So Just Fire Brought Down WTC7 In A Perfect Free Fall Collapse ?

I would really love to see someone replicate the act of planting explosives in a building, set the building on fire and let it burn for 6 hours, and then successfully let the explosives go of as planned. That would really be one hell of an accomplishment.

reply to post by -PLB-

Well, according to NIST, the explosives would have only needed to dislodge one specific girder to bring the whole of WTC7 down like a house of cards, so it's not like the building would have had explosives spread about everywhere. Same with WTC1 and 2. If NIST can claim both buildings could collapse due to fire damage and structural failure from the plane impacts, they have to acknowledge that it wouldn't have taken a lot of explosives to give the buildings a bit of persuasion to drop sooner, rather than later.

there is NO WAY you can actually justify wtc7 fall... simple as that.. no need for 120 pages threads... 1+1=2. anything else is just denial of reality.

It was by pure chance that WTC 7 was hit by falling debris and fires were started. And it was by the same chance that the sprinkler systems were knocked out. These elements could not have been planned.

So what was the grand plan then ? Rig it with explosives and then just blow it up in broad daylight ? Would no-one think that might look a tad suspicious ?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Well, according to NIST, the explosives would have only needed to dislodge one specific girder to bring the whole of WTC7 down like a house of cards, so it's not like the building would have had explosives spread about everywhere. Same with WTC1 and 2. If NIST can claim both buildings could collapse due to fire damage and structural failure from the plane impacts, they have to acknowledge that it wouldn't have taken a lot of explosives to give the buildings a bit of persuasion to drop sooner, rather than later.

edit on 2-6-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

If you are going to believe NIST's conclusions, then why would you believe in explosives at all? They are not needed in their hypothesis. One very important reason people believe in explosives is because "it could not have happened like that, the buildings would have offered way too much resistance". And in order to overcome this resistance, you need many strategically placed explosives.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


It doesn't help that the first three buildings to ever collapse due to fire were WTC1, 2 and 7. And I do mean the first to collapse due to "fire" EVER! And yet we get labeled as conspiracy nuts for even daring to question the ridiculously false official story...

reply to post by Bilk22


Obviously your sarcasm detector is broken! I was kidding, wind taking down a skyscraper doesn't make any sense.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Definitly a contributing factor

reply to post by Hopechest


This reply is an example of what is talked about in _BoneZ_ thread Here

When a case is made that further questions the OS of WTC7 and somebody says actually that strengthens the case from their perspective for the OS that is a prime example.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

What I do know is that all evidence on the WTC7 situation points to something other than what has been presented to the populace

This goes for the thermite Steven Jones crowd as well.

No professionally controlled demolition team could recreate the collapse of the 2 towers.
Directed Energy Weapons are so preposterous no one will ever believe it. (perfect) So that's what was used.
No mystery

reply to post by Ahabstar

Might have had something to do with quite a bit of the side of the building facing where WTC 1&2 receiving damage from falling debris of the other two building collapsing. You know, that side that doesn't have lots of video nor pictures, but are out there to be found.

And some of of us that have actually researched, have seen some of the pics/vid's of that side of Building 7.

I have seen the "damage" to that side of the Building 7, but that doesn't exactly help the OS'er side.

As OP's vid show's, it is easy for implosion to go wrong. If Building 7 was heavily damaged on the side you're saying it was, wouldn't that make it MORE likely to topple over to the side?


Let's use a tree for example-

Lumberjacks use a technique called "notching", where the take a chunk of the tree out on one side to get the tree to fall in the direction they want.




Probably not the best vid, but it illustrates the technique.(Many more are available by searching "tree notching" on Youtube)

Of course I would also think that two very large buildings collapsing would have had quite a bit of vibration. Maybe even enough to put some serious cracks in fire damaged concrete perhaps.

Vibrations from the WTC 1&2 falling?

Come on, now you're the one stretching things! Are you an expert in this area? Is there any occasion in the history of the world where this had happened before? So I'm gonna further guess that since 3 buildings had never collapsed before on the same day, that there isn't too much scientific knowledge in this area?

