World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

You might want to re-examine the photos. Especially the one that shows the Southwest corner of the building from above. The southwest corner, was obliterated by the collapse of WTC 1.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Then explain this miraculous demolition set that 1. Survives having a 20 story hole cut out of the building and one corner being destroyed. 2. Did NOT go off due to damage when exposed to fire

originally posted by: denning2000

Just curious, do you actually believe what you posted has any credibility; that the air in the cabin weighed 1,500 pounds and therefore represented an unstoppable force? You must be joking posting this. Are you joking?

Please tell me you're only joking.

JD

It's not me that's saying that, it's the laws of physics. Which laws of physics do you disagree with ? I'll give you some simple questions and you show us how smart you really are.

Does air have mass ? yes/no

Did the air inside the aircraft cabin have velocity ? yes/no

Does a mass in motion want to continue at that speed and direction unless acted upon by an outside force ? yes/no

Does force = mass x acceleration ? yes/no

What was supporting the 100+ tones of aircraft, prior to hitting the building ?
A. Air
B. Government Shills
C. Potato

Extra credit:

Can you give an simple explanation of how explosives transmit force ?

a reply to: denning2000

An example of the force exerted by air:

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Shadow Herder

You might want to re-examine the photos. Especially the one that shows the Southwest corner of the building from above. The southwest corner, was obliterated by the collapse of WTC 1.

That photo has been proven to be a fake and even NIST stopped using that image because it was a fraud. NIST states that the damage had no affect on the controlled collapse of building 7

originally posted by: scottyirnbruBecause you offer nothing as a suggestion. You've come up with alien energy rays and seem to think this is reasonable.

I fail to see the difference between your and my version of reality. We both seem to have theories that we both think MIGHT be true, you don't prove anything either, we both simply say what we think happened.

Your input it's almost irrelevant in this thread. You've brought zero substantive material. It's not personal forty, it's just a statement of fact. I've tried to ague using physics and science and you have suggested alien energy rays. So that's that. Have a good one.

likewise! May the force - or perhaps an alien ray - be with you!

Conspiracy theorists argue that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition and this method was also addressed by NIST (NIST 2008). This analysis focused on a single location blast scenario. It was determined that 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives would be required to cut Column 79. Other scenarios required more explosives and would have been detected. Pressures associated with the detonation of 20 percent of the explosives required to structurally damage a single column would have been large enough to shatter the exterior glass. Visual evidence does not support this glass breaking pattern.
-NIST report.

Dismissing the controlled collapse of building 7 based on "visual evidence" of no broken glass in the videos they have released is bad science.

NIST also determined that a blast would have propagated sound waves outward from the building. It was determined that the charge sizes for the hypothetical blast scenario would have produced sound levels of 130 to 140 db up to 1 km (0.6 mi) away if unobstructed. In southern Manhattan, these sound waves would have reflected off of hard building exteriors and echoed through channeled streets. All video recordings of the collapse of WTC 7 did not record any sounds near the intensities of a blast large enough to demolish WTC 7. Therefore, it was determined that there was no demolition type blast that caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Their findings are based on a scenario hypothesis of using RDX (c4) when there are many other ways to cut a column but that becomes redundant since the FOIA release of video which clearly has large Booms just before collapse and much time before which debunks NISTs whole last statement.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
No aliens involved here, no rays, no nothing.

How about the planes ? Were they piloted extraterrestrials or Islamic extremest working for extraterrestrials.

You said your theory tied up all the loose ends. Are you afraid of a few questions?

Of course. That's why I particate - on a voluntary basis - in this forum

But clearly you haven't read what I wrote: Bin Laden was a scape-goat, added to the story to make it believable. When the idea rose to use the "Terrorist" "attack" on the US of A as a cover story for the retaliation / warning of our former alien friends, Bin Laden was used because he already had served as a double agent before, conveniently attaching a name and face to "terrorism". By "killing" Bin Laden, the US of A "proved" to the public they won from terrorism. Look at it as a type of damage control.

The simple truth - I think we can at least agree on this - is that the US of A was (and probably is) not capable of protecting their citizens and airspace against even such simple attacks. Attacks on 3 significant landmarks of American architecture and one on - get this - the frigging HQ of their MILITARY. So, they appointed a scape-goat and offered him - and it is even questionable if they really "offered" him or just pretended. Bin Laden is probably alive and well, and smiling when he reads this

The collapse began on Floor 13 the three floors above that were vacant so there goes the argument that people would of saw workers installing a collapse failsafe, but as NIST stated it would of took no more that 9lbs of explosives to initiate the progressive collapse.

Also, please keep this on topic. WTC 7.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: denning2000

Just curious, do you actually believe what you posted has any credibility; that the air in the cabin weighed 1,500 pounds and therefore represented an unstoppable force? You must be joking posting this. Are you joking?

Please tell me you're only joking.

JD

It's not me that's saying that, it's the laws of physics. Which laws of physics do you disagree with ? I'll give you some simple questions and you show us how smart you really are.

Does air have mass ? yes/no

Did the air inside the aircraft cabin have velocity ? yes/no

Does a mass in motion want to continue at that speed and direction unless acted upon by an outside force ? yes/no

Does force = mass x acceleration ? yes/no

What was supporting the 100+ tones of aircraft, prior to hitting the building ?
A. Air
B. Government Shills
C. Potato

Extra credit:

Can you give an simple explanation of how explosives transmit force ?

I. Love. This. Post. Government Shills for a thousand, Alek.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbruBecause you offer nothing as a suggestion. You've come up with alien energy rays and seem to think this is reasonable.

