Proof they blew up WTC 7

[Razor04]

I'm not going to say that just because it'll do nothing but ruffle feathers, but the proof shows that on the day of 9-11 there were explosives already in WTC building 7. And with the owner of the WTC buildings on the video saying to "pull" building 7, it totally goes against what the Federal governments report said about the building collapsing due to fire in the basement. I think we've all seen documentary's on TV where it takes demolition crews days to properly set up explosives to tear down old buildings or sports arenas. It's just evidence that isn't corroborating with the "official" documents. Everyone has their theory's about 9-11, some different than others, but this is definitely something worth looking into.

Ok, so I looked over and over at these clips, but I don't see what you or the webpage are seeing. I'm not seeing any explosives going off.

Look at the video of WTC 7 being blown up, you can clearly see the explosions blowing out the windows of that building.

Who's to say that it wasn't a result of stresses on those windows? Seems to me that if the stress are applied in just the right way a window would appear to be blown out as a result of an explosion. Whether this is the case or not I don't know, but that seems to be a much more reasonable explanation to me.

Also if you look at Chapter 5 (I think) of the FEMA report it goes into great detail about the collapse of WTC 7. It took approximately 1 minute for the building to completely collapse...seems sort of slow to me for a quote on quote controlled explosion. Also important is that it takes 30s from the start of collapse till parts of the building visibly collapse starting with the mechanical penthouses on the roof. I just don't see anything of any real truth on that site...sure there are little tidbits of truth here and there...but come on. Take a look at any other article on that site and you see just how full of BS they are.

 

[diarrhea_splatter]

I'm not going to say that just because it'll do nothing but ruffle feathers, but the proof shows that on the day of 9-11 there were explosives already in WTC building 7. And with the owner of the WTC buildings on the video saying to "pull" building 7, it totally goes against what the Federal governments report said about the building collapsing due to fire in the basement. I think we've all seen documentary's on TV where it takes demolition crews days to properly set up explosives to tear down old buildings or sports arenas. It's just evidence that isn't corroborating with the "official" documents. Everyone has their theory's about 9-11, some different than others, but this is definitely something worth looking into.

Ok, so I looked over and over at these clips, but I don't see what you or the webpage are seeing. I'm not seeing any explosives going off.

Look at the video of WTC 7 being blown up, you can clearly see the explosions blowing out the windows of that building.

Who's to say that it wasn't a result of stresses on those windows? Seems to me that if the stress are applied in just the right way a window would appear to be blown out as a result of an explosion. Whether this is the case or not I don't know, but that seems to be a much more reasonable explanation to me.

Also if you look at Chapter 5 (I think) of the FEMA report it goes into great detail about the collapse of WTC 7. It took approximately 1 minute for the building to completely collapse...seems sort of slow to me for a quote on quote controlled explosion. Also important is that it takes 30s from the start of collapse till parts of the building visibly collapse starting with the mechanical penthouses on the roof. I just don't see anything of any real truth on that site...sure there are little tidbits of truth here and there...but come on. Take a look at any other article on that site and you see just how full of BS they are.

OK, how could the building collapse from a fire especially when Rudy Juliani made WTC 7 the main building in case of a nuclear attack was made on New York? That building was outfitted with all sorts of things (power generators, bullet proof glass, bomb shelter, etc) and then you see the video with Silverstein saying to "pull" the building. I can see where some might think that Infowars is full of BS, but if you research the topics that are on that site, you find out that it's not BS after all, especially in regards to WTC 7. That's major news, the documented FEMA report says and what Silverstein said totally contradict each other. If the owner of the building is saying "pull it" and it clearly is a demolitions term to blow up the building, what am I missing? How did they get explosives in their on 9/11? It doesn't add up.

 

[Boke]

I guess I should have actually clicked on the videos before making my comment.

The owner himself saying they pulled building 7 .

 

[Althornin]

Look at the video of WTC 7 being blown up, you can clearly see the explosions blowing out the windows of that building.

you "clearly" see what you want to see.
I do not. I see something that has more than one possible explanation.
Your refusal to admit that, added to your belief in the illuminati, leads me to believe you are a fool with an agenda, and nothing you've said contradicts that.

