Recent Implosion of the Amway Center Raises Further Doubts

The collapse of WTC-7 is quite often touted as the "Holy Grail" for the 9/11 Truth Movement. I will admit, that back in 2006, I too looked at the videos presented by the truth movement and wondered how it happened. Upon my research and talking with structural engineers, I satisfied my curiosity and was comfortable in that it was not a controlled demolition. My opinion was later confirmed by the overdue report from the NIST.

Truthers will never shy away from the WTC -7 collapse. Most claim that the building was somehow covertly rigged with "non conventional" devices. This of course is a double standard. Because another line that truthers perseverate is the: "The First Time in History". Well, if the three towers were demolished, wouldn't this be the first time in history for a controlled demolition on massive skyscrapers with devices and or explosives that have never been used before on building demolitions of this magnitude?

What truthers also have to consider is that you have to believe ALL THREE were brought down by CD. They will have to concede this as fact even though not a single CD expert believes that WTC- 1 & 2 were controlled demolitions. Why? Well, if tower ! and 2 didn't collapse, there would not be any reason for the massive fires to start and consume so many floors of the Solomon Building.

So, with the recent proof that Therm*te was not used as an aid in the collapses, what was used? There are several theories from truthers, yet not one can come up with one that can really hold water. You need explosives to do the work!

I would like to use the most recent demolition of the Amway Area in Florida to show what happens during a controlled demolition. The following videos show with audio what happens. While watching, make sure your speakers are on. You don't have to have them loud.

This is from the news chopper:


Here is from about a 1/4 of a mile away: (on the other side of "Lake Dot")



This video was taken on the roof of the Kel building that is a little more than a 1/2 a mile away.



All three clearly have very loud explosions followed by the collapse. Below, please find a video of the collapse of WTC-7 from MSNBC. I'm quite certain most have you have seen this. I would like to estimate how far away they are, but I'm afraid that I will be held to it. The point is, there are ZERO sounds heard that warned anyone of the pending collapse. The reaction was from the collapsing building. Not explosives heard during every single controlled demolition in history.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
All three clearly have very loud explosions followed by the collapse.

And as mentioned many times (but ignored by conspiracy theorists) in a controlled demolition there is an order to the explosions as well.
The building is not brought down in one big bang, but as heard very well in the videos here, the internal structure is taken out first by earlier explosions in a predefined order, before the building is finally taken down by the final explosions.
None of this happened in New York.

Another thread trying to prove that the buildings came down in a natural fashion?

America was attacked from within. The proof is out there and actually in many threads on ATS.

And Thermite has been proven to be all over the place at ground zero. Many times.

I will never believe those buildings were taken down by inexperienced pilots using nothing but box cutters to hold off an entire plane load of people who knew they were going to die. Especially when many experienced pilots who have actually flown jets of the size used have stated that even they couldn't do it. And the Pentagon? Can't even go there...

Peace

Originally posted by jude11
Another thread trying to prove that the buildings came down in a natural fashion?

America was attacked from within. The proof is out there and actually in many threads on ATS.

And Thermite has been proven to be all over the place at ground zero. Many times.

I will never believe those buildings were taken down by inexperienced pilots using nothing but box cutters to hold off an entire plane load of people who knew they were going to die.

Peace

Jude, in an independent investigation performed by James Millette, it was proven beyond a doubt that therm*te was not used. FYI- this investigation was funded by Debunkers AND Truthers.

dl.dropbox.com...

reply to post by Six Sigma

And FYI I believe that report has itself been debunked because of the impurity of the samples obtained due to it being so far from the actual location of the towers themselves. If not entirely accurate, my statement is not far from the mark. It did pass the revue here on ATS before.

In any case, regardless of the method of delivery of the force necessary to demolish the building or the various types of explosives or materials used, it was not a plane.

ETA As a slightly related aside, why is the building being demolished? It looks perfectly fine to me. I tried to google it and its been there for only 30 years? I could have got the wrong building though.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver

And FYI I believe that report has itself been debunked because of the impurity of the samples obtained due to it being so far from the actual location of the towers themselves. If not entirely accurate, my statement is not far from the mark. It did pass the revue here on ATS before.

Wait...what? You obviously failed at reading the report AT ALL!

FACT:

The "peer reviewed" paper from Jones et al used a dust sample without a known chain of custody.

FACT:

The Doctor; Dr. Millette who is a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and works with internationally known microscopy experts requested that the same dust sample used from the original paper. The request went to Kevin Ryan who declined his request.

FACT:

Four samples were chosen from the archives of MVA Scientific Consultants. These dust samples had been collected within a month of 11 September 2001 and sent to MVA for different projects. The red/gray chips discussed in his report were analyzed during the period from 18 November 2011 to 20 February 2012. Some analytical results characterizing the particles in the dust from two of the samples (4808-L1616 and 9119-X0135) had been previously published in the scientific literature.

FACT:

You never bothered to read his report.

FACT:

Therm*te was not used on 9/11.

reply to post by alfa1
Not all methods of controlled demolition are the same. Some of the pre charges may have used different methods than used above. Molecular Thermite or something like that in shape charges around internal supports might be quieter. Also something that wouldn't be practical for a normal controlled demolition if you just want to bring the building down.

