Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Jesushere

A crack team placed explosives to bring down WTC7 on 9/11, so I have not a problem claiming there were military trained operatives in place on 9/11 to help the operation.

In a building on fire being cleared by fire fighters? When it would take at least a month to drill, setup, install hundreds of charges for a 47 story building. Thousands of feet of wiring? With no evidence of flashing and detonations. With nobody seeing the individuals in the windows at the exterior columns of a supposed cleared and abandoned building. With no ejection of shrapnel, especially from the columns labeled exterior. From a building collapse so quiet that people being interviewed with their backs turned to WTC 7 had to be stopped mid sentence to point out WTC 7 was in mid collapse?

HahahahahahahahahHahahaha

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere
mrthumpy I'm suspicious because NIST was unable to locate a steel piece that was from the site at WTC7. Literally tons of steel from this site alone missing and not kept. This very odd and if criminal actions took place here, the culprits would get rid of damning evidence quickly.

The FEMA report in 2002 raises questions about the what kind of fire was it. One WTC7 steel piece discovered had hole cutouts and their early analysis showed the melting process started in 1000c + environment. They also discovered a high concentration of sulphur on WTC7 steel. Sulpar is used to make explosives, but you can find it in low-quality ratios elsewhere, so it not necessary solid proof evidence of explosives, still nevertheless interesting.

NIST ommissions, lies and mistakes making it even more curious.

Let me see if I've got this straight:

WTC7 was accidentally damaged by the collapse of a burning skyscraper that caused damage somewhere between minor and severe but didn't set it on fire. A couple of hours later a crack team went in to set it on fire in multiple locations which were left to burn for several hours before the detonators set off the planted explosives

Did the detonators and explosives survive the impact of WTC1 or did the team that set the fires also plant the explosives?

Now you at it again claiming the building was on fire for seven hours. Provide accurate timeline with photos then?

NIST agrees with the truthers the collapse started on the east side at 5.20pm. Claiming the damage that occurred earlier in the day, caused the collapse is a false assertion.

A crack team placed explosives to bring down WTC7 on 9/11, so I have not a problem claiming there were military trained operatives in place on 9/11 to help the operation.

It may seem strange to you,, not me.

Oh OK. So the explosices just had to survive the fire for hours but weren't there for the impact. All that accidental damage must have made planning where to put the explosives a real nightmare. Imagine having spent months planning it and then having to redo it all in just a couple of hours!

Whoever did this knew where the planes would impact high up. I am fairly certain they used protection to protect the explosives and very unlikely they used long wiring set up. It probably set off wirelessly. Where they placed the explosives is important too. And from what I see from the pictures, the big fireball is jet fuel igniting and the initial impact. You only see random pockets of fire after this and hell of a lot of white smoke. Most of the floors were undamaged by the fire.

WTC7 only about six floors experienced a fire, the rest is untouched.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere
mrthumpy I'm suspicious because NIST was unable to locate a steel piece that was from the site at WTC7. Literally tons of steel from this site alone missing and not kept. This very odd and if criminal actions took place here, the culprits would get rid of damning evidence quickly.

The FEMA report in 2002 raises questions about the what kind of fire was it. One WTC7 steel piece discovered had hole cutouts and their early analysis showed the melting process started in 1000c + environment. They also discovered a high concentration of sulphur on WTC7 steel. Sulpar is used to make explosives, but you can find it in low-quality ratios elsewhere, so it not necessary solid proof evidence of explosives, still nevertheless interesting.

NIST ommissions, lies and mistakes making it even more curious.

Let me see if I've got this straight:

WTC7 was accidentally damaged by the collapse of a burning skyscraper that caused damage somewhere between minor and severe but didn't set it on fire. A couple of hours later a crack team went in to set it on fire in multiple locations which were left to burn for several hours before the detonators set off the planted explosives

Did the detonators and explosives survive the impact of WTC1 or did the team that set the fires also plant the explosives?

Now you at it again claiming the building was on fire for seven hours. Provide accurate timeline with photos then?

NIST agrees with the truthers the collapse started on the east side at 5.20pm. Claiming the damage that occurred earlier in the day, caused the collapse is a false assertion.

A crack team placed explosives to bring down WTC7 on 9/11, so I have not a problem claiming there were military trained operatives in place on 9/11 to help the operation.

It may seem strange to you,, not me.

