Kevin Mcpadden 9/11 First Responder Building 7 Overhears Countdown for Demolition

There is a mountain of evidence and along with basic common sense with anyone who actually thinks for themselves can see that these buildings were brought down demolition style. I actually am amazed how many people believe the official lie with the help of main stream media goons promoting the lie and chasting anyone who questions it. I mean there was evidence of thermite and molten iron everywhere, what more do you need.

That Architect Ron Avery on Youtube did a great job of explaining the structure of the towers and how there is no way planes could have brought it down. I encourage anyone to watch it if you have the time.

reply to post by cerberus00


Did you take into account that some Large Outside pieces of Towers were
blown outward and fell up 600ft away from the Tower. These steel H frames weighed
more than 10 Tons each. Drop a 10 Ton steel Object from
100 stories and see how much damage it does. It would prabably sound
like Boooommmm, not to mention the earth shaking experience.

Originally posted by crusaderiam
That Architect Ron Avery on Youtube did a great job of explaining the structure of the towers and how there is no way planes could have brought it down. I encourage anyone to watch it if you have the time.

Yes, I just posted that entire interview he did with Alex Jones the other day:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Sorry, He lost me a Cheese Grater. It sounds like this "Architect" has
no Idea about the amount of Kinetic Energy in a Fully Loaded Jumbo going at 500mph.
Yeah, A few Inches of steel should hold it back.

Originally posted by hgfbob

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Crito
Oh, nothing, just a random, everyday explosion. Don't know why the fireman told them to get back because some building in the general vicinity of WTC7 was exploding. Just more people with overactive imaginations I guess.

Actually, as we well know, the area around WTC 7 had been roped off by firemen many hours before the collapse.

No one needed to get "back" since they were already back. So were the firemen themselves. The collapse from the damage was anticipated well in advance which is why the firemen were ordered out of WTC 7 HOURS in advance.

There is no mystery here.

only the mystery of WHO...from the City, communicated to the FDNY that there would be a collapse of 7...

There's no mystery there. The firemen notified the City of New York and the building lessee, Larry Silverstein.

Originally posted by cerberus00
Can we all not agree that this building collapsing is at least strange? It didn't get hit by any planes, and there were just a couple really small fires, so why did it fall?

Who told you that? The fires were large, burned unfought for many hours, and were started by the damage from the outer walls ejected from the collpase of WTC 1.

Even people here are claiming that:

Hundreds of 4 ton exterior wall sections were hurled in all directions from both towers up to 600 feet away at velocities up to 55 mph.

It takes explosive forces to eject 4 ton and heavier steel pieces sideways at 55 mph.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So it's no surprise that the damage done to WTC 7 and the consequent fires led to its collapse.

Originally posted by crusaderiam

That Architect Ron Avery on Youtube did a great job of explaining the structure of the towers and how there is no way planes could have brought it down. I encourage anyone to watch it if you have the time.

Ron Avery certainly has a "reputation":

www.weeklyuniverse.com...

Greetings all,

Perhaps I may have overlooked it, but does anyone else find it peculiar that the Red Cross is now involved in this massive cover-up?

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Sorry, He lost me a Cheese Grater. It sounds like this "Architect" has
no Idea about the amount of Kinetic Energy in a Fully Loaded Jumbo going at 500mph.
Yeah, A few Inches of steel should hold it back.

The guy is a qualified architect.

What are your qualifications to dismiss him so easily?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by cerberus00
Can we all not agree that this building collapsing is at least strange? It didn't get hit by any planes, and there were just a couple really small fires, so why did it fall?

Who told you that? The fires were large, burned unfought for many hours, and were started by the damage from the outer walls ejected from the collpase of WTC 1.

Even people here are claiming that:

Hundreds of 4 ton exterior wall sections were hurled in all directions from both towers up to 600 feet away at velocities up to 55 mph.

It takes explosive forces to eject 4 ton and heavier steel pieces sideways at 55 mph.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So it's no surprise that the damage done to WTC 7 and the consequent fires led to its collapse.

Can you clarify a statement you made for me? When you point out that “it takes explosive forces to eject 4 ton and heavier steel pieces sideways at 55 mph are you saying that this is why WTC7 was heavily damaged and eventually fell? I haven’t formed a definite opinion on what happened on 9-11 yet but there are things that don’t sit right with me and your statement is one of them. What actually causes a burning building to eject 4 ton and heavier steel pieces sideways at 55 mph?

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by cerberus00

 

Did you take into account that some Large Outside pieces of Towers were
blown outward and fell up 600ft away from the Tower. These steel H frames weighed
more than 10 Tons each. Drop a 10 Ton steel Object from
100 stories and see how much damage it does. It would prabably sound
like Boooommmm, not to mention the earth shaking experience.

