PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by Doctor Smith


It truly is mindboggling that anyone doesn't see this for what it is. I'm surprised there are still people out there who have seen the information and can't comprehend or accept the magnitude of it.

Mind imprisoned cowards.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by seattletruth


And the best part is that we have well over the majority of the Worlds experts on our side regarding those squibs. Us laymen know its demo squibs and so do the experts, even those in Iran. Wake up sheeples.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


You took the wordfs out of my mouth. Are you a structural engineer or a demo expert. i suspect you are. Why cant people see what we see?

Your post mentions Silverstein slipping up under pressure. I would respectfully disagree with this interpretation.

He would have known for weeks in advance about this interview, - it's not as though a reporter ran up to him in the street and thrust a microphone in his face & demanded to know the truth re building 7. Nor was he sweating it out under the hot lights of some interrogation room.

He knows he will be asked about 7, so it seems almost inconceivable that a man involved in treasonous mass slaughter of thousands would actually admit this, and not at some social function, or an off the cuff remark made to someone, but to actually sit in front of a camera crew comprising X people & the person asking the questions, and inadvertently confess his participation in the 9/11 plot, thus unmasking the whole conspiracy.

My dad used to be a cop, and I doubt that many of his cases were solved this easily. Criminals don't just confess to their crimes in such a blase fashion. It doesn't happen.

Imagine the following scenario, - Silverstein, post 9/11, has suffered some kind of minor mental retardation. Nothing spectacular, but sufficient enough
for him to have to be told, over & over again, - DO NOT ADMIT THAT BUILDING 7 WAS BROUGHT DOWN. You can say anything else, BUT DON'T MENTION THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Even with his hypothetical diminished capacity, it's still highly improbable he would admit that 7 was brought down. But with all his faculties intact, it seems to be a theory with little credibility.

Conspiracy theorists want us to believe that the one thing Silverstein cannot, must not, say, at all costs; the great secret, the key to the whole mystery,the exposing of himself as a participant in this most ghastly & horrific of crimes against the United states, - he goes ahead & says it.

reply to post by lydiar


Any "experts" who claimed those were demolitions are now unemployed experts. These are the same people who believe that Hollywood special effects are real.
There is no evidence of demolition; only speculation. [Youtube videos of the collapse with truther voice overs are not evidence.]

reply to post by pteridine


Physics is not a theory, nor is it speculation.

reply to post by pteridine


Also, you're experts being fired comment has no basis in fact. Some experts have been fired, some currently hold their positions.

If you've ever gone to architects and engineers for 9/11 truth you would know that.

www.ae911truth.org...

You don't know that because you haven't actually spent any time on this.

You're a lip flapper.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

Physics is not a theory, nor is it speculation.

That is correct. Your interpretation of physics seems to be unusual.
If the collapse had occurred as NIST suggested, what would it have looked like?

this in in reply to horus12, - I've just joined and I haven't worked out how to quote so I'll do it manually.

You say, re 7, that "there's no reason why that building should have collapsed", and that "WT7 proves the 9/11 conspiracy for me".

I respect your viewpoint, but what I can't yet understand, and I'm hoping someone on this site can explain it to me, is exactly what you yourself say, although I draw from it the completely opposite conclusion, - there's no reason why the building should have collapsed. There's no reason for the conspirators to collapse it it, especially in such an obvious fashion.

If, as you conjecture, 7 contains information of a dubious and/or incriminating nature, why not just set multiple fires throughout the whole of the structure? You let these fires burn all day, the information is destroyed - or if it isn't you have some of your operatives make sure it's destroyed before the fires you have created get really out of control.

Building 7 burns away all day. News crews/reporters/the vast amount of media present/multiple eye witness testimony will all confirm that building 7 was completely engulfed in flames. By the end of the day, if it hasn't already collapsed, the structure may well be a shell. Vis a vis your conspiracy, you are completely covered. The damage to the building will be so great that it will probably have to be pulled anyway.

So compare the two scenarios, -
a. you create a natural event that one would almost expect to follow on from the destruction of the Towers, ie the damage affects 7, the latter building is on fire, the fire spreads throughout, it burns all day, and by the end of the day it is wrecked beyond redemption.

b. you wire 7 full of explosives, you bring 7 down in front of the watching world, you make it look asmuch like a controlled demolition as is humanly possible, thus creating a paradise for conspiracy speculation.

