It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC lease holder admits WTC7 was intentionally demolished !

page: 19
0
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 07:37 AM
link   
"The Man from FEMA." Is that a sequel to "The Man from U.N.C.L.E.?"

Seriously, I think you are making WAY too much of of this.

Furthermore, I bet that you have never worked in a large high rise building either as a tenant, or in the construction trades. If you ever had, you would realize just how silly this idea is. It would be flat out impossible for someone to secretly "prewire" the building with explosives without someone getting suspicious. Not only that, there are many people that worked in the building, that survived, especially those that worked the night shifts. Where are they? Did TPTB secretly eliminate them as well as all of the passengers on the airplanes?

These 9/11 conspiracy theories keep getting wackier and wackier



(Eddid for fow spelllling and grammatical
)


[edit on 26-7-2004 by HowardRoark]




posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
yeah, it would be very interesting ... but I think, the twin towers, and the CIA secret base were wired at the time they were built, and they detonated them after the impacts. Of course, they knew where those planes will crash, in fact, the whole 911 events were well prepared thirty years ago. Therefore, it just had to happen. :-))))))



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 10:36 AM
link   
CIA secret base? Dont you mean the secret base of the A.O.G. that was wiped out when the fourth plane crashed into it in Pennsylvania? (and you though that it was just an empty field!)



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   
WTC 7 was a secret base of the CIA, and all their work was lost after the collapse. It was quite a chaos...



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Oh, yeah that secret base, well you see we had to do that. They had been taken over by the pod people.






Actually I heard that the whole 9/11 thing was a plot by Mayor Rudy Giuliani to thin out the ranks of veteran firefighters so that they could be replaced with cheaper recruits.

Sure it is an absurd theory, but I bet I can find someone to believe it. Proof, you ask, well just read this unbiased
report.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Perhaps, it is true...


But what about the theory, that people came back from the future? I heard a lot about that after the 911 events. Quite interesting, could be.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   
i just realised how funny this is. you party liners are, by denying conspiracy, ADMITTING that gross incompetency of EVERYONE is the problem. the architectects and engineers, (for building such 'weak' buildings, especially WTC7),the secret services(for not preventing it), the air traffic controllers, airport security, the military(for not responding in time), the secret service(for not 'protecting' the president once they realised there was a terrorist attack. he was in a known public place, and extra caution should have been taken immediately after the second strike to 'protect' him from the evil terrorists. however, he calmly finished his 'goat' book), and the press for not 'investigating' the appropriate stories that would have focused more collective will on 'the problem'(bad people with funny hats who 'hate our freedom'. that's what they choose to do with their obvious freedom, hate ours). quite the chain of 'failure'.
make you proud to be american? land of the fee, home of the braincell.

however, in the real world(ie. my mind), i know bush and the skull and bones/C.F.R./bildeberg/bohemian grove crew are responsible. it's obvious.

and to believe that a building whose major upgrade problem was asbestos, would be hurt by fire, .....HAHAHAHA.
the facts in this case aren't going anywhere. nor are the reams of video and photo evidence.

there are so many smoking guns, it looks like a western by quentin tarantino.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
however, in the real world(ie. my mind), i know bush and the skull and bones/C.F.R./bildeberg/bohemian grove crew are responsible. it's obvious.

The real world = your mind? The fantasy you wish to see?


There are smoking guns because you have predetermind guilt. You want to see things a certain way, therefore that is exactly what and how you will see it. Was it a foul up of major proportions? Absolutely. To think that all those events that caused the disaster must be some fantasy, and what you fantasize as the cause to be "reality" is quite a stretch.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by billybob
however, in the real world(ie. my mind), i know bush and the skull and bones/C.F.R./bildeberg/bohemian grove crew are responsible. it's obvious.

The real world = your mind? The fantasy you wish to see?


There are smoking guns because you have predetermind guilt. You want to see things a certain way, therefore that is exactly what and how you will see it. Was it a foul up of major proportions? Absolutely. To think that all those events that caused the disaster must be some fantasy, and what you fantasize as the cause to be "reality" is quite a stretch.


