PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by pteridine
What emergency situation? I thought the entire thing was planned by the Illuminati at the signing of the Constitution.

Thanks again for proving that you live in a fantasy world.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by rush969
THAT´S THE PATTERN ALRIGHT!!

It's another really common pattern for you to take something and respond to it with something completely different because you have no legitimate response to what was originally posted, isn't it?

Yes, poor rush has no answers at all and just blindly plods ahead into oblivion.

post by SPreston


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d0c6cc4a7a78.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Jezus

This is not logical.

Correlation is not causation.

Limited evidence does not prove itself to be the only factor.

If the available evidence is not a sufficient explanation, some other unknown variable must be a factor.

Even pretending we have absolutely no knowledge of other variables would not change the fact the available evidence is insufficient.

We can conclude that one theory is impossible without an alternative theory...

Your conclusion is not logical. You assume the evidence is insufficient and that "some other unknown variable must be a factor."

No one has yet provided a testable, alternative theory. It is not difficult to do. This does not mean vague statements about how buildings fell or youtube videos with circles and lines, it means a coherent theory. Propose something; thermite, explosives, death rays, etc., provide a coherent story, and test the story against the evidence. It is easy to claim something is possible but much more difficult to show it is probable.

Originally posted by pteridine

Your conclusion is not logical. You assume the evidence is insufficient and that "some other unknown variable must be a factor."

No one has yet provided a testable, alternative theory.

Not coming up with an alternative theory does little to make your point. Do you know anything about disease research by any chance? I do not want to sit here and go around with you like you are so prone to attempt to do but there is insufficient evidence and you admit that every time you claim the only evidence you have is the lack of an opposing theory. I suggest you look into medicine before you return to repeat this yet again. I am only trying to help you, help your own cause.

reply to post by REMISNE


My comment was a blanket comment to cover all CTer theories of when the planning started. I was satisfying all of their timelines but missed yours, which is apparently that WTC#7 was an unplanned "emergency demolition." All of your fellows are saying that this was an event planned for months and years. What is your theory? How many people placed the charges? Where were they placed? What were they? Indulge your fantasies and provide a theory.

reply to post by evil incarnate


There is a truism about correlation and causality. People like to spout it like a charm to ward off opposing argument. My point has been that collapse by impact and fire has been explained. We are not looking at many series of variables trying to find correlations.
It is known that unprotected steel buildings are susceptible to fire. Joints fail, beams warp, parts fall. Wrecking balls show that buildings are susceptible to impact. We have two factors present that we know can destroy buildings.
We know that the towers showed inward bowing by distances of feet before collapse which says that beams must have been sagging. What caused them to sag? WTC7 was a unique structure in that it was built over a power substation. If you look at the plans, you wonder how the city ever approved such a building. It burned for many hours after absorbing structural damage from falling debris. Its collapse was explained in the NIST report. Some don't like the report and claim that had to be something else. They claim this because ATS is a conspiracy site and they need a conspiracy. "It fell in its own footprint" is the cry. While not completely true, this somehow means demolition to some. When asked how it would have collapsed had the NIST report been correct, there is only deflection.
Impact and fire are known causes of destruction. No other evidence of causal events is available. As of this moment, without other evidence, the conclusion is that impact and fire destroyed the WTC.

Originally posted by pteridine
Indulge your fantasies and provide a theory.

Not fantasy, solid theory from facts and evidence from research. The fire commander does have the authority to bring down a building in an emergency if he believes more lives my be lost or more damage will be done.

1. Chief Nigro stated the firemen were evacuated BEFORE talking to Silverstein.

2. Chief Hayden supports this.

3. Chief Hayden stated that they were worried about fire jumping to other buildings.

4. It would not have taken much, maybe some small cutter charges since the building was unstable to bring it down.

5. There were demo teams and fire rescue teams on location.

Originally posted by pteridine
No other evidence of causal events is available. As of this moment, without other evidence, the conclusion is that impact and fire destroyed the WTC.

So instead of simply admitting something, you just decided to demonstrate for me? This is not logic. I cannot help but feel there is a reason that you are making this faulty argument all alone. OS defenders rarely avoid the chance to gang up but you have been all alone with this for quite some time now.

Let me try and state this again. Please educate yourself about medicine. I am sure we can find some other fields that would serve the same purpose but specifically disease research would clear this all up for you.

Or you can choose to remain ignorant and keep repeating this. Do not expect me to waltz with you about it though. I already know what you are saying makes no sense so you will not persuade me without at least educating yourself just a little bit.

reply to post by REMISNE


You seem to be claiming that WTC7 was demolished to keep fire from spreading to other buildings? If this were the case, why woud it be covered up. How would the teams know where to place the charges? Would the charges make a noise? What would be the difference in the collapse between the NIST mechanism and the demolition?

reply to post by evil incarnate

Medicine? This is not about disease, it is about physical collapse. We are not plotting uncountable variables against one another looking for a correlation to seek a cause. Here is a medical analogy. It is not complete because I don't have a lot of time to spend on it, but it will do for now.

