Very well...like I said, this is not about Karma.
WTC Building 7 Anomalies
- Thread starter MacGyver1968
- Start date
This is true...but doesn't answer the question asked. How would they know ahead of time that an event would happen that would damage the wtc7 enough that they could use the pre-rigged explosives without arousing suspension? Even if they knew AQ was going to attack the towers ahead of time..there's no way to know that 7 would have been damaged and caught on fire.
What you posted was about the twin towers, not 7. The videos of the collapse show none of the tell-tale signs of imposion...loud explosives sounds immediately before the collapse, rows of intact windows blowing out etc.
These "bad guys" never heard of a paper shredder? ...or thought to use small incendiary devices to destroy the documents/computers...instead they figured bringing down the entire building was the best course of action?
It's NIST, and the entire scientific community (with the exception of a few nutjobs) supports their findings. BTW, no one died in building 7.
Last edited:
Not if it was by CD explosives carefully placed in the building.
When?
There are NO videos that include the obvious results of high explosives going off in the Towers prior to the collapse.
There were no reports of anything but loud sounds coming from WTC 7 as the floors inside failed.
High Explosives have a unique signature and NONE were recorded on any of the videos that day, and NIST tests of the smallest possible explosive required to cut one critical column allowing for preparation of the column for direct placement and pre-cutting of the column so that it would still hold until blown showed that you would get a 130 DB blast that would blow out windows in the tower and be heard over a mile away.
No windows were blown out and no thunderclap like that was heard prior to the collapse.
But knocking down a building does not ensure documents get destroyed. It would be a huge risk with a good chance of failure. In any case, just saying you can come up with a motive (no matter how rediculous it is) means nothing if you can't come up with someone with the means and opportunity and evidence that it was done.
You have none of that.
Arthur
But what they did do is show a very scientific analysis that shows how fire alone could bring down the tower and do it in a manner that was consistent with the video record of it's failure.
Indeed, most of the original assumptions were shown to not be true.
That the damage from the WTC 1 falling caused significant structural damage or that the fuel tanks in the WTC 7 building were partially responsible.
BS
It's totally about karma. The penthouse suite falls first. It's a sign from God.
What anaomalies?
Did you check out the youtube videos I linked to? I thoroughly reccomend them, and it's worth checking that guys channel out.
Oh! That's one of AlienEntity's videos...cool. He's a great guy. You might check out some of "Unsecured Coins" videos...they're pretty hilarious.
(NSFW language)
Unsecured Coins XX
Here's the other one I was thinking of (Yes, Alienentity again)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tNhnTBzSyQ
I linked to two more of his yesterday as well.
I think the best part of that is the short video clip at the end of the reporter interviewing the lady with the baby and WTC 7 is collapsing behind them and yet they are unaware of it because there are no loud explosions.
The reporter is Ashleigh Banfield...she used to be a local anchor here in Dallas. I used to have a little crush on her, and knew one the news producers at the local station...I convinced him to invite me to her going away party before she left for the national network. She's as hot in person as she is on tv.
[/anecdote]
Yeah. That's the point that he makes in the other video that I linked to - the explosion like noises are so quiet that they fail to interrup the conversation.
In all honesty, I don't know if it's my speaker frequency response, or what, but I can't hear a dam thing.
...what? No they aren't! We just started arguing!
No we didn't...and contradiction is an argument.
Oh sweet evil Jesus, we're really still on this? I thought that this one was settled. It was really our own government testing a secret space laser, the planes crashing into the buildings was just a coincidence
In all seriousness though, this is getting tiresome. The Twoofers haven't come up with anything that hasn't been thoroughly demolished(lol), and they certainly haven't countered any of the criticisms of their pet "theories". This is almost as bad as discussing god with christians.
As for the talk about people hearing explosions, I don't think that it's wise to trust the testimony of people who were in serious states of shock. Having undergone that level of shock and worse(having your heart stop will do that to the body) I know first hand just how unreliable the senses are in those circumstances.
In all seriousness though, this is getting tiresome. The Twoofers haven't come up with anything that hasn't been thoroughly demolished(lol), and they certainly haven't countered any of the criticisms of their pet "theories". This is almost as bad as discussing god with christians.
As for the talk about people hearing explosions, I don't think that it's wise to trust the testimony of people who were in serious states of shock. Having undergone that level of shock and worse(having your heart stop will do that to the body) I know first hand just how unreliable the senses are in those circumstances.