PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by ANOK

They are well know 'explosives' that do not create an actual 'explosion' but either cut with heat or expand rapidly.

Priceless.

So please tell you fellow travelers in the "truth movement" who swear up and down that everyone heard all these explosions (even before the plane hit) what they were hearing.

Originally posted by ANOK

Nope probably something like RDX...

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

science.howstuffworks.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Does not create a visible 'explosion' that you seem to need to see before you can grasp the reality of what happened.

Are you trying to be "deceptive" ANOK??
You state there´s no "VISIBLE" explosion...right??
How about sound.
Does RDX make a sound?? How loud would that be??

Please just answer that.

Originally posted by GenRadek
This had to occur AFTER LS was to have spoken with him. so no, Nigro does not support your claims.

So fun and easy to prove you wrong with facts.

Chief Nigro stated he evacuated the firemen BEFORE talking to the owner.

sites.google.com...
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pteridine

 

Thermite, thermate, nano-thermite and RDX are not secrets. They are well know 'explosives' that do not create an actual 'explosion' but either cut with heat or expand rapidly.

At room temperature, it is very stable. It burns rather than explodes and detonates only with a detonator, being unaffected even by small arms fire. It is less sensitive than pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN). However, it is very sensitive when crystallized, below −4 °C. Under normal conditions, RDX has a figure of insensitivity of exactly 80 (as this is the reference point).

en.wikipedia.org...

Why do you have to play ignorant all the time to make your arguments?
You just want to believe, or convince others to believe that we are making this stuff up don't you?...

Copying material from the web without understanding it is a common trait of the truther movement.
Concerning RDX: "At room temperature, it is very stable. It burns rather than explodes and detonates only with a detonator, being unaffected even by small arms fire." This is a statement about its safety. Do get it to do demolition, you have to attach a detonator which is when it goes bang. Cutter charges are linear shaped charges. They are not quiet.

You guys are back to thermite.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by taccj9903

 

Debris damage and small fires on one side of the building caused the whole building to collapse uniformly on its own footprint?

Small fires?

www.911myths.com...

Watch these video shots of WTC 7 - only ones know to exiist

Notice heavy volume of smoke pushing out from South face of building on
multiple floors (Video 1 -8)

Can also see some of the damge to the building

Photograher goes to North side of building to document fires breaking
out there (Video 9-11)

Fires on multiple floors in several sections of building


As for collapsing in own footprint

Debris from WTC 7 crossed Barclay St - a 4 lane highway to smash
30 West Broadway (Fiterman Hall)



Debris pile - 30 West Broadway on left



Damage to 30 West Broadway

Heavy thick smoke is often an indication of inefficient combustion so not a very hot fire. However, since I wasn't there and I'm not a fireman I won't try to speculate more. I did see the videos of WTC 7 collapsing and I failed to see a building engulfed in flames. What you fail to comprehend is the skeletal structure of a steel framed building. I used to be an iron worker so I am very familiar.

Here is a video of a structural steel building being completely engulfed with flames and yet amazingly it did not collapse www.youtube.com...

Compared to WTC 7, I'm sure you've seen the video.

And for my comment about falling into its own footprint. Whenever you watch videos of controlled demolitions you see how the buildings collapse on their own footprints just like WTC 7. Of course debris with WTC 7 was scattered further because the building wasn't prepped like other demolished buildings. They gut those things before they demolish them. However, they could not completely gut WTC 7 that would have been too obvious although I'm sure OS believers would have found an excuse for that as well.

Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by SPreston

Explosive Wave 7 Floors Ahead of Collapse Wave and Accelerating

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b817965410cc.jpg[/atsimg]

This one is OFF subject matter but I just couldn´t resist.

Kind of hard to see the "accelerating wave" in a photograph.
Wouldn´t you agree???

Sorry, I assumed everybody had seen the videos of the South Tower collapse. That frame with the wave of explosions about 7 floors ahead of the collapse wave, was taken from one of the videos. About 1:35 and elsewhere in the video you can see the explosions accelerating down the tower further and further ahead of the collapse wave.



To answer another question, ordinary demolition explosives probably sheared all the columns on the 8 floors in question, allowing the freefall for 2.25 seconds. Perhaps the CIA had Turner Construction plant them weeks ahead of 9-11.

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

What is the official explanation for the neat collapse of T7? Why didnt it topple over to the side facing T1/T2 if that side was damaged?
Was the whole area evacuated if they beleived it might collapse?
what would they have done had it not collapsed? how long can you evacute such an area just in case, while a controlled demo is setup? not weeks surely? too much risk.
Exactly how long does it take to setup a controlled demo?
Surely a controlled demo would have been deemed nessesary, regardless of risk to explosives experts, had they beleived it was damaged enough to be structually dangerous.
If so, how would T7 have been brought down, powerful charges from the outside?

[edit on 6-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

[edit on 6-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by pteridine


Nano-thermite. Which you still have not addressed properly.

Originally posted by rush969
Are you trying to be "deceptive" ANOK??
You state there´s no "VISIBLE" explosion...right??
How about sound.
Does RDX make a sound?? How loud would that be??

Please just answer that.

C'mon are you serious? First off I was just making suggestions that contradict your need to see 'explosions', now you want to argue sound?
Does super duper thermate make sound?

Regardless, you are just ignoring witness accounts of explosions being heard, or waving away the statements from the same fire fighters you believe when what they say fits your argument, so your point is mute.