trust me. it's not how i want to see things. i would prefer that there were evil muslim western haters who have nothing better to do with their lives, than scheme for years on end to bring a hailstorm of reprisal munitions raining onto the heads of their families. however, that's living in a beautiful fantasy world of black and white, whereas the real world is shaded in murky greys. all the paper trails lead to my 'fantasy' world, where the bush family rigs elections(jeb bush) and buildings(marvin bush, head of WTC security). many have found the way. it's actually not hard, once you tune out the brainwashing machine, mass media, and focus on the true seekers out there.
the real world is my mind, as it is yours. the ultimate inescapable bias, 'i' is.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I do not know if this has been pointed out already in this thread, but after watching the last part of the video when the building is collasping I realized something. When the WTC buildings collasped, it was horrible. Debris was thrown through the air and the buildings were everywhere. With this building collapses, it seems to uniform, to graceful if you will. The bottom portion of the building looses supports in an instant causing the center of the building to collapse or implode causing the exterior of the upper portion to collapse. Seems to uniform and planned out to me.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 04:12 AM
link   
yeah, definately it is too methodical to be just a "collapse". Whoever planned this attack, he planned the collapse as well, and it has nothing to do with the airplanes hitting them.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Styxvolt
The bottom portion of the building looses supports in an instant causing the center of the building to collapse or implode causing the exterior of the upper portion to collapse. Seems to uniform and planned out to me.


I don't know what video you have been watching, but that is certainly NOT what I have sen.

The first collapse started as the perimeter columns of the south building gave way at the impact floor. The top of the building subsequently crashed straight down onto the lower portions. Not designed to withstand that great of a shock, they failed instantly, adding to the weight of the falling mass.

The second collapse started when the heavily damaged interior core columns in the impact/fire zone gave way. Once the collaspe started, the mass of concrete and steel had nowhere to go but straight down.

There was nothing unusual or strange about this.

That is the reality, not the paranoid fantasy that is playing through your head like a bad roadrunner cartoon.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Contrary to what was posted earlier on this thread, I have found that WTC was the first steel building ever to collapse due to damage by fire alone.
Thats right, the first and ONLY steel structure in the history of man to collapse due to fire.
Now, either it was intentionally brought down with pre-planted explosives, or it was a truely an act of God. A unique event that is unexplainable by modern science.
I dont know, maybe Larry was talking about the firefighters when he said 'pull it', but then again, why would he not say 'pull them'?

A couple of quotes and links 4 U-

Of particular interest to investigators is 7 World Trade Center, which is believed to have sustained little structural damage. It was the first fireproofed steel structure to collapse due to fire alone.

Taken from www.firehouse.com...
and

David Childs is a prominent New York architect who is working on the redevelopment of ground zero. He was an eyewitness to the disaster.

DAVID CHILDS, Architect: Well, I was shocked when they fell down, quite frankly. I was standing at the window when I saw this young man who works with me with this... this look of horror on his face, a very young man, and he said, "Will they fall down?" I said, "Absolutely not."

TOM BEARDEN: In fact, the entire architectural and engineering communities were stunned.

Taken from www.pbs.org...



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Between All the 19 pages of replies has anyone asked why did the Penthouse of world trade center build 7 Fall First if there was no pressure above it, (that would be impossible) and there was no fire to be seen directly below the penthouse?

Has anyone suggested the evacuation drills before 9/11 to be optimal times to plant explosives?

Has anyone wondered Why the steel structure said to have melted in the first two towers be the majority of the remains left at the site? Has anyone wondered why the steel segments found at the rubble to be almost the perfect size to be taken away in trucks?

Has anyone wondered why we would sell our scrap metal and clean up before we could conduct tests on the steel so that a "fire" disaster would never happen like this again?

Has anyone wondered how Rudy Guiliani knew the first two towers were going to collapse and did we ever find out who the source of his call was when he was inside tower 7?

If Firefighters were rushing into the building to put the fire out, wasn't it possible that the fire was almost put out before the building collapsed?

Has anyone wondered why the site burnt for so long similar to explosives?

Has anyone wondered why people reported explosions before the towers collapsed?

Has anyone seen the picture of two people peaking out of the gaping whole where one of the planes flew into? Did anyone ever wonder that if the fire was as big as reported, how did those people survive the initial impact?

Has anyone wondered why the fire ball at the Pentagon looked nothing like the fireball explosion at the world trade center?



[edit on 7-8-2004 by DetectivePerez]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DetectivePerez
Between All the 19 pages of replies has anyone asked why did the Penthouse of world trade center build 7 Fall First if there was no pressure above it, (that would be impossible) and there was no fire to be seen directly below the penthouse?


The entire building was pretty much burned out when it collapsed 7 hours after the firestarted. If the structural failure started in the core area under the penthouse, then yes, the first indication of the collapse would be the penthouse dropping into the building. The same thing happened in the collapse of the second WTC tower. The plane that struck this building penetrated straight into the structure and did massive damage to the core area. WHen this tower collapsed, the first signs were the when the antenna tower started to drop.



