PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Wow. Talk about hard evidence. There is no way anybody can deny this.

Originally posted by seeashrink
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Dude, just how big is this town of denial that you live in? I don't want to believe and regardless of this video, there is just too much evidence out there to say that 9/11 was not an inside job.
As I said in another post; forget the buildings, research the NYSE "put options" and "call options" surrounding 9/11. Some folks got pretty rich off of this I believe, and as I recall some of the money earned has never been claimed. Get your head out of the sand and look around a little, it's not pleasant but it is necessary.
Seeashrink

heh, the only ones I saw profit from this directly are the 9/11 truthers and their groups. Infowars, Loose Change, A&E, P4T, all gained financially from this. So are you suggesting they are behind this?

As for the put&stock conspiracies, they have been already debunked years ago.

Just curious, what are the fricken odds of 3 buildings, 2 the size of the twin towers, and building 7 collapsing in their own footprints by accident????? Lets use just a little common sense, please.
Seeashrink

reply to post by GenRadek


I am not aware of those NYSE issues being debunked, maybe you could point me to those stories. Oh, what the hell, I'll look them up myself. Trust me, I am not affraid of being wrong on this, as with most people who believe this to be a conspiracy, we would love to be wrong.

Originally posted by seeashrink
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Dude, just how big is this town of denial that you live in? I don't want to believe and regardless of this video, there is just too much evidence out there to say that 9/11 was notan inside job.
As I said in another post; forget the buildings, research the NYSE "put options" and "call options" surrounding 9/11. Some folks got pretty rich off of this I believe, and as I recall some of the money earned has never been claimed. Get your head out of the sand and look around a little, it's not pleasant but it is necessary.
Seeashrink

You DID mean "WAS" an inside job, right? If not....you people are confusing the hell outta me here!

This without a doubt shows exactly what your thread is all about and for that I congratulate you.

However, there is one major flaw, it doesn't matter anymore. You see, you could show a video of an interview with the actual crack team who planted the explosives in the building whilst it was being 'refurbished' but people will still say 'poopycock'

IMO people who are skeptical of all of this have to be uneducated,unwilling,un researched and lastly completely and utterly petrified of life itself if they think that 9/11 was carried out by a group of so called terrorists with box cutters.

I advise anyone not to get drawn in to ignorant conversations with people who deny the facts in respect to the thousands of people who died in order for the 'elites' to have a larger slice of the pie.

Lastly, notice how the normal 'skeptical people' on this site stay well clear of 9/11 threads, why is that I wonder?

Peacex




[edit on 13-2-2010 by franspeakfree]

Originally posted by drew hempel
Damning evidence. Great find. And if Tower 7 was "pulled" with plenty of advanced planning then the other towers are no different. Conspiracy.

Well, here is where I disagree. Why can you be sure that the other towers were pulled based on the fact that one was?

Even if we can get conclusive evidence that building seven was pulled (and I happen to think that the evidence is very compelling) we still don't know *why* it was pulled and the motives would have to be understood before we can draw any conclusions as to what other events could have likely aligned with those motives.

For example, if building seven was pre-wired because it was an intelligent services safehouse of some sort, then that would be enough reason to pull it to prevent rescue workers from coming in contact with evidence that would compromise classified information...

If this hypothesis was true, then it does not support controlled demolition for the twin towers. so maybe they were pulled, or maybe not. surely the airplane damage was quite bad already, bad enough to justify a lot of what has already been justified.

-rrr

**Double Post**** no idea why ?

[edit on 13-2-2010 by franspeakfree]

Originally posted by seeashrink
Just curious, what are the fricken odds of 3 buildings, 2 the size of the twin towers, and building 7 collapsing in their own footprints by accident????? Lets use just a little common sense, please.
Seeashrink

What do you mean " accident ". Didn't two Boeing 767's with plenty of fuel hit the Towers and start fires ?

reply to post by Alfie1


Well what about WTC 7, was it also hit by a plane ?

Oh yeah I forgot fire brought it down.......

reply to post by TwoPhish


Yes, I meant "was", at any rate I believe that it was. Thanks

reply to post by iamsupermanv2


One only look at four "facts" to come to a "logical" conclusion

1."FIRST" time in the history of the world that a building made with steel (and reinforced for just such an attack) collapsed from fire. So no steel structure building has ever collapsed - and yet - here you have three of them collapse in one day? hmmmm

2. The buildings fell at free fall gravity speed, which is impossible unless you have something popping out the floors as it falls! Huge buildings like these don't fall that fast unless something is taking out the supports and getting rid of the middle as it goes down.

3. The additional reports from firemen, police and citizens of hearing addition loud popping sounds just before and as they began to collapse.

4. Get rid of the evidence and ship all the material out of the U.S. and sell it to China to use to build things - before a real independent investigation can take place (not a hand selected investigation by the administration responsible for letting it happen)

[edit on 13-2-2010 by arizonascott]

reply to post by Alfie1


Arrrggghh! I don't mean that it was an accident. I mean that the chances of the buildings falling in there on foot prints are slim to none. Considering that in the case of the twin towers, both were predominantly damaged on one side more so than the other. Speaking of the jet fuel, it burned up very quickly upon impact and if anything would lend more argument that the buildings should have collapsed where the flames would have been the hottes. Kinda like chopping down a tree, wouldn't you think?

reply to post by TwoPhish


But I just gave you the exact words being used in context by the guys who were actually doing demolition work! They "pulled" down WTC5 and 6 with cables during clean up.

