PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by pteridine


It did fall at free fall. Not sure what you're talking about. Could you post this please.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


It didn't free fall. The total collapse time was longer than a freefall.

If the building failed because of fire or failed because of demolitions, how would you tell the difference?

reply to post by pteridine


For one thing it wouldn't fall at free fall speed, which building seven most certainly does for a period of time.

If the building collapsed from fire it would look something like this, the Windsor Building. Most of the structures discussed are totally incomparable to WTC buildings:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

There wouldn't be a global collapse as steel frame high-rise buildings do not fall from fire, unless the entire thing burns for a very long time, and as we know, WTC 1, 2, and 7 were not completely on fire. But even then, the buildings would not have a global collapse. You look at WTC 1 and 2 and you see that they had about 70 to 80 UNDAMAGED floors beneath their impact sites and burned for under an hour and just over an hour. And what evidence is there that the fireproofing was knocked off those buildings?

But even beyond that.

YOU are trying to tell me that 70 to 80 floors are equal to AIR. WTC 7 is even more improbable. It was fireproofed, sprinklered, and the fires were not hot enough, according to NIST. That's probably why it took SEVEN years to release their "final report."

It's basic logic as far as I'm concerned.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1




[edit on 21-2-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Did the sprinkler system in WTC 7 work as designed? Given the structure of WTC 7, why wouldn't it collapse if a main suport column failed? Did the buildings you referenced have similar construction and 20 stories worth of damage from falling WTC 1/2 ?

reply to post by pteridine


Why would it collapse? There's no impact point like in WTC 1 and 2. For the building to fall the way it did, at virtual free fall speed...well honestly I don't know what would need to occur as it's not possible, there's too much support.

Even if column 79 failed, which is dubious, there's other support columns as well as 47 stories of building, 80% of which (educated guess) was not damaged by fire, still standing. One support column is not going to bring down the exterior steel structures, the other interior support columns, the 47 floors, and the base support trusses simultaneously. In order for WTC 7 to be at all understandable, there would be a progressive collapse taking much longer and looking much different than a straight down free fall.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by pteridine


The Winsdor building didn't have 20 stories of damaged floors, but neither did WTC 7.

reply to post by pteridine


As far as know the sprinkler system worked and so did the fireproofing. I believe the sprinkler system failed on a few floors, but I honestly am tired of doing this tonight.

How does 47 stories of steel fall straight down at free fall speed? How does 70 to 80 floors of steel equal AIR?

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

I see that like many, your real basis for your beliefs are gut feelings of what you think should have happened. You didn't understand how the building was constructed but inherently know how it should have come down.
You base this on what? Hollywood disaster movies? Experience with suicide attacks on high rise buildings?

There is no evidence for any demolition of any WTC building nor any viable rationale for such demolition.

reply to post by pteridine


When you say things like this:

"There is no evidence for any demolition of any WTC building nor any viable rationale for such demolition."

I will refer you to your Voltaire quote:

"Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it."
— Voltaire

You obviously are not aware of yourself.

Good luck with that. I hope you find what you're looking for.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by pteridine


And, just to be clear, as to exactly where I stand, I'm not proving controlled demolition nor did I ever try to prove it on this forum. Controlled demolition comes from the holes in the official story. People see the way the towers collapsed and try to find an explanation where they haven't been given one. If you want to know my opinion, yeah I think WTC 7 was brought down with some kind of explosive. Probably the same with WTC 1 and 2. I think it's the only logical conclusion.

The only time I ever made mention of demolition was Danny Jowenko and the explosions heard near WTC 7. My entire position, here on this forum, has been a point by point breakdown, using the NIST report as reference, to show the impossibility of the WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapses.

When you engage me in a direct question as "what do you think would have happened if this..." I will answer you with an opinion, that obviously is based in fact as I have shown here clearly.

A gut feeling comes from nothing. Which is not my opinion and I truly feel enraged you would suggest something so untenable. In terms of Hollywood disaster movies, they are far more in favor of your side of the argument. How many Arab towel heads have we seen hijack planes and try to blackmail the government?

