PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by downisreallyup


How can you say there was thermite? Jones' attempt was poorly done. He first concluded that red primer with scale was thermite and tried to work a proof. His science was poorly done.
1] Red hot something coming out of the building is unexplained. It is not "proof" of anything.
2] Metal staying hot for weeks is the result of underground fires. Thermitically produced metal cools like any other metal so hot metal is not proof of thermite.
3] The core fell. Super vertical strength is not super lateral strength.

reply to post by pteridine


The core just fell? That is it? It just fell? Which way did it fall? The videos would indicate straight down. Can you clarify?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by downisreallyup

 

How can you say there was thermite? Jones' attempt was poorly done. He first concluded that red primer with scale was thermite and tried to work a proof. His science was poorly done.
1] Red hot something coming out of the building is unexplained. It is not "proof" of anything.
2] Metal staying hot for weeks is the result of underground fires. Thermitically produced metal cools like any other metal so hot metal is not proof of thermite.
3] The core fell. Super vertical strength is not super lateral strength.

Where did the molten metal come from? Do you know how hot the temperature has to be to melt steel into molten pools?

The core fell? Lateral forces? Do me a favor... get a broom handle, stand it on end, and then apply a force to the top of the handle. Do the same with a pencil. Notice how strong it is vertically? The core of the towers was an extremely strong grid of steel, with massive vertical beams, and all kinds of lateral supports holding it all together. It was designed to hold several times the weight of the entire building, to sway in the wind, to endure being struck by aircraft, and to resist earthquakes. What part of that seems to escape your intellect, except for the fact THAT YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE ANYTHING EXCEPT THE OS, because that will mean you have to change your perspective on the world?

That central core was disintegrated by something, whether it is carefully placed thermite/thermate charges, or some kind of exotic weapon, that core was destroyed by something other than the carbon-based fires from jet fuel. My gosh, why can't you people just STOP closing your eyes to the truth of that concept. The CORE was made to resist in a most profound way any kind of vertical collapse. IF the progressive collapse THEORY was correct, then the core should have remained... if there had been a remaining core, I would believe the progressive collapse theory right away.

I am tired of putting information up here and then not having trusters at least look at it. Please, take a look at this video that will show you just how strong the WTC towers were, and particularly how strong the CORE was:




[edit on 16-2-2010 by downisreallyup]

Explosion Sounds during Tower collapse!

Please watch this video also... it shows many witnesses including news media talking about the huge explosions that occurred just prior to the towers falling. One woman reporting live said it sounded like the "grand finale" during the 4th of July fireworks. We all know how that sounds... boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom...



Then please watch this video, and if you have good quality speakers use them so you can hear the low-frequency explosions as the building comes down:



And then watch "September 11th Revisited" :

Google Video Link

Top section of first tower did not straighten itself...

In the excellent video September 11 Revisited, I watched very carefully some new footage I had not seen before of the first tower collapsing. What I noticed for the first time is that the top piece did not straighten itself, but kept tipping over as it sank into the disintegrating floors below. Contrary to what some have said, the top section did not straighten itself, but kept tipping until it was nearly 90 degrees on its side.

reply to post by downisreallyup


Exactly. It does not "straighten out" it continues at the angular momentum that it had. The thing that makes it look odd is that it is supposed to be crushing the floors below it but instead, the building is already vanishing below that section. Given physics, it should have continued off to the side of the building but the building continues to vanish beneath it too fast, clearing any resistance.

So an explosion that happened before either tower collapsed... Care explaining how that's supposed to prove how they were bringing the buildings down? I thought they were let off sequentially at the very moment the buildings collapsed? Why would they let the explosions off before demolishing the higher floors first?

The conspiracists really need to make their minds up.

reply to post by secretbear


No one said those explosions were not part of demolishing the upper floors. You just assumed that explosions meant bombs at the base of the building.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by secretbear

 

No one said those explosions were not part of demolishing the upper floors. You just assumed that explosions meant bombs at the base of the building.

Ah, but many witnesses talked of explosions in the bottom floors, and of being thrown about in the building, and of the lobby of the towers being destroyed with blasts just as the planes hit. I do not choose to ignore those very important points of evidence, since first hand witnesses, especially ones who are well spoken, are HIGHLY valued in any court of law. And, when we are dealing with a conspiracy that implicates the very authorities that society depends on, first hand witnesses become even more important, since it then becomes very hard to trust what the alleged perpetrators say in their own defense.

reply to post by downisreallyup


The core was laterally supported by the peripheral columns. Without them, it had no support. Do yourself a favor and use the same broom and pencil that you asked me to use. Balance them on end. Push on a side.

No one knows what the red-hot material draining from the building was. Speculation has it as molten aircraft alloy or molten battery components. If it was from thermite, why didn't the building collapse at the floor where it came from and much sooner?

Underground fires burn hot enough to melt metals. Molten metal does not necessarily mean molten steel. Metal remaining molten for weeks has nothing to do with thermite, specifically, and everything to do with underground fires.

There is no evidence for thermite.

Originally posted by pteridine
Underground fires burn hot enough to melt metals. Molten metal does not necessarily mean molten steel. Metal remaining molten for weeks has nothing to do with thermite, specifically, and everything to do with underground fires.

How does underground fires burn hot enough to melt steel for up to 6 weeks?



[edit on 17-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


Google 'Centralia, PA' for an example of a long-burning underground fire. In underground fires, heat is not readily dissipated because the earth acts as an insulator. Leaks and chimney effects provide combustion air.

Originally posted by pteridine
Google 'Centralia, PA' for an example of a long-burning underground fire. In underground fires, heat is not readily dissipated because the earth acts as an insulator.

