Before and after pictures - How could anybody believe the building 7 story?

el diablo · 10-09-2016 5:05am

The Nal wrote: »

This is the main point. Explosive experts climbing over desks, wires running through offices, through halls, under peoples feet, explosives being placed under people desks while they're sitting there etc.

Its laughable. Utterly insane actually.

Climbing over desks? What the fúck. All the explosive most probably were placed in the lift shafts etc. :pac:

Overheal · 10-09-2016 10:53pm

The Nal wrote: »

This is the main point. Explosive experts climbing over desks, wires running through offices, through halls, under peoples feet, explosives being placed under people desks while they're sitting there etc.

Its laughable. Utterly insane actually.

No, from a scientific perspective it's improbable, though plausible. One just simply has to model that if you had 48 hours and resources, how many people and how much material do you need to pull this off?

Just off the top of my head you wouldn't need to put explosives in the towers anywhere but in the center columns. The office floors need not be accessed. The floors were supported by the center column largely, as well as by the external steel frame.

I wouldn't call it insane really, just terrifying.

weisses · 11-09-2016 1:35pm

Overheal wrote: »

No, from a scientific perspective it's improbable, though plausible. One just simply has to model that if you had 48 hours and resources, how many people and how much material do you need to pull this off?

Just off the top of my head you wouldn't need to put explosives in the towers anywhere but in the center columns. The office floors need not be accessed. The floors were supported by the center column largely, as well as by the external steel frame.

I wouldn't call it insane really, just terrifying.

In case of building 7 only 1 column .... According to the official story

PeterTheNinth · 11-09-2016 6:19pm

The Nal wrote: »

Explosive experts climbing over desks, wires running through offices, through halls, under peoples feet, explosives being placed under people desks while they're sitting there etc. Its laughable. Utterly insane actually.

When I saw Building 7 fall, and pretty much came to the conclusion that there was no way that fire could cause such a symmetric collapse, I had that same question "How could they get the explosives in the building without anybody seeing them??".

But then I saw the interview with Scott Forbes, I started to think maybe it was possible. Listen to the bit where he talks about the "guys in the overalls" towards the end of the clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrYRAEjm-xw

Obviously whoever is in charge of security would need to be in on it, to provide access to the building. Once inside, you would need a plausible reason for being there (like an Internet cable upgrade, lift upgrade.. etc) and to be appropriately dressed (luminous jacket, ACME builders Ltd logo, hard hat). It wouldnt be something that a couple of lads in a van could organise but with the right connections and the right people it could be done.

And looking at the way the building came down, it's more plausible to me that the building was rigged with explosives than it was brought down by fires. It HAS to be either A or B, and to me it's a controlled demolition.

el diablo · 12-09-2016 12:16am

Not sure if this has been posted here before. I have absolutely no doubt that the building were brought down using explosives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE

The Nal · 12-09-2016 9:14am

el diablo wrote: »

Not sure if this has been posted here before. I have absolutely no doubt that the building were brought down using explosives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE

After watching a silly documentary?

Why would "they" (US government I presume) do it?

el diablo · 12-09-2016 6:32pm

The Nal wrote: »

After watching a silly documentary?

Why would "they" (US government I presume) do it?

No, not after watching a "silly" documentary. I've held this believe for quite some time.
It seems totally implausible to me that two planes can be responsible for demolishing three steel and concrete structured skyscrapers. And how can a low intensity office fire (Building 7) cause a 47 story building to turn to molten steel and dust??

Overheal · 12-09-2016 10:55pm

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/09/11/major-science-journal-publishes-paper-on-911-examining-the-evidence-concluding-it-was-a-controlled-demolition/

More papers coming out that are against the official story.

stevejazzx · 14-10-2016 5:02pm

Overheal wrote: »

How many steel buildings have had 747s slammed into them though?

Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane either.
There are too many people in the industry i.e engineering, construction and demolition who believe that building 7 could not have collapsed, in the way that it did, due to fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stOQ5Vl9d0k
We can of course ignore the mounting signed statements from these people but that'd be silly in my opinion.

Jan_de_Bakker · 29-11-2016 10:02pm

I know this is probably the wrong place, but I am a skeptic,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

Anyone know is there an explanation of this ? (apart from the conspiracy side of things) - maybe it's not actually WTC7 in the background ..

edit ok got it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

seems to explain it well enough, they were expecting it to collapse at this stage...

el diablo · 29-11-2016 10:36pm

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

I know this is probably the wrong place, but I am a skeptic,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

Anyone know is there an explanation of this ? (apart from the conspiracy side of things) - maybe it's not actually WTC7 in the background ..

edit ok got it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

seems to explain it well enough, they were expecting it to collapse at this stage...

