PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

page: 8
153
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Right, so with a building housing " sensitive documents " it was decided to blow it up. This might distribute documents and parts thereof over a wide area of the city but none of the perps had heard of a shredder.


I didn't know computers could be shredded. Wow, I guess you learn something every day!




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

Originally posted by TylerKing

Originally posted by Alfie1
Right, so with a building housing " sensitive documents " it was decided to blow it up. This might distribute documents and parts thereof over a wide area of the city but none of the perps had heard of a shredder.


I didn't know computers could be shredded. Wow, I guess you learn something every day!



My belief is with buildings that house such sensitive government material are built with self-denotation abilities. Sorta like a pilot (or astronaut) who has a ejection seat built into the jet!

I suspect every single govenmental building can self implode by pushing a button from NORAD or the likes in case of attacks and take-overs.
Now WTC I & II are different cases. That's why the 'power downs' prior to the 11th is very important to note.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Here's a snapshot of the critical moment:



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Actually you may want to read BBC's response to this conspiracy accusation right HERE

It includes the following statements:



We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.


So how come they were able to say that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened?



In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had.


Cheap excuse often used between friends - Sorry, I was confused and my mind was not straight. In that case, what can we trust on BBC, if they admit to presenting untrue information?



I've spoken to [Jane Standley] today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.


Yeah, you probably wouldn't remember much of what you reported years back, but what was she thinking back then, when obviously WTC7 was still standing behind her? Of course, probably she didn't know what WTC7 was...I can't even remember it's actual name myself.



We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it.


It was for reasons of conspiracy :-) If cock-ups happen so often, someone had better be fired soon. Every organisation keeps its files in order.



If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.


How can you make an error about a building collapsing 20-25 mins before it actually does? There are many other buildings in the vicinity. Why not mention them? Why did they only mention WTC7?



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Yep, what I knew all along. I will use this video to show my extremely hard headed friends that you can clearly see that it was demolished. Heck you can see a perfect line of smoke coming from the windows.

Yea fires sure brought that down.


Some people wonder why I seem to be so anti-government at times. It's a simple answer that leaves some looking at me crazy or confused. Our government has lied and killed our own people as a pretext for wars. When I became aware of this so many years ago, I've lost just about all my trust for the government. It's that simple.

[edit on 13-2-2010 by oconnection]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MightyAl
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Actually you may want to read BBC's response to this conspiracy accusation right HERE

It includes the following statements:



We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.


So how come they were able to say that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened?



In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had.


Cheap excuse often used between friends - Sorry, I was confused and my mind was not straight. In that case, what can we trust on BBC, if they admit to presenting untrue information?



I've spoken to [Jane Standley] today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.


Yeah, you probably wouldn't remember much of what you reported years back, but what was she thinking back then, when obviously WTC7 was still standing behind her? Of course, probably she didn't know what WTC7 was...I can't even remember it's actual name myself.



We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it.


It was for reasons of conspiracy :-) If cock-ups happen so often, someone had better be fired soon. Every organisation keeps its files in order.



If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.


How can you make an error about a building collapsing 20-25 mins before it actually does? There are many other buildings in the vicinity. Why not mention them? Why did they only mention WTC7?



Wow! I never read that before. How lame. No....how perjurious (is that a word?)
If you or I took that stance in court, dealing with a federal case/offense, we'd be locked up for conspiracy or fined as a hostile witness.

But was Jane personally ever tracked down and asked this question off or on camera? Where is she now? Surely she still can't be reporting seeing how she majorly erred that day, right? Pffffft
Whatever! This world is so corrupt it's sickening!!!



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
If WTC7 was used as the control center to bring down WTC 1 & 2, and after much of the dust cleared they evacuated WTC7, I wonder where the controller was for the WTC7 demo. I have never seen this discussed on ATS.

Anybody with any theories or ideas?



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
Top Emergency co-ordinator inside WTC 7 not only hears explosions, but feels them and get knocked on his arse.

Listen to the interview.





[edit on 13-2-2010 by Realtruth]


Yes, and have you looked into the times involved here at all. Jennings is talking about early in the morning before the collapse of either tower. He meets Michael Hess and they appear to be the only ones in the building.

They have to go down the stairs to get out because the power has gone. On the way down they are trapped by an explosion and damaged stairwell at the 8th floor. All the facts and timing indicate that this was caused by the collapse of the North Tower at 10.28 am and consequent damage to WTC 7. They remain trapped until rescued around noon.

This is all therefore some 5 to 7 hours before WTC 7 collapsed. Ever heard of a 5 to 7 hour cd ?



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by GenRadek
, 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?



Fun Game , My Turn

WHat did ole Larry mean when he said to "Pull IT".

A) Pull out the Firemen , who had already abandoned the build THREE (3)

hours earlier.

B) Pull the building down (Pull = Term used to demolish a building)


Oh sean, he meant the firefighting effort. Firefighters reported they were in and around WTC7 till about 3-3:30PM when the orders came to PULL OUT from WTC7 and establish a safety zone in the eventual possibility of collapse.

