PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by pteridine


I do understand this aspect of your skepticism and I believe that once that test has been administered on the dust samples there will be no question whatsoever as to the contents. However, I believe at this point the chances that the dust samples tested are anything but nano-thermite is almost zero.

As far as discussing the WTC dust . . . if you weren't going to discuss it then why did you bring "fly-ash" into the conversation? Are you moving toward this non-discussion mode because you have no logical counter? If so I believe we've made some progress.

In terms of dust contaminate, you may read through Steven Jones' paper where you will find exactly where, when, and how the dust was collected, preserved, and tested. One of the dust samples was collected from a woman's apartment that was close to the WTC towers, where dust from the collapse billowed in through her windows. Are you suggesting that she had elemental aluminum dust inside her apartment?

The dust studied has sub-micron-diameter particles largely of elemental aluminum, and smaller crystalline grains of primarily Fe2O3. On ignition, the chips produce temperatures above the melting point of iron, leaving tiny iron droplets matching the residues of commercial thermite pyrotechnics.

Are you saying that the melting point of iron, which is 2,800 degrees F, is the same as the combustion temperatures of paint? I remember you positing that you thought Steven Jones found paint. The problem with the "paint theory" is that it doesn't combust at temperatures anywhere near 2,800 degrees F, in an oxygen free environment or not.

In regards to the oxygen-free environment:

"We ran the test the way we did because the literature described a previous test of nanothermite that was run in an ordinary atmosphere. If we had run it in an inert atmosphere, we would not have been able to compare apples to apples in terms of the energy released.

We agree that the test you are describing should be run by someone. We did our study on a shoestring budget as pro bono work, and there are many tests that we have not been able to run yet. It would be nice if others would pick up the ball and do some tests rather than continuing to ask us to do everything. I'm not saying that every one of our critics should perform such tests, but those who have the qualifications and the interest in the topic should consider investing a little more than they have been investing so far to get to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11."
--Gregg Roberts

Why don't you publish a peer-reviewed rebuttal to the Jones paper and do the test yourself?

What other kind of material would have an accelerated combustion of 2,800 degrees F? Would paint?

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by pteridine


There is other evidence, that's why this forum has almost 43 pages of information.

reply to post by SPreston


This is how I got messed up, in that other thread. In that one, I was writing about WTC 7, and it wasn't about WTC 7, so I deleted all of those. This one, I talk about the Towers, in my way to lead up to a point about WTC 7, and got distracted. Guess I got fooled by following the flow of conversation, and forgot to check which thread it was.

Well, my "highly speculative scenario", as you said, was referring to the upper portion of the Towers, both 1 & 2. To show how I think the portions of the lower section collapsed, AND how material was ejected horizontally...no need for explosives, kinetic enrgy due to gravity and the shearing forces worked it. That was my run-up to go back to the WTC 7 topic.

SO, I'll go and study your posts here, now.

Anyway, I'm not a structural engineer, so anything I offer on this topic is purely opinion.

So far, though....the prosaic explanation for WTC 7's collapse is quite clear....structural failure, from a great deal of collateral damage, combined with continued fires, unchecked for many hours. And the design of the structure, it had very little support on the lower floors, but had a large atrium-like design, gantilevered.

I don't have to be an engineer to look at design drawings and understand that.



[edit on 4 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


You don't have to be an engineer to know that free fall doesn't occur unless all supports fail simultaneously. Which is impossible outside a controlled demolition.

It'll also take you two minutes searching the internet to find out that WTC 7 is the only steel reinforced high rise building in history to collapse from fire.

I would imagine it's the only steel framed high rise to collapse in a free fall without a controlled demolition.

These are big problems. They aren't going away anytime soon. You should probably accept them, cause they are true. After that, re-evaluate your position on the subject and approach the information again, with a new set of eyes.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by weedwhacker


You don't have to be an engineer to know that free fall doesn't occur unless all supports fail simultaneously. Which is impossible outside a controlled demolition.

