Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

I'm trying to open the eyes of a blind few who refuse to open theirs to the events surrounding WTC7.

They're saying that WTC7 couldn't be a CD as it required time to plan and place explosives to bring it down.

I'm looking for irrefutable evidence that shows the WTC7 couldn't have collapsed randomly at the time it did. I've already gone through the prophetic news reports, the fact that the news agencies own reporters wouldn't call the WTC7 "collapsed" if it wasn't etc.. but they're now pulling up the likes of Popular Mechanics etc.. on the collapses, which are full of no-plane theories and theories of aircraft loaded with bombs/missiles/etc. and are now trying to use that as an argument as to why WTC7 couldn't be a CD.

Thanks in advance for any material that can help counter their arguments in an irrefutable way.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Good luck on that one.

The more I look into what was in the building like a 5 story high void containing a large substation with a diesel power station suspended above it with a 48000+ gallon supply of fuel on site, the less certain I am of anything. Firefighters reported it as bulging and sagging which prompted them to evacuate a collapse area around the building and CDs are not usually that slow as it came down about 3 hours after it was declared unsafe and unsavable.

The NIST final report on WTC7 is due out this year sometime so then we'll have all the answers

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
They're saying that WTC7 couldn't be a CD as it required time to plan and place explosives to bring it down.

And this is absolutely correct, it takes a modicum of time and access to properly rig a building for CD, on the order of weeks or months, and there's no way to hide it perfecty, you have miles of wiring snaked all over the place, walls ripped open, holes drilled, ect, ect, ect, it's an utter logistical nightmare.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I'm looking for irrefutable evidence that shows the WTC7 couldn't have collapsed randomly at the time it did.

Unfortunately, there is none. If there was the majority of the experts would be screaming foul, which obviously isn't happening, it's only a handful that are, and they have very questionable credentials.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I've already gone through the prophetic news reports

The firemen at the scene were expecting it to come down hours before it did, the BBC misinterpreted this and reported it wrongly.

Here's a few clips of firemen correctly predicting that WTC7 would be falling soon:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

So you see, there wasn't any media complicity in this, just confusion and bad timing.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Thanks in advance for any material that can help counter their arguments in an irrefutable way.

LOL, don't hold your breath.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I'm trying to open the eyes of a blind few who refuse to open theirs to the events surrounding WTC7.

They're saying that WTC7 couldn't be a CD as it required time to plan and place explosives to bring it down.

I'm looking for irrefutable evidence that shows the WTC7 couldn't have collapsed randomly at the time it did........

Thanks in advance for any material that can help counter their arguments in an irrefutable way.

I am curious. You are calling those that beleive the "offical" story of WTC7 as being blind. Fine, you have that right.

You, from what you posted have opened YOUR eyes. And what have you seen?

Well.... from what you are seeking... nothing!

You are seeking evidence to a theory that you have. Why do you have this theory when you have no evidence?

If you would like, there has been one paper that supports the offical story.

It was puplished in Structure Magazin in November 07 and you can find it here:

www.structuremag.org...

Called: "Single Point Of Failure - How the Loss of One Column may have lead to the Collapse of WTC-7"

You could start by telling him that the bomb sniffing dogs were taken out before 9/11....

Also tell them that pools of molten steal were found after the buildings collapsed.

What more do you need?

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
You could start by telling him that the bomb sniffing dogs were taken out before 9/11....

The sniffer dogs were not removed entirely as you're trying to suggest, their presence was simply brought down from heightened security status to normal.

Google 9/11+Sirius, he was one of the dogs that died inside the WTC.

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
Also tell them that pools of molten steal were found after the buildings collapsed.

To which they will rightly respond: "Prove it was actually steel."

Steel isn't the only metal in existance, there are many others with lower melting points, such as aluminium.

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
What more do you need?

A reasonable explaination as to how the building was rigged for demolition without anybody noticing ANYTHING.

Oh, and why there weren't any sequenced squib explosions and flashes just before it came down, as you'd expect to see in a CD.

www.usatoday.com...

Here's a very interesting article. It states that the eleevators of the world trade center were undergoing renovations in the years before September 11th. Guess what was easily accessible from the elevator shafts...the core columns.

Also, during emergencies such as 9/11, elevator mechanics work hand in hand with the fire department to help rescue people. But for some strange reason, the elevator mechanics completely deserted the building during the attacks. Strange isn't it?

I don't wish to de-rail this thread, but how do explain the fact it collapsed in on itself without damaging the buildings next to it? It would be the 3rd such building to collapse in on itself in a day.