You on the other hand have not posted any significant amount of information to back your claims. Nor have you answered many of the direct questions I have posted to you. You are a pontificating, snooty little fellow who thinks statements are as solid as known facts.

This right here:

"I see that like many, your real basis for your beliefs are gut feelings of what you think should have happened."

This is the refuge of the defeated. It's called ad hominem. You attack the person instead of the argument. I've shown very clearly to you where my opinion comes from. The NIST report is not a gut feeling. Is that what you're suggesting? The facts surrounding the Windsor building fire is not a gut feeling. Are you...suggesting that?

"You didn't understand how the building was constructed but inherently know how it should have come down."

When exactly didn't I know how the building was constructed? In your little fantasy, staple the blinders to my face wet dream?

"Experience with suicide attacks on high rise buildings?"

WTC 7 was not hit by a suicide plane. Was that not clear?

...pathetic.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by pteridine


You're a time burglar and this is a waste of time.

reply to post by GenRadek


I'd love to see them.

Originally posted by vicen
But that still doesn't address the fundamental question of why building 7 was pulled at all. Why did they collapse it?

Well one reason the building was brought down might be becasue according to fire chief Hayden they were afraid fire might jump to other buildings and that if the building fell on its own to the side that was damaged it would cause more damage to other buildings.

Remember they were out of water due to the callapse of the towers.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


You certainly aren't proving controlled demolition anytime soon.

You asked me to post the details of the structure after I claimed that the building was unique. I did so. You seemed surprised that a large section of the NIST report, that you read, contained such information. I also claimed that the damage from falling debris was significant. This is a basis of my claim.

From Firehouse Magazine:

"Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day."

This link is a powerpoint presentation that you will find useful. It is a summary of the NIST document that you read.
wtc.nist.gov...

This presentation discusses the damage to the building and likely failure mechanism, in the absence of any other evidence.

You seem to fall back on "gut feelings". Perhaps you are unduly influenced by various something-for-truth sites. Put aside your prejudices and desire for a conspiracy and look for evidence. N.B. Evidence is not Youtube videos with overlays.
Was any actual evidence of demolition found; detonators, expended caps, wiring, failed devices, piles of hacksaw blades, secret orders, confessions of plotters, etc.? Was there any reason to bring down the buildings?

The attacks on WTC 1 and 2 would have been enough to start any war. Had they remained standing, we may have saved some of the people after uncontrolled fires raged through the upper floors. The ruins would have hung like a sword of Damocles above the city. Who would have repaired them? At what cost? The WTC 7 collapse has been claimed to have been done to eliminate evidence. This has been pointed out as a really bad way to eliminate evidence. There was no advantage to collapsing WTC 7, either.

As there is no evidence of demolition, we must conclude that there was no demolition until we find such evidence, even though some fervently wish such a plot.

reply to post by REMISNE

I don't quite get what you're saying here. You mention that fire chief Hayden expressed concern that the fire could spread to other buildings. Surely the conspirators don't care if the fire spreads, - if anything they would be in favour of that. They've already collapsed the Towers & attacked the Pentagon. Some more fire & destruction hardly matters.

Was the fire department, or at the very least the chief, in on the plot? Was Hayden aware that building 7 was rigged with explosives? Or was he made aware of this X time before 7 was pulled?

reply to post by pteridine


"Was there any reason to bring down the buildings?"

That says it all, man. It especially applies to building 7. And as to the notion of 7 containing incriminating evidence, - what evidence? It's very convenient to theorise that such evidence was in the building, but we don't know that.

And why keep incriminating material in 7 at all? Remove it! Burn it. It will save you a lot of time & effort & risk. You won't need to pull the building, and while a case could still be made for conspiracy, it will be a lot weaker minus 7's mysterious collapse. To suggest that those with the power to carry out something as extraordinary as 9/11 were unable to dispose of whatever needed disposal in building 7 using vastly simpler means seems incongruous.

You're also correct in asserting that collapsing the Towers was also superfluous. Surely a fundamental element in any plot is to keep the risks to a minimum, not massively increase both the logistics of the attacks & also the chances of being exposed.

