WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

Lastly, a look in the past (Jun, 29 2011), a post by GoodOlDave, a clear OS truster, but still he posted this logic from his side :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

At the risk of appearing like I'm breaking ranks, I don't see how there's such resistance toward the claim there was molten metal underground. Every witness who was there at ground zero reported massive underground fires burning for months. Joel Meyerowitz was a photographer on the WTC site documenting the ground zero cleanup and even he said that every so often a piece of steel would be pulled out of the ground and superheated ash would erupt out of the ground like a geyser. Seeing that the temperatures underground were essentially a gigantic blast furnace, how could the metals underground not become molten under such conditions?

More to the point, why the heck is this such a big deal to the conspiracy people anyway? This is completely irrelevant to their controlled demolitions fantasies, as any fires hot enough to melt steel would certainly have vaporized any explosives or thermite in a microsecond, and only an idiot would claim these fires were caused by thermite/explosives because aerial photographs showed the underground fires burned across a massive area underground, so there'd have to be enough thermite there to fill the Death Star.

The laws of physics have to apply to their conspiracy theories every bit as much as they do to everything else.

That's it, for now. Knock yourself out. For some change in perspective.

a reply to: LaBTop

Many of the links are 404. The AE video www.ae911truth.org... on this link doesn't exist anymore.

In the past, I calculated that the thermal expansion of the cantilevered main beam of WTC7 was sufficient to shear connections and fail. While others claim that stiffeners would prevent this, that opinion, like mine, is debatable. There is no certainty other than evidence of demolitions have never been found. Sounds, seismographs, gut feelings, and dust analysis are all open to interpretation.
Some claim that underground fires that burned for weeks are proof that thermite was present. These claimants have no understanding of thermite and misinterpret combustion of the contents of the towers as being evidence of thermite. The molten steel claims show only that the fires burned hot and that the overburden had some insulating value. The large amount of drywall provides sulfate which, in the heat and reducing conditions of the underground fires is converted to sulfide which can lower the melting point of steel. Other metals present may also have been molten in those fires but all these claims were cast into doubt when a photo of supposedly molten metal was shown to be the result of lights and not heated metal. If the fires were hot enough to melt eutectics, what would it matter? They were after the collapse and prove only that underground fires, fueled by contents of buildings, burned long and hot. There is no link from the underground fires to how the buildings collapsed.
As there is no evidence of conventional demolitions, the conspiracy theorists, moved on to thermite as a possible demolition material. Conventional demolition of WTC7 would have blown out windows before the collapse started and conventional demolition of 1 & 2 would have been obvious starting from the top down. 1 & 2 were obviously gravitational collapses and the only question would be in the initiation, as once started there was no way to stop the pancaking of the internals.
In this case, thermite could only initiate a gravitational collapse of 1 and 2 by disrupting structure just above the impact area. Thermite structural failures are not able to be timed for sequential collapse; in fact collapses of WTC1 and 2 occurred at less than 200 milliseconds per floor which says it was all gravity after initiation. Likewise, for 7, it was all gravity after initiation.
Jones' claims regarding thermite/thermitic materials in the dust are unsubstantiated. The dust was collected after the collapse[s] of 1 & 2 and its analysis was flawed. Desperation to find anything showing the predetermined conclusions caused the authors to produce a paper that was internally inconsistent with the conclusion. Jones, et al., are poor chemists and produced a paper that destroyed any credibility that they had.
We are now down to two collapse initiation options unless we consider cutting torches, power saws, or socket sets. One is that internal fires from the impacts caused the steel at the impact area to weaken and the other is that a cleverly planned operation ignited thermite charges at the same place to weaken the structure and initiate collapse. Why would the conspirators wait? They could have collapsed the building anytime after impact and claimed that the aircraft did it. One could claim that they waited to make it look like the fires weakened the steel to avoid detection. They even calculated that the tower with the greatest load above the impact area should collapse first.
One questions the conspirators motivations for such a complicated plot. If they were so good at conspiring and planting demolitions wouldn't they know that two planes laden with fuel would damage the towers beyond repair? Why would they risk detection at all? All they have to do is to let the planes hit and wait for results.

a reply to: pteridine

Give it up pteridine.

