WTC 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

Originally posted by bsbray11
Whether or not you think it's a valid question, doesn't matter.

Ok, thanks for your opinion. To me it does matter, since the question wasn't directed at you, I suggest you take a look at why you even posting a reply if you weren't going to answer the question rather than attacking the manner in which it was asked.

That's why you should rephrase your question, to make it a positive statement, so then you can explain to us why it would be impossible.

Sorry, but I will not cater to your foibles and hangups. It was a question response to a question, it's not that hard to understand. Griff seemed to get it just fine and is able to talk about the subject with me, and without misunderstanding. The only person with the problem in comprehension here seems to be only you.

As I said, this may not be the post for you if you have such a hard time getting it.

Originally posted by Soloist
I suggest you take a look at why you even posting a reply if you weren't going to answer the question

Because you said you were going to "deny" that WTC7 was demolished, but your support was only asking a question. That doesn't make sense. That's not a rebuttal. So, I responded. It's a free discussion forum.

Griff seemed to get it just fine and is able to talk about the subject with me, and without misunderstanding.

Griff is putting up with you. Can you tell me exactly what would make it impossible to rig WTC7 with any sort of explosive device?

They (FEMA and the Army) found 2 or 3 undetonated bombs in the Murrah Federal Building when they cleared it out. Guess what? They weren't conventional, and didn't have external wires, either. Was that impossible, too?

Originally posted by Soloist
I've never heard of this insulating of C-4 before, it would be interesting at least to find out if this is possible. Proof of that would at least to some degree go a ways toward lending the CD theory some bit of possibility.

Proof of what? That things can be insulated against fire? It's done every day.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
There was certainly a substantial amount of smoke obscuring fires and several large fires that were visible. That much we know for sure.

Have you ever seen a "fully engulfed" fire? The flames are so hot and intense they break the glass in the windows and start shooting out them. Smoke does not "obscure" a fully engulfed building.

"Several large fires that were visible" DOES NOT equate to a "fully engulfed" building. The word several should be the first clue as a fully engulfed fire is ONE fire.

I am sorry you're having difficulty reading what I wrote. Where in creation did I ever say "fully engulfed building?"

Let me repeat again: "There was certainly a substantial amount of smoke obscuring fires and several large fires were visible. That much we know for sure."

Originally posted by bsbray11

Griff is putting up with you. Can you tell me exactly what would make it impossible to rig WTC7 with any sort of explosive device?

Hypothetical questions like that really don't have any meaning. One can easily say that it is "possible" to rig WTC 7 with explosives. One can say with equal validity that it is impossible to do so unseen by anyone, that it would be extremely unlikely that evidence of explosive devices or explosive residue would not be left. You could go on ad infinitum with hypothetical possibilities but it has no bearing on anything.

The facts remains that there is no evidence of explosives found anywhere at the WTC site. There is NO evidence of any sort that any kind of explosive device was rigged or used. Nothing at all.

So, without providing any positive evidence of explosives in 6 1/2 years of trying, 9/11 Truthers have accomplished exactly what?

Originally posted by jthomas
So, without providing any positive evidence of explosives in 6 1/2 years of trying, 9/11 Truthers have accomplished exactly what?

And 6 1/2 years later, we still have NIST telling us that these residues where never tested for.

How are we to know that they didn't exist if they were never tested for?

That's like not testing grape soda for taste and calling it orange.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
There was certainly a substantial amount of smoke obscuring fires and several large fires that were visible. That much we know for sure.

Have you ever seen a "fully engulfed" fire? The flames are so hot and intense they break the glass in the windows and start shooting out them. Smoke does not "obscure" a fully engulfed building.

"Several large fires that were visible" DOES NOT equate to a "fully engulfed" building. The word several should be the first clue as a fully engulfed fire is ONE fire.

I am sorry you're having difficulty reading what I wrote. Where in creation did I ever say "fully engulfed building?"

Let me repeat again: "There was certainly a substantial amount of smoke obscuring fires and several large fires were visible. That much we know for sure."

I get frustrated by you and your ilk always claiming that we are the ones with the comprehension difficulties.

Let's go back to the original post that you commented on that responding to me:

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Griff

Well, convince me. So far, all I've seen are videos of smoke.

I don't discount that the building was on fire. What I DO discount are the lies that the building was "fully engulfed" in flames. Please show me your evidence of a fully engulfed building. Thanks.

There was certainly a substantial amount of smoke obscuring fires and several large fires that were visible. That much we know for sure.

See where I'M the one who's talking about "fully engulfed" fires. See how YOU are the one who responded to me talking about fully engulfed fires?

So, therefore, YOU are the one who has a lack of reading comprehension.

I'm getting so sick of that as a rebutal by you "debunkers" it's almost funny. But, unfortunately, the more you say it, doesn't make it so.

