PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

If all of the buildings were brought down by explosives then why in the world did they use the planes. It makes no sense. All the planes do is create more of a chance for them to get caught. There was no need for the planes if they were going to bring the buildings down with explosives.
Maybe someone here could give me an answer or some ideas and preferably without going off or being rude.
Thanks

reply to post by pteridine


Accelerated combustion at 2800 degrees F. Not normal.

Molten elemental iron is evidence of these temperatures. There's nothing more to discuss.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by rick1



Shock and Awww..

Originally posted by rick1

If all of the buildings were brought down by explosives then why in the world did they use the planes. It makes no sense. All the planes do is create more of a chance for them to get caught. There was no need for the planes if they were going to bring the buildings down with explosives.

It might be a bit difficult to convince the world that a guy on a kidney dialysis machine in a cave in Tora Bora, could get his Al CIAda dudes into the WTC to plant enough explosives to bring both towers down.

It might even be more difficult to get anybody to believe he could get his guys into the CIA secured WTC7 and bring it down too.

But then the Mainstream Media con artists are really good at convincing the American people and the world of just about anything, aren't they?

Maybe it would work. Most Americans will believe it if it comes from the boob tube.

Even the silliest official conspiracy theory in the history of the world.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f75b3101cd7f.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by REMISNE
But the firechiefs statements contridict the official story in a lot of areas, specially what was said on the phone with Silverstein.

Let´s see.
Statements amongst the parties involved in great tragedies or traumatic experiences such as 9/11 that have some contradictions in them are not only normal, but pretty much are the NORM.
Now, you add to that, the fact that some people ONLY take what is convinient for their personal theories and try to push that as the only truth, sometimes makes things more complicated.
Now, in general, from what I have read as far as statements by fire fighters and fire chiefs, I don´t see that many contradictions really.
They were pretty much aware (most of them) that the building was badly damaged and compromised structuraly.
To that, we must add, that they didn´t have much they could do to fight the fires in there.
In these two areas I haven´t seen contradictions that I can recall.
So, at a certain point in time, the fire chiefs realized that there was great danger of the building collapsing and they ordered a perimeter for safety and that no one was to approach the building, and then they all just waited for it to fall, as it did.
And now, for the Silverstein quote. Well, you could just read my signature.
There isn´t much to add really. The fact is that Silverstein DIDN´T DECIDE ANYTHING, as he himself said so in the "famous" interview.
This was taken completely out of context to make it appear as if he took a decision to benefit from this.
And in the fire chief statement, he doesn´t even aknowledge having spoken directly to him. So probably what happened is that Mr. S. was concerned about his buildings and was calling to see what was going on and he was just informed that the decision had been made to "pull" everybody out of there and let the building burn down or collapse.
Or: He got a call "on behalf" of the fire chief to inform him of this decision.
This really isn´t important. From his own statement as well as from fire chief Nigro it can be established without a doubt, that Chief Nigro was the only person who decided to "pull everybody away" from 7 and let it burn or collapse. And THAT...IS IMPORTANT.

Who said anything about fire depts placing explosives? They had demo teams on the scene.

OK. So, what you are implying is that demo teams came and went into WTC 7, placed some special type charges and had the building demolished?? Please answer this. Is this what you are saying?? Because then we would go into other possible scenarios that I would very much like to discuss with you.

reply to post by SPreston

You didn't address the question in my post.

reply to post by SPreston




Well I dont think even the US Gov would be stupid enough to do what you claim on a target were the work force was multi national for obvious reasons ie if found out it would cause international outrage plain and simple.
If what you claim is true why not use a building with only US citizens the demoltion theory is plain crazy or should I use PLANE crazy.
Plane hits , structural damage due to impact, fire damage due to heat DOESN'T melt steel but weakens it, and in the case of the South tower although hit second collapses first WHY greater load above impact point and if you look at the videos you see the floors above impact point drop as one unit!

see still

911research.wtc7.net...

video from about 2-3 seconds on

www.youtube.com...

