PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

Physics is not a theory, nor is it speculation.

That is correct. Your interpretation of physics seems to be unusual.
If the collapse had occurred as NIST suggested, what would it have looked like?

It wouldn't have happened at all. They did not take into account the heat transfer rates, they did not have the correct number of steel columns or other members, and they did not have other structural components correctly characterized in their so-called report.

"Polly want a cracker?"

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

 

Architects and Engineers for Truth is the brainchild of the guy that thinks cardboard boxes are good models for the WTC buildings.

He is either a charlatan or a complete idiot. What do you think?

Argue the science, not the people... that is a tactic that all you TRUSTERS use, and it's getting quite tiring. Let's see you actually talk about the scientific rebuttals put forth by these experts, who are all quite qualified, many of whom are working on new large building designs as we speak.

This business of you trying to ignore the science because you find some trumped up and out-of-context "charge" is not only dishonest... it stinks.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
This business of you trying to ignore the science because you find some trumped up and out-of-context "charge" is not only dishonest... it stinks.

Hey, you have to remember most of these people are living in a safe fantasy world and do not want to accept anything that might make them face the reallity that something else might have happened other then what they have been told.

Hey, you have to remember most of these people are living in a safe fantasy world and do not want to accept anything that might make them face the reallity that something else might have happened other then what they have been told.

Either that or they have an agenda. They seem to be doing damage control by attempting to obfuscate and or distort the evidence.

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

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.

Hee hee.

If you drop a rock from the top of a building it isn't going full speed from the beginning. It accelerates at 9.8 meters/seconds squared.

The buildings came down at the exact acceleration demolition buildings come down at. Maybe 1/2 a second slower than a rock from the same distance.

Now I know why science isn't required in government schools.

reply to post by REMISNE


But that still doesn't address the fundamental question of why building 7 was pulled at all. Why did they collapse it? What did it contain that necessitated its destruction? If there is material in that building that must destroyed at all costs, why would the conspirators, with highly advanced technology & massive funds, resources, power at their disposal, with years & years of planning these attacks, examining every possible scenario re destroying 7, - it seems highly incongruous that they simply say, - Let's just collapse the thing.

reply to post by NightGypsy


You make many excellent points in your post, especially regarding GW Bush in that classroom.

Every aspect of the plot would have been covered in extreme detail by the conspirators, including of course the location of the President. Now where is the one place you do not place George Bush? He can be almost anywhere, but you do not sit him down in front of tv cameras, so exposed, and let him sit there reading some kid's book for X minutes, thus allowing generations of conspiracy theorists to analyze every micro expression, every gesture, and draw all kinds of conclusions.

The infamous Silverstein quote really is a red herring. It's almost inconceivable that one of the major players would inadvertantly admit to his part in treasonous mass slaughter in front of a journalist & a camera crew.
Conspiracy theorists would have us believe that of all the thousands of people who were either directly invovled in the plot or else have become aware of it, not a single one of them(or somebody that they confided in) has even anonymously come forward, the silence has been complete - yet one of the main men, Silverstein, in the most ludicrous & blase of fashions, simply admits his culpability to PBS, or the history channel, or whoever was interviewing him. It seems unlikely.

Originally posted by vicen
this in in reply to horus12, - I've just joined and I haven't worked out how to quote so I'll do it manually.

as I said before, I respect what you're saying. I'm simply hoping that someone here can provide me with some kind of rationale as to why the conspirators collapsed building 7.

Welcome to the fun

As I see it, there may have been a risk of the fires being put out and incriminating evidence surviving. Rather than that happening, and to avoid having to remove all evidence and risk some of it surfacing, why not just turn the building to dust? Seeing as the wreckage would also be a crime scene, they could have gone in and made sure nothing survived. We all know how fast the steel was trucked away so there was no chance of a good look at that.........maybe other stuff "vanished" too.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

You mention "who done it mystery yarns", and direct me to the UFO/alien abduction section, as if what I'm pointing out is ludicrous.

Let's say that I agree with you that building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. Any other conclusion is off the table. Neither yourself, nor anyone else, has yet to explain why 7 was collapsed at all, and why it was done in such an obvious fashion, given the expertise, the technology, the resources, the years of planning etc etc

You say "let's focus on the impossibilities". That's exactly what I'm doing. We're in hypothetical agreement that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. So let's move on & try to explain why the plotters seemingly did all they could to advertise the fact that this was in fact an inside job.

Originally posted by Rigel Kent

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

 

Architects and Engineers for Truth is the brainchild of the guy that thinks cardboard boxes are good models for the WTC buildings.

He is either a charlatan or a complete idiot. What do you think?

