PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

page: 113
153
<< 110  111  112    114  115  116 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


So building seven is a conventional demolition because it looks like one, but the towers are not. Why would two different demolition techniques be used? Can you not see how that's implausible?




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   


So building seven is a conventional demolition because it looks like one, but the towers are not. Why would two different demolition techniques be used? Can you not see how that's implausible?


Different techniques would be used as they are of different construction and size. Dogs were always around buildings 1 and 2 to smell any explosives after the earlier car bombing attempt. Maybe they used an unconventional explosive like explosive thermite.

And the first bombing could have easily been prevented as the FBI had an informant.

www.youtube.com...

The most that could have happened is the buildings would fall over. Not globally collapse directly through the strengh of reinforced steel. Three times in one day for the first time in history.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   


So building seven is a conventional demolition because it looks like one, but the towers are not. Why would two different demolition techniques be used? Can you not see how that's implausible?


Different techniques would be used as they are of different construction and size. Dogs were always around buildings 1 and 2 to smell any explosives after the earlier car bombing attempt. Maybe they used an unconventional explosive like explosive thermite.

And the first bombing could have easily been prevented as the FBI had an informant.

www.youtube.com...

The most that could have happened is the buildings would fall over. Not globally collapse directly through the strength of reinforced steel. Three times in one day for the first time in history.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


Thermite wouldn't have the effect described by impressme. There would have to be an explosive of enormous power to "throw" the debris, and thermite would not have that kind of kick.

You say the methods employed were different because of the different design. Can you show me demolitions that look substantially different of other previously CD'd buildings?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
The chips found in the WTC dust have a layer of organic carbon that would likely supply the expanding gas of an explosive type of thermite.

Explained at 1 hour and 31 minutes of this video.

www.ustream.tv...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


I don't think even Gage is claiming that. He just means that the reaction happens fast, not that it's hugely explosive in nature.

Look at the claims impressme makes about the WTC and the distance which debris is hurled. Do you think that even specially engineered thermite could do that?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





Thermite wouldn't have the effect described by impressme. There would have to be an explosive of enormous power to "throw" the debris, and thermite would not have that kind of kick.


So you're admitting that their had to be explosives of enormous power? It just didn't happen from a fire or magic? Obviously both were used.






You say the methods employed were different because of the different design. Can you show me demolitions that look substantially different of other previously CD'd buildings?


The 2 towers had to be blown apart from the top quietly as possible or they would topple over due to the unusual height.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Explosions before they fell?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


But in order to have any sort of explosives to be able to physically "launch" any amount of the steel exterior columns, would require TONS and TONS of high power explosives packed aruond every single column.

Also the detonation of so much explosive would create such a racket that the shockwaves would have shattered windows all over lower Manhattan. And yes, people would have very clearly heard the detonations above the collapse. There is a difference between the roaring and rumbling of a collapse and the sharp distinct detonation of high power explosives.

For posterity's sake, here is a few hundred lbs of high power explosives going off for a bridge demo:


Notice how LOUD the explosion is? Where was that at the WTC at all?

[edit on 6/15/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


But in order to have any sort of explosives to be able to physically "launch" any amount of the steel exterior columns, would require TONS and TONS of high power explosives packed aruond every single column.

Also the detonation of so much explosive would create such a racket that the shockwaves would have shattered windows all over lower Manhattan. And yes, people would have very clearly heard the detonations above the collapse. There is a difference between the roaring and rumbling of a collapse and the sharp distinct detonation of high power explosives.

For posterity's sake, here is a few hundred lbs of high power explosives going off for a bridge demo:

Notice how LOUD the explosion is? Where was that at the WTC at all?



Don't compare a bridge demo with the WTC collapse. Compare a large building demolition with the WTC collapse.

WTC towers:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Notice how the buildings are damaged by airplanes and on fire.



www.youtube.com...

I had to listen again. I couldn't believe my ears. Could the difference between the WTC collapse and this demolition be that HUGE.

BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM.

I decided I had to watch another one.

www.youtube.com...
Flashes all over the place. again BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM although not quite as loud as before but 293857293857987 times louder than anything i heard in the WTC collapse.

I also notice that on both the demolition videos there was no airplane damage and no smoke or fire.



[edit on 15-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


But in order to have any sort of explosives to be able to physically "launch" any amount of the steel exterior columns, would require TONS and TONS of high power explosives packed aruond every single column.


Who said there was TONS and TONS of high power explosives packed around every single column?? Do you have evidences, or an eyewitness who saw TONS and TONS of explosives? I didn’t think so.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
[i Do you have evidences, or an eyewitness who saw TONS and TONS of explosives? I didn’t think so.


There is no evidence or eyewitnesses who saw any amount of explosives.

No explosives, no demo.

Is your opinion of the "truth" correct?

I didn't think so.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


So why is there no evidence whatsoever of the second type of explosive?

And why do the collapses of the towers begin at the points where the aircraft struck them?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


You're absolutely right.

Theres no evidence at all of these kind of explosives.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by impressme
[i Do you have evidences, or an eyewitness who saw TONS and TONS of explosives? I didn’t think so.


There is no evidence or eyewitnesses who saw any amount of explosives.

No explosives, no demo.

Is your opinion of the "truth" correct?

I didn't think so.


keep in mind that impress me was presented with sciences that support the OS on this thread. All sources were cited 6/8/2010:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sources from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue.

Then a few days later 6/14/10. After noticing the sources of science that were presented. He says:

"the nonsense (OS) you are supporting has no credible sciences into support itself, nothing."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Meaning that he honestly believes that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue are all NOT CREDIBLE!





posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


No!

I asked you a question, a very simple question and you can't give me a straight answer.

Now I will ask it again, in plain english.

Did Steven Jones find "iron-rich" microspheres in the post-ignition samples that were not present in the pre-ignition samples?

Yes or no.

Truly, not difficult.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


This is wrong.

The iron spheres were formed POST-IGNITION. They were not present in the PRE-IGNITION samples.

Got it?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


Earthdude, it's not just the U.S. government involved with this. You must have no historical education of false flag terrorism.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Ah so there were no explosives then in the WTCs? Or any used at the WTC? Well good, I'm glad we cleared that up then. There were no explosives used at the WTC.


Or are you suggesting that little itty bitty invisible explosives were used? Really tiny ones that pack a massive punch enough to physically launch a couple hundred tons of steel?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


That's one loud bang at an indeterminate time. Nobody knows what made it and I'm not sure I trust the audio on a youtube video anyway. Bear in mind there are huge bits of buildings falling down all over the place. There's going to be some loud bangs.

I'm more interested in the time at which and just before the WTC towers start falling. Why are there no large explosions of the type required to "hurl" the debris? Why do the collapses start from the point where the aeroplanes hit if they are initiated by powerful explosives?

You say that the towers had to be demolished "quietly" and from the top. So you have three types of explosives already. Thermite, a loud bomb like the one in your video, and a "quiet" one used in the towers. Furthermore the towers do not start falling from the top. It looks increasingly as though you're creating a vastly complicated theory to fit your prejudices.





new topics
top topics
 
153
<< 110  111  112    114  115  116 >>

log in

join