Other buildings around the WTC were also seriously damaged, but they didn't collapse. Curious...

[edit on 21-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I don't wish to de-rail this thread, but how do explain the fact it collapsed in on itself without damaging the buildings next to it? It would be the 3rd such building to collapse in on itself in a day.

Other buildings around the WTC were also seriously damaged, but they didn't collapse. Curious...

Maybe not complete collapse. But what about the Marriott? What about building 6?

Looking at building 7 as you stated... did in fact damage buildings:


Another Ghost of 9/11 Is Cleared for Demolition

When the 7 World Trade Center tower collapsed that day, across Barclay Street, it tore a gash in Fiterman Hall, set fires inside the building and piled rubble high against its facade

www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I don't wish to de-rail this thread, but how do explain the fact it collapsed in on itself without damaging the buildings next to it? It would be the 3rd such building to collapse in on itself in a day.

It is your thread....derail away, I guess.

Miraageofdeceit, you have been doing this 9/11 stuff for quite a while, no?

In all of your hours of tireless research , could you NOT find examples of buildings EXTENSIVELY damaged by the collapse of WTC7?

Ever heard of the Verizon building? A strong MASONRY art deco building that had 1.4 BILLION dollars worth of damage done to it from the collapse of WTC7 , It took 3 years for the repairs to be done. WTH? You MISSED that?

What of Fiterman Hall? It is being demo'ed as we speak, after several years of trying to save it-- Guess what damaged this building? In your hours of tireless and thourough research you MUST already know it was WTC 7 that crippled this building FOREVER.

Freakin' weird! I am almost convinced that this whole 9/11 conspiracy thing is either people INTENTIONALLY trying to mislead others-- OR it is made up of some of the worst researchers EVAR, EVER.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by Taxi-Driver]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I don't wish to de-rail this thread, but how do explain the fact it collapsed in on itself without damaging the buildings next to it? It would be the 3rd such building to collapse in on itself in a day.

Other buildings around the WTC were also seriously damaged, but they didn't collapse. Curious...

[edit on 21-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Why is any of that curious? Never in history had so much damage been done in such a short time to two larger structures. When they collapsed, they caused even more damage to structures below them. Some of those structures were irreparable, and WTC7 was destroyed completely.

How is it curious that WTC7 collapsed but other buildings didn't? Is it curious that the guy at the table next to mine got 9 pieces of chicken in his salad and I only got 8? Was there a conspiracy to deprive me of my chicken? Or is it simply that there are variations inherent in the way the chef cuts the chicken or how much he picks up to place on the salad from one to the next? The damage caused to buildings around the collapsing towers isn't going to be uniform just as the structural design of the buildings are not the same.

The reality is that nobody who actually knows anything about structural engineering of demolition questions that the damage caused by the aircraft crashing into the towers could have created the result it did. It seems as though the lack of knowledge and either the lack of desire or inability to obtain the necessary education has created a void being filled with simplistic hand waving and conspiracy theory.

We'll all be better off when it's no longer the popular thing to hop on this conspiracy wagon.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by StudioGuy]

What about the WTC7 countdown heard on numerous videos?

The simple proof is that the building began accelerating downwards at free fall, 9.8m/s^2 to within a margin of error of something like 0.125m/s^2, once the global collapse began.

That means virtually no resistance to the fall at all (not even air resistance, drag), which only happens when there is nothing to resist it. Meaning everything was already taken out when it began falling, or was being taken out in real-time, in an extremely coordinated fashion (which is also why it collapsed symmetrically, all four corners of the roof falling down at the same rate simultaneously, just as with WTC1).

That is the proof that utterly sold me on the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, no matter how much lip-flapping there is about conventional explosives and logistics and this and that. I have no reason to believe anyone voicing these concerns have any idea what in the hell they are talking about, especially when they can't even see significant in the symmetry and free-fall acceleration to begin with. I would have to see some extraordinary evidence to convince me that it happened from asymmetrical damage and dumb luck, and I mean extraordinary evidence. Real evidence, too, not just hearsay, even if from firefighters. I've heard contradictory testimonies anyway. People will ignore testimonies that they don't like, and continue stupidly thinking only their favorites are the legitimate ones.


The real problem is that people either just don't understand the significance of this or value logic enough/have the guts to carry it so far as to reach the conclusions that you have to inevitably draw from it: someone DID put devices in that building ahead of time to bring it down in a coordinated fashion. There is no other way it could just up and drop at free-fall all the way to a pile at its base. The "debunkers" don't even have an alternative, "official" theory on this one; all they can do is cry that conventional explosives would take so long to set up, which is hardly substantial compared to simply watching a 47 story building free-fall.

