA equipment on the roof, then I'm perfectly happy that we try and convict Donald Rumsfeld and a lot of other top brass for Criminal Negligence.

You also ignore that Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is only about 5000 feet away....

How come this SOB got a job in defense when an arm-chair general like me is so much smarter?

Simply because you are not smarter than he is.

"Reinforce and lock the pilot's doors on airplanes" for years.
But incompetence is so easy to believe in Government.

If the airlines considered that necessary they would have done it without needing the government to tell them - why do you think the government needs to hold everyones hand?

snip a lot more off topic rubbish

Originally posted by thedman
But we don't demolish buildings! ...

I never said they did.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

But it does not take much to bring down an already unstable building.

Can we just use logic? A building that COULD collapse by fire could not have cables or explosives and a building that won't collapse, doesn't need them. Building owners don't "Pull" out fire fighters.

We do not need logic when we have the facts like the ones from chief Nigro and chief Hayden

They are never going to be trying to set charges to demolish a burning building nor be able to while a fire is going on.

Fires were not on the lower floors. With the way WTC 7 was designed it would only take a few beams being cut with small cutter charges to bring it down

I agree with everything VitriolAndAngst says. It is a very long thread and i haven’t read all of it, but I’ll point out another thing, which to me seem obvious.

How can you support your current goverment and the Obama administration if it is certain they must be informed about this whole conspiracy very thoroughly. They must be aware of all the things the previous administration has done.

I understand this is basicly jumping towards conclusions (believeing it was an internal job), but from my (external) point of view and after reading VitriolAndAngst’s posts, this seems as a good material for thought.

Originally posted by GenRadek
You can clearly see the windows breaking AFTER the collapse has initiated. Hence this video alone debunks the premise of this thread. No proof of explosives here at all.

Already explained, don't read all the replies do you?

If you knew anything about controlled demolition you would know that explosives can still be detonated after the collapse has initiated.

They glass could also break from just being distorted.

The windows breaking after the collapse initiated proves nothing either way, you just want to find things to disagree with 'truthers' about, you bring nothing new to the debate.

reply to post by GenRadek


That is not quite what is meant when we say it should have fell at the damaged end, if it was going to fail at all that is.

If the south end was really that damaged to initiated failure then it should have been a localized collapse in that region.

If they column joints were so weak they failed from damage and fires then why the sudden collapse? Structures weekend by fire don't hold up until suddenly deciding to let go, they sag, disform, bend etc. We see steel buildings after a fire that are a shell, everything gone but the steel, so how did WTC7's steel fail before anything else?
This just simply doesn't happen, as precedence proves.







And please don't say they're different designs, it doesn't matter in this context, buildings simply don't collapse into the path of most resistance no matter the design, unless the resistance is removed, it's called physics.
How was resistance removed from the WTC buildings? How did the fires have such devastating effect when all other incidences of building fires haven't?

[edit on 2/15/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by REMISNE


Do you have anything to back up your claims?

What makes you think a few cut beams would bring down a whole 48 story building, designed as all buildings with a safety margin which means it can hold more than it's own weigh with no difficulty, neatly into it's own footprint while minimizing damage to surrounding buildings?

Why do people spend money to have Demolition inc., do it when all you would have to do is knock out a couple of random columns and then set the place on fire? Why bother with all those times explosives?

Do you guys really think about this?

I know this thread is focusing specifically on World Trade Center seven and how it could have collapsed in its own footprint at free fall speed, how that's patently impossible with the science of physics at our fingertips.

But, I mean, didn't we know this in like 2005? Why are people still trying to "prove" that World Trade Center 7 couldn't have fallen the way that it did? You know it couldn't have, because you understand physics. Buildings don't just fall down. This is basic.

Why don't we focus on something more important. Like for example, WHO was responsible and WHY. The majority of the people on this forum, most likely, believe that George W. Bush and the Neo-Cons were wholly and completely responsible for the attacks on September 11th. Seems like people who believe this blame the United States of America for this crime and walk around New York City with "9-11 Was an Inside Job" t-shirts.

Was 9-11 an inside job though? Could there have been other countries involved? Say for instance, Israel?

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Why not say for instance, Luxemborg? Or Mexico? Or Chile? Or Kenya? Or Portugal? Or Spain? Or Greece? Or Egypt? Or Japan?

Why is it always Israel first on the conspiracist hit parade? What possible underlying condition could possibly explain this?

An interesting YouTube user named 'AlienScientist' today posted the below video regarding the NIST's findings about WTC7 building, which I thought relevant to this thread.

Full You Tube channel can be found here:
www.youtube.com...

'Why the NIST report on WTC7 is unscientific and false'


www.youtube.com...
15 February 2010

A lot more info can be found in the (more info) section of the YouTube video page.

Enjoy.

Cheers. x

reply to post by aenti



Alright anybody still got any doubts?

reply to post by drew hempel


If they do Drew, Jesse should just refer them to "investigator" June Sarpong, haha.

Although, perhaps it creates good balance to have people doubting. Either way, more doubts hopefully create more possibilities, and I heard somewhere that when all the possibilities have been eliminated whatever remains must be something along the lines of the truth of the matter...

