PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

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?

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.

I'll rephrase for you.
Is there any physical evidence for CD available to the public? NO.

Is anyone looking for any evidence of CD? YES. The CTer's are looking.

Could they find any evidence for CD? Probably not physical evidence but possibly evidence in a FOIA.

Until someone finds evidence, accidentally or as the result of a search, there is no evidence of CD that would cause a reinvestigation.

As to personal attacks, you are certainly in the lead. Perhaps you do not realize what you are writing in your highly emotional state.

As an added note, WTC7 was not located inside the WTC bathtub. Even so NASA recorded hot spots from molten iron under WTC7. The molten iron could not have flowed through the bathtub concrete walls. Therefore the molten iron originated inside WTC7 during or prior to its demolition.

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

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ea40e8acf3d9.jpg[/atsimg]

USGS NASA AVIRIS hot spots

Temperatures recorded by AVIRIS infrared imaging under WTC7 on September 16, 2001 (5 days to cool) was 1341 degrees F.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1620ceaebe68.jpg[/atsimg]

WTC bathtubs

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6336e1215035.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston


Thanks for the reply, I do see your point.

but wouldn't all this molten metal/thermite reaction flowing down to the basement area from above be doing its job on the surface material also.

Originally posted by redgy
reply to post by SPreston

 

Thanks for the reply, I do see your point.

but wouldn't all this molten metal/thermite reaction flowing down to the basement area from above be doing its job on the surface material also.

Actually we have video evidence of molten iron pouring out of the Towers prior to their destruction, so the rubble and debris would be laying on top. But scientists also found evidence of nano-thermite in the WTC powder left over from the pulverization of the concrete and Tower contents.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/498d6b307fce.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


ΔL = Lo x α x ΔT
a [steel, structural] = 1.2 x 10^-5 [this is the coefficient of expansion]
If we let L = 50 feet = 600 inches then with every degree K increase this beam lengthens by 0.0072". If you let the temperature increase 500 K, then the beam lengthens by 3.6."
Given the shear strength of the bolts, the force exerted exceeds the max shear of the bolts, cold, by more than 20 times.
The NIST report shows calculations for a shorter beam with a delta T of 600 degrees. They also use a different coefficient of expansion [1.4 x 10^-5] but the results are generally the same. If things get hot, bolted connections will fail or the steel will fail. The trapezoidal prism shape of the building and asymmetric framing exacerbated the problem.

[edit on 3/8/2010 by pteridine]

[edit on 3/8/2010 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

ΔL = Lo x α x ΔT
a [steel, structural] = 1.2 x 10^-5 [this is the coefficient of expansion]
If we let L = 50 feet = 600 inches then with every degree K increase this beam lengthens by 0.0072". If you let the temperature increase 500 K, then the beam lengthens by 3.6."
Given the shear strength of the bolts, the force exerted exceeds the max shear of the bolts, cold, by more than 20 times.

There is some conjecture in here. What is your source? What is the technical measurement for "shear?"

The NIST report shows calculations for a shorter beam with a delta T of 600 degrees. They also use a different coefficient of expansion [1.4 x 10^-5] but the results are generally the same. If things get hot, bolted connections will fail or the steel will fail. The trapezoidal prism shape of the building and asymmetric framing exacerbated the problem.

I am sorry but I really need some sources here because your calculations do not seem to account for thermal transfer at all.

Originally posted by pteridine
I'll rephrase for you.
Is there any physical evidence for CD available to the public? NO.

Not really rephrasing. Apparently I need to. Was any looked for?

Is anyone looking for any evidence of CD? YES. The CTer's are looking.

Really? Where are they looking and with what tools?

Could they find any evidence for CD? Probably not physical evidence but possibly evidence in a FOIA.

You mean because of the whole no access to any physical evidence to test thing? Yeah, that would be a hinderance huh?

Until someone finds evidence, accidentally or as the result of a search, there is no evidence of CD that would cause a reinvestigation.

How do you expect anyone to find any when no one is actually looking?

As to personal attacks, you are certainly in the lead. Perhaps you do not realize what you are writing in your highly emotional state.

Emotional? Quite a judgement call coming from someone who knows so little about me. I just respond in kind. So far I am having a really hard time finding any posts of yours that were ever polite to me or even anyone else. If you want to give me top honors though, far be it for me to turn down an honor.

Anyway...let me try asking one last time in a non-emotional, non insulting, non combative manner.

Why would you expect there to be any evidence of explosives if no one looked for any?

No need to rephrase anything for me. This is why I get rude with you. I answered your question but when I ask you anything you just ask more questions and act indignant. If you feel I have not answered you, say so. My question is actually relevant though, can you answer mine?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


The expansion is the result of thermal transfer. There are no thermal flux calculations shown.
The NIST report has a nice section on this, as I already mentioned, and you probably have that more available to you than a MechE textbook and Perry's Handbook. They use a larger a value, but the idea is the same.
Read through Chapter 8 of the NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 report for information. Page 339 figure 8-15 shows beam tear-out from the WTC 5 partial collapse. Pages 343-344 discuss expansion and shear strength. Pages 355-357 discuss possible explosives.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Anyway...let me try asking one last time in a non-emotional, non insulting, non combative manner.

Why would you expect there to be any evidence of explosives if no one looked for any?

