Ask500

Gimme a freakin' break! Aaron was asking me not to ask the question over and over repeatedly twice a day ..... that was 259 days ago and now I post the same question again ..... 269 days later and you are bitching about it?

Very good, now let's have a look at what a controlled demolition expert thought when he first saw the videos as you did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

So you are right, it was demolished with explosives. But do you really believe they found a bunch of demolition experts, several tons of explosives and sent these guys with explosives in hand into a burning building? ... would you walk into a fire with a stick of dynamite in your hand?

The reality is that explosives where placed there BEFORE 9/11 ... have a look here for more information:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1337231563159418946

> you should know that without that compelling evidence I mentioned again and again, you wont change mine.

It always amazes me when people look at the perfectly vertical demolition of WTC7 and still ask for more evidence. WTC7 is the smoking gun dude. You remind me of my buddy and his wife: every time I go over to their house she is all over me, she flirts, grabs my ass, makes sexual innuendos and she has slept with many of my other friends. But my buddy keeps saying she's just friendly and a joker ..... he just doesn't want to see the truth. No matter how much she cheaps on him, he just refuses to see what's going on..... you behave pretty much in the same manner when you tell me that WTC7 fell down due to fires and falling debris.

The truth would just be too painful for my buddy so he just blocks it out ..... seems the truth just would be too painful for you too my friend.

All is well, I bid you farewell my friend and I hope some day, the obvious can make it into your hearth.

Cheers,

PepeLapiu :)

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread142784/pg1

> Seven seconds? Well, anything falling under gravity falls at the same rate regardless of explosives or not.

Not really. When talking about free fall, we are talking about something falling THOUGHT AIR, not something falling through tons and tons of structural steel and concrete.

>Just because damage was only visible on the outside of one part of the building does not mean it wasn't very badly damaged by fire inside.

You should explain this to Danny Jowenko. Jowenko is not a 'conspiracy kook', he is a demolition expert and watch carefully his reaction when they ask him how the building came down while showing him the videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T3_mmGvfQQ

You see, for demolition experts, it takes months and months of work, calculations and preparations to make sure a building falls down completely vertically like that. But I guess if you accept that 7 hours of fires and debris damage to only one side is sufficient to create the same results then all is well and fine .....

For those interested here is a compilation of all the available videos of World Trade Center Building Seven (WTC7) collapsing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0

>Really though, the burden of proof is on you

I am not trying to prove anything or convert anyone. I am just asking you a question. Now, if you don't want to answer that's cool, discussion is over. But I think dodging that question as you are doing is akin to putting your head in the sand..... I don't know why you join the comments page if you don't want to discuss this stuff!?!

Now can you answer my question?

How did WTC7 fall so completely vertically when only one side of it was damaged by debris and fires?

I read your link and I can't find an answer to my question there. Maybe you could C&P it or explain it in your own words?

>I, on the other hand know of the viewpoint,

>researched the beliefs of that viewpoint and

>came to the conclusion that based on it's

>questionable evidence, I could not subscribe

>to that viewpoint. I spent quite some time

>doing that actually, in fact, I researched

>that before I researched the other side of

>the argument.

You say you have researched it all. Then answer the question I have asked above. Since you are obviously smarter then I and more researched then I maybe you can explain it too me. How did WTC7 fall so completely vertically when only one side of it was damaged by debris and fires?

Then just bury your head in the sand, pay your taxes and keep watching your TV. But don't forget to pay your taxes, your gubment loves a good tax payer.

Then just answer this simple question:

WTC7, a building 300 ft away and across the street from the towers collapsed at 5:20 in the afternoon. It was said that it collapsed due to fire but the only significant fires are seen on the side of WTC7 facing the towers. There is some very minor fires seen on the other sides of the building but not much. Then it was said that falling debris from the towers caused WTC7 to collapse, but the only side of WTC7 that was damaged by the debris was the side facing the towers.

So look at the videos here showing the collapse of WTC7 as reported by the media on that day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0

Now answer this one question only: How does a building that was damaged by fires and debris on only one side can fall to the ground in such a perfectly vertical manner in less then 7 seconds?