WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: Informer1958

Perhaps they were moved, however I see you didn't go to my source and look at the photos.

One of the photos clearly show the front of a firetruck and the whole engine and engine block was melted.

There is a problem with your statement. The rest of the vehicle was never in a molten state, so what do you think that means?

a reply to: Informer1958

Why do you use 911 Myths disinformation website as your sources?

You claim disinformation, yet you cannot provide us with any such evidence.

a reply to: Informer1958

I know, right. The Truth is a lie.

You claim everything is disinformation if it doesn't fit the OS narratives. Yet you failed to prove what is the disinformation from my sources. How interesting.

Just another reminder about Richard Gage's lack of credibility.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Dude, it's melted! Just because it can't be explained by the os doesn't mean it didn't happen. Far out...

a reply to: skyeagle409

There is a problem with your statement. The rest of the vehicle was never in a molten state, so what do you think that means?

I suggest you get your eyes check. The photo in question shows the engine block gone. You can deny what you are looking at, however another poster just posted to you the facts in the photo as I have.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Just another reminder about Richard Gage's lack of credibility.

Still making fun of A&E yet you have no science to disprove their science.

When all fails, ridicule.

a reply to: Informer1958

If look close can see lot of the damage is impact damage - something very big and heavy crushed the vehicle
before the fire

Also lot of the fire damage came from above - burning particles and debris landing on the vehicle and burning it

Most car fires start below and extend upwards

Let's try to get this thread on track again to its OP subject, which is WTC-7.

Page 66, This post :

se409 : Your second video proves that WTC7 did not fall at free fall speed. In fact, in the final seconds of its collapse, WTC7 tilted toward the south, which is where debris from the collapse of WTC1 punched out that massive hole on its south facade.

That's incorrect. In the first 2.25 seconds from its global collapse, WTC-7 fell with a speed, indistinguishable from free fall speed. That's how you should have phrased your words.
But you stubbornly keep repeating all over this thread the stale NIST phraseology that they kept using up to the moment that David Chandler forced them to withdraw those words, after his presentation at their public questioning gathering in 2008.
And those 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration can only mean ONE thing :
Explosives were used to change the load bearing capacity of 8 floors in WTC-7 to ZERO.

Your conclusion is also incorrect, regarding that southwards tilting.
That was caused by the fact, that WTC-7 its northern 1/3 part was partially build over the Con-Edison generator building that already stood there before WTC-7 was partially build on top of it. Only its northern, 1/3 part rested on it.
At its construction time, very thick and strong crossbeams and columns were installed over the Con-Ed portion, where the northern 1/3 part of WTC-7 rested on, to protect it.
That over-engineered much stronger steel cap decelerated the crashing down NORTHERN 1/3 portion of the periphery steel of WTC-7 just enough to change its global direction slightly and forced it to tilt a tiny bit to the south, since its southern 2/3 portion still crashed down at the same downward speed.

There was no MASSIVE hole punched out at WTC-7 its south face center, it was superficial damage, mostly to its glass facade, as NIST reported. NIST also concluded, that three partial damage regions from the collapse of WTC1N in the southern facade of WTC-7 had no influence on the cause of the collapse of WTC-7, which as NIST concluded, was solely the weakening of the steel from fire. Which is of course wrong. See my OP.

Page 66, This post :

I think I know an explosion when I hear it - Greg Bartmer NYFD.
se409 : Prove that the explosion was the result of explosives,
and explain why there is no evidence of demo explosions on this seismic data chart :

Decisive proof that the explosion was the result of explosives :
Dr Andre Rousseau his seismic thesis (Ref.1), which is peer reviewed and never challenged.

And this is why there is of course no evidence of demo explosions on your seismic data chart, publicized by that prime example of yellow journalism, the above misconstrued seismic signals depiction by a Popular Mechanics reporter in the early years after 9/11, when there were still lots of gullible and still stuck in a patriotic frenzy, Americans :

He DREW the SAME AMPLITUDES for all four of them, while he WROTE in small text beside their drawings their real, very different amplitudes.
It's bamboozling on a grand scale, to depict signals with an amplitude of 288 and 206 nanometer per second, and then compare them with signals with an amplitude of 4204 and 5777 nm/s, while DRAWING them as wide as the much lower, first two ones.
This is how that was drawn HONESTLY by Lamont Doherty Earth Observation institute from Columbia University, 34 km north of Manhattan :



And this is why this above LDEO seismogram depicts clearly huge explosion signals, and not just only minor seismic vibrations from debris impacting the Manhattan bedrock a few seconds later, which should resemble signals from a small earthquake :



The above double graph their faint seismic signals, of a comparison between a huge explosion and a huge earthquake, were registered from a thousand miles away, while the WTC faint explosions signals and their, a few seconds later following, earthquake signals (when the debris hit the soil) were registered only 34 km northwards, at the LDEO seismic station.
The explosions-indicator are in both cases those HUGE vibration amplitude peaks at the very onset of the signals.
Now's a good time to read Dr Rousseau :

REFERENCES :
1. Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001? Dr. André Rousseau, November 2012
2. WTC-7 thesis Charles M. Beck.

a reply to: Informer1958

I suggest you get your eyes check. The photo in question shows the engine block gone.

