PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

General Smedley Butler would have had no problem with the truthers.

www.warisaracket.org...

[edit on 16-2-2010 by drew hempel]

Originally posted by ANOK
What makes you think a few cut beams would bring down a whole 48 story building, designed as all buildings with a safety margin which means it can hold more than it's own weigh with no difficulty, neatly into it's own footprint while minimizing damage to surrounding buildings?

So you do not agree with the official story about how the towers fell then too?

For one thing as stated the building was unstable due to damage from other WTC building and fires on upper floors.

Second building 7 was not built like the other WTC buildings because it was bult over a sub station.

www.structuremag.org...
This 47-story commercial office building was approximately 330 feet long, 140 feet wide and 610 feet tall, and was constructed over a pre-existing electrical substation owned by Con Edison. The original plans for the substation included the construction of a high-rise tower above it. However, the final footprint of WTC 7 was larger than the originally planned high-rise tower. As a result, there were discontinuities between the columns in the Con Edison substation and the columns for the rest of WTC 7. Braced frames, transfer trusses and transfer girders at floors 5 through 7 transferred loads between the discontinuous columns. These elements, though serving the purpose of shifting loads from one set of columns to another, also essentially "tied" the columns to each other. The columns were numbered for ease of identification and will be referred to by their number herein.

Why do people spend money to have Demolition inc., do it when all you would have to do is knock out a couple of random columns and then set the place on fire? Why bother with all those times explosives?

Well let me ask this. Was 9/11 a normal situation?

In a normal demoliton people are hired, but 9/11 was not an normal situation.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by GenRadek


Who said you need noisy explosives to take down a building ?

Crackamite

dexpan

with these anything can be made to look like it collapsed by fires !

Originally posted by sapien82
Who said you need noisy explosives to take down a building ?

Crackamite

dexpan

with these anything can be made to look like it collapsed by fires !

except they do not work on steel..... and just how did the men get into the buildings to install it, drill holes in the concrete?

Originally posted by downisreallyup
From what I can pick up from all the various testimony accounts I have heard and read, it seems that one or more demolition companies were on site that very afternoon, and if the towers were indeed demolished, there were some of the very best demolition experts on hand that day, doing some of the most advanced demolition man has ever known.

Yes, i brought up the fact that demolition crews were there.

I also brought up the fact that fire rescue teams have the knowledge and equipment to cut steel beams.

Also the fact that building 7 was not built like the other buildings since it was built over a sub station.

When Silverstein said "THEY made the decision to PULL" we have no idea who he was talking about in the fullest sense. While it was the fire chief that called Silverstein (if we are to believe him), it is quite conceivable that demolition experts were standing right there with the Fire Chief... especially if this entire demolition exercise was planned well in advance.

We have a good idea since we know from chief Nigro and chief Hayden that the fire fighters were out of the building before the call. So he could not have been talking about the fire fighters when the fire commander stated PULL IT.

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Who said you need noisy explosives to take down a building ?

Crackamite

dexpan

with these anything can be made to look like it collapsed by fires !

This is an expansive material that consists mainly of lime and silica. It does not work on metal. It only works on concrete and rock. Holes are drilled into the rock and the material is packed in the holes. As it reacts over the next day or so, it expands and exerts force on the holes cracking the rock along the line of holes. It is a modern variation on drilling and freeze cracking.

Yeh fair enough that can account for that pretty much , but there is no way to tell if the steel was cut with thermite or anything else since the entire buildings steel was taken away to be recycled!

or at least thats whats most reports are claiming !

Why then since the building was to be investigated did they take the steel away for recycling ?

seems very suspicious

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK, you say that the design of the buildings doesnt matter in the cases you presented with the three pictures you posted. But they DO! I have to laugh at your fan club stars too, as they too dont fully get the facts.

OKC had a traditional CONCRETE and STEEL design. Concrete and steel columns, built in a traditional BOX frame. Not like the WTC7. (Also was a few stories high, NOT 47)

Madrid's Windsor Tower had a CONCRETE/STEEL core, with CONCRETE columns and CONCRETE floors, surrounded by STEEL supported steel floors. The steel only supported floors all failed and fell off within 2 hours of being engulfed. The CONCRETE supported core (with concrete columns) did not fall although it too could have if the fire continued longer. AGAIN, the designs of the buildings MATTERED.

The Hutch Building was a concrete and brick building, with possibly a light steel frame inside. It fell over in one piece. Again, DIFFERENT DESIGNS styles.

WTC7 has ALL steel framing and had a ConEd substation it had to be built over, using transfer trusses that overhung the substation below. Failure of the transfer trusses is why it collapsed from fire. And yes, it was deforming. Its called creep. Firefighters noticed it, engineers noticed it. THAT is why they knew it was going to come down. Hell I even posted a firefighter on YT who even points out the leaning. They even put a surveyor transit on the building to monitor the slow creep taking place to the building as a result of the fires burning inside. It was deforming until finally, a part of the penthouse collapsed. Then the rest of the penthouse collapsed, then a few seconds later, the whole thing came down. Thats not a CD, thats a structural failure on a grand scale. When a building starts to creep, slowly deform, those are signs of imminent structural failure. Firefighters are trained to notice these things before the enter structures.

