NEW FOIA Released WTC 7 Audio/Video Reveals Controlled Demoltion.

Originally posted by dereks
No sign of explosives being used

There are lots of signs that explosives were used. The major one is the FACT that the majority of the building landed in its footprint...





If you can explain how the outer walls can end up on top of the debris pile, from an uncontrolled demolition, you'll have a good future at Demolition Inc.

I think controlled implosion demolition requires some kind of explosive...

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.*

science.howstuffworks.com...

*

*

*

If you understand physics, and the whole point of implosion demolition, then this is a no brainer.

No time to wire the building up with explosives

WTC 7 was constructed in 1987, I think there was plenty of time.

zero evidence in the rubble that explosives were used

No one looked for them?

now why do you think explosives were used?

I think it's pretty well self explanatory.

reply to post by ANOK


If the (debatable) fact that the vast majority of debris ended up within the footprint is evidence of a controlled demolition, then would you concur that the reverse must also be true? In other words, if the majority of debris had ended up outside the footprint that would have to be taken as evidence for no CD?

After nine years it’s the same old arguments about the same old points! No proof of CD just someone saying “It must be CD”.

reply to post by Shadow Herder
I have no doubt that this is a demolition but I am really curious as to what are in the missing frames?what do you think they could show us?Keep these videos and other information coming ,never let them forget,and lets keep this in the fore front of everyones mind I don't care how many years go by we owe it to the victims and their famlies.....oh by the way I love your signature,never thought of it that way!

reply to post by TWILITE22

I am really curious as to what are in the missing frames?

It shows the windows popping out from the explosives, further proof of demolition.

The one thing I took from the video is that a major piece of evidence for CD has disappeared.

Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish.
-- wtc7.net

I've looked at all the videos. WTC 7 collpased in 6.5 seconds, period!
-- Jason Bermas

It was observed that the building collapsed in just 6.5 seconds
-- Journal of 9/11 studies

WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds
-- physics911

Building 7 collapsed entirely in 6.5 second
-- 911review.com

World Trade Centre 7 fell in 6.5 seconds (including the collapse of the penthouse on top of the building
-- 911physics

World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) was a forty-seven story steel framed building, which collapsed vertically in 6.5 seconds
-- pupaganda.org

Someone's going to have to let all these guys know. Unless they know already and haven't altered their sites. But I can't believe they'd do that...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ANOK

 

If the (debatable) fact that the vast majority of debris ended up within the footprint is evidence of a controlled demolition, then would you concur that the reverse must also be true? In other words, if the majority of debris had ended up outside the footprint that would have to be taken as evidence for no CD?

Not at all.

The normal, and most easy, form of demolition is to drop a building to one side.

The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Implosion demolition is what happened to WTC 7.

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

The two towers were too tall to be implosion demolished, and I doubt they wanted to topple them to one side, as that would have caused more complicated clean up. So what other way would there be to bring down a 110 story tower?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The one thing I took from the video is that a major piece of evidence for CD has disappeared.

Time of the collapse is really irrelevant.

No matter how long it took it still managed to avoid all the resistance from its own undamaged structure, that should have slowed the collapse and stopped it before was complete.

It doesn't change the FACT that WTC 7 landed in its own footprint.

Originally posted by ANOK
It doesn't change the FACT that WTC 7 landed in its own footprint.

Why do truthers keep repeating this obvious lie?

If it collapsed in its own footprint then how did the collapse of WTC 7 manage to damage other buildings? Unless "its own footprint" means something special to truthers...

Originally posted by dereks
Why do truthers keep repeating this obvious lie?

If it collapsed in its own footprint then how did the collapse of WTC 7 manage to damage other buildings? Unless "its own footprint" means something special to truthers...

Why do 'debunkers' keep calling 'truthers' liars when they fail to understand them? You can't prove it's a lie, so why make the accusation?

'In its own footprint' is not a literal statement. It doesn't mean if a desk or chair or piece of steel lands outside the footprint it contradicts the claim.

'In its own footprint' means the majority of the mass of the building lands within its own foundation, i.e. it doesn't fall to one side like a tree.

If you see a collapsed building, and the outer walls are ON TOP of the debris pile, then it has to be a controlled implosion demolition. There is simply no other way that can happen. Just think about it, instead of trying to find ways to discredit it.

Please stop arguing semantics and go actually learn something...

Originally posted by ANOK


Not at all.

So what you're saying is that it's evidence of a demolition if a building falls in its footprint, and evidence of a demolition if a building doesn't fall in its footprint.

I think that's called having your cake and eating it.

Originally posted by ANOK

Time of the collapse is really irrelevant.

