WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

So what? Screw him and take the other studies if ya like. Which brings me to my old question:

AE 9/11 Truthh and truthers have been using him as a reference source.

Can you name a few things that would imply the use of explosives? Any chemicals for ex.?

How about a lot of noise that can be heard for miles? In the WTC videos, no demo explosions are heard and no secondary explosions heard during impacts nor during the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, wtc.nist.gov.... This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

www.webcitation.org...

a reply to: pteridine

Hundreds of witnesses described explosions, there is your first indicator.
The tilting top of the building somehow laughed about Newtons first law and decided to vanish into thin air with the rest of the cores, there is your second indicator.

We saw a lot of metal oxides, all within the scope of things so to speak. How about chemicals as residues in the air? I can remember a study which took a closer look at those parts. But heck... 20% iron and fireproofing in the dust, not to mention all that asbestos on top of it. Do we really need to discuss such details now?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Hundreds of witnesses described explosions, there is your first indicator.

There are many things that mimic the sound of explosions, but the evidence does not support the use of demo explosives at ground zero, which is clearly evident on the WTC videos and in the seismic data.

a reply to: pteridine

The A&E is based on bombast and posturing. Gage and crew milk the gullibles for money and provide whatever commentaries keep the cash flowing. The followers feed on their own fantasies

You are entitle to your own "opinions" no matter how twisted and distorted they are. However to make false accusations that A&E is just out to milk the public and brainwash people to fill their fantasies proves to me and everyone else reading this that the Truth is your enemy in my opinion.

A&E is a non profit organization and you deliberately left that out of your seething, negative, crude remarks.

ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH (AE911TRUTH) IS A NON-PROFIT NON-PARTISAN ORGANIZATION OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND AFFILIATES

Our mission is to research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice.

www.ae911truth.org...

but could not explain how the laws of physics were defied. They are short on physical evidence and long on feelings

A&E are short on feelings? You need help seriously.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

He actually wrote this with regards to the Jones you hate so much,...

I don't hate anyone. It is just that Steven Jones is well-known for duping people. Case in point is where he managed to convince a number of people that this photo depicted molten steel.

Photo: Steven Jones Claim of Molten Steel

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I want you to do so as well. Btw., did you ask RJ LeeGroup, Inc. for clarification regarding their dust-analysis or will you accept their work by now?

I will contact them and ask them for evidence of demo explosives and thermite as well. As I have said, I am not shy about asking companies if I need information.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Case in point, NIST that you so dearly defend went out of their way to dupe everyone and they made a Whopping 3 millions dollars doing it.

a reply to: Informer1958

Case in point, NIST that you so dearly defend went out of there way to dupe everyone and they made a Wopping 3 millions dollars doing it.

Have you found those time lines and seismic data yet?

a reply to: skyeagle409

Have you found those time lines and seismic data yet?

There is no sounds that verify your silly time line. I have answered your question now.

Is that what you needed to hear?

So does that make the OS of the WTC true? No it does not.

a reply to: Informer1958

There is no sounds that verify your silly time line. I have answered your question now.

In other words, you cannot provide the time line evidence of demo detonations in the videos of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, nor provide seismic data evidence of demo detonations as those buildings collapsed.

To sum it up, you cannot provide a shred of evidence that demo detonations occurred at ground zero.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Ok, you don't hate him but rather his work. I take your telling silence with regards to my other points as a loud YES then, as I understand your connections to the military perfectly well by now.

Just beeing honest here, all puns intended to provoke interesting answers only.

I'm looking forward to the reply, as the amount of iron and mineral-wool should be pretty outstanding by itself. Don't be surprised when their answer is, that they didn't even look at that! I wouldn't be surprised either, their focus was asbestos/ hazardous material.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Ok, you don't hate him but rather his work.

That's right, and I am not the only one either.

I'm looking forward to the reply, as the amount of iron and mineral-wool should be pretty outstanding by itself. Don't be surprised when their answer is, that they didn't even look at that! I wouldn't be surprised either, their focus was asbestos/ hazardous material.

I sent them my contact information 15 minutes ago via email and I will bring that up with them.

a reply to: skyeagle409

In other words, you cannot provide the time line evidence of demo detonations in the videos of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7,

Correct.

nor provide seismic data evidence of demo detonations as those buildings collapsed.

