WTC 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

I have some serious questions that make me doubt many, if not all the CT's regarding 9/11.

Here are only two of them:

Is it possible to consider the fact that the reason a lot of information has not been disclosed (such as the pentagon tape) is due to national security reasons, or maybe even the powers that be playing a little CYA because of their negligence of handling the entire situation?

Let's suppose people are correct when they claim WTC-7 did not collpase due to the reason we were given. How does anybody know that there weren't indeed explosives in the building smuggled in by terrorists, and that the government may have decided to get everybody out and let the building come down? And they have not disclosed this because it exposes vulnerability in our entire security process in the U.S.? I am sure many will say this is crazy, but we have to consider all possibilities.

One of the biggest questions I have regarding all the theories of our government being involved in 9/11 is due to simple human nature...What I mean is if 9/11 was an, "inside job," it would have HAD to have been a HUGE cover-up from many people with knowledge in the highest ranks of our government, to news media, law enforcement, etc.

Thousands of people would have either have to have been involved, or found out information after the fact that 100% would prove this. One of the traits of human nature is that many people like to talk and can't keep secrets, even with their life on the line.

If 9/11 was an inside job, nobody finds it odd that no people from all the people that would have had to be involved at some level have not come out to say, "o.k., I admit it. The government staged 9/11 and xyz was my role?" As far as I know this has not occurred. If 1 "legitimate" claim was made I would also think that others would feel encouraged to also disclose this information.

I am not trying to put down anybody's views here, so please no bashing. I am genuinely interested in the responses, especially to my last question.

How in the world could that many people hide a conspiracy of that magnitude? I mean even somebody telling their spouse>their spouse telling a friend>Their friend telling friends>on and on....???


[edit on 8-4-2008 by Comsence2075]

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Comsence2075]

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Comsence2075]

no such demolition happened. anyone who thinks a building rigged completely with explosives and wires but that they would not ignite after the building was on fire for 8 hours until they were set off by charge is refusing to use ration in my opinion. yes it WAS on fire for 8 hours, yes they were intense fires, yes they would have ignited any TNT planted in the building.

it takes a team of men a month to rig a building like this for demo. including tearing the walls down to exposes the columns, drilling holes with heavy equipment, placing the TNT and rigging the wires. laughable if you think that happened leading up to 911. i suppose they put the walls back together before anyone noticed right? IMPOSSIBLE.

here is an explanation given by experts: www.structuremag.org...

fires + 13 stories with a large section scooped out from WTC1 falling into it and severe corner damage caused the building to collapse.

FIRES


MIDDLE SCOOPED OUT (you can see the structure already buckling)


CORNER DAMAGE


CASE CLOSED.




[edit on 8-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

and Comsence2075 brings up an excellent point that i have said before. even if it was demo'd (which it was not), how do you know that terrorists did not do it and how do you conclude the gov't did it??? we know 19 al-qaida terrorists hijacked the planes. so why don't you conclude they did it?
because common sense is being thrown out the window.

in addition, you will notice the videos posted by the maker of this thread dont show any footage from right before the WTC7 collapsed, they all start after it is in the motion of falling. thats because the truthers leave that out, BECAUSE THERE IS NO SOUND OF EXPLOSIONS AS A REAL DEMOLITION WOULD INCLUDE. but he posts a picture of a building and says it is evidence of a demo because it fell in 8 seconds. nothing he shows supports that if the building collapsed due to damage (which it did) it would take longer than 8 seconds. that is the rationale of the truthers.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
and Comsence2075 brings up an excellent point that i have said before. even if it was demo'd (which it was not), how do you know that terrorists did not do it and how do you conclude the gov't did it??? we know 19 al-qaida terrorists hijacked the planes. so why don't you conclude they did it?
because common sense is being thrown out the window.

How can a 19 terrorists rig a building, with its security, cameras, visitors, employees, to plant explosives in the internal structure of the building. Those explosives were pretty big to bring down a buildng like that.

The only people with that kind of access is yes The Government Themselves

if you read my post from before on the third page, this would make more sence.

Are these 'debunkers' for real? Im having a difficult time believing that you actually believe in your 'no explosives' arguement. Are you just glossing over the facts and fitting things into your mind in a comfy manner so you wont be scared of big brother? I seriously dont get it.

What about the wtc workers who for weeks leading up to the event werent allowed to go into their offices because of outside workers who were 'retrofitting' the buildings?

