WTC 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
I am sorry guys, I am just not seeing the welds. Is there perhaps a higher resolution version of the image, perhaps the distortion is playing tricks on my eyes.
Also wondering, since I am not an architect, why would there be a stub column like that between two longer columns? Wouldn't two full-length columns just be bolt right together?

WOW!!!

A stub column between the 2 longer columns?

That's 2 blocks of wood, commonly known as "stickers" to those that have run forklifts before. They're there to make a space between the 2 SEPARATE columns so that a forklift - or most likely in this case lifting cables - can get its "forks" between the 2 pieces so it can lift it up.

I think you need a new monitor there buddy. Or an eye check.

To answer your question......


World Trade Center 7 was brought down with controlled demoltions.

It had to be. The sensitive materal that it held aswell as completing the insurance claim. It was inevitable that it was brought down by professionals.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Wow, thanks for pointing out the blocks off wood. Of course, that has nothing to do with anything I questioned. I am calling what's circled a stub:


Is the end not what we are calling a broken weld?

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by Seymour Butz

 

I am calling what's circled a stub:

Is the end not what we are calling a broken weld?

You circled the end and part of the side of a whole column.

The end is to the right in the picture.

I have no paitence for, nor the inkling to draw up a shot so that you can understand what the rest of us are seeing and agree upon. Sorry. Maybe someone else can if you ask nicely.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


I see what you are saying. Unfortunately, I believe you have an M.C. Esher thing going on. What I see circled is the end of a box column. The two flanges sticking off of it that are bolted/welded are what I believe to be angle connectors for the horizontal bracing. If that's incorrect, anyone feel free to correct me.

Edit: Look at the top column. On the left-hand bottom section, there is a dis-colored triangle-like shape. I believe this to be the weld because it has the right shape for a groove weld and the "lip" it forms along the botton is indicative of the remainder of the weld that used to be attached to another column. Does this make sense?

[edit on 4/30/2008 by Griff]

Found the whole picture, and I still am not seeing were the described failure is. I guess I have it pictured that the column on the the top should have it's end fused with the end of that stub. Is the weld that you guys are talking about supposed to be like a beam welded 90 degrees to the column to tie the columns together, or am I still way off base?
breakfornews.com...

[edit on 30-4-2008 by PplVSNWO]

reply to post by PplVSNWO


Thanks for the pic. I have outlined in red what I was talking about.

Actually, I think we should be focusing on the blue squared area.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by PplVSNWO

 

Thanks for the pic. I have outlined in red what I was talking about.

Actually, I think we should be focusing on the blue squared area.

Thx. That's it exactly.

Blue box - to my eye, it looks like they torched that column in half. Now that I see the whole pic, I'm thinking that this column used to be in one piece. It's certainly not 30', if those 2 flanges on the lower column with all the bolt heads in it are spaced..... 12' apart, like these were used to bolt on the horizontal floor beams that were inside the core?

Edit- hey, are they down in the "tub" in that shot? It looks like concrete walls in the background.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by Seymour Butz]

reply to post by Griff


I guess we were kind of on the same page all along. I thought that what you outlined in red was just some junk that is stuck to it, kind of like what is sitting on the inside. why doesn't it look like that 'weld' goes all the way around the box? Is the pic just too blurry to see the rest?
Too bad we don't have a shot of the other end so we can get a good view of what you circled in blue, I was thinking that looks a little strange but at that angle is impossible to tell what happened.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


That far end of the top beam shows exactly what I'd expect if any type of thermal cutting process was used on it possibly in preparation for loading it on the truck in this case.

The welding I've seen appears to be only on the 'long' sides of the beams as can be seen in this pic also.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Blue box - to my eye, it looks like they torched that column in half.

My question would be:

Why would they torch cut a square "notch" into the column? Wouldn't it be easier to cut straight across?

Also, where's the slag on both sides that people say happens when confronted with the famous angle cut (with slag on both sides of the "cut")?

I'm talking about the famous angle cut column with the firefighter in the foreground.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
[
I guess we were kind of on the same page all along. I thought that what you outlined in red was just some junk that is stuck to it, kind of like what is sitting on the inside. why doesn't it look like that 'weld' goes all the way around the box? Is the pic just too blurry to see the rest?

Well, that's kinda what Griff has been asking, when he asks whether or not there was shoddy worksmanship.

