| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:07 am Post subject: Wiring WTC7 for demolition |
 |
|
So here we are, conducting the CD of the Twin Towers from #7, well in range of massive flying girders and all (that's #7 at 3 o'clock, brownish building, getting hit)
whilst sitting on a huge pile of high explosives.
Good plan?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:10 am Post subject: Re: Wiring WTC7 for demolition |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | So here we are, conducting the CD of the Twin Towers from #7, well in range of massive flying girders and all (that's #7 at 3 o'clock, brownish building, getting hit)
whilst sitting on a huge pile of high explosives.
Good plan? |
How did that fall, Ignatz? Through fire?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ive always believed that the WTC7 was the control pad, probably from the 22nd floor where Guiliani had his suite/bunker. I wonder who took the photograph?
I say, Ignatz, did that building we can see exploding into a fine dust, like a box of * Frosties, happen because of structural failure? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:20 am Post subject: Re: Wiring WTC7 for demolition |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | So here we are, conducting the CD of the Twin Towers from #7, well in range of massive flying girders and all (that's #7 at 3 o'clock, brownish building, getting hit)
whilst sitting on a huge pile of high explosives.
Good plan? |
IGNATZ, LOOK AT THE FUKKING THING! IT'S COLLAPSING LIKE A * SANDCASLE KICKED BY A TODDLER! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU. WHAT ARE YOU SEEING IN THAT PICTURE? IS THAT STRUCTURAL FAILURE OR AN ABOMINATION? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Little children are being blown to bits in the middle east and we have to sit and listen to * GARBAGE from people like Ignatz who put thir own comfort zones before the violence perpertrated by the same DEMONS and DEVILS who orchestrated 9/11.
Ignatz, people like you are closer to the DEVIL and so far removed from GOD.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Concerned_Brit
New Poster
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
What i always wondered about that building is- Would it fall the way it did with the symetry and the speed if u got a bunch of wrecking balls and smashed it at one side and also set it alight.
When you think about controlled demolitions you know that they do it because doing it with a wrecking ball is much less predictable and i would assume would be much more dangerous.
People often argue that because 7 was such a large heavy building thats why it fell the way it did. But just imagining it in my mind. the large massive buiding being battered from 1 side by a large force would only lead me to expect it to be a mess of a collapse, just imagin how dangerous and difficult it would be to knock a building down like that. Yet its so neat...
And lets not forget that this inital ammount of debris and force (however strong it may have been on the other side of the street) would only have lasted initialy. It still managed to stay standing for 7 hours after. Leading to the idea that yet again, fire finished it off. so easily...
_________________
-------
I am not a terrorist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Danner
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 55
Location: Hagerstown,Maryland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:01 am Post subject: Perole Art Threat |
|
|
Perole Art Threat:
I am on the Same page with you about the Children in the middle east Conflict. If there is anything that burns me up more it is this Collecteral Damage that the United States has coined. It is very bad ti see the WTC buildings just fall straight down in Complete Dust Just so we can go to war. That is what it is all about. Money and Power. Jesus said suffer the little Children to come to me. I want everyone to go back and look at the picture please. Take a good HARD LOOK and I want you to think of Freedom. Is this worth the cost?
Sam Danner  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:16 am Post subject: Re: Perole Art Threat |
|
|
| Sam Danner wrote: | Perole Art Threat:
I am on the Same page with you about the Children in the middle east Conflict. If there is anything that burns me up more it is this Collecteral Damage that the United States has coined. It is very bad ti see the WTC buildings just fall straight down in Complete Dust Just so we can go to war. That is what it is all about. Money and Power. Jesus said suffer the little Children to come to me. I want everyone to go back and look at the picture please. Take a good HARD LOOK and I want you to think of Freedom. Is this worth the cost?
Sam Danner |
It's the shills who work to deny that reality with their ignorant pseudo suggestions and would-be plausible sounding rubbish that need to wake up.
How that photo can be posted to carelessly and arrogantly deny one reality (WTC7 was demolished) and not see the exploding reality of the supposed 'cause' (the pulverised-before-it-even-hits-the-ground falling tower) which has directly given us to the reality like that damaged innocent child .... how anybody can actively work to support that, well words escape me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I notice nobody has attempted to answer the question.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | I notice nobody has attempted to answer the question. |
What? You mean the 'good plan?' question?
Perhaps no one has answered it because it is such a horrifically stupid question and no one could be bothered in wasting their time.
I do however have a question for you. You are a critic right? Have you been okayed to post here? Am i missing something or would i be right in erging you to get back to where you are welcome?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | I notice nobody has attempted to answer the question. |
Ah - so the new policy is to settle the WTC7 question.
