PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by pteridine
I went to two. US Navy for practical uses and US Bureau of Mines for explosive formulations.

What school did you go to?

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

Also had a friend who was EOD in the Army.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Two problems. That building is not the same design and neither did it sustain damage in addition to the fire. All buildings are most definantly not created equal.

Weak argument. If the damage to wtc 7 was a factor then a toppling of the building rather than the controlled demolition collapse that we know of would of been the case.

Its no doubt that the building came down in a controlled manner, any other explanation is the far fetched conspiracy theory which no on buys into.

reply to post by REMISNE


I have researched this whole thread and the proof that wtc 7 was a controlled demolition is conclusive.

Wtc 7 was brought downed by controlled demolition.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by REMISNE

 

I have researched this whole thread and the proof that wtc 7 was a controlled demolition is conclusive.

Wtc 7 was brought downed by controlled demolition.

Why does it look so different to the "controlled demolitions" of WTC 1 and WTC 2 then?

[edit on 15-3-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Far better than "Begging the question" fallacy that is inherent in that statement. But you are allowed your opinion.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by REMISNE

 

I have researched this whole thread and the proof that wtc 7 was a controlled demolition is conclusive.

Wtc 7 was brought downed by controlled demolition.

Why does it look so different to the "controlled demolitions" of WTC 1 and WTC 2 then?

Because the Towers were top-down explosive demolitions and WTC7 was a more conventional bottom-up demolition, with the walls imploding towards the center. NIST claims approximately 8 floors were removed by phenomena (which is maybe a pseudo-scientist term for explosives) for the 2.25 second period of freefall.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/96adaf72aee9.jpg[/atsimg]

Hundreds of 4 ton exterior wall sections were hurled up to 600 feet away from both towers in all directions by the explosive demolitions, which pulverized the concrete floors and tower contents into fine powder.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b786c05ff6c.jpg[/atsimg]

NIST was forced to admit to a 2.25 second period of freefall for WTC7 by a high school physics teacher, which they refuse to explain.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3abd8190fbe1.jpg[/atsimg]

If WTC 1,2 & 7 were controlled demolitions, and the buildings had been rigged for this purpose, why did the alleged perps only arrange a cover for WTC 1 & 2 ?

By cover, I mean concealing the cd's of the Towers by having fuel-laden planes fly into them. But what did they arrange for WTC 7 ? Absolutely nothing apparently.

It was only by chance that debris from the collapsing North Tower caused damage to WTC 7 and started fires. No-one could have based a plan on that happening.

So what was the perps plan ? just to blow it up in the face of the world ?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I have researched this whole thread and the proof that wtc 7 was a controlled demolition is conclusive.

Wtc 7 was brought downed by controlled demolition.

If you read my post you would know i agree.



Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.


[edit on Mon Mar 15 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply to post by Alfie1


They did not need cover because they were willing to bet that people would just believe what they told them. Can you explain what really happened to 7 and how you know?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by Alfie1

 

They did not need cover because they were willing to bet that people would just believe what they told them. Can you explain what really happened to 7 and how you know?

You seem to miss my point. The perps obviously felt the need for cover in respect of WTC 1 & 2 so why didn't they arrange anything for WTC 7 ?

Had it not been for the chance happening that debris from the North Tower hit WTC 7 and started fires then it would have been standing there perfectly sound if a bit dusty.

Were the perps planning just to cd it whatever; with their lives on the line ?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by Alfie1

 

They did not need cover because they were willing to bet that people would just believe what they told them. Can you explain what really happened to 7 and how you know?

You seem to miss my point. The perps obviously felt the need for cover in respect of WTC 1 & 2 so why didn't they arrange anything for WTC 7 ?

Had it not been for the chance happening that debris from the North Tower hit WTC 7 and started fires then it would have been standing there perfectly sound if a bit dusty.

Were the perps planning just to cd it whatever; with their lives on the line ?

You seem to miss my point. They did not need cover for 7 because people like you were willing to believe it was a result of what happened to 1 and 2. I know, sounds crazy huh?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by Alfie1

 

They did not need cover because they were willing to bet that people would just believe what they told them. Can you explain what really happened to 7 and how you know?

seem to miss my point. The perps obviously felt the need for cover in respect of WTC 1 & 2 so why didn't they arrange anything for WTC 7 ?

Had it not been for the chance happening that debris from the North Tower hit WTC 7 and started fires then it would have been standing there perfectly sound if a bit dusty.

Were the perps planning just to cd it whatever; with their lives on the line ?

You seem to miss my point. They did not need cover for 7 because people like you were willing to believe it was a result of what happened to 1 and 2. I know, sounds crazy huh?

Are you suggesting that people, including NIST and their co-opted independent engineers , would have happily accepted the collapse of WTC 7 if it had not suffered the chance debris hits and ensuing fires ? And the American Society of Civil Engineers would have agreed ?

