Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
IF they "took it down"? Do you have any evidence, anything at all, besides quote-mined statements, that "they" actually did bring WTC 7 down?

Ok, SAP, let's take a deep breath. Deep breath.... alright?

Have you ever heard of a hypothetical question?

If so, then know that I am asking you a hypothetical question now. That doesn't mean this did or did not happen, only that we are assuming that it did for the sake of argument. Understand yet? Please tell me that you do. This is for the sake of argument. I know you're not that stupid.

If not, then look up what a "hypothetical question" is and then come back and re-read this post. Hypothetical questions are very common in our discussions; they are asked on a daily basis, and I am sure you are familiar with them, whether you recognize the terminology or not.


Now. Assuming that you are on board now.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say that they did decide to "take down" Building 7, just as this lieutenant firefighter stated they were considering.

How do you think they would have achieved what the lieutenant suggested?

I am dealing in reality

This is reality. This was a real option, that was being considered.

So take another deep breath before you knee-jerk another response and try to answer my question. The firefighter said they were considering taking the building down.

Let me repeat: The firefighter said they were considering taking the building down.

So, since this was a real option, that was being considered, how do you think they would have accomplished it?




If you want to willingly sink that much further into denial, simply call the lieutenant a liar. It's that simple. Call him a liar and be done with it. No more thinking required. These are his words, after all, and quoting someone in context is not quote mining. He was talking about WTC7, and he was talking about taking it down. That is what really disturbs you. So just call him a liar. I know you have it in you.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by bsbray11]

Are there actually nay sayers present in this thread who are suggesting that buildings have self destruct buttons built into them?

That is the alternative to dropping a building at will without having participated in a conspiracy to plant explosives before hand.

If one building was prepped for demolition, why would we believe the other two were not?

Am I missing some rational explaination here, I don't think so?

The last time I looked the local fire department was not equipped with JDAMS to take out skyscrapers "Just in case!"

[edit on 25-12-2008 by Cyberbian]

I have to believe that the WTC was built with explosive planted inside of the WTC.
How do we know for sure, that the WTC blue prints that are floating around on the internet are the real ones? I have to wonder if the real blue prints would have a mark where all the explosive where placed. I also have to imagine, while building all the WTC, they already designed a way to bring them down when their life spans where finished. I have some years ago remember reading that Port Authority requested permission to demolish the WTC with demolition. The city of New York denied Port Authority twice, claiming it was far too dangerous also, however, it was stated that the Towers needed to be dismantled. I do recall this happened around 1998 or 1999. However, one would have to wonder a year later with a rig election and the Bush regime taken office. I am sure Silverstein was already rubbing elbows with the members of the Bush cabinets. I also know in a press release, Silverstein made a statement claiming he was going to rebuild the WTC right after he took the 99-year lease on the WTC.

Don't you guys know that Alex Jones is COINTELPRO by now? Come on....enough with his junk.

Hello, I just found this site and started reading some threads. Some are interesting, like the moon hoax and all the evidence that goes with it. However as a construction worker who has worked on skyscrapers for the past 20 years, I have to inform you that buildings are not designed with explosives already in them, thats just nonsense. Also when a building is constructed there are designed NOT to fall, the notion a building is designed with how it will be demolished in mind is also nonsense. As far as having a plan to take down a building, simply call a demo expert and their engineer can have a plan ready in hours if not minutes (in an emergency situation). especially when there is a huge pile of rubble next to a building thats needing to be taken down. Not rocket science boys. So a firefighter saying we may have to take down an unstable building I am sure is aware of the demolition experts also. No plan is needed prior to 9/11 to demolish an unstable building as a result of the 9/11 incident. Use your noggins for more than providing others with coleslaw. I watched the live broadcast of the towers coming down, there were no explosives. Lets examine for a minutes how buidings are demolished.

The engineer uses the kinetic energy stored in the building to take the building down. If a demolition engineer to place explosives on every floor,
first off it would take huge amounts of explosives, and second off he wouldn't be an engineer but closer to a retard.

Demo engineers would have placed the explosives at the bottom of the building and let the building take itself down, but thats not what happened.
What did happen is the integrity if the skeletal frame of the building was compromised and the building started collapsing at that EXACT point, and no other point. Simply watch the video.

