PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by spy66

Well it really dosent matter what your report state if they cant explain or prove why the building hit the ground in 7 seconds. By collapsing from below.

Which building collapsed in 7 seconds. WTC 1, 2, & 7 all took around 14 seconds.

Originally posted by SmittyPuffs

The towers fell due to intense heat from a jet fuel fire.

Safe your breath.

Actually jet fuel burns cooler than a typical room fire.

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...

Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)

en.wikipedia.org...

So how did jet fuel make the fires hotter?

You also have to realise that air temp of fire does not equate to the temp of objects in that fire, you need to learn about heat transfer and why an hour would not be long enough to heat up ANY steel to failure...

It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer.

www.doctorfire.com...

Oh and yes my breath is safe, I brush my teeth often thanx for asking...

Originally posted by jthomas
Which building collapsed in 7 seconds. WTC 1, 2, & 7 all took around 14 seconds.

And why is this even relevant?

The speed of the collapses is not what shows controlled demolition, it's the lack of resistance and the symmetry from asymmetrical damage. A chaotic system cannot create a symmetrical result. The collapse had to have been controlled.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by jthomas
Which building collapsed in 7 seconds. WTC 1, 2, & 7 all took around 14 seconds.

And why is this even relevant?

The speed of the collapses is not what shows controlled demolition, it's the lack of resistance and the symmetry from asymmetrical damage. A chaotic system cannot create a symmetrical result. The collapse had to have been controlled.

Of course the time plays a vital role if the collapse was caused by demolition or not. Demolition can manipulate friction which changes the fall speed.

reply to post by jthomas

Trying to convince me is not the issue. Trying to convince the responsible entity for a "new" investigation is the issue. How do you intend to do it?

I don’t have to convince anyone for a new investigation, its already being demanded by important professionals. You think one person like me can take on the entire corrupt government, that are doing their best to stop a new investigation by ignoring everyone.
Here are some sources to back my claim.

[color=gold]Experts want new 9/11 investigation

www.youtube.com...


[color=gold]Mike Gravel want independant 9/11 investigation-2/2

www.youtube.com...

[color=gold]9/11 survivors call for renewed probe as 8th anniversary approaches

blog.nj.com...

[color=gold]1,000+ Architects & Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation

world911truth.org...

That doesn't tell us anything on how you think you can get a new investigation. What steps are you going to take? So far, there have been a handful of ineffective, symbolic petitions by some truth groups, but they do not produce any results.

This is not a process for one person to take on, in fact it is impossible for one person to take on an entire government.

You say there are only a handful of ineffective, symbolic petitions by some truth groups
I disagree with your exaggeration, there are many groups petitioning the government.
Maybe they haven’t produce much results, but what do you expect when the very criminals in our government have all the power to stop anything, so far ignoring the American people request for a new investigation is working.

I've already shown that studies to determine the chemical components of the dust had already long-since been done before the NIST investigation. No evidence of explosives was ever found.

Really, what was the chemical component found in the dust?
Who did these tests?
When, what date?
What laboratories did these analyses?
Where these people looking for any unusual explosives chemicals and who authorized it?

I have not seen any such report put out, besides NIST and Jones report.

So, please back up your claim or I can assume you are lying.

I thought ATS was a place to discuss facts with sources and a place to carry out real debates. I had no idea that “opinions” were considered facts and don’t need sources?
If that is the case, then I am discussing my argument on the wrong website don’t you agree?


[edit on 13-4-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by jthomas
Which building collapsed in 7 seconds. WTC 1, 2, & 7 all took around 14 seconds.

And why is this even relevant?

I was curious to know which building he was talking about.

The speed of the collapses is not what shows controlled demolition,...

I'm glad to hear that the 9/11 Truth Movement has finally abandoned that claim.

it's the lack of resistance and the symmetry from asymmetrical damage. A chaotic system cannot create a symmetrical result. The collapse had to have been controlled.

That's the same claim made almost 9 years ago but never validated. It would be nice if the 9/11 Truth Movement would actually refute the NIST investigations instead of just making the same unsupported claims.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by spy66

Well it really dosent matter what your report state if they cant explain or prove why the building hit the ground in 7 seconds. By collapsing from below.

Which building collapsed in 7 seconds. WTC 1, 2, & 7 all took around 14 seconds.

Building 7.

Building 7 didn't take 14 seconds to collapse. NIST cant add the interior collapse (1) and the penthouse collapse (2) to the time of the main building collapse (3). The main building is collapsing from the ground floors. The main structure is almost intact all the way down until it is hidden by debris.

