PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by thedman


I find it hard to believe they would explode upwards, nor that quickly either, i can see where your coming from , if the pressure was mounting on the lower floors they would expand outwards.

Also if you look closely, they do not explode right up to the top, they stop at the same floor, where you see the bulding's blowing out from the opposite side of the building.

^^ another thing i noticed.

Originally posted by torontoguy123
Theres no reason why that building should of collapsed and when you consider what kind of information that building would of contained, it makes it even more suspicious.

WTC 7 had already suffered a significant amount of damage from debris from when the plane hit the North Tower and also when the North Tower collapsed. There was no way that building could have stayed standing while suffering the damage that it did.

Originally posted by Junkheap
WTC 7 had already suffered a significant amount of damage from debris from when the plane hit the North Tower and also when the North Tower collapsed. There was no way that building could have stayed standing while suffering the damage that it did.

And there is no way any asymmetrical damage can cause a building to fall into its own footprint...

Originally posted by ANOK


And there is no way any asymmetrical damage can cause a building to fall into its own footprint...

NIST concluded that the damage did not play a significant role in the collapse. So, you may be correct.

The damage did, however allow the fires to spread from floor to floor much easier.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by ANOK


And there is no way any asymmetrical damage can cause a building to fall into its own footprint...

NIST concluded that the damage did not play a significant role in the collapse. So, you may be correct.

The damage did, however allow the fires to spread from floor to floor much easier.

edit on 15-6-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

Sigh, fire also can not cause a symmetrical collapse into its footprint.

Try again?

reply to post by ANOK


What rough percentage of the building's mass do you think fell outside its footprint? Just as a matter of interest.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I want to know this too, ANOK. At what point does "inside its own footprint" become false. I mean some of a building is practically bound to come to rest inside its footprint, so that wouldn't tell us much. It obviously didn't all land inside its own footprint, so that can't be what you mean. So I'd like to hear this nailed down.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

I want to know this too, ANOK. At what point does "inside its own footprint" become false.

Maybe you can help by citing your own definition.

Anybody who can look at that picture and think that for all intents and purposes all did fall in the footprint must be some kind of blind.

Yeah, so maybe if you pile sand grains on top of each other not all of them will land up in one single stack above the point where they were dropped. Big whoop.

Please explain though how you can look at that image and see anything but what ANOK sees, to anything but a stupidly (i.e. deliberately pig-headedly) over-extended degree of precision.

reply to post by Darkwing01


I want to know what people who use the term mean when they use it. Do you know a better way than to ask them?
I don't think so. The question stands.

Originally posted by Darkwing01

Anybody who can look at that picture and think that for all intents and purposes all did fall in the footprint must be some kind of blind.

Can't disagree with that really.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by ANOK


And there is no way any asymmetrical damage can cause a building to fall into its own footprint...

NIST concluded that the damage did not play a significant role in the collapse. So, you may be correct.

The damage did, however allow the fires to spread from floor to floor much easier.

edit on 15-6-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

Sigh, fire also can not cause a symmetrical collapse into its footprint.

Try again?

Well the fact it did on 911 proves you wrong, you think the sky's red too? lol

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Well the fact it did on 911 proves you wrong, you think the sky's red too? lol

LOL that is not a good argument. That's like saying Jesus is real because the Bible says so.

There is no proof that any building on 911 fell from natural causes, do you not even understand the argument that's been going on for ten years?

No building has ever, or can ever, fall into it's own footprint from asymmetrical damage and fires. Pancake collapse can happen, but none of the WTC buildings show evidence of this. They all show that there had to be another energy acting on them in order to overcome resistance and momentum conservation. So no you can not include them in the 'no building has fell into its footprint, or steel building globally collapse, from fire'.

C'mon man get a clue and go learn something before you attempt to blindly dismiss it. You're no different to the other OSers, you support the OS first and then try to find argument to support your belief. Pretty much the same way the NIST report was created, find a reason for a pre-decided conclusion.

whoever argues this

is a Globalist

reply to post by rush969


I've got an update for you. This fellow is my hero.

Swoon!

www.youtube.com...