PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by Alfie1


I meant this for another user. I'm lost with the price of eggs.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by Alfie1

 

WTC 7 was a mistake. You pose a good question. The only good answer I've heard is that WTC 7 was the headquarters for the entire operation.

I can't answer why the demolition was so blatant. It's possible they wanted people to know that the attacks were orchestrated and anticipated a revolution, which would allow them to roll back civil liberties, specifically the right to bear arms.

The attacks were so obviously orchestrated that I'm surprised there hasn't been revolution.

My post, which you responded to, was more focused on history prior to 9/11. 9/11 is the quintessential event that will ultimately lead to world government, but there is a lot of history leading up to it.

To me and many others there is no doubt that 9/11 was orchestrated by elements beside Arab extremists, in fact the only group caught red handed on the day of 9/11 were Mossad agents.

Wrap your head around that.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Thanks for your response but I cannot wrap my head around it.

If WTC 7 was " the headquarters for the entire operation " it seems to me to be very imprudent to cd it. That would tend to spread stuff, much of it embarrassing, maybe fatal, over Manhattan and to what purpose ?

There was no need to destroy WTC 7 as a casus belli, surely the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon was enough ?

If, as you suggest, WTC 7 was of some fundamental importance, then surely some cover for it's destruction should have been arranged. No perps with any concern for their own skin could have contemplated a cd of an undamaged WTC 7 on 9/11.

Is it not obvious that the destruction of WTC 7 was simply collateral damage ?

reply to post by Alfie1


It's definitely possible. The only problem with that idea is the way the building fell. This is why this forum exists, because reasonable people don't buy that building falling straight down at a virtual free fall, in fact 2.5 seconds of actual free fall speed.

And if the building were demolished intentionally, which is extremely likely, it would have been prepared for demolition long before 9/11. It's not possible to wire a building like that in an afternoon.

You either believe that a steel framed high rise can fall straight down at a virtual free fall speed, due to fires of 500 degrees Celsius, or you don't.

If you do, why are you on this forum?

If you don't believe WTC 7 could fall from fire, then conspiracy follows. As an American you have a lot of responsibility to right this wrong, at the very least to inform yourself. If you don't, you're a coward.

I think a lot of OS supporters are cowards. Especially the ones who devote much of their time discussing the event. They have been exposed to all kinds of problems with the OS and continue to disregard them, utilizing psychological words like "reptilians" "conspiracy theories" "nut jobs" "whackos" "Kool aid drinkers" and who knows how many other ignorant diversions that are out there, to derail logical conversations onto irrational destinations.

We may never know "why" WTC 7 was demolished. We do know that it's unlikely it fell from natural causes like debris and small fires. We also know it is part of one of the strongest political events in human history. It lead to multiple overseas wars and created the foundation for a new world order.

It is a quintessential part of the puzzle. Unexplainable or not.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

[edit on 19-4-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

[edit on 19-4-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

"If WTC 7 was " the headquarters for the entire operation " it seems to me to be very imprudent to cd it."

You think it would have been better for the criminals to leave Building 7 standing, allowing the Fire Department to enter it, put out the fires and discover the evidence that it was the control center for the operation? Gimme a break.

"That would tend to spread stuff, much of it embarrassing, maybe fatal, over Manhattan and to what purpose?"

What embarrassing stuff being spread are you talking about? The building was demolished, the pre-assigned clean up crew moved in and got rid of all the incriminating evidence. Just like they did at WTC1 And WTC2.

At 5:00 PM, they knew the masses had bought had the whole 9/11 story hook, line and sinker. By this time, convincing the brainless imbeciles who watch mainstream media that Building 7 went down because of the two previous collapses was like taking candy from a baby.

And by the way, did NIST have the actual physical evidence from Building 7 to analyze when they did their analysis or did they just rely on guess work? Not that it would make any difference to those disreputable BS artists.

"We may never know "why" WTC 7 was demolished."

If it wasn't demolished because it was the command center for the 9/11 operation, it was demolished for insurance fraud purposes, or most probably for both reasons. I think the character who owned WTC7 profited $500M from its demise. Not a bad payday for a day's work.

People who believe the OS are cowards you say? I think you're far too kind with that assessment. Being cowards would be a giant step up for most of these individuals.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


I am not American but English. I have an interest and involvement because you are an old ally, assuming you are American, and we have had a terrorist attack in London, but fortunately the loss of life here was not on the same scale as yours.

You say"os supporters ", if you want to call us that, are cowards but I don't see it like that. We are a minority on this forum and accept the insults that brings but we know we are not a minority in the world at large.
In any event, we are only saying what we think is true and our motive is to direct attention to true enemies rather than to internal pointless self-destruction.