You say it would take weeks to rig the explosives, well you are right.

And what about personal testimony by emt workers who actually heard the explosives themselves?

www.prisonplanet.com...

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

algoxy.com...

I am not here to convince anyone of anything, my only purpose here is to present evidence to those who may not be aware of such (seems like alot of people these days). If you dont want to believe the evidence presented to you thats ok, but to say that we dont know what we are talking about is just plain wrong.

Boy o boy o boy


Is that LEG PULLING that's going on? It must be right?


" it takes a team of men a month to rig a building like this for demo. including tearing the walls down to exposes the columns, drilling holes with heavy equipment, placing the TNT and rigging the wires."

EXACTLY!!!!!

I'd love to say more, but from what I've seen on opinions, people either see the lie or they go along with the lie, there's not alot of fence sitting going on.
I just wish I knew how to expose the ILLUSION to those who can't see it. I've tried really hard too, [ other threads at other times ] and so have a lot of others here So effort is not the key, the key to unlock the closed mind, that thinks it is not closed, remains hidden.

WOW!!

People really can brainwash themselves.

Now I know where to go to collect my nuts for next winter.

You people sound like you're in a cult.

But hey if thats what you believe-------

WOW!

To pull off this alleged demolition job had to have taken quite a few people.

MORE than quite a few.

And NOT ONE has come forward with undeniable evidence?

Don't you think the media would kill for a story like that?

Of course they would.

Don't you think investigative reporters were ALL OVER that angle?

Of course they were.

But they would also make damn sure that it was true first.

They haven't.

They never will.

Because there is NO serious PROOF!

Just talk.

And people WILL talk.

Thats my point.

I am glad we all agree the WTC 7 was brought down with engineers and explosives.



Here is some pictures to show you how small the rubble pile was and how little damage to surrounding buildings





IN this next picture. Government coverup and disnformationalists will say that the builiding was heavily damaged and also had a raging fire.

ALL LIES.

You should all be suspicious of these new users coming on regurgitating government disinformation about 911.

DOnt ever let anyone convince you otherwise that WTC 7 was anything but a controlled demolition.



What caused the building to fall into a nice little pile?

How come the buildings feet away suffered little damage?

How can a building falled in such a controlled manner without the use of some controlled demolition?

(we all know it was a controlled demoltion) But its late and we can use a little entertainment, soo....

Entertain us with your magical theories on how WTC 7 was brought down with anything but CONTROLLED DEMOLTIONS.




[edit on 8-4-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
and Comsence2075 brings up an excellent point that i have said before. even if it was demo'd (which it was not), how do you know that terrorists did not do it and how do you conclude the gov't did it??? we know 19 al-qaida terrorists hijacked the planes. so why don't you conclude they did it?
because common sense is being thrown out the window.

Actually, I have never accused the US government of anything other than covering up the truth. So, yes I am open to others doing it.

Have you looked into Who Signed Sakher Hammad's
WTC Basement Level Pass?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Someone who claimed to have the pass to do sprinkler work. Unfortunately, the Port Authority did it's own sprinkler work. I wonder if that's why I can't find any trace of the permits that would have been issued?

Originally posted by IvanZana
I am glad we all agree the WTC 7 was brought down with engineers and explosives.



Here is some pictures to show you how small the rubble pile was and how little damage to surrounding buildings

IN this next picture. Government coverup and disnformationalists will say that the builiding was heavily damaged and also had a raging fire.

ALL LIES.

You should all be suspicious of these new users coming on regurgitating government disinformation about 911.

DOnt ever let anyone convince you otherwise that WTC 7 was anything but a controlled demolition.



What caused the building to fall into a nice little pile?

How come the buildings feet away suffered little damage?

How can a building falled in such a controlled manner without the use of some controlled demolition?

(we all know it was a controlled demoltion) But its late and we can use a little entertainment, soo....

Entertain us with your magical theories on how WTC 7 was brought down with anything but CONTROLLED DEMOLTIONS.




[edit on 8-4-2008 by IvanZana]

i already showed you above that you are wrong, the building had massive damage, you just cant bring yourself to look at it.

video exists of the building falling. all you have to do is post on of them where explosions from a controlled demolition are audible. NO, NO EXPLOSIONS.

and for the footprint, buildings like that dont fall to the side. you are offering no structural evidence that a building that fell due to damage would destroy other buildings. it fell onto itself, due to structural damage and fire, as shown above. tell us how explosives would not ignite under fire. tell us why a huge gap scooped out and the building is tipping would have nothing to do with it?

