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

a reply to: PublicOpinion Nuanced, another complicated...and unrelated...word. Experts outside of the Federal Government were consulted. MIT looked at the report.....plenty of outside experts have looked at it.....and none of them have raised objection......other than the loons at A/E911Truth

a reply to: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: jaffo

That some people still prefer to call everybody a loon who will and cannot share their low expectations regarding any decent report, has already been fully understood. But thanks again for clearing things up for me!
Now... as jaffo pressed for some facts we may better continue on that road. I love a good NIST fact-hunt. Take, for example, page 224 from the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C)' an read this:

... the hardness evaluation suggested that there was no detoriation of the mechanical properties of the materials as a result of exposure to pre-collapse fires.

www.nist.gov...

Read it again, better the whole page if not all of this masterpiece_ish pile of crap. In short one could say they didn't find any evidence for their fiery theory, but they kept sticking to their dogma for pancakes sake. The cores ought to be stable then, didn't they? If fire didn't weaken them and logic still applies - what else did?
You guys better bet that I did read big chunks of this, I may not be a fan of cardinals but one of art and this piece is pretty marvelous for various reasons. So... let me ask you this: where, how and why was I wrong this time? Well played you say? You will always have some fun with me at least, I promise!

Can't wait for your reply, folks. Honestly.
And now, of course, obey a nice day and keep watching out for loons!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You should read the whole report. Although, I am happy to see that you finally found the "scientific" parts of the report that you claimed did not exist.

Then, you should do some searches on ATS about things that have been said about the NIST report. Primarily that ANY report done, would be an educated guess based on the available evidence. The only people who know exactly what gave way first in the Towers during the collapses, are the people who died. Anyone else, has to rely on photos of the exterior, interviews from the witnesses, and the limited amounts of wreckage that could be specifically identified. Now, had the Towers been wired up the kazoo with temperature sensors and video cameras recording the interior of the impact zones, we would have more definitive conclusions. Absent those, we have what the engineers, architects, metallurgy experts et al concluded based on their work.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

You should read the whole report. Although, I am happy to see that you finally found the "scientific" parts of the report that you claimed did not exist.

And I am quite happy to still see you running from the fact, that this is not a scientific paper.
Well... go and search on ATS or whatever.

a reply to: PublicOpinion Its an engineering investigation. Whether or not you want to accept that science does play a part or not is up to you.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Hahaha. Engineering is not applied science then?
You just keep spitting ridiculous lies, I like that.

We are done here, thanks for your reply!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Yes, we should be done because you will never understand that everything you THINK was not done, actually was. You just do not want to accept the results.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: jaffo

That some people still prefer to call everybody a loon who will and cannot share their low expectations regarding any decent report, has already been fully understood. But thanks again for clearing things up for me!
Now... as jaffo pressed for some facts we may better continue on that road. I love a good NIST fact-hunt. Take, for example, page 224 from the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C)' an read this:

... the hardness evaluation suggested that there was no detoriation of the mechanical properties of the materials as a result of exposure to pre-collapse fires.

www.nist.gov...

Read it again, better the whole page if not all of this masterpiece_ish pile of crap. In short one could say they didn't find any evidence for their fiery theory, but they kept sticking to their dogma for pancakes sake. The cores ought to be stable then, didn't they? If fire didn't weaken them and logic still applies - what else did?
You guys better bet that I did read big chunks of this, I may not be a fan of cardinals but one of art and this piece is pretty marvelous for various reasons. So... let me ask you this: where, how and why was I wrong this time? Well played you say? You will always have some fun with me at least, I promise!

Can't wait for your reply, folks. Honestly.
And now, of course, obey a nice day and keep watching out for loons!

Pardon me for being really stupid, evidently, but if there actually were a conspiracy here involving explosives. . . why on Earth would this language even be in the report?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596


I provided the link to this NIST-doc, didn't I?
You would just have to show me the evidence I seem to constantly overlook. If there would have been any...


a reply to: jaffo


Your question works the other way as well: if the steel was weakened by fire, why on Earth is there not a single shred of evidence to prove this claim?
You know... the implication is pretty clear: if it wasn't fire - what was it then?

Language is the first thing Newspeak takes over. We don't need to argue about that, do we? This illusion of a decent report has to be kept intact of course, otherwise there would be nobody here to ridicule substantial criticisms. The Public Opinion plays a very important role in this play, we both ought to know that.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

So much for us being done. Again I say, read the entire report. Look up some of the professionals that participated, talk to them....although I doubt you would accept that they did their due diligence and came up with the best answers available either....

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Again I say, read the entire report.

