PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

You and the other dedicated readers of the somegroup-for-911truth websites keep referring to the "laws of Physics" that you believe show CD.

Which websites do I read? I am not really sure why I should waste my time addressing people so full of ignorant prejudices anyway. Obviously your mind is all made up about everything so what is the point?

Show me what websites I read and we can move on. Otherwise you are obviously just a troll with a set agenda and a closed mind. I refuse to be told who I am and what I think without just a little proof. Anytime you are ready...

All three building fell way to fast to the ground. If you know anything about the laws of physics you would know this.

If you had jumped from the top deck of WTC7 when it collapsed, The top deck would have beaten you to the ground. That's how fast it went down.

If you cant see the wrong image here i can help some of you out.

Picture your self jumping from the top Deck. You would be falling trough less restriction because you would be falling through air. In our atmosphere air is the least of our natural resistance. Now WTC7 is not falling through air but it is collapsing upon it self. Explain how it can naturally collapse at such speed when it is not collapsing /falling through air?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by pteridine

You also are complaining that not every possibility was examined, meaning that the investigation was not thorough enough to suit you. …

How would a CD collapse differ from a collapse as proposed by the NIST report? …

First of all, the time frame would be different and the buildings would not have fallen the same way (both towers fell perfectly in on themselves). Also, 220 + concrete floors would not have turned to powder.

You and others keep asking for a "new investigation." To do a new investigation, you'll need a reason. You claim the reason will be found in a new investigation. If this chicken-egg problem were solved and you got the new investigation what would you investigate? What evdence would you look for and where would you look for it? When would you stop? What would constitute a completed investigation?

Let’s get this straight, this is not about an investigation to find evidence to support the request for the investigation, we already have that. Think of it this way, it’s like filing an appeal for a new “ trial” in a new court, with a new judge and jury not associated with the previous “ones.” In other words, we need an honest investigation without any interference, by experts in the various fields involved, whose findings will be acted upon by the book by the DOJ. I think that would satisfy certainly the majority of us.

This is not just my opinion. Research this and get back to me.

[color=gold]Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST

www.911blogger.com...

Hold on a minute, I'm very confused. Are there still people out there who believe the OS?

Originally posted by spy66
All three building fell way to fast to the ground. If you know anything about the laws of physics you would know this.

If you had jumped from the top deck of WTC7 when it collapsed, The top deck would have beaten you to the ground. That's how fast it went down.

Explain how a CD would cause a building to fall faster than the acceleration of gravity.
You should try to learn some physics, yourself and stop believing those websites you read.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I see that you are unable to explain how a CD collapse would differ from a collapse as proposed by the NIST report. I am not surprised. Everyone who calls on "the laws of physics" has the same problem.
You also don't state how you would know when the investigation would be complete. This is also a conundrum for your fellow travellers.

Your arguments are common and unconvincing to many. Get your petitions signed and force the Congress to start another investigation. Don't worry, if it concludes that there is no evidence for CD, you can always find some reason why the investigation was incomplete and demand another.

Originally posted by impressme

(both towers fell perfectly in on themselves).

I thought they expelled debris in every direction? I've certainly seen you post this before.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

How would a CD collapse differ from a collapse as proposed by the NIST report? …

First of all, the time frame would be different and the buildings would not have fallen the same way (both towers fell perfectly in on themselves). Also, 220 + concrete floors would not have turned to powder.

Let’s get this straight, this is not about an investigation to find evidence to support the request for the investigation, we already have that.

This thread is about building 7.

No one has yet shown how the time frame would have been different, how the collapses would have been different, or what would have happened to the floors. You only think you have evidence.

Research how to attribute material to the original author on ATS and get back to me.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

I see that you are unable to explain how a CD collapse would differ from a collapse as proposed by the NIST report.

I can explain it just fine. I see you are having a much harder time backing up your claim though.

I am not surprised. Everyone who calls on "the laws of physics" has the same problem.

Uh huh, sure. What websites am I reading again?

You stated

You and the other dedicated readers of the somegroup-for-911truth websites keep referring to the "laws of Physics" that you believe show CD.