If the block was melted, the engine wouldn't be sitting on its mounts. Look at the condition of the rest of the vehicle in that photo.

a reply to: Informer1958

Still making fun of A&E yet you have no science to disprove their science.

That won't work because not only have I attacked "AE 911 Truth" for its deception and disinformation, there are the "OS" folks, 9/11 Truthers, and even former associates of "AE 811 Truth" who have attacked AE 911 Truth" for its deception and lies.

a reply to: skyeagle409

That won't work because not only have I attacked "AE 911 Truth" for its deception and disinformation, there are the "OS" folks, 9/11 Truthers, and even former associates of "AE 811 Truth" who have attacked AE 911 Truth" for its deception and lies.

Lets see your science proving that A&E lies? I don't care to see disinformation from bias websites like 911 Myths.

Who did you attack in person from A&E?

I would like to see your published Thesis where you attacked A&E science? How long do I have to wait?

a reply to: LaBTop

skyeagle409 posted : Your second video proves that WTC7 did not fall at free fall speed. In fact, in the final seconds of its collapse, WTC7 tilted toward the south, which is where debris from the collapse of WTC1 punched out that massive hole on its south facade.

And, I am right on the money.

That's incorrect. In the first 2.25 seconds from its global collapse, WTC-7 fell with a speed, indistinguishable from free fall speed. That's how you should have phrased your words.

Let's take a look at the rest of the story.

Your conclusion is also incorrect, regarding that southwards tilting.

Let's do a review and using the following video. Perhaps, you would like to modify your statement after reviewing the following video at time line 7:41 and time line 8:18. Afterward, tell us what direction WTC 7 tilts at those time line references.



Now, let's take a look at the following photo that depicts the south wall of WTC 7.

Photo: WTC 7 Massive Impact Damge

Which is supported by these reports.

Captain Chris Boyle
So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

www.debunking911.com...


Captain Varriale
Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

graphics8.nytimes.com...


Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

www.debunking911.com...

a reply to: Informer1958

Lets see your science proving that A&E lies?

All you need to do is to review what I have already posted.

a reply to: LaBTop

Decisive proof that the explosion was the result of explosives :
Dr Andre Rousseau his seismic thesis (Ref.1), which is peer reviewed and never challenged.

That is false, and as proof, I want to post this video one more time and challenge you to post time lines where demo explosions are heard.

a reply to: skyeagle409



I am calling your video BS.

The timing in the video starts way before the WTC 7 collapse.

This video is dishonest to say the least. Anyone with eyes can see that.

Let's do a review and using the following video, and perhaps, you would like to modify your statement after reviewing the following video at time line 7:41 and time line 8:18. Afterward, tell us what direction WTC 7 tilts at those time line references.

That won't work either.

At the 7:41 time you can clearly see the WTC 7 falling straight down, the video you just posted seem to show it leaning a little backwards, but ironically it straighten it's self at the halfway point and collapse in it's own foot print.

Interestingly WTC 7 doesn't damaged either building on each side of it.

The fact is, The only thing that can make that happen is a controlled demolition and nothing else.

Furthermore, www.debunking911.com... is the same as 911 Myths, nothing in that website is true, and the
fact is, it is full of Yellow Journalism .

I have asked you and other members on ATS have told you to stop using Yellow journalism as your facts.

A third grader can read debunking911.com and see it is chuck full of lies. Skyeagle I expected better from you in your rebuttal, but if this is all you can give us, then you should thrown in the towel.

a reply to: LaBTop

Decisive proof that the explosion was the result of explosives :
Dr Andre Rousseau his seismic thesis (Ref.1), which is peer reviewed and never challenged.

Now, for the rest of the story.

a reply to: Informer1958

I am calling your video BS.

You can't argue with facts and evidence.

At the 7:41 time you can clearly see the WTC 7 falling straight down, the video you just posted seem to show it leaning a little backwards,...

Toward the south as I have mentioned.

...Interestingly WTC 7 doesn't damaged either building on each side of it.

On the contrary,WTC 7 damaged surrounding buildings.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Decisive proof that the explosion was the result of explosives :
Dr Andre Rousseau his seismic thesis (Ref.1), which is peer reviewed and never challenged.

That is false, and as proof, I want to post this video one more time and challenge you to post time lines where demo explosions are heard.

Where is your Peer reviewed challenging Dr Andre Rousseau seismic thesis?

That silly video doesn't prove anything.

a reply to: Informer1958

Where is your Peer reviewed challenging Dr Andre Rousseau seismic thesis?

Seems that you haven't been paying attention.

That silly video doesn't prove anything.

Considering that you have failed to post demo time lines in the WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 videos, the seismic video reference is right on line.