Right
So - is what a good plan?
All three Silverstein buildings magically demolishing themselves?
Proposing a fiction that it was set up for CD that day?
Can you be more specific about what question you are actually asking?
AS an aside, can you conceive how those huge plumes of dust are being caused according your uncritical promotion of the Official Theory of gravity collapse?
I think we can safely rule out 'impact damage' at those altitudes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
The question is - why would these supposed conspirators want to demolish WTC7 ?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | The question is - why would these supposed conspirators want to demolish WTC7 ? |
Listen.
GO
AWAY
AND
DO
SOME
RESEARCH
Then when you have found out what was actually in building 7 post your comments IN THE CRITICS CORNER.
Moderators....if you please.....
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | The question is - why would these supposed conspirators want to demolish WTC7 ? |
With respect, that is not the question at all, unless you are interested only in diversion.
The question is was it deliberately demolished.
The evidence of the manner of its destruction overwhelmingly
suggests - to the point of being beyond argument - that it was.
Motive, and who the perpetrators involved were, are for an investigation to get to the bottom of, not concerned amateurs (present company excepted) on an internet forum.
We can speculate about who might have benefitted from the SEC Fraud investigation records being lost, FBI and CIA NY HQ's being put out of action and their documents being lost, and the DoD records ditto, but that's another diversion that has nothing to do with the need for a full unbiased investigation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skeptic
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | I notice nobody has attempted to answer the question. |
Your question presumes that the assertion that the CD of the Twin Towers was conducted from WTC7 is central to the 9/11 Truth Movement.
It is not.
Who conducted the CD and from where can be discovered through a fully independent investigation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:56 am Post subject: Re: Perole Art Threat |
|
|
| Sam Danner wrote: | Take a good HARD LOOK and I want you to think of Freedom. Is this worth the cost?
Sam Danner |
And does it even bring freedom? Freedom for who to do what? The freedom for rich people to gather more power from sale of oil, armaments and banking services, and the freedom to dominate the countries of others where they have no understanding nor respect for the local culture?
This is oppression masquerading as freedom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Skeptic wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | I notice nobody has attempted to answer the question. |
Your question presumes that the assertion that the CD of the Twin Towers was conducted from WTC7 is central to the 9/11 Truth Movement.
It is not.
|
Good. Some CT'ists do claim it was conducted from WTC7, but that's ridiculous and we can put that idea to bed.
So why did the conspirators demolish WTC7 ?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:06 pm Post subject: Re: Perole Art Threat |
|
|
| xmasdale wrote: | Freedom for who to do what? The freedom for rich people to gather more power from sale of oil, armaments and banking services, and the freedom to dominate the countries of others where they have no understanding nor respect for the local culture?
This is oppression masquerading as freedom. |
I'm in 100% agreement with you there.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skeptic
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | Skeptic wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | I notice nobody has attempted to answer the question. |
Your question presumes that the assertion that the CD of the Twin Towers was conducted from WTC7 is central to the 9/11 Truth Movement.
It is not.
|
Good. Some CT'ists do claim it was conducted from WTC7, but that's ridiculous and we can put that idea to bed.
So why did the conspirators demolish WTC7 ? |
I don't know.
Destroying evidence? Insurance? Both?
This could possibly be determined through a genuinely independent investigation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iro
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 376
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i think using the term 'explosives' is misleading in that the thermite thesis does away with that.
thermite is not a conventional explosive and will only turn into an explosive agent at very precise temperatures/conditions so the collapsing near twin tower showering down on the side of WTC7 would not be a problem in that way if you can make sure the element needed to ignite the thermite is not added.
i am not a scientist (not of the hard science type anyway) so this is a laymans interpretation., but i have rad stephen jones peer reviewed paper so excuse my poor translation! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | The question is - why would these supposed conspirators want to demolish WTC7 ? |
I don't know for sure, Iggy, but I'd love to find out. A serious investigation would be helpful.
Looking at that photo, it does make me wonder why WTC7 didn't collapse back into the WTC1/2 debris pile when it fell, or why some of those other nearby buildings didn't collapse into their own footprints. CD is still the best (the only?) explanation that explains the speed and uniformity of WTC7 collapse IMO.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zlocke
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ignatz - Just look at YOUR OWN picture. Was the WTC really brought down because of the "Pancake" Theory? That building is being pulverised into a billion pieces.
Sometime we look, but don't SEE.
