PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

page: 6
153
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by danielsil18
Explosives are not needed for a controlled demolition anymore because they can just start a fire inside the building and it will collapse with a free-fall acceleration in almost on it's own footprint.


Yeah!
Happens all the time, right?




posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by custom2006
 


You could be right there custom2006.

Maybe the PA 'flight' was indeed destined to 'bring down' WTC7, perhaps something went wrong with the R/C or some other fault developed that couldn't be corrected, so was remotely detonated to hide any evidence of a substituted aeroplane...a highly modified aeroplane that if it had somehow made a freakishly fortunate 'soft' crash landing would have been swarming with people within minutes...and the game would have been up for the conspirators.

Similarly, with all three WTC buildings pre-wired with demolition explosives, if the aeroplane meant to hit WTC7 for some reason didn't, then the evidence of the pre-planned conspiracy would be everywhere within WTC7 for all to find.

IT HAD TO COME DOWN!

Star for you matey.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



You need to learn some basic physics my friend.
Assuming that the speed of gravity in new york is the same as everywhere else on the planet, where on earth do you get 3.9 seconds from?

WTC collapsed in freefall mode in a little over 7 seconds, its on video

You repeatedly quote NIST yet they have been proven to have fabricated evidence to fit their theories.

Stop trying to belittle Richard Gage, he is an accomplished architecht, You are not, how do I know that? I just know.

PEACE,
RK



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Please do research before posting. I do believe that 9/11 was set up but this is not proof in any way. Just because it looks like a set up does not mean it was. I have seen accidental collapses and they mostly look like that.
Think about this for a moment, two very tall buildings fall creating a large blast radius, a wave of debri about fifteen feet tall rushes from the base attacking everything on its way, that building like a couple others, was just close enough that its foundation was vastly damaged by the blast, therefore it would fall straight down. I was there, just coming out of work at 8 am. There was an airplane for the first building, I saw it, the second explotion was just large enough for what gas the airplane had, no extra explosives needed there. Just ask any expert they will tell you.
The reason that I believe it was set up is because the military jets were not flying, I always saw them in the morning, they used to fly by the bay. I love Jets so I was always on the lookout. Also the pilots supodselly trained with CIA something the gorvt. did not deny.
The WTC came down because of very well crashed aircrafts not explosives, the videos only make it more obvious to those that know anything.
Again please do some research before coming up with bogus claims. It only makes it worse.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


There was NO sound of demo charges going off.


How do you know there were no demo charges going off? Please tell me you have a really good reason to believe that other than what you can and can not hear in the video.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick112

Originally posted by danielsil18
Explosives are not needed for a controlled demolition anymore because they can just start a fire inside the building and it will collapse with a free-fall acceleration in almost on it's own footprint.


Yeah!
Happens all the time, right?


Actually yes, ask firefighters from cities. It is one reason they are not allowed to enter most buildings. It does happen all the time. Why are you people so stupid as to never do any research?



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by xatharon

Originally posted by nick112

Originally posted by danielsil18
Explosives are not needed for a controlled demolition anymore because they can just start a fire inside the building and it will collapse with a free-fall acceleration in almost on it's own footprint.


Yeah!
Happens all the time, right?


Actually yes, ask firefighters from cities. It is one reason they are not allowed to enter most buildings. It does happen all the time. Why are you people so stupid as to never do any research?


STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS?

Can you back that up with something?



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by devenirmusic
 


There probably is ample evidence on camera.
Shame the FBI has probably confiscated most if not all of it, just as they did with the Pentagon videos from shops, hotels, parking lots, street cameras etc.

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.

This is when the buildings were wired for demolition.

G. Dubya's brother Jeb, was on the board of directors of the security company tasked with the security of the WTC a short time prior to 9/11, so access would be anything but problematic for the 'engineers' positioning the charges.

We have firefighters testifying that they heard loud, successive explosions going off in the twin towers before they were brought down.
In their OWN words, they said it was like when you demolish a building with set charges; Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom.