Care to explain WHY we see this !

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


No evidence of 2800F. No evidence of thermitic reaction.
Jones is counting on everyone being fooled by his bad science. You are not the first to buy into this fantasy.
Think about ten tons of fuse material and what it didn't set off. This stuff was "highly engineered?"
Think about the ignition with the oxy torch. Why didn't all of this stuff burn up if it was so reactive?

reply to post by pteridine


So now you're using hypothetical "what ifs" as proof? This is science class not creative writing.

Iron melts at 2800 degrees F. There is melted iron in the post DSC test material. If there is a way you can fudge that science I'd be interested in seeing it. Thus far you have not. And this current post you have here is a diversion.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by SPreston

 

You didn't address the question in my post.

I thought I did. The aircraft were for cover; to blame the event on somebody else who could not possibly have CD'd the buildings.

And for Shock & Awe value to frighten the weak-kneed Americans into submission.

It mostly worked didn't it?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by SPreston

 

video from about 2-3 seconds on

Care to explain WHY we see this !

Sure thing. The top 30 story block of floors starts to topple off the top of the South Tower, and instead of falling to the streets below alongside the still standing South Tower, it is suddenly pulverized into fine powder with explosives of some kind and disappears, and then the rest of the South Tower is destroyed in a top-down explosive demolition.

Does that help in your search for truth?

Here along the corner you can see the demolition wave (before the top 30 story block is pulverized into fine powder) about 7 floors ahead of the collapse wave.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b817965410cc.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 3/18/10 by SPreston]

Originally posted by GenRadek
There was NO sound of demo charges going off. I dont care how many times you say, see the smoke? See the way it fell? Its a demo! No its not. There wre NO detonations heard prior to any movement.

So your primary argument and logic for dismissing WTC7 as a CD is based primarily upon there allegedly being "NO detonations"??? alrighty then... if thats what you want to believe, enjoy the fantasy.

Sorry, but there *are* CLEAR and unmistakable simultaneous explosions going off in a symmetrical manner which is IMPOSSIBLE for such symmetry to occur if it were merely a RANDOM collapse. Its a physical impossibility.. but i'm sure you'll come up with something in your perp handbook to explain how the physical laws we're bound by in this universe, don't apply on 9/11.



If not explosions, what do you call the anomaly? glass randomly breaking? Sorry, but if that were glass being randomly blown out from the building movement/shifting as its collapsing, you'd be seeing that anomaly occurring EVERYWHERE... but clearly its UNIFORM, SYMMETRICAL and ISOLATED... and when the entire "collapse" is put in context with all the knowns and UNKNOWNS, those explosions cannot be anythiing other than ejections as the result of a CONTROLLED force IE DEMOLITION.

Don't take my word only for it cuz i wasn't there.. how about this guys..



or these guys..






DEMOLITIONS INC TRUCK seen in this vid


So Riddle me this... The biggest question is not even that a DEMO TRUCK was seen on the streets around the WTC complex... The more important question and mystery to ask and answer is WHY it was there AT THAT TIME... Why would DEMOLITION INC be ACTIVE LONG *BEFORE* and even BEFORE ANYONE COULD HAVE KNOWN a COLLAPSE would occur or was imminent??? The TIME is the KEY and smoking gun here. Oh right, i know, its just another RANDOM COINCIDENCE C'mon people, how many random coincidences and physical impossibilities and excuses can occur in the same day before the pattern is obvious alone? You can't have this many coincidences and contradictions to physical laws and logic and common sense unless there's been an INTENTIONAL MASKING OF THE TRUTH by forces at and in the highest levels of government behind the government that CONTROL the government.