Doesn't need to be quiet just cheap / effective. However if your executing a black op im sure moneys no expense which opens more doors.

Originally posted by Mandrakerealmz
Molecular Thermite or something like that in shape charges around internal supports might be quieter. Also something that wouldn't be practical for a normal controlled demolition if you just want to bring the building down.

Molecular Thermite? Did you read the paper I referenced above? NO THERMITE WAS FOUND!!

I still believe the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition, using thermite . The people responsible have untold wealth now . This was not like your standard demolition where the job is tendered to the lowest bidder . These people have a world of resources .

Hushaboom in

3

2

1
.
.
.

I still like this idea:



Explosive mixed into the concrete when mixed. The tech was in existence at the time...

Thread about it here:
Get Smart Episode 52

Great thread, if you ignore most of my posts.

reply to post by Six Sigma
No thermite? What about something like thermite? How specific was the testing. Who did that testing? :/

Some form of molecular incendiary was used. And what caused the molten pool of crap under ground zero to smelter for months after

Did NOT Thermite do that too?

would be quite the amazing feat to time explosives to be as invisible as the ones used in the WTC. There is a small delay between explosion and collapse as can be seen in the video. Not so much on 9/11.

Originally posted by jude11

I will never believe those buildings were taken down by inexperienced pilots using nothing but box cutters to hold off an entire plane load of people who knew they were going to die. Especially when many experienced pilots who have actually flown jets of the size used have stated that even they couldn't do it. And the Pentagon? Can't even go there...

Peace

edit on 27-3-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)

There is no reason any pasengers on AA Flight 11 or UA Flight 175 would have assumed they were going to die .
Why would they ? Quite different from the situation with UA 93 where the passengers did learn what was going on and there was a very different outcome.

What on earth is so difficult about crashing into two of the largest buildings on the planet ? Over 200 feet wide and conveniently sticking up over 1300 feet in the air.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


"Thermal Expansion" in
3

2

1
.
.
.

reply to post by Six Sigma


You are still insisting that it is sound that proves it wasn't a controlled demolition? That because it doesn't sound or look like other controlled demolitions?

That is ALL you have?

Do you not realise it is not what the collapse looks, or sounds like, but the final result?

No, you have to explain how a 47 story building could fall mostly into its own footprint, as evidenced by post collapse pics. Pics prove the collapse was vertical, and landed mostly in its own footprint. That is what matters.

Nails in the coffin of your claims...

reply to post by Six Sigma

Fact: I read it in another thread that dealt with this exact paper.
Fact: I never mentioned thermite
Fact: The samples were taken within a month, hardly fresh "evidence"
Fact: See 1 again.
Fact: You appear to have an agenda on 9/11. All your threads and posts (with the exception of 2 posts when you first started posting) are on that subject. No passing interest in anything other than 9/11? Suspicious at best.

reply to post by ANOK


The lack of explosions is by no means the only indication it was not a cd. What about ?

The extreme improbability of rigging a building like that without a soul noticing anything.

Not a vestige of evidence found in the rubble of explosive demolition. Not so much as an inch of det cord.

Not a single person has admitted to any involvement directly or indirectly in more than a decade.

No evidence has come to light linking a single person directly or indirectly to a cd of WTC 7

Gradual deterioration of the building over hours.

Self-evident alternative to cd in that the building had been hit and damaged by the falling North Tower and had unfought fires on multiple floors.

Experienced FDNY officers anticipated the collapse due to the condition of the building.

No motive for the demolition of WTC 7 unless you subscribe to the hiding secrets absurdity, as though blowing a building up is more efficient than a shredder or incinerator.

What was going to be the excuse and cover for this cd when it wasn't hit by a plane as truthers keep pointing out ?. It was only by accident that falling debris hit WTC 7 and started fires. Couldn't have been planned for so what was the plan ? Just to blow it up as it stood ?

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

Fact: I read it in another thread that dealt with this exact paper.

If you did, then why would you believe that it was debunked?

Fact: I never mentioned thermite

I never said you did.

Fact: The samples were taken within a month, hardly fresh "evidence"

Fresh? You mean thermite has a shelf life? Do you know how old Steven Jones sample was? Why don't you find out. (again look into the chain of custody)

Fact: See 1 again.

See my 1 again.

Fact: You appear to have an agenda on 9/11. All your threads and posts (with the exception of 2 posts when you first started posting) are on that subject. No passing interest in anything other than 9/11? Suspicious at best.

Oh I do. You can believe that I am part of the NWO that was hired to post on a popular conspiracy theory website to spread disinformation to help cover up the massive conspiracy that was 9/11....or you can believe that 9/11 hit my home directly and quite hard. By doing so, lead me to learn all I could about the events.

reply to post by ANOK

No, you have to explain how a 47 story building could fall mostly into its own footprint, as evidenced by post collapse pics. Pics prove the collapse was vertical, and landed mostly in its own footprint. That is what matters.

Any building that loses its supports for whatever reason is going to fall straight down. It has no choice. There is no force to push the material sideways.
Buildings are made NOT to be rigid. They need to flex. It will flex until something gives. If it was rigid like a silo chimney you could expect some of it to fall sideways.

Here's something to consider.
Link
I580 overpass collapses after a tanker truck carrying fuel wrecks and burns underneath.
The steel 'I' beams melted in 15 minutes.