PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


"Essentially in freefall" means not exactly in free fall or it would have been stated as "freefall."

reply to post by GenRadek


You didn't address the fact that the Fire Chief stated that STEEL MELTS AT 1100 DEGREE and COLLAPSES AS WELL.

WHAT IN THE HEAVENS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


STEEL DOES NOT MELT AT 1100 DEGREES.

PERIOD.

Am I taking crazy pills?

Again, I will return to NIST, AS IF I HAD TO!!!:

"The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit)."

To be clear, that's ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED DEGREES OFF.

If this continues, i.e., illogical posturing, I will not respond to your posts.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by thedman


Building 5 did not collapse into its own footprint at free-fall speed. Pieces of it collapsed and then it was brought down.

As far as your other buildings, please provide the sources and the buildings that collapsed in similar fashion, I would certainly be interested to see this.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by KILL_DOGG


So then how did the building fall?

reply to post by Flidais


Naw, we just don't want to fight without knowing why we're fighting. Blind aggression is about as bad as gets.

If I am going to kill someone because someone points their finger and says "they did it," you damn well better know that I'm going to verify that. Doing anything else would be murder, plain and simple.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by pteridine


They did state that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed for about three seconds of the five alloted.

So, I'm not really sure what you're trying to disprove or why you're trying to disprove it.

Why exactly are you siding with U.S. government Bush administration?

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

So, I'm not really sure what you're trying to disprove or why you're trying to disprove it.

2.25 seconds out of the entire collapse means it only had 2.25 seconds of free-fall, the rest of the collapse was not in free fall, as it there was resistance.

reply to post by Whyhi


It's the most improbable collapse in steel reinforced high rise history. Again, what are you trying to disprove? That the building didn't collapse at free fall speed?? Or that the building didn't collapse at all??

What is it?

You have to admit, at the very least, that building seven is very strange.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

[edit on 18-2-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

They did state that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed for about three seconds of the five alloted.
So, I'm not really sure what you're trying to disprove or why you're trying to disprove it.
Why exactly are you siding with U.S. government Bush administration?

I am not trying to disprove anything, in particular. The fixation on collapse time is puzzling, as no one knows what the difference in collapse times would be between the collapse as described and a controlled demolition.
I am siding with the evidence.

reply to post by ANOK


The shear studs are not structural per se. They are there to make a connection between the concrete and the metal form. The stud simply projects from the form into the concrete.

The other welding they are refering to is the shop welding, where the beams where fabricated. Not on site welding.

reply to post by pteridine


What evidence exactly are you siding with? On the whole? Not just the micro Building Seven situation.

reply to post by ANOK


I said, and maybe should have clarified, that they were not welding the seperate column trees together. In the FEMA report on WTC1 and 2, they do talk abotu how the exterior column trees were NOT welded, but bolted together, except for closer to the base and at the mechanical floors.
www.fema.gov...

Page 2-3 in the document, page 3 on the pdf.

I never said the whole structure had no welds. You were pointing out the plates that attached the three columns of the spandrel tree. Yes those were welded together because of the obvious. I was pointing out the whole column tree modual which connected together, were connected mostly with bolts only, except for, as I mentioned, the lower floors and mechanical floors. Be sure to read everything before you jump to conclusions. They mention the plates but not the ends of the column trees being welded together. Plates are different, the ends are different. i was constantly talking about the ends of column trees not being welded together (except for the aforementioned areas).

I do not deny the floor pan on which the floors were placed onto the trusses were welded either, or the seats on which the floor truss bolted onto. But you see? reading comprehension. I did mention the seats were welded to the exterior column and interior, (at least I think i did mention once before, if not I apoligze), but the floor truss itself was bolted to the seat. Those are the areas of failure in the collapse of the floors. The bolts were first torn off the seats, before as they got lower, just sheered off the entier seat off the exterior column to which it was sat in. Read the FEMA report.

ALWAYS be sure to read everything thouroghly and understand WHAT EXACTLY are they talking about. In the cases you presented, they were all about different areas, (plates, truss seats) but not the ends of the column trees I was talking about that were bolted only.

I would reccomend actually reading the FEMA report to better understand the collapse characteristics seen, of the WTC and the connections themselves. I'm willing to bet none of you have ever fully read through the important parts of the NIST or FEMA documents, much less, understood what they were talking about.

[edit on 2/19/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


The evidence, on the whole, is more consistent with the NIST and 911 comission explanations than any consiracy theory.

Originally posted by pteridine
The evidence, on the whole, is more consistent with the NIST and 911 comission explanations than any consiracy theory.

Lets look at some facts.

1. NIST did not recover any stelel from buidling 7 for testing. NIST (IS NOT) an investigating agency for 9/11.

2. People on the 9/11 commission have stated they did not enough time or money to do a proper investigation.

reply to post by REMISNE


NIST explained the collapse of WTC7 consistent with the evidence at hand.

Commissions all want more time and money to do a 'proper investigation.' I have never seen a report where all commission members agreed that they had enough time, money, and authority.

Why this fixation, almost fetish, with building 7?
If you were on a team of conspirators planning this false flag attack, and you suggested collapsing 7 with controlled demolition, surely the very first thing your co-conspirators would say is this, - It's a bit obvious.

To me it is astounding that conspiracy theorists can dismiss the ocean of evidence that implicates Al Quaeda, and in essense say - I don't care. What about Building 7?

One can perhaps understand the importance of 7 to anyone who believes in 9/11 conspiracy, because take that away & there's not much left. But if you are behind these attacks, and you want to collapse 7, you do so in a way that doesn't look, to the layperson, like a controlled demolition. This point is crucial.

When one considers the technology available to any hypothetical false flag conspirators, it surely can't be asserted that they couldn't devise a less obvious way of bringing down 7. It doesn't even need technology. Use good old fashioned manpower & have some of your operatives set fires throughout the whole building. The watching world will be able to witness the whole building engulfed in fire. Maybe it will collapse on its own. If it doesn't, the vast amount of damage inflicted by the fires will mean it will have to be collapsed anyway, - voila! there's your controlled demolition.

Originally posted by vicen
To me it is astounding that conspiracy theorists can dismiss the ocean of evidence that implicates Al Quaeda, and in essense say - I don't care. What about Building 7?

Just exactly what ocean would that be again? I guess in 9 years I somehow magically missed it. I would love to see it all.

Building 7 video shows media knew of its collapse 23 minutes before it actually went down?

Believers in the OS would have us believe it just went down in its own footprint accidentally.

www.youtube.com...

Any Questions.

www.youtube.com...