Has anyone suggested the evacuation drills before 9/11 to be optimal times to plant explosives?


???????

What are you talking about? Have you ever been inside of a high rise building filled with high profile tenants, many of whom had their own security systems etc. If you have, were the structural beams and columns readily accessible or were they hidden behind walls. That's right, they were behind walls, hidden in chases etc.




Has anyone wondered Why the steel structure said to have melted in the first two towers be the majority of the remains left at the site? Has anyone wondered why the steel segments found at the rubble to be almost the perfect size to be taken away in trucks?


Well if you actually bothered to read all 19 pages of this thread, you would have seen that the idea that the steel melted is wrong.


The steel segments were the right size to be carted away in trucks because that is the size that cut them into with the torches when they cleaned up the site. Furhtermore, that is also the size they were made back in the 1960's when the building was built. Have you ever driven by a high rise construction site? Did you notice all of the trucks with steel beams and columns lined up waiting to be unloaded?




Has anyone wondered why we would sell our scrap metal and clean up before we could conduct tests on the steel so that a "fire" disaster would never happen like this again?



In 1941 did we leave Pearl Harbor a smoldering mess for 5 years? no we went in there and raised the ships, salvaged what we could and moved on.




Has anyone wondered how Rudy Guiliani knew the first two towers were going to collapse and did we ever find out who the source of his call was when he was inside tower 7?



And your source for this information is?




If Firefighters were rushing into the building to put the fire out, wasn't it possible that the fire was almost put out before the building collapsed?



Some parts of the building were probably no longer burning because all of the available fuel, (jet fuel, airplane components, seats etc, decks, cubicles, plastic computer cases, file cabinets, carpeting, etc) had been burned up, the fire had moved up into other parts of the building. It doesn't matter, the buildings were doomed to collapse from the instant the planes hit. The fire hastened the collapse, but I think that even if there was no fire, the buildings would have eventually collapsed.




Has anyone wondered why the site burnt for so long similar to explosives?


And you are basing this observation on what/ Can you cite a similar case where explosives were used to demolish a building and it burned for weeks afterward?





Has anyone wondered why people reported explosions before the towers collapsed?



There have been no credible reports of explosions. Nothing to substantiate those claims has ever been found on any of the thousands of hours of video and audio tapes of the collapse.




Has anyone seen the picture of two people peaking out of the gaping whole where one of the planes flew into? Did anyone ever wonder that if the fire was as big as reported, how did those people survive the initial impact?



Like I said, the fire hastened the collapse by weakening the already mortally damaged structure.





Has anyone wondered why the fire ball at the Pentagon looked nothing like the fireball explosion at the world trade center?



A fireball is a fireball. What are you talking about?



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I'm sure many of you have heard about the mystery of building 7 on 9/11. For those of you who have not, I'll explain as concisely as I can.

After the major attacks on 9/11, we all probably remember that additional buildings went down in the WTC complex in addition to building 1 and 2. These others were explained to have fallen due to damage sustained as a result of the two towers collapsing. However, if you research the events behind building 7 and its collapse specifically, this explanation is obviously false.

Like the towers, bdg 7 was a steel framed structure and had not received any blows or explosions. However, some small fires had started on a couple floors, no doubt because of some fuel or burning debris that flew in from the towers. Despite the fact of a lack of damage and strong structure, building 7 collapsed. Again, although there were those fires on a couple floors, that obviously would not cause the whole thing to come down.

In the face of speculation and questioning as to why this happened, officials involved with clean-up/investigation/explaining events to the public simply said that, "oh, well it came down because we 'pulled' it." (term used by demolition industry describing the controlled demolition of a building) Proof of this explanation coming out is in a DVD documentary about 9/11 produced by CNN, or PBS (one or the other). In it, Silverstein, the then lease owner of the whole complex describes the fall of building 7 because many people were wondering why it happened. In this DVD, he is interviewed as saying that the building was on fire, and he and others weren't sure that they could contain it, and that there had already been such awful loss of life, that the smartest thing to do would be to just pull it. And so that's what they did. They brought it down with demolitions. So there is no doubt that this was the official explanation of how and why the building went down, at least for awhile.

(To see this interview and video of the collapse, you can watch: 911 - In Plane Site. Also I believe you can view the footage at www.infowars.com)

And with this explanation inlies the BIG problem of why this is obviously NOT the truth of why the building collapsed.

