PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


9/11 is a lot bigger than Iraq. Iraq is just the beginning. There's a third world war coming, unless we change the system. The United States government, specifically the Bush administration, is not the end of line. The most powerful personages keep hidden and leach off our country.

reply to post by Nutter


Nice try, to move the goalposts....

WHERE was the "Shock and Awe" first instigated?????

WHERE and WHEN did Bush Jr declare "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"???

Take care to check your historical facts, please. And when EACH and every event occurred, and in which order. AND in which 'country'....

IMMEDIATELY after 9/11, the determination was that the 'taliban', with most of their supporters in Afghanistan (witnessed by the surgence of the group, and devastation of archaeological sites, within areas that they "controlled", as late as year 2000) may have lent support to al Quaeda, and by inference, to bin Laden, post 9/11 attacks.

The most LIKELY (AND, recall, that the CIA had a history with bin Laden, dating back to when there was still a "Cold War" with USSR, and THEY were trying to get a foothold in Afghanistan....CIA were pulling strings, then, and knew OF bin Laden, as result)...

Afghanistan was almost a modern, 1980s equivalent to Vietnam, in terms of trying to "fight" the Cold War using proxies.

Meantime, "Cold War" over, USSR collapsed....bin Laden, feeling 'abandoned' by the US, turned his hatred (and twisted religious ideology) on his former benefactor, the USA.

The INITIAL intent, in Afghanistan, immediately post-9/11, was to hopefully capture/kill or otherwise gain retribution for the attacks, thought to most likely (and NEVER shown to be otherwise) planned and orchestrated from the lingereing hatred, and bitter anger, of bin Laden, and his associates that he had recruited.

The 'taliban' is also a threat, merely from their religious extremist views...

...ties to al Quada might have been tenuous, then....but as is the case with those sorts of whackjobs, may not be now...still, could change.

Note how, we have come to learn, "they" will move around....Yemen being the latest place.

There is a LOT of desert, in that part of the World, for them to hide....

HOW MUCH OIL is in Afghanistan, might you wonder???

Certainly, making that country more stable could be a prelude to further American military bases in the region, all in the guise of "democracy"...but, under it all, a pressing need to secure oil production venues.


Like I said, earlier.....the 'taliban', and their atrocities, would have been sufficient to have allowed the bush neocons to create a "reason" to do what they've already done.

9/11 was just a "bonus", for them....it fell into their laps --- literally.

How was the media able to announce that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before the actual collapse?

www.youtube.com...

They took building seven down so what about the others? That building had to be rigged ahead of time.

www.youtube.com...


More money was spent by far on investigating Bill Clinton"s Monica adventures than on the 911.

reply to post by Doctor Smith

How was the media able to announce that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before the actual collapse?

Sir (I assume) that has been covered many times, already...

The BBC, no slouches they, wished to "scoop" other news organisations, whenever possible....and simply took reports, scattered and disjointed, of what was thought by those on scene as the inevitable impending collapse of WTC 7, and reported it. BECAUSE of a mistake in the newsroom, by the copy writers!!!

Ever been in a newsroom?

I am sure there were red faces, at best....sackings, at worst over that cock-up. Why not contact BBC and ask THEM????

This is, unfortunately, an Internet meme that, due to the nature of the Internet, will NEVER go away!!!!

(If you don't know what a 'meme' is, I suggest you Google it --- or Bing! --- or whatever search engine is your method du jour)

(ALSO, if you look up, while 'googling' or 'binging' the term "Urban Legend", you may learn a thing or two about the persistence of rumours, made WORSE by the Internet!!!)

reply to post by weedwhacker


WW, how many times in history have two completely separate news organizations reported the same gigantic lie? Your cute little brush off is believable once, but twice? If this is such a common occurrence, I am certain you can find examples all over the place. Thanks in advance.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

WW, how many times in history have two completely separate news organizations reported the same gigantic lie?

Please elaborate.

We all want to know what YOU 'know'.

(OH.....and IF you wish to find examples of news sources attempting to "out-scoop" the competition, swell....I think there are plenty to choose from....)

reply to post by weedwhacker

WHERE and WHEN did Bush Jr declare "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"???

Actually it crew of the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN - 72) which made
and hung the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner....

