PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by Doctor Smith


Okay, fair point about the thread topic, but we were obviously discussing the main towers. After 114 pages things can wander a little.

You're wrong about the point of initiation. It's clear in several pieces of footage that the visible collapse begins exactly where the planes entered, so quite how the detonations didn't go off when the planes struck I'll never know. Plus there are no demolition "squibs" prior to the collapse.

As for building seven, it exhibits a unique set of circumstances, yes. That's proof of it being unusual, but not logically proof of its demolition. Just because something doesn't happen often doesn't definitively make it suspicious.

You're correct that we're a long way into this thread, and with jarring irony none of the vaunted "proof" mentioned in the title has been given. Don't worry, a lot of people have been searching so don't feel bad about not being able to present any.

Found an excellent series of videos that will help explain to the most seriously impaired truster. The 2 towers had to be demolished. Watch at least video 1 and 2.

www.youtube.com...

"It's clear in several pieces of footage that the visible collapse begins exactly where the planes entered, so quite how the detonations didn't go off when the planes struck I'll never know."

Why do people assume that conventional explosives were used that one could set off with a match? There is nothing conventional about two 110 story buildings being blown to dust and smithereens and collapsing symmetrically.

The initial explosion, impact or whatever it was may not have been hot enough to set off the demolition explosives. Maybe classified explosives or weapons were used which do not go off unless they reach a certain temperature. After the impact, maybe some sort of timing device or explosive was set off which gradually increased the temperature of the area.

An increase in temperature of the area may also explain why people started jumping out of the towers well after the initial explosion/impact. It may also explain the video of steel or metal oozing out of the corner from one of the Towers. With so many unknown factors at play, it is not logical to make assumptions, since there was nothing conventional about how those Towers were obliterated.

"Plus there are no demolition "squibs" prior to the collapse."

Again, why are you looking at an unconventional event (complete destruction of two huge skyscrapers) from such a narrow minded viewpoint? The key to bringing those Towers down was turning the core support columns to dust, which was obviously done. Do you really think conventional demo explosives which would display squibs can accomplish something like this?

"As for building seven, it exhibits a unique set of circumstances, yes. That's proof of it being unusual, but not logically proof of its demolition. Just because something doesn't happen often doesn't definitively make it suspicious."

What is suspicious is a couple of media outlets (BBC & CNN) saying that Building 7 was ready to collapse or had collapsed, well before it did collapse. Other than the alleged bombs which were going off, exactly which damage signs pointed toward this building collapsing? If you think there is nothing suspicious about some isolated fires in a 47 story skyscraper leading to such a rapid and symmetrical collapse, then you are one very trusting individual.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 24-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 24-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


I think IF conventional explosives were used then the ones on the floors the planes impacted would have been destroyed, so the next set of explosives would be bellow the impact point, so logically the sequence would start there right?

But if you watch the vids closely the top section started collapsing down on itself before the bottom did...



911review.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

So I don't think we'll ever figure out what was used, I don't think it matters, the visual evidence still shows the OS is wrong.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Why do people assume that conventional explosives were used that one could set off with a match?...

So what you're saying is that since there isn't any visual evidence for a demolition, the method of demolition must be unconventional? Most people would assume that a lack of evidence for something just means it didn't happen.

Your logic is akin to somebody saying "The sun rises in the morning because it's kicked over the horizon by a gigantic whale." When asked why you can't see the whale, you reply, "Well, obviously it's invisible. You wouldn't expect this to be a normal whale, would you?"

What is suspicious is a couple of media outlets (BBC & CNN) saying that Building 7 was ready to collapse or had collapsed, well before it did collapse. Other than the alleged bombs which were going off, exactly which damage signs pointed toward this building collapsing? If you think there is nothing suspicious about some isolated fires in a 47 story skyscraper leading to such a rapid and symmetrical collapse, then you are one very trusting individual.

Why is it suspicious that this was reported? You do realise that it makes it less likely that there was a conspiracy, don't you? I mean, if you'd wired the building to blow, it's unlikely that your first action would be to tell a news channel all about it.

www.youtube.com...

I find it shocking the main stream news now is asking why Building 7 came down. Even Geraldo asking???

Maybe the truth will come out it was bombed with munitions.

If it indeed collapsed due to fire, why would the so much effort be needed, to convince people of the supposedly obvious?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

 

I think IF conventional explosives were used then the ones on the floors the planes impacted would have been destroyed, so the next set of explosives would be bellow the impact point, so logically the sequence would start there right?