LapTop has done a wonderful job posting very credible sources proving you and skyeagle wrong.

No one is buying into anymore of your OS nonsense that there were no explosions at the WTC.

Your OS theories lack any creditably or science. LapTop just demonstrated that to you, and his evidence is indisputable.

I have yet to see you and skyeagle challenge anything LapTop has presented.

You can ridicule all you want, you can deny all the scientific data all you want, however it is now evident that you and skyeagle are not interesting in the truth of what really happened on 911.

Your only goal here is to protect the OS of 911 and nothing else.

Millions of Americans are waking up and do not support the OS and some were OS supporters until they read and saw the scientific evidence.

I should know, I was one of them many years ago. The scientific evidence is overwhelming and I could not ignored it.

LapTop has challenged you on the scientific evidence and data and you failed miserably.

The fact is, it is now proven the OS is a BIG FAT LIE.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

Give it up pteridine.

LapTop has done a wonderful job posting very credible sources proving you and skyeagle wrong.

No one is buying into anymore of your OS nonsense that there were no explosions at the WTC.

Your OS theories lack any creditably or science. LapTop just demonstrated that to you, and his evidence is indisputable.

I have yet to see you and skyeagle challenge anything LapTop has presented.

You can ridicule all you want, you can deny all the scientific data all you want, however it is now evident that you and skyeagle are not interesting in the truth of what really happened on 911.

Your only goal here is to protect the OS of 911 and nothing else.

Millions of Americans are waking up and do not support the OS and some were OS supporters until they read and saw the scientific evidence.

I should know, I was one of them many years ago. The scientific evidence is overwhelming and I could not ignored it.

LapTop has challenged you on the scientific evidence and data and you failed miserably.

The fact is, it is now proven the OS is a BIG FAT LIE.

Labtop has posted links some of which are 404. Any link to A&E is suspect.

There is no evidence for demolition. Random noises that could be explosions are not evidence of demolition. No residue or unexploded charges have been discovered. Seismographs are subject to interpretation. There is no evidence of thermite. Jones botched the analyses but had only red paint anyway.

Give it up, informer, there was no explosive or thermitic demolition involved in the WTC collapses.

a reply to: pteridine

Labtop has posted links some of which are 404.

Perhaps some are, Now can you prove everything else LapTop posted is wrong? No you cannot.

Any link to A&E is suspect.

Suspect to what? Maybe a threat to the OS.

There is no evidence for demolition. Random noises that could be explosions are not evidence of demolition.

That is utter nonsense, are you calling over 500 eyewitness lairs?

There is no evidence of thermite. Jones botched the analyses but had only red paint anyway.

The thermite was not red paint, in fact Jones was able to separate all particles in his dust samples including the red paint.

If you deny that fact then you are spreading disinformation.

Give it up, informer, there was no explosive or thermitic demolition involved in the WTC collapses.

That is your "opinion" and you do not have a single piece of science that discredit Jones paper, but your "opinions".

Still waiting for you to take on LapTop challenges to the REAL science?

You cant debunk A&E science but to only ridicule it, and attack the scientist by stating they are some kind of con artist.
Yet there is no evidence to substantiate your silly claims.

The OS of what happened to the WTC has been proven to be a lie.

a reply to: Informer1958

LapTop has done a wonderful job posting very credible sources proving you and skyeagle wrong.

False! Send his so-called seismic demo evidence to any demolition company that were operating seismic machines on 9/11 and see what they have to say about his so-called seismic demo evidence.

Apparently, demolition teams, who were operating their seismic machines on other projects at the time, have stated that their seismic machines did not detect demo explosions, which simply means the seismic claim of demo explosions at ground zero was fabricated, and that is understandable considering there are no sounds of demo explosions in any WTC video.

No one is buying into anymore of your OS nonsense that there were no explosions at the WTC.