False. I did provide you evidence of the seismic data, but you refuse to read it.

To sum it up, you cannot provide a shred of evidence that demo detonations occurred at ground zero.

False again.

I provided the links and sources of over 500 credible eyewitness testimonies that went on public record. You refuse to READ IT.

I rest my case.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

The A&E is based on bombast and posturing. Gage and crew milk the gullibles for money and provide whatever commentaries keep the cash flowing. The followers feed on their own fantasies

You are entitle to your own "opinions" no matter how twisted and distorted they are. However to make false accusations that A&E is just out to milk the public and brainwash people to fill their fantasies proves to me and everyone else reading this that the Truth is your enemy in my opinion.

A&E is a non profit organization and you deliberately left that out of your seething, negative, crude remarks.

ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH (AE911TRUTH) IS A NON-PROFIT NON-PARTISAN ORGANIZATION OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND AFFILIATES

Our mission is to research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice.

www.ae911truth.org...

but could not explain how the laws of physics were defied. They are short on physical evidence and long on feelings

A&E are short on feelings? You need help seriously.

I read the mission statement. When demanding another investigation, it helps to have a reason for such backed by evidence. There isn't any. It seems that the A&E big plan is to keep this alive for as long as they can so new marks can be tapped for donations and sold DVD's to keep up the fervor. Do you really believe that a) the leaders [Gage] expect to have another investigation and b) Congress will authorize the funds for such? Who would be the independent investigators? If the investigation said "no demolition" would we need yet another investigation because the answer was not what was desired?

Yes, the organization is a non-profit. That means that the organization does not show a profit. It does not mean that the purveyors are not getting paid by donations from the gullible. As a non-profit, they have to post their expenditures. Gage was paying himself $75k a year the last time I looked. Not bad money for playing with cardboard boxes in front of a receptive audience.

Read more carefully, I said they were "short on physical evidence and long on feelings." This relates to the "it feels like something is wrong" comments.

Are you ready to debate Jones' paper? The last time we did this even the densest finally conceded that Jones had not shown the existence of thermite, which is about the time that we switched over to seismic evidence of explosions. Was it explosives or thermite? A&E doesn't know; they only stir the pot to keep this alive.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You post that crappy excuse of a debunk-trial in every thread now? Well... that's an easy one. They 'somehow' forgot to mention, that the WTC-dust is composed of 20% mineral-wool and iron only.

Where does that prove that demo explosives were used? Where does that prove that thermite was used?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pteridine

Hundreds of witnesses described explosions, there is your first indicator.
The tilting top of the building somehow laughed about Newtons first law and decided to vanish into thin air with the rest of the cores, there is your second indicator.

We saw a lot of metal oxides, all within the scope of things so to speak. How about chemicals as residues in the air? I can remember a study which took a closer look at those parts. But heck... 20% iron and fireproofing in the dust, not to mention all that asbestos on top of it. Do we really need to discuss such details now?

When you asked your question, I thought you were referring to physical evidence of demolitions.
Random noises are not controlled demolitions. They are noises described by witnesses that could be anything from bursting fire extinguishers to falling structural members. What does Newton's first law have to do with this? The entire building ended up on the ground, top included. Heating metal in air generally produces metal oxides. Underground fires in the presence of sulfates and concrete would produce all sorts of oxides.

a reply to: pteridine

I read the mission statement. When demanding another investigation, it helps to have a reason for such backed by evidence. There isn't any.

There isn't any?

Perhaps for you there isn't any. I do not believe for one minuet that you have ever read any of A&E technical papers.

The fact is, there is only two things that are important about 911.

Religion, believe system.

And the science.

Science shatters a belief system and many people cannot handle it, as you have demonstrated that to me earlier.

So you and I have nothing to discuss concerning anything related to 911. I have dealt with you a few years ago, I and many ATS posters found you very dishonest in how you twisted Jones science.

I rest my case and please do not post to me again.

a reply to: Informer1958

False. I did provide you evidence of the seismic data, but you refuse to read it.

According to the demolition teams who were operating those seismic monitors, they have stated for the record that their machines did not detect demo explosions. You can read all about it here.

Seismic Montiors Failed to Detect Demo Explosions

I provided the links and sources of over 500 credible eyewitness testimonies that went on public record. You refuse to READ IT.