Oh, so now your saying there was coal under the WTC, any proof of that?

Again please post evidence of what could keep the fires at temps hot enough to melt steel for up to 6 weeks.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by REMISNE

 

Google 'Centralia, PA' for an example of a long-burning underground fire. In underground fires, heat is not readily dissipated because the earth acts as an insulator. Leaks and chimney effects provide combustion air.

You do realize that the fire also needs fuel to continue to burn, right? The second it stops burning, it starts to cool down no matter how well insulated. So what you have here is either something that burned way too long for no explained reason or something that was soooooooooooooooo hot to begin with that it is taking forever.

Just being underground does not make fires burn longer. Do you bury your fires when you go camping to keep them nice and hot?

Insulation only works as insulation. It does not feed a fire. Please look at your example and see if there might have been some pretty good fuel involved.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by aenti


New interview with June Sarpong

www.disinfo.com...

Originally posted by ANOK

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.


[edit on 2/16/2010 by ANOK]

ANOK, for all that flapping around, you havent really said anything correct about the situation.

Of course physics will work on all buildings, its just that it depends on the design of the building itself. A 100 story brick building will behave differently than a steel framed building. Sure, gravity is the main thing to overcome when building a tall structure, or for that matter ALL structures. But not all structures will behave the same way and the materials they are built from will not behave the same way when exposed to loads, stresses, gravity, heat, sheer, etc. I think its you who should get into the real world and away from the basement computer and goofy conspiracy sites.

I should explain why it makes a difference? I thought the differences would be obvious to an intelligent person, who knows how to think critically and rationally. I didnt think it would be so complicated when saying a concrete cored building with steel re-enforced concrete columns would stand up to fire better than a steel only frame. I didnt think that some people dont have the ability to think critically and understand that a concrete columned, box framed building will behave differently than a 47 story steel framed building, that has a set of steel transfer trusses over a ConEd substation at the base. I guess I was wrong.

So you mean to tell me you dont understand how a concrete and steel building has a different resistance factor than an all steel building? And here you are arguing with me, when I know it and you dont? Why dont you just ASK me or someone, rather than pretending you know, cause obviously you have no clue about what you are talking about. A building with a sturdy base is simple. A building that requires special transfer trusses over a con-ed substation will have a whole new set of requirements and problems than the simpler designed building.

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?

An hours worth of fire? I'll assume you are talking about the Twin Towers:
Well lets see, you have a building, whose floors are supported only by light steel trusses. You understand that? Light steel trusses. Its is widely known in the firefighters world that light steel trusses and fire are a dangerous combo. that is why firefighters do not enter warehouses and other buildings that have a light steel truss system supporting the roof. Why? They fail easily in fires. Damaged fire-proofing would expose the trusses to the fires heating them. If I were you, I would go and read up on just how dangerous light steel truss construction is in firefighting, and how light steel trusses behave. It may surprise you.

You talk and talk and talk about heat transfer and such, but you forget one key element. Just how are the floor trusses connected to the columns?

You have two 5/8" steel bolts connecting the one end of the truss to the interior columns, and two more 5/8" bolts connecting to the exterior columns, on thin steel seats. Now if you understood anything about heat transfer and such, you would know (or should know) that the greater the area connecting the heated to the cooler side, the quicker the heat sink effect. More area = greater heat transfer. Now tell me, just how much heat can transfer from a single 60ft long truss through four 5/8" bolts into the columns? Did you ever notice the floor trusses sagging prior to collapse? Also you have fires spread over multiple floors, almost throughout the entire floor space, wall to wall. I think the heat sink effect would be negligable on those affected floors.

Oh so now a carbon fire is not enough to heat a few critcal points to failure? Im pretty sure a few engineers and fire safety experts would disagree with you, (and laugh too). Did you forget that the WTC was an office building filled with acres of carpets, office supplies, and each floor 40,000sq ft, etc..... oh! And a 767 burning inside? How did you miss that fact ANOK? Its hard to take you seriously when you say things like this.

In 1993 no primary steel columns were severed. There were a few secondary steel members severed or damaged, but none of the main supporting core columns were severed. Structural integrity was not a major issue. Check here:
www.docstoc.com...
Blowing up a basement's concrete floors is not going to do squat to a 110 floor building. It may reduce some of the stability down below and may require bracing, but that was it. I'd read the report I posted above if I were you.

Oh so when a key part of a structure fails, nothing should happen right? Even after the structure's integrity has already been damaged earlier? Well be sure to mention that to the people who lost their lives when the bridge in Minnesota collapsed a few years ago, when a steel plate failed, sending the whole bridge down into the river. I'm making stuff up? WTC7 had fires burning for 7 hours. 7 hours. Without any water poured onto it. Fireproofing does have a certain time rating. I dont think 7 hours of uncontrolled fires was ever considered in the designs, over numerous floors and no firefighting operations with water. Ever wondered why firefighters knew WTC7 was coming down? not because of any stupid demolitions, but because the building was leaning, tilting, buckling. That is called creep. Read up on creep and the WTC7. That was the key fact and evidence that structural integrity was going.

EDIT to add:

Why the WTC buildings collapsed A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

I'd read up on what this fire chief has to say about fires and steel buildings.

[edit on 2/17/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by secretbear


What's the point of even responding to this? Buildings don't just fall down at free fall speed. It's not physically possible for 100 stories of steel reinforced construction to equal air. That's what you're trying to say. 100 stories of steel is equal to air.

Not Possible.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by pteridine


No evidence of Thermite???

What would you call this:

www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

You may download the entire article and read the findings.

It's science.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by drew hempel


Why are we posing Jesse Ventura clips? You're doing a disservice to yourself.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


He already has.
And has found many, many, many flaws in it.