WTC7 - controlled demolition?

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by leopold, Dec 2, 2013.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i think i have a plausible answer to WTC 7.
    when i seen WTC 1, 2, and 7 fall they looked like CDs ( controlled demolitions)
    i reviewed several videos about CDs and came to the conclusion that 1 and 2 was not a CD but i could not resolve 7.
    7 was indeed a CD.
    heres why:
    WTC 7 was a part of our national securoty apparatus and housed many things that was "top secret"
    7 was probably rigged for a CD as soon as it became part of our national security.
    the government probably destroyed 7 after 1 and 2 and the pentagon was attacked to protect what was inside it.
    silverstien saig "pull it" and they did.

    the above fits all of the evidence.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,549
    Then how do you explain the slow collapse of the building? The penthouse collapsed several seconds before the rest of the building began to collapse; this would not have happened had they used controlled demolition. It would have happened, however, if the structure failed gradually as fire burned through supports.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    You must have been watching the slow motion version! The penthouse collapsed no more than a second before the rest of the building, which fell at close to free-fall speed.
    Beginning the collapse in the central interior of the building is exactly what controlled demolition experts (try to) do. In this way the building falls in upon itself to leave the smallest footprint of debris.
    What fire? There were several small fires -- and since fires gulp lots of oxygen they were burning at exterior points of the building. There were no invisible fires raging away in the interior; save in extraordinary circumstances, there never are.

    But I am not going to engage in any flights of fancy to explain the who and the why.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,549
    Nope. It took at least 2 seconds to collapse before the rest of the building began to collapse. Thus the "controlled demolition" theory falls apart.

    Extraordinary circumstances - like tons of debris falling on a building, opening gaping airholes into the interior? Yes, it would take something like that.
     
  8. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    I just don't know which video you have been looking at. I recall that one analysis puts it at 0.8 seconds, though I don't know why a slower start would invalidate a controlled demolition verdict. Nominate a video we can all watch, so others can judge for themselves!
    Show me! Nominate an aerial photo or video taken before the collapse!
    Are you actually claiming that there was an unseen inferno in the depths of the building gradually eating into the gigantic support beams (whose dimensions you can find in the NIST report)?

    The only thing that sometimes concerns me is that the collapse seems TOO PERFECT even for a controlled demolition. Nominate a building hit by debris or damaged by fire that has fallen with such perfect symmetric precision!
     
  9. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    So how did the "Perps" know ahead of time that WTC7 would be struck by flaming, falling debris? It's not right next to the towers...the debris could have fallen the other way. How did they know the water mains would be severed, rendering the sprinkler system inoperable? How did they know the fire department wouldn't fight the fire, and allow it to burn for 7 hours? Why destroy 7 anyway? No one's heard of it. No one died. and if you want to destroy data or whatever else...shredders are much more effective. It doesn't make any sense.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,549
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

    Penthouse collapse starts at 1:02. Building collapse begins at 1:10.

    Here is a page with three pictures showing the fires burning in WTC7.

    http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

    No. I claim that the combination of fire and physical damage to the building from debris caused the collapse.
     
  11. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    If that's the best you can do, billvon, I don't think I have anything to add.
     
  12. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,582
    The only thing that I can think of to be added to your conspiracy lunacy is...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    498
  14. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    254
    ----- that only gullible conspiracy nuts believe.


    Whereas, with a few minutes research we see how dumb it actually is -
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8v8ai2-S0Q&list=PL2FBE1CA7A5961316


    If only people like you watched and took in the very simple infant-proof explanations, we wouldn't get threads like this. Sadly..............:shrug:
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,549
    Fair enough! We'll let the facts stand.
     
  16. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    498
    This guy says that a building can only fall into its own footprint if it falls because of a carefully prepared controlled demolition and he seems to have the background.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg
    "Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org"

    What do you pro-official version people say?
     
  17. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Judging by your posting history, you'll believe anything as long as it's on youtube. Have you made ANY effort to find anything anywhere that disputes your silly conspiracy theory??
     
  18. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028

    Except that none of the building collapsed into their own foot print. They all damaged or destroyed surrounding buildings.
     
  19. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    498
    The buildings fell straight down. Stuff was blown outward because of the explosions.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8
    "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (3/3)
    (35:07 time mark)

    The point is that the buildings didn't topple over. Start watching the above video at the 1:05:45 time mark.

    Tell us if he building on the right fell into its own footprint.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,549
    Controlled demolitions blow supports and then let the building collapse on its own. (This is necessary; detonators and explosives cannot be expected to work while in a collapsing building, and ejection of them would be a serious safety hazard.)

    Thus, if you claim that the "stuff blown outwards" towards the end of the collapse was caused by explosives, you have proven it could not be a controlled demolition.
     
  21. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    498
    Start watching this video at the 31:56 time mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8
    "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (3/3)

    There are obvious explosions happening.

    You didn't address this part of my post.
     
  22. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    254
    No there are not.

    Do you even know what a strawman is? Yes, the building more or less fell into its own footprint. So what? Go on answer that. So what?


    What should a building of that design do, when one of its supports gives way?

    I put it to you - exactly what happened. As for the explosives expert and his conclusion it was a CD. When such a thing occurs with a support and that design, the result is the same as a CD, because that is what a CD would do, take out the supports.


    Now, answer this. Jowenko was actually very surprised when he saw WTC7 coming down and actually asked whether it occurred on the day. He said they must have worked fast, initially assuming it was a CD for safety reasons. Now, his surprise at WTC7 implicitly dismisses WTC1/2 as being controlled demolitions, he neither mentions them, and would NOT have been at all surprised at a minor building being a CD when the two main buildings WERE.

    What do you say to this?
     
  23. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    498
    This guy says it's an impossibility...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg

    and so do a lot of these people.
    http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ve Evidence -- Experts Speak Out (Full)&sm=12

    If the experts say they were all controlled demolitions, they were all controlled demolitions. We just have to figure out how they were prepared.

    A plausible explanation of how the towers were prepared is put forth in this video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8
    "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (3/3)

    Start watching at the beginning.

    If they were able to prepare the demolition in the twin towers, why couldn't they have found a way to do the same thing in building seven?
     

Share This Page