The resistance was overcome when the structural integrity FAILED from the fires. Sometimes only one or two key parts of a building failing, can lead to total destruction. These are things you have to take into account ANOK before you post such nonsense. The building designs didnt matter? Thats a good one. I'm willing to bet quite a few building engineers would disagree with your assumption.

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Who said you need noisy explosives to take down a building ?

Crackamite

dexpan

with these anything can be made to look like it collapsed by fires !

So when exactly did they sneak in thousands of workers to drill in the floors and set it all up without a soul noticing? Not to mention setting it all up, drilling, filling, then putting it all back together to make it look like nothing happened?

Interesting side note, but no merit in this situation.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Hell I even posted a firefighter on YT who even points out the leaning. Firefighters are trained to notice these things before the enter structures.

Thats one reason why fire fighters were evacuated away from the building before the call to Silverstein.

reply to post by GenRadek

You have not explained anything that makes the building design act differently from known physics.

You can harp on about different designs all day but you offer no explanation as to WHY it makes a difference, and it's abvious from this claim you have no idea what is involved, you just heard someone else say that on 9-11 myths. Rinse and repeat hey GenRadek?

You have not explained why the physics of resistance changes from one building design to another, and it is obvious by your hand waving of the facts that you have no clue how to.

The resistance was overcome when the structural integrity FAILED from the fires. Sometimes only one or two key parts of a building failing, can lead to total destruction. These are things you have to take into account ANOK before you post such nonsense. The building designs didnt matter?

Thats a good one. I'm willing to bet quite a few building engineers would disagree with your assumption.

You keep making this claim after years of proof that you are wrong. An hours worth of carbon based fires is not going to cause thousands of tons of construction steel to globally fail, as per the reason I've already explained that you keep ignoring with your 'but but but it's a different design.

Again please explain, and learn, about thermal energy transfer and you will realize how silly this claim is. Get from behind your desk and get out in the real world.

Only one or two parts have to fail? You are just making things up. You really think buildings are that weak? Then why didn't the tower fall after the 93 bombing then? That bomb took out a whole basement and columns, but guess what it didn't collapse. Did they change the design since then?

[edit on 2/16/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by GenRadek
So when exactly did they sneak in thousands of workers to drill in the floors and set it all up without a soul noticing? Not to mention setting it all up, drilling, filling, then putting it all back together to make it look like nothing happened?

Interesting side note, but no merit in this situation.

Do you know how many people worked in and visited those buildings? Have you ever worked in an office building over 10 stories tall? You pretty much never question guys in jumpsuits walking past you since they are not talking to you, there is no need to talk to them. Those two buildings were much taller and serviced thousands of people. Do you really think it was like a small neighborhood where everyone knew everyone and what they were there for, where in the building they were going, or what they were working on?

This is just one of those cute little things people that have never worked in a really large office building say. Please feel free to find any security guard that could tell you he knew exactly who came in and out, what they did, and where they did it. Find us just one. Or find a survivor that can claim they would have known if there were strangers in the building doing strange things.

This is not your doctor's office we are talking about here.

Originally posted by dereks

except they do not work on steel..... and just how did the men get into the buildings to install it, drill holes in the concrete?

Maybe the items listed do not work on steel but the second part is really easy to answer.

They walked through doorways. They used drills. Anything else I can clear up for you?

reply to post by GenRadek


hey freind good luck these 9-11 forums have turned into such a joke these truthers will never think rationally their rational is true ignorance they think facts are an opinion and that all the eyewitnesses and timelines are the lie watch how the evidence is cherry picked and the heart breaking details are left out cause they need this conspiracy it goes further then 9-11 they need this alternative the governments after us group to find comfort. i would truly love to watch one of these so called debaters against a real expert.
Lamb to the slaughter comes to mind
Be well

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by sapien82
Who said you need noisy explosives to take down a building ?

Crackamite

dexpan

with these anything can be made to look like it collapsed by fires !

except they do not work on steel..... and just how did the men get into the buildings to install it, drill holes in the concrete?

I could have anticipated you saying this. Is it hard to imagine a combination?

NANO-THERMITE painted on to the steel + CRACKAMITE or DEXPAN for the concrete

Perhaps using two compounds is too hard to conceive of. And mind you, I am not saying IT DID happen this way, but only that it is possible.

Here's some paint-on thermate blowing up some pants:

Google Video Link

Actually I found Dr. Judy Woods NIST RFC of 2007 a very interesting read, where she makes the scientific case for a directed energy weapon. Until you actually go and read that yourself, you are only parroting what others tell you.

