WTC-7 demo blasts on Video!!

A short but clear video on the prison planet site (alex Jones), showing clearly visible charges coming from corners of upper floors of WTC-7. Surprisingly the charges start below and move up in sequence as seen in the video. The best evidence yet for the demolition argument at WTC-7 itself and may indicate what happened at the twin towers.

WTC-7 demo charges on video!

See it and believe it!!

Actually thats just where the building is tearing. If that was smoke/debris from explosives then it would hang in the air not fall with the building.

im almost positive this video was debated elsewhere on ats..

Those are definitely blast points, if it was the building tearing it would happen at the same time, not one after the other. Close your blinds and you will see what i mean. Buildings don't tear just so you know, its not like they're made out of paper.

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
Those are definitely blast points, if it was the building tearing it would happen at the same time, not one after the other. Close your blinds and you will see what i mean. Buildings don't tear just so you know, its not like they're made out of paper.

Then please explain why the puffs do not hang in the air. I mean I know there would be some pull from the falling building but that should be noticable still. And buildings do breaks apart and tear when theyre are collapsing.

Not clear on why the smoke would hang in the air as you suggest? These look like small cutting charges inserted in the corners to weaken one side of the building.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Not clear on why the smoke would hang in the air as you suggest?

Kick up some dust outside... does the dust settle back down to the ground at the speed of that in the video? The 'dust' is falling as fast as a building and it's supposed to be far less dense.

man.. so much of this has been broadcasted on national television and you guys try to judge what happened on the basis of this kind of video-material? All I see is a vague corner of a building.. can't even recognize it, could be some other building even, so vague...

And then some kind of blurry thing happens, as the camera moves up, at the same speed as the camera.. sure it's not a light/shadow effect?

Just looking from a fresh perspective, since I did not investigate any of the video material ever since, and i feel everyone is looking eagerly for a way to prove this was setup by the american government. Wich is an utterly disturbing fact. Not that I think the american government is crazy enough to do such a thing.. I'm talking about the people who are putting this complot together. Just my opinion.

just for the record, the camera is not moving. this is a zoomed in portion of a larger video.

the dust which travels up the building on the wall facing the camera, DOES hang in the air, and has most certainly been blasted out of the building.

the corner squibs are weird. maybe they are just shadows, because i agree, dust should fall at the same rate as a building, unless there is some kind of VACUUM inside the building.

I'm not an engineer but I've talked to a few about this issue.

There are all kinds of professional and amatuer photographs that have been taken and passed around in the engineering and scholar circles and in the case of the WTC 1 , WTC2 and WTC 7 you can clearly see what demolitionists call a Squib (sp ?)

It's a term they use for when the charge blows out.

Here's another piece of information that you can check up on and that is a Security Guard who gave testimony to the 9/11 Commission which was completely ignored was that on the weekend before 9/11 there was a power outage, security was down and sniffer dogs were even removed for the duration of the 18 hour power down. That was Sept 8th.

Supposedly engineers were sent in but since there's alot of video footage out there registering fairly sizable explosions 30 seconds before each building collapsed the whole story off the 9/11 attack is sketchy at best.

God, Silverstein said right on TV

I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure if they could contain the fire and I said we had such terrible loss of life and smartest thing to do was pull it and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse

that says right there that it was explosives (controlled demolition) that brought building 7 down,so the real question should be:

Did they have time to plant explosives and demolish building 7 on 9/11?

If they didn't then the explosives must of been planted before the attacks happened which Proves it was an inside job but if they did have time then it should put an end to the building 7 conspircy.

One thing that I don't understand is that if Building 7 was so much on fire that "they were not sure if they could contain the fire" then how could they put the explosives in the building to "pull it"? doesn't that contradict itself?

[edit on 8-4-2006 by thecry]

[edit on 8-4-2006 by thecry]

It is the air being forced out the windows as the floors collapse.

Furthermore, If you have ever witnessed a real building implosion, the charges go off before the building starts to drop, not after the building starts to drop.

well Howard you can find videos where explosions can be heard before the buildings start to drop. Seismologists picked up the explosions before th buildings fell.

You can clearly see the Squib's before the buildings fall. It's an obvious controlled demolition.

If there wasn't explosives planted in the building then the second tower should have fallen over with the 50th floors and below still standing.

It's just completely obvious that the trade towers were controlled demolitions. It's painfully obvious when you compare them to videos of other controlled demolitions. And on top of that the engineering community is starting to really scream about this issue that it was controlled demolitions.

Turn off your foxnews buddy your sucked in.

Having been an explosive and demolitions expert in the British Army (Infantary) i would definitely say that these are explosions. I have seen many a similar thing and have set them up myself many times.

Just my say though

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It is the air being forced out the windows as the floors collapse.

Makes about as much sense as it does when you apply it to WTC1 and 2.

You can't even begin to claim that the buildings were air tight, and yet when a couple floors collapse, enough pressure is somehow built up within the rest of the buildings that huge streams of powdered debris blow out laterally.

This issue is far from resolved if you're claiming air was the culprit. We need evidence of this.

Furthermore, If you have ever witnessed a real building implosion, the charges go off before the building starts to drop, not after the building starts to drop.

No; charges can be, and typically are, set off at different times.

Sequence for a typical implosion:



And further, the charges can be timed to go off in whatever order they're needed to. Setting delays with anything using electronics is old technology. Ever seen a digital clock, Howard?

Originally posted by thesaint
Having been an explosive and demolitions expert in the British Army (Infantary) i would definitely say that these are explosions. I have seen many a similar thing and have set them up myself many times.

There you go, Howard. And much more relevant than a structural engineer's opinion on this.

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
Seismologists picked up the explosions before th buildings fell.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong,

Been debated, been proven wrong.

A pretty good explanation of the seismic falacy, although I don't agree with thier ultimate conclusion


www.911review.com...

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by thesaint
Having been an explosive and demolitions expert in the British Army (Infantary) i would definitely say that these are explosions. I have seen many a similar thing and have set them up myself many times.

There you go, Howard. And much more relevant than a structural engineer's opinion on this.

Yeah, right.



I'd need a lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot more than that to convince me.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I'd need a lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot more than that to convince me.

Well I would need a lot more from you, like the evidence that those blasts were air expulsions that I just asked for, as an example.

And I thought your job here was to convince everyone else that nothing odd happened?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by thesaint
Having been an explosive and demolitions expert in the British Army (Infantary) i would definitely say that these are explosions. I have seen many a similar thing and have set them up myself many times.

There you go, Howard. And much more relevant than a structural engineer's opinion on this.

Yeah, right.

I'd need a lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot more than that to convince me.

perhaps a long series of treason charges and executions for the crime of treason will wake you up to the possibilities.