PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by thedman
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...

You really need to look at sources other than wikipedia.

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.

"We took care of the production of it," McClellan said. "We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."

www.cnn.com...

Scott McClellan was Bush's White House spokesman.

So, don't blame the Navy for something the "commander and Chief" ordered them to do.

reply to post by Angel297

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.

You mean like this ?





WTC 6 - unlike WTC 1 & 2 or WTC 7 was only 8 stories tall.
WTC 6 also lacked the long span cantilever trusses which were used by
WTC 7 to allow it to span the distances between the supports.

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 news to me considering I have witnessed numerous fires started
by flaming debris - fire service term is embers or brands. Seen one such
building set on fire 1 1/2 blocks away from original fire

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

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.

Oh boy, reading comprehension and critical/logical thinking are dying arts in our society.

If firefighters are reporting that the building is in danger of collapse, and this gets picked up by some persons on the ground who report it to their media centers, sometimes what can happen is a mistake. "About to collapse" can turn into "Already collapsed" rather quickly in the confusion and insanity surrounding that day. Are you aware that newscasters reported a bomb going off in the Capitol Building? Are you aware someone reported a small plane hitting WTC7? Are you aware there were reports of car-bombs in our nation's Capitol? And you think that because TWO news stations mistakenly said WTC7 collapsed before it really did is evidence of a "script", then it should also mean that all those MISreported events were suppose to have happen as well, but didnt? A script? That was my favorite joke years ago when I first came into this 9/11 Conspiracy world. it was a joke back then, and it still is today.

reply to post by GenRadek

Are you aware there were reports of car-bombs in our nation's Capitol?

I resided here, in DC suburbs, and was home that morning.

LOTS of 'false' and breathlessly reported rumours were rampant on the TV, whether from the 'local' reporters, or a feed to the 'national' networks....

My next-door neighbor pigeonholed me sometime that afternoon, and asked me if I though we should 'flee' the area!!!

My response was HELL NO! It was OVER, by then, and it was obvious.

I only bring that personal story to light to explain WHY so many rumours have sprouted, post 9/11.....

reply to post by GenRadek


"About to collapse" does not turn into "Has already collapsed due to damage from falling debris that weakened the steel frame and caused the entire building to come down."

That was quite a stretch just to insult my reading comprehension. There is nothing wrong with it. You are just really hoping that your theory makes enough sense to stick. I do not buy it. That has nothing to do with reading comprehension. There were two pretty specific reports of the building falling and the exact explanation of why it fell that we would then get after it actually did fall.

I am starting to doubt your reading comprehension as this is twice that you have come after me with something unrelated to what I actually posted about.

Stop responding to me until you can keep up with what I am actually discussing. Your pet theories are nice but not relevant to me. Stop.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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!

Geeze weedwhacker, we've been over this before. You have a very convenient 'failing' memory whenever you need it most. A google search takes about 5 seconds to find the relevant info. What held you up whacker? It was CNN reporting the collapse of WTC7 at 11:06 AM EDT.



Since Building 7 officially imploded in on itself at 5:21 pm EDT, that is an advanced 'heads-up' to CNN from the 9-11 planners of 6 hours and 15 minutes. How do you explain that 'away' whacker?



Obviously WTC 7 is still standing in the CNN live report. Why do you think CNN expected WTC 7 to collapse over 6 hours early?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d97a33c0a367.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by GenRadek

 

"About to collapse" does not turn into "Has already collapsed due to damage from falling debris that weakened the steel frame and caused the entire building to come down."

That was quite a stretch just to insult my reading comprehension. There is nothing wrong with it. You are just really hoping that your theory makes enough sense to stick. I do not buy it. That has nothing to do with reading comprehension. There were two pretty specific reports of the building falling and the exact explanation of why it fell that we would then get after it actually did fall.

I am starting to doubt your reading comprehension as this is twice that you have come after me with something unrelated to what I actually posted about.

Stop responding to me until you can keep up with what I am actually discussing. Your pet theories are nice but not relevant to me. Stop.

No you are incorrect. Apparently you are not from around here, Earth. You do not realize that newscaster CAN make mistakes, especially if the reports from which they are coming from MESS UP in the confusion. It happens. All the time, especially during a MAJOR breaking news story.

Hell in the real world, MY "theory" is fact and makes a hell of a lot more sense. YOUR "idea" is an insult to reading comprehension and critical thinking, not to mention logic. Normal people understand that during a major news-breaking event, or disaster that is STILL unfolding, conflicting reports can and DO happen. In this case, a report about WTC7 "about to collapse, due to structural failure and fires," morphed into "already collapsed due to structural failure." Who goofed? 99% probability it was the people that gave the initial report.

I mean for God's sake did you even pay attention to the REST of what I said? Did you ignore the reports about car-bombs? Did you ignore the reports of small plane hitting WTC7? Did you ignore the reports of car-bombs in the tunnels of NYC? I guess you did. Those were ALL MISREPORTS during a national crises. Just because you cannot use logic and put 2 and 2 together, doesnt mean others cant either. Its just that you shouldnt be running around telling people that 2+2=5. That is what you are doing.

