Visible explosions in WTC7.The video you did not know exists...

You never posted a demonstration showing any such thing, why are you posting lies?

Lets see your animated gifs proving what you said is true!

The animated gifs I posted show the actual demolition and precise timing.

I wont hold my breath because you never posted any such thing nor will you produce what you never did.

Lets see you produce the same effect as building 7, especially since its the same one nist used! LMAO

Meanwhile here is another one proving that what I said is true.



knock yourself out gam

oh crap he logged off.

 

sounds like crumbling from molecular fracturing and embrittlement, and concrete turns to back to powder if you evaporate the water from it and that too is very easily accomplished.

 

So, how do we know which accounted for what?

- - - Updated - - -

And so, it would be logical to assume the possibility of incendiaries were present in one form or another. No?

 

Locomotives put out a lot of energy too. Is it logical to assume the possibility of trains in one form or another at the WTC?

No.

 

Now you're really getting 'off track' LOL

Incendiaries seem a logical choice, given the scenario. I doubt that trains can derail and go up that high.

 

Incendiaries are quite superfluous. The planes did the job just fine.

Lots of people heard trains that day, though.

 

Whenever you look at any recording of WTC7 falling, you see that it actually cracks from top to bottom and only then starts falling. This should be an uncontested sign of demolition. How can a single thermally expanded column send such a powerful shock wave through the entire structure? How?

Windows really are going at different floors. That appears in all the videos. Why would certain windows blow out at different floors? It's ridiculous that some people still disagree because any sane person reaches this conclusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw#t=152

Despite being a republican, Geraldo Riviera says the 2001-09 govt is prime suspect:

[video=youtube;wPEj2Pa1Y2g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPEj2Pa1Y2g[/video]
​

 

You're very good at avoiding the direct approach, aren't you?

 

No,it would not

 

Why not?

 

The good science that you are talking about must be the same that NIST came up with; the one saying that Building 7 was truly the only steel framed building in modern history to have collapsed because of fire!

 

NIST is apparently allowed to reform its opinions and change their conclusion at random, and still maintain their credibility somehow. Strange thing.

 

Hard science... NIST contradicted themselves a lot throughout the different phases of their investigation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8#t=4195

 

Because NO evidence was found

 

Nothing unscientific about that

- - - Updated - - -

They did not

 

Gotta love the absolute certainty.........

 

You mean you're NOT that certian?

 

You serious? Is that why they refuse to let people check the computer model...? That's against US principles of scientific investigation. The only building in history that simply collapsed because of fire and they say it's hard science but they won't let the public see that science, or the computer model that said so to be more precise. Their computer model is for themselves only. That's very scientific.

 

Uhh you are quite wrong.

Their computer model is publically available even AEfor911truth displays it.

 

Well well... I mean the computer program developed by NIST to create models... with which it calculated and animated the spread of fire throughout the building. It's the data used to reach that conclusion (that model) that needs checking. They don't want to make that program available to the public... the program with which they created their models that 'explain' the most mysterious structure failure in history. No independent source can verify what parameters were taken into account in calculating the event. Scientists, engineers, computer programmers need to see the data used by NIST in producing the models.

 

Wasn't there somekinda lame excuse
that to release the data would endanger
public safety? .... what?

 

LOL Yes, absolutely I do. They clearly contradict themselves, then change their conclusions (for instance, abandoning their pancake theory), then change it again and nobody on the official believer's side even bats an eye. Give them information that clearly flys in the face of any current theories though and, well, the character assassination goes into full swing. I love it!

 

No evidence of what? Explosives? They weren't looking for explosives so, it's not surprising that they didn't find what they weren't looking for! LOL

 

They looked at everything,you honestly think they wouldn't have noticed explosives residue?

 

If you were tasked to examine a rubble pile for human remains, would a bit of "dirt" on a piece of steel attract your attention?