I fail to see the difference between your and my version of reality. We both seem to have theories that we both think MIGHT be true, you don't prove anything either, we both simply say what we think happened.

Your input it's almost irrelevant in this thread. You've brought zero substantive material. It's not personal forty, it's just a statement of fact. I've tried to ague using physics and science and you have suggested alien energy rays. So that's that. Have a good one.

likewise! May the force - or perhaps an alien ray - be with you!

Because one is computer modelled in a lab and the other is the product of star trek.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
The collapse began on Floor 13 the three floors above that were vacant so there goes the argument that people would of saw workers installing a collapse failsafe, but as NIST stated it would of took no more that 9lbs of explosives to initiate the progressive collapse.

Also, please keep this on topic. WTC 7.

Wanted to add.

14-17 Vacant
13 Provident Financial Management
11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission
9-10 US Secret Service
7-8 American Express Bank International

Floor 13 and up is what failed, and there was no one on those floors.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
So many replies and no one has yet attempted to debunk the deep explosive caught on tape that help bring down world trade center 7 in a controlled manner.

You are still unable to show how they managed to sneak in tonnes of explosives

I have shown through the NIST report that they were able to simulate a collapse using only 9 lbs on one column.

and spend man years installing the explosives, including knocking holes in the walls etc then cleaning up the remains before the investigation started!.

As you have been shown NIST was able to simulate a collapse using explosives that would not be detected upon installation within 6-7 hours. The one column that failed was on the 13-17 floors. Floor 14-17 were VACANT.

Also to mention that SIlverstein is on record being on the phone with his insurance carrier talking about pulling building 7 in a controlled demolition

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Star Trek - mm. Yes, nonsense, of course.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
So many replies and no one has yet attempted to debunk the deep explosive caught on tape that help bring down world trade center 7 in a controlled manner.

You are still unable to show how they managed to sneak in tonnes of explosives

I have shown through the NIST report that they were able to simulate a collapse using only 9 lbs on one column.

and spend man years installing the explosives, including knocking holes in the walls etc then cleaning up the remains before the investigation started!.

As you have been shown NIST was able to simulate a collapse using explosives that would not be detected upon installation within 6-7 hours. The one column that failed was on the 13-17 floors. Floor 14-17 were VACANT.

Also to mention that SIlverstein is on record being on the phone with his insurance carrier talking about pulling building 7 in a controlled demolition

That is just not at all true about that phone call.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
So many replies and no one has yet attempted to debunk the deep explosive caught on tape that help bring down world trade center 7 in a controlled manner.

You are still unable to show how they managed to sneak in tonnes of explosives

I have shown through the NIST report that they were able to simulate a collapse using only 9 lbs on one column.

and spend man years installing the explosives, including knocking holes in the walls etc then cleaning up the remains before the investigation started!.

As you have been shown NIST was able to simulate a collapse using explosives that would not be detected upon installation within 6-7 hours. The one column that failed was on the 13-17 floors. Floor 14-17 were VACANT.

Also to mention that SIlverstein is on record being on the phone with his insurance carrier talking about pulling building 7 in a controlled demolition

That is just not at all true about that phone call.

Wrong again, 1 point for wishful thinking. "“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building "

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
So many replies and no one has yet attempted to debunk the deep explosive caught on tape that help bring down world trade center 7 in a controlled manner.

You are still unable to show how they managed to sneak in tonnes of explosives

I have shown through the NIST report that they were able to simulate a collapse using only 9 lbs on one column.

and spend man years installing the explosives, including knocking holes in the walls etc then cleaning up the remains before the investigation started!.

As you have been shown NIST was able to simulate a collapse using explosives that would not be detected upon installation within 6-7 hours. The one column that failed was on the 13-17 floors. Floor 14-17 were VACANT.

Also to mention that SIlverstein is on record being on the phone with his insurance carrier talking about pulling building 7 in a controlled demolition

That is just not at all true about that phone call.

Wrong again, 1 point for wishful thinking. "“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building "

Wow. Third-hand non-verified statements which are completely incapable of being subjected to the rigors of proof and which were almost certainly never made at all. Sorry, the idea that WT7 was pre-wired to be demolished is ridiculous. I mean really, what if there had been ZERO fires and ZERO damage to the building? Then what would have happened with all those explosives? Were other buildings wired that day which did not fall? If so, when do you propose they were wired and who did the wiring? When was it all removed? And how was it removed from an active crime scene?! No wonder no one takes Truthers seriously. Sorry, that is not evidence, it is not proof, it isn't even a fact. It's a story. Told on the internet.There is not one insurance carrier on the planet WHO WOULD EVER INSURE A BUILDING WIRED WITH EXPLOSIVES. DO you honestly not see how ridiculous it is to propose that someone called their insurance carrier and said "Hey, how's it going? I wondered if I could ask you something? Our building has been damaged and we want to use the explosives we wired it with to demolish it. Yeah. Today. While the attack is happening. Yes, I'll hold." Really, my friend? That does not at all sound completely insane?

a reply to: jaffo

Sorry chap we are not here to solve the crime but show that building 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion and that NIST report on building seven only discounts the plausibility of controlled explosive based on a few unbroken windows and a lack blasts on video but the NIST released videos u can clearly hear loud explosions.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Conspiracy theorists argue that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition and this method was also addressed by NIST (NIST 2008). This analysis focused on a single location blast scenario. It was determined that 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives would be required to cut Column 79. Other scenarios required more explosives that would be detected

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Proven fake? By who? And, you misquote NIST yet again on the damage.