Assume for a second that I did so - to which use? To throw all the questionmarks in this thread I did see therein? I gave you one for starters (a very big one regarding your weakened steel) and you keep avoiding the topic like a stupid shill. Not saying you are, just realising that you behave like one - no offense intended.
I don't need your advice, you need mine. Again: show me your evidence! You will have to prove your claim, just as every other conspiracy-theorist with a silly theory. Like to admire some people like cardinals in fancy robes? Well... I don't, robes and names are no facts regarding our topic.

I didn't say they never came up with their best answers, they surely did. But it was simply not enough to nail this topic with a coherent theory. You did get that one, right?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Again I say, read the entire report.

Assume for a second that I did so - to which use? To throw all the questionmarks in this thread I did see therein? I gave you one for starters (a very big one regarding your weakened steel) and you keep avoiding the topic like a stupid shill. Not saying you are, just realising that you behave like one - no offense intended.
I don't need your advice, you need mine. Again: show me your evidence! You will have to prove your claim, just as every other conspiracy-theorist with a silly theory. Like to admire some people like cardinals in fancy robes? Well... I don't, robes and names are no facts regarding our topic.

I didn't say they never came up with their best answers, they surely did. But it was simply not enough to nail this topic with a coherent theory. You did get that one, right?

Well you picked a particular sentence about a single particular element of the entire structure. You abandoned the part talking about damage to core columns and facade columns and floor slab beams. You need to look holistically at the entire event. Not single aspects.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Again I say, read the entire report.

I gave you one for starters (a very big one regarding your weakened steel) and you keep avoiding the topic like a stupid shill. Not saying you are, just realising that you behave like one - no offense intended.
I don't need your advice, you need mine. Again: show me your evidence! You will have to prove your claim, just as every other conspiracy-theorist with a silly theory. Like to admire some people like cardinals in fancy robes? Well... I don't, robes and names are no facts regarding our topic.

I didn't say they never came up with their best answers, they surely did. But it was simply not enough to nail this topic with a coherent theory. You did get that one, right?

And yet, the experts who investigated feel they did. Which brings us back to the point that you will refuse to accept reality.

double post removed.

a reply to: scottyirnbru


You surely are a warm ray of light.

Guess what? Your tinfoil hat theory just vanished like cores of steel in said hardness evalution. Any further questions?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: scottyirnbru


You surely are a warm ray of light.

Guess what? Your tinfoil hat theory just vanished like cores of steel in said hardness evalution. Any further questions?

It clearly tells you the core columns are three floors in length. Some sustained damage from heavy aircraft items. When the floor beams failed they were pulled into the building as it collapsed.

You're looking for calculations and videos and eye witness statements for something that happened 90 storeys up during a major terrorist collapse. Sadly you'll never get the absolute proof that you want. You can have a best fit scenario or you can suggest some other theory.

What is your theory PO?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

In the NIST investigation, politics played a far greater role than did science.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

In the NIST investigation, politics played a far greater role than did science.

Yawn. Baseless rubbish.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

This video was a freedom of information requested video which you can clearly hear a deep thud explosion followed by the penthouse partial controlled collapse followed by total controlled collapse. There are people who claim that there were no explosions. They are lying.

There were no explosions during the 9/11 terrorist incident. Employees of Protec, a company of demolition engineers and experts, were operating seismic monitors in another project at the time and at no time did their monitors detect bomb explosions. In regard to WTC7, there was a 20-story hole punched on the south facade from the collapse of WTC1. It was evident that fire had weaken WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 because those buildings buckled from high temperature just before they collapsed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
What Demolition Experts Revealed

Another demolition expert who worked at Ground Zero also finds no trouble debunking the claim of explosives."Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event," says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com.

"You just can't clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can't see how it happened that way."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

www.implosion...... of 9-8-06 .pdf

sites.google...wtc7resembledac...


Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:14 AM
Posted Image


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

Several minutes before the WTC buildings collapsed, the structures of the buildings were clearly failing and the exterior steel columns could be seen buckling. This simply would not be happening if explosives caused the collapse

a reply to: Witness2008

I knew that none of those buildings were brought down by fire when I was watching it happen live. Common sense really is all it takes. But given how daft I know the western populace to be now after all is said and done, videos and eye witness testimony can be shown until the cows come home, and those folks will still cling to the official story.

I disagree. There was no way to rig the WTC buildings for demolition and not get caught. Just to prepare a steel frame building for demolition takes many months of preparation and it is a very noisy and dirty process. It took about half a year just to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas for demolition and that was easy in comparison in what it would have taken to demolish the WTC buildings with explosives. Remember, a huge bomb failed to bring down WTC1 in 1993. In fact, the steel columns of WTC1 at the lower level were sitting within the huge bomb crater.

1993 Bombing of WTC1

en.wikipedia.org...

In addition, it was clearly evident that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings as noted by the buckling of each building before they collapsed.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of

www.representativepress.org...