NIST added all these three section of time to make it look right. The collapse took 7 seconds.

The graf that NIST use to explain this is even wrong, and you can see that in section 1 and 3 on the graf.

EDIT . the only thing that is right with their graf is section 2. Fallow the dots and the black line. That is the clue.







[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by jthomas
That's the same claim made almost 9 years ago but never validated. It would be nice if the 9/11 Truth Movement would actually refute the NIST investigations instead of just making the same unsupported claims.

How is that claim unsupported?

How can anyone refute NIST when they didn't explain the collapses in the first place?

All they did is try to explain the collapse INITIATION, then they try to convince you that once initiated global symmetrical collapse was inevitable.
But since no building has ever globally symmetrically collapsed from fires and asymmetrical damage then what do they base their claim on? Science requires that to be true something has to be testable and repeatable.

BTW sorry, but I'm not the 'truth movement' so I have no idea how to answer your question about that. I'm just me who can see serious problems with what the government has told me and as a free citizen I have the right to ask questions. Is everyone who ever asked a question of their authorities part of a 'movement' in the negative sense you portray?

So I would prefer you address your replies to my posts to me, not the 'truth movement' who do not speak for me as I do not speak for them.

[edit on 4/13/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by spy66
Of course the time plays a vital role if the collapse was caused by demolition or not. Demolition can manipulate friction which changes the fall speed.

Yes it does, but more important is the symmetry of the collapses. The fact that the collapses were symmetrical proves lack of resistance more than the collapse time does. ANY amount of resistance would have caused asymmetry in the collapses. It's the one solid piece of evidence no one can counter, there are those that try but simply misunderstand the use of the term 'symmetrical'. The collapse times can be argued, but anyone who tries to claim the collapses were not symmetrical are confused or outright lying.

They could have fell at the speed claimed by debunkers it doesn't matter, speed alone proves nothing, the collapses were still symmetrical thus there was no resistance anywhere in the collapse wave.

It is a stronger argument than the old 'free-fall' one.

[edit on 4/13/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by spy66
Of course the time plays a vital role if the collapse was caused by demolition or not. Demolition can manipulate friction which changes the fall speed.

Yes it does, but more important is the symmetry of the collapses. The fact that the collapses were symmetrical proves lack of resistance more than the collapse time does. ANY amount of resistance would have caused asymmetry in the collapses. It's the one solid piece of evidence no one can counter, there are those that try but simply misunderstand the use of the term 'symmetrical'. The collapse times can be argued, but anyone who tries to claim the collapses were not symmetrical are confused or outright lying.

They could have fell at the speed claimed by debunkers it doesn't matter, speed alone proves nothing, the collapses were still symmetrical thus there was no resistance anywhere in the collapse wave.

It is a stronger argument than the old 'free-fall' one.

[edit on 4/13/2010 by ANOK]

There is a good point in what you are saying. And your point is also why the building couldn't have collapsed as the report state. The collapse of column nr 79 and the penthouse proves it. Column nr. 79 was stationed right under the penthouse that collapsed before the main structure collapsed.

Column 79 collapsed as the NIST report state from ground level between the 7th and 13th floor.

Do you see the problem with this now. The building started to collapse vertically between the 7th and 13th floor. And later horizontally from the 5th and 7th floor.

There is no space to make the building fall this fast.

EDIT : The main building in whole is collapsing between the 7th and the 13th floor. After 0.2sec. And the whole building is intact all the way down?

The columns above the 13th Floor would have been intact and strong. All the columns above the 13th floor couldn't have been as soft that it could do this.

For this to be possible there must have been a great big hole in the ground for the building to fall into.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Take a look at the NIST simulations. And tell me that this in not what you saw happening? www.nist.gov...[/ur l]

Look at the simulation video at the bottom right hand corner "God"!!!! You got to be totally brain dead to believe this crap.

WTC7 dont even come close to any of these simulations.

Here is a good page that can describe this to you. Its not that much to read. It also has a bunch of pictures to look at.

[url=http://doujibar.ganriki.net/english/e-menu.html]http://doujibar.ganriki.net/english/e-menu.html

Cant get this link to work for some reason??




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas

 

Trying to convince me is not the issue. Trying to convince the responsible entity for a "new" investigation is the issue. How do you intend to do it?

I don’t have to convince anyone for a new investigation, its already being demanded by important professionals.