Chief Nigro on the decisions on WTC7:

The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldnít lose any more
people.

We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was giver
., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World
Trade Center collapsed completely

www.nytimes.com...
(Bolding and italics mine)

Lets play another game. Its called Fun with Math and Time! Question:
If the WTC7 collapsed at 5:30PM (according to Chief Nigro), and the order to "pull out" from WTC7 came in an hour and a half earlier, what time was the order given as told by the man who gave the order? You can use a calculator, or a pencil and paper, heck even take your socks off and use your toes to count. And make sure you answer is given in Eastern Time zone.
(The offical time for collapse of WTC7 was about 5:20PM, but given the hectic day and insanity, we'll allow for the minor inconsistancy that is present here).
-------------------------------
-------------------------------

NYFD Ryan Williams mentions this fact in his account that the orders came in around 3PM. It took another hour or two to get everyone away from the area of WTC7. His account is found here:
graphics8.nytimes.com...

here is Chief Hayden's account to Firehouse Magazine:

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

www.firehouse.com...
www.firehouse.com...

WTC7 collapsed about 5PM. (5:20PM offically) So using something called logic and critical thinking, LS got the call earlier in the afternoon, before 3PM. The fire fighters reported being pulled from WTC7 around 3PM. That means there were firefighters in and around WTC7 during the phone call to Larry. Even the commander himself who spoke with Larry admits that the call to pull came around 3-3:30PM.

Oh bonus answer for you. Pull it means physically pulling a building down with cables. They did it to WTC5 and 6. Now question for you: did you see any cables attached to WTC7 prior to the collapse? Were these cables attached to excavators which yanked it down? A) yes there were, B) No there were not.

Sorry Sean, you lost again. But thanks for playing.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I'm gonna play devil's advocate.

Let's go with my theory (that all federal and perhaps, state government buildings too are BUILT with self-detonating devices, so to defend critical information in case of a terrorist take-over, foreign or domestic)

Now....again, let's pretend that that's correct. Why can't they just admit that? Why can't they go with Silverstein's admission that they PULLED the building and that the building was able to be PULLED because it was built for such an event?
I don't understand what would be so wrong with admitting that. It sure would resolve all this controversy. Not that they care what we think/feel but still.

Again, I think every governmental building has this feature. Now....to get someone ( a contractor) to admit they helped build them that way is something else!

Maybe I am wrong but to me, it makes sense (except the part where they're not admitting to it though)



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I really do not know one way or the
other what happened thatday. I do
know that I saw the second plane
hit, even though it was on tv. I hope
that doesn't disqualify my opinion.

What I do know is I am getting tired
of being called an idiot, moron, and
all the other names that het thrown
around here.

I wathed a National Geographic show
about the conspiracy theories because
I wanted info. Knowledge brings wisdom,
except when it came to this issue. The
program showed a steel beam coated
with jet fuel and set ablaze for a specific
amount of time while it was covered in
the fire retardant used in the Towers.
It took forever to heat up to the temp
that steel melts. Then they did the same
without the insulation. In a matter of minutes
the beam became hot enough to warp.
I only bring this up because one of
the conspiracy theories was jet fuel
could not get hot enough to do this.
Even with the proof right in front of
him, the conspiracy theorist claimed
it was unrealistic. That and that alone
persuaded me who was being more
grounded.

Earlier in this thread a poster belittled
another when it came to the way
buildings fall in their own footprint.
The remark was about whether or
not the OS believer knew anything
about buildings being on fire and
if they had ever been in one.

The posters condescending attitude
was uncalled for. To that poster I will
say this to your question. YES. While
I was never in a steel framed building
I have been in numerous wood framed
buildings while on fire.

Now we all wanted to save as much
as we could bit some did collapse.
Some collapsed in on themselves,
some outwards, and some a combination
of the two. We were "pulled" out
too many times to count and for
various reasons. I do not pretend
to have the answers you seek but
I doubt they would make a difference
to you anyways.

Also, heat expands, so yes enough
heated air moving at a fair speed
can and will do some damage, ie.
blow out windows.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by MightyAl
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Actually you may want to read BBC's response to this conspiracy accusation right HERE

It includes the following statements:



We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.


So how come they were able to say that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened?



In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had.


Cheap excuse often used between friends - Sorry, I was confused and my mind was not straight. In that case, what can we trust on BBC, if they admit to presenting untrue information?



I've spoken to [Jane Standley] today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.


Yeah, you probably wouldn't remember much of what you reported years back, but what was she thinking back then, when obviously WTC7 was still standing behind her? Of course, probably she didn't know what WTC7 was...I can't even remember it's actual name myself.



We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it.


It was for reasons of conspiracy :-) If cock-ups happen so often, someone had better be fired soon. Every organisation keeps its files in order.



If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.


