PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Here's the thing, I can definitively say that this video doesn't PROVE anything to some people. In fact, it only seems to have reinforced existing views.

As such, and as usual, it's not PROOF.

Another mislabelled thread.

[edit on 13-2-2010 by seethelight]

reply to post by WEALTHunited


Yes.

Literally thousands of people have disputed this,

reply to post by seethelight


I sort of agree with you dude. This shouldn't be titled as proof, kinda misleading. It dosnt really represent any new information which would blow the 9/11 case wide open. I mean i am a strong believer that this was an inside job but this isnt proof:-/

however if you could get footage of what really happened to the pentagon for excample, footage no one has seen before and that had been confiscated by a goverment dude, now that would be some sorta proof, and would deserve to have "9/11 PROOF" as a title

[edit on 19 13uSaturday10 20 by vanhippi]

After all these years frankly I'm tired of seeing PROOF put in every post saying what happened. There is no proof. In your opinion maybe. Proof no.

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by dereks


Except once again you are wrong, the windows break AFTER the collapse starts.... so there goes your silly conspiracy theory!

Not so fast Buttercup.

The ENTIRE building is collapsing, why aren't ALL the windows breaking?

They be majick windows

reply to post by sandman658


I HEAR YA YET i keep reading these threads though hoping that if there is real proof i can support it but all i see is fabricated you tube videos with non expert opinions.
We forget that intially the for warning the government had was a bit of a conspiracy but the truth was found documented reveiwed by proffesional brought before commity and is now known to the public. but there is no such evidence for any of the claims i have seen made here.
No matter how much we wish its just not surfaced and its proly cause the conspiracy ends at our government just being incompodent and george bush being a horrible failure as president.
Be Well

reply to post by Alfie1


Like you don't know that all those facets of our system are broken, give me a break. what a joke...

reply to post by seethelight


OH NO, WAS I JUST CALLED A SOCIALIST. That term gets thrown around so much these days it's ridiculous. Give it a break. All I want is a more fair and honest society. Go push your agenda somewhere else.

Originally posted by afterschoolfun
reply to post by GenRadek

 

So... you're source for discrediting 'dis-info' is Snopes? ok...

You seem adamant on proving that explosives weren't used etc. Are you really looking at the same video? It fell straight down... from fire supposedly. Are you suggesting that fire should be used instead of expensive demolitions?

rather than niggling over the website, how about reading over the article?

WTC7 did not fall straight down in fell swoop. It was falling apart for nearly 18 seconds. Also it fell with a noticeable tilt towards the south. In fact, fire fighters saw the bulge and tilt, and had to put a surveyor tranist to measure the slow progress of creep. Creep, meaning, the slow collapse due to structural integrity failing from the fires and the steel buckling.

Who said to use fire as a demolition tool? If you want to take a building down fast and easy, use demo charges. But I suppose that you missed the fact that steel and fire are not good friends and that is why steel needs to be fire-proofed. But even the fire-proofing is only rated for a limited time, NOT for 7 hours of continuous exposure. That assume that firefighting efforst will be undertaken with water. But that never happened on 9/11. Hence why the fires destroyed the WTC7. I'd recommend reading the NIST report on it and the FAQ on it.

reply to post by Alfie1


Are you delusional or deliberately trying to agitate me?! What the hell do you think Silverstein was talking about, when he said 'pull it', if not talking about pulling the bloody building!?

Or are you going to try and pretend he was talking about pulling something other than the building?
Legs? Hairs? Teeth?! Plonkers? Or the fire-fighters? Yeah...I refer to a gathering of firefighters as an 'It' all of the time, just as everyone does...right?

Pedanticism is one thing, but you are on a different trip altogether!

See, i can browbeat and psychologically coerce too if i want to, although i wouldn't suggest trying it with me again matey, i'm way too long in the tooth to be taken in by it, and certainly not when it's performed with sledge hammer like subtlety.

I have never stated, or even thought that Silverstein was the instigator of the 9/11 conspiracy. I doubt he had the mental fortitude for it, considering his almost fatal error when he was under pressure.

Even murderers can be shocked and shaken to a larger or lesser degree when confronted with the full scale and stark realities of their crimes.
It's quite common in fact.

I think it is reasonable to assume Silverstein was experiencing something akin to this, and slipped up badly, or slipped up gladly, depending on how you look at it.

I do believe however, that he was up to his neck in 'it', and by 'it', i don't mean a group of firefighters!

He was a part in the conspiracy. This never was or could have been a 'one man show', a conspiracy cannot be just a single person, in case you didn't know..

As for insurance companies etc..there is information regarding that very point, and it's in the public domain. I cannot recall the exact details, but i think most rational people will find it coincidental at least. I'll hunt it out and post it for you sometime, but i recommend you do you own research on it, you may turn something up that others have missed. Being pedantic has it's benefits

So...in your experience, billionaires never get to 'call the shots' do they? Normally pretty meek, subservient characters when they have billions of dollars riding on whether they 'pull it' or not, are they? Hmm, doesn't wash.

I think truthers need to make up their minds whether 9/11 was a Neo-Con conspiracy with global strategic aims or an insurance fiddle. Trying to mix the two just sounds insane.