Even hitting the WTC at all couldn't have been the only idea the conspirators came up with. Once they have decided to go through with a false flag attack, one would imagine that dozens, hundreds of different scenarios were discussed, all much less complex than a plan that involves, eg, remote controlled planes, collapsing massive skyscrapers, a cast of thousands.

Why not, for example, select twenty patsies, put them on twenty planes, and blow up the aircraft, maybe one every 25-30 minutes, to really create the effect that the country is under attack. For purposes of realism, you don't have a 100% success rate. So perhaps 2 or 3 of the bombs (which could be in liquid form) don't go off.

Or twenty suicide bombers who don't know they are patsies explode twenty massive truck bombs all across the United States. The casualties might not be that far off the real 9/11 total.

Even simpler, why not just plant some WMDs in the Iraqui desert?

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 22-2-2010 by Doctor Smith]

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
How does 70 to 80 floors of steel equal AIR?

More importantly, how does 8 stories of support (the amount it takes a building to freefall for 2.25 seconds as admitted to by NIST) to suddenly become AIR (actually, that is not even true because for something to fall at 9.83 m/s^2, it has to be in a vacuum....how does that happen naturally?....How did it even happen at all?)

I bet I'll hear the old transfer truss/Con Edison substation bit. But, how does this compute? 8 floors worth of building just went poof? I can think of only one way and it isn't natural.

Even so, NIST's own computer sims don't show what happened, yet they (NIST) cling to them as if they (the sims) were the Bible. But, refuse to answer an FOIA request for their data to the very people who paid for it (the initial report AND the FOIA request). And people don't find this fishy?

reply to post by vicen

Even simpler, why not just plant some WMDs in the Iraqui desert?

I think this one sentence cuts through all of the crap that is the 'foundation' of so much of the "Truth Movement."

Sit back in your computer chair (or couch) and think upon this for a moment ---- what is ONE crux of the "TM" claims??? That the Bush administration (or elements within the Admin) 'orchestrated' the 9/11 attacks, in order to foster support for the Iraqi invasion.

This shows a very limited view of what ACTUALLY was in the minds of the Bush Admin, once they were "installed" in the very questionable "election" (which, by the way, deserves a REAL conspiracy investigation....)

I will claim, that IF there were some alternate reality, where the results of the USA's 2000 election turned out to be the same, BUT the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001 never happened, that the Bush Admin was DETERMINED to invade Iraq, under any pretense....AND, as we saw, irrespective of 9/11, they used "WMDs" AS that pretense!!!!!

Are you followiing along with me, so far?

The neocons that supported Bush Jr. had ALREADY decided, long before he was installed as Prez, to go back into Iraq.

ALL OF THIS nonsense, from the "TM" is distracting from this simple fact.

I think that those who prosecuted this illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq RELISH this distraction!!!

There is your conspiracy, folks!!!!~

FALSE CLAIMS of WMD!!!

FALSE CLAIMS of 'yellow cake' from Niger!!!!

Not a bit of 9/11 was needed for this "plan" to go forward, it would have been progressed along regardless. The terrorist attacks maybe --- MAYBE --- fell into their laps, as a convenience to further their agenda, to bunp up the timeline....BUT they had already PLANNED to invade Iraq, and would have manufactured whatever evidence was needed (as seen by the 'yellow cake' lie, and the WMD lies) in any case!!!!!!


Ponder and chew on it, will you???

NO CONNECTIONS between 9/11 and Iraq!!! YET, the plans to invade Iraq went forward, nonetheless...

NO SOLID EVIDENCE of WMD, only innuendo and (we now see) trumped up 'evidence'...

FINALLY....ONCE THEY got into Iraq....and IF THEY WERE so 'clever' to have pulled off this great "deception", as the "TM" claim, of 9/11....dontcha think they would have been able to plant FAKE WMD in IRAQ??????

You all have brains....think on that, please.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Who says 9/11 was a pretense to invade Iraq? I haven't heard anyone (except Dick Cheney of course) state this.

It WAS a pretense to invade Aphganistan (you know...the OTHER war that everyone keeps forgetting about). Oil and pipelines come to mind. Not to mention the Patriot Act.

But Iraq? Where oh where have you been misinformed? Some damn fool conspiracy website that promotes the 9/11 OS (that one's for you Dave)?