On 2/20/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jones Beene wrote: >Makes a prima facie case for more thorough investigation of the >possibility that WTC7 had been pre-rigged to be brought down: You mean: the building was gutted
A building does not need to be guttel to be demolished. The evidence? The twin towers and building 7. over several weeks prior to 9/11,
all of the heavy objects were removed, the main beams were cut
Some most likely were, there were lots of people working on it. , and
hundreds of pounds of explosives were put into the building
Yes , but
nobody noticed.
They did notice. They are saying how odd it was. Not looking is not the same as no one reporting it, you can't always wait for this stuff to hit fox Jed. That's what you mean.
It is physically impossible to "pre-rig" a building to collapse, otherwise. You would have to trigger a massive explosion that would also destroy much of the surroundings
And send beams into nearby buildings as happened with the WTC? That is exactly what happened. , like what happened when bombs
fell on buildings during World War II. Or you would have to ignite hundreds of gallons of the most energy intense chemical -- petroleum.
Yes, and the last people out would be burnt by the explosions. Buildings collapse from smaller fires all the time, including steel
frame buildings.
Funny, you seem to be the only person that knows this. Please give something a little bit more solid because i have seen stuff about how buildings have been on fire and not far more violent that the mysterious fire if WTC 7. What was used to burn the buildings? How did their construction compare? If you "pre-rigged" with such a small amount of explosives no one
even heard the bang
Except for the fireman saying they heard the bangs, but other than those that did no one. Plus people would see explosive ejections, like the explosive ejections that are plainly visible. see: http://www.serendipity.li/wtc5.htm But you won't will you, you clearly don't research the other side of this stuff because you have deemed it impossible from the outset. , there is no chance that would be sufficient to
make an intact building collapse.
Funny, you go from saying that a building which had supports cut would just collapse on it's own, to the claim that explosives couldn't takje out the supports. There is no middle ground? weaken the supports enough to leave them vulnerable to the explosive charges. Buildings are way stronger than
that.
And yet weak enough to collpase due to fire, and so weak they they will readily pancake at freefall speeds! Meaning No Resistance! Conventional explosives have little energy compared to
petroleum fuel, flour, dust, and other sources of large explosions that often destroy buildings. For that matter, when the CDI brings down a building, even though they use the smallest amount of explosives they can, the noise of the explosions is quite loud, and unmistakable.
Explosions were heard. Seen. Burnt people. And there is plenty of shrapnel (metal and bone) that has never occurred with building deliberately imploded. Also look at WTC 7, you can see the crim as the central support column has been turned to dust it implodes in. To be honest there is far far more evidence but what is the point, you are simply not open to this regardless of the evidence.