Problem 1 - There were fires on a few floors. There is absolute evidence of this because you can clearly see it burning as it was captured on video. Only a few of the upper floors have problems. On the video, it shows the floors that were burning, right before it collapses, and then shows the actual collapse. So first of all, why would you demolish yet another building in ADDITION to the others that fell down just because of a small fire?

Problem 2 - A bigger problem here. Any person with half a brain would know that you don't go running into buildings setting up explosives and wiring them all up when it's on FIRE! That would be suicide. If parts of the building are burning, you can't set bombs in there without them going off while you're inside.

Problem 3 - And here's the real kicker. This problem alone, shows that Silverstein and the others did not speak the truth. To execute a controlled demolition, it takes WEEKS to set up, if not MONTHS. The building must be assessed for blueprints, floorplans, weakpoints, structural materials. Types of explosives must then be determined and then obtained and then set up THROUGHOUT the building strategically. They all must be properly wired together so they all go off in whatever pattern the demolitioner desires. And so IF 9/11 was "a surprise attack" to everyone, including officials, obviously, they would not be planning to take down the building before that actual day. Therefore, that means that, since they decided at some point in the day to pull it AFTER the attacks and collapses, we're talking about that in a matter of hours, they would have abrubtly decided to march in there, set it all up with explosives, and take it down in a clean implosion. And that's what the video shows. A clean implosion. We're not talking about throwing some plastiques throught the ground level front door and running for it before it blows up all over the place. This was a calculated, clean take down.

So, what does this all imply??? That either A) Silverstein was only lying and they really didn't pull it, and it was just the fire on the upper couple floors that brought the building down. B) A team actually went in their on moments notice and set it all up with impossible speeds and planning amidst the FIRE in a matter of a few hours. Or C) (and most likely) The fact that it went down so clean, and it went down WITHOUT being damaged by a plane or any large projectiles, indicates that the demolitions had ALREADY been place AHEAD of time BEFORE 9/11. In fact, it had been planned WEEKS ahead of time just like every other building has to! And what does THAT imply? That some people (gov officials and silverstein) KNEW that 9/11 was going to happen and that they would be ready to take building 7 down after the attacks! And THAT leads to circumstantial evidence that the towers may have been rigged as well! There is also testimony and HARD evidence that the towers were rigged in addition to this circumstantial evidence we can derive from building 7.

After some people knew that this official explanation of building 7 couldn't be accurate, it prompted more questions as to what happened. Authorities have since refused to discuss the issue. Obviously, Silverstein blundered big in the interview by offering this explanation.

For those of you who aren't sure whether a team REALLY needs tons of time to successfully take down a building, I have taken the liberty to do some research and verify that it DOES take WEEKS for myself. After all, I wanted to remove all doubts about this mystery so I could be sure about it before I go telling everyone about this. I emailed several demolition experts that I found on different sites on the net. In the email, I asked if it were possilbe to conduct a demolition in the span of a few hours and listed certain specific circumstances that mirrored the circumstances of buildings 7 and its collapse. I never mentioned building 7 in the email, but funny enough, I get a reply back, and he must of known EXACTLY what I was trying to get at. Here's my email and the reply I got:

ME

> Hello,
>
> As far as I've ever heard, controlled demolitions take a long time and a
lot
> of planning to set up and execute. Is this true, and in all situations?
> Besides planning the types of explosives to use, and where to place them,
are
> there any other variables that make controlled demolition a slow process?
> Like getting a liscence to do it in a certain area, or permission from the
> people around the area?
>
> I was also wondering if it were possible AT ALL, to conduct a controlled
> demolition in a few hours. For example, if some experts abruptly and
> spontaneously decided to bring down a building one day, with no prior
thought
> or planning, could they do it whatsoever in a few hours? What if they:
>
> -Had the blueprints of the building handy to look at
> -Didn't have to worry too much about damaging buildings around them
> -The area was already cleared of people
> -But the collapse was a perfect implosion
>
> Is this possible? Also, do demolition squads/companies (such as you) have
> stocks of different kinds of explosives, or must they be ordered or
assembled
> on a per job basis? How quickly can they be obtained or used?
>
> I would really really appreciate it if you could help me out on this
> information, as I'm doing some research on this subject. Thank you.


HIS REPLY

Not knowing the footprint and area of your building, it is hard to give a
precise answer. But lets use WTC Bldg. #7 at Ground Zero as an example.
No, there is no way a steel building over 40 stories with that large of a
footprint could be loaded and prepared in hours (maybe a concrete building,
but it probably would not collapse completely).