And re this information that 7 might have contained, if the conspirators have the vast power & influence to pull off something as audacious as the 9/11 attacks, surely they could have devised a simpler way of destroying the said information than bringing down the whole edifice! Talk about bull in a china shop!

as I said before, I respect what you're saying. I'm simply hoping that someone here can provide me with some kind of rationale as to why the conspirators collapsed building 7.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Architects and Engineers for Truth is the brainchild of the guy that thinks cardboard boxes are good models for the WTC buildings.

He is either a charlatan or a complete idiot. What do you think?

NIST Admits Freefall Part 1, 2, 3
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Also, here is a list of the architect list of petition signers:

www.ae911truth.org...

Engineers:

www.ae911truth.org...

Non U.S.:
www.ae911truth.org...

Enjoy,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by pteridine


You're taking the side George W. Bush.

What do you think of that?

Originally posted by pteridine
He is either a charlatan or a complete idiot. What do you think?

How about both? He certainly sounds like he could be both. I wonder how much money he has made out of 9/11?

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

You're taking the side George W. Bush.

What do you think of that?

It seems as though you are running out of logical arguments. Why would anyone be influenced by what Bush thought?

reply to post by vicen


What you're talking about are theories. This is not what we are dealing with. Go to the UFO/ALIEN forums if you want to talk conspiracy theories.

We are currently dealing with known facts about September 11th. Conspiracies involving who done it mystery yarns are not the topic of debate. At least they aren't for me.

There are things that literally could not have happened. Physical impossibilities. We have been told that they can.

Once you realize that, we can talk about the conclusions you have drawn. Until that day, we must focus on the impossibilities.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by pteridine


You have resorted to "ad hominem" instead of addressing the facts I have brought to this forum.

If you want to attack the bringer of information, I will engage in that with you. George W. Bush is your current point of contact. You believe the official story he gave to the American people, i.e. 9/11 Commission, NIST, I'm guessing also Popular Mechanics, and probably some other debunking websites like Screw Loose Change. Personally, I don't think that's a very good source.

I honestly don't care where you get your information as long as you bring it forward and cite it. If you do so, I will check the validity of your sources. Architects and Engineers is a proper source for discussing this topic. You may look at the member list. It's not run by one man. It's made up of distinguished gentleman from their respective fields. So is scholars for 9/11 truth.

These aren't the end all for 9/11 information, no source currently available fits that description. But they do have validity, and so do others. So does NIST, so does the Commission report, in many respects. I won't disregard the entire book because one word is spelled wrong.

I don't think you should be doing that either.

Good luck,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by pteridine


One more quick question, how did the fireproofing get dislodged exactly and what evidence is there to support this claim?

Originally posted by pteridine
NIST explained the collapse of WTC7 consistent with the evidence at hand.

But it did not have any steel to do any actual testing. Again as stated NIST is not a investigating agency for 9/11.

Commissions all want more time and money to do a 'proper investigation.' I have never seen a report where all commission members agreed that they had enough time, money, and authority.

It has already been proven that there are a lot of errors and missing data in the commissions report.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

 

Architects and Engineers for Truth is the brainchild of the guy that thinks cardboard boxes are good models for the WTC buildings.

He is either a charlatan or a complete idiot. What do you think?

Gage used the cardboard boxes as a simple demostration, thats all. You know it so why make such a big issue of it? Is that all you've got?

He is neither a charlatan or an Idiot, he is a very accomplished architecht much respected by his peers and the 1000 signators to the A&E For Truth movement (of which I am one) What are you?

I have yet to find one naysayer on ATS who comes accross as having the slightest grasp of Engineering or physics and this includes you sir.

PEACE,
RK

Originally posted by vicen
Why this fixation, almost fetish, with building 7?

All we have to do is look at the facts.

1. We have statements from 2 fire chiefs that the firemen were out of the building before the call the Silverstien. So the fire commander could have only been talking about the building when he stated PULL IT.

2. We have a statement from a fire chief that they were concerned about the fires jumping to other buildings. One reason the building was brought down.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by REMISNE]