Look again at your Pancake theory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | I notice nobody has attempted to answer the question. |
OK then, no it would not be a good idea to wire WTC7 for demolition while all that was going on, but why assume that happened? The wiring could have been carried out prior to 9/11 at leisure, or in the period after the collapse of the towers and before the collapse/demolition of WTC7, a period of about 6 hours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zlocke wrote: | Ignatz - Just look at YOUR OWN picture. Was the WTC really brought down because of the "Pancake" Theory? That building is being pulverised into a billion pieces.
Sometime we look, but don't SEE.
Look again at your Pancake theory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
I do see. I see many thousands of tonnes of steel + concrete falling, meeting huge resistance which has to give way at an accelerating rate, and flying all over the place from a starting altitude of well over 300m
(While we're here, can we use this to put to bed the whole concept that the buildings "collapsed into their own footprints" ?)
Over on another thread some people "see" contrails and chemtrails. I see one of the products of hydrocarbon combustion (water) forming a vapour trail and freezing into a billion ice crystals at high altitude, then staying there a good while in calm high-pressure conditions. Other people see a conspiracy to poison us with chemicals sprayed from commercial airliners (or something).
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | I notice nobody has attempted to answer the question. |
OK then, no it would not be a good idea to wire WTC7 for demolition while all that was going on, but why assume that happened? The wiring could have been carried out prior to 9/11 at leisure, or in the period after the collapse of the towers and before the collapse/demolition of WTC7, a period of about 6 hours. |
It takes weeks to organise these things and that includes pre-cutting the girders. Check the Controlled Demolition Inc website for techniques.
It would need to be organised pre 9/11.
But why?
He gets the insurance anyway without demolishing the building. And demolition is a totally ridiculous way to dispose of evidence, proven by the fact that the area was thick with documents flung from the collapsing buildings, not to mention recoverable computer hard drives.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| iro wrote: | i think using the term 'explosives' is misleading in that the thermite thesis does away with that.
thermite is not a conventional explosive and will only turn into an explosive agent at very precise temperatures/conditions so the collapsing near twin tower showering down on the side of WTC7 would not be a problem in that way if you can make sure the element needed to ignite the thermite is not added.
i am not a scientist (not of the hard science type anyway) so this is a laymans interpretation., but i have rad stephen jones peer reviewed paper so excuse my poor translation! |
Critics need to refute this point for "The impact would have ruined explosive charges" to stand up IMO
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | And demolition is a totally ridiculous way to dispose of evidence, proven by the fact that the area was thick with documents flung from the collapsing buildings, not to mention recoverable computer hard drives. |
We of course have no idea how many of those reportedly 'arson like' sporadic fires scattered at various unconnected points throughout the building were expressly incinerating paper records, or how many hard drives existed and were actually recovered.
You won't recover much if the drives have been exploded and the platters are in pieces. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | I notice nobody has attempted to answer the question. |
OK then, no it would not be a good idea to wire WTC7 for demolition while all that was going on, but why assume that happened? The wiring could have been carried out prior to 9/11 at leisure, or in the period after the collapse of the towers and before the collapse/demolition of WTC7, a period of about 6 hours. |
It takes weeks to organise these things and that includes pre-cutting the girders. Check the Controlled Demolition Inc website for techniques.
It would need to be organised pre 9/11.
But why?
He gets the insurance anyway without demolishing the building. And demolition is a totally ridiculous way to dispose of evidence, proven by the fact that the area was thick with documents flung from the collapsing buildings, not to mention recoverable computer hard drives. |
The "why" is the mystery from any point of view, isn't it? Demolishing an obscure building adds not at all to the spectacle of the towers falling, and seems unnecessary to dispose of evidence, but explaining why it should fall by itself in a way that looks exactly like controlled demolition is so difficult that NIST seems baffled and has flunked the question so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
The "why" is the mystery from any point of view, isn't it? Demolishing an obscure building adds not at all to the spectacle of the towers falling, and seems unnecessary to dispose of evidence, but explaining why it should fall by itself in a way that looks exactly like controlled demolition is so difficult that NIST seems baffled and has flunked the question so far. |
I don't doubt NIST has a problem explaining why it looked exactly like a controlled demolition -- it didn't. Most controlled demolitions don't end with the building crumpled up against its neighbor across the street. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ONE QUESTION! did the building fall due to fire and jet fuel? it dosnt matter how we think the building fell all that matters is if they could of fell how we were told. cd's thermite, mini nuke who gives a nonsense which is right or if any are right, i think the most important question is did they fall due to jet fuel and brief fires or in the case of wtc7 fires alone. i know which one sounds more like a theory, at least the ct's explanations are possible. fire and jet feul impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
