Wtc 7, It Own Story Of Controled Demolition And Cover Up.

[anyscientologist]

Its owner acknowledged that it was controled demolished.

New WTC Complex Photos Highlight Bizarre Building 7 Collapse

Buildings 5 and 6, closer to towers burned throughout but did not collapse

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 23 2006

Previously unseen photos provided to us by a fireman who was at ground zero on 9/11 highlight the implausible implosion of WTC Building 7 in comparison with buildings closer to the towers that sustained significantly more fire and debris damage yet did not collapse.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/August2006/230806wtccomplex.htm

​

 

[Jon]

There was a film being done by 2 French documentarians, about newly graduated firemen in NY. They had the video of the first plane hitting the towers. After the
firemen were back in there firehouses, talking about the day and what had happened
the firemen that were there said they herd explosive charges going off as the towers came down. They said it was like a when a building has to be demolished to make way for new construction. They could hear a rapid bang bang bang bang bang as the floors were being takin out.

I believe that firemen know what they are talking about. They have to be on site when a building is demolished, so they know about controlled explosives and bringing down
different structures. It takes weeks of work to place explosive charges in a building to
get it ready for demolishing. Charges have to be placed inside main support pillars and beams.

There is no way the 2 towers would drop into themselves on there own. Where the planes hit the towers would be the weak point. IMO they would have both toppled off sideways taking out more buildings as they fell over. Like a tree falling down.

 

[michel]

I don't know what to believe; I googled Paul Watson, and he seems to see conspiracy theories in absolutely every aspect of any society. How credible is he ? He comes across as a conspiracy theory guru.

 

[anyscientologist]

I don't know what to believe; I googled Paul Watson, and he seems to see conspiracy theories in absolutely every aspect of any society. How credible is he ? He comes across as a conspiracy theory guru.

The difference is wether you can proove any of those "conspiracies" false. are you trained on science? University or High School?

 

[anyscientologist]

There was a film being done by 2 French documentarians, about newly graduated firemen in NY. They had the video of the first plane hitting the towers. After the
firemen were back in there firehouses, talking about the day and what had happened
the firemen that were there said they herd explosive charges going off as the towers came down. They said it was like a when a building has to be demolished to make way for new construction. They could hear a rapid bang bang bang bang bang as the floors were being takin out.

I believe that firemen know what they are talking about. They have to be on site when a building is demolished, so they know about controlled explosives and bringing down
different structures. It takes weeks of work to place explosive charges in a building to
get it ready for demolishing. Charges have to be placed inside main support pillars and beams.

There is no way the 2 towers would drop into themselves on there own. Where the planes hit the towers would be the weak point. IMO they would have both toppled off sideways taking out more buildings as they fell over. Like a tree falling down.

This is so true that a scientific test could be performed on any assertion.

 

[Booko]

The difference is wether you can proove any of those "conspiracies" false. are you trained on science? University or High School?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

Philosophy 101.

Yes, I have degrees in science.

And?

 

[Booko]

This is so true that a scientific test could be performed on any assertion.

Huh?

Some assertions are not falsifiable.

That's why many atheists have difficulties, philosophically speaking, with the idea of the supernatural.

Philosophy of science 101.

 

[Jon]

The fact of the matter is that the U.S government is becoming a totalitarian police state weather you like it or not.
It's turning into George Orwells 1984
The U.S government was involved with the Oklahoma city bombing as well.
WTC is just another example.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It makes absolutly no since to make destroy a building that way. Capture a few airplanes, kill hundreds, attack a non-related building, head towards another, fail, and after thousands are dead, set off the explosions, go to war, and have even thousands more killed.
Don't you think someone that worked at the trade centers would have seen the explosives put into place?

 

[Booko]

The U.S government was involved with the Oklahoma city bombing as well.

Yeah, they hired some militia guy to take the fall for them.


If you'd ever been in the thumb of Michigan, you wouldn't be at all amazed that it could produce someone like McVeigh.

 

[Ody]

It's turning into George Orwells 1984

Even if you buy this conspiracy theory nonsense, our government isn't turning to Stalinism...

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

First the rigged election poll scams, and now this--a seemingly crazy conspiracy theory that looks like it may well be true.

The thing is, something just isn't adding up about the official 9/11 story.

• How come reports about the WTC planes don't sound like they were commercial airline jets?
• Home come multiple reports about the Pentagon plane describe it as a small fighter jet?
• How come there was a ton of censorship over photos and stories regarding the Pentagon plane?
• How come the downward acceleration rate of the two main towers was much closer to a free-fall in STP air than "pancaking" down a massive tower?
• When one of the twin towers began to fall, its top was rotating down. Why did this rotation disappear?
• Jet fuel fires cannot melt steel.
• There is a documented video of a helicopter flying just a few hundred yards away from one of the towers as it burns. Seconds after it turns away, the tower goes down. Why?