So for you to throw that part in there, is utter nonsense and grasping for straws.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I would really love to see someone replicate the act of planting explosives in a building, set the building on fire and let it burn for 6 hours, and then successfully let the explosives go of as planned. That would really be one hell of an accomplishment.

edit on 2-6-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

You do know how most high-tech explosives work now-a-days right?

Fire won't set off most explosives today.

Remember the fertilizer plant in Texas the blew up a few weeks back? Fire didn't cause the explosion.

Have a basic knowledge of how modern explosives work first sir, before you embarrass yourself with posting!

Or go back to watching old cowboy movies, where wagons full of dynamite explode after catching fire.

Blind faith in a corrupt MSM.
Oblivious to basic physics.
People payed to keep the status quo.

Those are the only persons that will deny that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
This doesn't 100% prove it was the government but it was obviously planned.

Originally posted by freedom12
Fire won't set off most explosives today.

Even if they did, explosives need to be carefully placed at the right spots in order to bring down a building of this size.

reply to post by freedom12


Thanks for coming with such a friendly reply. By the way, did you know that most stuff gets broken when you throw it in a fire? If for instance, detonators will burn, or your wiring, and then your explosive will never go off. I am curious what the fire and heat proof explosive device will look like, and how it will be attached to the columns.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by RomeByFire
reply to post by Ahabstar

 

Since you brought up the topic of pictures/video, why have we still not seen any footage other than the five frames that were played that day regarding the supposed plane wrecking into the Pentagon?

All the local CCTV has been released.

Why have official requests been denied?

They haven't, we have a total list of all the videos the FBI collected

Furthermore, if it were these supposed terrorists, and there is absolute proof of this in the tapes, then why don't they release them and wash this thing clean beyond an unreasonable doubt.

They don't have absolute proof, nobody can ever have absolute proof. Christ they found a passport and that is apparently not enough proof. They found video wills and that's apparently not enough proof. The two people behind the plot spoke loudly and frequently about how awesome they were. Not enough proof.

You could put a 911 truther in the damn plane seconds before impact and they'd begin questioning the passengers on which federal agency they work for.

Oh, and by the way, the church that your strawman alluded to didn't collapse into it's own footprint. WTC7 did. I could go on for days about the inconsistencies in NORAD, molten steel in which jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to accomplish this, or half a dozen of other claims made by reputable and real engineers and architects.

Or you could just read peer reviewed journals, notice that not a single 'reputable' scientist or engineer has published anything remotely related to WTC7 and that if it collapsed into its own footprint, you have to ask what happened here: en.wikipedia.org...

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, for one example.

Have you seen their site? They still list thermite and high explosives as what was used, which makes zero sense. They don't exist to do anything but 'ask questions' and collect money. They have yet to publish anything.

Why is it you're willing to listen to one side, but when the head of the largest building group (CTBUH) states his position explicitly it has no effect on you?

More pointless and hypothetical scenarios that are completely irrelevant to the points I've made. But hey, it's easier to take the route of assuming what "truthers" would do in extenuating circumstances, because that proves what, exact?

Also, bolding certain words doesn't make them more true.

And yes, I have seen their site. And I will absolutely listen to "truthers" (I'll slander the many research firms myself so it's easier for you to digest) who are accredited in their fields, who have found the logical impossibilities of the nature of the WTC7 collapse, compared to hearsay on ATS with no links other than one to wiki.

Oh, and you forgot to go all nine yards. You forget to address NORAD. But you, seem more interested in simply discrediting me rather than proving an objective point. Why does thermite and high explosives make "no sense?" Furthermore, where did I say that in my post? I didn't. Nice strawman attempt at something I didn't say, though.

"You could put a 9/11 truther in a damn plane," nice ad hom. How old are we again? What does that statement have to do regarding 9/11, more specifically WTC7.

You have a nice day, sir, I'm not doing the same routine jumping through the same hoops with someone whose more concerned with discrediting someone rather than proving their side. It's hilariously ironic how you many times you name-called, and judged through labels and a plethora of fallacies. I'm not going to try and have a civil debate with someone who calls me out for "listening to only one side," when YOU are doing literally the exact, same, thing.

