PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

The collapse theory of WTC 7 is a domino theory divorced from any known examples, where the failure of a single member triggers a cascading series of simultaneous failures that completely levels the skyscraper.

The structure of WTC 7 was unique and divorced from any known examples. In the absence of any other evidence, impact and fires were the only known causes.

Originally posted by pteridine


The structure of WTC 7 was unique and divorced from any known examples. In the absence of any other evidence, impact and fires were the only known causes.

A new development ?

What impacted WTC7 ?

reply to post by Sean48


What impacted WTC 7?

Well, I fouund this 'Truther" site, although they allege a few things, they at least show a lot of details about the design construction of WTC 7.

Their point, if I underrstand after just a quick scan, is that WTC 1 debris would have "only" hit the corner of WTC 7...but, at least THEY point out there was damage from falling debris, even if they reach a conclusion that seems to support --- what ever they are alleging.

Still, it's out there and worthy of discussion. Either use it to support your CD claims, or consider it as MORE reason to understand a collapse from structural damage inflicted by WTC 1 debris, and resulting fires...fed, BTW, but diesel fuel from inside WTC 7, if I understand correctly.

www.studyof911.com...



[edit on 4 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by pteridine


The structure of WTC 7 was unique and divorced from any known examples. In the absence of any other evidence, impact and fires were the only known causes.

A new development ?

What impacted WTC7 ?

A fair bit of the North Tower did :-

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Even NIST concluded the impact damages from WTC1 wouldn't have been significant in the collapse sequence.

If even THEY are abandoning that ship then what good reason do you have for trying to keep it around as an excuse? It missed any internal columns. It did much less than what the planes did to the exterior columns alone in the towers.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

I understand that you are impatient to make your arguments but responding to your posts will be difficult if you continue to make multiple posts in such a scattershot fashion.
I challenged you to discuss Jones' Bentham paper. I will not argue the validity of the dust samples as containing significant amounts of WTC dust. They also contain any other dust that was present at the time. Jones selected magnetic separation of the dust sample. When he did this he found the red-gray chips and estimated that ten tons of them were in the dust. The red-gray chips are not usual in dust samples and I accept that they are the result of the towers collapse.
He next analyzed them, using various techniques, and claimed that they were "highly engineered" and "thermitic." Jones did not consider that paint-on thermite would only warm the beams if it could be ignited at all. His conclusions are not supported by his experiments.
One major failing was to run the DSC in an air stream and claim that the exotherm was the result of thermitic reaction. The red coating has an organic binder and would combust in the DSC under these conditions. Before he can claim thermitic reaction, he first has to observe an exotherm in the absence of air. Do you understand this aspect?

reply to post by bsbray11

It missed any internal columns.

OH???

Odd, that....I was reading on another thread, just this morning, that refutes that allegation.

I'll see if I can find the post....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah! That was easy. It was this post.

The poster is far more eloquent than I, will let that post speak.



[edit on 4 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

So, this thread is about "proof that building 7 was demolished with explosives", right.............

Well, forgive me but I haven´t seen this "proof" anywhere in here.

So, could we just call this one A HOAX and move on?

Thanks.

Originally posted by pteridine
So you are saying that all buildings undergoing natural collapse splay outwards? Did your study of physics make you forget about all the internal connections?

What internal connections? For a building to fall without resistance then the internal connections must not be connected anymore. How did the columns allow the building to collapse with no resistance and still be connected to building components?

Be sure to look at the diagram in this link bellow, and read it of course if you can, where it shows the order of detonation of columns, note the center columns get blown first.

science.howstuffworks.com...

If walls fell naturally inwards, the path of most resistance, then why do demolition companies bother to do it the way they do?

Based on your comments, all the inner columns were sheared first and then the outer columns were sheared. That means many explosions in short order. You must have some evidence of all of these explosions. Where is it?

The evidence of explosion is in the outcome of the collapse, just because you can't see them it doesn't mean they didn't happen. Again this has been explained and you simply ignore it, conventional explosives were probably not used.

Although we tend to think of explosives as devices producing spectacular bomb-like explosions, the use of non-explosive "explosives" is now at an advanced stage. These non-explosive techniques are essentially expanding charges that achieve the same results as explosives but without the noise and initial devastating blast.

home.bre.polyu.edu.hk...