That is not evidence that demo explosives were used because there is no sound of demo explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Didn't I feed you enough tonight?

a reply to: skyeagle409

Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New
York on September 11, 2001?

EXPLOSIONS THE SOURCE OF 9/11 SEISMIC WAVEFORMS

A subterranean explosion might not be heard, but the ground would shake and initiate a
series of waves (body and surface waves). If we distinctly hear an explosion, it is either
aerial, which does not give a seismic signal, or it is subaerial, in which case surface
waves could be generated. The seismic wave data provided by Palisades prove the
occurrence of surface waves radiating outward from the World Trade Center. In addition,
witnesses reported hearing explosions very close to the times at which planes struck the
Towers and when they collapsed (see particularly MacQueen, 2006).
Given these two types of evidence we can affirm that subaerial explosions occurred close
to the base of the Towers almost or quite simultaneously with the crashes into the Towers
by the planes. The sound coming from these explosions would have been mixed with the
sounds generated by the impacts of the planes. The explosion at the base of WTC1 was
heard and reported by William Rodriquez (Spingola, 2005).
The employees of the Secret Service, whose offices were in WTC7 wholly separated
from WTC1, noticed this event: “On September 11, like any other morning, most of the
Secret Service employees were either settling into their offices or still making their way
Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 34, November 2012
8
to work. Others were about to attend meetings to prepare for the upcoming meeting of the
United Nations General Assembly. At 8:48 a.m. their offices in Building 7 shook and the
lights flickered. Most of them stopped for a quick moment but quickly returned to their
work” (Congressional Record, 107th Congress (2001-2002)). As a simple impact against
a tower cannot be transmitted to a separated building, an explosion was the likely source
of the shock in the offices.
The waveforms produced by the collapses of WTC2 and WTC7 were of a different type
than that generated by the collapse of WTC1. Based upon the kind of waves coming from
WTC2 and WTC7, they each underwent one or more very large subaerial explosions,
heard and reported by witnesses. For example, in the case of WTC2, a fireman witnessed
an explosion before the building collapsed into an enormous cloud of dust (see
Testimony [1], below), apparently not too far from the base of the Tower, accompanied
by flashes of light and noise, according to an "Assistant Commissioner" (see Testimony
[2]). Another fireman, present at the base of WTC2, stated there was a large explosion
about 20 floors below the impact zone of the plane just before the upper portion of the
Tower began to collapse (Testimony [3]). These explosions were too high above the
surface to generate body waves in the ground, and the Rayleigh wave recorded probably
comes only from the explosion closer to the surface. Among the other explosions heard at
the base of WTC2 (WhatReallyHappened.com, 2009), one of them generated the second
Rayleigh wave recorded four seconds after the first. The same thing happened at WTC7.
A witness watching this building heard something like a "thunderclap" that caused the
windows to explode outwards, while the base of the burning building gave way a second
later, before the whole building followed the movement (Testimony [4]), aided by a
second explosion, which generated the second Rayleigh wave 6 to 7 seconds later.
The WTC1 collapse began after that of WTC2 in spite of the fact that it had been hit
earlier, and a subterranean explosion preceded its collapse. This subterranean explosion
was therefore not heard by the witnesses outside at 10:28 EDT, except for those located
next to the Tower (Testimony [5]), but it was "felt" by a camera filming the tower that
was solidly on the ground (probably 150 m from the tower at the Bankers Trust Building
after the southward direction of the antenna fall) and was shaken by the vibration of the
ground at the moment of the explosion (see [6]). On the other hand, it is also logical that
the many explosions shown in videos of the upper floors before and during the collapse
did not provoke any seismic waves, because of the aerial locations and the fragmentation
in time of the detonated energy in the series of successive sources, each of which had
only a limited force, insufficient to generate seismic waves in the ground.
Even if standard controlled demolitions do not create seismic waves (because the
explosions are aerial), it is useful to compare the data from the World Trade Center on
9/11 with seismic data obtained during the controlled demolition of other buildings such
as the Kingdome in Seattle (Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network, 2000) and at
Oklahoma City (US) (Holzer et al., 1996). The case of the Kingdome is particularly
interesting because seismologists expressly asked that the explosions be measured (in
order to take advantage of the occasion to gather research data), and those in Oklahoma
City were part of a reconstruction, using explosives, of the partially destroyed Alfred P.

www.journalof911studies.com...

READ IT!