Insane? Really? It would be insane to imagine of a 'Neo-Con' who wouldn't plan to combine the op of strategic intent with that of the profitable in the same 'venture'! Two for the price of one. Incidentally, i do not consider myself to be either a 'truther' nor a 'osser (is that correct?). I consider myself an ordinary, down to earth 'common sense-er'.

There are elements of fact and fiction in both versions. For me, the way the whole official picture comes together is of one that is so very flawed, in many areas.

The way things are now, it would be criminal not to have an independent, transparent and honest in-depth inquiry to resolve all of the discrepancies and accusations that have been levelled at the official version of events.

reply to post by WEALTHunited


If I ignore what you wrote then it isn't true -- right?

reply to post by GenRadek


Wow, now we need to have seen cables to be right in our assumption that WTC7 was brought down by demolition. Look dude, of course I didn't see any cables. I wasn't there! Even if I was there, I wouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the building nor would I have wanted to be. Like it's been said on here before, what those who bash the truthers don't seem to realize is that we don't want to be truthers! We wish it wasn't so but the evidence just points to the opposite of the OS. Even if we had none of this, the pentagon, flight 93, WTC7 etc... don't you think that it's strange that the President and Vice President would not testify about the events of that day unless they were both together and it wasn't under oath and not done publicly? If you don't think that's fishy then I give up on you. I don't even know why I'm bothering. I learned a long time ago not to even bother with you people, you will not give it up no matter how much evidence is stacked up staring you directly in the face.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Well Cheney went underground after 911 so maybe FEMA or some other underground controller.

reply to post by suchi


Here watch this video --

video.google.com...#

JFK II -- the Bush Connection

There's a long history of "false flags" in the U.S. -- that's how black ops works.

reply to post by GenRadek


Originally posted by GenRadek


Now let's play the reading comprehension game! After reading the quote above, and having the commander call LS saying the fires are out of control, there is no way to save it, and Larry mentions how there has been such a bad loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is "pull it", what is he referencing to? A) Pulling the firefighter operations in and around the WTC7 to keep them from unecessary danger; or B) blowing up WTC7 somehow or "pulling it" down with cables?

Second question in the game, Who made the decision to pull? Was it: A) Larry S? B) They, as in the fire dept's commander and his officers on scene?

Third: Is the fire deptment in the controlled demolition business of high rises? A) Yes, B) No, C) Do not know.



Look, he doesn't need to say, "YES WE BROUGHT DOWN WTC7 BY DEMOLITION." It's obvious that TPTB don't give a rat's a$$ whether a few things slip out every now n then. I mean, they had the audacity to pull an act such as 9/11. What makes you think that a few slip ups every now n then is gonna damage them? They have nothing to worry about. They have their OS made up by a "commission" and besides, American's are ignorant and arrogant, their country could never commit such an act. America is the greatest of course.

reply to post by custom2006


Interesting.

I think it looks like a demolition, but I'm no expert. Though I thought that all buildings like that [taller ones] are supposed to be able to hold their own during a fire. Or WAS THE FIRE SO HOT BECAUSE OF THE JET FUEL?.... haha

It's fun to speculate what could have happened, but the fact is nobody knows, unfortunately.

This gets tiring after a while but it just blows my mind how extreme our opinions are. I refuse to think any differently and apparently the same goes for the OS supporters. Interesting. But.......

Let's put aside HOW it fell (straight, crooked or toppling).
Let's put aside WHY it might've purposefully been taken down
Let's put aside WHEN the BBC reporter actually reported this and
Let's put aside WHO the tenants were and WHO owned it

Let's answer this:

How does an entire structure of steel and concrete (and yes. Glass, desk, carpet, furnances etc too) give way to pure fire?

If this is so then, I would think every single fireplace around the world would start caving in at some point if concrete with reinforce steel just decided that 'it has had enough'.

It makes no sense.

They try to pin jet fuel on the first two. Stunned and not being total experts in this field most of us bought into that at first (but now, most of us, know better) but an intense fire, due to nothing more than a previous fire, crumbles steel?

I don't think I like this new math and science now-a-days!

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by loveguy

 

Loveguy, pay close attention to my video and then the OP's. Notice how the OP's is zoomed in on the WTC7 so you cannot see the roof line or anything? At least in MY video you can see everything and the windows breaking AFTER the building begins the collapse. NOT before. Demo charges do not explode AFTER the building collapses. They go off first, THEN the building collapses. You see how that works? Does everyone here see how that works? First charges explode THEN collapse ensues. Not the other way around.

Thanks for the advice, but to see the moments leading into a situation is a more viable determining factor, IMO.

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Not so fast Gen.

Using your video, it shows the entire building collapseing.

Why then, aren't all the windows breaking out?

The premise of the thread is You can see the windows blow out before the collapse, hence it is a controlled detonation - Proof, Fin.

It's shown that the windows actually blow AFTER the collapse, and you then turn it around and ask this? Why aren't they all blowing out?

If they blow out BEFORE collapse, then argument for controlled demolition is shown to be valid.

If not, you can't continue to say it is, given the premise of this thread. Or are we already into the same old tired argument that unless everyone says it was a controlled demolition us sheeple will never open our eyes blah blah..



edit - 11 pages eh... back to something interesting...

[edit on 13/2/2010 by Ha`la`tha]