A 40-story steel tower-type structure, however, could be loaded and shot in
that timeframe. It's a question of pre-burning and preparation. If you
don't prepare the columns properly, the blast will simply shoot backwards
(path of least resistance) and put a small black mark, or at best a dent, in
the column. I have seen inexperienced blasters prove this hypothesis
several times.

We'll be touching on this more in our follow-up to 9/11, set to be posted in
the next couple of weeks. Check our 9/11 page next month, and you may be
able to apply some principles we explain to your specific building.

Regards,

Brent Blanchard
www.implosionworld.com


As you can see, this further confirms the shady goings on for building 7, and therefore, for the whole complex on 9/11 and the attacks as a whole on 9/11. I didn't want to rely just on some guy from a video and his opinions. But let me tell, now that I have verified this(and I've emailed many other sources just an hour or so ago, so I'm hoping for even more insight) what I suspected, is now something that I believe and it is very disturbing. The fact that the governments explanation was deceitful, lends suspicion to the fact that they have been involved. And who exactly isn't for sure, but I certainly don't mean the WHOLE government was in on this. But certain figures. Those in the CIA and FBI. Possibly the State Department or what have you. That is debatable, but the facts above, however are not.

I just wanted to really share with you all the whole controversy, and also what I was able to find out. I think this should be considered by everyone. Please, I welcome any thoughts, comments, or questions. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   
so many threads, so little time...



www.abovetopsecret.com...


It is my opinion and belief, listen closley now, I'm pretty sure that I'm right...

There is no controversy about the WTC buildings falling.. no bombs, no intentional explosions... it was a terrorist attack and the planes hitting the buildings and burning, caused the buildings to fall.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   
closing thread



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Like the towers, bdg 7 was a steel framed structure and had not received any blows or explosions. However, some small fires had started on a couple floors, no doubt because of some fuel or burning debris that flew in from the towers. Despite the fact of a lack of damage and strong structure, building 7 collapsed. Again, although there were those fires on a couple floors, that obviously would not cause the whole thing to come down.

In the face of speculation and questioning as to why this happened, officials involved with clean-up/investigation/explaining events to the public simply said that, "oh, well it came down because we 'pulled' it." (term used by demolition industry describing the controlled demolition of a building) Proof of this explanation coming out is in a DVD documentary about 9/11 produced by CNN, or PBS (one or the other). In it, Silverstein, the then lease owner of the whole complex describes the fall of building 7 because many people were wondering why it happened. In this DVD, he is interviewed as saying that the building was on fire, and he and others weren't sure that they could contain it, and that there had already been such awful loss of life, that the smartest thing to do would be to just pull it. And so that's what they did. They brought it down with demolitions. So there is no doubt that this was the official explanation of how and why the building went down, at least for awhile.

(To see this interview and video of the collapse, you can watch: 911 - In Plane Site. Also I believe you can view the footage at www.infowars.com)

And with this explanation inlies the BIG problem of why this is obviously NOT the truth of why the building collapsed.

Problem 1 - There were fires on a few floors. There is absolute evidence of this because you can clearly see it burning as it was captured on video. Only a few of the upper floors have problems. On the video, it shows the floors that were burning, right before it collapses, and then shows the actual collapse. So first of all, why would you demolish yet another building in ADDITION to the others that fell down just because of a small fire?

Problem 2 - A bigger problem here. Any person with half a brain would know that you don't go running into buildings setting up explosives and wiring them all up when it's on FIRE! That would be suicide. If parts of the building are burning, you can't set bombs in there without them going off while you're inside.

Problem 3 - And here's the real kicker. This problem alone, shows that Silverstein and the others did not speak the truth. To execute a controlled demolition, it takes WEEKS to set up, if not MONTHS. The building must be assessed for blueprints, floorplans, weakpoints, structural materials. Types of explosives must then be determined and then obtained and then set up THROUGHOUT the building strategically. They all must be properly wired together so they all go off in whatever pattern the demolitioner desires. And so IF 9/11 was "a surprise attack" to everyone, including officials, obviously, they would not be planning to take down the building before that actual day. Therefore, that means that, since they decided at some point in the day to pull it AFTER the attacks and collapses, we're talking about that in a matter of hours, they would have abrubtly decided to march in there, set it all up with explosives, and take it down in a clean implosion. And that's what the video shows. A clean implosion. We're not talking about throwing some plastiques throught the ground level front door and running for it before it blows up all over the place. This was a calculated, clean take down.

