PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Well, KJ, why don't you file a FOIA and ask for documents on who looked for explosives instead of petulantly complaining that no one is giving you answers. Bla bla bla and so on. NIST considered the possibility of explosives and concluded that it was not likely, after the fact. They also didn't look for hologram projectors, DEW sats, the abducted passengers, and many other things. Add those to your FOIA request.
I understand your lack of technical training prevents you from calculating thermal expansion. I understand your need for attention and your fear of postulating any testable theory that could be debunked but I don't understand your incessant whining.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Well, KJ, why don't you file a FOIA and ask for documents on who looked for explosives instead of petulantly complaining that no one is giving you answers. Bla bla bla and so on. NIST considered the possibility of explosives and concluded that it was not likely, after the fact. They also didn't look for hologram projectors, DEW sats, the abducted passengers, and many other things. Add those to your FOIA request.
I understand your lack of technical training prevents you from calculating thermal expansion. I understand your need for attention and your fear of postulating any testable theory that could be debunked but I don't understand your incessant whining.

You do realize this works both ways, right? You seem to have two very different sets of standards. One for the OS and one for the "truthers." How is it that you can petulantly insist that no explosives were found without your FOIA request?

Get real man. If I cannot insist something because I have no documents then neither can you. That is the point. You cannot say there were no explosives found because you do not know if anyone even looked for any. Got it?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson


Get real man. If I cannot insist something because I have no documents then neither can you. That is the point. You cannot say there were no explosives found because you do not know if anyone even looked for any. Got it?

Have you checked whether the towers were destroyed remotely by a giant green space frog called Martin?

Because if not, I assume we are supposed to count it as a possibility.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by K J Gunderson


Get real man. If I cannot insist something because I have no documents then neither can you. That is the point. You cannot say there were no explosives found because you do not know if anyone even looked for any. Got it?

Have you checked whether the towers were destroyed remotely by a giant green space frog called Martin?

Because if not, I assume we are supposed to count it as a possibility.

Get it right, he was called Reginald. I am sick of you paid debunkers coming on here and disrupting serious research !

Originally posted by pteridine
NIST considered the possibility of explosives and concluded that it was not likely, after the fact.

NIST did not do testing for explosives. NIST did not recover ANY steel from building 7 for testing.

Of course 9/11 being a criminal investigation every possiblity should have been investigated. Sure makes NIST look bad.

Isn't it the oddest controlled demolition you could imagine where you have firefighters in and around WTC pull back because the building is severely damaged, creaking, bulging and leaning. Not because they come across det cord, explosives or anything suspicious of that nature.

Here is some of their testimony relating to that day :-

www.911myths.com...

As regards damage you will see that Capt Chris Boyle says : - " On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors."

Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden said " Early on, we saw a bulge in the south-west corner between floors 10 and 13 and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse."

Why do you cd a bulging wreck with progressing unfought fires ?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by pteridine
NIST considered the possibility of explosives and concluded that it was not likely, after the fact.

NIST did not do testing for explosives. NIST did not recover ANY steel from building 7 for testing.

Of course 9/11 being a criminal investigation every possiblity should have been investigated. Sure makes NIST look bad.

Doesn't NIST stand for National Institute for Suppressing Truth?

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

They have been caught in so many lies that they cannot possibly be bonafide degreed scientists. With the shifty eyes and glib comments, they act much more like fatcat greedy politicians.

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

[edit on 3/9/10 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Alfie1

As regards damage you will see that Capt Chris Boyle says : - " On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors."

Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden said " Early on, we saw a bulge in the south-west corner between floors 10 and 13 and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse."

Why do you cd a bulging wreck with progressing unfought fires ?

So why didn't the building topple over towards your bulging wreck weak side?

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

And explain to us how 8 floors of your bulging wreck erased themselves so the building could fall with 2.25 seconds of freefall straight down. Straight down is the path of most resistance; so where was the resistance?

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



Here we see WTC7 leaning a bit to the south near the end of its destruction. What removed the resistance on the nearer north side so it could freefall for 2.25 seconds or 8 floors worth of resistance? NIST was forced to admit to the 2.25 second freefall by a high school physics teacher. So NIST was originally in error and cannot or refuses to explain how that 2.25 seconds of freefall was produced.

Only demolition could produce it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ff63b4123264.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston


I don't expect buildings to topple over like trees, they are quite different structures. I expect them predominantly just to fall down but, unlike too many on here, I don't pretend to be a you-tube trained structural engineer.

Btw I don't accept that WTC 7 did fall that neatly :-

sites.google.com...

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SPreston

 

I don't expect buildings to topple over like trees, they are quite different structures. I expect them predominantly just to fall down but, unlike too many on here, I don't pretend to be a you-tube trained structural engineer.

Btw I don't accept that WTC 7 did fall that neatly

So where is your scientific explanation on how the 8 floors were removed reducing resistance to freefall for 2.25 seconds? Surely you can finish what NIST agreed with and refused to explain? Or do you believe in magic and the 8 floors just went PoooooooofF?

Neatly wasn't necessary was it since this was not a normal contracted demolition at the WTC? Apparently the 9-11 perps just needed to get it done, even with living people and brave firemen inside.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a78a9c1d5d4c.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Alfie1
unlike too many on here, I don't pretend to be a you-tube trained structural engineer.

You apparently haven't had any physics or engineering education period.

