PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by Alfie1


Not a relevant question really.

Why wouldn't you?

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


terry seems to be off, at the moment.

How can I help?

I'm new to the details of the building's falling, in the sense that I always understood intuitively how gravity, and a severely compromised structure, could have resulted in the collapses seen. Absent any incredible 'smoking gun' to come to light, after all these years, it still seems most plausible.

While looking into it, I find that this site seems to have a very good explanation for just about every 'argument' brought forth by the 'TM'.

Perhaps you've seen it, and dismissed it? If you haven't seen it, it's linked below, specifically about WTC 7.

If you have seen it, and disagree, then perhaps you might explain why, or show links to the reasons why.

www.debunking911.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker


That website was put together by a JREF troll. If what he says puts your mind at ease then just use his arguments next time you see the relevant claim here and I'm sure you'll quickly be introduced to both sides of the issue. Suffice it to say that anyone can come up with any excuse off the top of their head for the same phenomenon, while those phenomenon are still unexplained by any actual evidence.

reply to post by weedwhacker


What myth was busted exactly?

reply to post by rush969


If anything the building would have been rigged beforehand. Was that not clear?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by rush969
A little fiction to lighten up...

=Hello. Chief??=
=Yes, go ahead.=
=Yea, well, the building is cracking, and bulging, we have no watter to fight the fire, we believe it will collapse.=
=OK. Listen. What I want you to do, is go in there with let´s say OH, I guess about 500 pounds of dinamite=
=What?? Say again, please, it sounded like you said take some dinamite into the building. Is that correct??=
=Yes, that´s correct. You heard me OK. I need you to brign the dinamite into the building, and place it next to the main columns=
=Did you copy??=
=Hello??=
=Anybody there??=

Problem with your story is that there were no fires on the lower floors and it would not have taken much to bring down an already unstable building.

UUUPSS!!!
Sorry...

Should that be:
=Put a couple of sticks of dinamite next to each column.=
=That should do it.=

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Alfie1
Why do you cd a bulging wreck with progressing unfought fires ?

Well 2 good reasons. First as Chief Hayden stated they were afraid of fire jumping to other buildings. Remember they were running out of water and could not fight more fires.

Second if the building would have collasped on its own to the side that was damaged it probably would have caused more damage to other buildings.

If there were sound defensible reasons for hurrying WTC 7 along why not just be frank about it ?

Everyone would have understood and it would have stopped CTers making up stuff about destroying secrets etc.

Except it would have taken days, starting in the afternoon of 9-11, to rig WTC7 for demolition if they could have talked pros like DH Griffin Demolition Company into going into a damaged building.

Obviously it was already rigged for demolition long before 9-11.

They at least used the demolition explosives to remove the 8 floors to initiate 2.25 seconds of freefall.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a96d0e56e7a9.jpg[/atsimg]

I tell you my friends.
It amazes me that these thread is still going...
This thread makes a FALSE statement in the OP.
This has been prooven.
So, this thread should be closed.
It has ceased to be a thread about the proof that was offered.
This was never shown.
It has become another discussion about "perception" and "faith".
What is perceived in one side and what is defended blindly on faith by the other side.
But like that we have dozens of other threads.
Nothing new here to see. No revelation. No proof of explosive demolition.
If anything, just the opposite was demonstrated a few posts back.
So what we have here are the same discussions about:
This can be done with "thermite" or "thermate" or "nano-thermite" or "super duper future secret technology whatever-ite or ate".
And NIST din´t explain this or that, or I didn´t like NIST´s explanation, and Turner Co. was working there, or lot´s of people reported hearing explosions, and so on and so forth.
But, the essence is:
THIS THREAD WAS SUPOSED TO BE PROOF OF SOMETHING.
It has turned out to be proof of nothing.
Thanks. Good day.

reply to post by bsbray11


OK, a "JREF troll" then. So, this person from JREF is completely unqualified? Would be helpful in my understanding to be shown evidence to that.

Allright, will you accept an outside source that the "troll" brought to his site?


Is 'Structure Magazine' credible, or not? (I've never heard of it before today, so it's news to me).


www.structuremag.org...

Oh, this is for Preston, too, since I see he's joined in.

[edit on 9 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by pteridine


Evidence for CD was looked for and it was found.

This has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK, a "JREF troll" then. So, this person from JREF is completely unqualified?

From my understanding he has absolutely no relevant credentials, as far as I know he hasn't even graduated high school. But look over the site for that kind of information yourself and see what you can find. Or even try to find a JREF username or email address and do some Google searches. I'm sure with some investigative work you can figure out who exactly it is.

Is 'Structure Magazine' credible, or not? (I've never heard of it before today, so it's news

to me).

Depends on what exactly they are saying and what they are basing that on. Your link looks to me like they were just writing an article on the NIST WTC7 report, nothing original of their own.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You may read the findings here:

www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

There is an entire .pdf that is free to download.

If you want to find this information, you certainly don't need to be coming here for it. It's plastered all over the internet.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by weedwhacker


Just do a google search for these other "exotic" substances.

www.journalof911studies.com...

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You do realize this works both ways, right? You seem to have two very different sets of standards. One for the OS and one for the "truthers." How is it that you can petulantly insist that no explosives were found without your FOIA request?

Get real man. If I cannot insist something because I have no documents then neither can you. That is the point. You cannot say there were no explosives found because you do not know if anyone even looked for any. Got it?

Why is this so difficult for you? You asked if anyone searched for explosives and I suggested a way for you to find out.

Why is it so difficult for you? Why is it that I must jump through all these hoops to find out something in order to have a valid point but you can say that there were NO EXPLOSIVES FOUND when you also do not have any proof they were looked for????

What do you not get about that? You can NOT SAY that there were NO EXPLOSIVES found for the same reason you tell me that I cannot state none were looked for.

Please let me know what is so confusing about this concept to you.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I'm not speaking with you. You're a sock puppet, a transparent one, and a time burglar.

I've already stated my claims regarding this issue. You may, if you choose to, read through my posts here on this forum.

reply to post by rush969


Again, this would have been rigged long beforehand, which takes weeks, maybe months. No one has claimed that the building was rigged on September 11th.

This is a straw man argument, which is illogical.

reply to post by rush969


Then go away.

If you want to poke holes in the Bentham paper, which displays EXPLOSIVES literally found in the rubble, then do it. Otherwise, go away and troll another forum.

Originally posted by pteridine
Meanwhile, there is no evidence of CD, looked for or not.

Head injury? Why can you not explain how you would expect there to be any evidence of CD if NONE WAS LOOKED FOR????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Doublt talk and playing games really seems to work out well for you. I am a little tired of this going around in circles with you. Just answer the question or give me a reason to put you on ignore. It seems pretty simple.

If you can not answer that simple little question then you have no business discussing this.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Explosives WERE found. What are we talking about? The Chemistry teacher will deny it up and down till he's indignant, but they WERE found.

THERE IS PROOF OF DEMOLITION. PERIOD.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


What? You're not 'speaking to me'?

You posted twice, directly in response to my previous posts, then on this, the third one, you write this???

I'm not speaking with you.

That, in response to a valid and polite question put to you. Wow.

But wait, there's more:

You're a sock puppet, a transparent one...

Oh?? Do tell. Please, show proof of this insulting claim. Please. 'ALERT' the mods, have them check my bona fides, and the fact that I have NEVER signed on to ATS with any other screenname...ever. EVER!

"Transparent"? Well, it's been winter, and I need a tan......

But wait, there's more:

.....and a time burglar.

LOL!!! A 'hamburglar', maybe....LOL!!!!! Wow.