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Doctor Smith


BBC was quoting from a Reuters report which in turn was referencing a local news report that WTC 7 had already collapsed

In the chaos and confusion of that day nobody cross checked the reports

News that WTC 7 was in danger and probably would collapse had been
circulating all afternoon of 911 - especially after collapase zone established at around 3PM

reply to post by K J Gunderson


So the fact that the firefighters saw serious signs of structural integrity failure occurring in the WTC7 throughout the afternoon means nothing to you? The fact that they KNEW the building was not going to survive long and that they were preparing for the eventuality of collapse and therefore reported it that it was going to collapse? And some people sometimes goof up in the media.

Recall the coverage during Hurricane Katrina. We had actual news reports of rescue choppers coming under constant fire, bodies stacked like cord wood at the Superdome, rape squads and death squads throwing people to their deaths off the balcony in the Superdome. BThese were headlines on the initial reports for DAYS. What happened a few days later? Oops! There were no actual reports of choppers getting shot at, no bodies stacked like cord wood, no rape squads, no death squads! oops oops oops!

Also I wonder, if I were to take you back to NYC on 9/10, plop you right inside the Empire State Building, and asked you to point out the WTC7, would you even know where to look? I wonder how many New Yorkers could automatically tell you which one is WTC7. Then how is some BBC newscaster going to tell which is WTC7? For all he/she knows its some piddly squat little 5 story building crushed under the WTCs collapses. I doubt the newscaster knew which building was 7. I sure as hell didnt. Now I do. Hell back then I didnt even know there was a WTC4,5,6,7.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


I liked it when Clinton was confronted in Minneapolis by the 911 Truthers and he exclaimed -- How Dare You!

And then there was Clinton in Arkansas doing his CIA drug running:

video.google.com...#

reply to post by Doctor Smith

They took building seven down so what about the others? That building had to be rigged ahead of time.

Explain how the building was rigged ahead of time....

Consider that the largest building demolished with explosives was the
old Hudson building in Detriot (1998). That building was 29 stories above ground and 4 below

The store was built in 12 separate stages, the first in 1911 and the last in 1946. The complex had two retail basements and 23 above grade retail floors, including mezzanines. Two additional basements and six upper stories in a tower, provided storage and mechanical support for the 2.2 million square foot building. In all there were 33 levels in the structure.

WTC 7 was 47 floors or 50% bigger.

The Hudson building took 3 months of prep work and 4 months to gut out he building in before loading the charges. This included having bulldozers
pack dirt around base of the building to prevent it from collapsing outwards

Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.

Took over 3 1/2 weeks to place charges in Hudson building

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

Thats 8 months of work for one demolition....

Now explain how they rig a building 50% bigger than largest ever demolished and do it without the WHOLE FRIGGIN WORLD knowing about it!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

WW, how many times in history have two completely separate news organizations reported the same gigantic lie?

Please elaborate.

We all want to know what YOU 'know'.

(OH.....and IF you wish to find examples of news sources attempting to "out-scoop" the competition, swell....I think there are plenty to choose from....)

Elaborate on what exactly? What are you confused about? Two different news stations reported the building down before it went. I am not sure that I can make it any more simple than that.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

So the fact that the firefighters saw serious signs of structural integrity failure occurring in the WTC7 throughout the afternoon means nothing to you?

That would be a good guess as to why I did not bring that up. That is a completely different issue and a hand-waving distraction. It is pretty clear that I am addressing two news channels reporting a building falling down that was not hit by a plane. They did not report that it was maybe going to come down, the reported it was down. Unless you want to tell me that firefighters were all reporting the building as already collapsed before it was, I could care less what they saw.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Elaborate on what exactly?

What I asked for.

YOU keep mentioning TWO news organizations, yet do not, upon a challenge, NAME them!!!

Of course, we know ONE of them is the BBC, as has been mentioned. WHICH is the other???

Dodge?

AND, you speak of "hand-waving"???????? Sheesh!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, and almost forgot, the continuing canard about WTC 7 "Not being hit by an airplane" that you brought up, again!!!

Building 7 WAS HIT!!!! Not by an airplane, in that you are correct....it sustained collateral damge rom FALLING DEBRIS from a WTC Tower, as IT collapsed!!!

