PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

That is even better. I thought you were speaking more generally. Building 7 was only hit on one end in a few places, right? So explain how that causes symmetrical global collapse better than what you call random explosions? You still seem to be the one who is confused because there is no logic to that at all. I am eager to see some though.

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?

Ah...the old fall back. You cannot explain your position so you demand that I explain one; any one you choose. Sorry but it does not work that way. You are the one making claims here. I would really like to hear an explanation as to how the debris damage on one end on a few floors leads to global symmetrical collapse but many many explosions would not. Please oh please explain that to me.

Why do the debunkers insist on having to see, or hear, 'explosives' when?...

1. It has been shown that not all 'explosives' make sound.

2. Explosions WERE heard by first responders.

3. It has been shown that not all explosives actually traditionally 'explode' like they expect.

4. Visual observation of the collapses shows an obvious alternative source of energy must have been used to get the results observed. So far there is no explanation, NIST didn't bother and the debunkers are clueless as to why the collapses were symmetrical (no resistance) and global (complete). There is NO official explanation of the collapses, only their hypothesis as to it's initiation, so the NIST report fails right there.

If nothing else this shows the real desperation these folks have to dismiss anything that might contradict the OS.

Originally posted by SPreston

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.

Thank you SPreston for that.
Actually, even though we´re not discussing Towers 1 and 2 here, your video brings to light an important point that I´ve been saying.
"There are no explosions in the few seconds before the start of collapse".
And also:
"There are no explosions during the collapse".
To me, this is proof that no demolition with explosives took place in the collapse of the towers.
We can clearly hear the "roar" of the progresive collapse but no explosions, in the videos that have sound in them.

You claim a "wave" of explosions about 7 floors ahead of the collapse.
Shouldn´t we be able to HEAR those explosions??

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?

I never said it PROVED explosives did I?

I just said there are witnesses who claim they heard explosives to counter your argument that there were none.

You just keep moving the goal posts...

Why is it you believe firefighter quotes that WTC7 was going to collapse, but ignore firefighters who describe multiple explosives?
If they can recognize a building about to collapse, you think they wouldn't recognize normal office equipment exploding? They are smart about one aspect of building fires, but completely ignorant on another?

Your logic is seriously flawed. Seems like you cherry pick what you want to hear...

Personally I don't need to hear, or see, or have ANY evidence of explosives to observe the collapses and see the plane impacts and fire could not have created enough energy to globally symmetrically collapse the towers into the path of most resistance. So your argument is pointless and irrelevant on so many levels.

[edit on 3/7/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I have explained my position. Impacts and fires caused #7 to colllapse. I calculated the thermal expansion of the cantilever beams at 5", more than enough to shear 3/4" bolts. The OP claims not only proof, but "PROOF" of explosives. So far, no one has proof or even a reasonable, testable theory, you included. All anyone has done is say they don't believe it could have happened the way it did without CD.
What is your position? Invisible, noiseless, untraceable CD explosives or Judy Woods death rays from space? There is no physical evidence so that must be proof of both. Perhaps you like hologram planes and paint on "nano-thermite." Jones' paper is rife with error.
Your continued avoidance of actually taking a position only underscores your lack of technical skill and imagination.

reply to post by ANOK


The firefighters described loud noises that sounded like explosions. They did not describe seeing explosions. If all the columns had to be simultaneously cut, how would that be done? Would there be a rapid series of cutter charges or a deep boom every few minutes? Would debris be flying? Would flashes be seen?
Bring your physics skills to bear and describe the scenario you envision.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

I have explained my position. Impacts and fires caused #7 to colllapse. I calculated the thermal expansion of the cantilever beams at 5", more than enough to shear 3/4" bolts. The OP claims not only proof, but "PROOF" of explosives. So far, no one has proof or even a reasonable, testable theory, you included. All anyone has done is say they don't believe it could have happened the way it did without CD.
What is your position? Invisible, noiseless, untraceable CD explosives or Judy Woods death rays from space? There is no physical evidence so that must be proof of both. Perhaps you like hologram planes and paint on "nano-thermite." Jones' paper is rife with error.
Your continued avoidance of actually taking a position only underscores your lack of technical skill and imagination.

Would you mind sharing your calculations with us? With all due respect, it is a little hard to take you seriously about that claim without seeing your work.

reply to post by evil incarnate


I will look for the calculations; they are in one of my posts. As I remember, the cantilever beams were about 50' long and I allowed a 400-500 degree temperature rise and used a coefficient of expansion for structural steel. If the temperature was less or the beams were heated over only part of their length, the expansion would be less.

reply to post by pteridine


Oh dear, you again fail in your claims...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

It amazes me how many times a person can put their foot in their mouths and still continue with their claims unfazed. You must have some serious motivation to keep coming back here?

Oh and if you choose to ignore those vids then I'll just choose to ignore you, and then when everyone has you on ignore your trolling won't be as much fun on your own will it?