Oh OK. So the explosices just had to survive the fire for hours but weren't there for the impact. All that accidental damage must have made planning where to put the explosives a real nightmare. Imagine having spent months planning it and then having to redo it all in just a couple of hours!

Whoever did this knew where the planes would impact high up

What on earth are you taliking about? It was a skyscraper that hit WTC7, not a plane

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere
mrthumpy I'm suspicious because NIST was unable to locate a steel piece that was from the site at WTC7. Literally tons of steel from this site alone missing and not kept. This very odd and if criminal actions took place here, the culprits would get rid of damning evidence quickly.

The FEMA report in 2002 raises questions about the what kind of fire was it. One WTC7 steel piece discovered had hole cutouts and their early analysis showed the melting process started in 1000c + environment. They also discovered a high concentration of sulphur on WTC7 steel. Sulpar is used to make explosives, but you can find it in low-quality ratios elsewhere, so it not necessary solid proof evidence of explosives, still nevertheless interesting.

NIST ommissions, lies and mistakes making it even more curious.

Let me see if I've got this straight:

WTC7 was accidentally damaged by the collapse of a burning skyscraper that caused damage somewhere between minor and severe but didn't set it on fire. A couple of hours later a crack team went in to set it on fire in multiple locations which were left to burn for several hours before the detonators set off the planted explosives

Did the detonators and explosives survive the impact of WTC1 or did the team that set the fires also plant the explosives?

Now you at it again claiming the building was on fire for seven hours. Provide accurate timeline with photos then?

NIST agrees with the truthers the collapse started on the east side at 5.20pm. Claiming the damage that occurred earlier in the day, caused the collapse is a false assertion.

A crack team placed explosives to bring down WTC7 on 9/11, so I have not a problem claiming there were military trained operatives in place on 9/11 to help the operation.

It may seem strange to you,, not me.

Oh OK. So the explosices just had to survive the fire for hours but weren't there for the impact. All that accidental damage must have made planning where to put the explosives a real nightmare. Imagine having spent months planning it and then having to redo it all in just a couple of hours!

Whoever did this knew where the planes would impact high up

What on earth are you taliking about? It was a skyscraper that hit WTC7, not a plane

All three were taken down by some sort of demolition. There just better evidence WTC7 was a demolition job.

a reply to: Jesushere

You

. I am fairly certain they used protection to protect the explosives and very unlikely they used long wiring set up.

How? When the jets took out vertical columns? Ripped through electrical wiring/conduit, and tore off fire insulation. Cut fire water piping. Then what would protect the detonators and wiring from widespread fires? Conduit protects against being accidental cut. Not from jet impacts, and offers no insulation from heat that would melt and degrade wire insulation.

Especially in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 were initiated from the floors where the jets hit.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere
mrthumpy I'm suspicious because NIST was unable to locate a steel piece that was from the site at WTC7. Literally tons of steel from this site alone missing and not kept. This very odd and if criminal actions took place here, the culprits would get rid of damning evidence quickly.

The FEMA report in 2002 raises questions about the what kind of fire was it. One WTC7 steel piece discovered had hole cutouts and their early analysis showed the melting process started in 1000c + environment. They also discovered a high concentration of sulphur on WTC7 steel. Sulpar is used to make explosives, but you can find it in low-quality ratios elsewhere, so it not necessary solid proof evidence of explosives, still nevertheless interesting.

NIST ommissions, lies and mistakes making it even more curious.

Let me see if I've got this straight:

WTC7 was accidentally damaged by the collapse of a burning skyscraper that caused damage somewhere between minor and severe but didn't set it on fire. A couple of hours later a crack team went in to set it on fire in multiple locations which were left to burn for several hours before the detonators set off the planted explosives

Did the detonators and explosives survive the impact of WTC1 or did the team that set the fires also plant the explosives?

Now you at it again claiming the building was on fire for seven hours. Provide accurate timeline with photos then?

NIST agrees with the truthers the collapse started on the east side at 5.20pm. Claiming the damage that occurred earlier in the day, caused the collapse is a false assertion.

A crack team placed explosives to bring down WTC7 on 9/11, so I have not a problem claiming there were military trained operatives in place on 9/11 to help the operation.

It may seem strange to you,, not me.

Oh OK. So the explosices just had to survive the fire for hours but weren't there for the impact. All that accidental damage must have made planning where to put the explosives a real nightmare. Imagine having spent months planning it and then having to redo it all in just a couple of hours!

