There were people in the cleanup operation with experience in controlled demolition, and none of them describe any remnants of demolition materials.
What experts we talking about here? People from FEMA, who were carting away the evidence? Or people from NIST, another part of the 'half-baked farce' as Bill Manning puts it?
Yes, 'experts' say there was no evidence. It took them 3 long months to get rid of it all, but they finally managed it.
I'm not going to read the whole thing, you will have to post excerpts that support your case.
Ok:
"At 5:20 P.M., WTC7 collapsed. I watched it happen from across the river, and no revisionism is going to screw with my recollection here -- the building came down straight and flat, as if supports beneath it had been cut. I'm no physics student, but you don't have to be one to realize that a burning building would never have fallen that way. Fires just don't burn symmetrically. South side fires, caused by contact with burning material from the North Tower, would have prompted a collapse across Vesey Street, in the direction of Ground Zero. Bear in mind, again, that this was a major skyscraper -- more than forty floors. For WTC7 to have pancaked as it did, it would have had to have been experiencing structural weakness at all sides.
The unnerving media silence about Building Seven was later broken by a tentative explanation that, again, makes no sense. According to FEMA, huge tanks of diesel fuel stored in the basement may have caught fire, substantially weakening the steel. (This official story, by the way, is mostly guesswork -- there's no proof at all that the diesel fuel was in any way involved). Although they knew of the existence of the diesel fuel, firefighters opted against entering WTC7 and putting out the blaze. Strange, huh? Remember, the North Tower collapsed at 10:30. The city had seven hours to react to the fires that had, ostensibly, been caused by its fall. It's worth remembering that no steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, diesel or otherwise."
(
http://web.archive.org/web/20040412230000/http:/www.trismccall.net/jersey_city_journal.html)
Well there were people close enough to jog out of the way of the plume of smoke that followed. Controlled demolitions make explosions heard for miles
The following page says that not only were explosions heard, but NIST ignored what they meant:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html
"While NIST cherry-picks a feature of the Towers' destructions that differs from conventional, bottom-up demolitions, it conveniently ignores numerous features that are apparently unique to demolitions, including:
* Rapid onset, accompanied by sounds of explosions
* Radial symmetry about the building's vertical axis
* Consistent pulverization of non-metallic materials
* Total destruction of the building"
and there were certainly cameras within that zone. I remember when a bridge close to my house was demolished (about 1.5 miles), and even though I didn't know it was happening that day, I heard a huge explosion. I turned on the local news to find live pictures of the bridge demolition.
Were you about 1.5 miles from any of the towers?
Conspiracy theorists really underestimate the noise produced in a controlled demolition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
Personally I think that, using some sophisticated techniques, the noise could be mitigated to some extent. As to that dust cloud at the ending of that demonstration though.. remind you of something?
Another thing that is important to debunking a controlled demolition is that 267 floors combined were "demolished" that day, and yet all of the windows in the surrounding buildings were still intact (except of course for the ones directly damaged by falling debris). The sound blast of demolition charges would have been so huge that most windows would have blown out.
I didn't see any windows being blown out from the buildings nearby in the demolition video you showed me, but perhaps some glass from nearby buildings did break? I haven't heard that none did. You could say it was debris, but perhaps it wasn't all debris..
Again, I'm not going to read that. Post excerpts.
Done, above.
Again, you need to post excerpts.
Alright:
[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]
(
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1261.shtml)
The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer]
http://www.wanttoknow.info/010917nylawyerwallstreetsecfiles
Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]
Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]
http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/fea...or_the_Secret_Service.html?detectflash=false&
I can propose a simpler method of removing whatever incriminating evidence it is your imagination has dreamt up. How about remove it in your suitcase? Or stuff it down your pants? Whatever "it" is... Or how about you don't put "it" in the building in the first place?
Not all government officials are corrupt. I never said that the people who had the incriminating evidence were corrupt. But if you blow up the building that houses the evidence of the ones who -are- corrupt, well, that can work out quite nicely for said corrupt officials.
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I thought NIST says it initiated from the 13th floor.
I haven't seen such a claim, but I wouldn't trust NIST anyway.
I thought you meant cameras in the basement. In any case, I definitely heard what sounded like a bunch of explosions. And the buildings definitely appear to be exploding; even one of the reporters said so "A huge explosion..".
This makes no sense for 2 reasons: Demolition materials required to bring down that building would have made multiple explosions audible for miles and not limited to those on a certain floor.
I heard a bunch. They don't sound like the example demolition you showed me; it sounds more like there were a lot of small explosives instead of the larger ones in the example.
Secondly, the basement was irrelevant as the collapse initiated from where the planes hit and it was a pancake collapse.
There is lots of evidence that shows that the this whole pancake collapse theory is a 'plausible impossible', as David Ray Griffin puts it. To find out why, you are going to have to look at the link I provide, because the argument is a bit long and there's no point in my copying it over here:
http://truememes.com/mackey.html
Well, you're free to believe this is you wish.
No witnesses of explosions seconds prior to collapse, no explosions recorded on any of the cameras.
I've already shown you evidence to the contrary in regards to witnesses.
I wouldn't expect that to be many. Regardless, their demonstrations at ground zero (especially on anniversaries) reminds me of fundamentalists protesting at the funerals of gay people.
Well, whatever it reminds you of, the point is there are a lot of people who believe that the official story regarding 9/11 is seriously flawed.
How do you think the victims families feel when conspiracies yell that the last calls their loved one made were faked?
I don't know, I'm not one of said victims. I have heard, however, that some of the calls were indeed made up, but not by the victims, who apparently never made the calls to begin with. If I were a victim and I had heard this, my anger would be towards the people making up stories.
What do you think any sensible person feels when they are not allowed to remember what happened with conspiracy nuts shouting in their ear, figuratively and literally?
The real question is, who is the sensible person? The person who refuses to listen to anything but the official story? Or the person who looks at all sides of the story in order to try to determine the truth.
Personally I find it a shame that the history of 9/11 has been hijacked by fools like you who just want to get their cheap thrills.
Yeah.. cheap thrills. To tell you the honest truth, it is -really- hard to deal with people who think that I'm a 'fool' getting 'cheap thrills' out of this. It's taken me a fair amount of time to learn what I know, and more time to research what I write in my articles here. So when I get comments like this.. it hurts. All I know is I'm trying to uncover the truth to the public.