Gage used the cardboard boxes as a simple demostration, thats all. You know it so why make such a big issue of it? Is that all you've got?

He is neither a charlatan or an Idiot, he is a very accomplished architecht much respected by his peers and the 1000 signators to the A&E For Truth movement (of which I am one) What are you?

I have yet to find one naysayer on ATS who comes accross as having the slightest grasp of Engineering or physics and this includes you sir.

PEACE,
RK

Where is Gage's analysis? Where are his calculations proving his theory? Where is his evidence of demolition? Remember that youtube videos with voice-overs and various lines and arrows do not count as evidence of demolition. Gage has no idea how the building collapsed. I have shown in earlier posts that the main beams would have thermally lengethened by 5" over their entire length when subjected to the heat of the fires. Is that enough to shear 3/4" bolts? I have shown in earlier posts the complete incompetence of teh Jones team in trying to prove thermite. Do you have any evidence at all, other than bombast and arrogant statements?
You are out of your depth.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

Hee hee.

If you drop a rock from the top of a building it isn't going full speed from the beginning. It accelerates at 9.8 meters/seconds squared.

The buildings came down at the exact acceleration demolition buildings come down at. Maybe 1/2 a second slower than a rock from the same distance.

Now I know why science isn't required in government schools.

The buildings also came down at the exact acceleration that collapsing buildings come down at, whether the main beams were disrupted by explosives of failed due to fire.
If you claim explosives, you should be able to prove explosives. Obviously your doctorate is in theology, so maybe the power of prayer will help you.

Originally posted by Curio

Originally posted by vicen
this in in reply to horus12, - I've just joined and I haven't worked out how to quote so I'll do it manually.

as I said before, I respect what you're saying. I'm simply hoping that someone here can provide me with some kind of rationale as to why the conspirators collapsed building 7.

Welcome to the fun

As I see it, there may have been a risk of the fires being put out and incriminating evidence surviving. Rather than that happening, and to avoid having to remove all evidence and risk some of it surfacing, why not just turn the building to dust? Seeing as the wreckage would also be a crime scene, they could have gone in and made sure nothing survived. We all know how fast the steel was trucked away so there was no chance of a good look at that.........maybe other stuff "vanished" too.

I am sorry but the idea that it may have been thought desirable to collapse WTC 7 to preserve secrets contained there is absurd.

No-one could possibly know what might survive such an event and be available for first-reponders to pick over, not to mention what might have drifted over Manhattan.

There are far cheaper, easier, and more efficient ways of destroying evidence.

Originally posted by Alfie1


No-one could possibly know what might survive such an event and be available for first-reponders to pick over, not to mention what might have drifted over Manhattan.

There are far cheaper, easier, and more efficient ways of destroying evidence.

It destroyed all the Evidence pretty well, none was left.

Except a passport , from a "hi-jacker" that survived the inferno, survived the

collapse, made it's way out of the Hi-jackers pocket, and landed Safely,

Blocks away

reply to post by downisreallyup

Your opinion of "no collapse" is just that.
Suspend your disbelief and describe the difference between a collapse due to structural failure by fire and collapse due to structural failure by demolition. This will provide a diagnostic that will allow examination of the differences.
Then, we can move on to evidence of demolition. As I have stated earlier, evidence does not consist of Youtube videos with overlaid diagrams.

reply to post by Sean48


Actually, there were large amounts of unburned paper scattered around, so your statement is incorrect. As Alfie1 has stated, if evidence of some sort was to be destroyed, a collapse is not the way to do it.

reply to post by pteridine


If the building had collapsed from fire the falling bodies would have been impeded by the buildings structural components made of steel reinforcements and would not have fallen at free fall speed.

There were five other WTC buildings on the site, none of them collapsed the way WTC 7 did. They burnt hotter and longer.

Why didn't they collapse? Why didn't the Windsor building collapse? Why has no other steel structure collapsed from fire?

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by vicen


This would be more appropriate in another discussion forum. You may set one up and refer there.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Other steel structures have collapsed from fire. The statement that they didn't is an oft repeated fantasy that has taken on a life of its own.

WTC7 had a most unusual structure as it was built over a power substation. Maybe that had something to do with it.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

 

Other steel structures have collapsed from fire. The statement that they didn't is an oft repeated fantasy that has taken on a life of its own.

Got any links to back that up? I'm genuinely interested.

WTC7 had a most unusual structure as it was built over a power substation. Maybe that had something to do with it.

Did that come up in the official report at all?

reply to post by Curio


This will provide further links that you may find useful.

forthardknox.com...

Edit to add: Published reports did discuss the odd cantilevered structure of WTC7. I wouldn't have known about it, otherwise.

[edit on 2/21/2010 by pteridine]