It'll also take you two minutes searching the internet to find out that WTC 7 is the only steel reinforced high rise building in history to collapse from fire.

I would imagine it's the only steel framed high rise to collapse in a free fall without a controlled demolition.

These are big problems. They aren't going away anytime soon. You should probably accept them, cause they are true. After that, re-evaluate your position on the subject and approach the information again, with a new set of eyes.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Thought you might enjoy this:

www.youtube.com...

Several misconceptions....(and no, I didn't bother to watch yet another stupid UTube video....it was going to go on and on about propaganda, am I right? Took my five seconds to figure that one out...)

You don't have to be an engineer to know that free fall doesn't occur unless all supports fail simultaneously.

But...in actual, real verifiable and publically displayed CD, the supports are NOT 'failed' simultaneously!

Which is impossible outside a controlled demolition.

See above.

...to find out that WTC 7 is the only steel reinforced high rise building in history to collapse from fire.

Ah, ah, ah....did you not read the rest of this thread, from the beginning? Do you not recall the severe damage inflicted as WTC 1 collapsed and ejected debris onto WTC 7?

I would imagine it's the only steel framed high rise to collapse in a free fall without a controlled demolition.

See above.

Let me put out a query to anyone....

ALL of you that keep parroting this same 'propaganda' line --- "only steel-framed high rise to collapse in free fall" (or, it's variation, "own footprint").

How many of you are architects? In construction, as in, erecting large buildings? Are construction engineers?

I am none of those, but....

How many take the time to actually LOOK at the details of the WTC 7 interior design, and note its Achilles Heels, if weakened at JUST the right places?

One doesn't have to be an engineer to comprehend a few things.

So far, those blokes at 'AE4Truth' have managed to accumulate about 1,000 people. Wow, that is pathetic, IF their claims are indeed valid.

You know, there's an old joke about what you call the person who graduates at the bottom of his class, in Medical School.***

Just as in that joke, merely having a Ph.D after your name is no guarantee of competence.


***answer is "Doctor". Scary, isn't it?

reply to post by weedwhacker


You've made faulty conclusions. There's nothing in your post that feel I need to respond to.

reply to post by weedwhacker

But...in actual, real verifiable and publically displayed CD, the supports are NOT 'failed' simultaneously!

That is your opinion, and what conclusion drew you to this nonsense?
Please enlighten us and explain how WTC 7 fell at a freefall speed. If all the supports columns did not fail simultaneously, what facts do you have that supports your beliefs?

NIST has failed miserably to explain the demise of WTC7 using their science, you know the kind that does not stand up to real sciences.

BTW, It was never proven that parts on WTC1 fell on WTC7 there has never been any photos released that clearly show a gash in the building.

The Bank across the street had a 10-story gash and never fell photos documentation proves it.

The government lied about 911, except it.

This is an Orange.

reply to post by Pha3drus


"But what does it look like to you?"

Apparently many Americans are either too stupid or too dishonest to answer this question.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
But...in actual, real verifiable and publically displayed CD, the supports are NOT 'failed' simultaneously!

I understand what you're trying to say here, but you are taking the comment 'all failed at the same time' too literally in this context, you know kinda like you do with the term 'controlled demolition', 'free-fall' and 'explosives'?

What the comment means in more detail, to satisfy your desire for absolutes, is that all the center columns had to have failed simultaneously a few seconds before all the outer columns had to have failed simultaneously, to get the result we see in the video.

Yes, just like a publicly displayed CD.

Does that clarify the point to your satisfaction sir? Does it have to be repeated that way every time the point is raised by anyone? Or could you note this definition for future reference please?

Originally posted by impressme
BTW, It was never proven that parts on WTC1 fell on WTC7 there has never been any photos released that clearly show a gash in the building.

Pathetic "truther", you tell lies like the above, by ignoring the link to a pictue showing some of the damage on the previous page....

The government lied about 911,

You are the one telling lies about t9/11 here!

reply to post by impressme


Well, YOU seem to be the expert on everything 9/11 related.