Whoever did this knew where the planes would impact high up

What on earth are you taliking about? It was a skyscraper that hit WTC7, not a plane

All three were taken down by some sort of demolition. There just better evidence WTC7 was a demolition job.

Why are you talking about planes hitting WTC7?

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere
mrthumpy I'm suspicious because NIST was unable to locate a steel piece that was from the site at WTC7. Literally tons of steel from this site alone missing and not kept. This very odd and if criminal actions took place here, the culprits would get rid of damning evidence quickly.

The FEMA report in 2002 raises questions about the what kind of fire was it. One WTC7 steel piece discovered had hole cutouts and their early analysis showed the melting process started in 1000c + environment. They also discovered a high concentration of sulphur on WTC7 steel. Sulpar is used to make explosives, but you can find it in low-quality ratios elsewhere, so it not necessary solid proof evidence of explosives, still nevertheless interesting.

NIST ommissions, lies and mistakes making it even more curious.

Let me see if I've got this straight:

WTC7 was accidentally damaged by the collapse of a burning skyscraper that caused damage somewhere between minor and severe but didn't set it on fire. A couple of hours later a crack team went in to set it on fire in multiple locations which were left to burn for several hours before the detonators set off the planted explosives

Did the detonators and explosives survive the impact of WTC1 or did the team that set the fires also plant the explosives?

Now you at it again claiming the building was on fire for seven hours. Provide accurate timeline with photos then?

NIST agrees with the truthers the collapse started on the east side at 5.20pm. Claiming the damage that occurred earlier in the day, caused the collapse is a false assertion.

A crack team placed explosives to bring down WTC7 on 9/11, so I have not a problem claiming there were military trained operatives in place on 9/11 to help the operation.

It may seem strange to you,, not me.

Oh OK. So the explosices just had to survive the fire for hours but weren't there for the impact. All that accidental damage must have made planning where to put the explosives a real nightmare. Imagine having spent months planning it and then having to redo it all in just a couple of hours!

Whoever did this knew where the planes would impact high up

What on earth are you taliking about? It was a skyscraper that hit WTC7, not a plane

All three were taken down by some sort of demolition. There just better evidence WTC7 was a demolition job.

What do not get there is no credible evidence of controlled demolition. It’s a truth movement manufactured mythology.

a reply to: Jesushere

And don’t forget WTC 2 probably had its elevator shafts breached. Both towers had decimated floor slabs, and floor slabs left hanging.

a reply to: Jesushere

You could state where you think the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was initiated from? Then build a case off that, and see where that gets you.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

. I am fairly certain they used protection to protect the explosives and very unlikely they used long wiring set up.

How? When the jets took out vertical columns? Ripped through electrical wiring/conduit, and tore off fire insulation. Cut fire water piping. Then what would protect the detonators and wiring from widespread fires? Conduit protects against being accidental cut. Not from jet impacts, and offers no insulation from heat that would melt and degrade wire insulation.

Especially in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 were initiated from the floors where the jets hit.

#

Where you inside the building to have a clear picture of what happened, no. Stop talking of your ass as if you know exactly what possible and ain't possible.

Show me a picture of entire floors engulfed in fire at 10 am. All I see is smoke and isolated pockets of fires on some floors at the corner of the building.

Jets smashed and impacted spandrels connections around the perimeter. There no evidence the plane reached the steel hat truss and caused severe damage.,

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

. I am fairly certain they used protection to protect the explosives and very unlikely they used long wiring set up.

How? When the jets took out vertical columns? Ripped through electrical wiring/conduit, and tore off fire insulation. Cut fire water piping. Then what would protect the detonators and wiring from widespread fires? Conduit protects against being accidental cut. Not from jet impacts, and offers no insulation from heat that would melt and degrade wire insulation.

Especially in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 were initiated from the floors where the jets hit.

#

Show me a picture of entire floors engulfed in fire at 10 am. All I see is smoke and isolated pockets of fires on some floors at the corner of the building.

So we agree on 7 hours. Excellent

a reply to: Jesushere

Absolutely no evidence huh? Not possible to model the physics of the jet impacts?