Doesn't explain steel and concrete turning to dust though.

King Mob · 30-11-2016 1:01am

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

I know this is probably the wrong place, but I am a skeptic,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

Anyone know is there an explanation of this ? (apart from the conspiracy side of things) - maybe it's not actually WTC7 in the background ..

edit ok got it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

seems to explain it well enough, they were expecting it to collapse at this stage...

Yup, the firefighters on the scene were concerned about the building:s stability, so they knew that it was most likely going to collapse soon.
Reporters got their hands on this information and somewhere along the line, there was a miscommunication and it was reported that the building had "collapsed", rather than "will likely collapse. In the rush of that news day, every station was eager for new updates and they were hurrying to report anything, even before they did complete fact checking.
And even then, some places said "X is reporting that another building has collapsed" which is something that was true, but passed the buck to another source.

Nothing there that requires a conspiracy to explain it. And the conspiracy scenario makes zero sense.

el diablo · 30-11-2016 3:23am

King Mob wrote: »

Yup, the firefighters on the scene were concerned about the building:s stability, so they knew that it was most likely going to collapse soon.
Reporters got their hands on this information and somewhere along the line, there was a miscommunication and it was reported that the building had "collapsed", rather than "will likely collapse. In the rush of that news day, every station was eager for new updates and they were hurrying to report anything, even before they did complete fact checking.
And even then, some places said "X is reporting that another building has collapsed" which is something that was true, but passed the buck to another source.

Nothing there that requires a conspiracy to explain it. And the conspiracy scenario makes zero sense.

Doesn't explain steel and concrete turning to dust though. That explanation makes zero sense.

Jan_de_Bakker · 30-11-2016 6:01pm

Again, I know this is the CT forum and maybe this is not welcome, but seriously, imagine the manpower needed to pack all those explosives into a building that was until that day a normal office building with 1000s of workers in it.

Someone would have come forward, someone would have talked since then..

And also even if they had planned all this elaborate setup, you'd think someone would say "Now lads make sure the press don't get hold of the info until the actual building collapses!!"

weisses · 30-11-2016 9:08pm

King Mob wrote: »

Nothing there that requires a conspiracy to explain it. And the conspiracy scenario makes zero sense.

What is the proper science behind the official collapse theory?

Other then A self fabricated computer model NIST used ?

Plus there were no firefighters inside buiding 7

Silverstein brought in the pull it story ....

el diablo · 30-11-2016 9:29pm

How does some burning office furniture and paper (and some diesel generators in the basement apparently) cause a fire to burn so hot that it turns steel and mass concrete to dust? This is something I will never understand.

The Nal · 01-12-2016 10:51am

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Again, I know this is the CT forum and maybe this is not welcome, but seriously, imagine the manpower needed to pack all those explosives into a building that was until that day a normal office building with 1000s of workers in it.

Someone would have come forward, someone would have talked since then..

And also even if they had planned all this elaborate setup, you'd think someone would say "Now lads make sure the press don't get hold of the info until the actual building collapses!!"

They'd be wrapping wires and cabling around peoples desks, across halls, in lifts, planting thousands of explosives at crucial points out in the open etc. Yet no one noticed? How odd.

Wanderer78 · 01-12-2016 11:01am

The Nal wrote:

They'd be wrapping wires and cabling around peoples desks, across halls, in lifts, planting thousands of explosives at crucial points out in the open etc. Yet no one noticed? How odd.

The guberment has one of those time freezing machines, it's obvious, jebus!

The Nal · 01-12-2016 2:37pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The Nal wrote:

They'd be wrapping wires and cabling around peoples desks, across halls, in lifts, planting thousands of explosives at crucial points out in the open etc. Yet no one noticed? How odd.

The guberment has one of those time freezing machines, it's obvious, jebus!

They were all doing the mannequin challenge and didn't notice

el diablo · 02-12-2016 5:15am

The Nal wrote: »

They'd be wrapping wires and cabling around peoples desks, across halls, in lifts, planting thousands of explosives at crucial points out in the open etc. Yet no one noticed? How odd.

Ridiculous. Why would they have to wrap wires around people's desks? Have you never planted explosives in a skyscraper before?

Before and after pictures - How could anybody believe the building 7 story?

Comments