mars13 said:
No, they must have placed them below the fire, not above. Take a look at the video on of the conspiracy sites.
One would go with explosives rather than fire-fighting since a large contingent of firefighters was already buried under the buildings hit by the terrorists. Demolitions don't require firefighters. Not the same field. The remaining firefighters were busy at that point trying to dig people out.
Geoff
Hurricane Angel said:
Ummm, you're just a bit too late for that....<P>
GeoffP said:
Do you know of any demolitions companies that would;
1) Show up within minutes/hours at standstill NYC traffic, with all the required explosives?
2) Not be a little weirded out that they're rigging a building to be removed on a national disaster day (how very unpatriotic I might add).
3) Risk working in a fire hazard zone, an insurance liability?
Hercules Rockefeller said:
Ummm, you're just a bit too late for that....<P>
Well...... this is the internet, and I'm always up for meeting people over coffee because I tend to be an asshole on the internet and quite the opposite in real life. In fact.................... by reading my posts and post material you might get a completely different idea of who I really am.
But I digress.
Anomalous said:
Can see the distance ?
Yes. Can see. Buildings 4 and 5 also not taken out? Thought was true. Maybe prevailing wind send burning fragments onto 7? Sometimes fire travel upwind too, though.
Gronk not see conspiracy evidence. Got wind data?
Gronky Geoff
Hurricane Angel said:
If you pay them enough? Yeah. If it was a scam, who knows what he might have offered. What's his payout on the building, then, anyway?
It would only be unpatriotic if it were a perfectly good building and half the FDNY wasn't already dead. Didn't they knock down a couple more buildings closer in as well? And if the demo guys couldn't get there, how'd the other emergency services arrive?
Geoff
I'd think the lights on top of ambulances usually make cars pull to the side, but demo cars don't have those special lights... unless they're super special demolitions cars from the future.
And btw, WTC 7 was on fire since the morning, unrelated to the attacks.
And btw, WTC 7 was on fire since the morning, unrelated to the attacks.
GeoffP said:
yeah its funny how there are explosions at the very top floors of the building.
and the fact that building 7 was similar in size/design to the oklahoma city building,but majicly that building didnt just fall down,it had to be PROFESIONALY demolished,and its was blown in half,not just some fire damage to a few floors.
pull your head from your ass,the owner said he demolished it,it was an inside job .
Hurricane Angel said:
They may not have lights on them, but the police cars leading them probably would. There's no telling what super special demolitions cars from the future would have.
If WTC7 was on fire before the attacks, then couldn't it just be a coincidence. Those happen too.
Geoff
mars13 said:
First off, save the insults.
Second - what explosions at the top of the building? Post a link. I didn't see any there. And if they were there, how could they have knocked the building down?? Isn't that your central point here? Demolitions at the TOP of the building? Come on.
I'll stipulate to it being demolished - in fact I think it probably was. But it was demolished because it already had severe damage and was going to pose a huge fire risk. That or an insurance fraud.
Talk about pulling heads out of asses.
Geoff
GeoffP said:
I don't understand how this "coincidence" relates to the owner's admission to demolition. Remember, we're talking about how quickly these demo guys set up and how a normal demolition job differs. The fire is irrelevant in this context because we have already concluded the building was demolished, right? You haven't concretely agreed, although I don't know how much more obvious you would like it to be.
Why is the owner admiting this, Is he a Partiot or is this because he is angry as he was to gain more as businessman with WTC standing ?
do you know this for a fact?Hurricane Angel said:
wtc 7 was damaged by the debris from the impact at wtc 1 and 2
the fire could very well have been started by the impact
it is assumed that that the collapse of wtc 1 at 10:29 am damaged the south side of wtc 7. the fires started at about this time
-fema403_ch5.pdf page 16
Last edited:
leopold99 said:
More important is to find out, when was plane 3 overpowered by passengers and the time delay between the fire starting in WTC7
leopold99 said:
You're a man with seemingly good know-how of the legal system as your debate with Perplexity on the "pentagon black hole" has shown everybody.. why this inquisitive nature doesn't extend to WTC 7 is beyond me.
Quote from NIST, key findings:
Odd, the official timeline says the South Tower collapsed at 10:05, according to CNN who, presumably, documented the whole thing. And FEMA, doing great investigative work I might add, decides to skip this piece of information and assume it was the second tower 30 minutes after the fire alarm in WTC 7 had gone off.
Doesn't it suck to be wrong?
Last edited:
GeoffP said:
Yes, after relentless mathematical formulations, derivations, integrations, cohomology, reverse-cohomology, substitutions, abstractions, matrices, and unified fields... I have generated the geological survey/ wind data Gronk desires.
Uh oh, wind travel south eastwardly. Gronk proven wrong regarding fire idea.. Gronk must consider the idea that Gronk has been proven wrong multiple times so far by anonymous yet benevolent stranger. Gronk also believes that stranger is the only real patriot because he wants whats best for the American people and not the American government.
Here Gronk sees that WTC 7 was northeast of crashing fire.
Unfortunately Geoff, I have prevailed in this legendary battle of ours. I shall be bequeathed the victor once I return to my homeland.