How can you make an error about a building collapsing 20-25 mins before it actually does? There are many other buildings in the vicinity. Why not mention them? Why did they only mention WTC7?


Yes, I don't suppose any other news outlet has ever made a mistake :-

blog.lib.umn.edu...



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Here's a snapshot of the critical moment:


Oh thermo! did you notice the building is already collapsing? Why dont the windows break before the penthouse collapses? The penthouse collapse started about 8 seconds before the rest of the building started to go down. What kind of demo charges explode after the building collapses?

[edit on 2/13/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


That is an interesting idea thermo, however, some technological difficulties must be addressed.

Most of these buildings were designed and built 20-30 years ago. Some are even older. To wire up the buildings (ala James Bond and the evil madman's secret liar self-destruct switch) you would have to incorperate the devices into the structure, the wiring, everything and hide it. You cannot drill into beams, cut into them, without compromising the integrity. You also have to remember that these devices would degrade over time. Explosives become unstable, and very dangerous, or lose their explosiveness. The wiring and clamps and the equipment to arm the devices would also degrade, corrode, and allow for a misfire or worse, a premature detonation. Someone would have to periodically maintain the explosives and the connections and everything needed to make sure they are in working order. Then what about the building maintenance people, or construction people, or renovators who would come in and do some heavy work on the building's interior or exterior? Wouldnt they come acorss these as well? What about maintenance inspectors? To do something like this is more James Bond than reality.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek


Oh bonus answer for you. Pull it means physically pulling a building down with cables. They did it to WTC5 and 6. Now question for you: did you see any cables attached to WTC7 prior to the collapse?
Sorry Sean, you lost again. But thanks for playing.





Pull with cables? What cave are you living in?
"Pull" is a demolition term here in the new millenium m'friend.
To 'pull away'.
Not to 'pull out the firefighters' or 'pull the hoses from the truck' or 'pull with cables' (especially in a metropolitan situation with hundreds of bystanders even though...the area was supposedly evacuated)

Besides, I find it a strange uncommon word coming from a white-collar man like Larry Silverstein. He MUST'VE gotten that term from someone else, no?
It's liken to 'boxcutters'. Now....who uses these words in every day descriptions especially under total chaos?
Whateva.................


[edit on 13-2-2010 by TwoPhish]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Allow me to educate you on the exact term of "pulling" in demolition:



See the cables? Where were the cables on WTC7?

And here you go ignoring the fire fighters reporting they are being pulled out and away from WTC7. :headslap:


Firefighter Richard Banaciski was in the Verizon Building, adjacent to WTC7.

"Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street." [2]

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

"By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
"Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?"
"Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety." [3]


Fire Fighters being PULLED

Also if you can, direct me to a source where the fire department commander is in the business of demolishing 47 story buildings and using the lingo of a demo crew. Also, why would the fire department commander call the owner to get permission to "destroy" a building with explosives, if the building owner already is aware of the demolition stuff? That makes NO sense. And again, WHO MADE THE DECISION TO PULL ANYTHING? Please answer THAT question.

Edit: changed video to better quality

[edit on 2/13/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
geeez give it up people this evidence produced time and time again is merely someones observation not a proffesional mind you. These are opinions not evidence if it was proof you would be on the six oclock news and every newspapper cover tommorrow sorry

Be Well



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MightyAl
Great video! And it seems very difficult for anyone to see it otherwise.


Enjoy the video (again, if you've already seen it):



Do you see the WTC7 building behind the reporters head still standing as she speaks? It's sheer comedy, if not disturbing.


[edit on 13-2-2010 by MightyAl]


I am a little confused with the clip you provided,
It says in the clip showing the bbc news room that the time in BST was 21.54?

That would make it 9.54 pm in the late evening.
What times did the wtc7 come down again?

Also in the background with the report from New York, is it definetly WTC7 in the background by her head just off to our right a little?



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Allow me to educate you on the exact term of "pulling" in demolition:



See the cables? Where were the cables on WTC7?



[edit on 2/13/2010 by GenRadek]



In all due respect, you're showing me 'clean up' clips.
Sure, let them use cables. Let them use silly string if you will. Who cares about post-9/11? We're talking about a building that was 'on fire' and...... some 8-9 hours later, it collapsed. I am not interested in what took place (for sake of this argument) some days/weeks/months later.

Terms have different meanings even during the same event.

Baseball: You can strike out a batter or strike him in the face with a ball


But I am not quite understanding your position. So, they didn't use 'cable'. What does that mean to you? It sounds like you're on the 'demolition' side but....I don't think you are. Please explain.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Dude, just how big is this town of denial that you live in? I don't want to believe and regardless of this video, there is just too much evidence out there to say that 9/11 was not an inside job.
As I said in another post; forget the buildings, research the NYSE "put options" and "call options" surrounding 9/11. Some folks got pretty rich off of this I believe, and as I recall some of the money earned has never been claimed. Get your head out of the sand and look around a little, it's not pleasant but it is necessary.
Seeashrink





new topics
top topics
 
153
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join