I find it funny (or sad) that some people actually gave YOU stars for your poor argument. They to have no clue to the facts. Its just that you so BADLY want to find a conspiracy, you are willing to throw out all logic, all critical thinking, and all common sense in order to believe a pathetic fantasy purely based on NOTHING, that includes a script for the newscasters about a building that didnt collapse yet. My pet theories? Hey Im in the real world. At least I understand how it functions.

Oh and your original post, to which I commented on, was purely based on an assumed event that has no basis on FACT. The assumption yours

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.

was based on a fictional idea made up by other "truthers" about a script. And the assumption is that the two news station were reading from a script and and therefore "lying" about WTC7 because it didnt collapse yet. And by the way, I am keeping up well on what you are saying. You just dont want to admit you are wrong, or mistaken.

One: They were not lying. They misreported an event that has not occurred, but was about to. They goofed. Two: I gave you a whole bunch of examples of misreporting on 9/11 including car-bombs, bombs in tunnels, at the capitol, etc. YOU ignored them. Everything I posted to you was DIRECTLY related to your comment and your questions. However, your initial comment/question, was based on a very flawed assumption that had no basis on fact. I hoped to clear it up. You ignored it. Again. And now here you sit saying that what I typed is not related to your question/comment I replied to earlier. Lordy lord, remove those damn blinders and start paying attention. Accusing me of not typing anything relevant to your questions, well, that is for the mods to decide. I gave you the facts. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink. So, in this case, feel free to thirst. I've done what I can.

reply to post by pteridine


Did you miss out on this while *SNIP*? Cause I've posted it here like three times.

Bentham-Open

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.


[edit on 23-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

That was not peer reviewed, they will publish anything that you pay them for, it is just a vanity press!

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Ah, the infamous Bentham "paper." I have discussed this paper on several threads. It is flawed, poorly done and the authors have made claims that are not suported by their results. I think that, by now, even Jones has realized that they discovered paint.

reply to post by thedman

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?

Avoid the question That proves it was an inside job? No terrorists could have likely had access and it would have taken quite a while. Look at the tenants in the building.

www.wtc7.net...

And nobody has addressed the molten metal flowing in the basement after over a month. Pretty much proves something like thermite was used which was found in all the dust samples in the complex.

Maybe some of the posters here worked for the demolition company that brought it down. Sounds like they're afraid they might get caught and are working feverishly to confuse the facts. They could tell you exactly.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by thedman

 

And nobody has addressed the molten metal flowing in the basement after over a month. Pretty much proves something like thermite was used which was found in all the dust samples in the complex.

Molten metal after a month proves only that there were underground fires. Thermite was not found in the dust samples but technical incompetents were found on the truther sites.

reply to post by pteridine


Again, proof of these claims?

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
And nobody has addressed the molten metal flowing in the basement after over a month.

There was no molten metal flowing in the basement after a month - how did they remove this "molten metal"?

Pretty much proves something like thermite was used which was found in all the dust samples in the complex.

Care to show us a peer reviewed article that shows thermite was found in all the dust samples? Remember anything posted at bentham is NOT peer reviewed!

reply to post by Doctor Smith

Avoid the question That proves it was an inside job? No terrorists could have likely had access and it would have taken quite a while. Look at the tenants in the building

So terrorists could not do it , but .....

Typical truther "logic" - must be the nefarious CIA that did it ....

If look at the tenants list find most of the space was Solomon -Smith-
Barney brokers. Were they in on it?

Several of my friends worked there - were present on 911 and witnessed the aircraft hitting the towers.

reply to post by thedman


Here's another funny thing....WTC 7 was "demolished" because of Enron data....YET the Enron scandal only came to light a year or so AFTER 9/11!!!!!

AND, the executives involved got taken down, in the Enron scandal!!!!

SO, THAT whole 'conspiracy theory' about WTC 7 just does not hold water, sorry....

It just keeps getting more and more desperate......

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Which? The abysmal Bentham paper or the fact that molten metal weeks later does not mean thermite.

reply to post by pteridine

Molten metal after a month proves only that there were underground fires. Thermite was not found in the dust samples but technical incompetents were found on the truther sites.

Temperatures of an office fire are not hot enough to melt the steel in the first place. And to keep it melted for a month and a half . Very funny.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

Temperatures of an office fire are not hot enough to melt the steel in the first place. And to keep it melted for a month and a half . Very funny.

Why would you expect thermite to remain molten for a month and a half? Underground fires are the only heat source. Their temperatures can get very high as they are contained.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by downisreallyup

 

Your opinion of "no collapse" is just that.
Suspend your disbelief and describe the difference between a collapse due to structural failure by fire and collapse due to structural failure by demolition. This will provide a diagnostic that will allow examination of the differences.
Then, we can move on to evidence of demolition. As I have stated earlier, evidence does not consist of Youtube videos with overlaid diagrams.

Not needed......
Perhaps you can surprise us all by providing one, just one example of the total collapse of a steel framed, sky scraper due to fire.
That is what you are claiming isnt it?

just a point of clarification,
Youtube videos with vector overlays and comments very often are in fact evidence,
This kind of evidence is called "circumstantial evidence"

Not only do you need to learn more about engineering, metallurgy and heat ("heat" being a specialist branch of physics).
You could also use some further education in LAW.

PEACE,
RK