PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by pteridine
Frequent agitation was external to the matrix. Flow within the expanded matrix was likely surface-tension-driven capillary flow. The particles may not have been free but could have been bound to the matrix making movement less likely.

I think that Jones, et al., were expecting the chips to dissolve under these conditions. Solvent swelling wouldn't be expected to do much and there would be no rationale for it in the analysis. It would make more sense to dissolve the matrix and separate the particles for XRD or IR analysis.

Chemistry is obviously not a strength of this team and everything that they do is suspect.

People will see what they want when they look at the towers coming down and building 7 coming down. But wtc 7 only had fire on 2 floors that was all so how could 2 small fires bring a building down in such a nice manor. And again no plain hit this bulding what so ever. Many people dont wanna belive our government can do this but i wouldnt put it past them. wtc 7 housed alotta confendential things. I could go on and on but i wont we choose what we wanna see and wanna belive as a person.

reply to post by blackey27


Oh dear....we have to get the facts out, STAT!

A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.

en.wikipedia.org...

No, in fact it was NOT just "two floors" on fire!

Shows how unreliable those "conspiracy' websites are, in general.

[edit on 7 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by REMISNE


Gee REMISNE,
how many of those particular buildings were over 40 stories? Which ones were built over a substation which required large transfer trusses to support the lower floors over this substation? Oh and didnt you notice the steel skeleton with steel I-Beams of those buildings? You know, the conventional design of a steel framed structure with I-beams arranged in a large skeleton? Nothing like the Twin Towers or WTC7 right?

Oh by the way, did you miss the part in the FEMA report about the partial collapses inside WTC 4 5 and 6? I'd read up on those and the way they were designed. This is just like those people who think the entire Pentagon should have somehow collapsed.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Shows how unreliable those "conspiracy' websites are, in general.

What makes Wiki suddenly a reliable source?

Where is the evidence of those claims? Because it said some firefighter made those claims?

It seems to me your reliable sources are those that say what you support.

reply to post by ANOK


Wiki?

Show how it is NOT reliable, then.

It is freely open to edit, by anyone. Of course, anything changed must have some basis in fact, in order to be acceptable.

On the otherhand....'conspiracy' sites can blog all they want, SAY anything they want, CLAIM anything they want.

AND, they oftenuse ginned-up, irrelevant and confusing stuff to make their "claims"...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hmmm sry but ranting doesn't make your claims fact.

I didn't say the other blog was fact either mate.

I was arguing your claim not the other posters claim. They could both be BS now couldn't they?

If someone can show me the claimed fires and the 'bulge' I'd be interested. But I'm still not sure how any of that could cause a symmetrical global collapse though, perhaps you could enlighten me?

[edit on 4/7/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ANOK

 

Wiki?

Show how it is NOT reliable, then.

It is freely open to edit, by anyone. Of course, anything changed must have some basis in fact, in order to be acceptable.

On the otherhand....'conspiracy' sites can blog all they want, SAY anything they want, CLAIM anything they want.

AND, they oftenuse ginned-up, irrelevant and confusing stuff to make their "claims"...

Yes, wikipedia is reliable because it can be edited by anyone? That makes sense.

Fake Wikipedia prof altered 20,000 entries

Wikipedia is just a blog where other bloggers watch each other and correct each other. In the end, it is still internet jockeys you do not know.

hey REM... what happened to watcherintheshadows? i guess we have a winner then and can put the pull it debate to rest?

about time.

PULL "IT" can only mean one thing in the context it was in.

silverstein blew the pooch... kinda like the nose in nose out screw up

Originally posted by REMISNE

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.

NIST’s Twin Towers Report: In its 2005 report on the Twin Towers, NIST ignored dozens of testimonies provided by reporters, police officers, and WTC employees, along with 118 testimonies provided by members of the Fire Department of New York. [38] NIST even explicitly denied the existence of these reports, saying that there “was no evidence (collected by . . . the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions” that would have suggested that explosives were going off. [39]

this was found on www.globalresearch.ca... it is just a snippet of a whole page of things wrong with the 9/11 building 7 collapse

[edit on 8-4-2010 by killer4281]

Originally posted by GenRadek
Gee REMISNE,
how many of those particular buildings were over 40 stories?

Why do you ignore the fact that these buildings had more damage then building 7 but did not completly collapse?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Why do you ignore the fact that these buildings had more damage then building 7 but did not completly collapse?

Sorry, YOU ignore the fact that different building designs behave DIFFERENTLY. Damage and fire to one may not cause the same effect to another that is differently designed and built. If anything, it showed how the conventional framework design of the other WTC buildings is more stable than the special ones of the ones that collapsed. But if you cannot fathom this simple fact, i cannot see how you can understand more complex issues.
And by the way, there was substantial collapsed INSIDE those buildings. There were many internal collapses not visible from the outside. But again, DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION. Key words there.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Sorry, YOU ignore the fact that different building designs behave DIFFERENTLY.

If this is supposed to be some kind of credible analysis and response, you have failed.

The buildings were "different" in a way that would allow the smaller, weaker buildings that suffered more intense fires, to collapse first. Next you will tell me heavier buildings are easier to knock over, as if they build them out of the same size columns. I have seen this round-and-round too many times before, and it is not based on any kind of realistic civil engineering principles at all. The buildings are always just VAGUELY "different."

Does any part of the official story mention how WTC7 caught fire to begin with?

Originally posted by GenRadek
Sorry, YOU ignore the fact that different building designs behave DIFFERENTLY.

But you keep ignoring the fact that several other steel buildings had a lot longer lasting fires and just as much or more structural damage as building 7 BUT DID NOT completly collapse.