[edit on 8-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

[edit on 8-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
and Comsence2075 brings up an excellent point that i have said before. even if it was demo'd (which it was not), how do you know that terrorists did not do it and how do you conclude the gov't did it??? we know 19 al-qaida terrorists hijacked the planes. so why don't you conclude they did it?
because common sense is being thrown out the window.

Actually, I have never accused the US government of anything other than covering up the truth. So, yes I am open to others doing it.

Have you looked into Who Signed Sakher Hammad's
WTC Basement Level Pass?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Someone who claimed to have the pass to do sprinkler work. Unfortunately, the Port Authority did it's own sprinkler work. I wonder if that's why I can't find any trace of the permits that would have been issued?

so i guess you have no response to my post above regarding how explosives would not ignite in a building that has major fires. or any other part of the thread.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
so i guess you have no response to my post above regarding how explosives would not ignite in a building that has major fires. or any other part of the thread.

Please point out where I have difinatively said that it was explosives. Please, because I must have forgotten that post.

Let me ask. Would a raging fire ignite preplaced thermite on horizontal bracing?

Thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These temperatures cannot be reached with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, a suitable pyrotechnic initiator, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature.

en.wikipedia.org...

That's interesting about the propane torch and how thermite can explode. Maybe that could account for some of the explosions heard? Thermite exploding from the fires? Possible?

[edit on 4/8/2008 by Griff]

Griff, so what are you suggesting as to how WTC7 fell and what evidence do you support it with?

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
Griff, so what are you suggesting as to how WTC7 fell and what evidence do you support it with?

I am suggesting that buildings just don't crumble into themselves like that. Other than that, I have no evidence to support anything. Other than what I have learned in my structural engineering classes. So, it had to be something. I'm just trying to figure what it was.

BTW, if NIST can sufficiently prove that damage and fire did it, I'd gladly accept it. I could sleep better at night.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
Griff, so what are you suggesting as to how WTC7 fell and what evidence do you support it with?

I am suggesting that buildings just don't crumble into themselves like that. Other than that, I have no evidence to support anything. Other than what I have learned in my structural engineering classes. So, it had to be something. I'm just trying to figure what it was.

BTW, if NIST can sufficiently prove that damage and fire did it, I'd gladly accept it. I could sleep better at night.

i showed you a picture of a gaping hole where WTC1 fell into it, with no beams in the hole, meaning they were breached. i will show it again. in order for you to have a claim that it couldnt fall onto itself, you would to debunk the gaping stories scooped out. they prove that if the building did collapse, it would collapse into itself, not outwards. read this link please, and look at the picture below. this attachment shows a sequence of the building falling towards the middle from the opposite exterior wall that had the gap, and it backs up the picture below showing that the floors would collapse in the middle and the building would fall into itself and not outwards.

www.structuremag.org...

GAPING HOLE WITH ALL CROSS SECTIONS SCOOPED OUT (approx 13 stories) AND THE BUILDING BUCKLING TOWARDS THE GAP:


regarding sounds heard in your last post, thermite is a plausible theory (as are many such as fuel and oil tanks) but it falls apart because when WTC7 fell, there were NO explosions. so there would be no thermite sounds either.



[edit on 8-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

The MOST telling evidence here to SOMETHING being fishy (even if you close your mind to all the other arguements presented) is in my opinion what Ivan has been saying and presenting the whole time (with definitive pictures I might add):
Quote:
What caused the building to fall into a nice little pile?

How come the buildings feet away suffered little damage?

How can a building falled in such a controlled manner without the use of some controlled demolition?


How come you cannot conclusively answer that? I hear opinions but I would like you to present to us what you have been asking us to do: Proof. Facts. Evidence...

Can you come up with just ONE other example in all the history of the planet where this has occured WITHOUT CD? Id be highly interested in that if it could be provided.

I can come up with examples of buildings that have burned for days on end and did not collapse. (no other steel structured building in history has collapsed due to fire - as in what we are being told happened) I cannot for the life of me come up with a perfect footprint example of a collapsed building (especially due to collateral damage) without the use of CD.

Seriously, Id like an end to opinion so that I can study your evidence (as you have been able to do with what we have presented). A little reciprication should be in order here...