So, as soon as you can tell me what websites I read, I will answer your question. *Snip*

Mod Note: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Posting Conduct – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 4/12/2010 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by hgfbob
it is NOT up to ANYONE to PROVE there were explosives and accelerants...it is up to the INVESTIGATORS to do a thorough investigation in the first place of the mass murder of 3000 innocents...and prove that NONE were used.....to further FOCUS the investigation and form the HYPOTHESIS through ELIMINATION

but THAT didn't happen...did it?

Actually, if someone makes a claim then it is up to them to prove the claim.
Proving a negative has always been a problem. Anyone could continue to demand proof that an infinite number of scenarios did not happen. Look up "Logical Fallacy" and you will see why your position is not tenable.

Exactly...NIST claims that NO explosives or accelerants were used..

so the proof/evidence rests with THEM...to offer a little more...than 'opinion'.

standard procedure that is done ANY OTHER TIME IN THIS COUNTRY on ANY structure that exhibits a violent ejection of gasses and debris......

just as we saw on BOTH towers

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by spy66
All three building fell way to fast to the ground. If you know anything about the laws of physics you would know this.

If you had jumped from the top deck of WTC7 when it collapsed, The top deck would have beaten you to the ground. That's how fast it went down.

Explain how a CD would cause a building to fall faster than the acceleration of gravity.
You should try to learn some physics, yourself and stop believing those websites you read.

oh...you mean like the NIST site....

NCSTAR1-3 p.iii, 7.7.3..."NO STEEL WAS RECOVERED FROM WTC7"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"

-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.

do...YOU...understand what these quotes mean?


for the FIRST time in recorded history

a steel framed structure, had a free fall acclerated total global collapse...from FIRE ONLY...that NO ONE can SEE from the windows

in fact...it was the FASTEST NATURAL descent of ANY building

soooo fast, that till 9-11, THAT speed was ONLY measured in laboratory conditions...where ALL objects fall the SAME rate...as in a vacuum


so...according to NIST...at the time of 1.75s into the collapse,(when the kink forms), WE SEE FROM EVERY VIDEO, the SUDDEN, EVEN descent of everything...no matter what position the roof line is in at that time....EVERYTHING drops...and it does so at a rate that, TILL NOW, was ONLY achieved in a vacuum

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

How would a CD collapse differ from a collapse as proposed by the NIST report? …

First of all, the time frame would be different and the buildings would not have fallen the same way (both towers fell perfectly in on themselves). Also, 220 + concrete floors would not have turned to powder.

Let’s get this straight, this is not about an investigation to find evidence to support the request for the investigation, we already have that.

This thread is about building 7.

No one has yet shown how the time frame would have been different, how the collapses would have been different, or what would have happened to the floors. You only think you have evidence.

lol...during a Natural fire....there are 'hot' spots and 'COLD' spots due to the uneven consumption of hydrocarbons...so, you have vertical steel in various stages of temperature....and this is reflected by the SAME offering DIFFERENT amounts of RESISTANCE.

Now..YOU have to agree that columns the are DIRECTLY involved with fire, are going to be more susceptible to compromise, than steel that is NOT seen ANY fire.

So..WHY is there NO resistance shown from the perimeter vertical support that the FACADE IS attached to...WE SEE the EVEN descent.


there is NO fire affecting these perimeter vertical support to allow it to PULL the facade down. The facade is a NON-supporting structure...it WILL not stand while it's support falls behind it, NOR is there ANY load placed on the facade....for it is ONLY a cosmetic application...and BTW...one end of EVERY roof truss ALSO sits on the SAME perimeter vertical support

if there is acceleration...there can be NO resistance....you can NOT accelerate if there is SOMETHING there pushing back, no matter what...weak column = RESISTANCE.

and ANY resistance would be readily visible from the exterior when it was collapsing....but WE don't see that...do we?

Originally posted by hgfbob

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by spy66
All three building fell way to fast to the ground. If you know anything about the laws of physics you would know this.

If you had jumped from the top deck of WTC7 when it collapsed, The top deck would have beaten you to the ground. That's how fast it went down.