Ever heard of the Verizon building? A strong MASONRY art deco building that had 1.4 BILLION dollars worth of damage done to it from the collapse of WTC7 , It took 3 years for the repairs to be done. WTH? You MISSED that?

I fully appreciate that surrounding buildings were damaged by falling debris, but I'm surprised they didn't collapse. The Marriott looked pretty well beaten up, with bits of WTC 1 and/or 2 sticking out the sides of it. I know WTC7 got its share of damage, too, but whilst it was bad, it didn't seem bad enough to cause a collapse of the kind seen.

Given Silversteins comments on it, too, and it seems more planned than accidental.

reply to post by bsbray11


Do you agree with this? Because I believe it explains the difference in collapse speed quite clearly.

forums.randi.org...

4. Comparison to WTC 1 and 2

Also from Appendix B of my whitepaper, I estimate that the Towers absorbed closer to 50% of their gravitational energy as they collapsed, compared to only 16% in WTC 7. Why?

The answer is in the style of collapse. WTC 1 and 2 both experienced a top-down progressive collapse, whereas WTC 7 was more bottom-up. In WTC 1 and 2, the structure is really no more able to oppose the collapse through sheer strength, but instead, you have the contact plane way up in the air, and that means momentum transfer. In addition to breaking columns, the descending mass also has to overcome the inertia of the lower block. As it does so, it expends more energy, which means more total destruction of things like concrete floors.

WTC 7, on the other hand, has the contact interface at or near ground level. Momentum transfer is to the Earth, and so rather than slow down the descending "upper block," it merely destroys everything at the ground level all at once. None of the Earth's inertia gets transmitted up. As a result, the "momentum sink" of WTC 1 and 2 just doesn't happen.

Similarly, there is less energy expenditure high in the structure. This is why we don't see concrete comminution or drywall devastation in the same degree.

Regarding destruction of materials, it is also important to note that the gravitational potential energy per kilogram, or per square meter, will be much lower in WTC 7 than in the Towers. Thus, we predict a less thorough destruction of material, and this is indeed exactly what we see.

Banker's Trust suffered more extensive damage than any other non-WTC building I've seen (also much more damage than I've yet seen to WTC7):




They started deconstructing it because it was beyond repair, and then it suffered a major fire -- and STILL didn't even suffer even a local collapse.

The fire spanned floors 14 to 27 (a relatively huge section of the total building, compared to the fires in the towers and WTC7), two firefighters died while trying to put it out, and I'm not even going to look up how long it lasted but who wants to bet it was longer than 45 minutes?

"Debunkers" want to say "different structure" and close the case there, no more questions asked or considered, but then again they couldn't tell you what made such a dramatic freaking difference. It's just a convenient cop-out. They wouldn't even want to actually compare the two buildings.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by bsbray11]

Who would you accept evidence from? You're basically asking for someone who will be able to tell you that they personally did not put explosives in the WTC buildings. What you're really wanting is for somebody to come along who has information that's not possible to provide before you will believe anything but your own theory.

But in pondering your own assertions, how much velocity would be lost due to the resistance of air or some structure?

Have you actually seen a high resolution video of the event to accurate gauge the timing of the collapse? (Youtube videos would NOT be considered high resolution)

What amount of time compression or expansion due to video compression artifacts would give you a different collapse time result?

Do you have any thoughts on how the building should have fallen in the absence of additional demolition?

How would a building fall if not straight down? Along those lines, how much energy is required to change a masses inertia under gravitational acceleration?

It's simply not convincing for somebody to say that things are strange in order to accept that they are strange. You might think a lightbulb isn't functioning properly because it's too dim but unless you know the wattage you can't make that assumption with any degree of accuracy. It doesn't mean that the guy who says "what's the wattage of that bulb?" is close-minded because he doesn't buy into your theory without evidence.

Too many people have developed their ideas of how reality is defined by watching terribly compressed youtube videos.

Wow! Cointelpro is alive and well. Jeez!

www.ae911truth.org...

Ok OP! You need to carefully study this page and read the links, watch the videos and consider the experts chiming in here. I believe you will find all that which you require here. I'm not going to belabor this topic because it has already been covered ad infinitum. Best of luck to you and stay focussed. Your enemy is cunning and very intelligent.

Also check out Professor Jones now (peer reviewed) paper on 9/11.

www.journalof911studies.com...