But hey scratch my response, I'll just play devils advocate and take a piece from your book.

"Man, those nay-sayers could be on their way to their re-education camps as they'd STILL applaud their government."

Oh man making judgemental blanket statements is so easy!

Makes me wonder why some many "truthers" don't rely on them to prove their point; oh yes, that's right. Because they have integrity and have more of a thought process than absorbing the drivel from mainstream media and hearsay.

Oh and you said it yourself, we could never have absolute proof?

Not according to my government. There was enough "proof" for them to illegally invade an entire region of the wod, all the whe passing Draconian laws on it's citizens. Instead of attempting to slander me, look at the bigger picture.

The public has still been denied under the FOIA regarding those Pentagon surveillance tapes, just so you know.

Originally posted by Hopechest
It seems to me that the OP has proven it wasn't a controlled demolition.

From his own example, he states how impossible it is to create a freefall into the buildings own footprint. If even professional demolition people can't do this with all the time in the world and in total public view, how would you expect a bunch of guys sneaking around during the early morning hours to wire a 100% perfect demolition?

You wouldn't.

Therefore the only explanation left is that it was a freak of nature, not a controlled demolition.

Ok, I have read a few 9/11 threads, and I guess(I was corrected by someone apparently, even though we came to the same conclusion) supposedly when the WTC 1,2, and 7 were pre-wired for demolition when they were built. I'm all for thinking ahead, BUT, almost 50 yrs of pre-planning??? And the companys that were involved in the building process???

I'll say it again, the laws of probability prevail, one building going down like that...ok, chances are still real slim, but it can happen, two buildings, kinda raises an eyebrow, and a Hmmmm, how can this be? And being perplexed at the thought. And for a third going down like that??? There is no way.

Now what I just stated is just plain common sense and logic, I know it will be hard for some to accept, because it is just too damn simple. For some reason, as a species, we are not happy unless we take a process and complicate it, ten fold. Or in this case, infinity fold......(over exaggeration to make a point........)

reply to post by freedom12


You're not allowed to use logic regarding 9/11.

Remember. All the arm-chair expert debunkers of ATS have more credentials than:

A&E for 9/11 Truth
9/11 Truth
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth

On ATS, these groups are always deflected from, because instead of looking at facts the shills are more concerned in strawman allusions and pointless hypothetical conjecture and supposition that isn't even related to the topic at hand. Thank you to the few members on ATS who are still fighting the battle over information and aren't letting pathetic insinuations of arm-chair experts with intellect greater than the groups and accredited members AND research they've done combined.

I'm going to recap, here: 9/11 now has been compared to falling leaves, tornadoes, nameless churches, and now hypothetical situations in which "truthers" are in the hijacked planes debating over alphabet agencies involvement.

I still haven't had my questions answered, though. Why did NORAD fail that day? Was it due to the war games happening? Why did Bush lie about these war games? Why did his administration lie about the techniques that the "terrorists" had accommodated? Why was video surveillance seized by FBI and never released? How is it possible that some of the alleged hijackers are still alive?

Questions such as these will never be answered, instead we are fed hypothetical situations, strawman logical fallacies, and above all ad hominem attacks to smear us and attempt to discredit an objective and factual base.

Attempting to prove a point anything 9/11 related on ATS is absolutely futile, this forum is under "heavy scrutiny," yet in every thread the same posters (who only post in 9/11 forum) immediately snap their jaws at "truthers" and all their "crazy non-sense."

Yet, we aren't the ones spouting off hypothetical situations about hypothetical people in a hypothetical scenario, the naysayers are. And "we" are the ones who need to check our facts or whatever other ad hom is constantly used by those pushing an agenda.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Ghost375

 

The last paragraph in the OP was in fact new to me after all this time, so yes new thoughts can create new threads, it is what this forum exists for right ?

But that's the crux of the entire WTC7 arguments!

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Ghost375

 

The last paragraph in the OP was in fact new to me after all this time, so yes new thoughts can create new threads, it is what this forum exists for right ?

But that's the crux of the entire WTC7 arguments!