PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

You only watched the first vid didn't you?

And again you move the goal posts, first you wanted visual evidence, I give you that, then you wanted audio evidence and I give you that, then you wanted witnesses and I give you that, now you want to know where they were planted and the size of them?

Oh and err, you want me to explain how 'one' explosive bought the towers down? Yet you're quite happy to believe sporadic fires and damage to one side did? Now you've got yourself caught in your own little contradiction mate. So sad.

You are either not too bright or playing stupid on purpose, where did I ever claim it was one bomb that bought WTC7 down, in fact where did I ever claim there were bombs? All I have done is contradict your claim that there were no visual or audio evidence of 'explosions'. But your little brain can't seem to focus attention for more than one post on the point actually being discussed without adding your own assumptions as to what's being said. Do you think you know what everybody thinks before they open their mouths?

Sorry I'm tired of playing your game, see ya...

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

I thought you knew that before all this happend the two skyscrapers had maintenance men coming in at night an playing around in the empty offices ! the security guards were in on it I here! look it up? an dont ask have I got evdence I live thousends of miles away!

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

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?

Did anyone see demolitions that caused the collapse? Are any of the loud noises, which may be explosions or collapsing parts, causal? The position is not fallacious; the witnesses reported what they heard and described it as best they could. Loud noise does not mean explosion and explosion does not mean demolition.
Even you can do the calculations. Thermal coefficient of expansion of structural steel x length of beam x temperature rise in degrees should do it.

Originally posted by pteridine
Did anyone see demolitions that caused the collapse? Are any of the loud noises, which may be explosions or collapsing parts, causal? The position is not fallacious; the witnesses reported what they heard and described it as best they could. Loud noise does not mean explosion and explosion does not mean demolition.
Even you can do the calculations. Thermal coefficient of expansion of structural steel x length of beam x temperature rise in degrees should do it.

Why is it that whenever I ask you a question about a claim you have made, you respond with questions to me about just anything you feel like asking about?

Tell you what, Pterry. Give us those calculations and I will be happy to pretend I owe you some answers. Until then, I am simply asking you to back up a claim you made, as are others.

This is a tired old trick, Pterry. I was hoping you were somewhat better than this but I should have known better. You have no calculations and cannot back up the crap you were spewing so you are trying to somehow turn this around on me. Not even a nice try.

Get those calculations handy and then you will be in a position to question me about crap you just feel like asking me about. At least the rest of us quoted your claim and asked you about your claim. You are just asking me stuff because you feel like it.

Cute, in a sad, stupid, crippled puppy kind of way.

reply to post by ANOK


There is no evidence for demolition. There are people who describe loud noises as explosions. Loud noises may or may not be explosions and explosions may or may not be demolitions.
There are people who describe the towers collapse as looking like a demolition but there is no physical evidence for a demolition nor rationale for a demolition. No one knows what the collapse would have looked like had the building failed as described without CD. With CD, there would have been months of preparation, lots of explosions, and likely no inward bowing of the top floors before collapse. That mechanism defies explanation if CD was the cause.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ANOK

 

There is no evidence for demolition.

Here is another question about a claim you are making. How do you know there is no evidence for demolition when they did not even look for any?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Whether they looked or they didn't look, there is no evidence for CD.
When evidence is found, as a result of searching or just stumbling across, then there will be evidence for CD.
I should accuse you of playing dumb but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you aren't playing.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I guess you can't do the calculations, after all. Are you in a non-technical field like David Ray Griffin?
I will look for the calculation sheet over the next few days or simply redo it. You can think of a testable hypothesis to propose.

reply to post by bsbray11

It wasn't a rant, it was a logical follow on to your comment. You didn't like it because you would have to make a choice and take a position. This would interfere with your plans to remain aloof and question everything without proposing any alternate scenarios.
Check the scale on the NIST model. Did they expand the horizontal scale to better show what was happening in the illustration?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

I guess you can't do the calculations, after all. Are you in a non-technical field like David Ray Griffin?

So instead of providing these calculations that you claimed to do, you resort to attacking whether or not I may be able to do them?

When did I ever claim to have done them? Can you show me that? I have no clue what Mr. Griffin does. Not even sure who he is other than a name people like you toss out on these threads a lot. Whatever that insult was supposed to be fell flat in front of me so stop.

Why are you attacking me because I asked you about a claim you made? Does that really make sense to you?

You said you did them, I have asked to see them. You respond with a series of attacks and questions. Explain that sterling logic to me!

I will look for the calculation sheet over the next few days or simply redo it.

Yeah, you already said that yesterday. You do not understand how written text works online do you?

You can think of a testable hypothesis to propose.

Why? Did I claim to have one? Sad how every time one of you is asked to back up a claim you have made, you resort to insisting others show something to you. I did not offer anything, you did.

