catfish said:
phrodeau said:
Bad_Doggie said:
Cap’n AMatrixca said:
Cap’n AMatrixca said:
Lovelynice said:The photo shows the north face of WTC 7 reflected, with the fires visible. Do they look like huge raging infernos filling the entire building to you?
You need to post photos or links to video of VISIBLE FIRES
There was no - repeat NO twenty story HOLE in WTC 7, why lie?, just don't bother posting lies and wasting every one's time with nonsense like that will you for a change?
I want you to post an attached photo of this twenty storey hole in WTC 7, and I want you to describe in detail exactly where this hole is.
While you are at it I want you to explain why WTC 7's 14th and 15th floors were in the months and weeks leading up to 9/11 heavily fortified with bomb proof glass facing the twin towers.
They have since claimed it was a bunker for Mayor Giuliani in case of terrorist attacks would you believe, which he took the opportunity not to use on the day of the attacks!
I want you to explain why these two mysterious fires started given that no windows had been smashed on the corresponding floors, or any where on the entire facade of the building facing the twin towers, never mind and twenty story hole! - Even if they had been that is not necessarily reason for a fire to start.
Why did the automatic sprinkler system conveniently fail to activate and extinguish these fires?
Why did the then new WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein clearly state in a TV interview a year after the attacks that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack? The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.
Photos taken shortly before before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.
Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!
Explain to everyone why buildings that didn't belong or weren't insured by Silverstein holdings and that were right beside the twin towers and sustained massive damage - far more damage than WTC 7 - didn't collapse into their own footprints at near free fall speed!
Yet this WTC 7 building - which was by the way the strongest building on the WTC site being fortified with solid cross section girders rather than the 'H' type because it straddled the a major electrical substation - was conveniently demolished, tell tale streamers and charges can be seen all over the front of the building and explosive charges running up the side in a straight perpendicular line running up the sides.
The penthouse can clearly be seen falling in through the roof first as the building was violently eviscerated from the inside.
Why was the steel from this controlled demolition immediately and illegally shipped off before almost any major examination had been done to check for the possibility of explosives, and to try and determine the cause of it’s collapse so as to prevent it happening in future?
Unfortunately, we may never know what happened because the steel from the WTC was immediately and illegally shipped off before almost any major examination had been done to check for the real reasons for it‘s collapse.
Implosion World.com, a website about the demolition industry, states that an implosion is “by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions."
- Can anyone really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the same time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a miracle.
Now look this folks - much stronger building, unexplained small fires behind unbroken windows and failed state of the art sprinkler systems, and no fires visible upon collapse, fires not even hot enough to break a window! YET........
There was also NO INFERNO in WTC 7, but just some MINOR fires. Not serious at all, and the damage was MINOR in comparison to the size of the building.
WTC 6 had FAR MORE DAMAGE, and other WTC buildings had far worse fires than WTC 1, 2, & 7.
Larry Silverstein, ADMITTED on Public Broadcast Television that explosives were used to demolish WTC building #7
Yes, Silverstein, who had conveniently insured these buildings (which had been ordered to be dismantled due to safety hazards) for billions of dollars just weeks before 911, said on public television:
"(The Fire Department) were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we´ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
In the demolition industry, “pull” is the common term they use for demolishing buildings with carefully positioned explosives, an operation that can take seasoned professionals weeks to plan.
So even the building owner admits that explosives were used to demolish at least one of the three WTC buildings!
And if planning to demolish WTC 7 had been carefully prepared for weeks, why not the other two?
and the damage that was done was MINOR in comparison to the building. Particularly when other buildings in the WTC complex had REAL INFERNOS and FAR MORE DAMAGE and STILL DIDN'T COLLAPSE.
Besides, it was "pulled" just as old Larry Silverstein said.
CBS News’ Dan Rather
also commented that the collapse of building 7, which
wasn’t hit by a plane, resembled a deliberate attempt
to demolish the structure using incendiary devices.
"For the third time
today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen
too much on television before when a building was deliberately
destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."
NBC’s Pat Dawson reported
the working hypothesis of the FDNY in the immediate aftermath
of the towers’ collapse.
"The chief of safety
of the Fire Department of New York City told me he received
word of a possibility of a secondary device — that is
another bomb going off. He tries to get his men out as
quickly as he could, but he said that there was another
explosion which took place and according to his theory,
he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted
in the building."
MSNBC news anchor Rick
Sanchez reported that police had found suspicious devices
in and around the WTC area and that the secondary explosions,
which were reported by numerous survivors, were thought
by police to be bombs.
"Police have found
what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear
that it may lead to another explosion."
"I spoke with some
police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me
they have reason to believe that one of the explosions
at the World Trade Center aside the ones caused by the
planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked
on the building that may have had an explosive device
in it."
During an exchange between
ABC’s Peter Jennings and reporter Don Dahler following
the collapse of the north tower, the first assumption
is again that controlled demolition must have been used
to take down the building.
"Yes Peter its Don Dahler down here. I’m four blocks
north of the World Trade Center. The second building that
was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed."
"The entire building
has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off….when
you see the old demolition of these old buildings. It
just folded in on itself and it is not there anymore."
Peter Jennings: "If
you wish to bring, if anyone has ever watched a building
being demolished on purpose knows, that you’re going to
do this you have to get at the, at the under infrastructure
of a building and bring it down."
Police chiefs, fire department
heads, veteran news anchors, eyewitnesses on the ground
- everyone’s first reaction was "controlled demolition"
because the events suggested nothing else.
vetteman said:
vetteman said:
vetteman said:
phrodeau said:
vetteman said:
phrodeau said:
