PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by joao_ed
Dont know why people still discusses this. Think everybody know the truth by now, and if u dont know its because u dont want to. Time to act and cut the bs.

Yes, it does look as though a large majority have a firm handle on the truth :-

www.angus-reid.com...

reply to post by joao_ed


Thank you. Very much in agreement.

reply to post by Alfie1


I've got a few polls.

en.wikipedia.org...

ZOGBY August 2004: "41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".

ZOGBY May 2006:
Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure

"Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?"
Responses: 47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated / 45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure

The third major Zogby poll regarding 9/11 was conducted in August 2007. It was a telephone interview with a target of 1,000 interviews with randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 71 questions, with a 3.1 percent margin of error.

The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.

In addition, the poll also found that two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Only 4.8 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the United States government "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack."

So what does this say to you?

It says to me that most of America is fully aware that this government is lying about September 11th. They don't know why or in what way they are lying, but they know it.

4.8 percent agree that the U.S. government actively planned the attacks in some way. This says to me that the 95% do not have the facts in front of them. If they were to read through this forum, they'd have a pretty good idea.

It's not surprising that most of America is ignorant, they get their news straight from the state, and don't question it.

Originally posted by joao_ed
Time to act and cut the bs.

What action are you proposing? Will you lead or follow?

reply to post by pteridine

Does your position on this topic have any meaning with regards to your signature?

Off Topic for sure...

Edit to Add For Posterity -

signature
"Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it."
— Voltaire

[edit on 22-4-2010 by TrustMeIKnow]

50 seconds in. Iran Contra, FEMA camps.

WTC leads there.

www.youtube.com...

Perfect job.....
Almost makes me ashamed to be afilitated with the U.S. Government.
Hiding in plain sight''''

I've been researching the 911 conspiracy theories a lot. I saw a few youtube videos and was instantly convinced. Everything made so much sense. They posed a lot of questions that I wanted answers to when they gave evidence that indicated building demolition caused the WTC collapse. I started researching a little further and am very disappointed to have more questions about the theories than about the collapse.

Step 1: Theorists give evidence of demolition: (explosions, Thermite, etc)

Step 2: Sources say that evidence of demolition is not valid (explosions, thermite, etc) and give specific reasons why. Refuting the conspiracy theroy.

Step 3: I've been trying desperately to find theorists evidence to refute (what seems to me as proof) that there was no evidence of demolition and I'm unable to find ANY. Can anyone who is well researched on this topic please PM me so we can go over the facts?

Example: Theorists say there were eyewitnesses who heard explosions.

1. Counter point: Demolition grade explosives are so powerful that they would rupture unprotected eardrums within a certain radius and the people who heard explosions can still hear today. Explosions may have been heard but they were not from demoltion explosives. (this is from a few different sources including my uncle who was a demolition contractor)

2. Refers to a photo that I saved that clearly shows the point of falure on the building to be where the airplane hit (the bottom part is standing upright and the top part is falling over). Then explains that if demolition explosives were on those floors before the planes hit then they would have detonated from fire long before the towers collapsed and that the only way to have them detonate when the building collapsed would have been to install the explosives after the plane hit (impossible the whole place was on fire).

3. Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC would have registered demolition grade explosions at any point before or after the collapse of any of the WTC buildings. Two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam both said that there was no evidence of demolition explosives. (there was other seismographs that I read about too but they were from a construction company so I didn't think they were as reliable but they basically said the same thing)

4. In bulding demolition exploves have to be attached to load bearing steel support colums. In a bulding the size of the WTC7 (a MEGA demolition project) it would have taken a crew of over 50 professionals over 6 months to prep the building for demolition and EVERYONE who went into that building would know that it was being prepped for demolition with explosives. (this is from a few different sources including my uncle who was a demolition contractor)

I've tried to find counter points to these sources and I can't. I run into these kinds of points on virtually all the theorists points of evidence and I need help.

Why were people's unprotected eardrums not ruptured by the demlotion explosives? Why didn't the demolition explosives detonate in the fire of WTC7? Why didn't the demolition explosives show up on the various seismographs? How did a crew of 50 people go into the WTC with jackhammers and tons of tools and install explosives without anyone noticing? If someone was next to my desk jackhammering concrete away from a steel support beam anywhere in my building EVERYONE would know.