Nothing you have said convinces me that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. I agree that, if it was a cd, the preparation would have taken a long time prior to 9/11. All the more reason then why the perps should have made provision to cover such a cd. The fact that they didn't bother is proof that there weren't any perps, other than the muslim hi-jackers.

The bottom line is that WTC 7 was only damaged accidently by the debris from WTC 1. No-one could have planned it. Would your alleged perps, with their lives on the line, have cd'd it anyway ? When it didn't make any difference, on top of WTC 1 & 2 and the Pentagon ?

reply to post by Alfie1


I am an American. Born to be one. I know a good deal of history regarding this country and regarding yours.

Your country is completely dominated by international banking families. Your royalty has no power because they allowed their country to go in debt to these bankers. Your country was forced into the war of 1812 because the newly formed United States of America vetoed the first national bank charter, which the owners of the Bank of England were attempting to create. The banking families that control your country attempted to kill Andrew Jackson and caused a terrible depression, funded the south side of the civil war, and attempted to fund the north but ran into Abe Lincoln (he gave them the finger and started printing greenbacks, they killed him for it).

The owners of the Bank of England allowed your country to be completely eviscerated by Germany during World War 1 until Arthur Balfour drafted the Balfour Declaration which gave Rothschild the rights to Palestine. Rothschild then forced America into the war by using their puppet President Wilson to blow up the Lusitania.

The first attempt at a world government followed. The League of Nations. This didn't work because America was once filled with patriots who understood sovereignty. So in your country they created the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and in ours they created The Council on Foreign Relations.

The Federal Reserve was created in our country and mirrored the Bank of England in exact proportions. It legalized debt ridden currency.

These same people funded the Bolshevik Revolution, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the rise of Adolf Hitler. All sides of World War II. Officially the owners of the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve, our two national banks, funded Nazi Germany from 1927 to 1942, roughly 50% of their military capabilities.

What followed was the United Nations and the creation of the State of Israel, which led directly to the events of September 11th.

There has been a movement to create a world government for over 200 hundred years. We're sitting here worrying about WTC 7 while the descendants of these families bankrupt both our countries and make Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) the new global currency, essentially destroying the sovereignty of both our countries.

So if you're looking for true enemies, these are you're true enemies. If you need a flashlight to search through the darkness feel free to contact me. I've got lots of high powered ones in my cupboards.

I edited my post to read "a lot of the OS supporters" because I don't think OS supporters are all cowards. And to be sure, you're not a minority on this forum.

In regards to your assertion that no one could have planned the debris to damage WTC 7 I say this:

Debris wouldn't have hit WTC 7 if there weren't explosives planted in WTC 1 and 2.

And to your question about "alleged perps" cd'ing a hypothetically undamaged WTC 7...

I don't know. This is an alternative reality. As I said before, I think they definitely designed and anticipated public response. The September 11th attacks were so badly orchestrated that every event that occurred on that day is in question. The Pentagon strike, United 93 crash, the overwhelming and partially living number of Saudis on the "19 hijackers" FBI list, Norad stand-downs, the simultaneous war games (similar to the war games that occurred in London on 7/7), Norman Minetta's 9/11 Commission Testimony, Vreeland's pre-911 prison cell warning, and on and on. That's not even including the completely improbably collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7. So, they either purposefully designed it to be obvious, or they messed up royally. Either way, their fingerprints are all over the murder weapons.

You believe WTC 7 fell from fires that weren't hot enough and debris damage that wasn't extensive enough to make the building fall at 10:30 in the morning when it sustained that damage. You think the debris damage had something to do with the collapse, yet you disregard that the building stood for a full 7 hours after. You also seem to disregard that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel, let alone sag and collapse it.

You can watch the footage and look at the visual documentation yourself. Show me a portion of that building that is sagging, "thermally expanding," or collapsing. It's not there, it doesn't exist.

Do you know why?

The fires weren't hot enough.

1. The Fireproofing on WTC 7 was fully intact.
2. The Sprinkler systems used reserve water sources and were operational.
3. No plane hit this building, so core columns were not damaged and jet fuel assertions do not apply.
4. The thermal analysis of the fires shows that they were not hot enough nor did they sustain their hottest degrees long enough to substantially weaken the UL tested steel.
5. The initial FEMA report did not analyze WTC 7.
6. The initial NIST report did not analyze WTC 7.
7. It took a full SEVEN YEARS for NIST to release it's "Final" and first report on WTC 7.
8. Thermal analysis of the WTC 7 collapse site shows similar temperatures to the WTC 1 and 2 collapse sites--temperatures above 2,800 degrees F.
9. How were these temperatures reached?
10. How was molten steel found in the rubble?
11. No steel framed high rise has ever collapsed from fire beside WTC 1, 2, and 7.
12. No steel framed high rise has ever collapsed at free fall speed, through the path of most resistance, beside WTC 1, 2, and 7.
13. How could this have happened?

