I posted this on the Pentagon thread, but it got buried in the personal attacks.
In the link, there are two videos, one of the Tower collapse and the other of building 7. I'm interested in people's thoughts on the appearances of explosions in the videos.

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=293140235

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I'm not claiming to be an expert, and I haven't checked the credentials of the person giving the opinion at the site, but could the "squibs" as he calls them be rationally explained by other sources, including the pressure of dust and debris being forced out by the heat and pressure generated by the impact and subsequent fires?

Exactly what I would like to know. However, I don't see how such an explanation would work for Bldg 7 since it was not hit by anything. Boneheaddoctor suggested in the other thread that debris hit bldg 7 but there is a picture at the site after the two towers had collapsed but before 7 collapsed. Other buildings suffered damaged from debris from the towers, but no evidence of damage to 7 before it came down.

I read a summary of the engineering report on bldg 7. I believe they were considering the standard hypothesis for the collapse of 7, which is that fires inside caused it. They go with that hypothesis but state that it has a very low probablity that it would happen that way.

Here's a link with more info:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/collapse%20update/index.htm


Here's an hypothesis I haven't run across: After the 1993 attack on WTC, someone (?) considered that another attack was possible and thought it might result in huge demolition problems with possible loss of life if the buildings were only partially collapsed in the attack so pre-charged the buildings with demolitions devices to bring them down safetly. And even considered that using the devices in the case of an attack would actually save lives because it would bring the buildings straight down rather than falling sideways and destroying many other buildings and killing lots of people adjacent to the buildings. So, it was an accidental or deliberate use of this charges that brought down the towers and deliberate use of the charges to bring down bldg 7. This would account for why the owner of the buildings stated 'Let's pull the bldg."

I can even imagine an insurance company requiring such advance planning as a pre-condition for continued insurance after the first attack.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

. . . Mulder . . .err, Kerry . . . the truth is out there . . .

The more I think about it,the more I am tempted by my hypothesis. After the first WTC bombing, with so much money at risk, the insurance companies would surely have put actuaries and risk analysts at work to protect themselves in the event of future attacks. It seems quite possible to me that someone could predict that the safest course of action which would limit damages in the case of a future attack which caused serious structural damage to the buildings, would be a contolled demolition. I can easily see where a controlled demolition would actually save lives and property and limit the economic consequences of an attack.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Can you say that with a straight face to the almost 3000
people that lost their life that day.


I could understand this if the towers had been completely evacuated
but not with that many people left in the buildings.
If this is true then many will see this as murder, including me.

Louis.

unless backed up with fact.



Dear Kerry Edwards

I think these few websites should put most of your conspiracy theories/facts to the test. Here is a huge section on WTC-7 and the 9/11 attacks in general. There is even a video clip of Larry Silverstein (the owner of WTC complex) saying that WTC-7 was blown up purposely even though an airplane did not hit it:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
http://www.rbnlive.com/videolinks.html
http://infowars.com/
http://prisonplanet.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
http://rbnlive.com
http://stream2-32k.rbnlive.net:2005/listen.pls

These websites have huge archives and many interviews with experts, government officials, politicians, etc...
Everyone should also listen to the "Alex Jones show" (Mon-Fri 12:00--15:00 EST) for a week and all your conspiracy theories will be put to rest.
http://sce.m2ktalk.com:8032/listen.pls
http://sce.m2ktalk.com:8010/listen.pls

Also we should not forget about "this" 2001 ABC piece about our friendly Israeli spies:
http://ottawa.yi.org/WEBSITES/israeliSpys/israeli_1.mov
http://ottawa.yi.org/WEBSITES/israeliSpys/israeli_2.mov
http://ottawa.yi.org/WEBSITES/israeliSpys/israeli_3.mov
http://ottawa.yi.org/WEBSITES/israeliSpys/israeli_4.mov
http://ottawa.yi.org/WEBSITES/israeliSpys/israeli.WMV

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

Building 7 had Fuel tanks above ground level which were penetrated by debris from Tower 1 & 2 collapse and thus caught fire. 7 collapsed as the structure became compromised. I watched Towers 1 & 2 collapse from atop a building across the harbor in Staten Island and went into Ground Zero on 9/13 ad worked there for 6 weeks running a crew of Ironworkers (Local 40/361). I also work for a Structural Engineering firm...

WTC 1/2 had lots of issues with SPFP (Spray Applied Fireproofing) and a history of deficient SPFP installation. It was applied without the adhesive in the mix that is used today. Remember they were built in 1970's and SPFP was an infant in construction. Saw same issues with poorly applied SPFP during building of Madame Tussauds in Times Square...Filed report with NYC DOB and still will not allow anyone I care about to enter the building.

Interesting theory but assuming it is true, how does one go about installing and hiding that amount of explosives and the debris? Ever video of controlled demolition I have seen require that structure be cut and weakened for the charges to be effective. They have to remove surrounding structure, drill holes into concrete supports.... etc. Its not like the movies where you place a few charges in some locations and a building comes down. Given the fact that the towers came down nearly vertically, they likely would have had to place numerous charges in very precise locations to archive that.

How ever unlikely the prevailing theory of their collapse is, I think the idea of a controlled explosion that left no evidence is less likely.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Good point.

You also have to propose a massive conspiracy among the dozens of scientists and engineers who actually looked a debris and modeled the collapse. I can't imagine a conspiracy involving so many people who have nothing to gain and everything to lose from the conspiracy being exposed.

It was always my understanding that very little forensic data was actually captured from the. Crime scene. I always found it suspicious that the cleanup basically started immediately and they worked 24/7 to remove valuable evidence and shipped it all overseas.

Im no scientist, or engineer. I saw the second building get hit on live tv, and saw wtc7 collapse as well. I won't even begin to speculate about buildings 1 and 2, all that weight and force can do crazy things.

Building 7 in my opinion was brought down via controlled demolition. Whether malicious intent or not, I don't know.

__________________
Eugene

10 E63 AMG
93 300te 4matic
07 BMW X3
14 Ford F-150 Fx2

I watched the two main towers come down on TV too. The method of collapsing was completely believable and observable. I read a report on building 7 too and am convinced it was not a separate conspiracy, just collateral damage from the first two buildings.

I said at the time that people would not build tall buildings like that any more.

The tallest building in the world in Dubai is constructed from reinforced concrete. Concrete can be made up to about 15,000 psi now compared to half that or less when the trade towers were built making it too heavy to have worked back then....hence the vulnerable steel structure.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.