It hardly seems to matter if 9/11 was a set up or not. The facts are simple enough for a dunce to recognise...2 buildings were hit by planes and collapsed...a third building was not hit by anything and yet it also managed to collapse. What more of a smoking gun can anyone ask for yet, even with such blatant eveidence the media has generally ignored or played down this glaring fact. The public at large are either aware of this fact, ignorant to it or in denial about it. As long as the mainstream media chose to ignore this and as long as academia choses to bury its head in the sand then nothing will change. Its been turned into the new UFO conspiracy, where your going to be discredited and ridiculed if you say anything. The most disturbing thing is that really everyone knows what happened but nodody is doing a damn thing about it. This manufactured event was used to trigger two oil wars and the stripping away of civil rights, not just in america but in europe and likley around the world. We are now at a point where we all will have to be body scanned and finger printed just to catch a flight. And who knows what next. People ponder about how Hitler was able to convince the German people to support him, well take a good look because history has a habit or repeating itself.

Originally posted by splitlevel
It hardly seems to matter if 9/11 was a set up or not. The facts are simple enough for a dunce to recognise...2 buildings were hit by planes and collapsed...a third building was not hit by anything and yet it also managed to collapse. What more of a smoking gun can anyone ask for yet, even with such blatant eveidence the media has generally ignored or played down this glaring fact. The public at large are either aware of this fact, ignorant to it or in denial about it. As long as the mainstream media chose to ignore this and as long as academia choses to bury its head in the sand then nothing will change. Its been turned into the new UFO conspiracy, where your going to be discredited and ridiculed if you say anything. The most disturbing thing is that really everyone knows what happened but nodody is doing a damn thing about it. This manufactured event was used to trigger two oil wars and the stripping away of civil rights, not just in america but in europe and likley around the world. We are now at a point where we all will have to be body scanned and finger printed just to catch a flight. And who knows what next. People ponder about how Hitler was able to convince the German people to support him, well take a good look because history has a habit or repeating itself.

Awesome post but it fails to answer the questions:

Why were people's unprotected eardrums not ruptured by the demlotion explosives? Why didn't the demolition explosives detonate in the fire of WTC7? Why didn't the demolition explosives show up on the various seismographs? How did a crew of 50 people go into the WTC7 with jackhammers and tons of tools and install explosives without anyone noticing? If someone was next to my desk jackhammering concrete away from a steel support beam anywhere in my building EVERYONE would know.

reply to post by iamcpc


Regardless of all those unanswerable, and irrelevant points, buildings do not collapse symmetrically, and globally, into their own footprint through the path of most resistance from fire.

If I use my imagination I can think of many many ways to overcome the problems you ponder, but no matter how hard I think I cannot find a way to make a building collapse symmetrically, and globally, into it's own footprint through the path of most resistance from fire. Every time I think about it I see thousands tons of undamaged steel columns, and bracing, and welds, and bolts creating resistance to the smaller amount of steel that MIGHT have failed, if you want to believe they did.

I keep asking how does a building fall so cleanly from asymmetrical damage from fires or debris or whatever?

How could that happen when it takes weeks to set up a controlled demolition to cause buildings to collapse symmetrically, and globally, into their own footprints?

How can a building, or three, completely collapse with no external force, other than gravity and it's own weight, overcome resistance from it's own structure designed to hold itself up with a safety factor of at least x2 (can hold twice it's own weight)?

How can fire cause a sudden instant collapse, when it's known that when steel heats up the loss of strength is gradual not instant?

Why did the penthouse drop first, showing the classic demolition method of dropping the center columns slightly ahead of the outer columns helping to pull the wall inwards instead of outward as they naturally would from resistance?

That is just the tip of skyscraper...

Are you asking the wrong questions on purpose, or do you really think your questions are gonna stump anyone?

First off I appreciate that you ignored every single one of my questions. I am very glad that you pose additional questions. I will respond to every single one of your questions.

I keep asking how does a building fall so cleanly from asymmetrical damage from fires or debris or whatever?