Explain how a CD would cause a building to fall faster than the acceleration of gravity.
You should try to learn some physics, yourself and stop believing those websites you read.

oh...you mean like the NIST site....

NCSTAR1-3 p.iii, 7.7.3..."NO STEEL WAS RECOVERED FROM WTC7"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"

-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.

do...YOU...understand what these quotes mean?


for the FIRST time in recorded history

a steel framed structure, had a free fall accelerated total global collapse...from FIRE ONLY...that NO ONE can SEE from the windows

in fact...it was the FASTEST NATURAL descent of ANY building

soooo fast, that till 9-11, THAT speed was ONLY measured in laboratory conditions...where ALL objects fall the SAME rate...as in a vacuum


so...according to NIST...at the time of 1.75s into the collapse,(when the kink forms), WE SEE FROM EVERY VIDEO, the SUDDEN, EVEN descent of everything...no matter what position the roof line is in at that time....EVERYTHING drops...and it does so at a rate that, TILL NOW, was ONLY achieved in a vacuum

Brilliantly explained. If they just payed attention to this free falling building this would have been debunked a long time ago. The same goes for WTC 1 and 2 as well. If people just payed attention to the speed of these falling buildings, this would have been debunked a long time ago.

Originally posted by hgfbob

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

How would a CD collapse differ from a collapse as proposed by the NIST report? …

First of all, the time frame would be different and the buildings would not have fallen the same way (both towers fell perfectly in on themselves). Also, 220 + concrete floors would not have turned to powder.

Let’s get this straight, this is not about an investigation to find evidence to support the request for the investigation, we already have that.

This thread is about building 7.

No one has yet shown how the time frame would have been different, how the collapses would have been different, or what would have happened to the floors. You only think you have evidence.

lol...during a Natural fire....there are 'hot' spots and 'COLD' spots due to the uneven consumption of hydrocarbons...so, you have vertical steel in various stages of temperature....and this is reflected by the SAME offering DIFFERENT amounts of RESISTANCE.

Now..YOU have to agree that columns the are DIRECTLY involved with fire, are going to be more susceptible to compromise, than steel that is NOT seen ANY fire.

So..WHY is there NO resistance shown from the perimeter vertical support that the FACADE IS attached to...WE SEE the EVEN descent.


there is NO fire affecting these perimeter vertical support to allow it to PULL the facade down. The facade is a NON-supporting structure...it WILL not stand while it's support falls behind it, NOR is there ANY load placed on the facade....for it is ONLY a cosmetic application...and BTW...one end of EVERY roof truss ALSO sits on the SAME perimeter vertical support

if there is acceleration...there can be NO resistance....you can NOT accelerate if there is SOMETHING there pushing back, no matter what...weak column = RESISTANCE.

and ANY resistance would be readily visible from the exterior when it was collapsing....but WE don't see that...do we?

And again brilliantly explained. You know the laws of physics

I wonder how other people understand these laws?

Originally posted by hgfbob


and ANY resistance would be readily visible from the exterior when it was collapsing....but WE don't see that...do we?

Surely we observe it after the period of freefall ends?

reply to post by pteridine

Let’s get this straight, this is not about an investigation to find evidence to support the request for the investigation, we already have that.

This thread is about building 7.

You asked the question, I answered it.

No one has yet shown how the time frame would have been different, how the collapses would have been different, or what would have happened to the floors. You only think you have evidence.

Really, your ignorance precedes you again. If you would spend as much time researching what other scientist have discovered, then you wouldn’t be spending all your time defending NIST proven fraudulent phony reports.
Most of us in the real world including scientist professors Engineers, Architectures, firemen, police officers, eyewitness do NOT support NIST pseudo science. NIST reports are a proven fraud.

Here is a fine example in the source below.

[color=gold]WTC 7 A short computation

www.journalof911studies.com...

NIST's Half-Admission of Yet Another 9/11 Smoking Gun

Once NIST invited comments on its draft report, it was more or less forced to accept the indisputable explanations based on the publicly available videos proving that freefall had occurred. David Chandler, a high school physics teacher and AE911Truth researcher, provided the most compelling argument in [color=gold]a video seen widely on YouTube.

