XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.consp
racy.antichrist
XPost: alt.illuminati
From: AdmiralPee@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com
"Cluehunter" wrote in a message
> George, you seem to have all the answers, I have a question for you.
> Please explain to me how building 7 fell. Please, don't say with fires,
> better still, don't say with damage to the corner of the building,
> because,
> if you answer with one of the above your only going to add to your
> ignorance. How did that structure fall so perfectly in 4.5 seconds with
> one
> simple decision like, pull it?
Don't say it fell with fires or with damage to the corner of the building.
Hmmm... there were fires in the building (that's why the firefighters were
discussing whether or not they could or should try to go in and fight them),
and, you seem to know that there was damage to the corner of the building...
so, if it had these things, how would it have managed to collapse without
them?
Perhaps if you did a little bit of research, it might help you to grasp some
things a bit better. Start by watching the entire 13+ second collapse
sequence of building 7, then explain why you think 13+ seconds is equal to
4.5 seconds. Then, feel free to look into a bit about how WTC 7 was built.
What were some of the unique characteristics of that building? What was
unusual about the foundation? The design of the building? Why might we look
specifically at the 5th floor?
As for the exact mechanism of the collapse - the investigation is not yet
completed, so a definitive answer is not known. Presently, based on all
available evidence, facts and eyewitness testimony - including a significant
amount from FDNY personnel, it appears that a combination of the damage
caused to the building by the collapsing towers in addition to the out of
control fires, and perhaps some of those unique design chracteristics your
research uncovered, is what caused the collaps of WTC 7.
The available evidence makes it pretty clear there were no explosives (none
are seen or heard in any video evidence), thermite, thermate, super-thermite
or even Prof. Jones secret blend of thermite with 11 herbs and spices. More
than anything, for anyone who has taken the time to understand how a
building is pulled, it is 100% clear that WTC 7 was not pulled. The cables
would have been obvious and the building would have fallen in a completely
different manner.
Fortunately, the same program in which we see Silverstein discussing pulling
the firefighting efforts from WTC 7 with the NYPD fire chief, they also show
the remnants of WTC 6 being pulled. The remaining structure of 6 was pulled
because there was a concern that using explosives to bring down the
remaining portion of WTC 6 might cause damage to the slurry wall. At that
point, they had no idea what the current condition of the slurry wall might
be and were unwilling to take any chances.
Knowing that a good portion of WTC 6 collapsed, as well as every other WTC
building, and that a total of 25 buildings (other than WTC 1, 2, & 6) were
damaged or destroyed on 9/11, I have to wonder why you are confused as to
why WTC 7 collapsed, but don't have a similar confusion over any of the 25
other buildings.
> Time for Americans such as yourself to wake
> up, because if my little 7 year old Grandson who saw the footage of
> building 7 say too me, Poppa, I saw that on the Discovery Channel,
> reffering to the controled demolitions they broadcast now & then. If a 7
> year old mind can relate to that, i'm sure you can also?
You hit the nail on the head. It truly takes the mind of a 7 year old to
believe WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. I appreciate you
making that point.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
