by bohm 141 Replies latest jw friends
the rest of merely say: we dont have a lot of intuition about how buildings collapse.
Actually most of us have an overabundance of intuition about how buildings collapse - we're just honest enough to admit that our intuition can be, and in the case of catastrophic physical events, most likely is, wrong.
OK, fine.
So then,
I dont know what to expect when a building like WTC7 collapse after intense fires and structural damage.
Well, find other examples which support your claims then. I don't buy it only because it looks like demolition. If it's not, there has to be some form of proof out there to support your theory. All I saw were a comedian claiming he saw the light and another you tube video. As far as I'm concerned, I see what I see, and I'm certainly not going to believe our corrupt government's story that it wasn't demolition.
I didn't want to enter into a long winded conversation over something that I can't prove, just wanted to offer another view. Let me ask you this. If you have 4 walls standing by themselves (which is what the video claims, right?), eventually, how are they going to fall? Basically, the answer is my argument. I just don't think they would fall straight down all at the same time. One might fall first, the others follow, etc. Who knows really.
I dont know what to expect when a building like WTC7 collapse after intense fires and structural damage.
Well, find other examples which support your claims then.
But there are no examples, badseed, which make it all the more surpricing that you can say what will certainly not happend. Where is the buildings with a design similar to WTC7 with a destroyed core and structural failure which fall down the way you claim they will fall down?
If i need to provide examples, so do you! and notice i dont say i know what will happend. you are.
Well I can't provide evidence of anything but with all the different scenarios that could have taken place, it ended up looking like a demolition. And with crooks like bush and cheney in power, who chose and were capable to go kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq for absolutely no reason at all (well, for oil anyway, you must at least know that), you expect me to believe their version. I don't think it really mattered to them that the victims were americans. So, really, you can't convince me. If it looks like demolition, it probably was.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm
More Ground Zero Heroes On The Record: Building 7 Was Deliberately Brought Down Testimony of multiple rescue personnel that they were told Building 7 was going to be imploded means FEMA, NIST, Silverstein Properties and federal government all lied, revelations demand immediate grand jury inquiry into insurance fraud, vindicates call for new independent 9/11 investigation
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Friday, February 9, 2007
Two more ground zero emergency rescue personnel are on the record as stating they were told Building 7 was going to be brought down on 9/11 hours before its symmetrical implosion, completely contradicting the official explanation of accidental collapse.
The new revelations provoke urgent questions about how a building was rigged with explosives within hours when such a process normally takes weeks or months and why the decision was taken to demolish the building amidst the chaos of the situation on that day.
Yesterday we reported on the testimony of an anonymous EMT named Mike who told Loose Change producer Dylan Avery that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
Shortly after this article was released we uncovered more astounding testimony of ground zero rescue workers who are fully public and on the record in repeating the same claims, that Building 7 was brought down deliberately and that its collapse was not accidental as the government claims.
Indira Singh was a volunteer civilian Emergency Medical Technician at the World Trade Center on September 11th. She was a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management. Singh was responsible for setting up triage sites for the seriously injured and walking wounded. These sites were closed down and consolidated one by one as the day wore on. Appearing on the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, Singh describes her experience to host Bonnie Faulkner. Click here to listen with commentary by Alex Jones.
SINGH: "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don't know I can't attest to the validity of that all I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."
HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"
SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."
As is discussed elsewhere in this article, the feasibility and logic of bringing the building down on 9/11 is up for debate, but what is not debatable is the fact that Silverstein Properties, NIST, FEMA and the federal government have all knowingly lied in claiming in official reports that the building came down solely as a result of damage from the towers and that the collapse of the building was not aided by means of intentionally placed explosives.
The following video from CNN clearly shows firefighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to "blow up."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&feature=player_embedded
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.
On September 9 2006, McPadden told an audience at the Community Church in New York City how while he was stationed in a Red Cross operations center, he was told that Building 7 was going to be brought down. Click here for the audio.
McPADDEN: "They said you know you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down, they're not sure if it's stable or not, so they were holding a line off because they had knowledge that something was gonna happen. Well, they pushed us back a little bit....a couple of minutes later they started coming down....people started coming back out to the street, I watched five New York City buses jam packed with people wanting to do search and rescue head down there towards Building 7 - people walk out into the middle of the street to see these people off, like bon voyage and right then Building 7 came down."
McPadden then describes the scene as a "stampede" as people ran over each other in their attempts to flee.
The testimony of these individuals meshes with others in confirming that Building 7 was deliberately brought down on the day of 9/11, a fact that eviscerates official investigations into Building 7 as nothing more than part of an orchestrated cover-up.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.
A cursory insight into professional building demolition tells us that experts are required to spend weeks and months planning the demolition of any building, ensuring that the explosives are placed in exactly the right spots, that the collapse will not impact surrounding buildings, and that a myriad of sufficient safety procedures are followed.
To imagine that demolition experts could rig such a huge building amidst the chaos of the day, unsure of whether further attacks were coming, in a matter of hours and bring the building down neatly in its own footprint without afflicting major damage to adjacent buildings is beyond belief.
Even if one entertains the notion that this is within the realm of possibility, the fact is that the federal government, FEMA and NIST and Silverstein Properties are all knowingly lying in claiming that the building collapsed by accident as a result of burning debris from the twin towers.
Now it is established that they lied about Building 7, how can we trust their often changing explanations of the collapse of the twin towers, especially considering the dozens and dozens of eyewitnesses who have gone on the record to report the fact that explosives were seen and heard on all levels of both towers, including underground?
We are being asked to put our faith in either the federal government, who deliberately lied about 9/11 in the very days after the attack in telling emergency workers and firemen that the toxic air was safe to breathe, or the emergency workers and other rescue heroes who risked their lives and are still suffering the consequences of their actions.
This testimony demands an immediate grand jury inquiry into both monolithic insurance fraud, potential manslaughter, and a complete re-appraisal and re-investigation into everything else that happened on 9/11 in an effort to discover what else the government lied about concerning the events of that day and its aftermath.
bohm I got a present for ya...
pson - that set is way too advanced for bohm.
that set makes moving objects, he needs a BASIC set, with just four walls and a few floors.
Before I do the video the favor of an extra click, what is a "truther", a conspiracy theorist?
yes a truther is a conspiracy nut.
please tells us what you think about this topic, since you are not from the usofa.