I will turn your previous comment around. How do you know that no one looked for evidence of explosives? Just as no one publically reported evidence of explosives, it is possible that no one reported looking for them.
NIST did consider the possibility using a minimum size cutter charge on one key beam. They did this because it is apparent that no CD, as such, occurred in #7 because of the lack of CD-like explosions.
The 9-pound cutter charge of RDX, placed in the location that they identified as the key to the collapse sequence, would bring down the building in the same fashion as the fire induced collapse. Nine pounds of RDX makes a serious noise and would disrupt windows on the floor on which it was placed and other floors if it was in the atrium area. No such event was heard or seen as the collapse sequence began.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

The expansion is the result of thermal transfer.

I understand that is the premise. That would be why I am asking for the numbers to go with it. Heat transfers from one medium to another at a rate that can be calculated. Your equation is no good without the rate of heat transfer equation as well. Do you hav that?

There are no thermal flux calculations shown.

You don't say? I guess they are not worth considering then?

The NIST report has a nice section on this, as I already mentioned, and you probably have that more available to you than a MechE textbook and Perry's Handbook. They use a larger a value, but the idea is the same.
Read through Chapter 8 of the NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 report for information. Page 339 figure 8-15 shows beam tear-out from the WTC 5 partial collapse. Pages 343-344 discuss expansion and shear strength. Pages 355-357 discuss possible explosives.

They do not show the numbers that I am asking for though. You do understand what I am asking for do you not?

You're still trying to communicate with pterry? It's a complete waste of time. He will not respond to anything that weakens his position. His mind is completely shut off.

Move on. This thread has more evidence than anyone would ever need. You don't need to prove it to a Chemistry teacher that's afraid of his shadow.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Yes. You want to see the heat flux calculations because you can't believe office fires could heat steel to 600 C. This will be difficult to calculate without estimating heat rates. NIST used a complex model that cannot be readily replicated and to do the calculations by hand is too time consuming.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
You're still trying to communicate with pterry? It's a complete waste of time. He will not respond to anything that weakens his position. His mind is completely shut off.

Move on. This thread has more evidence than anyone would ever need. You don't need to prove it to a Chemistry teacher that's afraid of his shadow.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

I responded to you and taught you some chemistry and I am not like the high school chemistry teachers that you are used to. You declined to continue with the demolition of the Bentham paper.

I responded to JK and provided information that he requested.

This thread has no evidence and none of the advertised "PROOF." While you are worrying about what your shadow might do next, try using your head and postulate a testable theory, if you are able and do not fear the truth.

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.

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?

Thank you so much WW.
You have actually shown PROOF that building 7 WAS NOT demolished with explosives.
As anybody who sees these videos will clearly understand.
There´s a great difference in what we see in the collapse of 7 and demolitions with explosives.
And may I say, we could also apply the same to WTC 1 and 2.

So. This thread has been "debunked" as they say.
We waited
And waited
For the proof that was offered in the OP.
It never came of course, since it doesn´t exist. It´s just a statement, unsuported by any fact.
And this videos have shown that it is absolutely false. A LIE. A HOAX.
Thanks again WW.

reply to post by rush969


I guess I missed the proof you are talking about. Care to point it out for people like me who just do not see it? I would appreciate that mucho!

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Yes. You want to see the heat flux calculations because you can't believe office fires could heat steel to 600 C. This will be difficult to calculate without estimating heat rates. NIST used a complex model that cannot be readily replicated and to do the calculations by hand is too time consuming.

WOW! You got two stars for using double talk to basically admit that your calculations are totally pointless because you failed to include an important factor because, as you said, it is just too time consuming.

You calculations mean nothing without that information so your conclusion is based on faulty math. How you got two stars for admitting that but not admitting it amazes me.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Anyway...let me try asking one last time in a non-emotional, non insulting, non combative manner.

Why would you expect there to be any evidence of explosives if no one looked for any?

I will turn your previous comment around. How do you know that no one looked for evidence of explosives? Just as no one publically reported evidence of explosives, it is possible that no one reported looking for them.

I see. So when a truther wants to guess, assume, or hope something went a certain way, they are a loon for having an idea not based on facts.

Somehow when the OS is lacking though, it is ok to just make stuff up you wish happened? Fantasies are fun but worthles, understand?

NIST did consider the possibility using a minimum size cutter charge on one key beam. They did this because it is apparent that no CD, as such, occurred in #7 because of the lack of CD-like explosions.
The 9-pound cutter charge of RDX, placed in the location that they identified as the key to the collapse sequence, would bring down the building in the same fashion as the fire induced collapse. Nine pounds of RDX makes a serious noise and would disrupt windows on the floor on which it was placed and other floors if it was in the atrium area. No such event was heard or seen as the collapse sequence began.

And blah blah blah blah...nothing about looking for explosives. Why do you bother?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by rush969

 

I guess I missed the proof you are talking about. Care to point it out for people like me who just do not see it? I would appreciate that mucho!

Just watch the three videos and LISTEN!!!
The OP in this thread is quite clear:
""Proof that building 7 was demolished with explosives.""

Now, these three videos are of "buildings demolished with explosives", right??
Well, guess what...They OFFER the opposite proof.
Demolition with explosives creates a very distinctive bunch of sounds, and allways at very specific moments. They are allways VERY LOUD.
So this actually turns out to be PROOF that the OP is a FALSE CLAIM.



[edit on 9-3-2010 by rush969]