Once the integrity of the frame was comprimised the weight of the upper floors crushed each floor one by one. Notice the upper floors remain INTACT until they hit the ground.

So if I am to believe the government blew up the buildings I need to believe they put explosives on the floor the planes hit before they hit,and massive amounts of explosives on each floor, and then told the people flying the planes to count the floors to make sure they hit the right floor with the explosives on it, then HOPE the plane crash doesn't destroy the explosives wiring, then proceed to blow up each floor in succession ? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHA

Someone Get out the salad shooter.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The engineer uses the kinetic energy stored in the building to take the building down. If a demolition engineer to place explosives on every floor,
first off it would take huge amounts of explosives, and second off he wouldn't be an engineer but closer to a retard.

That actually made me laugh out loud.


Anyway, you said they'd use the potential energy to bring the building down. WTC7 was accelerating right at 32ft/s^2 since it began to fall, and even NIST admits it fell at the acceleration of gravity for a significant portion of its total collapse time.

If the PE was used to bring the building down (which I don't think would have to be the case, considering we are not limited to considering unconventional types of "demolition" -- and really every building and scenario is unique) then we would have seen a lot of energy spent on destroying the building and reducing it to the 3-story smoldering accordion of a debris pile. Expending energy from the PE (which is now kinetic energy) makes the acceleration slow, considerably, and not just less than the amount one would expect from air resistance!

You know, In reality....its painfully obvious what the truth is....its just that we will never find out the circumstances surrounding the truth. Not to mention that the very people involved in the strategic planning..I assume...themselves dont know the whole truth.A fireman "claiming" the building was going to be taken down regardless...although, important in context, is largely irrelevant. Not to mention the whole story can be a fake to begin with, considering Alex Jones is likely COINTELPRO....
I am an active seeker of truth in all matters surrounding 9/11...but honestly...there is almost no point in discussing this on public forums and potentially exposing yourself to the powers that be. Of course it is interesting to chat about....but nothing will come of this.
These people rule the world...you think they will let some "workers" with laptops stop them...even if the "whole truth" does publicly come out....they still wont be stopped; making a fireman's claims...largely irrelevant.

Originally posted by GlossomBoodchild
You know, In reality....its painfully obvious what the truth is...

I agree with that...

Originally posted by cashlink
Newly uncovered video from 9/11 featuring an interview with FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio on MSNBC

So MSNBC is trustworthy? CNN, BBC, FOX, the FBI, FAA, NTSB, American Airlines, United Airlines, NIST, are not?

In the clip, Rastuccio responds to the host’s statement that “You guys knew this was coming all day,” by stating, “We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down, I would imagine that it came down on its own.”

Though Rastuccio expresses his opinion that the building had collapsed without the aid of explosives, he admits that a plan had been in place to deliberately demolish the structure.

OK. To me, the MOST IMPORTANT FIND in this clip is Rastuccio saying that he thinks the building collapsed without the aid of explosives!!!

His statement that if the building didn´t come down on it´s own it would have to be taken down actually makes PERFECT SENSE!! It was a badly damaged structure that posed a great risk to the people in the area, so sooner or later it would have to be taken down. HOW? Who cares? Explosives? Well probably. So what? That was going to be done LATER in case it was needed!!


[edit on 29-12-2008 by rush969]

Well, I would just say his opinion is a lot more valuable than yours or mine, simply for 2 reasons.
1.- He is a fireman. So we can asume that he knows more than you or me of what he is talking about.
2.- He was there on 9/11.
That is why to me the most valuable thing about that interview is that it actually "debunks" the CD theory on WTC7.

Originally posted by rush969
That is why to me the most valuable thing about that interview is that it actually "debunks" the CD theory on WTC7.

He offered his opinion as to why it came down.

But stated as a fact that they were thinking about 'taking it down.'


I'm still waiting for someone to offer how they could have 'taken it down', without something being pre-planned.

OF COURSE IT WAS A FACT THEY HAD TO TAKE IT DOWN!!
That had been established already. The building was badly damaged. There was no repair that could be considered. It was very dangerous to be in the area, because collapse could happen at any time.
So that statement is nothing extraordinary or evidence of some conspiracy. On the contrary, it only shows how professionals were dealing with the problem. That demolition was never carried out because the building collapsed on it´s own.
there...



[edit on 30-12-2008 by rush969]