And you know there are witnesses to explosion in all three buildings but you conveniently ignore this fact with more excuses.

This vid is a controlled demo gone wrong, note when the building meets too much resistance for it's weigh to overcome it stops collapsing and tips over. And please don't say it's a different design it doesn't matter, this is a physics example not a building design example showing the result of resistance in a system.

www.liveleak.com...

This is simple building demolition and physics 101, why can't you do some research before you react to a discussion with garbage?

[edit on 3/4/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by rush969


Solid proof is not required, all we need to show is doubt in the official story, and we've done that whether you recognize that fact or not.

Participation in this thread should not be assumed as a sign of support for the thread title.

There is no absolute proof, you are right, but absolute proof is not required, many people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.
There is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a new independent study simply from the visual evidence and the defying of known physics.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Looking fo this ?

from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west.

2 elevator cars ejected from shafts

visible section of south wall gone

possible more damage to the west

So it missed the columns?

Damage was pretty significant and went deep into building to dislodge 2 elevators

Originally posted by bsbray11


Even NIST concluded the impact damages from WTC1 wouldn't have been significant in the collapse sequence.

You are correct, Brian. However, the towers caused damage to the structure that eliminated several floors of "fire stops" allowing fire to spread from floor to floor. Typically, high rise buildings have many safe guards to minimize the spread of fire from floor to floor. Just my 2 pennies worth!

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

2 elevator cars ejected from shafts

- - - - - - - - -

Damage was pretty significant and went deep into building to dislodge 2 elevators

Nah. That happened before either tower fell. Barry Jennings was one of the witnesses to the explosions inside WTC7 which damaged the stairwell and apparently also the elevators.

It is logical to assume that explosive pressure from inside elevator shafts would eject elevators OUT OF elevator shafts; not alleged debris entering from the south wall.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d70d1558c6cc.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 3/4/10 by SPreston]

reply to post by ANOK


You claimed that in a non-cd collapse that building walls would splay outwards due to your understanding of "least resistance." I question that because in a non-CD collapse of a steel building, internal structures would remain and prevent splaying of the walls.
You then said that the collapse was proof of demolition by noiseless expansion-type materials. [It was also "proof" of anything else including Judy Woods death rays from space.]
These materials do not work on steel. Steel can deform without fracture. They do work on concrete and rock. They are mainly lime with some silica added. A hole or series of holes is drilled and filled with a slurry of the expansion materials. In a day or so, internal pressure from expansion cracks the concrete or rock. It is quiet, except for the cracking. It is not timable, so doing anything on a tight schedule or "simultaneously" is not possible.
In short, expansive materials didn't do it. Cutter charges do work well but, as you may know, they are not quiet.

reply to post by pteridine

I question that because in a non-CD collapse of a steel building, internal structures would remain and prevent splaying of the walls.

pteridine, could you clear this up for us?

Allow me to explain, as I do not have expertise in building CD...only what's available from the many verified CD videos available to review.

Firstly, in CD (and by "CD" I hope everyone knows I refer to controlled, and planned demolition, initiated after many weeks or months of careful preparation work). In CD, the intent, is it not, to minimize collateral damage?

And, of course, not ALL CD events are of a steel-framed building...some are just steel-reinforced (imbedded into) concrete, and such.

Anyway, my point is, the CD is installed and timed so as to sever significant points to cause a collapse, of as much of the structure as possible, due to gravity, that is INWARD, not outward, as much as possible. Am I correct?

Now then. I have seen some people claim that they think the upper portions of the WTC Towers, above the impact points, should have just 'dropped' down and landed squarely on the undamaged portions below....leaving everything below intact. Richard Gage tries to demonstrate this with his empty cardboard boxes, in a video.

(Bear with me, this relates to thread...)

Well, can someone do some math for us? Acceleration, due to gravity on Earth is 10m/sec/sec (32ft/sec/sec)

Several floors were disrupted, and weakened, by the impact of the airplane, in each building, we can agree there, I hope? I figure, at minimum (could be more) THREE floors, OK with that?

Now....in a simple world (and I AM oversimplifying this) three floors would be, what? 30 or more feet?

SO, the weight, ALL OF THAT weight of the undisturbed section above (and this is where someone can calculate the mass of that portion, for us) will come slamming DOWN on the remaining structure below, with all of that force, accelerating due to Earth's gravity.