No ambiguity there...and these are the people who WERE THERE in the thick of it on that morning. They were not, i repeat not, saying this from a comfy computer chair or armchair, they were eye and ear witnesses who deal with situations daily that would boggle most of our minds. There are multiple news reports confirming the firefighters testimony of loud explosions going off in the towers.

The problems we are seeing now, with 'sides' in this debate is completely intentional. The conspirators are counting on infighting between the various factions of the argument of an inside job and the OS. They banked on polarisation of the people, and they were right.

The story, the facts, the evidence, the testimony, the eye witnesses and everything in-between is fast becoming secondary to the issues.
Now, we have sides, who just don't want to be wrong. The winning of the argument has become more important to the protagonists that the truth. This is classic divide and conquer tactics.





[edit on 13/2/2010 by spikey]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretbear

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...


Totally loving the audio recording experts that think these videos should have even had an audio track from a recording device that could pick up these explosions. Sound recording is very difficult and sooooo prone to exaggerate closeup noises while not picking up ones a short distance away. They can also be deaf to sounds that are too loud, too soft, too low, too high, and the surrounding environment noise also has a big effect.

But hey, do not let me get in the way of you "audio recording experts"



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


No, he/she cannot, because there is not another example of a steel framed building, collapsing due to fire.

Not anywhere...not anytime.
Except WTC1..WTC2 and WTC7..how about those apples then folks..NEVER at any time, on any continent has a steel framed multi story building succumbed and fallen due to fire.

One could argue, that it was the impacts that brought down WTC1 & 2, but this is not what is being claimed in the OS. The OS claims that fire was the cause, not the impacts.

Even forgetting about WTC1 & 2 for a moment, WTC7 wasn't impacted, yet this was the THIRD steel framed building, anywhere in the world to collapse due to fire composed of ordinary office combustibles only (NO jet fuel). And this happened within yards of each other.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.


Do you have a source for that claim?


This is when the buildings were wired for demolition


And no one noticed the tonnes of explosives? No one noticed the holes knocked in the walls to lay the explosives?


G. Dubya's brother Jeb, was on the board of directors of the security company tasked with the security of the WTC


He was? Why would the Governor of Florida be on the board of a security company?

More "truther" quality research!



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by xatharon
 


Oh, i can assure you there have been mountains of research performed on this subject on both sides of the fence as it were.

Much more research than you are apparently prepared to do.

And while i'm thinking about it, if we 'people' are all so stupid, what are you doing hanging around here conversing with us for? You enjoy talking with stupid people i suppose?

If you don't like it matey, you don't have to grace us with your company if it bothers you. It's not compulsory to come here, as far as i know.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Nice find TS. I find it amazing that sometimes people only see what they want to see instead of what is right in front of them. A damaged building does not collapse straight down in a uniform fashion like that. It would fall in a uncontrollable way with part of it still standing. I just don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp for some. Plenty of witnesses heard multiple explosions that day in all 3 buildings.

Don't mind the morons that believe the OS, just ignore them and let them wallow in their double digit IQ world.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Look closely and note the following things: 1. how close the video was taken from 2. There was no other dust and debris anywhere.

Sorry to tell you this, but this was taken after 9/11. One, who the heck would have stayed that close to the scene with all the chaos going on and dust and debris from the towers falling. Two, There wasn't any dust and debris from the towers falling.

Yes, no doubt about it, it WAS a controlled explosion. It was meant to be as it was being demolished due to the damage caused to it from the towers collapsing. Also, they demolished a few of the buildings around there some time later due to the same reason and to make room for the new building(s) to be built.

This is the truth. Also, no one could have held there ground and video taped that with all the chaos going on on 9/11.

