PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by REMISNE


Demo teams in a damaged, burning building would not know where to place the charges without advance planning. You can do this with a simple structure, like a bridge, but not with something like a 47 story building. Their only solution would be to blow as many as possible and hope for the best.
The amount of explosive required would be large enough to be noticed when the windows blew out and the building fell. The idea of the casual collapse won't work; once the supports fail it will drop fast.
Using cutter charges to cut beams and columns of the sizes used would probably require a charges made in advance. It is possible to fake a cutter charge with an angle iron backed by many standard strips of C4, but to be sure, you'd have to add some extra to allow for less than optimum geometry. Box columns would need four; one high, one low, and two diagonals.
the concept of an "emergency" demolition doesn't make sense.

reply to post by evil incarnate


What "logical fallacy?" We are working toward the conclusion that there was no reason to bring down WTC7 and no evidence for CD.

If you are impatient and clever, state the reason for CD and the cause. State the type, number, and location of charges. State who did it and how many were on the team. State how long it took to prepare, including any precuts. When you have done this, we will test your theory for consistency.

If you can't do this, then you are just another truther who "feels" things are wrong. It didn't fall the way you "think" it should have because of your vast experience with disaster movies and Hollywood miniature sets.

Put up or shut up.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

What "logical fallacy?" We are working toward the conclusion that there was no reason to bring down WTC7 and no evidence for CD.

The issue is that there is no evidence to suggest a perfect collapse is possible under the observed conditions.

Explosives are simply the most obvious assumption. This is just a possible explanation for what is otherwise a phenomenon.

Originally posted by pteridine
If you are impatient and clever, state the reason for CD and the cause. State the type, number, and location of charges. State who did it and how many were on the team. State how long it took to prepare, including any precuts. When you have done this, we will test your theory for consistency.

This is all unnecessary speculation.

Not alternative theory is needed to prove that one theory is impossible.

Originally posted by Jezus
Not alternative theory is needed to prove that one theory is impossible.

I have tried explaining this to him before but he doesn't get it.

And just imagine, if he did, he would've stopped arguing like this months ago.

NIST's WTC7 theory has no evidence to support it. So if pteridine has a problem with theories lacking evidence, he should have a problem with NIST's theory. But he also happens to be a biased hypocrite and only makes excuses for NIST.

Originally posted by bsbray11
NIST's WTC7 theory has no evidence to support it

There is much more evidence to support it than the silly conspiracy theories claiming explosives or thermite were used.... for which there is zero evidence!

[edit on 13/3/10 by dereks]

reply to post by Jezus


When did you prove any theory "impossible?" Perhaps BS can help you out with it.

Originally posted by dereks
There is much more evidence to support it than the silly conspiracy theories claiming explosives or thermite were used.... for which there is zero evidence!

Um, there is zero evidence that NIST's hypothesis was what actually happened to the building. If you knew of something specific you'd be able to post it, but you can't because you're just making stuff up.

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no rationale for the destruction of any of the WTC buildings.

Except for Chief Haydens statement that they were afraid of fire jumping to other buildngs.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Um, there is zero evidence that NIST's hypothesis was what actually happened to the building.

Wrong again, they had a transit on the building and knew that it was moving and going to fall down, which is why they removed the firemen.

Explosives, even super duper hush a boom silent explosives do not cause a building to move before they are set off...

So once again "truthers" have zero evidence for explosives being used, and there is a lot of evidence the damage and fires caused the collapse

Originally posted by dereks
and there is a lot of evidence the damage and fires caused the collapse

Too bad the building did not collapse to the side that was damaged.

Originally posted by dereks
, and there is a lot of evidence the damage and fires caused the collapse

Dr Sunder stated the damage had no effect on it's collapse.

He was the Lead Investigator for NIST.

Fires and Phenomena was what brought down the Tower.

Fires .... carpets, computer's, drapes......

Phenomena .... ( I have no idea what that means)

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
Um, there is zero evidence that NIST's hypothesis was what actually happened to the building.

Wrong again, they had a transit on the building and knew that it was moving and going to fall down, which is why they removed the firemen.

This has absolutely nothing to do with NIST's report and is also completely wrong. They could have had any equipment they'd like to have had on that building and it would not have predicted a new phenomena would occur in any case.

Explosives, even super duper hush a boom silent explosives do not cause a building to move before they are set off...

Actually they do AFTER they are set off. And like always you completely ignore witness testimony and even recordings of explosions coming from that building. Not everyone forgets those people a million times in a row.

reply to post by REMISNE


Why then would they keep that a secret?
If the building was in bad enough shape to collapse and they had decided to bring it down for safety reasons, they would have used big lumps of ordinary explosives. This would have made serious noise that wouldn't have been spread out over hours and the building would have come down soon after.
I don't see an "emergency demolition" as being likely.

Originally posted by Sean48


Phenomena .... ( I have no idea what that means)

Yes, you do. You use this as a punch line on many threads and it has been explained to you.

Just in case you are suffering from short term memory loss:

phe·nom·e·non
n
1.a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature.
2.something that is impressive or extraordinary.
3.a remarkable or exceptional person; prodigy; wonder.

Originally posted by Sean48
Dr Sunder stated the damage had no effect on it's collapse.

He said that? Really? what started the fires?

[edit on 14-3-2010 by ImAPepper]

reply to post by bsbray11

People aren't ignoring the witnesses. People are taking the testimony in context. When some one says they heard "an explosion" or something sounded like "an explosion" that does not mean that it was necessarily an explosion. If it was an actual explosion, of sorts, that does not mean that it was part of a demolition.
Now that you have stated your position as believing that the collapse of WTC#7 was due to CD, you should postulate possible scenarios. If you say that some or all of the noise was CD, you must rationalize how widely spaced noises would be evidence of CD.
The "controlled" part of CD doesn't allow for setting off a charge, waiting to see what happens, and then setting off another charge. If you think about this for a while, you may be able to see why this doesn't work for any controlled demolition.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Jezus

 

When did you prove any theory "impossible?" Perhaps BS can help you out with it.

I don’t have to prove the “official story” impossible when there is no evidence to suggest that the “official story” IS possible.

An incomplete story riddled with unexplained contradictions, anomalies, coincidences, first-time events, and other “phenomena” is not conclusive to anything.

I can observe a lack of evidence for one theory without an alternative theory…

Originally posted by pteridine
they would have used big lumps of ordinary explosives.

Oh, i did not now you were an explosives expert. What school did you go too?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by pteridine
they would have used big lumps of ordinary explosives.

Oh, i did not now you were an explosives expert. What school did you go too?

I went to two. US Navy for practical uses and US Bureau of Mines for explosive formulations.

What school did you go to?

reply to post by Jezus


You stated "Not[sic] alternative theory is needed to prove that one theory is impossible."

I asked you to prove that the NIST theory is impossible. You cannot do it.

Originally posted by pteridine
I asked you to prove that the NIST theory is impossible. You cannot do it.

The NIST theory does not prove itself to be possible.

The issue is that no evidence suggests a perfect collapse is possible under the observed conditions.

An alternative theory is unnecessary speculation.

Explosives are just a possible explanation for what is otherwise a phenomenon.