Plus we had the 1975 fires in the North tower that burned for 3 hours and did not casue any damage to the steel. Now on 9/11 we are supposed to believe that fires lasting less then an hour caused a steel building to completly collapse.

Originally posted by REMISNE

But you keep ignoring the fact that several other steel buildings had a lot longer lasting fires and just as much or more structural damage as building 7 BUT DID NOT completly collapse.

Plus we had the 1975 fires in the North tower that burned for 3 hours and did not casue any damage to the steel. Now on 9/11 we are supposed to believe that fires lasting less then an hour caused a steel building to completly collapse.

ooookay, so if that's true, then why have a demo team bring the building down? I mean, after all, if they've never collapsed before, then why risk doing a quick demo of the still burning building (which, btw, has never ever been done before)?

Was bringing down a building safer than the possible risk of a few small fires spreading to adjacent buildings? I mean, if these fires were as small as you are making out, then that shouldn't be a risk at all.

Originally posted by gavron
ooookay, so if that's true, then why have a demo team bring the building down?

Well we are talking about building 7 not the towers.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by gavron
ooookay, so if that's true, then why have a demo team bring the building down?

Well we are talking about building 7 not the towers.

I was talking about building 7, Roger. After all, the name of this thread is "PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!". Perhaps you should read the posts before replying, so you can understand what the rest of us are discussing.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by gavron]

reply to post by bsbray11


So you are saying that a heavier, taller building, whose base has been compromised by long lasting fires and damage is suppose survive better than a smaller, lighter building, whose base is not compromised and has a more conventional steel structure? bsbray, I think there are quite a few building engineers out there that would completely disagree with you.

Your response just shows me you dont have the critical thinking skills to understand the complexity of something like this.

Lets use something called logic, (I know, it doesnt get to see much light in the CT world) in this case. Let us look at the sizes of the footprints of each building in comparison to each other:


You have WTCs 4 5 and 6. They are all about 9 floors. Lets go down the list:

WTC4: 9 floors. Conventional steel frame. I-beams and columns in a standard steel frame looks something like this:



Now it was a squat building with a large foot print relative to its height. (Its foot print was much LARGER than WTC7's) It was mostly CRUSHED by debris falling from the Twin Towers, and later burned our of control. It was later demolished as it was practically destroyed on 9/11. In fact, a lot of it did collapse from the extra weight from the WTCs crashing down on it. But where it remained standing, it just burned. But the base of that section was not compromised structurally. WHich allowed it stand.

WTC 5:
Another 9 floor building. L-shaped. Base size larger than WTC7. Another conventional steel framed building like the above photos. On 9/11, floors 4-9 suffered partial collapse with fire and debris damage. Inside, floors 6-8 collapsed from fires. Most of the internal floor collapses occurred due to failures of the connections between the I-beams. (Guess what from? FIRE!) Again, 9 floors. Conventional steel skeleton frame. I-beams and columns. Did not collapse like WTC1,2, or 7. But it did suffer internal collapses from impact and fire damage. Also see footprint size in relation to WTC7. (and 1 and 2).

WTC 6:
Another 9 floor building. Large footprint. Conventional steel frame. etc etc etc. Suffered direct impact of Twin Tower's falling debris. Caused massive internal collapses right down into the basement. However it did not suffer complete collapse. Why? The design of the steel frame. Some connections failed in the fires, but most damage done by impact. In fact, in the pictures of the WTC6 damage, you can see the steel frame standing where holes were punched through the rest of the building. But due to the design, it did not fully collapse.
You can read more about them here:
911research.wtc7.net...

Now WTC 7:

47 story building. Smaller footprint base in comparison to 4, 5, and 6. What does this mean IMMEDIATELY? More weight on a smaller base and more stress. WTC7 suffered some impact damage and severe long lasting fires across multiple floors, including on the important transfer trusses which held the building up over a con-ed substation. Collapsed after fires burning severely weakened the structure. Leaning and buckling was observed prior to collapse.

It simply stuns me how someone thinks that a smaller, lighter building with a larger base will collapse faster or more readily than a much much taller, heavier building with a smaller base (that also has structural damage done by fires and impact around the base.)

reply to post by REMISNE


Hmm. Fires of 1975 right? Wtc North Tower? Oh what was a key factor in that? Thats right, there was a lot more fire-proofing on those floors. Asbestos fireproofing! Tell me, was there a 767 that impacted that floor, knocking off the fireproofing? Oh yeah what about the active firefighting activity that took place there? You know, firefighters with water, battling the flames? They did a great job in 1973. The fires were lower, easier to get to, they didnt have 10-15 floors burning with a 767 inside. Oh and a lot more fireproofing! And guess what else? You do know that towards the base of all skyscrapers, the structural steel is much thicker? Now what does this mean for the building and fires? Thicker columns means more resistance to heating (in comparison to thinner columns) That is just common sense and LOGIC at work. So no, saying that the building didnt collapse in '73 due to fires doesnt mean jack squat in this case. The only relevance is that there was intact fireproofing and thicker steel without any impacts of a 767 @ 400+mph there on the 11th floor. And an actual firefighting effort which was successful.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Hmm. Fires of 1975 right? Wtc North Tower? Oh what was a key factor in that?

Thats right, there was a lot more fire-proofing on those floors. Asbestos fireproofing!

You might want to do more research. The fire-proofing and sprinkler system was not added untill AFTER the 1975 fire.

Tell me, was there a 767 that impacted that floor, knocking off the fireproofing?

Well for one i was talking abuot damage from fire on the steel. Why do you have go off topic and talk about a plane?

Also as stated the fire proofing and sprinkler sytem was not added untill after the 1975 fire.