WTC 7's compartmented demolition collapse sequence reveals human intervention.

page: 2
172
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Wow. Thank you for that outstanding expose of the facts, and for the incredible amount of work you must have put into it.

I am so glad the world has people like you in it.

With this and CIT's National Security Alert - which is also an excellent expose of the Pentagon hoax, the case against the OS is advancing amazingly at the moment.

It is facts and anlyses like these which will persiuade many more to see the truth, and, hopefully a jury too one day not too far away.

And I just love the way you show how the seismograph tells the story.

Brilliant. Namaste.



edit on 17-9-2010 by wcitizen because: addition




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
reply to post by Come Clean
 


What are you trying to say hear? That the towers had pre-planted explosives 'just in case' they caught fire? Or because they knew and planned the attacks. A quick look into the tenants of WTC7 breeds suspicion.


Everyone knows about the "Pull it" quote from Silverstein which was much debated. But I don't think many are aware of another bizarre piece of information, from one of the least likely sources - a Fox News article that is slandering Jesse Ventura. Check out this tidbit from it:


Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

Source

Everyone knows that you can't outfit a skyscraper with explosives in a manner of hours, especially one that was on fire and with had many inaccessible areas. So now there are two pieces of evidence which suggest Silverstein had both the intention, and the capability, to authorize a controlled demolition.


I hadn't heard of this before. This is very damning. Thanks for posting this.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
One day soon the evil pack of cards will come tumbling down, just like those towers did. It will be controlled demolition of a very different kind and it will be as joyous to see as 9/11 was gut wrenching.

RIP to all who were murdered that day, and all who died as a result, including the silenced witnesses.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean
I still go back to basic fundamentals. There was no way to put those fires out in the towers so they brought them down. Now I think they brought down 7 for the same reason. It was on fire and no one was fighting it. So they brought it down.




1.) Then what is there to cover up?

2.) They could have gotten the people out and then explained that the building needed to come down.

3.) How did they get the bombs in the building if it was one fire.

4.) WTC 1 and 2 fell less than 2 hrs after the planes hit.

5.) Reports and recordings of NY firefighters state that fires in all 3 buildings where almost out shortly before the buildings fell.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
This is some great work, thank you for the effort.

A very plausible explanation for how the collapse was
accomplished. If only more people like you had the
knowledge and fortitude I believe we could force
another investigation.

Great contribution to the cause S+F!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
edit on 17-9-2010 by Come Clean because: no reason given



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
A very thorough post to say the least. I will have to read the links as time permits.
My opinion is nighttime "janitors" who had free run of the building did the dirty work.
Star n Flag for you



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
reply to post by Come Clean
 


What are you trying to say hear? That the towers had pre-planted explosives 'just in case' they caught fire? Or because they knew and planned the attacks. A quick look into the tenants of WTC7 breeds suspicion.


Everyone knows about the "Pull it" quote from Silverstein which was much debated. But I don't think many are aware of another bizarre piece of information, from one of the least likely sources - a Fox News article that is slandering Jesse Ventura. Check out this tidbit from it:


Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

Source

Everyone knows that you can't outfit a skyscraper with explosives in a manner of hours, especially one that was on fire and with had many inaccessible areas. So now there are two pieces of evidence which suggest Silverstein had both the intention, and the capability, to authorize a controlled demolition.


Problem I have is who's to say the foundation was weakened? As far as I know those towers would still be standing today but as skeletons. So there was plenty of time to bring those towers down. By any means necessary including thermite.

I'd like to know the breakdown of the victims. I bet most were on or above where the planes hit. It was basically empty from those levels down. Anyone could have rigged those towers to fall without anyone's knowledge.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nottheonlyone

1.) Then what is there to cover up?

2.) They could have gotten the people out and then explained that the building needed to come down.

3.) How did they get the bombs in the building if it was one fire.

4.) WTC 1 and 2 fell less than 2 hrs after the planes hit.

5.) Reports and recordings of NY firefighters state that fires in all 3 buildings where almost out shortly before the buildings fell.


1. You tell us.

2. They couldn't get the people out because there was no way to get the people out. All the stairs and elevators were unusuable at and above the plane strikes.

3. Below the plane strikes the buildings were basically empty. Plenty of time to tell everyone the buildins are coming down then walk up and place thermite charges.

4. By that time someone said, "how the heck are we going to put these fires out?" "These things could burn for weeks".

5. Funny, your question 3 seems to contradict your question 5. You claim the fires were almost out but also claim no one could plant charges because the buildings were on fire. Which one is it? Were the fires almost out or not? But let's explore this further.