Please don't reply if you just want to argue stupid out of context points, it's waste of time. Visual, nor audible, evidence of explosives is necessary when the visual evidence of the collapses themselves show that a force, other than the planes impact and resulting fires, must have been acting on all three building to have caused the complete symmetrical global collapses we can observe, otherwise you have to explain how they defied physics and fell through the path of most resistance and were not effected by that resistance (symmetrical collapse = no resistance).

So do want to retract your little accusation there smart arse? I'm not the one being deceptive. Who would I be deceiving exactly, I'm not forcing you to believe anything I say? I implore you to go and check the stuff out for yourself, hopefully from a book or at least NON 9-11 sources.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...

Edit: Oh and here you are courtesy of ATS member Has2b in another thread, these are first responders talking about 9-11, enjoy....

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
-"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

[edit on 3/7/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by GenRadek
This had to occur AFTER LS was to have spoken with him. so no, Nigro does not support your claims.

So fun and easy to prove you wrong with facts.

Chief Nigro stated he evacuated the firemen BEFORE talking to the owner.

sites.google.com...
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.


[edit on 7-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by ANOK


"Sounded like explosions" does not prove explosions. What would the elevators/elevator counterweights have sounded like when they hit the basement?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ANOK

 

"Sounded like explosions" does not prove explosions. What would the elevators/elevator counterweights have sounded like when they hit the basement?

They sure go a long way to destroy your claim that no explosions can be heard though and that would be the point. Because you cannot hear them on video not equipped to pick up the sounds does not mean that explosions were not heard. They may have been something other than explosions but either way, you and many other OS supporters have to stop claiming that no one heard any explosions and no witnesses claimed to. You just can not hear them on Youtube so you keep insisting no one could. Hopefully that is settled for you now.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


You misunderstand. The point is that what was heard are noises of unknown origin. They may be explosions and they may not be. What wasn't heard were the sharp explosions of cutter charges in a timed sequence that would be necessary in a CD where all the columns were cut.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Because you cannot hear them on video not equipped to pick up the sounds does not mean that explosions were not heard.

Huh

Do you mean like the hand-held personal video cameras, such as were used to record THESE cds???








There are many, many more examples.

You have a choice:

Provide the "proof" of the pre-rigged building, prior to the morning of 11 September, 2001 or show evidence of a team going in after Towers 1 & 2 collapsed, although no one saw them.

Some will immediately cry (CIA-controlled building!). Fine. The damage and ensuing fires did NOT disturb the pre-set explosive charges???

How?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

You misunderstand. The point is that what was heard are noises of unknown origin. They may be explosions and they may not be. What wasn't heard were the sharp explosions of cutter charges in a timed sequence that would be necessary in a CD where all the columns were cut.

You misunderstand. You and your kind insist that there are no witness reports of explosions. You all keep trying to claim that it could not have been a CD because the charges would have been heard and they were NOT. Get that, you claim that they would have had to have silent explosives. Why would you say that no one heard any explosions associated with CD? You just admitted that in all honesty, people did hear plenty of noises that could have been CD and you just do not know they were not.

You do know that there was very little silence going on there now though and can stop harping on silent CDs and no witnesses reporting explosions.

Please do not bother to respond with more nonsense. You are tiring and so close to being on ignore. Just admit it was wrong to insist that it could not have been CD because no one was hearing the explosions or do not respond at all, ok.

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Huh

Do you mean like the hand-held personal video cameras, such as were used to record THESE cds???

LOL. Please show me where I said what TYPE of camera I was referring to. It is ok that you have no idea how sound is recorded with cameras and what might have been so vastly different. I understand you are wholly ignorant of all that. I also know you are a proven liar so help me out here. Show me where I specified the TYPE of camera not being able to pick up the sound.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Because you cannot hear them on video not equipped to pick up the sounds does not mean that explosions were not heard.

Huh

Do you mean like the hand-held personal video cameras, such as were used to record THESE cds???

There are many, many more examples.

I also have to ask what your point is. If you are trying to prove that the cameras should have picked up the sounds then you are saying that list of firefighters and first responders reporting those sounds is nothing but lies right? Please clear that logic up for me.

You have a choice:

Provide the "proof" of the pre-rigged building, prior to the morning of 11 September, 2001 or show evidence of a team going in after Towers 1 & 2 collapsed, although no one saw them.

I am discussing the recording of loud noises with Pteridine. If you just want to derail the conversation, please do it elsewhere.

Some will immediately cry (CIA-controlled building!). Fine. The damage and ensuing fires did NOT disturb the pre-set explosive charges???

How?

I am not even going to attempt to address this. If you wanted to have a serious conversation about any of this, you would have attempted to explain why you said the penthouse pulled the building down and then called me a liar for reminding you that you did indeed say it. Need to see your words again?

reply to post by K J Gunderson

You are as predictably confused as ever. There is no evidence for any controlled demolitions that would simultaneously shear all columns. Random explosions are not controllable and collapse is not timable.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

You are as predictably confused as ever. There is no evidence for any controlled demolitions that would simultaneously shear all columns. Random explosions are not controllable and collapse is not timable.

I am confused? So an off center plane impact and some random fires are more likely to cause symmetrical global collapse than explosions you seem to think were random? Explain that to me, please.

Then explain to me who said anything about random.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Yes, you are confused. This thread is about WTC7 and there was only debris impacts on #7, not aircraft.
If you have a theory about explosions spaced minutes apart and how they would effect a controlled demolition, please post it. Woud you like to claim plain old uncontrolled demolition?