Please can anybody tell me what happend to all the body's in both places were the little holes transpired! an stop ignoring me its rude

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Whether they looked or they didn't look, there is no evidence for CD.

Says who? How many times do you need me to ask you when they were looked for?

When evidence is found, as a result of searching or just stumbling across, then there will be evidence for CD.

How would that happen if no one is looking?

I should accuse you of playing dumb but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you aren't playing.

Another personal attack. Going for some kind of record?

You can insist there is no evidence over and over again but you cannot make it true by sheer will. Can you tell me when explosives were looked for and what team was looking for them? If not, then your argument is just your IDEA.

An idea is whats starts everything..

Originally posted by ANOK
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,

""A force, other than the planes impact and fires""

YES......IT´S CALLED..... GRAVITY

Check the videos were there´s sound available. SPreston provided an excelent collection of them in this post.
No explosions in the imediate seconds previous to collapse. Nor, during
collapse.

NOW, THAT´S DEFINITIVE PROOF, NO EXPLOSIVES WERE INVOLVED IN THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 1, 2 OR 7.



[edit on 8-3-2010 by rush969]

Originally posted by rush969

""A force, other than the planes impact and fires""

YES......IT´S CALLED.....

GRAVITY

Check the videos were there´s sound available. SPreston provided an excelent collection of them in this post.
No explosions in the imediate seconds previous to collapse.

NOW, THAT´S DEFINITIVE PROOF, NO EXPLOSIVES WERE INVOLVED IN THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 1, 2 OR 7.

Would it be so terrible if I asked you why you would expect any videos to present proof of the sounds of explosions?

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

I thought you knew that before all this happend the two skyscrapers had maintenance men coming in at night an playing around in the empty offices ! the security guards were in on it I here! look it up? an dont ask have I got evdence I live thousends of miles away!

post by SPreston

Actually Turner Construction was contracted to do work in the Tower cores on the elevators for the year prior to 9-11, and Sakher 'Rocky' Hammad had a special security 'pass' for the North Tower basement levels to do sprinkler work, even though the Port Authority did their own sprinkler work.

How many other special security 'passes' did somebody give out to potential demolition planters? Was Bush cousin Wirt Walker or criminal Bush brother Marvin Bush giving out these special security 'passes'?

Therefore we have ample evidence for the opportunities for somebody to plant the demolition explosives of whatever nature in the Towers and WTC7 prior to 9-11. We have the evidence of explosives hurling multi-ton steel for 600 feet in all directions, the evidence of explosives pulverizing the concrete and contents of the Towers into powder even at the highest floors, the evidence of explosives both seen and heard by highly trained and experienced firemen, the evidence of explosives from the molten iron underground, the evidence of explosives of the high heat signatures of underground molten iron from high altitude USGS AVIRIS infrared imaging, and the evidence of explosives from the visualization and comments of early news reports and experienced newscasters.

AVIRIS

We have ample evidence of the DEMOLITION of the WTC.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c697a9cefa2.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is another question about a claim you are making. How do you know there is no evidence for demolition when they did not even look for any?

I was about to ask same type question,

anyway if there were any possibility explosives/substances planted, wouldn't the rescue/fire personel be looking for these types of things before or while searching the buildings.
Or at the very least keeping an eye out for such devices along the way.

EDIT. There was also calls made concerning bombs or sounds of bombs that very day from other areas including the towers, Don't you think that Bomb Squad investigators followed up on these reports including the buildings at the time.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by redgy]

Originally posted by SPreston

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c697a9cefa2.jpg[/atsimg]

What doesn't add up is if these so called explosives/thermite were planted in upper floors, then why is all the so called molten metal at undeground levels and not spread more towards the tops of rubble.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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!!!

Gee whacker . . . . . . . . . . . . does this constitute your proof that Turner Construction was NOT contracted to work inside the Tower cores for the year prior to 9-11?

Standard weedwhacker quality investigative work . . . . . . . again?

Do you really think Turner Construction, if they were complicit in 9-11, would have to do covert demo work on every job they do? And besides, it could have been a highly experienced military demolition team 'pretending' to be Turner Construction couldn't it whacker?

It is the TRUTH we are seeking weedwhacker; not your specious nonsense.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/63b7387179af.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by redgy

Originally posted by SPreston

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c697a9cefa2.jpg[/atsimg]

What doesn't add up is if these so called explosives/thermite were planted in upper floors, then why is all the so called molten metal at undeground levels and not spread more towards the tops of rubble.

Because a liquid will seek the lowest level, and the WTC was built inside a huge concrete basin to keep the rivers out.

WTC bathtub

WTC basin

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7b38bc91847b.jpg[/atsimg]