Close up WTC-7 Footage Shows Demolition Charges

[Equalizer]

Tweethere ya go, wonder why the media doesnt report things like this...oh because they are controlled by the same people who are doing all this terrorism.

https://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...blecharges.htm

[T-Man007]

TweetDuh! The owner of that building admitted the building was prepreped with demolition exposives. However, this is not the case with the buildings that were stuck by planes.

[Equalizer]

Tweetexactly....i think its pretty suspicious still, oh yea lets pull building 7 even though it didnt sustain any damage(if it did it was just debris), it was owned by the same guy as 1,2.....now if i remember correctly the Hilton building sustained a good amount of damage so why didnt they pull it?

[T-Man007]

TweetTwo reasons, the WTC 7 was older and received questionably structurable damage. No owner would be stupid enough to risk that. Blow it and take the insurance money. The Hilton is a newer building than WTC 7 and was built with more modern structural engineering techniques. Therefore, the structural integrity of that building was in better shape.

It simple actually. Take a full size 4 door Volvo and hit a brick wall at 60 MPH, then do the same with a full size 4 door Honda. Both cars may weight the same, hit the same wall at the same speed but because of Volvo's break away engine the car as a whole would be less effected than the Honda. Another example, take two SUVs of the same size and weight and put them in a roll. Do to engineering one will sustain more damage than the other.

Just because two buildings are near each other and receive the same potential impact it doesn't mean they will have the same amount of damage. Some buildings are better built than other and if that's not enough theres always the physical characteristics of the topography between the buildings. Was there a subway line near one and not the other to take most of the vibration? Was one built with a 20 story deep foundation and the other only 5 stories deep? There are hundreds of reasons why one building would sustain more damage than another in the same area.

It's like residential homes. Where I live there is a lot of shifting soils. However, you can go into one of the areas and 60% of one builders homes will show signes of settlement while only 5% of another builder will show signs of settlement. 99% of the time the difference is one thing, who did the better site prep around the foundation. You see, when it comes to shifting soils you need to dig an extra 8 to 10 feet deeper and wider than the entire foundation. Then you fill in the excess area with top soil and compact it. It's not mandatory so some builders do it and some don't. Those who don't have much higher percentages of settlement than those who do. But all the consumer sees is their house settle while the guy right next door doesn't. They assume that the other builder is a better builder and start to spread rumors about the builder. Then everyone starts talking about how bad a builder ABC Builders is, but in actuality they just did a piss poor job on the site prep. In this case the perception of the consumer is distorted by what they think is true and not what is actually true. Remember, it's not mandatory to do the additional site prep.