Who put the fires almost out? The fires were dozens of stories up. They had hoses that long? The sprinkler system was out. So tell me, these fires put themselves almost out as you claim? The heat was so intense they couldn't even get near the top floors. People were jumping out of the building. They basically helped get people out. They did no firefighting on that day.

So many fireman were running around all it would take is for someone to put on a fireman's suit and plant thermite charges.

Matter of fact, where is the "how do we put out the WTC Towers if they ever caught fire above 80 floors" disaster plan? I would like to read for myself what OFFICIALS claim to be the best way to put out WTC Tower fires.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
What's more humane? Watching people jump to their deaths or bringing those buildings down? Because there was no way to put the fires out and no way to rescue those people.



edit on 17-9-2010 by Come Clean because: video edit



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean
What's more humane? Watching people jump to their deaths or bringing those buildings down?


Don't you think blowing the buildings up caused more people to die than the fires would have?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Look at the video I posted. I don't see anyone fighting fires. They appear to be standing there holding hoses. And they don't look like 1000 feet hoses to me.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 


lol ... so, now you are saying that the US government did put down the building to spare the pain of those people struck in the building

but you forget that the rescuers trying to save those people were in the building and they could get out

so, why all those died? hahahha

come on ... I think therefore I exist, but what you just said its too much



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Come Clean
What's more humane? Watching people jump to their deaths or bringing those buildings down?


Don't you think blowing the buildings up caused more people to die than the fires would have?


Answer my question. How were they going to put the fires out? Would you rather watch people jumping out of windows all week?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
reply to post by Come Clean
 


lol ... so, now you are saying that the US government did put down the building to spare the pain of those people struck in the building

but you forget that the rescuers trying to save those people were in the building and they could get out

so, why all those died? hahahha

come on ... I think therefore I exist, but what you just said its too much


How were they going to put the fires out?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean

Originally posted by bsbray11
Don't you think blowing the buildings up caused more people to die than the fires would have?


Answer my question. How were they going to put the fires out? Would you rather watch people jumping out of windows all week?


Um, with water?

You're asking... Would I rather watch people jump out of windows, or kill even more people to not have to watch them jumping?

You know, you could just turn away and not watch, you still wouldn't have to see them, and it would have saved more lives.

There is no excuse for what was done.



Check it out:



It took them 24 hours to put that fire out, but they still managed it. And they didn't even have to explode the whole building and kill that many more people.

edit on 17-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Come Clean

Originally posted by bsbray11
Don't you think blowing the buildings up caused more people to die than the fires would have?


Answer my question. How were they going to put the fires out? Would you rather watch people jumping out of windows all week?


Um, with water?

You're asking... Would I rather watch people jump out of windows, or kill even more people to not have to watch them jumping?

You know, you could just turn away and not watch, you still wouldn't have to see them, and it would have saved more lives.

There is no excuse for what was done.



Check it out:



It took them 24 hours to put that fire out, but they still managed it. And they didn't even have to explode the whole building and kill that many more people.

edit on 17-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



LOL!!! Here we go with the water again. I already debunked your water theory months ago. You're the cross building water rigger upper guy right? There was no water pressure in those buildings after the planes struck. The water main was broken. The sprinkler system was broken. A sealed tube that is broken has no pressure.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean
LOL!!! Here we go with the water again. I already debunked your water theory months ago. You're the cross building water rigger upper guy right?


No? I said water because... that's generally what firefighters use to fight fires...


There was no water pressure in those buildings after the planes struck. The water main was broken. The sprinkler system was broken. A sealed tube that is broken has no pressure.


So the only possible option in this scenario is to blow the buildings up and kill thousands of people. I see.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Some person said a few months ago they could rig up water hoses in adjacent buildings and string them across to fight fires. I believe it's the same person who is now claiming water was available to fight fires while standing in the basement listening to body's fall above their heads all week long.





posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Come Clean
LOL!!! Here we go with the water again. I already debunked your water theory months ago. You're the cross building water rigger upper guy right?


No? I said water because... that's generally what firefighters use to fight fires...


There was no water pressure in those buildings after the planes struck. The water main was broken. The sprinkler system was broken. A sealed tube that is broken has no pressure.


So the only possible option in this scenario is to blow the buildings up and kill thousands of people. I see.


They were already dead because there was no way to rescue them.





top topics
 
172
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join