But if you watch the vids closely the top section started collapsing down on itself before the bottom did...

911review.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

So I don't think we'll ever figure out what was used, I don't think it matters, the visual evidence still shows the OS is wrong.

If they used remote detonators (wireless) they could still explode the remaining explosives on the top levels. Programming the sequence depending on where the planes impacted.

reply to post by downisreallyup ive watched the videos, when the second plane hit it cut the building in half. and on building 7 it was damaged aleady there is no sign of implosion ,its collapsing . what are you thinking? that our own president would kill thousands of people , why would he do this ? If you think our president did this you need to move to another country! This conspiricies shows dishonor to our soldiers who have died and all the other people who were killed and there familys and all the firefighters who were killed. these conspirice theorys have instilled mistrust in our Government. the people who were on the plane in pennsylvania called there wives and told them there were terrorist flying the plane. no missile hit that plane. what you should be worried about is the new President, he is Muslim.

Originally posted by Cassius666
If it indeed collapsed due to fire, why would the so much effort be needed, to convince people of the supposedly obvious?

I think this is the MAJOR POINT. WE should not have to figure out HOW IT WAS DONE.

The MAIN ISSUE is: Obstruction of justice.
If indeed the governments Original Story was accurate -- it would be VERY EASY to prove. You would not have seen the FAA radar tapes being destroyed. The videos not being released from the Pentagon. The lies from the NSA about building 7 NOT falling at free-fall speed. You would NOT need to spend more to recycle steel in China rather than New Jersey and you WOULD let anyone who wanted to inspect that steel. Etc.,

When the rebuttal is something like; "There is no way it could have been demolition because HOW could they control where the plane hit?"
>> Jeez folks, haven't you heard of radio-controlled fireworks displays? If you have a C-4 squib, it's not going to BLOW UP by fire -- it requires an electric charge. So you have a breadboard wired to a computer, and you click whichever floor you want to start the sequence from.... but really, all we NEED to know is that Bush and friends lied their asses off, and had the Iraq war and Patriot Act already written before the NSA spying and that was BEFORE 9/11.

Originally posted by Cassius666
If it indeed collapsed due to fire, why would the so much effort be needed, to convince people of the supposedly obvious?

I think this is the MAJOR POINT. WE should not have to figure out HOW IT WAS DONE.

The MAIN ISSUE is: Obstruction of justice.
If indeed the governments Original Story was accurate -- it would be VERY EASY to prove. You would not have seen the FAA radar tapes being destroyed. The videos not being released from the Pentagon. The lies from the NSA about building 7 NOT falling at free-fall speed. You would NOT need to spend more to recycle steel in China rather than New Jersey and you WOULD let anyone who wanted to inspect that steel. Etc.,

When the rebuttal is something like; "There is no way it could have been demolition because HOW could they control where the plane hit?"
>> Jeez folks, haven't you heard of radio-controlled fireworks displays? If you have a C-4 squib, it's not going to BLOW UP by fire -- it requires an electric charge. So you have a breadboard wired to a computer, and you click whichever floor you want to start the sequence from.... but really, all we NEED to know is that Bush and friends lied their asses off, and had the Iraq war and Patriot Act already written before the NSA spying and that was BEFORE 9/11.

Look what I found while I was researching! Tisk, tisk, Pteridine. You really have this all backwards:

Originally posted by pteridineThere is no evdence of thermitic reaction.

Elemental iron and aluminum oxide is the classic product of a thermite reaction that started with Al/Fe203

To prove thermite, Jones first has to run the reaction in the absence of oxygen. When he does this he will either see a reaction or not.

COMPLETEY FALSE AND SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG!

The oxygen in air WILL NOT REACT with the tightly bound Iron Oxide and Aluminum!!!!

Redox requires a "giver and a taker" You cannot have electrons running around in 'space' One element will
give up electrons to the other element.

In this case redox requires Iron to give up the oxygen to the aluminum to complete the task.

Reduction-Oxidation happens AT THE SAME TIME.

You therefore can run the test in air and not concern yourself with oxygen reacting with the nano-aluminum particles.

I figure this is why Pteridine has been avoiding the discussion in our debate. Let's see if he concedes this
error.

reply to post by spikey

WTC 1 & 2, had extensive works carried out on them just a short time prior to 9/11. Office workers were told that the building would be closed, for these works, which caused quite some consternation as the traders and business people were losing money hand over fist.

So just when was the WTC closed? Don't you think in closing 2 110 story buildings someone might notice?