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
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]

Can anyone please patiently address the above. Its an honest and straightforward post.

reply to post by ANOK


Great. Of course #7 fell instantly at the time of the noise of unknown origin.
Now you can explain how one explosion cut all the support columns and immediately brought down #7.

Please describe size and position of the demolition charge.

Originally posted by pteridine
Please describe size and position of the demolition charge.

Didn't NIST do exactly this for a hypothetical situation and show where a bomb that causes a 130dB explosion (same as a jackhammer) could cut through a critical support column and theoretically initiate a collapse? And then went on to say that since they found no one who heard any explosions as loud as a jackhammer in WTC7, then there must not have been any.

Btw demanding information from us that we do not possess does not prove you right. Case in point. Yourself. I ask you constantly for proof of your own opinions and you always divert away and act like it doesn't matter that you don't have the evidence you demand of others. You're a hypocrite, a high schooler troll that's getting his jollies off perpetually arguing with strangers to make himself feel good online. The instant you are finally serious about this, you will be prepared to back up YOUR OWN opinion. Because all I and most others here are saying, is that we STILL DON'T KNOW what was causing all of these explosions, etc., and the only people claiming otherwise are either on government contracts and have their jobs at stake, suffer too much cognitive dissonance from the very idea, or are just immature little kids who wouldn't know the difference anyway and just like aggravating people out of their own immaturity. Or any combination of those three. And just because you think you can come up with a cute little rant in response does not mean I am not speaking the truth here.

Prove me wrong by posting positive evidence that proves your opinions are correct. That does not consist of asking others for evidence of contrary claims of your own choosing and then saying, well since no one can prove this thing I just made up, I must obviously be correct believing this arbitrary alternative. That is completely asinine. Asinine means stupid. Not logical. Ignorant. Which is also why you are a hypocrite for constantly demanding from others what you can't provide yourself. I could very easily turn your own argument on you and say because you can't prove the official story, the conspiracy theories must all be true. Though obviously that would be just as stupid and wrong as your own posts. When you grow up and figure out what all these words mean, and the significance of what I'm saying, I and many others will take you more seriously. As it stands you really give your age and experience away man. I called you on it and you know I did.

reply to post by bsbray11


Thanks for your comments. OK, lets assume that the key column was cut with one bomb and the building collapsed by one column being cut. That means the collapse was effected by one column failing and the demolition was not controlled at all.
All the arguments about "Controlled demolition" go down the drain. All those extrapolations from disaster movies of how things should have been are completely wrong. "Collapsed too fast," "had to have all supports cut," "didn't fall to one side," etc., all mean nothing if one column does the trick.

So we conclude that there was no CD, but the possibility of uncontrolled demolition by disrupting a key structural component.

Of course, if kicking one column drops the bulding, what would the difference be between such an uncontrolled demolition and a failure due to other means? There wouldn't be any difference between the collapse by one cause and the other, would there? Now, all that is needed is evidence of demolition and no, youtube audio is not evidence of demolition.

Originally posted by rush969

Thank you SPreston for that.

You claim a "wave" of explosions about 7 floors ahead of the collapse.
Shouldn´t we be able to HEAR those explosions??

As ANOK pointed out, some explosives make little or no sound. Also, the explosions seem to occur inside the massive core since the external wall sections are hurled in all directions up to 600 feet away from each tower. Maybe the sounds are insulated from the outside.

Lots and lots of witnesses did hear and see explosions and reported them as such.

We have no certainty what type of explosives were used in the towers, nor how advanced the demolition explosives developed by the US Military and available to the 9-11 perps actually were. Nor do we know what other technology was available to dampen or hide the explosion sounds.

As I pointed out, the wave of explosions ahead of the collapse wave are accelerating down the tower faster than the collapse wave; getting further and further ahead. We have Turner Construction working inside the towers in the cores, and likely inside WTC7 also, almost a full year ahead of 9-11.

Plenty of time to prepare both towers and WTC7 for demolition.

Certainly enough evidence to demand a real investigation into 9-11.

Why should the 9-11 perps get away with murder?

Why are you and your comrades helping them get away with murder?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d97a33c0a367.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

I have explained my position. Impacts and fires caused #7 to colllapse. I calculated the thermal expansion of the cantilever beams at 5", more than enough to shear 3/4" bolts. The OP claims not only proof, but "PROOF" of explosives. So far, no one has proof or even a reasonable, testable theory, you included. All anyone has done is say they don't believe it could have happened the way it did without CD.
What is your position? Invisible, noiseless, untraceable CD explosives or Judy Woods death rays from space? There is no physical evidence so that must be proof of both. Perhaps you like hologram planes and paint on "nano-thermite." Jones' paper is rife with error.
Your continued avoidance of actually taking a position only underscores your lack of technical skill and imagination.