So, why don't you explain to everyone how they managed to rig a building for 'CD' in only about a half day?

A building that was heavily damaged, on fire for most of the day, filled with smoke from the fires, had been evacuated, the area cordoned off...how did a 'team' get in, undetected, to rig the 'explosives' for this "job"?

If you're going to say it was pre-rigged, then how come none of the fires disturbed any of the "pre-set explosives"?

Do any of your "sciences" explain that?

Also, please, since you know a lot more about this, since you seem to be the structural engineer, with the degree and all, and I'm only speculating, then enlighten us.

Describe in detail the internal physical structural arrangement, especially the number and positions of the vertical support columns, and how many were damaged by WTC 1 debris, subsequently to strain to support the load, and/or weakened from long exposure to heat. Metal expands unevenly, in a fire situation, and that's more stress.

How can you say, with certitude, that the stress didn't build, and build, and build, with many many weak areas, until a final one let go, and then it was just an inevitable cascade?


I'd like to see all of your work, not just a "gut feeling".

This constant reference to 'free fall' is amusing. Not sure how you think, in your "gut", it's supposed to look like. A steel bolt, or any type of connecting point where girders, trusses, etc attach is ALWAYS the weakest point in a structure, right? If that connector is subjected to a shearing, or twisting force contrary to what it was designed for, and expected to bear, how long would it take to fail? Under the tremendous weight? Three seconds? Two? Less?

I get the feeling that too many movies --- entertaining movies, made for entertainment --- have skewed people's impressions of reality.

Films use the device of suspense...and writers use it to enhance the sense of anticipation, for dramatic effect. Thus, we see, very often, dramatic cases where the hero is in danger, the building or bridge or whatever is about to collapse, it groans and shakes and sways, pieces fall off, all around him, all to build tension in the audience. Then when it does fall, it falls s-l-o-w-l-y, dramatically.

Real life doesn't work like that. It's fun in the theater, or at home on TV.

I have no trouble comprehending how a severely damaged and weakened building can suddenly reach a point of 'global' failure, where that one or two last bits give way, and it all comes crashing down. It's about mass, and weight, and momentum.

Real world stuff.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Here, I did a bit of my own research.

During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.

en.wikipedia.org...

Notice I underlined the floors...especially 6-10 and 13-14.

Now, I found this gem of a site (I think SPreston uses one of the graphics from it):heiwaco.tripod.com...

(Amazing how he wishes to seem professional and all, but goes off on editorial comments, innuendo, and includes ad homs against respected engineers. Sound familiar)?

At some point in his gobbledygook he says THIS:

...and the charges had to be hidden in the lower floors, e.g. floors 6 and 13.

Now, that seems a little hard for me to reconcile.

Here is a good diagram to look at, showing the cantilever design of the first seven floors. Look at all that open atrium space! With NO supports!


Here's a top-view diagram showing the progression of collapse:


Care to refute what's in the puplic record? With your expertise in such things.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Actually, your first diagram is of only floors 5 through 7 and many supports are not shown so the "transfer trusses and girders" can be more clearly seen. Take a look at NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1 page 29-30. Or take a look at your own diagram that says "Note: Some structural members omitted for clarity."

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1 shows the supports for each floor individually from floors 1 through 7 starting on page 16.

Here's the floor plan for the middle floor number six where you can see all the supports left out of your diagram:





Edited to add: For clarity's sake, I marked up the floor 6 plan to show what is shown and what is not. The blue dots are the columns shown in Weedwhacker's diagram. The red dots are the columns that were "omitted for clarity."







[edit on 5-3-2010 by NIcon]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Care to refute what's in the puplic record? With your expertise in such things.

Do not forget the public record of Chief Hayden stating that they were worried about the fire jumping to other buildings.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

However, I believe at this point the chances that the dust samples tested are anything but nano-thermite is almost zero.

The dust studied has sub-micron-diameter particles largely of elemental aluminum, and smaller crystalline grains of primarily Fe2O3. On ignition, the chips produce temperatures above the melting point of iron, leaving tiny iron droplets matching the residues of commercial thermite pyrotechnics.