Structural engineers don't study the mechanics of building collapses. That is NOT their field of expertise. The science and math they deal with for their field is primarily statics (static loading, nothing is moving), sometimes hydraulics, soil, things like that. I know what they study because I have the manual for the SE PE exam and it covers everything professional SEs are required to know. And I've had physics and am an electronics engineering major. Not bragging, just qualifying what I am telling you. Structural engineers do NOT study collapsing buildings. The whole point is to avoid that from ever happening and being an issue in the first place.


The people who WOULD study dynamic loading situations, would be your dynamicists, or particularly and practically in the case of collapsing buildings, demolition engineers, of which in the entire world there are only a handful of demolition engineers experienced with bringing down very large skyscrapers because they are more often deconstructed piece by piece to ensure safety.


I know you people run rampant with your appeals to the holy expertise of structural engineers, but their only relevance is in static loading, ie after columns are removed, how the loads are redistributed in the buildings. Which really only applies to the Twin Towers. They aren't even the relevant experts in steel being affected by fire, as that is the kind of thing metallurgists specialize in.


I don't claim to be an expert in any of these things, but at least I know the difference between the fields of study. And no one is an expert when it comes to how WTC7 "should" have globally collapsed into a pile in its footprint because no complete and utter failure like this has ever been remotely seen before outside of controlled demolitions before. And NO controlled demolition of a building even half that size is ever perfectly neat and tidy.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Why do you cd a bulging wreck with progressing unfought fires ?

Well 2 good reasons. First as Chief Hayden stated they were afraid of fire jumping to other buildings. Remember they were running out of water and could not fight more fires.

Second if the building would have collasped on its own to the side that was damaged it probably would have caused more damage to other buildings.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Alfie1
Why do you cd a bulging wreck with progressing unfought fires ?

Well 2 good reasons. First as Chief Hayden stated they were afraid of fire jumping to other buildings. Remember they were running out of water and could not fight more fires.

Second if the building would have collasped on its own to the side that was damaged it probably would have caused more damage to other buildings.

If there were sound defensible reasons for hurrying WTC 7 along why not just be frank about it ?

Everyone would have understood and it would have stopped CTers making up stuff about destroying secrets etc.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You do realize this works both ways, right? You seem to have two very different sets of standards. One for the OS and one for the "truthers." How is it that you can petulantly insist that no explosives were found without your FOIA request?

Get real man. If I cannot insist something because I have no documents then neither can you. That is the point. You cannot say there were no explosives found because you do not know if anyone even looked for any. Got it?

Why is this so difficult for you? You asked if anyone searched for explosives and I suggested a way for you to find out. I can insist that no explosives were found because, to our knowledge, none were. I can say no explosives were found whether or not people were assigned to look for explosives. I can also say that no Zebras were found in the WTC rubble whether or not people were specifically assigned to look for zebras. Maybe they missed one, but they certainly didn't report finding any so, no zebras were found. No evidence of death rays was reported, either, so there is also no evidence for death rays. That is what we have to work with.

If the FOIA comes back with lists of people who searched for CD explosives, I would not be surprised. If it comes back with lists of people who found CD explosives, you will certainly be the center of attention.

Originally posted by Alfie1
If there were sound defensible reasons for hurrying WTC 7 along why not just be frank about it ?.

Well thats the million dollar question.

But we have the statements from the fire chiefs and other facts.

reply to post by pteridine


Why is it so difficult for YOU to understand that it is impossible to find explosives when no one looks for them in the first place?

NIST explicitly admitted in one of their FAQ releases that they didn't do any sort of testing on any of the steel to look for any forms of explosives or thermite residues. And they admitted in their WTC7 report that they didn't look at ANY of the steel from that building.

reply to post by bsbray11


Thermite??



Gets good around the two-minute mark.

Is it still reasonable to assume that 'thermite' was somehow used in the Towers? (To include WTC 7)?

That, there in the video, is 1,000 pounds. Loosely bagged.

Big bags.

Compared to the not-yet-proven-to-exist "nano-thermite"?

Or, is it "thermate"???

Thermate is a variation of thermite and is an incendiary pyrotechnic composition that can generate short bursts of very high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time. It is used primarily in incendiary grenades.

en.wikipedia.org...

Could you refresh everyone's memories, please? So much discussion has gone on, it's important to get a clarification on this subject.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Or, is it "thermate"???

Do not forget there are thermite bombs and even a fuel-air mix with thermite called a Hellhound.

A little fiction to lighten up...

=Hello. Chief??=
=Yes, go ahead.=
=Yea, well, the building is cracking, and bulging, we have no watter to fight the fire, we believe it will collapse.=
=OK. Listen. What I want you to do, is go in there with let´s say OH, I guess about 500 pounds of dinamite=
=What?? Say again, please, it sounded like you said take some dinamite into the building. Is that correct??=
=Yes, that´s correct. You heard me OK. I need you to bring the dinamite into the building, and place it next to the main columns=
=Did you copy??=
=Hello??=
=Anybody there??=



[edit on 9-3-2010 by rush969]

Originally posted by rush969
A little fiction to lighten up...

=Hello. Chief??=
=Yes, go ahead.=
=Yea, well, the building is cracking, and bulging, we have no watter to fight the fire, we believe it will collapse.=
=OK. Listen. What I want you to do, is go in there with let´s say OH, I guess about 500 pounds of dinamite=
=What?? Say again, please, it sounded like you said take some dinamite into the building. Is that correct??=
=Yes, that´s correct. You heard me OK. I need you to brign the dinamite into the building, and place it next to the main columns=
=Did you copy??=
=Hello??=
=Anybody there??=

Problem with your story is that there were no fires on the lower floors and it would not have taken much to bring down an already unstable building.