Consider that each building could hold enough people for a small city (25 K at max ) somebody might note that
the buildings were closed ?

Not a peep except for a couple attention whores (aka Scott Forbes) who keeps changing story when challenged on details

Good evidence, just not enough.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by spikey

 

WTC 1 & 2, had extensive works carried out on them just a short time prior to 9/11. Office workers were told that the building would be closed, for these works, which caused quite some consternation as the traders and business people were losing money hand over fist.

So just when was the WTC closed? Don't you think in closing 2 110 story buildings someone might notice?

I think on the Conspiracy Theory 9/11 episode from Season 1, someone who worked at the buildings said that occupants moving in and out of spaces in the twin towers was a very common occurrence and it was also common for work to be done when this happened.

Doesnt matter anyhow because the video proves wtc 7 was deliberatly imploded cant see
how it doesnt prove an implosion.

www.youtube.com...

Ok really if you really think this fell on its own you need to do construction research 1st explain how main support beams all fail at once on side where there is no fire no smoke no fire! 2nd how do you have symetrical free fall to all four corners of the buildings at one time ? lets use the NIST report they reported a 160 foot free fall or speeding up of the fall approx 8 floors. which can only be man made they had no explination on this. engineers who im sure a lot smarter than me since im just a firefighter/Paramedic all state its immpossible to have this kind of catastrophic failure at once on a steel box frame concrete building every stuctural collapse i have seen comes in a ASYMETRCAL fashion not all at once and not straight down period !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
The initial explosion, impact or whatever it was may not have been hot enough to set off the demolition explosives. Maybe classified explosives or weapons were used which do not go off unless they reach a certain temperature. After the impact, maybe some sort of timing device or explosive was set off which gradually increased the temperature of the area.

The "classified explosives" is appeal to ignorance; you cannot use something that MAY exist as evidence. Forget detonation, as explosives would likely just burn up. Beams were thrown clear through of the buildings during the impact. Why did none of those beams have any explosives on them? How did the remaining ones still function properly? Even if the bad guys had some sort of super-advanced computer program that could predict exactly which beams would be caught on fire, they couldn't know exactly what speed the plane would approach at, or the angle, or the attitude, or several other factors which could send some incriminating evidence flying into Manhattan.

An increase in temperature of the area may also explain why people started jumping out of the towers well after the initial explosion/impact.

There was a temperature increase. It's called a "fire".

It may also explain the video of steel or metal oozing out of the corner from one of the Towers. With so many unknown factors at play, it is not logical to make assumptions, since there was nothing conventional about how those Towers were obliterated.

"Plus there are no demolition "squibs" prior to the collapse."

Again, why are you looking at an unconventional event (complete destruction of two huge skyscrapers) from such a narrow minded viewpoint? The key to bringing those Towers down was turning the core support columns to dust, which was obviously done. Do you really think conventional demo explosives which would display squibs can accomplish something like this?

So once debunkers show conventional explosives couldn't have accomplished the task, you lot leap to some sort of unconventional explosives whose existence isn't even provable.

It's the Truther's who make the "squib" claims, not the debunkers.

"As for building seven, it exhibits a unique set of circumstances, yes. That's proof of it being unusual, but not logically proof of its demolition. Just because something doesn't happen often doesn't definitively make it suspicious."

What is suspicious is a couple of media outlets (BBC & CNN) saying that Building 7 was ready to collapse or had collapsed, well before it did collapse. Other than the alleged bombs which were going off, exactly which damage signs pointed toward this building collapsing? If you think there is nothing suspicious about some isolated fires in a 47 story skyscraper leading to such a rapid and symmetrical collapse, then you are one very trusting individual.

1. Now who's making assumptions? It was most likely simple incompetence and confusion, says Hanlon's Razor.
2. The FDNY measured the lean of the building with a transit, and had cleared out hours ago.
3. "Isolated fires"? You'll want, oh, 4m 28s.

4. It hit Fiterman Hall, to the North, the Verizon Building to the West, and most of the debris was to the South. What are you defining as "symmetrical"?

Originally posted by Cassius666
If it indeed collapsed due to fire, why would the so much effort be needed, to convince people of the supposedly obvious?

Effort by who? What convincing efforts were undertaken?

Originally posted by thecritta
Doesnt matter anyhow because the video proves wtc 7 was deliberatly imploded cant see
how it doesnt prove an implosion.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 2-5-2011 by thecritta because: (no reason given)

Architects and engineers share your view. Those who are debating that point, probably push paper for a living.