Now, as to that vid with Barry... Imo, again, the KEY in understanding this evidence as it relates to PROOF of DEMOLITION of WTC7 and most important aspect and question to ponder here is to understand the TIME and WHEN he FIRST talks about an EXPLOSION going off in WTC7! Readers and those seeking an objective understanding of the context and scenario, will note that Barry CLEARLY mentions this EXPLOSION in WTC7 *BEFORE* EITHER WTC 1 OR 2 had collapsed. Correct me if i'm wrong, but any logical thinking person can understand the implications, importance and significance of this testimony. So the DENIERS of WTC7 being a CD, claim the collapse was due to FIRES and DAMAGE from WTC 1 and 2's collapses.... Barry's testimony if TRUE and accurate, irrefutably DEMOLISHES their absurd argument because WHY WOULD THERE BE AN EXPLOSION IN WTC7 PRIOR TO THE COLLAPSES OF WTC 1&2 when wtc7 hadn't been affected yet!?!

I'm not sure whether this aspect has been fully understood for its significance in the larger context of proving the CD of WTC7.

Other than credible/official eye/ear witnesses such as the examples above which you continue to ignore and act as if they don't exist or are somehow too stupid to know what a bomb or explosion sounds like, theres several more than logical reasons and explanations as to why in most of the footage you probably don't or might not hear any charges going off if as its been explained you could hear them at all if there is untampered audio on the footage which has to be considered/factored in or analyzed due to the unanswered anomalies throughout the event.

For one, why would you expect to hear charges going off when there's no audio in most of the footage available? And WHY would that be?

Second, as its already been explained, recording of such sounds would depend on certain audio dynamics such as the frequency and type of incendiary/ies used or recording equipment, proximity etc.

But then you know damn well you're playing semantics, twisting and parsing words to fit a scenario because the evidence and facts don't fit your explanation or explain this collapse. EVEN NIST CAN'T EXPLAIN IT.. Its laughable watching those in denial attempt to twist the definition or act as if the definition of EXPLOSION means anything other than an EXPLOSION (which is CLEAR in the CONTEXT they've given) or somehow officials such as NYFD and Police officers and others were somehow describing anything other than an EXPLOSION from bomb or charges etc. You're insulting their intelligence and ANYONE with basic common sense.

It would be absolutely hysterical if it weren't so tragic, how MOST honest and objective people can so easily see WTC7 is an UNMISTAKABLE, IRREFUTABLE CONTROLLED DEMO which is not even to mention EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS who have stated that without any doubt.

those who say it doesn't look like a CD, are either in denial, covering it up, haven't analyzed the evidence, or aren't mentally capable of comprehending the physics and science that proves CD or at the very least that NIST can't explain it because any attempt to explain it, would force them to admit it was a CD. No wonder they have to deny, omit and LIE or flat out REFUSE TO EXPLAIN OR ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE FREE-FALL PORTION!

Anyone looking at the evidence and NIST's analysis, knows they're lying or at the very least COVERING UP the TRUTH by OMITTING FACTS and evidence that would conclude a CD. Period.

Whatsmore, one doesn't even need to hear the "SOUNDS" (if any could be heard anyways), to understand that the visual evidence shows WTC7 was a CLASSIC CONTROLLED SYMETRICAL DEMOLITION and any debate on WHAT KIND of explosives etc were used is IRRELEVANT in determining that conclusion.

You disagree and want to be in denial or for some reason can't distinguish a CD from a random collapse, then i truly feel sorry for you.


ya ya, i know, ignorance is bliss thou right?

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Sean48

 

Why should all the windows break? They broke in the area where the "kink" developed, when the transfer truss failed. That is where the most deformation to that side of the building occurred, hence why we see the break in that area.

Claiming that AREA of breakage was due to what you want to describe as a KINK is disingenuous at best not to mention an intentionally innocuous or inadequate term at best describing what was really occurring. Such "kinks" as you call it, would have occurred in far more areas throughout the collapse than just that area if it were merely a "DEFORMATION". That was a pretty odd DEFORMATION too by the way... Interesting SYMMETRY don't you think? Oh, and please explain the WHITE SMOKE coming off the penthouse... Do random collapses suddenly create white smoke especially in areas there are no fires? Isn't white smoke produced in the initial stage of fires? and do office fires create white smoke?