Invisible? Who said that no one saw explosions?
Noiseless? We have gone over this to death. More than enough real people with real names have been listed discussing hearing explosions. Why do you keep reverting to a default position like this after being shown how fallacious it is over and over?

Calculations? I am just supposed to take your word for that am I? Why would you even say that without providing them for us? You can say you did all the calculations you like but until you can show them, it is just you saying stuff. Not sure about you but some anonymous poster on a conspiracy forum is not exactly a trusted authority on anything. I would expect you to have that same level of skepticism over claims made by strangers online.

reply to post by SPreston

We have Turner Construction working inside the towers in the cores...

Oh, noes!

Well, I guess we now know the next target, thanks to Preston!!!

www.turnerconstruction.com...

The renovation will feature the addition of two atriums...

Double "Oh noes!!"

WTC 7 had a HUGE atrium...and this Washington, DC building will have TWO!!!

Twice as likely to be the next 'false flag'!!! For gosh sakes, anyone who is working there, GET OUT!! Before it's too late!

Originally posted by pteridine
Thanks for your comments. OK, lets assume that the key column was cut with one bomb and the building collapsed by one column being cut. That means the collapse was effected by one column failing and the demolition was not controlled at all.
All the arguments about "Controlled demolition" go down the drain.

Too bad you are now extrapolating data that is not there and going off on another troll rant typical of you. NIST said that would theoretically be all that would be required to bring the building down. Their models also showed a building that was horribly deformed from what we actually witnessed. So they apparently were not being keen on making visual matches to corroborate their theory so much as they were just trying to come up with some excuses as to how it could hypothetically have fallen in various situations. They never concluded at any point what definitely caused the building to come down based on forensic evidence, simply because none was to be had from the crime scene, and they admitted as much themselves.

Though one would think the message that a single bomb could theoretically bring it down, according to NIST, would send you some kind of message that it wouldn't HAVE to require millions of tons of C4 to do it. I guess not?



I posted this on another thread but it fits more with the OP here.

Before:



After:




Don't argue with me about it, just look at the freaking pictures and use that thing idling its time inside your skull.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by SPreston

As ANOK pointed out, some explosives make little or no sound.

However, there´s a great amount of work that has to be carried out in order to rig the building with whatever tipe explosives you want to use.
And to get a result such as 9/11 I think it´s obvious that this is an impossibility.
Actually I haven´t seen anyone argue with hard data as to how many people, how many man-hours, what quantity of explosives, what kind, and how they could have been placed throughout the whole building.
I believe that when somebody calculates this things, it will be shown that it would be absolutely imposible to carry out such an endevour without drawing lots of atention.

Also, the explosions seem to occur inside the massive core.

Now. This is an amazing assumption you´re making. And although it is not pertinent to WTC7 which we are discussing here, I´d like to say my opinion of this.
How can you state this??
""The explosions seem to occur inside the massive core."" WOW!!
Let´s think about this for a second shall we??
If there had been explosions inside the massive core, the massive core would have been destroyed by those right??
Well, if the massive core had been destroyed by those explosions, then we wouldn´t see the massive core standing AFTER most of the collapse, and collapsing the last. Isn´t this correct??
In the videos of 1 and 2 in both, we see big portions of the core surviving the initial collapse, so this FACT alone is PROOF that what you are stating above is a FALSE ASSUMPTION.

Originally posted by rush969
However, there´s a great amount of work that has to be carried out in order to rig the building with whatever tipe explosives you want to use.

Two cases for you:

1) Unexploded bombs were removed from the Murrah Federal Building after the OKC bombing, at least one of them attached to a gas pipeline inside the building, as reported in memos by FEMA, the DoD, Army, civilian affidavits, etc. Look it up. You can find images of the actual federal documentation online.

2) Crew welds 200 plates to Building for 3 months "almost unknown"


People are naive. People don't pay attention to their surroundings. People don't get up in the business of a maintenance worker doing his job. People don't question their bosses when they are told so-and-so has security clearance and is going to do this work now. And lastly, corruption does exist, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and where there's a will, there's always a way.

Originally posted by SPreston
We have no certainty what type of explosives were used in the towers, nor how advanced the demolition explosives developed by the US Military and available to the 9-11 perps actually were. Nor do we know what other technology was available to dampen or hide the explosion sounds.

And yet...You are able to STATE that explosives were used and there was a demolition of the building. Amazing really!!

Why can you go and freely make such assumptions without a shread of evidence?? There isn´t a piece of detonation cord found anywhere. No audible evidence of the necesary explosions during the collapse or imediately before it.
And yet, you go and say "to me it looks like one of those controled demolitions" so it has to be a controled demolition. Just because I say so.
And since I can´t find the sound of the explosions, then I will assume the secret agents that carried out this demolition used some tipe of new damping secret technology so that this sounds could not be heard or recorded. Isn´t that a bit of a stretch??



[edit on 8-3-2010 by rush969]