Interesting spread of ATS points here guys. Not that it really means anything but it is interesting.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by KMFNWO]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Do you agree with this? Because I believe it explains the difference in collapse speed quite clearly.

You can "believe" whatever you want.

To answer your question, no, it does not explain why WTC7 accelerated at free-fall. To destroy an entire building, a significant amount of energy would be required, even if just from failing the required connections on every floor. You even talk about energy being used. It has to be, it's inevitable. But you can't have it, no matter how badly you need it, because the acceleration proves that there was virtually none exerted from PE, and virtually none is a big difference from the amount actually required to destroy a building. The "style" in which it happens is not going to magically reduce the energy required to destroy the whole building to nothing. If anyone has calculations that support this, then they have done their math wrong somewhere, and that's all there is to it.

Coming from JREF, I've seen people like Greening reduce the towers to 1-dimensional theoretical models and completely ignore/contradict numerous observed phenomenon (not to mention the entire geometry of the towers as laid out in the structural documentation) just to try to prove a point. Then later Greening will be grilled on all his assumptions and all the things he ignored and simply say he was only trying to provide an "example," not a proof anymore. You see how it works? I've had enough classes to at least understand the terminology being thrown around and follow the math's general implications of what is happening physically, and these guys are pulling things out of their asses just the same as any other "debunker" would, except they just carry over the same assumptions into formulas.

WTC 7, on the other hand, has the contact interface at or near ground level. Momentum transfer is to the Earth, and so rather than slow down the descending "upper block," it merely destroys everything at the ground level all at once.

Too bad everything was solidly bolted/welded all the way up the building, especially the columns (which would have essentially been solid lengths of huge box columns), so any energy spent bending or deflecting something below is going to transfer up the building anyway. What you're suggesting is basically like saying you can drop a chair and the top part of the chair will free-fall to the ground because the ground is where the actual contact is being made, and the top of the chair isn't there yet. Ask yourself, using physics/engineering terminology, what is impossible about the scenario I just described? Why does the top part of the chair stop as soon as the base hits the ground? When you figure it out, you'll realize how it relates to WTC7.

You would have to assume a "house of cards" for there to be no relation between the base of the building, and the top. Even if it folded in the middle like an accordion, connections failing in the mid-range as a "cushion" before being transferred all the way up to the top, you would still see energy being expended in destroying the building, and it would still eventually slow the top floors in their descent. These are the kinds of stupid assumptions that carry over into the math that are completely unsupported.

None of the Earth's inertia gets transmitted up. As a result, the "momentum sink" of WTC 1 and 2 just doesn't happen.

There was no "momentum sink" for the Twin Towers. I'm not talking about theoretical models. Watch them fall; they maintain a constant rate for as long as they can be seen, and it neither speeds up or slows down. Floors pop out in regular intervals as free-falling debris accelerates around them. Again, people making assumptions in their math that are not supported.

Originally posted by StudioGuy
Have you actually seen a high resolution video of the event to accurate gauge the timing of the collapse?

That's why I mentioned a margin of error. It actually doesn't make as big of a difference as you seem to think it does. A huge building is not hard to measure in any half-decent video, especially when you already know its total height, the distance between each floor (row of windows), and of course the video is in real-time. You can be off as much as 5 meters more or 5 meters less on the building face and the final numbers will still be very close. I'll post the link when I'm on a faster computer and you can walk yourself through the whole process, given that you understand kinematics equations dealing with linear velocities and accelerations.

What amount of time compression or expansion due to video compression artifacts would give you a different collapse time result?

The significant events in the videos were sync'd up with seismic records and even verified by NIST, and a lot of them even have time stamps from major news networks that you can time at least from minute-to-minute and find their accuracy, again to within a very small margin of error, if any error at all.

Do you have any thoughts on how the building should have fallen in the absence of additional demolition?

I have no reason to believe it should have collapsed at all. Have you seen something I haven't?

How would a building fall if not straight down?

At an angle, about a fulcrum where the failure originated.

Along those lines, how much energy is required to change a masses inertia under gravitational acceleration?

"Path of least resistance" is a thermodynamic law. You are thinking about where the movement is coming from completely backwards. The direction it begins taking would not have to change, because it would be the same direction (least resistance) from the beginning. Or else it would encounter resistance, and either exert energy to continue moving in that direction (and slow down), or its energy would be fully absorbed and it would stop.

It's simply not convincing for somebody to say that things are strange in order to accept that they are strange.

Maybe you confuse me for giving a damn what you think in the first place? I really don't see it as my problem. I will post my opinions here but I don't honestly expect to change what anyone thinks anymore.