PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by gavron


You're arguing the straw man. It's quite ridiculous and totally apparent.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by gavron

 

You're arguing the straw man. It's quite ridiculous and totally apparent.

If calling Roger a strawman is appropriate, then yes I am. I find it hilarious that he can argue till he is blue in the face, but then his own sources prove what he is saying is wrong.

reply to post by gavron


You're trying to push an obvious impossibility to make an argument look weak.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
Show me a high rise steel framed building to EVER fall from fire.

I'm sure they're out there...

Go find them gumshoe!

Why not show me other buildings constructed in the same manner that the WTC buildings were, and have a similar fire in those.

You know, I know of a building just like WTC1 that fell in the same manner. It was called WTC2.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
You're trying to push an obvious impossibility to make an argument look weak.

Please explain how posting his identical link, and even giving the location on that link to look, an impossibility?

Too much Cinco de Mayo already?

reply to post by gavron


WTC 2 does not work and you know it.

I have posted other examples of steel framed high rises that did not collapse from fire or from a plane crash.

One example that comes instantly to mind is the Empire State Building. Another is the Windsor building, which burned for something like 18 hours, with much higher temperatures.

Steel framed high rises do not suffer global collapses from fire.

Why do you think you're on this forum?

[edit on 5-5-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

reply to post by gavron


I honestly don't even know what link you're referring to. I'm aware that you're conversation with Reminse has been ongoing, I catch bits and pieces of it and the only thing I keep hearing is this:

"How could a burning building be wired for demolition in one day?"

This makes no sense.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1

"How could a burning building be wired for demolition in one day?"

This makes no sense.

Agreed, but for some reason he believes it can be. And not by demo teams themselves (which he says didn't enter the buildings), but by fire rescue teams.

reply to post by gavron


I read through this link a little bit, finally getting to the "pull it" situation.

This reads like an opinion piece, with little value here. "Pull it" is most definitely an industry term. I can't imagine Larry Silverstein saying that the fire chief told him maybe we should "pull it. And that's what we did. Then we watched the building fall," and having that be a reference to the firefighters.

Maybe if he said "pull them."

If you'd like to view a link posted by THE AQUARIAN 1, here you go:

whatreallyhappened.com...

Not sure exactly what the argument is about on this forum. The building was brought down.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by gavron

 

WTC 2 does not work and you know it.

But it DOES work. That is 100% proof that it works. Two buildings constructed identically, both with similar damage from impacts, both have resulting fires which cause a chain of events leading to eventual collapse.

How can you say that it does not work?

reply to post by gavron


It doesn't work because both collapses are in question.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1

This reads like an opinion piece, with little value here. "Pull it" is most definitely an industry term. I can't imagine Larry Silverstein saying that the fire chief told him maybe we should "pull it. And that's what we did. Then we watched the building fall," and having that be a reference to the firefighters.

Is Larry Silverstein in the industry?

So, in a followup interview when he clarified he meant he rescue teams, that doesnt count?

You do know that words mean different things in other context. The term "Gutter" for example, means a hell of a lot of different things depending who is saying it.

reply to post by gavron


I take it you didn't look at this link. That's fine.

I don't care what Larry Silverstein said, everyone and their mom knows what he meant.

The building was brought down. Plain and clear, in broad daylight.

reply to post by gavron


Also, there were no firemen in the building.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

Here are some excerpts from a New York Times article from 1989 regarding the reinforcement work done on WTC 7:

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company."

"MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment."

''Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building - and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation,'' said John D. Spassoff, a district manager of Silverstein Properties."

Total cost of reinforcements: $200 million.

Read the entire article here:

www.nytimes.com... =all

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

lets review the quote. One of the commanders says to Larry, they are not sure they are going to be able to stop the fire. Larry says, you know, there have been way too many deaths today. How about we just pull the firefighting operation and save the firefighters that are around it and maybe inside. And the fire commanders made the decision to pull the firefighting operations, pulling the firefighters away from WTC7. A short while later, the building collapses. I see no where Larry quoting the fire commander about pulling it. The fire commander just said they are not sure they can save the building.

Now, if he ment "blow it up", then how on God's green Earth, did they manage to rig up explosives inside the WTC7, while it was burning, leaning, and slowly collapsing, all within maybe three-four hours? And without getting killed by the fires, or any of the explosives going off prematurely from the fires??

reply to post by GenRadek


There were no firefighters in the building at that time...

reply to post by GenRadek


I post links here so people can look at them. If you want to respond to my posts, please read the entirety of their contents.

Thanks so much.

THE AQUARIAN 1

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by gavron

 

I take it you didn't look at this link. That's fine.

I don't care what Larry Silverstein said, everyone and their mom knows what he meant.

The building was brought down. Plain and clear, in broad daylight.

O take it you did not look at my link either. That's fine.

www.jod911.com...

Assertion number 7.

The building was not brought down by demolitions. No evidence of it, and not enough time to rig it. Plain and simple.

reply to post by gavron


They wouldn't have rigged it on the day! Why do you keep bringing that up?

I looked at your link. It's an opinion piece, with zero relevancy.