Yes, it does sound crazy.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Are you suggesting that people, including NIST and their co-opted independent engineers , would have happily accepted the collapse of WTC 7 if it had not suffered the chance debris hits and ensuing fires ? And the American Society of Civil Engineers would have agreed ?

Yes, it does sound crazy.

I am saying you are discussing a purely hypothetical situation. If you want to discuss unanswered questions about things that did not happen and pretend that you can determine the real motives based on imaginary events, then perhaps your are more like what you think a truther is than you know.

Is there a reason you cannot simply deal with the real situation as it happened? The only reason to start speculating about hypotheticals is because you do not have enough of the real answers. I suggest you rethink your position or see if you can find those real answers.

Proof? This is not proof.

You will never get the 'truth' because there is no 'truth'.

You people do a great disservice to yourselves by believing this crap. I feel utterly sorry for you.

Proof? This is not proof.

You will never get the 'truth' because there is no 'truth'.

You people do a great disservice to yourselves by believing this crap. I feel utterly sorry for you.

Proof? This is not proof.

You will never get the 'truth' because there is no 'truth'.

You people do a great disservice to yourselves by believing this crap. I feel utterly sorry for you.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Alfie1
Are you suggesting that people, including NIST and their co-opted independent engineers , would have happily accepted the collapse of WTC 7 if it had not suffered the chance debris hits and ensuing fires ? And the American Society of Civil Engineers would have agreed ?

Yes, it does sound crazy.

I am saying you are discussing a purely hypothetical situation. If you want to discuss unanswered questions about things that did not happen and pretend that you can determine the real motives based on imaginary events, then perhaps your are more like what you think a truther is than you know.

Is there a reason you cannot simply deal with the real situation as it happened? The only reason to start speculating about hypotheticals is because you do not have enough of the real answers. I suggest you rethink your position or see if you can find those real answers.

I am sorry if this has moved you out of your comfort zone but nothing I have been asking questions about is hypothetical. I am asking about the actual events .

On 9/11 WTC 1,2 & 7 were destroyed, plus some others truthers don't seem to bother about so we can leave them out. It is a matter of historical fact that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed after being struck by planes. If it is true that the towers had already been rigged for cd and that is what caused the collapses then it follows that the planes were a fig leaf to cover this.

Now, the subject of this thread is the proposition that WTC 7 was also brought down by explosives. If that is the case, I cannot understand why the perps did not arrange a similar fig leaf to cover it. Nobody at any pre-9/11 planning meeting could have possibly relied on debris from the North Tower striking and starting fires. What would you or anyone have said at the meeting if it was proposed " well maybe some debris from the towers will hit it and start fires ". Would you not say "wtf, my life is on the line here, we need something better than chance. "

All you seem to offer by way of explanation is that people would have accepted the collapse of WTC 7, including engineers, even if it hadn't been struck by anything. That is incredible.

If you don't have any plausible explanation perhaps you need to rethink whether WTC 7 was a cd.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by REMISNE

 

I have researched this whole thread and the proof that wtc 7 was a controlled demolition is conclusive.

Wtc 7 was brought downed by controlled demolition.

That would be "brought down".
And, you know what??
I don´t agree with you!! And I urge you to reconsider for the following reasons:

Please explain what was the "evidence" that convinced you the most, about your theory??
And let me remind our readers (those who might be interested) about some of the "evidence" that is convincing of the opposite theory.

1.- It can be established from the eyewhitness, video and photo evidence that:
a) There are NO EXPLOSIONS in the building in the few seconds before the collapse begins.
b) There are NO EXPLOSIONS in the building during the collapse.
c) The building didn´t IMPLODE into itself. It collapsed downwards and slightly to the south.
d) The collapse didn´t take 6 seconds. It took more that 15.
e) Thermite or thermate or cutting charges must be ruled out because as it has been clearly explained here, the special work needed to carry out a CD with the help of these materials would have required extensive intervention within the structure of the building that would have been clearly intrusive, could not be done without being highly noticeable, and in some of the cases, workers would have needed to be involved right at the moment of the use of such materials.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Alfie1
I am sorry if this has moved you out of your comfort zone but nothing I have been asking questions about is hypothetical. I am asking about the actual events .

I am not sure what type of logic this is supposed to be. You asked about something that might happen had there not been damage caused by 1 and 2. Is that not what you asked about? Did I miss something there? I thought you were asking what the cover would have been had 7 not been damaged by 1 and 2? Please correct me if I was wrong.

That is hypothetical because 7 was damaged by 1 and 2. Please explain.

reply to post by pteridine


You obviously haven't even read any documentation on this. Yet you continue to discuss it.

This is unethical. Please stop posting nonsense distractions on this forum:

8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Again, the complete article may be found here, I suggest you look it over:

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

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1