I am asking the exact same thing! I want to know the truth! I'm not going to blindly follow anything without research. I'm not going to blindly follow that they were demolished and I'm not going to blindly follow that they were destroyed by the attacks. I know the evidence does not support damage and fire on one side of a building and the entire building falling down at the same time. I also am asking for evidence that refutes the NO EXPLOSIVE POSSIBLE claims i've read about.


How could that happen when it takes weeks to set up a controlled demolition to cause buildings to collapse symmetrically, and globally, into their own footprints?

You're basically asking the same question I did and you called my questions pointless. I asked how did a crew of 50 people go into the WTC with jackhammers and tons of tools and install explosives and prep the building for demolition without anyone noticing?



How can a building, or three, completely collapse with no external force, other than gravity and it's own weight, overcome resistance from it's own structure designed to hold itself up with a safety factor of at least x2 (can hold twice it's own weight?

I can only thing of three options.
1. You could hit it with a 500 mile per hour 110 ton wrecking ball and then set it on fire.

2. You could spend months and months and months with jackhammers installing explosives and demolish it.

3. I've also read about possible thermite being used.


How can fire cause a sudden instant collapse, when it's known that when steel heats up the loss of strength is gradual not instant?

It can't. That would be a good point advocating demolition if not for the fact that the buildings were on fire for a decent amount of time and not instant collapse.

Why did the penthouse drop first, showing the classic demolition method of dropping the center columns slightly ahead of the outer columns helping to pull the wall inwards instead of outward as they naturally would from resistance?

I don't know. I would love to find out. I know that if it was explosives then people's unprotected eardrums would have been ruptured by demlotion explosives. The demolition explosives would have detonated in the WTC7 fire. The demolition explosives would have shown up on the various seismographs. People would have seen a crew of 50 people go into the WTC7 with jackhammers and tons of tools and install explosives.

Are you asking the wrong questions on purpose, or do you really think your questions are gonna stump anyone?

The topic of the post is proof the wtc7 tower was brought down with explosives. To prove that the wtc7 tower was brought down with explosives you have to, in detail, answer the questions that I had originally asked.

In terms of PROOF that wtc7 was brought down with explosives the questions:

Why were people's unprotected eardrums not ruptured by the demolition explosives? Why didn't the demolition explosives detonate in the fire of WTC7? Why didn't the demolition explosives show up on the various seismographs? How did a crew of 50 people go into the WTC7 with jackhammers and tons of tools and install explosives without anyone noticing?

Are all very pertinant questions.

Originally posted by iamcpc1
Are all very pertinant questions.

In your opinion.

How can you claim WTC 7 wasn't an instant collapse? It took seconds to completely collapse. Please don't pretend you think it was secretly collapsing inside without anyone knowing, or seeing, or hearing, and reporting it. The collapse started with the 'penthouse kink'.

The collapse was sudden and instant as it collapsed into the path of most resistance symmetrically, concluding in a global collapse into it's own footprint. I know you have to ignore these facts for your hypothesis to work, but I will not ignore these facts to allow you your opinion.

First thing you have to do is prove that a steel framed building can collapse symmetrically, globally, into it's own footprint from fire. And then ask yourself why hasn't this method of collapse been used by demo companies? Is it because it cannot be 'controlled' using an uncontrollable method of collapse? If that is the case then how does your method of demolition create the same outcome as a conventional controlled demo, i.e. symmetrically, globally, into it's own footprint. (and don't say it didn't I HAVE PROOF IT DID)...



The majority of the building ended up in it's footprint. A 'natural' collapse would not do this, if the resistance is not removed from the central building the facade will fall OUTWARDS, you need to drop the center columns first (penthouse kink) to allow a space for the outer walls to fall into, otherwise they will be forced for fall outside it's footprint.

Point is again your question about explosives and peoples ear drums are irrelevant when all the evidence points to explosives. Ear drums are not the important point we should be focusing on, but the physics and what actually happened.

[edit on 4/30/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


18 seconds of collapse is considered a couple seconds? According to the seismograph data, thats about how long the signal was for WTC7's collapse. But maybe you can find the signals of detonation of the demo charges in the seismograph data. Why are they absent and everyone who is competent in such matters also agree, no explosive signals were recorded in the seismograph data?