And mods. Please keep the whole quoted material up as it is relevant to the conversation of reading comprehension. Thanks.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Because you said you were going to "deny" that WTC7 was demolished, but your support was only asking a question. That doesn't make sense. That's not a rebuttal. So, I responded. It's a free discussion forum.

That's right, and I'm free to ask a question in response to a question. If that doesn't make sense I am sorry, I cannot make it any more clear.

Can you tell me exactly what would make it impossible to rig WTC7 with any sort of explosive device?

*Sigh* Please tell me where I said it was "impossible to rig WTC7 with any explosive device" . My question was :

How in the world would the "prewired" explosives and all the massive amounts of wiring needed to bring such a large building down survive the fires for so many hours??

Where is the misunderstanding??????? Like I said, Griff got it, and you either don't or are just being difficult. Which is it?

They (FEMA and the Army) found 2 or 3 undetonated bombs in the Murrah Federal Building when they cleared it out. Guess what? They weren't conventional, and didn't have external wires, either. Was that impossible, too?

You are comparing oranges to apples here, please don't do that, it will not work with me.

Originally posted by jthomas
Hypothetical questions like that really don't have any meaning.

Tell that to Soloist, because it wasn't me that brought this whole issue up.

One can easily say that it is "possible" to rig WTC 7 with explosives. One can say with equal validity that it is impossible to do so unseen by anyone

So what? Who sees, and who do they tell? You are naive if you think everyone is on your side. Again, who planted the bombs in the Murrah Building? You don't know. Yet they were there. No one told you? I'm shocked.

The facts remains that there is no evidence of explosives found anywhere at the WTC site

There is enough information lacking to go around. None of the theories you would subscribe to are complete or have ever been scientifically proven, either. If it weren't still up in the air I would not be posting this right now, neither would you.

Originally posted by Soloist
*Sigh* Please tell me where I said it was "impossible to rig WTC7 with any explosive device" . My question was :

How in the world would the "prewired" explosives and all the massive amounts of wiring needed to bring such a large building down survive the fires for so many hours??

And what does your question imply? That this would be a very easy thing to do? Because your wording certainly doesn't suggest that.

To assume "massive amounts of wiring" would be needed is crazy. You can do it remotely using radio waves. This is actually the field I am studying right now: electronics engineering. I know what I'm talking about. You don't have to stick a wire to a bomb, to get it to explode. There are many, many ways.

Originally posted by bsbray11
To assume "massive amounts of wiring" would be needed is crazy.

Furthermore, I'm still waiting for evidence that the base of the building (where the explosives would have been) was on fire to begin with.

Originally posted by Griff

Proof of what? That things can be insulated against fire? It's done every day.

Oh come on now, I thought we were going to have an intelligent discussion about this.
I'll play this game one time only, and give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually misunderstood...

Proof of what? No, not things can be insulated from fire, my statement was :


"I've never heard of this insulating of C-4 before, it would be interesting at least to find out if this is possible. Proof of that would at least to some degree go a ways toward lending the CD theory some bit of possibility."

Or in other words, if we had some kind of proof that C-4 has been fireproofed and actually held up for hours during a fire, then I would gladly accept that is a possibility.

Originally posted by bsbray11
And what does your question imply? That this would be a very easy thing to do? Because your wording certainly doesn't suggest that.

Last time, if you don't get it then I cannot help you.

The question is REALLY simple, how did the explosives and mechanisms survive the fires since the OP's question was they must have been pre-wired before?

There, reworded for you only because you're special and stuff.

The OP's question for some clarity :

"With all the sensitive information in wtc7, would it not be prudent to prewire for demoltions incase of a major fire or attack?"

He thinks it was pre-wired, I asked how that would all survive the fire.

That's all.

Easy.

Originally posted by Soloist
Oh come on now, I thought we were going to have an intelligent discussion about this.

I think the intelligence went out the window the second you started baldly asserting that so much wire and this and that would be needed, when in reality it would not.

You set up conditions to be met, that would not actually have to be met, for a controlled demolition to take place. You obviously have no understanding of how the computer you're sitting in front of works, or why there is no wire running from your "remote control" to your TV. I suppose it's just magic to you.

"I've never heard of this insulating of C-4 before, it would be interesting at least to find out if this is possible.

Well, I have interesting information for you, then!

Look up "plasticizers." They are compounds added to C4, for example, that reduce their sensitivity to heat and pressure before the C4 will actually detonate. The more plasticizer to actual explosive, the less "sensitive" it is.

Originally posted by Soloist
Or in other words, if we had some kind of proof that C-4 has been fireproofed and actually held up for hours during a fire, then I would gladly accept that is a possibility.

How about this?