Those buildings were demolished purposefully, that's how.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

[edit on 20-4-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by Alfie1

 

WTC 7 was a mistake. You pose a good question. The only good answer I've heard is that WTC 7 was the headquarters for the entire operation.



Wrap your head around that.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Thanks for your response but I cannot wrap my head around it.

If WTC 7 was " the headquarters for the entire operation " it seems to me to be very imprudent to cd it. That would tend to spread stuff, much of it embarrassing, maybe fatal, over Manhattan and to what purpose ?

There was no need to destroy WTC 7 as a casus belli, surely the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon was enough ?

Building 7's short list of tenants consisted entirely of government and financial institutions.

* Financial institutions
o Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
o Standard Chartered Bank
o Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
o First State Management Group
o TT Hartford Insurance Group
o American Express Bank International
o National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
* Government agencies
o Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
o Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
o Department of Defense (DOD)
o Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
o Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
o US Secret Service
o Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

The collapse of Building 7 destroyed thousands of SEC case files of ongoing investigations into companies such as WorldCom, ENRON, TYCO, investigating the Califorina Utilities Swindle.....and MANY more......all accused of stealing BILLIONS....

...what was the outcome...were they punished?

If, as you suggest, WTC 7 was of some fundamental importance, then surely some cover for it's destruction should have been arranged. No perps with any concern for their own skin could have contemplated a cd of an undamaged WTC 7 on 9/11.

so...according to your mentality.......they can train for YEARS to fly the airliners.....but the CD MUST be done in an afternoon

Is it not obvious that the destruction of WTC 7 was simply collateral damage ?

well then...maybe YOU should at LEAST **READ** the NIST WTC7 report



for they state that "collateral damage" played NO PART in 7 collapsing

in FACT...they claim that FIRE can't even be seen from the windows

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"


pretty funny huh......yea...I think so too...

but, THAT'S not the funny part



7 did NOT have FREE FALL...

it had FREE FALL **ACCELERATION**

which means....as it collapsed THROUGH itself....it was GAINING speed


-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.


Do I need to explain this?.....



I will anyway...

This says that at the time of 1.75 seconds into the collapse....is when the building STARTS to accelerate at a rate EQUIVALENT to the acceleration of gravity.

and looking at the VIDEO....the time of 1.75s is when the kink forms...and when this happens...WE SEE the EVEN descent of the ENTIRE building....

and "even" has NOTHING to do with the horizontal plane....it's the uniformed descent, of everything at the time of release, with NO part falling slower than any other part....for if it did...WE WOULD SEE IT.....cause it would be...

S-L-O-W-E-R

and NOTHING can NATURALLY fall FASTER than gravity can pull


So, at 1.75s and for the next 2.25 seconds....ACCELERATION through the path of GREATEST resistance

lol.....from FIRE alone that CAN'T be seen from the windows.


YOU also need to understand that the NIST HYPOTHESIS....and the NIST FACTS...are separate from each other

for their HYPOTHESIS IGNORES ALL found facts..on BOTH the towers and WTC7


take 7 for example....NCSTAR1-3 p.iii, 7.7.3..."NO STEEL WAS RECOVERED FROM WTC7"


HOW do you HYPOTHESIZE...steel, thermally expanding from heat and fire...which is what they say happened to the East Penthouse....ONE vertical support fell it....in *theory*...

and in the SAME breath.....NIST....HYPOTHESIZES that ALL vertical support fails inside, in order to get the results that EVERY video show....the EVEN GLOBAL descent of the ENTIRE building, as fat as an object falls....in a vacuum..

FEMA did a report in 2002, 'BEFORE NIST', and reported


Limited Metallurgical Examination.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the
steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent
intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface
microstructure….. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily
iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a
combination of oxidation and sulfidation.


"steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field"..."severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration"
"Samples were taken from these beams and labeled samples 1&2"

A eutectic or eutectic mixture is a mixture at such proportions that the melting point is as low as possible


This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. FEMA.C-2 Sample1

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.
wtc. nist. gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf


NIST was FORCED to admit....for there is NO mention of FF ACCELERATION in the DRAFT


The SAME people worked for NIST and claim that NO STEEL WAS FOUND.

are you laughing yet?

why would NIST rather LIE, than use a piece of THERMALLY affected steel, to SUPPORT their HYPOTHESIS of "thermally affected steel"

and THEN say..."what we have here is a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon"

ROTFLMAO

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Are you assuming that this is melted concrete that encases metal with a much lower melting point? This wasn't concrete dust that agglomerated after being exposed to water and the heat of the underground fires?

reply to post by hgfbob


You just might wish to do some more in-depth research, to verify this:

The collapse of Building 7 destroyed thousands of SEC case files of ongoing investigations...