Sorry, but the facts are stacked agianst you.

Originally posted by ANOK
First thing you have to do is prove that a steel framed building can collapse symmetrically, globally, into it's own footprint from fire.

The majority of the building ended up in it's footprint. A 'natural' collapse would not do this, if the resistance is not removed from the central building the facade will fall OUTWARDS, you need to drop the center columns first (penthouse kink) to allow a space for the outer walls to fall into, otherwise they will be forced for fall outside it's footprint.

Actually, no one has to prove anything of the sort. Those who make the claim of demolition have to prove demolition.

You have no idea what a "natural" collapse would look like; why do you assume that what you saw was a CD? Gravity is important in both types of collapses.

Point is again your question about explosives and peoples ear drums are irrelevant when all the evidence points to explosives.

You say all the evidence points to explosives. Yet you ignore the evidence that points away from explosions. I admit that you bring up points that would point to explosions.

If it looks like an explosion, but does not sound like an explosion (not loud enough), feel like an explosion (no seismic recording).

You explain that it looks like demolition. I agree that it does. But I want ALL of the evidence before I make up my mind. I'm not like you and able to ignore these blaring inconsistencies. I want to know why it looks like a demolition due to explosion but it only LOOKS like a demolition due to explosion and the other evidence of demolition due to explosion is lacking. I'm just doing my due research and hoping that I can come here (after extensively searching) to try to figure out why some evidence points to explosive demolition (the points that you bring up) and the other evidence (explosions make sound and shockwaves which were simply not there and no way in hell for the explosives get put in the wtc7)

You see a duck (WTC collapse due to demolition explosions) and it barks like a dog (does not sound like a demolition explosion), feels like a dog (does not give off seismic blast waves like a demolition explosion), and smells like a dog (the explosives had no way to get into the building and didn't detonate in the fire) and you say look at the duck.


I see a duck (building collapse due to demolition explosions) and it barks like a dog (does not sound like a demolition explosion), feels like a dog (does not give off seismic blast waves like a demolition explosion), and smells like a dog (the explosives had no way to get into the building and didn't detonate in the fire) and I say WHY THE HELL DOES THAT DUCK FEEL SMELL AND SOUND LIKE A DOG WHILE BEING A DUCK????????????????

Originally posted by iamcpc1
How did a crew of 50 people go into the WTC7 with jackhammers and tons of tools and install explosives without anyone noticing?

I guess you have not seen the video posted of hard hat workers comming out of the safety zone stataing the building is comming down.

Also it would not take much to bring down a alredy unstable building.

reply to post by iamcpc1


iamcpc1, you are obviously approaching this seriously. As well as your valid practical questions I would also urge you to consider the overall circumstances at the WTC on 9/11.

As you know, it is often alleged that WTC 1,2 & 7 were all rigged for cd. You point out the huge amount of prep work required but, if we assume for the sake of the argument, that it was done what could the perps plan have been ? Surely it would have to have been that all 3 buldings went down on 9/11. You couldn't leave one standing packed with explosives to be found anytime.

As regards WTC 1 & 2 it is alleged that the perps had planes flown into them to cover a cd, but what had been planned for WTC 7 ? It was only by chance that falling debris from WTC 1 set fires in WTC 7 and that water supplies were cut off for the firefighters. The buildings are not adjacent and I would suggest that no plan could have been formulated which depended on these chance happenings.

So, what was the perps plan ? To simply blow up WTC 7 willy nilly with the world watching ? And for what purpose ? would its destruction add anything ? The only reason I have seen advanced is that WTC 7 contained secrets. Would blowing it up and distributing stuff over Manhattan be the optimum way to deal with that ?

I would suggeat to you that, as well as your practical objections, the cd of WTC 7 just doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by iamcpc1
How did a crew of 50 people go into the WTC7 with jackhammers and tons of tools and install explosives without anyone noticing?

I guess you have not seen the video posted of hard hat workers comming out of the safety zone stataing the building is comming down.

Umm, in an earlier post, you said they didn't enter the building. Are you changing your stance now?

Originally posted by gavron
Umm, in an earlier post, you said they didn't enter the building. Are you changing your stance now?

I was talking abuot the men comming out of the safety zone.