Personally, I need no other evidence than the Atta's passport 'found' in the ruins of the WTC.

I'm not getting it. If building seven wasn't taken down by explosives exactly how do people imagine it did a vertical collapse in a few hours? I don't think people who can't grasp the basics of reality or purport that they can't can be education. They are either direct shills for the NWO or challenged in some other capacity.

reply to post by ReelView


Let's say your dad was in the military and his brother was killed in the military, etc. People have vested interests in believing that their government would not do a false flag attack. Major General Smedley Butler went public about how the military just works for Wall St (CIA).

en.wikipedia.org...

I viewed this video and said to myself that it looks like a controlled demolition... But that is where it ends. LOOKS do not make it so. The construction of many buildings are such that they would pancake. It happened exactly so in Connecticut here when a new building collapsed. It went down as if under controlled demo. But it wasnt. One of the concrete slab floors broke off the hangar trusses and pancacked one floor down. The impulsive force cascaded those two to the next and those three to the next etc... This catastrophic collapse, just because it looks orderly, doesnt in any way imply it was controlled! In fact, it was to be expected that pancaking would occur should it happen! A number of people died in that collapse.
So the windows blew out in WTC7 .. I saw that. My first thought was that maybe the elevator shafts were probably there and so there was internal buckling such that the windows popped on either side of the shaft all the way down. Then the pancake process began and it was all over. But in actuality, the real culprit was FIRE. Because of the water demands at WTC1 and WTC2, the fire suppression systems at WTC7 were offline and fires in WTC7 were allowed to burn uncontrollably.

As the day progressed, you could see the smoke coming from WTC7's lower floors change. The smoke became darker and near the collapse the smoke became very fast moving, indicating the blaze was intensifying. There were fuel tanks in WTC7 by the way and these were on the lower floors. These are thought to have finally caught fire and the oil was burning furiously. Most of you here spouting the controlled demolition theory havent even thought about looking at the actual building itself and where its fuel was stored. Because there was NO firefighting efforts being expended on WTC7, the trusses that balance and support floor load were allowed to be heated to their softening temperatures. This occurred on a lower floor. THAT floor failed and the entire building as a unit fell down upon it. AS EXPECTED. This is not rocket science but you are making it out to be amazing conspiracy when it is NOT. It is physics and materials failure analysis. Plain and simple.
When the lower floor failed, the pancaking began because the floors were not able to withstand the incredible forces of an entire building above falling on them and they collapsed... Finally the upper floors collapsed. As expected for a building in this situation...

You do not need conspiracy to explain what happened ANYWHERE on that day in my opinion. You just cannot face that we were caught with our pants down.



I think you need to study modern building construction so you can see that a pancaking scenario is far more common than you think.

I personally have never given much thought to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but, this one is definitely intriguing. Thanks for making me think, OP

In response to Hooper,

There is nothing to support the claim that Luxemborg, or Mexico, or Chile, or Kenya, or Portugal, or Spain, or Greece, or Egypt, or Japan, had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

 

Why is it always Israel first on the conspiracist hit parade? What possible underlying condition could possibly explain this?

For one thing, Israel is not the first on the hit parade, take a look at this forum, or ask the members here who they think is responsible, I can almost 100% guarantee you their first answer will not be Israel. It wasn't my first answer. I was of the Alex Jones ilk, "9/11 inside job," "manufactured by the United States of America," "self inflicted wound" etc, etc, and on and on.

I think, on a fundamental level, 9/11 truthers need to look at who has the power. It most certainly is not the President and his cabinet in Washington. It's not Congress. And it's not the Supreme Court. I'll let you find out who is actually in power

Just one little 9/11 fact I'll throw out there: the only people caught red handed on the day of September 11, 2001 were Mossad agents.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

But it does not take much to bring down an already unstable building.

Can we just use logic? A building that COULD collapse by fire could not have cables or explosives and a building that won't collapse, doesn't need them. Building owners don't "Pull" out fire fighters.

We do not need logic when we have the facts like the ones from chief Nigro and chief Hayden

They are never going to be trying to set charges to demolish a burning building nor be able to while a fire is going on.

Fires were not on the lower floors. With the way WTC 7 was designed it would only take a few beams being cut with small cutter charges to bring it down

This is the problem with the truthers in general... in our search for truth, sometimes we make statements that aren't the best answer. What we do know is the OS is a bunch of bunk! What we don't know is exactly what happened and that is why we all want a new totally honest and true investigation, that has the authority to indict people for trial.

From my perspective, I never thought the firemen did the demolishing. It is clear that a demolition company was on hand very quickly after the attacks, since some of the WTC buildings were indeed pulled down with cables.

From what I can pick up from all the various testimony accounts I have heard and read, it seems that one or more demolition companies were on site that very afternoon, and if the towers were indeed demolished, there were some of the very best demolition experts on hand that day, doing some of the most advanced demolition man has ever known.

When Silverstein said "THEY made the decision to PULL" we have no idea who he was talking about in the fullest sense. While it was the fire chief that called Silverstein (if we are to believe him), it is quite conceivable that demolition experts were standing right there with the Fire Chief... especially if this entire demolition exercise was planned well in advance.