PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

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.

Originally posted by gavron
I was talking about building 7, Roger.

But the 1975 fire was in the North tower not building 7, you need to keep on track with your responese.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by gavron
I was talking about building 7, Roger.

But the 1975 fire was in the North tower not building 7, you need to keep on track with your responese.

Apparently you need more caffeine, Roger. Try re-reading my post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You clearly mentioned Building 7 in the 1st sentence, which I was replying too.

Perhaps you should read posts before replying...

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by GenRadek

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?

The plane impact, which removed the fireproofing on the steel, had a direct effect on the damage to the steel. Without proper fireproofing in place, the steel was more vulnerable to fire/heat.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by gavron]

Double post

[edit on 9-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by gavron
The plane impact, which removed the fireproofing on the steel, had a direct effect on the damage to the steel. Without proper fireproofing in place, the steel was more vulnerable to fire/heat.

Well if you did enough research you would know the following.

1. Most of the fire-proofing materal and equipmet was not added untill after the 1975 fire.

2. Fire-proofing only last 2 hours, the fire in 1975 lasted at least 3 hours.

3. The fire on 9/11 lasted less then an hour.



[edit on 9-4-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


Well if you did enough research you would know the following.

4. The fire in 1975 did not involve an airliner of that size crashing into it.

Originally posted by REMISNE

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.

REMISNE, did you ever read the articles on that particular fire in 1975? There was ASBESTOS FIREPROOFING on that floor. There was plenty of fireproofing there since that was literally a few years after completion. You are telling me I should do research? I have. And here I am typing my findings. You are the one unprepared here, sorry to say.

Lets see what people have to say about that particular fire:

Berlau recounts how the effectiveness of asbestos fireproofing was proven during an intense Feb. 13, 1975 fire that burned for more than three hours in the elevator and utility shafts from the ninth to nineteenth floors of the first WTC tower – an area where asbestos fireproofing was still intact at the time. Despite the fire’s intensity – it burned nearly everything, including telephone panels and wiring, and got hot enough to blow out windows – the asbestos fireproofing contained the fire so that it did minimal damage to the rest of the building.

A subsequent fire analysis report from an engineering firm noted that the fire, “while reported in the press to have been very hot, did not damage a single primary, fireproofed element.”

cei.org...

So there was asbestos fireproofing, enough to protect the structural steel of the WTC at the time of that fire. No planes hit it to dislodge it, and none was dislodged at the time.

reply to post by GenRadek


What proof is there that the fireproofing was dislodged???

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by REMISNE

 

Well if you did enough research you would know the following.

4. The fire in 1975 did not involve an airliner of that size crashing into it.

Please explain exactly how that makes any difference.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1




Is that a serious question?

What proof? gee lets see, a 767 @ 450+mph impacting the WTC, including beams with fireproofing. Fireproofing that was already wearing thin, from years and years of exposure (which was documented before). Hmm, trusses were seen to be sagging prior to collapse. Why is that?

Are you thinking/suggesting a large impact like that wouldnt dislodge fireproofing off the trusses and columns? Its responses like this that make the TM look funnier and funnier by the day.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Oh so a 767 impacting makes no difference??

Lordy lordy lordy, I think this thread is starting to turn into a comedy routine.

So Radek, everything on 9/11 was exactly as was reported? The government told us all the truth? So we can all just stop wondering and get back to our normal lives now?

Originally posted by gavron.
4. The fire in 1975 did not involve an airliner of that size crashing into it.

Please stay on track, we are talking about the affects of fire on steel, nothing about planes.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh so a 767 impacting makes no difference??

Well according to the majority of reports from experts the plane impacts did not cause that much damage, thats why the buildings stood so long after the impacts.



[edit on 10-4-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


I thought we were talking about "PROOF that building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!" We did digress onto thermite [no PROOF] for a while but that seemed reasonable, given that there didn't seem to be much argument for explosives. There doesn't seem to be any PROOF of explosives yet, but that is often the way with posts that start with "PROOF."

Originally posted by pteridine
I thought we were talking about "PROOF that building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!"

Well we kind got off topic talking about the affects of fire on steel.

We did digress onto thermite [no PROOF] for a while but that seemed reasonable, given that there didn't seem to be much argument for explosives. There doesn't seem to be any PROOF of explosives yet, but that is often the way with posts that start with "PROOF."

Well as i have stated many times, they did not really need explosives or if they did use them they would not need a lot of them to bring down an already unstable building.

reply to post by REMISNE


If the building was that unstable, why would you need explosives at all and how would you know where to place the charges?

just to add, why going by the window breakages from only one corner of the building lead to explosives being used to bring it down.

shouldn't these charges also have been placed at the other three sides as well per say, and that window breakages from those other three corners should also have been be seen to happen in time and same floors as with those of this one corner shown.

reply to post by GenRadek


What proof is there?