 

[duncan36]

This whole thing isnt helped by the fact that other than on 9/11 NO steel-frame building had ever totally collasped from fire alone.
Show the video of WTC 7 collapsing to any structural engineer and they'll tell you 100% that it was a demolition.
Hell even Dan Rather who was commenting on WTC 7 going down live, said ' the building looks like it was rigged with well-placed dynamite.'

 

[epicstruggle]

This whole thing isnt helped by the fact that other than on 9/11 NO steel-frame building had ever totally collasped from fire alone.
Show the video of WTC 7 collapsing to any structural engineer and they'll tell you 100% that it was a demolition.
Hell even Dan Rather who was commenting on WTC 7 going down live, said ' the building looks like it was rigged with well-placed dynamite.'

Yes, because Dan Rather is such an expert of demolition. Must be a side hobby.

BTW, has any other high rise been hit by a 747 full of fuel and tested to see whether it would collapse from fires????

Look if you believe this crap, your just as blind/paranoid as the people who believe we never landed on the moon. Hell if it makes you feel all comfy at night when you sleep, go ahead and believe what you will.

later,
epic

 

[SvP]

if you believe this crap

Do you KNOW what actually happened? No. And nether do I.

It may have happened like officials said and it may have happened like "this kind of people" say. I don't know and I accept that fact.

Why do you feel you have to be 100% sure of something?

 

[epicstruggle]

if you believe this crap

Do you KNOW what actually happened? No. And nether do I.

It may have happened like officials said and it may have happened like "this kind of people" say. I don't know and I accept that fact.

Why do you feel you have to be 100% sure of something?

No, Im not 100% sure what happened. But I am 99.9999999999999% sure of what happened. Their alternative is pure sci/fi, US govermnent blowing up the building, why would they do that, unless they planned the whole thing with the jews. Yes the jews, they must have set this whole thing up. Osama is really an undercover jew. Hey Im on the internet, so it must be true.

later,
epic

 

[London Geezer]

if you believe this crap

Do you KNOW what actually happened? No. And nether do I.

It may have happened like officials said and it may have happened like "this kind of people" say. I don't know and I accept that fact.

Why do you feel you have to be 100% sure of something?

No, Im not 100% sure what happened. But I am 99.9999999999999% sure of what happened. Their alternative is pure sci/fi, US govermnent blowing up the building, why would they do that, unless they planned the whole thing with the jews. Yes the jews, they must have set this whole thing up. Osama is really an undercover jew. Hey Im on the internet, so it must be true.

later,
epic

Well, to be precise, there WOULD be some reasons, still i really find it difficult to believe a government would set up a cover up for crimes that killed thousands of its own citizens. I just don't think a government would go THAT far... Still, as you said, there is that tiny 0.000000000000001% possibility...........

 

[epicstruggle]

Well, to be precise, there WOULD be some reasons, still i really find it difficult to believe a government would set up a cover up for crimes that killed thousands of its own citizens. I just don't think a government would go THAT far... Still, as you said, there is that tiny 0.000000000000001% possibility...........

I knew i should have done a 99.999...9% instead. Although I do have a better chance of winning the lotto next week than for this theory to be true. I better go out and buy my ticket.

later,
epic

 

[London Geezer]

I knew i should have done a 99.999...9% instead. Although I do have a better chance of winning the lotto next week than for this theory to be true. I better go out and buy my ticket.

later,
epic

:| But if you win, then the story is true....

 

[Humus]

Look at the video of WTC 7 being blown up, you can clearly see the explosions blowing out the windows of that building.

I see windows that crack because of the stress. No sign whatsoever of explosions.
Seriously, that site is really grasping for straws. They digged out a comment where that guy said "pull it", and their way to conclude that this "clearly" means rigging explosives is just laughable. Just because it means bringing down a building with explosives in one context doesn't mean it means the same in another.

 

[London Geezer]

I see windows that crack because of the stress. No sign whatsoever of explosions.
Seriously, that site is really grasping for straws. They digged out a comment where that guy said "pull it", and their way to conclude that this "clearly" means rigging explosives is just laughable. Just because it means bringing down a building with explosives in one context doesn't mean it means the same in another.