You find both Dr. Woods and Dr. Jones NIST RFC (Request for Correction) at the following link:

NIST RFC Documents

reply to post by downisreallyup


1000 lbs of thermite VS car frame, it hardly does jack



What's your point?

NANO-THERMITE painted on to the steel

Thermite isn't going to stick to the steel, it isn't going to burn long enough to effect the steel, making it smaller would not help your cause. Not much of an argument.

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by downisreallyup

 

1000 lbs of thermite VS car frame, it hardly does jack

What's your point?

NANO-THERMITE painted on to the steel

Thermite isn't going to stick to the steel, it isn't going to burn long enough to effect the steel, making it smaller would not help your cause. Not much of an argument.

Super-thermite bud, not thermite... get it right man! Thermite burns, while super-thermite explodes... capice? I showed you a video of a dummy being exploded by thermate that was painted on.

That test from Myth Busters was invalid to demonstrate even what Thermite could do to a steel beam. The entire upper roof of the car is not that thick, and below it is a large open air space. The thermite burns up quickly and extremely hot as they said. So, whatever you are going to cut with it, it needs to be in direct contact with the thermite since the reaction doesn't last that long. So, if they had put the thermite on a big block of solid steel, they would have seen a different result. We are to assume that a car is somehow impressive because it is large, but in reality it is a very poor choice of object to cut. It would have been far better to put a car engine, or an old tractor up there, completely surround the engine with all that thermite and watch the engine turn to molten metal.

But, really, there are all these crazy arguments with people using whatever little factor they can find to try to destroy a counter-argument. No truther doubts the official story because of a single issue... it's because of the long laundry-list of issues and questions that people doubt the OS.

Like Dereks and others who just picked a couple of the OP questions to attack, you all fail to see the big picture. Why don't you all address every question I asked and all the others presented in this thread?

You see, we truthers don't just think about one issue at a time, so this entire modality of "let's see if we can pick the weakest point in their argument and destroy that, calling it silly, and casting personal attacks, and in that way demolish their entire thesis" is really very ridiculous and extremely ineffective.

You trusters need to stop being so gullible and trusting and show that you have a little more moxie and skepticism about what you are told by the powers that be... their track record demands that people not fully trust them, and that is a good enough reason to at least entertain the possibility of a conspiracy.


[edit on 16-2-2010 by downisreallyup]

reply to post by downisreallyup


The problem with the crackamite is that it takes a day to work. There is no reason to break the concrete floors if the rest of the building is coming down.
There was no thermite/thermate. Jones paper proves nothing, so we will have to wait and see if he has a follow-on paper or has used his better judgement and will rest on his uncertain laurels.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by downisreallyup

 

There was no thermite/thermate.

Really? Where is your proof of that? At least Jones made a good attempt to back up his thesis. Where is yours? How can you honestly sit there and say with such abandoned certainty that "THERE WAS NO THERMITE/THERMATE?"

Really, you HOPE there wasn't, and you are banking on the word of the government that there wasn't, but HOW DO YOU KNOW? Come on, have some intellectual honesty. How can you just assert with such confidence something that is quite reasonable.

If you say there was no thermite/thermate, then I must demand that you explain:

1) How there were pools of metal running out of the tower buildings? And don't say that is the metal from the planes because that is just ridiculous... there was no where near enough metal in those planes for that kind of thing (remember the metal would have to run all the way across the floor).

2) There are numerous testimonies and photos of massive pools of molten metal all around the towers, and this extremely hot molten steel stayed molten for weeks after the towers fell. How can jet fuel, which would have burned up in minutes, create that much heat to melt all that steel?

3) What happened to the massive steel core structure, with massive beams that walls that were 4 inches thick? If floors fell because they became disconnected from the core, then the core would still be standing after all the floors pancaked. The core was designed with super vertical strength, and yet the metal in those massive core beams turned to dust... we can even watch the SPIRES disintegrate before our very eyes in quite a few video records. And those spires do not merely collapse... you can clearly watch the steel in those beams dissolve into dust and float away in the sky.

Explain all these with a sound and non-stretching explanation, even if the explanation involves high technology, and I will take your explanations seriously.

Also, regarding the Myth Busters attempt at cutting a car in half using thermite, there are several errors in their attempt.

1) They erroneously stated that working with thermite powder is dangerous, and yet from other research it is evident that thermite does not ignite until a temperature of 2000 F. is reached, so NO, mixing the ingredients in a mixer are not going to ignite the substance.

2) The amounts of each ingredient needs to be weighed to proper proportions for the substance to burn correctly, and the preferred iron oxide is not iron rust (Fe203) but rather iron scale (Fe304). They probably used the iron rust. I did not see them weigh anything, and it seemed they were very cavalier with dumping it all together. Also, the aluminum and oxide have very different weights, so it is best to have some kind of bonding agent to prevent them from separating. As the Myth Buster thermite sat in the bathtub it would have separated, especially as they ran the shovel through it, which would have made the thermite contained in each bag less than potent, having more oxide than required.