So, what does this all imply??? That either A) Silverstein was only lying and they really didn't pull it, and it was just the fire on the upper couple floors that brought the building down. B) A team actually went in their on moments notice and set it all up with impossible speeds and planning amidst the FIRE in a matter of a few hours. Or C) (and most likely) The fact that it went down so clean, and it went down WITHOUT being damaged by a plane or any large projectiles, indicates that the demolitions had ALREADY been place AHEAD of time BEFORE 9/11. In fact, it had been planned WEEKS ahead of time just like every other building has to! And what does THAT imply? That some people (gov officials and silverstein) KNEW that 9/11 was going to happen and that they would be ready to take building 7 down after the attacks! And THAT leads to circumstantial evidence that the towers may have been rigged as well! There is also testimony and HARD evidence that the towers were rigged in addition to this circumstantial evidence we can derive from building 7.

After some people knew that this official explanation of building 7 couldn't be accurate, it prompted more questions as to what happened. Authorities have since refused to discuss the issue. Obviously, Silverstein blundered big in the interview by offering this explanation.

For those of you who aren't sure whether a team REALLY needs tons of time to successfully take down a building, I have taken the liberty to do some research and verify that it DOES take WEEKS for myself. After all, I wanted to remove all doubts about this mystery so I could be sure about it before I go telling everyone about this. I emailed several demolition experts that I found on different sites on the net. In the email, I asked if it were possilbe to conduct a demolition in the span of a few hours and listed certain specific circumstances that mirrored the circumstances of buildings 7 and its collapse. I never mentioned building 7 in the email, but funny enough, I get a reply back, and he must of known EXACTLY what I was trying to get at. Here's my email and the reply I got:

ME

> Hello,
>
> As far as I've ever heard, controlled demolitions take a long time and a
lot
> of planning to set up and execute. Is this true, and in all situations?
> Besides planning the types of explosives to use, and where to place them,
are
> there any other variables that make controlled demolition a slow process?
> Like getting a liscence to do it in a certain area, or permission from the
> people around the area?
>
> I was also wondering if it were possible AT ALL, to conduct a controlled
> demolition in a few hours. For example, if some experts abruptly and
> spontaneously decided to bring down a building one day, with no prior
thought
> or planning, could they do it whatsoever in a few hours? What if they:
>
> -Had the blueprints of the building handy to look at
> -Didn't have to worry too much about damaging buildings around them
> -The area was already cleared of people
> -But the collapse was a perfect implosion
>
> Is this possible? Also, do demolition squads/companies (such as you) have
> stocks of different kinds of explosives, or must they be ordered or
assembled
> on a per job basis? How quickly can they be obtained or used?
>
> I would really really appreciate it if you could help me out on this
> information, as I'm doing some research on this subject. Thank you.


HIS REPLY

Not knowing the footprint and area of your building, it is hard to give a
precise answer. But lets use WTC Bldg. #7 at Ground Zero as an example.
No, there is no way a steel building over 40 stories with that large of a
footprint could be loaded and prepared in hours (maybe a concrete building,
but it probably would not collapse completely).

A 40-story steel tower-type structure, however, could be loaded and shot in
that timeframe. It's a question of pre-burning and preparation. If you
don't prepare the columns properly, the blast will simply shoot backwards
(path of least resistance) and put a small black mark, or at best a dent, in
the column. I have seen inexperienced blasters prove this hypothesis
several times.

We'll be touching on this more in our follow-up to 9/11, set to be posted in
the next couple of weeks. Check our 9/11 page next month, and you may be
able to apply some principles we explain to your specific building.

Regards,

Brent Blanchard
www.implosionworld.com


As you can see, this further confirms the shady goings on for building 7, and therefore, for the whole complex on 9/11 and the attacks as a whole on 9/11. I didn't want to rely just on some guy from a video and his opinions. But let me tell, now that I have verified this(and I've emailed many other sources just an hour or so ago, so I'm hoping for even more insight) what I suspected, is now something that I believe and it is very disturbing. The fact that the governments explanation was deceitful, lends suspicion to the fact that they have been involved. And who exactly isn't for sure, but I certainly don't mean the WHOLE government was in on this. But certain figures. Those in the CIA and FBI. Possibly the State Department or what have you. That is debatable, but the facts above, however are not.

I just wanted to really share with you all what I was able to find out. I think this should be considered by everyone. Please, I welcome any thoughts, comments, or questions. Thanks.


LL1

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Here's a video on the subject of "pull-it" for WTC 7:

www.prisonplanet.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join