Really? Are you really moving those goalposts that far? This has been an absolutely central tenet of the truth movement's argument about a 9/11 conspiracy. And now you're happy just to toss it aside.

I appreciate that you may not have considered the time of collapse important, but you must admit that it has been a vital part of the TM's argument. And now it turns out not to be true.

reply to post by ANOK

Why do 'debunkers' keep calling 'truthers' liars when they fail to understand them? You can't prove it's a lie, so why make the accusation?

The mental state with some of the debunkers is pretty sad if they have been exposed to the MK and other mind control programs, you can see why reality is an issue for some of them www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I turned up my speakers 100%. Did Richard Gage wire this building with his own "Hush-A-Bombs?"

Where are the booms?

Compare the OP video to this one: (Again)

Liar caught out again here are your BOOMS right here in this video note how this video
directly supports and corroborates Kevin Pc Padden's Testimony especially the part
where he speaks about and describes hearing the BOOM BOOM sound right before
the building comes down i guess this video proves Kevin Mc Padden is not lying after
all it corroborates his account, this proves the building was imploded you cant escape
it give it up already NIST has just proven how guilty they are by releasing edited video's of
wtc 7 coming down with no sound at all and all a sudden they release one with sound
which reveals the signature sound of an inevitable controlled implosion.

Rising Waves Blow WTC7 East Penthouse - buildingwhat.org

www.youtube.com...

Have fun dee bunking this video i wonder what pathetic nonsense you will spew out now.

reply to post by thecritta


If you think your WTC 7 clip looks and sounds like the " Landmark Implosion " I just don't know what to say to you.

In your clip a couple of guys are chatting in the background and only suddenly see WTC 7 collapsing when it almost half-way down.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by thecritta

 

If you think your WTC 7 clip looks and sounds like the " Landmark Implosion " I just don't know what to say to you.

In your clip a couple of guys are chatting in the background and only suddenly see WTC 7 collapsing when it almost half-way down.

Really this is your weak response to my post, can you please tell me why there is a BOOM BOOM sound
sound right before the collapse of the East Penthouse? Almost the exact same sound that Mc Padden
described hearing on 9/11 before wtc 7 fell, let me remind you that no fire can possibly explain that sound,
if column no 79 really buckled and collapsed as result of the fires that where in that building that caused the
East Penthouse to implode we would not be hearing a double explosion sound right before the East Penthouse
collapses. Really i do look forward to hearing you answer my question, do you think you could do that? Or is it too much for your duh bunker brain to handle?

reply to post by thecritta


There is a low volume sound just before the penthouse falls in; likely indicative of the structural failure causing it to fall in, and that is it.

The sound is nothing like the sharp multiple detonations in the " Landmark " clip and there are no flashes. The sound in your clip is obviously so inconsequential that the guys in your clip just continue to chat through it, do they not ? They only notice the collapse is happening when it is well under way.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The one thing I took from the video is that a major piece of evidence for CD has disappeared.

Time of the collapse is really irrelevant.

No matter how long it took it still managed to avoid all the resistance from its own undamaged structure, that should have slowed the collapse and stopped it before was complete.

It doesn't change the FACT that WTC 7 landed in its own footprint.

You've avoided this before, and I will ask again.

How does a building that lands IN it's own footprint, hit 3 OTHER buildings, one on it's ROOF??

Also, show us the math that proves the arrest should have been arrested. I'll wait.

Originally posted by ANOK
Why do 'debunkers' keep calling 'truthers' liars when they fail to understand them? You can't prove it's a lie, so why make the accusation?

Yes we can. Fitterman Hall. OUTSIDE of the footprint. Easy.

Originally posted by ANOK

'In its own footprint' is not a literal statement.

Yes, it most certainly is. It is VERY definitive. Do you know what a footprint is?

Originally posted by ANOK
It doesn't mean if a desk or chair or piece of steel lands outside the footprint it contradicts the claim.

Nope, it was much more than that. In fact, 3 different buildings, on 3 DIFFERENT sides were damaged. One, on it's ROOF.

Originally posted by ANOK

'In its own footprint' means the majority of the mass of the building lands within its own foundation, i.e. it doesn't fall to one side like a tree.

Than you should specify "majority" and quit using a term to mean whatever you want it to mean.

Originally posted by ANOK

If you see a collapsed building, and the outer walls are ON TOP of the debris pile, then it has to be a controlled implosion demolition. There is simply no other way that can happen.

False choice fallacy. Nice try though.

Originally posted by ANOK
Just think about it, instead of trying to find ways to discredit it.

Please stop arguing semantics and go actually learn something...

Says the person who doesn't understand the words "IN" "FOOTPRINT" and "MAJORITY".