And once I see Fahrenheit 9/11 (nope, I haven't seen it yet), based on what I saw out of Bowling for Columbine, it'll probably be that much harder for me to accept the official government story.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Jet fuel fires cannot melt steel.

Just an off the wall relation, but methanol has an invisible flame. You can't see it, but if a race car running of it catches fire, the driver still feels the flame. Electrical systems catch fire, and shorts in electrical fires can generate alot of heat. Even the electricity itself can generate enough heat to melt metal. You wouldn't have seen these, but they were no doubt present.

 

[Jon]

Don't you think someone that worked at the trade centers would have seen the explosives put into place?

It seams the security cameras were turned off for several nights.
That it's self is not a normal sop.

 

[Matt]

Do any of you have any proof about your theories? Most people that create these theories are really not reliable scources and have no expertise in the matters they raise. You shouldn't believe every Looney with a theory. Everytime something happens or a well known person dies, there are thousands of people out there with a new theory. It's unfortunate but some manage to get their work published and it's even more unfortunate that people like yourselves are so gullible.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Just an off the wall relation, but methanol has an invisible flame. You can't see it, but if a race car running of it catches fire, the driver still feels the flame. Electrical systems catch fire, and shorts in electrical fires can generate alot of heat. Even the electricity itself can generate enough heat to melt metal. You wouldn't have seen these, but they were no doubt present.

Got any sources that show that jet fuel contains large quantities of methanol? I thought it was primarily kerosene....

 

[Djamila]

This whole thing just really bothers me. I'm not entirely convinced the main towers came down of their own accord, and this tower 7 is even creepier. You can see the explosions blasting out of the basement in the videos they've shown on the news, and then it falls perfectly down as a controlled demolition would be.

It also didn't sustain nearly enough damage to collapse on its own. My God, if every building in Sarajevo that had that much damage during the war fell, there'd be nothing left standing. NATO bombed USCE in Belgrade, which is a similar structure, with quite large bombs and took the whole upper-middle out of the building and it still didn't collapse.

It's just crazy to me. I don't know how anyone could even be stupid enough to claim, much less believe, that such a building would just collapse from a fire. If the American people truly believe it, then for the love of God beg your government to tear down NYC and rebuild it better because if the wind blows the wrong way tomorrow, Manhattan could come down like dominoes.

 

[Booko]

This whole thing just really bothers me. I'm not entirely convinced the main towers came down of their own accord, and this tower 7 is even creepier. You can see the explosions blasting out of the basement in the videos they've shown on the news, and then it falls perfectly down as a controlled demolition would be.

The thing is, if this is not feasible from an engineering standpoint, I would expect to hear a hue and cry from engineers. But I don't.

Now, maybe they're afraid to speak or something, but one of my Baha'i friends is a structural engineer that builds things like this, and he doesn't seem to have a problem with the idea that these buildings came down as they did. If there were something to say, he would say it privately.

The sort of coincidences and lies that would have to be put in place for this to be intentional on the part of our gov't and still have Bin Laden's group claiming responsibility, and to have videos of the guys getting on the planes, oh, and the passengers of the Flight where the guys took out the hijackers, but before they did that, they were making cell calls home.

Well, I think you see my point. Any conspiracy this big can't be kept that quiet.

Even small things in Washington aren't kept quiet. It's as leaky a place as any sieve. Ask any journalist who works there.

If someone wants to assert there is a gov't conspiracy here and they had a hand in this destruction directly, then they have to explain a LOT more than just some engineering questions.

Someone please explain to me all those cell phone calls home from flight 96 and how they were faked.

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Djamila]

Oh I don't think it's THAT fake, Booko. I'm sure the hijackings were real, well - I can't be sure, I wasn't there of course - but I have no reasons to believe they weren't real.

But these buildings collapses, it makes my mind crazy. I just cannot understand how it happened?

And there is a fuss from the experts, at least in Europe. I haven't seen a program that claimed the buildings came down because of terrorists in years. It's always mentioning this controversy instead.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Got any sources that show that jet fuel contains large quantities of methanol? I thought it was primarily kerosene....

I never said jet fuel contains methanol. I was implying the invisible flame it has, allthough you are unable to see it, it causes normal fire damage. Just because jet fuel can't melt metal, doesn't mean thier wasn't something unseen, such as other fuels, electrical shorts, or even electrical currents, that did melt it.