OR DO EXPLOSIONS CREATE WHITE SMOKE! that answer is YES.

that white plume had NO BUSINESS in that AREA or at all around the builiding if the building had been burning all day and the firefighter were no longer fighting the fire not to mention they supposedly had no water or pressure left right?
so why is white smoke occurring ONLY during the collapse? You can not claim KINKING etc while at the same time NOT ADDRESSING the white plume and its timing.

But even if what you say were true and we ignore this white plume, (and i don't know how you can make a baseless claim the TRANSFER TRUSS FAILED when you're just SPECULATING), you still have to overcome the problems with witnesses hearing detonations, including what i pointed out about barry jenkins testimony. ITS IRREFUTABLE as to what he's revealed. It forever seals the CD PROOF due to the timeframe the first explosions occurred in WTC7! the CD of WTC7 began before the collapses of WTC1 & 2. You can't get around that and you can't have it both ways. IF Wtc7 collapsed due to fires and the damage from the collapses of WTC1?&?2, please oh please explain to everyone why an explosion occurred in WTC7 BEFORE either Wtc 1 or 2 collapsed. Can't wait to hear it.

Originally posted by GenRadek
But they all did break once the tower hit the ground.

well at least that law of physics wasn't violated!

Originally posted by GenRadek
If there were "squibs" why were they NEVER HEARD by anyone prior to collapse? All demolitions have the series of detonations (sharp, distinct cracks in a rapid progression which can be heard very far distances and would be unmistakeable) first, and THEN the building begins to collapse.

A) THERE WERE what can only be described as "SQUIBS" in the CD of all 3 towers.

B) THERE WERE sharp distinct explosions/detonations HEARD as well in all 3 towers.

C) YOU'RE ASSUMING that based on what is known about TRADITIONAL CD's.
The odds this was a more sophisticated and hi-tech MILITARY DEMO is extremely likely...meaning they would have spared NO EXPENSE to create a CD far more advanced and state of the art than any in the commerical field. To deny that is to assume all demos are done the same way or that such a black op that this would HAVE TO BE, didn't have access or financing for the most advanced and probably unknown DEMO TECH.

So let me know when you'd like to amend your impossible version of wtc7 being a random global collapse. Oh and be sure and ready to explain what you think the UNKNOWN phenomenon was that caused the FREEFALL which NIST has even admitted to.

failure to explain that would alone destroy any logical argument you claim to have about such a building collapsing as it did without CD.

thanks for playing

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Invisible? Who said that no one saw explosions?
Noiseless? We have gone over this to death. More than enough real people with real names have been listed discussing hearing explosions. Why do you keep reverting to a default position like this after being shown how fallacious it is over and over?
--------
Did anyone see demolitions that caused the collapse? Are any of the loud noises, which may be explosions or collapsing parts, causal? The position is not fallacious; the witnesses reported what they heard and described it as best they could.

Whether or not anyone "saw" "demolitions" in the way you're implying, not only does NOT negate the irrefutable science and implications of a FREEFALL occurring at wtc7 that can ONLY be achieved by CD, but it also ignores the eye witnesses who SAW what you claim they didn't, ignores the smoke plumes, and Barry Jenkins testimony that has conclusively established a critical marker that could only have occurred IF there was a CD in wtc7.

Do you agree NO damage could have occurred at WTC7 until the collapse of WTC1 OR 2?

Originally posted by pteridine
Loud noise does not mean explosion and explosion does not mean demolition.

wow, Reeeeeeealllly now..... Lol

The only problem with that logic and why it is terminally flawed, is that the witnesses didn't say they heard or just heard a LOUD NOISE as you cleverly try to twist and elude... but they clarified!

They were VERY CLEAR as to what they heard and are professionals who have the training to know the difference... Their opinions and assessements were nearly ALL THE SAME. EXPLOSIONS BOMBS DETONATIONS were all the terms and descriptions they used universally.