Hand-waving, indeed!!

MAJOR damage...in FACT, other WTC buildings in the vicinity, WTC 3 and 5 were also fatally damaged, so as to be UNSALVAGABLE!!!

No, they did not collapse, because as I usnderstand it, they had different designs, and suffered differnt levels of damage....but WTC 7 ALSO had, within the building (and just ignoring, for the moment, the unique design, and how the load was distrubuted above the large, open agtrium in the design) DIESEL GENERATORS, situated throught the structure, that were in place to provide back-up power in the event of electrical power interruptions from the city-supplied grid....AND these were fed by a PRESSURIZED diesel fuel pipeline.

Hmmmmmm.........

MAJOR impact damage, from falling flaming debris from WTC Tower, and DIESEL fuel, under pressure, being sprayed around....gee....surprise!!!!





[edit on 22 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

So you all have failed to show one steel frame demolition like collapse similar to building 7 ever in history.

And no explanation of how they knew within minutes that it was going to fail. With all the explosions heard throughout the day.

What about the molten metal found in the basements of all three buildings a month later? How could it stay molten for more than a month? How could it even get hot enough to turn to red hot flowing molten metal? And stay that way for over a month? Explain? Could it be the end result of some type of Thermite?

Originally posted by vicen
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?

1. No, niether the fire department or chief Hayden were in on a plot.

2. There are other ways of bringing down a building without using explosivies, especially one that was already unstable.

3. Chief Hayden stated that the fire fighters were out of building 7 a few hours before the building was brought down.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Building 7 WAS HIT!!!! Not by an airplane, in that you are correct....it sustained collateral damge rom FALLING DEBRIS from a WTC Tower, as IT collapsed!!!

So you would agree then that if the building had collapsed on its own it would have fallen to the South side that had been damaged and not straight down in its own footprint?

MAJOR impact damage, from falling flaming debris from WTC Tower, and DIESEL fuel, under pressure, being sprayed around....gee....surprise!!!!

Well for one the EPA recovered almost all the fuel in the tanks.

www.wtc7.net...
To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.








[edit on 22 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

WW, how many times in history have two completely separate news organizations reported the same gigantic lie?

Please elaborate.

We all want to know what YOU 'know'.

(OH.....and IF you wish to find examples of news sources attempting to "out-scoop" the competition, swell....I think there are plenty to choose from....)

Elaborate on what exactly? What are you confused about? Two different news stations reported the building down before it went. I am not sure that I can make it any more simple than that.

So, what is your explanation ? Was a foreign news outlet given a script and timetable of the days events to make sure they could follow along ?
Do you believe that ?!

reply to post by Doctor Smith


Stop avoiding the question !

I asked how they rig a building the size of WTC 7 without all of New York
knowing it

Consider that no building that size was ever demolished by explosives

SO HOW WAS IT DONE?

MAJOR damage...in FACT, other WTC buildings in the vicinity, WTC 3 and 5 were also fatally damaged, so as to be UNSALVAGABLE!!!

No, they did not collapse, because as I usnderstand it, they had different designs, and suffered differnt levels of damage....but WTC 7 ALSO had, within the building (and just ignoring, for the moment, the unique design, and how the load was distrubuted above the large, open agtrium in the design) DIESEL GENERATORS, situated throught the structure, that were in place to provide back-up power in the event of electrical power interruptions from the city-supplied grid....AND these were fed by a PRESSURIZED diesel fuel pipeline.

Hmmmmmm.........

MAJOR impact damage, from falling flaming debris from WTC Tower, and DIESEL fuel, under pressure, being sprayed around....gee....surprise!!!!

First of all, WTC 6, which was between WTC 1 and WTC 7, had two holes (a large crater in the center of the building, and a smaller one in the southeast end) that extended the height of the building and massive structural damage yet it did NOT collapse.

Second, diesel fuel will only ignite under severe pressure and/or very high temperatures. That being said, "falling flaming debris" could not have had a high enough temperature to ignite the diesel generators. On the other hand, if the pressure was intense enough the diesel generators would have exploded and we would have seen the building engulfed in flames instead of falling in its footprint.

This is my 2 cents for what its worth.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Angel297]