Well, after 14 years, no one has found such evidence, which is understandable considering that no one heard breaking news from any major news agency that explosive evidence was found. In other words, the claim of demo explosions at ground zero was fabricated.

a reply to: Informer1958

That is utter nonsense, are you calling over 500 eyewitness lairs?

Are you implying that of the 2100 explosions heard by tens of thousands of people in New York City in 2014, were bombs?

The thermite was not red paint, in fact Jones was able to separate all particles in his dust samples including the red paint.

The red primer had nothing to do with thermite. You might want to check with the manufacturer of red primer, which is used on steel frame buildings. In doing so, you will find why the ingredients of that red primer made "AE911 Truth" a laughingstock.

You cant debunk A&E science but to only ridicule it,....

All it took was science fact and common sense to make a mockery of "AE911 TRuth."

Apparently, demolition teams, who were operating their seismic machines on other projects at the time, have stated that their seismic machines did not detect demo explosions, which simply means the seismic claim of demo explosions at ground zero was fabricated, and that is understandable considering there are no sounds of demo explosions in any WTC video.

Why don't you provide some detailed info to back up this claim... who where and when...

How about the rest of these people?


Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3
1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
3S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
49/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
5Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA


Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan
resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.


The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately

100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum
are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring
at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich
spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these
chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

a reply to: wildb

Why don't you provide some detailed info to back up this claim... who where and when...

Let's go to one of the companies that were operating seismic machines near the area, and understand that I have posted this before.

Interview with Brent Blanchard

Undicisettembre: Is there anything else I did not ask you that you want to add?

Brent Blanchard: One thing I would add is that there are vibration recordings from the site. The seismograph readings that were recorded on 9/11, as they are every day worldwide, recorded the impacts of the planes and the actual collapses of the structures.

You can see in those waveforms and in that data that there was no sudden catalyst at 10:06 or any other time; there was no explosive event. So in order for an explosive detonation to be hidden, folks at those laboratories, actual scientists at Columbia University and other places, would also have needed to be part of the conspiracy.

In the end there is absolutely no scientific evidence that there were explosions in any of those three buildings, and that means a lot to me.


Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beans at any point during debris removal activities.'

www.jnani.org...


Brent Blanchard

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."


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.


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.

* Controlled Demolition Inc

* D.H. Griffin Companies

* Mazzocchi Wrecking

* Gateway Demolition

* Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

911research.wtc7.net...


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.


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

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...

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

There is no evidence for demolition. Random noises that could be explosions are not evidence of demolition.

That is utter nonsense, are you calling over 500 eyewitness lairs?

There is no evidence of thermite. Jones botched the analyses but had only red paint anyway.

The thermite was not red paint, in fact Jones was able to separate all particles in his dust samples including the red paint.

If you deny that fact then you are spreading disinformation.

Give it up, informer, there was no explosive or thermitic demolition involved in the WTC collapses.

That is your "opinion" and you do not have a single piece of science that discredit Jones paper, but your "opinions".

Still waiting for you to take on LapTop challenges to the REAL science?

You cant debunk A&E science but to only ridicule it, and attack the scientist by stating they are some kind of con artist.
Yet there is no evidence to substantiate your silly claims.

The OS of what happened to the WTC has been proven to be a lie.

What REAL science? A&E has none. They only have "opinions." It is your opinion that any noise is a demolition. Do you think all explosions are demolitions?

The red paint was not thermite and Jones' paper proved that. Look at the thermodynamics and it becomes obvious that he is measuring combustion of the binder. He also claimed ten tons were still in the dust, unreacted. Ten tons of highly engineered thermitic material, disguised as red primer paint, didn't react. It must have lost its power sitting around since the WTC was constructed.

Now it is back to 'lies.' Can being called a 'liar' be far behind. You are sounding desperate.

a reply to: wildb

How about the rest of these people?

active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade

The ingredients of thermite would have been expected to be found. What are the basic ingredients of thermite? Aluminum and iron oxide (rust).

It would not have been practical to use thermite. After all, it took 1500 pounds of thermite just to burn through two steel legs of a simple tower, and that was at ground level. Thermite was debunked years ago.