In regards to the oxygen-free environment:

"We ran the test the way we did because the literature described a previous test of nanothermite that was run in an ordinary atmosphere. If we had run it in an inert atmosphere, we would not have been able to compare apples to apples in terms of the energy released.

That is your belief. Recovering ten tons of unburned, highly engineered nanothermite that was painted on in a thin layer would suggest that it didn't do much. When confronted with the problem of a thin layer only warming things slightly, Jones claimed that it was fuse material. Ten tons of unburned fuse material says to me that Jones was answering on the fly as there is even less thought going into that statement than into the paper.
The sub-micron particles of aluminum are likely an aluminosilicate such as kaolinite, a common filler in paint. Note the EDAX and microscopic images. Iron oxide is the common pigment in red primer paint.
In terms of the energy released, their published data argues against thermite, as the highly engineered chips are erratic in energy output by a factor of about 4 and, in two samples, produce more energy per unit mass than thermite. This can only be combustion of the paint binder.
The excuse they provide for running the DSC in air is just that. Interestingly, the comparison of the DSC traces shows that the chips are nothing like the nanothermitic material they compare it to. Shape, duration, and onset temperature are all different. According to this, they are not at all alike.
Jones found paint chips in the dust.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Now, I found this gem of a site (I think SPreston uses one of the graphics from it)
heiwaco.tripod.com...

Yes it is an interesting site and no I do not use any graphics produced by Anders Björkman, M.Sc., Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, with more than 35 years experience of tanker and ferry design, construction, steel structural design and structural damage analysis, and operations worldwide.

How come you learned nothing from him? Obviously NIST has been paying attention, since they agree that 8 floors were removed somehow for the 2.25 seconds period of freefall.

Can you explain how a building falling vertically into the path of most resistance, can remove the 8 floors without demolition explosives weedwhacker?

Anders Björkman

WTC 7 is a very simple steel structure and not prone to any classic progressive collapse of any kind, whatever it means. There are 24 inner columns supported by external wall columns as per simplified figure right. The columns are primary load carrying parts. The columns are connected by horizontal beams at every floor. The beams are secondary parts carrying local loads to the primary parts - the vertical columns. The floor panels are then hanging on the beams. There are 47 floors. Total height of structure is 147 meters.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

This effect, that you can remove a part of a structure, e.g. a piece of column, without, e.g. collapse following is called redundancy; the structure functions without that part; the part was superfluous and not really needed. The real reason for redundancy is safety; one part may get damaged for any reason and evidently the whole structure shall not collapse, or you have to modify the structure for any reason; shift the location of a column, etc.

heiwaco.tripod.com...

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

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

(Amazing how he wishes to seem professional and all, but goes off on editorial comments, innuendo, and includes ad homs against respected engineers. Sound familiar)?

What respected engineers? The NIST scientists and engineers? They are proven liars and why should anybody respect them? Covering-up a capital crime for political favors and monetary gain is deserving of respect?

This is confirmed by correspondence 14-15 January 2009 between Mr. Geoffrey Walter Ritchey and NIST:

I respectfully request copies of the following NIST records:
Instructions for running the NIST simulation of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on my own hardware including required software, required hardware, and any parameters to the program. ...

Geoffrey Walter Ritchey

The response from UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology was simple:

NIST has no documents that are responsive to your request.

So NIST has no evidence for the following:

The NIST statement on page 57 -

"Computer simulations of … the structural collapse can be used to predict a complex degradation and collapse of a building",

has no foundation in the case of WTC 7. NIST has not done a correct job! The WTC 7 structure does not collapse as shown in figures 3.10-14 due to removing a part of Column no. 79 as a local failure. Quite easy for anybody with basic knowledge of structural analysis to verify!

heiwaco.tripod.com...

ONE LIAR AMONG MANY OTHERS AT NIST

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/02883bf2c1b0.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 3/5/10 by SPreston]