That's also what I think of when I think of inadequate engineering.

Originally posted by Griff

Why would they torch cut a square "notch" into the column? Wouldn't it be easier to cut straight across?

Also, where's the slag on both sides that people say happens when confronted with the famous angle cut (with slag on both sides of the "cut")?

No clue about the notch. Anything I could say would be speculation at this point.

There's a small bit of slag on the lower cut in the notch. But there wouldn't be much anyways if the column was cut from the outside. Most of the slag will be inside the column.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
That's also what I think of when I think of inadequate engineering.

Possibly. But, I doubt they were engineered to have whatever happened on 9/11 to happen to them.

Whichever theory anyone believes.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
That's also what I think of when I think of inadequate engineering.

Possibly. But, I doubt they were engineered to have whatever happened on 9/11 to happen to them.

Whichever theory anyone believes.

That's why you need to do a paper on it, Homie.

Get the coffee pot going 2-nite. I want it done by Monday.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
No clue about the notch. Anything I could say would be speculation at this point.

There's a small bit of slag on the lower cut in the notch. But there wouldn't be much anyways if the column was cut from the outside. Most of the slag will be inside the column.

They probably had to cut around something.

Here's a page that I think does a good job of refuting the "thermite cut column" argument.

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

I would still like to see someone show what a column would look like after a thermite cut. Who knows, they could look the same.

[edit on 5/1/2008 by Griff]

14 Structural Engineers Now Publicly Challenge Government's Explanation for Destruction of the World Trade Center

georgewashington.blogspot.com...




[edit on 1-5-2008 by Markshark4]

Originally posted by Griff

Hey, have you ever seen this page before?

It has all the dimensions of the core coulmns. They'd need to be matched up to the blueprints that have been available for a while.

But it would be an aid for that white paper you're itching to do.

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

Take a look at this picture:



This picture was taken shortly after the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Can you see the 45 degree angle cut on the steel column, and do you see the sulfidised residue around that straight cut. Now we must take that information and by necessity draw some very important and inevitable conclusions. These conclusions are binding, you don't get to agree with each successive point and then refute the eventuality, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. That would be like saying ok, I see the straight cut, but now I'm going to tell you I want to pretend it's not there.

See any similarities with the picture below, where we can clearly see controlled demolition experts placing explosives on the beam? Note: The angle. The angle is crucial when it is blown it slides downwards in its own print so it does not damage surrounding buildings.



According to the official US government THEORY about the attacks on 9/11 - a Boeing 757 flew into the building 95 floors above, and that the jet fuel got so hot that it transferred it's energy downward, 95+ floors retaining its energy, and causing the metal on the support columns to fail synchronously, as well as leaving behind all the tell-tale signs of a controlled demolition charge using thermate, which leaves a sulfidised residue, and is also the only known method of slicing construction grade steel of this strength and volume in this alloted time.

Now, given the fact that jet fuel can only reach a temperature far below that which would be necessary to melt and evaporate steel, as definitely occurred on 9/11 as shown by the following photograph taken at ground zero:



And is also confirmed by satellite thermo graphic imagery which shows the pools of molten metal hot spots at thousands of degrees - up to months after the event:



Well the difference between thermate and thermite is that with thermate the ingredient of Sulfur is added which acts as an accelerant which increases the rate of a chemical reaction. Thermite is just the same compound without the accelerating ingredient needed to increase the rate of reaction.

The below video illustrates how effective thermate can be in slicing metal.



We must therefor come to the conclusion that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Especially when you you take into account that one of the three buildings which fell down at free-fall speed (less than 10 seconds) was not even hit by a plane, yet still had the molten metal - World Trade Center Building 7.



Add to this the compelling evidence given to us from hundreds of first responders (Doctors, Police, Fireman, Reporters) and eyewitnesses who heard and saw explosions, as well as the numerous video and audio recordings taken by news teams and others.

The irrefutable facts about 9/11 and the immutable physical laws of nature will not be altered - only your capacity for critical thought.



Peace

CR

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Hey, have you ever seen this page before?

No I haven't. Thanks. Although, I've seen something close. And as for the white paper:

1. I don't have as much time on my hands as someone like Ryan Mackey.

2. What's the point? As I don't have a proven theory. BTW, neither does MacKey.

[edit on 5/1/2008 by Griff]