Since when will a Fire Commander use the term "pull" in a demolition sense, when in majority of this use in fire fighting lingo, it means to pull a fire fighting operation, or pull firefighters back from a dangerous situation? Especially with a building owner, when he is being told that they cannot save WTC7 and they dont want any more loss of life? The only pulling was of the firefighters and their operation in and around WTC7 out. Thats it. Done. I always understood that quote as being referenced to the fire fighting operation and fire fighters that were there in and around WTC7.

Originally posted by rickyrrr

Even if we can get conclusive evidence that building seven was pulled (and I happen to think that the evidence is very compelling) we still don't know *why* it was pulled and the motives would have to be understood before we can draw any conclusions as to what other events could have likely aligned with those motives.

For example, if building seven was pre-wired because it was an intelligent services safehouse of some sort, then that would be enough reason to pull it to prevent rescue workers from coming in contact with evidence that would compromise classified information...

If this hypothesis was true, then it does not support controlled demolition for the twin towers. so maybe they were pulled, or maybe not. surely the airplane damage was quite bad already, bad enough to justify a lot of what has already been justified.

-rrr

Well it's been suggested that since the Pentagon had JUST told the world the day before that it lost some 1.7 trillion dollars in spending.......and that under WTC 6 (?) there was an underground safe-house/vault worth of billions in gold....then perhaps THAT'S the connection?

Motive to denotate WTC 7 seeing the information all of these companies might've had about this 'lost' money including:

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

..............sounds plausible to me to get rid of the evidence.



Also, one other theory I just learned about. Flight 93 (that was SHOT down in Shanksville) might've been en-route to hit WTC 7 (as planned) and seeing it was foiled, they HAD to 'pull it' so this 'plan' would be complete.

Listen, World Trade Center was being condemned because of asbestos and had a certain window of opportunity to fix the problem. So there alone, would be THAT motive.

WTC 7.....had too much prior info and had to be demolished (Flight 93).

But.....who knows!

reply to post by seeashrink


I do encourage doing actual research outside the conspiracy sites, who are notorious for disinfo, misinfo and downright lying and twisting of words.

I do caution that it may take a little legwork to find the issues of the options and what not. I do recommend some of the debunking sites although I know that is an open invite of redicule and derision, but the facts they lay out speak for themselves and dismiss the conspiracies surrounding them.
EDIT to add: I did find this, hope it helps:
www.snopes.com...

[edit on 2/13/2010 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

But I just gave you the exact words being used in context by the guys who were actually doing demolition work! They "pulled" down WTC5 and 6 with cables during clean up.

Since when will a Fire Commander use the term "pull" in a demolition sense, when in majority of this use in fire fighting lingo, it means to pull a fire fighting operation, or pull firefighters back from a dangerous situation? Especially with a building owner, when he is being told that they cannot save WTC7 and they dont want any more loss of life? The only pulling was of the firefighters and their operation in and around WTC7 out. Thats it. Done. I always understood that quote as being referenced to the fire fighting operation and fire fighters that were there in and around WTC7.

Whose to say WHO Silverstein was in cahoots with/talking with that day. Hell, he was probably talking to his insurance brokers too.
We know NOTHING about what goes on behind the scenes.
For all we know, everyone had a secret ear-piece in their ear, listening to someone in a drone plane!
Who knows.
Logic (or what we thought was sensible logic) went out the proverbial door that day.
I trust no ONE now. I can only trust my instincts and thus far it's saying WTC 7 fell due to the hands (dynamite) of man, not nature!

Originally posted by TwoPhish

Whose to say WHO Silverstein was in cahoots with/talking with that day. Hell, he was probably talking to his insurance brokers too.
We know NOTHING about what goes on behind the scenes.
For all we know, everyone had a secret ear-piece in their ear, listening to someone in a drone plane!
Who knows.
Logic (or what we thought was sensible logic) went out the proverbial door that day.
I trust no ONE now. I can only trust my instincts and thus far it's saying WTC 7 fell due to the hands (dynamite) of man, not nature!

But he was talking with the fire commander on scene. His direct quote confirms it. The fire commander CALLED HIM about the situation. What is so hard to comprehend about that??

What you are suggesting is beyond logical reasoning. Its nowhere near our reality.

But if you think that it was brought down by demo charges, how about offering us an abridged version of just how they could have done it and when. Be sure to explain the obvious difficulties, ie fires, people, time, etc etc. Were the bombs there before 9/11? If so, how and why and where. Were the bombs planted after WTC1+2 collapsed but before it collapsed on 9/11? If so, how did they do it among the flames and structural failures and not a soul noticing? Be sure to cover those inescapable details.

[edit on 2/13/2010 by GenRadek]

Interesting. Here's an audio clip from a demolition company answering the question about what "pull it" means.
(here's the transcript. Open link to hear audio)


Female receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.
Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?
CDI: Yes it is.
Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?
CDI: Well what kind of question?
Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
CDI: Ok, what type of term?
Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
Jeff: Yeah.
CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.
Jeff: Thank you.
CDI: Sir?
Jeff: Yes?
CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
CDI: Ok.
Jeff: Bye.
CDI: Bye.

killtown.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by GenRadek

But he was talking with the fire commander on scene. His direct quote confirms it. The fire commander CALLED HIM about the situation. What is so hard to comprehend about that??

What you are suggesting is beyond logical reasoning. Its nowhere near our reality.

Using your above quoted reason and logic.

Since when , ever, do fireman phone the owners of the building during a fire.

NEVER.