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center

m.youtube.com...

a reply to: Jesushere

Let’s see?
Electrical services were cut.
Floor slabs were visibly hanging or missing.
Fuel ran down elevator shafts somehow and ignited.
Fire water was cut and loss for some reason.
WTC 2 had jet wreckage pass all the way through.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Absolutely no evidence huh? Not possible to model the physics of the jet impacts?

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center

m.youtube.com...

All I see it aluminium parts breaking apart and causing momentum movement of items in the building. If you believe the entire plane severly damaged the steel hat truss provide evidence. I want to see evidence for it.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Absolutely no evidence huh? Not possible to model the physics of the jet impacts?

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center

m.youtube.com...

All I see it aluminium parts breaking apart and causing momentum movement of items in the building. If you believe the entire plane severly damaged the steel hat truss provide evidence. I want to see evidence for it.

And you would be wrong. The impacts had the energy and MASS to cut core columns.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You could state where you think the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was initiated from? Then build a case off that, and see where that gets you.

Your case is two soft light aluminium planes brought down a 110 story building two times and random fires in WTC7 also collapsed a steel beamed building.

Yet there no precedent and you can show fire lead to the collapse of the entire building. Plenty examples of partial collapse, but never the whole building experiences a total collapse.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Absolutely no evidence huh? Not possible to model the physics of the jet impacts?

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center

m.youtube.com...

All I see it aluminium parts breaking apart and causing momentum movement of items in the building. If you believe the entire plane severly damaged the steel hat truss provide evidence. I want to see evidence for it.

And you would be wrong. The impacts had the energy and MASS to cut core columns.

You argued there was no cut columns with someone else. Now you claim the planes cut or broken the steel in the hat truss?

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You could state where you think the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was initiated from? Then build a case off that, and see where that gets you.

Your case is two soft light aluminium planes brought down a 110 story building two times

You mustn't have noticed the two towers still standing an hour after impact

random fires in WTC7 also collapsed a steel beamed building.

Known to be vulnerable to fire

Yet there no precedent and you can show fire lead to the collapse of the entire building. Plenty examples of partial collapse, but never the whole building experiences a total collapse.

Examples of buildings of similar design that suffered similar damage?

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You could state where you think the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was initiated from? Then build a case off that, and see where that gets you.

Your case is two soft light aluminium planes brought down a 110 story building two times

You mustn't have noticed the two towers still standing an hour after impact

random fires in WTC7 also collapsed a steel beamed building.

Known to be vulnerable to fire

Yet there no precedent and you can show fire lead to the collapse of the entire building. Plenty examples of partial collapse, but never the whole building experiences a total collapse.

Examples of buildings of similar design that suffered similar damage?

When have you seen fire blow apart a building? The building broke apart at the top. Fire heating up steel would not do that, end of the story.

NIST dismissed WTC7 freefall in 2008 at their own technical conference. It was Question and Answers debate about the draft of the final report. They missed a big feature of the collapse for six years. Truthers not them spotted a major flaw in their work. All recorded on video.

And realising how big of a cock up it was they went away and revised their study over a period of three months and then claimed freefall did happen, Instead of acknowledging the error they masked it with untruths and claimed stage of 2 collapse ( freefall) does not make progessive collapse theory they come up it wrong. They now claim there was negligible support. Previously there believe was there were resistance and freefall was an impossibility.

I don't trust NIST explanation for the collapse at WTC7 after this. It was made worse when I found out the study was based on the unsupported girder slipping to the east of its seat due to thermal expansion. The truthers have found the documentation ie construction drawings for WTC7. The girder at column 79 was not unsupported, so NIST is pushing a false narrative that a girder slipped off its seat with no support and caused the collapse.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You could state where you think the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was initiated from? Then build a case off that, and see where that gets you.

Your case is two soft light aluminium planes brought down a 110 story building two times

You mustn't have noticed the two towers still standing an hour after impact

random fires in WTC7 also collapsed a steel beamed building.

Known to be vulnerable to fire

Yet there no precedent and you can show fire lead to the collapse of the entire building. Plenty examples of partial collapse, but never the whole building experiences a total collapse.

Examples of buildings of similar design that suffered similar damage?

When have you seen fire blow apart a building? The building broke apart at the top. Fire heating up steel would not do that, end of the story.

No examples huh? Well there's a surprise

I don't trust NIST explanation for the collapse at WTC7 after this.

I don't trust yours since you weren't aware of the skyscraper falling on it and can't seem to decide how long it was on fire