COULD that not cause failure of the structure beneath it, a structure NEVER DESIGNED to resist any force EXCEPT the One G of Earth's gravity, of the weight above it, distrubuted as it was, by engineering design in the first place? BUT, now that mass (or 'weight') has a chance to accerate for at LEAST one second (remember the 30 or so feet?) to achieve a velocity. Everyone knows in physics, Velocity times Mass equals Force.

Is it not reasonable to understand that the mass above came slamming down, and could therefore exceed the design limits of the structure beneath it, and in SUCH A WAY, and so dramatically, as to make it a progressive collapse? MORE and MORE mass, continuing to pound down beneath it?

In THAT scenario, uncontrolled as it would be, wouldn't many structural components below the crushing from above tend to be flung in many directions, in ever-increasing chaotic manners??? Even in ARCS out and away, then of course down as they fell???

Thereby, some of those pieces or components that were ejected with an initial horizontal vector, couldn't they be flung sufficiently far (considering all the forces involved) to have struck surround buildings?

We KNOW that WTC 7 was struck.....

Tear this apart, if you wish......

Originally posted by ImAPepper
You are correct, Brian.

What, are you demonstrating your stalking powers? It's scary enough that you obsess over Richard Gage's personal life the way you do. If you think you know me well enough to call me on a first name basis, you want to go ahead and get my address too so you can come argue with me about 9/11 in person the way you did Mr. Gage?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pteridine
...If they were all destroyed simultaneously, why did the penthouse collapse seconds before the rest of the building and why did the crease form during collapse?...

If a building was to naturally collapse the outer walls and sections would be forced to fall outwards due to the inner building pushing them out into the path of least resistance. In order to overcome this effect the center columns of the building are detonated first, this leaves a space so the outer walls are pulled inwards by the collapsing center when they are detonated.

This is what we see in the videos; the penthouse collapsing on the roof when internal supports are removed by demolition, and then the entire building falling straight down for eight floors in freefall (2.25 seconds) as approximately 8 floors are removed by demolition, and then the remaining 39 floors slowing in their collapse as they continue through the path of most resistance.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3abd8190fbe1.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by ANOK


I´m getting tired of posts offering PROOF of things and then just turning up to be just more and more speculation.

Ideas upon ideas of people who are actually not expert on the subject that they are discussing and are just speculating or repeating something they heard or read somewhere.

Their sources turning out to be amateur created web fiction by aficionado "experts", who make statements based on hunches and the most simplistic logic that could be imagined.

All expert opinions that have disussed and studied the events are attacked and accused to be "in the conspiracy", so they turn out to be no good.
So, it turns into an endless circle.

If PROOF was offered, I want to see it.

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by ANOK

 

I´m getting tired of posts offering PROOF of things and then just turning up to be just more and more speculation.

The whole 911 official story is based on speculation and very little 'evidence'

Originally posted by weedwhacker

SO, the weight, ALL OF THAT weight of the undisturbed section above (and this is where someone can calculate the mass of that portion, for us) will come slamming DOWN on the remaining structure below, with all of that force, accelerating due to Earth's gravity.

COULD that not cause failure of the structure beneath it, a structure NEVER DESIGNED to resist any force EXCEPT the One G of Earth's gravity, of the weight above it, distrubuted as it was, by engineering design in the first place? BUT, now that mass (or 'weight') has a chance to accerate for at LEAST one second (remember the 30 or so feet?) to achieve a velocity. Everyone knows in physics, Velocity times Mass equals Force.

Is it not reasonable to understand that the mass above came slamming down, and could therefore exceed the design limits of the structure beneath it, and in SUCH A WAY, and so dramatically, as to make it a progressive collapse? MORE and MORE mass, continuing to pound down beneath it?

In your highly speculative scenario, as each floor overcame the stronger floors beneath it, the tower would be taking the path of most resistance, and would take minutes not mere seconds to crush the 75 to 90 floors beneath.

But WTC7 was proven and verified by NIST to have a 2.25 second period of freefall (8 removed floors) with no resistance below for that period of time.

What besides demolition explosive charges could have removed the 8 floors for 2.25 seconds of freefall?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3abd8190fbe1.jpg[/atsimg]