It is also worth noting how extremely hard it is to fake an audio track.... Errr.....

[/sarcasm]

 

[diarrhea_splatter]

Look at the video of WTC 7 being blown up, you can clearly see the explosions blowing out the windows of that building.

you "clearly" see what you want to see.
I do not. I see something that has more than one possible explanation.
Your refusal to admit that, added to your belief in the illuminati, leads me to believe you are a fool with an agenda, and nothing you've said contradicts that.

Yea, I'm a fool with an agenda. An agenda for the truth. But it's ok, you have the right to believe what you want to believe, but when the facts are presented in front of your face, then there is no helping. I have friends who swear that Silverstein said "pull out" and not "pull it". You can clearly hear "pull it." Go figure

 

[London Geezer]

When someone wants to believe in something, he will find proof to support his belief no matter what the truth is.

 

[Humus]

Well, if you only focus on those two words, pull conclusions out of thin air as to what they mean in this context, and completely ignore the rest of the clip ...

As you can also hear on the same clip, the building "burned until late afternoon", which of course might be enough to melt the steel frames like in the WTC. Furthermore, the fire department said that they had given up on putting out the fire in that building, so "pull it" could just as well mean they left the building to burn since they couldn't save it anyway, and focus their efforts on more important tasks.

Finally, even if "pull it" would mean to bring it down with explosives doesn't mean there's a conspiracy. As is obvious from the clip they made the decision to "pull it" after the fire department had given up on that building, not several weeks in advance as that site implies. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if explosives could be used in situations like this to bring down a lost building rather than risking that it falls in the wrong direction and cause further damage or spreads the fire.

 

[London Geezer]

Finally, even if "pull it" would mean to bring it down with explosives doesn't mean there's a conspiracy. As is obvious from the clip they made the decision to "pull it" after the fire department had given up on that building, not several weeks in advance as that site implies. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if explosives could be used in situations like this to bring down a lost building rather than risking that it falls in the wrong direction and cause further damage or spreads the fire.

My thoughts exactly. Never mentioned it because permanently storing explosives in a building for such rare occurences would be rather risky to say the least....

 

[Razor04]

This whole thing isnt helped by the fact that other than on 9/11 NO steel-frame building had ever totally collasped from fire alone.

Well the big thing here was that when the aircraft slammed into the building it ripped off all the insulation on the steel beams. All the fire proofing insulation is just sprayed on and can be blown away fairly easily. As soon as this insulation is gone the amount of time a steel structure can withstand fire is greatly reduced. Oh and the building collapsed the way they did due to the nature of their structural design and losing the insulation on those floors where the firing was burning the hottest.

 

[Sabastian]

This whole thing isnt helped by the fact that other than on 9/11 NO steel-frame building had ever totally collasped from fire alone.

Well the big thing here was that when the aircraft slammed into the building it ripped off all the insulation on the steel beams. All the fire proofing insulation is just sprayed on and can be blown away fairly easily. As soon as this insulation is gone the amount of time a steel structure can withstand fire is greatly reduced. Oh and the building collapsed the way they did due to the nature of their structural design and losing the insulation on those floors where the firing was burning the hottest.

Not only that, the planes in question basically had full fuel tanks. Anyone care to guess at the temperatures reached when Jet fuel is ignited in those quantities?

On that note I can't believe this is still being debated. No one outside the high-jackers had intensions of destroying the World Trade Center. This conspiracy theory is for lack of a better word, idiotic. Give it up FFS.

 

[Althornin]

Yea, I'm a fool with an agenda. An agenda for the truth. But it's ok, you have the right to believe what you want to believe, but when the facts are presented in front of your face, then there is no helping. I have friends who swear that Silverstein said "pull out" and not "pull it". You can clearly hear "pull it." Go figure

oh please.
"facts" - they are tiny video clips taken out of context and the words of some person on the internet leading you through conclusions where there are many possible answers. That you choose to believe says more about you than it does about what happened at the WTC.
I can't believe you base so much on one person saying "pull it".
For all you know, that could mean "pull out our support, it looks like the building is gonna collapse" rather than "blow up the building now", in context as used by silverstein.