[edit on 13-2-2010 by Tyler Fawkes]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


My good friend downisreallyup anyone with a modicum of common sense can see for themselves that this is a controlled demolition but i am afraid in dereks an Co you are talking to brick walls ! No amount of evidence from ANY source, demolition and explosives experts included will sway theyre opinion or change theyre minds ! The voracity with which they defend the OS borders on fanaticism and though commendable in certain cases just serves to highlight how ignorant and blind they really are ! I learned very quickly after joining ATS that dereks and his cohorts are in my mind just here to swear black is white with those of us who seek the real truth of what happened that day !
So many unprecedented events took place as to make the whole story absolutely unbelievable from 'vaporizing' planes to steel structured buildings collapsing due to fire ! Every single discussion in this forum is exactly the same truther 'the yolk of an egg is yellow' dereks n Co 'no it's not it's white' ! It's quite simple the evidence is there all three trade centre buildings were brought down by controlled demolition ! They were obviously wired well before the day maybe even the day they were built for just such an operation !

I feel sorry for dereks and his OS believing colleagues to live in denial all your life is a very big weight to bear ! I only hope in time that that one spark will wake them up and lift that weight from theyre shoulders ! So dont hate the OS believers, pity them cos the truth sets you free !



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 08:55 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!



The silly or brain dead thing to do would be to believe this building fell due to a few small fires. It goes against all reasonable logic and physics. I wonder how many people on this site are working with the gov debunkers???

It kind of reminds me during the Iraq war ( or at least when they called it a war ) when the Iraqi news was telling their people they were winning and not to worry. Pure BS is what it is. Hopefully one day the truth will come out and these people will be held accountable.

[edit on 13-2-2010 by djbj597922]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
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.





It doesn't help matters when you re-write what Silverstein said. He actually said " We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. " Nothing about " Pull the Building" as you suggest. In any event FDNY were calling the shots not Silverstein.

What I meant by ludicrous is that, if he was the instigator of the most murderous insurance scam in history, he would hardly announce the fact on tv. Even more ludicrous is to suppose that insurance companies would pay up, as they have, if they believed his words referred to controlled demolition or that there was a shred of evidence to support it.

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.

With regard to early reporting of the collapse of WTC 7 by the BBC, I am at a loss as to how this keeps coming up. Now, it could be that, on a very confusing day, the BBC got a premature report from Reuters that the building had gone down. It's collapse had been expected for hours and the firefighters pulled out.

Or, the perps, with their lives on the line, decided to give a foreign news outlet a script as to how it was going to go down.

If you believe the latter, you will literally believe anything. Even if you can abandon all critical thought and suppose that happened; just a moments thought will tell you that was quite impossible. Everything that day initially depended on when the 4 flights got off the ground. No-one could say anything would happen at a precise time after that.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I was reading the thread this morning and then had to run out to do some errands. One of my stops took me past a fire department that has a training tower on it's property.

Got me thinking...

Fire Fighter training towers

How is it that these buildings can be safely used by firemen? They are routinely set ablaze to provide practice/training. I realize they are built to with their purpose in mind, but if a fire can bring down a steel frame building that easily why do fire dept's use them?

Is this not a ticking time bomb? How many times can these buildings be safely used?

The tower I passed this morning has a brick facade over a steel frame. It has been set on fire 2-3 times a year, every year for at least 25 years that I have lived in this city (the FD is across from a park, I remember watching it burn as a kid).

Custom engineering? Sure, but if we are to believe that steel frame structures are that flimsy how could any FD afford to construct one strong enough to take the abuse? Add to that the insurance costs/concerns of using such a death trap for training and it shouldn't be possible for these structures to remain in use.

Far too expensive I would think.

One final question, have there been any changes to building codes as a result of WTC 1, 2 & 7? Any requirements for retro fits or structural reinforcement?

As a matter of public safety shouldn't every steel frame building in the world be surveyed and upgraded to protect the people inside form such a castastrophic weakness?

Edit: spelling

[edit on 13-2-2010 by {davinci}]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
You keep going on and on about "No sound".

Did you stop and even think for one minute, that they had the camera sound off?

I didn't hear any sound at all.

And plenty of people that day heard explosions going off.



Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


There was NO sound of demo charges going off. I dont care how many times you say, see the smoke? See the way it fell? Its a demo! No its not. There wre NO detonations heard prior to any movement.



[edit on 13-2-2010 by Realtruth]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Watch the video and learn about eye witness accounts talking about WTC 7

explosions.










new topics

top topics



 
153
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join