A patient arrives at the emergency room with a compound fracture of his leg. Witnesses claim that a patient was riding a bike down a suburban street and was hit by a car. Many people saw the event. The patient disappeared behind the car momentarily and when medics arrived, it was dscovered his leg was broken.
What did it? The impact of the car or the fall? It is safe to say that the broken leg was the result of the car hitting the biker. There is no evidence for anything other cause. Some people claim that while behind the car, hidden villains broke his leg. When asked who and how, their only response is that hidden villains did it and compound fractures of the leg are unexpected, so it must be hidden villains. When asked to postulate a testable theory of hidden villain activities, motives, methods, timing, number of villians, head villain, etc., the result is that we are told that the leg breaking didn't look right. None of them had ever seen a car break a leg like this and so there must be villians involved. They have no testable theory or evidence of hidden villains. Movies of the event were fortuitously posted on the internet. Some people edited the videos with lines and arrows showing that the way the biker flew into the air was suspicious. Others whined that all the blood was washed away and no one checked for bullets, UFO's, or the Illumanati in the surrounding countryside. The police reort is simple. A biker was hit by a car and his leg was broken. No one investigated the mechanism of the leg breaking. It was behind the car. The insurance company, in a fit of financial whimsey, commissioned a study to determine the mechanism of leg breaking. An explanation, based on witnesses and videos of the event resulted in a two volume report. Some people complained that there were still unanswered questions. Why had no one checked for everything? When asked to postulate a testible theory that was consistent with the evidence, they had none.

What is your medical opinion as to the cause of the broken leg?

reply to post by pteridine


Excelent point (as always).

Now a little humor twist:

Hey!! Maybe the biker had some "nano-thermate" in his leg pocket.



[edit on 11-3-2010 by rush969]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by rush969
THAT´S THE PATTERN ALRIGHT!!

It's another really common pattern for you to take something and respond to it with something completely different because you have no legitimate response to what was originally posted, isn't it?

Answers..............GIVEN.

What was originally posted??

It´s been more than 50 pages now and the PROOF that was offered hasn´t been shown!!!!!!

What are you talking about???

Please reffer me to where the PROOF is so that I can go look for it right away. Thank you!!

Originally posted by pteridine
Your conclusion is not logical. You assume the evidence is insufficient and that "some other unknown variable must be a factor."

The “official story” does not provide sufficient evidence for the theory it proposes.

Originally posted by pteridine
No one has yet provided a testable, alternative theory.

Originally posted by Jezus
We can conclude that one theory is impossible without an alternative theory...

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Jezus]

Originally posted by pteridine
No one has yet provided a testable, alternative theory.

No one has provided ANY testable theory in the first place as to how they came down. Or at least no one has actually tested any theory or provided any evidence at all to support it. Should you should be AGNOSTIC.

If you were a real skeptic, you would acknowledge this. *snip*




Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/11/2010 by JacKatMtn]

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by pteridine
Your conclusion is not logical. You assume the evidence is insufficient and that "some other unknown variable must be a factor."

The “official story” does not provide sufficient evidence for the theory it proposes.

Originally posted by pteridine
No one has yet provided a testable, alternative theory.

Originally posted by Jezus
We can conclude that one theory is impossible without an alternative theory...

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Jezus]

There is nothing impossible about a building damaged by falling debris, with a huge hole in its south side, unfought fires on multiple floors, finally collapsing.

Firefighters expected this creaking, leaning, bulging building to collapse hours before it did. The surprise would have been if it hadn't.

If you are pleading cd you have a lot of explaining to do.

Originally posted by rush969
Please reffer me to where the PROOF is so that I can go look for it right away. Thank you!!

Building 7 accelerated into itself at free-fall. That's enough to prove it was a demolition to people who understand the physics of free-fall acceleration and what that means in energy and work terms. All you're telling me is you don't really understand physics in the first place. That's not my problem.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by rush969
Please reffer me to where the PROOF is so that I can go look for it right away. Thank you!!

Building 7 accelerated into itself at free-fall. That's enough to prove it was a demolition to people who understand the physics of free-fall acceleration and what that means in energy and work terms. All you're telling me is you don't really understand physics in the first place. That's not my problem.

Well, lets see, we have bsbray11 saying it was a cd and NIST saying it wasn't. It's a tough call because NIST only had 200 + engineers on the job but I think I will go with them. As the American Society of Civil Engineers have done as well as every other relevant professional body around the world.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Well, lets see, we have bsbray11 saying it was a cd and NIST saying it wasn't.

I'm not saying it, the physics requires it via the energy/work/acceleration relationships I just mentioned. 200 engineers can kiss my ass. They didn't actually prove anything in their report anyway (if they did I would love to see what and how, but I know for a fact it won't be forthcoming -- it never is), and the director of the same agency even admitted before they released their report that it would be impossible for a building to accelerate at the rate of gravity from a collapse like they were assuming. Then they admitted it DID free-fall and of course changed their tune. It's a freaking federal agency. OF COURSE they're not going to tell you it was blown up, they're on federal payroll.

reply to post by Alfie1


Oh yes let's just all believe what we're told by an 'authority', they must be right, no way could it be lies.

Thanx for the appeal to authority, but I'd rather believe my own eyes and take the experience I have and make my own conclusion, thanx. 200+ government hired 'professionals' does not impress me.

"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth." -- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901

"They must find it difficult...those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority."---Gerald Massey

Sorry but you are just putting yourself out as an example of someone who can't think for themselves, you have to appeal to authority in order to know what to think. This kind of thinking is why TPTB can get away with the control of society for their benefit. And you open up yourself to be exploited and coerced by self proclaimed 'authorities'.

Authorities lie, think for yourself.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by rush969
Please reffer me to where the PROOF is so that I can go look for it right away. Thank you!!

Building 7 accelerated into itself at free-fall. That's enough to prove it was a demolition to people who understand the physics of free-fall acceleration and what that means in energy and work terms. All you're telling me is you don't really understand physics in the first place. That's not my problem.

Well. Again. SHOW ME THE PROOF. PLEASE!!!!
I asked you a simple question. Tell me where the proof is so that I can go look for it.
As far as my understanding of physics, well, let me see. Do I believe that the people who investigated this:

Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).

Among others, have a GOOD understanding of physics?? YES!!!

And as far as:
""Building 7 accelerated into itself at free-fall. ""

We have:

When 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable.

So. There you are. Not really "into itself". Now, please answer my question. Thanks.



[edit on 11-3-2010 by rush969]