Anyone who watches the VIDEO EVIDENCE of the EXPLOSION including the officials who WERE THERE PERSONALLY, know it wasn't just a LOUD NOISE. And YES, in the CONTEXT of the witnesses testimony, the EXPLOSIONS were secondary and separate from any collapse or plane impacts. THATS BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED.

You can deny it if you wish... it won't change the facts which anyone can verify from the visual evidence and testimonies. And considering these testimonies, its more than reasonable aside even from the Science, Squibs, what was HEARD and SEEN and from just basic common sense, The EXPLOSIONS could only be DEMOLITION.


[edit on 18-3-2010 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by GenRadek
.It also took about 23 seconds for total collapse:

GR., Why is it that you round up to the nearest 20 and even higher than that to 23?

ROFL!

I mean, you know very well after even around 15 seconds, the CD was for all intents and purposes OVER... Its this type of petty parsing of definitions and absurd details that only perpetuate and inject confusion and disinfo as to the PRIMARY ISSUE of the ACTUAL COLLAPSE. You're trying to give a false impression that the building was still in MOTION as a whole.... at 20 seconds, the only things in motion were DEBRIS like PAPERS, PIECES OF CONCRETE settling and DUST.

How about we just compromise here and come down to about 14 or so seconds even though i say its more like 10-12.

You people crack me up

Originally posted by thedman
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?

aside from the fact the building was almost all home to and could only be accessed by those in highest levels of government and powerful financial corps...

Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
Standard Chartered Bank
Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
22 Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
21 First State Management Group
19-21 ITT Hartford Insurance Group
19 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
18 Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
14-17 Vacant
13 Provident Financial Management
11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission
9-10 US Secret Service
7-8 American Express Bank International

want me to go on? i mean c'mon now! But of course nothing unusual about those departments right? Especially the DOD and CIA ...nah, they couldn't have had any secret or security clearance could they. oh dear.... lol

What? you actually believe the most POWERFUL, ELITE AND SOPHISTICATED branches of our government some in charge of SECURING the most powerful nation on earth, didn't have the means, financing or tools and access or connections to create and pull off a such covert operation?

Wow, please tell me you're really not that naive and gullible.

The question should be how EASY WAS IT.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by rush969
Statements amongst the parties involved in great tragedies or traumatic experiences such as 9/11 that have some contradictions in them are not only normal, but pretty much are the NORM.

But we are talking about the fire commander and owner talking on the phone, not under tramatic conditions.

Now, in general, from what I have read as far as statements by fire fighters and fire chiefs, I don´t see that many contradictions really.
They were pretty much aware (most of them) that the building was badly damaged and compromised structuraly.

But we are talking about the facts of when the firemen were evacuated from the building.

To that, we must add, that they didn´t have much they could do to fight the fires in there.

Yes, exactly why Chief Hayden made the statement that they were worried abot fires jumping to other buildings, they had limited water to fight the fires.

OK. So, what you are implying is that demo teams came and went into WTC 7, placed some special type charges and had the building demolished??

Yes, since we know there were no fires on the lower floors it would be possible.

Also the fact that since the building was already unstable it would not take much to bring it down. Probably some small cutter charges on a few beams.



[edit on 18-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply topost 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?

The fact that since the building was already unstable it would not take much to bring it down. Probably some small cutter charges on a few beams.



[edit on 18-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Jones claims "iron containing" spheres based on EDAX. That does not mean elemental iron, per se. No one knows at what temperature they formed. Jones evidence does not support his, or your, conclusions.
The chips seem to have all the properties of red paint.

reply to post by SPreston

The planes were for cover. So you're saying Bush got together with his people and said look we need to fly planes in to these buildings because if we just cd them everyone will automatically know I was involved? Come ON! Let's say they did do this. Then why did they have to take flying lessons? I bet Bush knows some guys who already know how to fly. Don't you think? Maybe I'm not seeing it but It just doesn't make sense to me.