Thanks you... Now we are certain that we took it down ourselve, we need to ask the following questions: Why it was demolished on the same day 911? Why not the next day or the day after like WTC5 & 6? Why "Barry Jennings" did walk on dead bodies when he did leave WTC7 hours before it collapsed? "Barry Jennings" himself said on 911 'When the fire fighters were taking him out from WTC7 they told him not to look down...I was walking on dead bodies inside WTC7' Who were those killed man and women in WTC7, why they were killed? Why "Barry Jennings" heared explosion in WTC7 before WTC1 & 2 collapsed? Remember we were told that WTC7 collapsed due to damages from the collapsing tower. ahhaaaaa "Barry Jennings" is a Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority. He was inside WTC7 on the day of 911. Watch his testimony about WTC7 http://youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q Regards
Can you re-think again? Watch the testimony of "Barry Jennings" about WTC7 youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q Then find out about the following questions * Why it was demolished on the same day 911? Why not the next day or the day after like WTC5 & 6? * Why "Barry Jennings" did walk on dead bodies when he did leave WTC7 hours before it collapsed? * "Barry Jennings" himself said on 911 'When the fire fighters were taking him out from WTC7 they told him not to look down...I was walking on dead bodies inside WTC7' * Who were those killed man and women in WTC7, why they were killed? * Why "Barry Jennings" heared explosion in WTC7 before WTC1 & 2 collapsed? Remember we were told that WTC7 collapsed due to damages from the collapsing tower. ahhaaaaa "Barry Jennings" is a Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority. He was inside WTC7 on the day of 911. Regards
WTC7 is virtually meaningless to 911 event in general. At leas as far as how it came down, even if it was a controlled demo initiated afterwards. Why would that matter much?
WTC7 is virtually meaningless to 911 event in general. At leas as far as how it came down, even if it was a controlled demo initiated afterwards. Why would that matter much?
We know the NIST report, it failed to recognise the scientific evidence of WTC1, 2 and 7 control demolition and molten metal...and all the other evidences. They are part of the game ... we know the game now.
Ah yes the old molten metal scam, do you know how long metal remains molten after the heat source is removed? Well the answer is not for very long, once the heat energy is removed steel starts to freeze, and in less that 8 hours it becomes solid, and that is with insulated pots, aluminum takes even less time, and as it freezes it expands and breaks the pots, or if it occurs in the furnace it wrecks the furnace, a rather expensive occurrence. On of my part time jobs is as a night watchman, for a electrical manufacturing company, that cast their own motor cases, shafts and mounting. They had their own foundry to provide the metals, steel and aluminum, they melt 10 to 30 tons at a time, then they start molding, if a pot isn't used before the end of a shift the metal freezes, it's still hot as hell but it is no longer molten, so any suggestion that there was molten metal under the WTC is just ludicrous. Steel melts becomes molten at 1600 c. aluminum become molten at 684.9 c. and catches fire at well below the point of Molten Steel, as low as: If there had been temperatures high enough to create molten steel in the WTC, a massive fire would have been created, and nothing would have been left, the only things that might have survived would have been ceramics.
If anybody failed to recognize anthing it is you. You can't seem to absorb the facts in front of you. And again, there was no molten metal.
If they had just said they controlled Demo'd it, people might be less curious. They deny that was the case. That's why it is interesting.
Madrid Fire Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That is just stupid Ganamed. You cannot use examples of one fire to explain another. There was not two other masive structures that came down like an earthquake at the base of that building. The twin towers went deeply into the ground too. THINK.
WTC 7 Fire Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ya. Particularly showing a more slender, taller building managing to survive a larger, more out of control fire. That's not fair to Silverstein or his ability to fleece the American public of billions.
Hmm ... so I'm supposed to believe that a few office fires made an enormous steel structure collapse like a house of cards in a suspiciously similar fashion to controlled demolition projects? Riiight. Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed nietzchefan's analysis on building seven in an alternate thread (which I can't locate at the moment): "I don't know about the twin towers, but anybody with a pair of eyes could tell that building seven was a controlled demolition". I must say, that was merely what I remembered of the quote; obviously, it's only a sketchy paraphrase. However, the point still stands: it was a great post, and it outlined in a very blunt (yet concise) manner the ridiculously ostensible explanation for building seven's destruction. Kadark the Superior
That is just because you mind is only familiar with footage of controlled demolitions. You instantly identify with them but that does not too much.
