WTC 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times


reply posted on 7-4-2008 @ 09:05 PM by talisman
reply to post by snoopy


How many skyscrapers do you know come down with an announcement before collapse?


reply posted on 7-4-2008 @ 09:11 PM by snoopy
Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by snoopy


How many skyscrapers do you know come down with an announcement before collapse?



How many skyscrapers have been hit by tons of falling debris from collapsing buildings? Are you saying that a rare event doesn't justify a rare result? This is not a valid argument. I asked for proof, not conjecture. Can you prove that it was a CD?

By your logic, if something doesn't happen for the first time, then it's not possible. And therefore all existence is not possible. Was the first building fire impossible because before that no building had ever burned?

Or perhaps you can show us some examples of other buildings that were of the same design and suffered the same damage and still survived? Because even if you did, it still would not prove a controlled demolition.

And more importantly the announcement of the collapse was by the firefighters who could clearly see that the building was in danger of collapse due to fire. Understandable considering the building had been burning all day long with no aid or water. All firefighters know that buildings under such conditions are destined to collapse. Common sense. The firefighters there at the scene when it was happening even went so far as to discuss this on camera.


reply posted on 7-4-2008 @ 09:12 PM by talisman
reply to post by beachnut


The problem with blaming *all* of the damage of building 7 on the collapse of the Towers, is that the South Tower collapsed right next to the North Tower and ejected its incredibly heavy steel right into the North Tower.

Yet, I don't see consistent damage to the North Tower from the South Tower~! Where are the gaping holes from this? We hear of some damage.
See my thread here as to not to go off topic here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Building 7 came done in way that even convinced a demolitions expert. It kept its shape while falling and had the "prophetic" announcement of its demise made by the BBC and EMP who said "THE BUILDING IS ABOUT TO BLOW UP".

Coming down looking like a controlled demolition is one thing, but to have people predicting the UNLIKELY collapse is entirely another!



reply posted on 7-4-2008 @ 09:15 PM by talisman
reply to post by snoopy


You point out all this damage that was done to building 7 by a random event. This *RANDOM* ejection caused what looked like a demolition. In other words, the planning that goes into controlled demolitions would never have to be used. Just blindly hit a building with enough material and start fires, according to this logic that your using, this would be sufficient for a controlled collapse! Not to mention people predicting the collapse.


[edit on 7-4-2008 by talisman]


reply posted on 7-4-2008 @ 09:17 PM by downtown436
reply to post by IvanZana

And this is the exact reason I became a "9/11 truther"!!!


reply posted on 7-4-2008 @ 09:22 PM by snoopy
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by snoopy
All firefighters know that buildings under such conditions are destined to collapse. Common sense. The firefighters there at the scene when it was happening even went so far as to discuss this on camera.


Can you back this up with precedence? Destined to collapse huh? Why do we even need Controlled Demolitions, Inc. then? You've just taken them out of business. You should start your own multimillion dollar company. Think of how much money you'd save compared to CDI. All you need is a crane with demolition ball, some kerosene and you're all set.

Yeah right.


Have you not seen the footage of the firefighters there as it was happening talking about it? I don't know how to search youtube for it, but I have seen it posted on this forum. They are pointing at WTC 7, talking about the fires, and saying that it's definitely going to come down. And that's why they decided to pull the firefighting effort. They all knew they couldn't save the building and they had already lost too many men. It wasn't worth it for a building they couldn't save. And countless firefighters form that day have talked about this in interviews. To them it's no contest.

Why do we need demolition companies? Because burning buildings all day long is not a reliable way to collapse a building. The whole point is to keep it controlled so it's safe and there is no damage to surrounding areas. While it may look nice and controlled from a low res small video clip on the internet, it was anything but that and a lot of surrounding buildings later had to be demolished form the damage caused by the collapse.

And again, could you point out a controlled demolition of a 47 story building?

And how about any demolition done using Thermite?

how about any physical evidence what so ever that shows WTC 7 was brought down with explosives?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 8 days ago with 13 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags