Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

page: 5
153
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I do love a good demolition vid Gen, ty

But what has that got to do with 911?

Those people were taking down buildings using conventional procedures.

No one claims that is the case with 911.


I LOVE how you completely side-step the question he asked about the loud noises heard from very long distances in a controlled demolition.

Also loving the "I'm no demolition expert but..." posts.

Keep dreaming...




posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Another thread withthe word PROOF in the title that contains none.

Compare that vid to this vid:

video.google.com...=6979955002470780153

See the dozens of visible explosions? Not just dust/ash being forced out of windows by the pressure caused by collapsing floors, but dozens of visible explosions.

Seven is definitely the weirdest on its face, but comparing this video to a REAL demolition makes it less suspicious.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


I agree with you. While I think it is frighteningly obvious that all three WTC towers were brought down by demolitions, it's very difficult to see when exactly the building starts to collapse in the OP's video. The zoom is moving, the cameraman is moving, and it's all at an angle.

Playing devil's advocate, if you were to go by this piece alone, and all you had heard was the initial story, you'd probably think that the pancaking floors forced the air to suddenly compress, blowing out some of the windows. There's a plume of dust that comes out immediately after the windows blow.

I heard someone say that the windows blowing out in the video do not correspond to the official collapse profile of WTC7, because they occur at the wrong floors. I didn't fully understand that. How exactly does the OS say WTC7 went down? Which floors *exactly* were damaged, which floors failed first? Because this video could make or break that claim.

If someone could go into detail about this, it would make this video extremely interesting and might prove to be yet another piece of damning evidence.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
So... now knowing that so many people see this as a blatant act of treason, why not start a class action lawsuit against the US Government for its knowledge and destruction of millions of lives and trillions of dollars worth of damage over this lie.

Surly there is a team of decent Lawyers in the US who would take on such a task for its citizens. What about Erin Brockovich... she helps people in cases like this against corporate giants... the US government is just a bit bigger of a corporate giant IMHO.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Funny thing is that when my father was down in ground zero, I remember my mother telling me that they were going to tear down building 7 because the infrastructure became "unstable" after the collapses that happened around it.

My father was in the FDNY. And I didn't know for months that this info wasn't considered mainstream knowledge, but a conspiracy. I figured that it made absolute sense to tear it down with all the collapses going on around it. I think I remember it happening later on in the evening or day, no one was injured or hurt from because everyone was within a safe distance of the building.

I also remember that day, it was the last day of his vacation, and he headed down to the city via city bus (all members of FDNY who were off duty reported in after were escorted by city bus into manhattan there on-- all trucks/engine companies were pulled into manhattan by that point) and probably when he was receiving those directions and was told where he had to be (situated by building 7) from home as there was no cell phone reception anywhere that day.

I really never understood why this plain info wasn't just known. This was the larger of the remaining towers, and like mentioned earlier, and can see why demolition would take place (to ensure that it falls uniformly and as safe as possible). Well anyway, that's my story, take it or leave it.

[edit on 13-2-2010 by helster83]

[edit on 13-2-2010 by helster83]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
To this very day I am still baffled that three buildings fell perfectly into their footprints.

I mean what are the odds for this to happen !

And when I hear that they decided to "pull" WTC 7 down willingly, I ask myself how can it be possible in such short time to plant explosives for a controlled demolition.

It takes normally weeks of planing and then additional weeks to place the explosive charges for the building to fall perfectly.

For me WTC 7 IS the smoking gun !



[edit on 13-2-2010 by Monte-Carlo]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
It's ALSO suspicious that there's no AUDIO.

In the video of the confirmed demo (my link) the audio has a very discernible signature.

Perfectly timed BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM

Then a HUGE explosion at the base.

Then more BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM

then the collapse.


I saw NOTHING like that here.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy88
reply to post by truthseeker1984
 


I'm ready to stand by you brother. Let's go and take our country back. Death to tyranny, hunger, unemployment, slave wages, warrantless wiretapping, ridiculously expensive and ineffective healthcare, oppression, pointless wars, the list goes on and on...

[edit on 13-2-2010 by conspiracy88]


I think your post offers an interesting window into the psychology of some truthers at least. Angst about everything to do with authority. You don't even mention 9/11.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Monte-Carlo
 


Well, I think in some respects it could be argued that it would be weird if they DIDN'T.

Here's why.

All three were officially destroyed by fire.

Same cause same outcome.

I would also say that if you compare the actual debris area of the WTC it's pretty huge.

in other words, not limited to it's footprint.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


Hi,

I do have problems with the official story concerning WTC 7 as being brought down by fire.

Indeed some sections of the building were on fire, but when you see the videos its as if the support columns suddenly lost their supporting role all at the same moment.

I am no structural engineer but I would guess that fire alone could not be the cause of the collapse.

Oh, and when you say "same cause same outcome", I would have to disagree with this comment because WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.

[edit on 13-2-2010 by Monte-Carlo]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by downisreallyup
Well, here is a video that was released in 2008 that clearly shows the explosions occurring simultaneously on each floor, a fraction of a second before the building crashes down in one fell swoop.


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



what a joke, lets just say the windows didnt break until after the collapse starts... look at HOW the collapse starts. This is such a lame attempt to psyops the thread.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by conspiracy88
reply to post by truthseeker1984
 


I'm ready to stand by you brother. Let's go and take our country back. Death to tyranny, hunger, unemployment, slave wages, warrantless wiretapping, ridiculously expensive and ineffective healthcare, oppression, pointless wars, the list goes on and on...

[edit on 13-2-2010 by conspiracy88]


I think your post offers an interesting window into the psychology of some truthers at least. Angst about everything to do with authority. You don't even mention 9/11.



Honestly, that poster could be wishing for socialism or any-ism... no joblessness ain't a characteristic of a democracy.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   
The only reason I have ever seen advanced for the alleged controlled demolition of WTC 7, apart from the ludicrous Silverstein insurance scam which he is supposed to have announced to the world on tv, is that the building housed secrets.

Is it seriously being put forward that blowing up the building, so that papers can fly all over Manhattan and emergency services can ferret around in the rubble, is the optimum solution ?



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
This video and Danny Jowenko's reaction, an expert. Makes it 100% sure for me it was a controlled demolition.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


And that, in a nutshell is why so many people cling to the OS however tenuous and threadbare that 'story' becomes.

It's almost like PTSD or shock is causing people to deny what their common sense is showing them. This is only half the truth, the other half is that agents of the corrupt are beavering away night and day, playing to this 'shock' and denial factor, by planting just the tiniest elements of doubt here and there, enough for the bewildered masses to cling to.

It's very strange.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Thanks for posting -

Personally, I believe BLDG. #7 was the target for the remote controlled plane (there is video on YouTube of R/C plane testing from the 70's & 80's) that was shot down over Pennsylvania...

Ironic...4 planes hi-jacked = 3 buildings hit - 1 plane shot down in PA - 1 building falls for no apparent reason? Yea, simple math...that plane was supposed to hit BLDG. #7...



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Sorry, no proof of anything but the gullibility of people with videos that only tell half the story. In this case, a zoomed in shot of the WTC7 as it is collapsing, which does not show you the fact that its already begun to collapse.

Even in THIS video you can see the windows break AFTER the collapse has started, NOT before.


Once again, nothing new, or special.


from the final WTC7 report from the NIST

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"

-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.


YOU don't even realize what HAS to occur to have what we all see happen...do you

You...DO ..realize that at the 4.0second mark of the collapse, the building is evenly descending, GLOBALLY, at around 60MPH

what we see in EVERY video, is falling as fast as if YOU were to step off the roof at the same time it falls...you would NOT fall faster than WTC7

how does a redundant structure with many overlapping applications to form a single unit...evenly descend

how is it that, the entire building we can see, can evenly descend as fast as an object falls through the air?

The facade IS attached to the perimeter columns...it is a non supporting structure, and will not stand while it's support fails behind it.

one end of EVERY roof truss also sits on those SAME perimeter support.

now..free fall acceleration was measured from the facade...
WE SEE as soon as the kink forms...no mater what position the building is in...EVERYTHING instantly, EVENLY descends...it not only descends...it ACCELERATES, though itself....and it does so at a rate, that until 9-11, was ONLY seen under laboratory conditions observed in a vacuum

(and if ANYONE can prove other wise that EVENLY descending at 9.8m/s^2 can be achieved in a steel structure, with NO visible agent causing it...post it)

and what is the agent causing ALL the perimeter vertical support to fail all at once....NIST claims it's NOT fire..."fire can't be seen from the windows",[NCSTAR1A-3.2],

yet..we see the even global descent of the facade, roof, and everything on it

NIST...HYPOTHESIZES that ONE vertical support fell the east Penthouse...but, we are expected to believe that EVERY interior vertical support can FAIL, while ALL that weight on the roof just MAGICALLY floats till that moment where everything can evenly fall

and here is a quote from Shyam Sunder the lead investigator for the NIST on the ONLY prerequisite for acceleration at the rate of gravity, at the NIST Q&A session held between the draft and the final report...

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"




posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
oop's
my bad....sorry

[edit on 13-2-2010 by hgfbob]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Silverstein's actual words, not 'supposed' words, but actual words, were..
"Well...there has been SO much loss of life and tragedy today, that we thought it would be safer to just PULL THE BUILDING"

THAT is what he said. Not supposedly, but actually.

You do not just 'decided' to pull a building down.

For a start, a controlled demolition of a large building takes weeks, even months to organise, wire up and lay charges, and all the myriad other considerations that need to be done before you can 'pull' (a term in common use in the demolition industry, meaning to bring a building down with controlled explosives)

Secondly, since when has making billions in profit from a huge insurance fraud, for a relatively small investment up front considered ludicrous?

This happens every minute of the hour, every hour of the day, 7 days a week all over the world.
Just not on such a grand scale, although this wouldn't have been the first building to be destroyed in an insurance fraud, and it won't be the last either.

Bottom line is Silverstein, slipped up under pressure and admitted to something he shouldn't have done. Although even this damning admission for this mercenary slug, has been pretty much deflected from mainstream attention.

Then we have the fact that UK TV, during a news segment about the WTC plot, it was being reported from a building overlooking the area of the WTC, that WTC7 had collapsed due to fire and is now laying in ruins and rubble in it's own footprint...the only fly in the ointment of this particular news report was that, the more observant viewers would have and could have seen, quite clearly that in actual fact, WTC7 was still standing and was clearly visible over the reporters left shoulder!!!

It didn't 'fall', until about 30 minutes later.

If you don't see the implications of this, i'd be happy to enlighten you.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
You know, those have always been 2 particular bones of contention for me, just how the heck did multiple channels report on an incident that hadint happened at the time of reporting, yet proceeded to happen just a short tiem later, and also, how the heck did it fall at freefall speed?

I smell a rat!!






top topics



 
153
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join