This is evidences of CD without lines and circles drawn on them and without dramatic background music in a Youtube video. Not all the videos on Youtube are full of the garbage, lines and circles drawn on them as you claim.

NIST tried to hide its admission of freefall from public view, by not listing it in the description of the changes it made in response to public comments. Admitting to freefall leads directly to the question, what source of energy eliminated the eight stories of building structure? Evidently the NIST authors didn't want to go there. The chart (figure 2) below speaks for itself. They tried to hide their dramatic change of position, that WTC7 did fall freely for two seconds. Gravitational forces alone can't come close to explaining how the building came down.

www.ae911truth.org...

there is no other evidence to direct the examination[other than those videos with lines and circles]. There is no evidence of DEW or hologram projectors. Nukes didn't happen. Reptilians could have been there sawing the suports. My bet is they weren't checked for, either.

You are right they did not check for evidence of DEW, hologram projectors, or Reptilians, and NIST didn’t even check for demolitions or test the WTC dust for any chemical residue of explosive ingredients. In fact, NIST did everything in their power including outright lying to avoid looking into demolition and most people will agree to that.

[color=gold]PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY
AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN
TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01

www.journalof911studies.com...

Now, if you disagree with these findings I would expect you to show your evidences, or your hypotheses showing your calculations.

[color=gold]Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

www.911review.com...

Research how to attribute material to the original author on ATS and get back to me.

PROOF that Building 7 was demolished by explosives!!!

I support the OP article what is it that you do not support? We all know you support NIST.
Why do you support a proven lie the NIST reports of WTC 7?

This is not just my opinion. Research this and get back to me.

[color=gold]Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST

www.911blogger.com...

Must be upsetting when one cannot dispute science, and you never got back to me to tell me what is wrong with the science. I don’t care to hear about what you think of the scientist who did these reports, I want to hear from you where in their report, is their “science is wrong” in their reports.


[edit on 12-4-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


Something which I have never been able to obtain a satisfactory truther explanation for is this. If WTC 1,2 & 7 were rigged for cd then why were only the twin towers provided with a cover by having planes flown into them ? It was only by chance that WTC 7 was damaged and set on fire by debris from WTC 1 so what was the plan ? Supposing nothing had hit WTC 7 from WTC 1, was the plan to demolish WTC 7 anyway ? is that remotely credible ?

And, why was it demolished anyway ? Weren't the twin towers and the Pentagon enough ? Please don't give me stuff about destroying secrets in WTC 7. Potentialy blowing things over half Manhattan is not the optimum way to maintain secrecy.

Everyone needs to get off this thread and post somewhere else. You're wasting your energies. You will solve nothing here. These people have been on this forum for almost EIGHTY PAGES!! Repeating and repeating the same exact arguments that have been refuted by me, and others, throughout those EIGHTY PAGES.

It's a waste of your time. Pteridine, or whatever the name there, GenRadek, from Air Force One, Weedslinger, will continue to posit the same arguments. I'm not exactly sure why they see it necessary to argue the same exact things ad nauseum, but they do. They will parrot dis-proven positions, already addressed concerns, and irrational flame baiting like reptilian shape-shifting. You heard it here, you heard it once, please use your energy elsewhere. There is nothing here for you. You have much better things to do and much better people to discuss these issues with. This is a figure eight that never ends.

They want you on a circular loop. Get away now. Do not speak to these people.

If you must join in, read through the EIGHTY PAGES first, then decide if you should post or not. I hope that you will not want to. There are plenty of places you can go to talk about these issues.

Send me a PM if you want.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

so how does using explosives, change the facts of resistance for freefall,

wouldn't there still be columns, floors, beams, walls for the building to still fall through.
It's not as if these explosions/charges laid could have disintergrated or weakened the building anymore so than the story of how the fires were the cause. Resistance will always be there. they did not freefall.

reply to post by Alfie1

So, you support NIST as well?
You will not find any answers to your questions from NIST.