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.

Reallly, how did they get there, flying was out of the question, did they drive? How did they get there so fast? How did they get into the city when the bridges and tunnels were shut down..

I asked for who where and when, facts, proof there were there and what they were doing, not nonsense, just where were these sensors when 911 went down, street address would be helpful, please provide..

a reply to: wildb

Reallly, how did they get there, flying was out of the question, did they drive? How did they get there so fast? How did they get into the city when the bridges and tunnels were shut down..

They were working on projects at ground zero at the time. Protec was called in for documentation purposes.

a reply to: wildb

I asked for who where and when, facts, proof there were there and what they were doing, not nonsense, just where were these sensors were when 911 went down, street address would be helpful, please provide..

We can take a look here and you will be able to tell us where they were located.

PDF]A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7

www.implosionworld.com...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Are you implying that of the 2100 explosions heard by tens of thousands of people in New York City in 2014, were bombs?

Apples and oranges, your comment has nothing do do with what happened to the WTC.

The red primer had nothing to do with thermite. You might want to check with the manufacturer of red primer, which is used on steel frame buildings. In doing so, you will find why the ingredients of that red primer made "AE911 Truth" a laughingstock.

I see no one laughing but you. Furthermore the thermite was found behind the red paint, when Jones was able to separated all the particles in the dust samples.

I don't expect you to understand the test results, being that you never read it. To say there was no thermite found in the WTC is a big fat lie.

All it took was science fact and common sense to make a mockery of "AE911 TRuth."

The only mockery I see here is you.

You call your "opinions" science and facts and the very fact is you have never proved anything with any science against A&E, but to only ridicule it and attack all the credible scientist by making up false claims.

You can sit behind your keyboard and laugh, and call all 500 eyewitness lairs and spit in the faces of the surviving families who are demanding a new investigation into what happened to the WTC.

You did not loose anyone in the WTC, you were not there at the WTC on 911, however you have "appointed yourself" supreme expert in all the event that unfolded on 911.

The hard fact is Your only goal here is to defend the OS by any means, and play on everyone's intelligence. I hope you are not being paid to do this.

a reply to: Informer1958

I see no one laughing but you.

That is because truthers didn't bother to read the rest of the story behind the red primer, which debunks their claim.

You call your "opinions" science and facts and the very fact is you have never proved anything with any science against A&E, but to only ridicule it and attack all the credible scientist by making up false claims.

Now, that's peculiar considering that even hardcore truthers and even "Veterans Today" have slammed Richard Gage and "AE911 Truth" and I even posted the references as well.

a reply to: pteridine

What REAL science? A&E has none. They only have "opinions." It is your opinion that any noise is a demolition. Do you think all explosions are demolitions?

You need to A&E has a lot of science stop lying.

You are the one that is lying about the demolition and the 500 creditable eyewitness that went on record STATING they heard EXPLOSIONS, they SAW explosions and some were in the explosions.

You can call everyone a lair all you want. The truth does not lie.

the red paint was not thermite and Jones' paper proved that.

Where did I ever say the red paint was thermite? You are now twisting my word and Jones paper just as you did years ago.

Now it is back to 'lies.' Can being called a 'liar' be far behind. You are sounding desperate.

I have NEVER lied in any of my post to you or anyone else in any ATS forums and that is a fact.

However for one to support the OS like you do, you are the one that is telling out right lies and deliberately twisting what I have stated.

Now who's the one lying now? The TRUTH does not need LIES to support it. Only the OS.

a reply to: Informer1958

You can call everyone a lair all you want. The truth does not lie.

Richard Gage and the folks at "AE911 Truth" are well-known for lying. I am sure you saw this video before, but just in case you haven't, here it is.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Now, that's peculiar considering that even hardcore truthers and even "Veterans Today" have slammed Richard Gage and "AE911 Truth" and I even posted the references as well.

It is a well known fact that Veterans Today is a rag no different than the National Inquire. No intelligent person with an IQ of 70 reads that yellow journalism smut.

Your ridiculing is all you have in your desperate attempts to support the OS.