Fire officials said it took more than three hours to subdue the blaze, because the explosives prevented firefighters from extinguishing it from within.

Fire officials cordoned off the quiet suburban cul-de-sac yesterday while authorities removed the explosives. "If you set off some of this stuff, it would blow out windows all down the street," Schaff said.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Why would fire officials cordon off the cul-de-sac after the fire if there would be no danger from them exploding?

How's this?

Abstract : A major problem of explosives is their accidental thermally initiated catastrophic decomposition. Most bulk military explosives, such as RDX, HMX, and TNT have such hazards. Even somewhat safe explosive materials, such as ammonium nitrate, when combined with fuels, such as wax or other hydrocarbons can overheat with catastrophic results. Additives can make explosives resistant to burning or catastrophic decomposition. Cure-castable, melt-castable, and pressable compositions were made with additives. Several types of flame retardants and other inhibitors were incorporated into these compositions to inhibit the thermal initiatory reactions and yet retain energetic potential when initiated by a strong shock. Explosive compositions were tested by DSC, Flame Test, Hot Wire Test, Cook Off Test, Plate Dent Test, Drop Weight Impact, as well as compatibility tests. The results indicate that these explosives should be safer in accidents or combat-induced thermal events. Keywords: Explosives, RDX, HMX, Cookoff tests, Polymers, Thermal decomposition, Flame retardants, Binders, Inhibitors.

stinet.dtic.mil...

Originally posted by Griff

I don't discount that the building was on fire. What I DO discount are the lies that the building was "fully engulfed" in flames. Please show me your evidence of a fully engulfed building. Thanks.

There was certainly a substantial amount of smoke obscuring fires and several large fires that were visible. That much we know for sure.

See where I'M the one who's talking about "fully engulfed" fires. See how YOU are the one who responded to me talking about fully engulfed fires?

Absolutely. I am responding to YOU but YOU are confused that I said anything at all about "fully engulfed fires."

It is absolutely CLEAR that I said there was certainly a substantial amount of smoke, right? Does that MEAN there was a "fully engulfed building? No, of course not.

I said there were "several large fires visible." Does that mean a "fully engulfed building?" No, of course not.

Truthers need to learn to read carefully and stop making careless assumptions.

reply to post by Griff


Those additives you're posting about are also plasticizers.


Here's the Wiki on plasticizers: en.wikipedia.org...

C4 itself is pretty much just a plasticized version of RDX:

C-4 is made up of explosives, plastic binder, plasticizer and, usually, marker or taggant chemicals such as 2,3-dimethyl-2,3-dinitrobutane (DMDNB) to help detect the explosive and identify its source.

As with many plastic explosives, the explosive material in C-4 is RDX (cyclonite or cyclotrimethylene trinitramine) which makes up around 91% of the C-4 by weight. The plasticizer is diethylhexyl or dioctyl sebacate (5.3%) and the binder usually is polyisobutylene (2.1%).

Click

[edit on 29-5-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11


I think the intelligence went out the window the second you started baldly asserting that so much wire and this and that would be needed, when in reality it would not.

You set up conditions to be met, that would not actually have to be met, for a controlled demolition to take place. You obviously have no understanding of how the computer you're sitting in front of works, or why there is no wire running from your "remote control" to your TV. I suppose it's just magic to you.

"I've never heard of this insulating of C-4 before, it would be interesting at least to find out if this is possible.

Well, I have interesting information for you, then!

Look up "plasticizers." They are compounds added to C4, for example, that reduce their sensitivity to heat and pressure before the C4 will actually detonate. The more plasticizer to actual explosive, the less "sensitive" it is.

I love how you answer posts not directed to you. For the record my original post was directed at the "it must have been pre-wired" comment, please go back and read that since you are having trouble. My only assertion was how could it all survive?

Where were the explosions upon collapse that would signal a CD?

Does anyone have any video of a CD where the explosives survived a several hour fire , yet still brought a building down?

Let's see you try and twist those.

reply to post by Soloist


Now you're just moving the goal posts. There would be no wires to burn (unless a total idiot was employed to engineer the event). Explosives can effectively be insulated (and these sorts of precautions would be taken, again, unless we are dealing with a total idiot engineer).

You have all the answers to your original question, as far as I can see. What else is missing?

[edit on 29-5-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Soloist
Does anyone have any video of a CD where the explosives survived a several hour fire , yet still brought a building down?

Why would they do this?

Either the building is on fire, as such, they wouldn't have it prewired to begin with for a CD.

Or.

The building is prewired for a CD and as such why would there be a fire involved?

Or are we moving goal-posts? Because I believe I have conclusively demonstrated that there are ways to fireproof explosives.

Look up on google "fireproof explosives" and you'll get more info.

I am done arguing with people who just argue to argue.