I have the same question for you. You said “Did you take into account that some Large Outside pieces of Towers were blown outward and fell up 600ft away from the Tower. Drop a 10 Ton steel Object from100 stories and see how much damage it does.

The problem with your statement is the words “blown outward” and “drop”! You realize they are two different things don’t you? One uses explosive power and the other uses gravity. Just my two cents.

Originally posted by liveandletlive

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by cerberus00
Can we all not agree that this building collapsing is at least strange? It didn't get hit by any planes, and there were just a couple really small fires, so why did it fall?

Who told you that? The fires were large, burned unfought for many hours, and were started by the damage from the outer walls ejected from the collpase of WTC 1.

Even people here are claiming that:

Hundreds of 4 ton exterior wall sections were hurled in all directions from both towers up to 600 feet away at velocities up to 55 mph.

It takes explosive forces to eject 4 ton and heavier steel pieces sideways at 55 mph.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So it's no surprise that the damage done to WTC 7 and the consequent fires led to its collapse.

Can you clarify a statement you made for me? When you point out that “it takes explosive forces to eject 4 ton and heavier steel pieces sideways at 55 mph are you saying that this is why WTC7 was heavily damaged and eventually fell? I haven’t formed a definite opinion on what happened on 9-11 yet but there are things that don’t sit right with me and your statement is one of them. What actually causes a burning building to eject 4 ton and heavier steel pieces sideways at 55 mph?

I was pointing to a statement made by member SPreston who claims because "Hundreds of 4 ton exterior wall sections were hurled in all directions from both towers up to 600 feet away," it could have happened only by the use of explosives.

Most of the 9/11 Truth Movement claims that nothing hit WTC 7 from WTC 1 while SPreston and others in the "movement" agree that it's perfectly plausible.

I do not agree that explosives were used to bring down the towers and I have asked others to quantify how much explosives were supposed have been used, and why FAR more explosives were supposedly used in order to
"hurl hundreds of 4 ton exterior wall sections up to 600 feet away" rather than to simply separate the walls and push them away.

At some point the 9/11 Truth Movement is going to have to resolve its contradictions about WTC 7.

reply to post by jthomas


I see, you make a good point. I was wondering why the buildings would explode outward without explosives but just the same why would you need that much explosive force. Like you said, you would only need enough to drop the building.

Most of the 9/11 Truth Movement claims that nothing hit WTC 7 from WTC 1 while SPreston and others in the "movement" agree that it's perfectly plausible.

I've NEVER heard that claim before. Ever. Everyone in the 911 truth movement understands that WTC7 sustained *some* damage. The extent of that damage is what is disputed, not the existence of the damage.
I think the falling debris is an important piece of the puzzle, here.

I believe the latest NIST report claims that the floors did not pancake when they collapsed. What mechanism could possibly eject such large pieces of debris, far enough to damage the structural integrity of WTC7?

I can understand a few small pieces, but this is not the case. In the aerial videos of both collapses, it is clear that there is SOME kind of extremely powerful ejection taking place, and many pieces of debris weighing several tons were found hundreds of feet from the main buildings.

Some here are claiming that the falling debris would account for the sound of explosions, but neglect the fact that in many cases, that debris could ONLY have been caused by explosions.
Logic fail.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Son of Will]

reply to post by Son of Will


Would you consider the force of compression as a factor?

A simple example, squeeze a small stick, balsa for instance, between your fingers until it breaks.

What happens to the pieces when they break?

Now, jack that up and consider the tremendous amount of forces being exerted by all that mass, crashing down from above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After posting, and re-reading, I decided I wasn't clear enough --- the stick, in the example, should be held by the ends, and squeezed along its length, in order for my example to make sense.

[edit on 20 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

There are so many 911 threads today that I am getting confused. I saw a video in one of them that showed the damage to the south side of building 7. The north side of building 7 looks relatively untouched. I have watched the video of the building falling several times and am struck by an odd fact. If the south side where damaged how is it possible that the building fell straight down on the west and east sides? The north side of the building was structurally intact. If the damage caused the building to collapse it should have leaned to the south (the weak side) and the north side would have been dragged down. It looks like the whole building free falls all at once. Any explanations?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by thedman


Liars tell stories that are consistent and unvaried. Honest people amend their stories as they recall further details.

Which isn't to say this guy is telling the truth; just that you have to be careful when dismissing stories because they aren't perfectly consistent.

reply to post by jprophet420


Correct me if I'm wrong but, he did indeed 'get his money'. The case he lost was tossed out because the court found that he could not collect twice on 'one' event. Something to that effect anyway. I will try to find where I read that.

reply to post by okbmd


This one gives you a run down of the battles between him and the insurance companies.

www.globalresearch.ca...