The 'proof' that I see in the above post does not convince me. I just see more opinion and theory.

As a quick aside, in the first picture, I can see at least 5 other buildings that should have been similarly (or worse) damaged... ask yourself this, how come they didnt suffer the same fate?

Ill answer that for you, They werent owned by Larry Silverstein.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Grock]

Comsence2075

Let's suppose people are correct when they claim WTC-7 did not collpase due to the reason we were given. How does anybody know that there weren't indeed explosives in the building smuggled in by terrorists, and that the government may have decided to get everybody out and let the building come down? And they have not disclosed this because it exposes vulnerability in our entire security process in the U.S.? I am sure many will say this is crazy, but we have to consider all possibilities.

I appreciate the thought involved here, but I think we can have good reasons to conclude that something is amiss with certain elements of the Gov.

Recall...

#1. The Human Radiation experiments and how many were involved and for how long.

www.whale.to...

Some of the classified government experiments included:

* Exposing more than 100 Alaskan villagers to radioactive iodine during the 1960s.

* Feeding 49 retarded and institutionalised teenagers radioactive iron and calcium in their cereal during the years 1946-1954.

* Exposing about 800 pregnant women in the late 1940s to radioactive iron to determine the effect on the fetus.

* Injecting 7 newborns (six were Black) with radioactive iodine.

* Exposing the testicles of more than 100 prisoners to cancer-causing doses of radiation. This experimentation continued into the early 1970s.

* Exposing almost 200 cancer patients to high levels of radiation from cesium and cobalt. The AEC finally stopped this experiment in 1974.

* Administering radioactive material to psychiatric patients in San Francisco and to prisoners in San Quentin.

* Administering massive doses of full body radiation to cancer patients hospitalised at the General Hospital in Cincinnati, Baylor College in Houston, Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York City, and the US Naval Hospital in Bethesda, during the 1950s and 1960s. The experiment provided data to the military concerning how a nuclear attack might affect its troops.

* Exposing 29 patients, some with rheumatoid arthritis, to total body irradiation (100-300 rad dose) to obtain data for the military. This was conducted at the University of California Hospital in San Francisco.

#2. Operation Northwoods a plan to commit terror for the cause of war with Cuba. The very fact it was planned and was elaborate signifies that the planners thought that something of this kind "CAN BE COVERED UP"
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

abcnews.go.com...

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

#3 Former CIA John Stockwell talks on the deaths caused by the CIA
see link below
www.youtube.com...

He puts the figure at 6 million dead caused by the CIA.

Let us remember what exactly was in building 7. THE CIA, THE SECRET SERVICE and the COMMAND BUNKER.

Also keep in mind according to the STAR WITNESS-(OSAMA BIN LADEN) OF THE GOV- the Terrorists didn't know the plan till right before they boarded the planes! So using that we can conclude that they didn't plant any bombs! Unless the Gov wants to back away from what OSAMA says? Which of course puts the whole confession into jeopardy, which leads to a lot of problems for the official side at that point.

archives.cnn.com...

UBL: The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.

reply to post by fastfingersfunk



Now show me the "gapping hole" left on the NORTH TOWER by the SOUTH TOWERS collapse. The SOUTH TOWER was much, much close to the NORTH TOWER and hurled huge steel beams right at the NORTH TOWER.

So, exactly where are the huge gapping holes? Not saying there wasn't *ANY" damage, but something consistent with what your showing regarding building 7.

this was in my thread on this issue here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Grock
the building to fall into a nice little pile?

How come the buildings feet away suffered little damage?

How can a building falled in such a controlled manner without the use of some controlled demolition?


How come you cannot conclusively answer that? I hear opinions but I would like you to present to us what you have been asking us to do: Proof. Facts. Evidence...

ONCE AGAIN, THE BUILDING HAD 13 STORIES SCOOPED OUT FROM A WTC1 SECTION DIRECTLY IN THE MIDDLE, ALL CROSS BEAMS WERE COMPLETELY BREACHED DOWN THE MIDDLE (look at the hole WTC1 made in the picture below). NOTICE HOW THE FORWARD MOST EDGE SHOWS THE BUILDING IS ALREADY LEANING INWARD. THIS MEANS IT WOULD COLLAPSE INTO ITSELF, NOT OUTWARD. THEN READ THIS: www.structuremag.org...