No they were not and no 'experts' have proven it was a controlled demolition Reign in your fantasies.
WTC Building 7 is a proven controlled demolition. It is proven using the Scientific Methods of Proof which is the best proof in the world.
Your statement is a falsehood. If not - show the paper in which this was published, peer reviewed and proven.
for every expert you have, there at least 10 which hold a different view. As Noam Chomsky points out, the experts on yoru side haven't been able to prove anything or present anything credible to the scientific community; there is a reason for this. Their claims and allegations hold no water and they are a minority who cannot convince anyone, just conspiracy theorists.
No. One of the largest other buildings in the world hit it. If the only thing that happened to WTC7 was that it was on fire, you might have a point. But since it wasn't, you don't. A claim that can only be made by somebody with no experience whatsoever with classic controlled demolitions. This would be true only if you define "experts" very loosely, and redefine "proven" completely.
There is no such thing as "the Scientific Methods of Proof." There is, in fact, no such thing as "proof" in science.
The 9/11 truth deniers are getting egg on their face. Before long every professional building engineer will be on the side of the truthers because they look like fools for denying the truth. - - - Updated - - - Really? Interesting.
It has been 12 years. The number of "professional building engineers" that have joined the ranks of the truthers remains miniscule. Your delusions do not do you credit. - - - Updated - - - Yes. Really.
none of these guys have been able to present anything to the scientific community or publish anything credible; it's all been debunked, destroyed, annihilated and thrown in a dumpster yet you guys keep digging it out of dumpsters and using it as evidence, it's trash.
Why is it then, no one from the Twoofers side has stepped up, repeated and validated the Jones/Harrit test and results? What are they afraid of? You seem to have so much faith in your claim of "the Scientific Methods of Proof" ( you made up a term) that no nutters want to validate the tests and results????...mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Were you, perhaps, trying to use the term "the Scientific Method"?....and just didn't really know what you're talking about?
It's all right here for anyone with an open mind willing to look at the facts. Building 7 was classic controlled demolition and MSNBC's Brian Williams had foreknowledge of the demolition. [video=youtube;ERhoNYj9_fg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ERhoNYj9_fg#![/video]
I have an open mind. I have reviewed most of the videos and found their content (not evidence because they haven't produced any) to lacking in validity...and worse, ignorant of the facts, evidence and science. Are you also one of those special no-plane types of twoofer?
FALSE Brian Williams did not have foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7. stating so is very dishonest and libelous.
BotherJohnjohn said Classic???....so, a classic controlled demolition begins at the top? How come the Controlled Demolition industry trade mag says the idea of a controlled demolition of the WTC is BULSH?
I am not presenting to you. I am presenting it to others on the forum who have an open mind and are willing to look at the facts. NIST claimed that there were no explosions before Building 7 came crashing down and this video proves the explosions in classic controlled demolition style.
the video proves no such thing. those aren't "explosions". you've clearly never seen video of a classic CD.
they heard the sound of the building collapsing. there were no explosions to be heard. they heard no explosions. the video broadcasts the sounds of no explosions. sorry.
Its one thing to have an open mind. It's another entirely to allow your brains to fall out on the floor. Or not.
there was nothing "classic" about the so-called CD of WTC 7. if it was a CD, it was the first one ever done in such a fashion. with NO sounds of explosions, done from the top down.