Check out some other information:

www.911blogger.com...

Take it as you will.....

There is likely a lot more, also.

From what I have looked into, MOST of the files from WTC 7 have been recovered, from the various sources that had them backed up.

What seems to be happening is too many "conspiracy" sites do not care to divulge that factoid....

Feel free to look into it. Too often some only consider ONE source, in their 'investigations'.....

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


These are entertaining theories that suggest all sorts of conspiracies. There is still no rationale for the CD of #7. Damage and fires from the collapse of the towers was unpredictable. Ignoring the damage, arson could have produced the fires but to what end? Why would any conspiracy use WTC7 as a command center? Wouldn't they want to be somewhat away from the action to prevent incidental building parts from crashing down on the operation? To those who talk of SEC investigations, why bother with destroying a building? Why not just burn the evidence in the fires? Why even bother with burning, just assign the investigations to the Madoff team?
There is no rationale nor evidence for the CD of building 7. There is also no "PROOF" that building 7 was "demolished with explosives!!!" as per the thread topic.

reply to post by pteridine


We're all aware of your opinion.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Are you assuming that this is melted concrete that encases metal with a much lower melting point?

What you are looking at is the result of where it COOLED, not where it melted.

This wasn't concrete dust that agglomerated after being exposed to water and the heat of the underground fires?

Any proof?

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Your opinion that there was CD involved doesn't seem to have any basis.
The Kennedy conspiracy has lasted almost 50 years and I suspect this will have a long life, also, but only for the true believers.

As I see it there´s two possibilities:
1.- The NIST theory is mostly correct. (Remember it´s a theory also.)
2.- The CD scenario theory.

Now...for the CD theory to be correct, we need something capable of taking out all, or most of the supporting columns and structure in the lower part of the building within a very short time span before the collapse begins.
So...what could we use to achieve this??
We would need not just explosives...we need a huge amount of explosives, or a very big bomb.
And this would have created, not a loud boom, but a deafening BOOOOOOM. HUGE, HUGE.
Right then, right before the collapse begins, there would have to be a big explosion accompanied by this terribly loud BANG.
So...even though we do have some reports of explosions happening in the building or surrounding area, we DON´T HAVE, this huge explosion, that is essential to this scenario.

We are left then with the NIST theory, of how, due to thermal expansion, there was a failure of a key structural component which caused the failure of the rest of the supporting structure columns, bringing the result that we know.
This key column failed several seconds before the others as we can confirm by the video that shows how the Penthouse collapses at that time. We can assume everything below the Penthouse was also coming down through the inside of the building, and then comes the rest of the collapse.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Any proof that it was concrete that had melted?

Originally posted by pteridine
To those who talk of SEC investigations, why bother with destroying a building? Why not just burn the evidence in the fires? Why even bother with burning, just assign the investigations to the Madoff team?
There is no rationale nor evidence for the CD of building 7. There is also no "PROOF" that building 7 was "demolished with explosives!!!" as per the thread topic.

A multi decade conspiracy would suggest the possibility. If one acknowledges that the Bush Family has infiltrated the political scene after having some success in the banking scene (check early twentieth century Bush dealings)...then one can see a potential familial propagation of the family into not only the White House, but CIA and international financials.

Tune in to the fact that Salomon Bros. retrofitted WTC 7 in the nineties afte Paulson done effed up in the eighties (major scandal, look it up as I am bored with linking it), then one may staret to see the cumulative makings of a multi decade financial conspiracy that knows nothing of "direct correlations" and requires the public to have a short memory.

Citigroup is going to have a major scandal in the months coming...mark this post.

Your further defense considering is certainly curious to me...

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Any proof that it was concrete that had melted?

You mean aside from the link with pictures of melted concrete as well as the placard from the museum explaining what had happened? Yeah, let me see if I can find anything better. How about you show me your proof it was liquefied and reconstituted so I know what level of proof to shoot for.

reply to post by MemoryShock


Fascinating topic, MS....

Worthy of its own thread?

"Bilderburg", anyone?

Oh, no. Sorry.

It's just....the "Planned Demolition" of WTC 7 is too far gone, in terms of this other aspect that you are proposing.

I like your path, but steer it away from the 'demolition' idea, and you may have a winner.

Only because, to "buy in" to the WTC 7 'planned CD' requires WAY too much....just think about it.

---Prepping

---Timing

---Reasons (Since a lot of lost data has been recovered)

Fails the logic "smell" test, to me.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Well if there is a placard, that seals it. No one can argue with a placard.
Molten concrete would show how hot the underground fires were during the aftermath which would account for all of the hot metal beneath the rubble.

I'm glad to see that you accept the truth that the authorities have provided us. You have come a long way down the path toward enlightenment.