PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Sorry, double post.



[edit on 3-4-2010 by rush969]

[edit on 3-4-2010 by rush969]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by pteridine
I don't have to find a "profile." Red paint would have iron oxide, a binder and an extender.

That's not its complete chemical profile, and that's not a fair comparison of the two substances.

You live in an alternate reality, where paint can demolish high rise buildings and no claim of conspiracy needs proof other than repitition of claims by the mentally handicapped.

Source please?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
I don't have to find a "profile." Red paint would have iron oxide, a binder and an extender.

That's not its complete chemical profile, and that's not a fair comparison of the two substances.

Why is it not a fair comparison? The characteristics are those of red paint and not thermite.

If it looks like a duck......

reply to post by pteridine


You keep down-playing the fact that this stuff is NOT JUST combustion and ignoring the fact that these scientists specifically say they did NOT have the iron-rich spheres before the reaction, but then did AFTER the reaction.

Paint does not do that.

And if you want to compare chemical profiles with paint, let's see a DSC and the whole chemical composition, not just a selection of common elements.

Originally posted by rush969
Silverstein never decided or ordered anything!!

Thats right Silverstein had no authority, it was the fire commander who gave the order to pull the building. The fire men were already out of the buidling according to chiedf Nigros statement.

So. Please tell me, how much dinamite do fire trucks carry in them for these cases??

Gee you really do not know that they had demo teams there at the scene? You really should find out what was going on before reponding to a post.

If the intended procedure was explosives and that is "normal procedure" why not call it by it´s correct name??

PULL is a term that means to bring down a building. Also it was nothig normal, it was an emergncy situation.

Well, the fact is the building did fall to the south.

Sorry but all videos show the building comming almost straight down and not to the south side.

reply to post by REMISNE


"Pull" could also refer to "pulling the plug" on operations. Meaning stop trying to put the fire out and let it burn in order to retask personel elsewhere.
From freedictionary.com

Verb 1. pull the plug - prevent from happening or continuing; "The government pulled the plug on spending" cease, discontinue, lay off, quit, stop, give up - put an end to a state or an activity; "Quit teasing your little brother"

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
"Pull" could also refer to "pulling the plug" on operations. Meaning stop trying to put the fire out and let it burn in order to retask personel elsewhere.

Except for the fact that the firemen were evacuated from the buidling BEFORE fire comamnder taked to Silverstein. As stated by chief Nigro and supported by chief Hayden.

reply to post by REMISNE


Transcript of conversation you are refering to please sir.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Transcript of conversation you are refering to please sir.

As you can see by the following statement, cheif Nigro cleared the building and a safety zone around the buidling BEFORE talking to the owner Silverstein.

sites.google.com...
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

reply to post by REMISNE


That doesn't prove that the context of the word "pull" was one of demolition instead of ceasing operations? If anything in my faliable opinion it's proof of the latter.

reply to post by REMISNE


That doesn't prove that the context of the word "pull" was one of demolition instead of ceasing operations? If anything in my faliable opinion it's proof of the latter.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

That doesn't prove that the context of the word "pull" was one of demolition instead of ceasing operations? If anything in my faliable opinion it's proof of the latter.

Please tell me how can PULL mean the firemen when the firemen were already out of the building before the call was made to Silverstein?????


[edit on 4-4-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


If spoken in the past tense. Which is part of the reason I asked for a transcript of the conversation you are talking about.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
If spoken in the past tense. Which is part of the reason I asked for a transcript of the conversation you are talking about.

Sorry but as clearly stated by chief Nigro the firemen were out of the buidlnig BEFORE he talked to the owner Silverstein.

So he coudl have only been talking about the building when he stated PULL IT.

reply to post by REMISNE


I take it that you won't be providing the information I requested than? We can argue after that, perhaps, if I disagree I mean.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I take it that you won't be providing the information I requested than? We can argue after that, perhaps, if I disagree I mean.

Sorry but i provided the evidence, a statment from chief Nigro that clearly supportsd what i posted.

reply to post by REMISNE


No, you didn't. I asked for a transcript of the conversation you are you refering to remember?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
No, you didn't. I asked for a transcript of the conversation you are you refering to remember?

Again please explain to me how PULL IT could mean the firemen when they were already out of the building?

I gave you the statement from chief Nigro. Here is chief Haydens statement from Firehouse magazine that supports chief Nigros statement.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

reply to post by bsbray11


The did not see any iron rich spheres before analyses; that does not mean that they were not present. The large globules after ignition were not "iron rich," per se.
You keep downplaying the fact that it does not stay lit when ignited. You ignore inconsistencies in energy output and claim that super thermite explains all. After I instructed you in chemical thermodynamics, you fell back on the "energetic binder" ploy that Jones tried. He either does not understand chemical thermodynamics or he chooses to gloss over his own analysis to reach the desired conclusions.
Bad science. Bad paper. No evidence.