You keep missing the point. Just how does "demanding" a new investigation get one? "Important professionals" is just a subjective term; you need a body of evidence sufficient to either refute factually and overwhelmingly the evidence, facts, and conclusions of the existing investigations. We should have already seen scores of peer-reviewed scientific papers that convince those professionals who accept the evidence, methodology, and conclusions of the FEMA, NIST, and ASCE investigations. But we don't.

What we see is groups like Architects and Engineers resort to posting a dishonest account of the fires in WTC 2 (see: www.abovetopsecret.com...) as a fund raising event, and resort to pleading for anybody to sign a petition.

You should get a grasp on the magnitude and substance of just what's missing from these feeble attempts to attract attention.

You think one person like me can take on the entire corrupt government, that are doing their best to stop a new investigation by ignoring everyone.

Who asked you to? I am asking you how you would proceed to get a new investigation, whether it's you individually or the entire 9/11 Truth Movement. In other words, what's going on now is just trying to get people to sign petitions. How does that convince anyone? It certainly hasn't convinced us skeptics of the 9/11 Truth Movement in it's entire history.

I've already shown that studies to determine the chemical components of the dust had already long-since been done before the NIST investigation. No evidence of explosives was ever found.

Really, what was the chemical component found in the dust?
Who did these tests?
When, what date?
What laboratories did these analyses?
Where these people looking for any unusual explosives chemicals and who authorized it?

I have not seen any such report put out, besides NIST and Jones report.

We had most of a thread about it starting here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The study is here:
ehp.niehs.nih.gov...

One poster insisted that the methodology of this test would not and could not detect any chemical signatures of explosives but, to date, has never backed up his claim.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by jthomas

Which building collapsed in 7 seconds. WTC 1, 2, & 7 all took around 14 seconds.

Building 7.

Building 7 didn't take 14 seconds to collapse. NIST cant add the interior collapse (1) and the penthouse collapse (2) to the time of the main building collapse (3). The main building is collapsing from the ground floors. The main structure is almost intact all the way down until it is hidden by debris.

Let me get this straight. The fact that you cannot see the internal collapses going on for 7-8 seconds that removed the support for the outer shell means it didn't happen? How do you figure?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by jthomas
That's the same claim made almost 9 years ago but never validated. It would be nice if the 9/11 Truth Movement would actually refute the NIST investigations instead of just making the same unsupported claims.

How is that claim unsupported?

How can anyone refute NIST when they didn't explain the collapses in the first place?

Straw man argument that was debunked as soon as it surfaced after the NIST reports.

All they did is try to explain the collapse INITIATION, then they try to convince you that once initiated global symmetrical collapse was inevitable.

Yup. Explaining collapse initiation was all that was needed. Why the physics and specific construction of the towers is still confusing after all these years is amazing.

In fact, claiming that modeling of the collapses after the collapses started is one of the 9/11 Truth Movements favorite canards. It is just another one of those unsupported claims the 9/11 Truth Movement makes claiming that something was not done that should have been done."

Structural engineers understand what is needed to construct a building to support itself and what's put inside the building, to support the static loads it will have, as well as the forces it is likely to encounter, in particular in NYC, hurricane-force winds and a possible aircraft collision. They build in a margin of safety.

They did not build buildings in which an aircraft hits multiple floors setting off instantaneous fires on the floors which were structurally damaged, severing the sprinkler system, have no one able to fight those fires, and expect it to be able to stand indefinitely.

What actually happened is that WTC 1 and WTC 2 survived long enough to get occupants out before they collapsed (except, of course, for the firemen who were trying to reach the fires.) In other words, WTC 1 and 2 performed as designed.

It is apparent that structural engineers and physicists understand that the dynamic forces of the upper sections of WTC 1 and 2 falling absolutely overwhelmed the ability of the lower sections to withstand those forces.

There is no mystery there.

reply to post by jthomas

investigation get one? "Important professionals" is just a subjective term; you need a body of evidence sufficient to either refute factually and overwhelmingly the evidence, facts, and conclusions of the existing investigations.

Which you do not have to support the OS.

We should have already seen scores of peer-reviewed scientific papers that convince those professionals who accept the evidence, methodology, and conclusions of the FEMA, NIST, and ASCE investigations. But we don't.

"We got started late; we had a very short time frame... we did not have enough money... We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. ... So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail" ~ Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton

"At some level of government, at some point in time, there was an agreement not to tell the people the truth about what happened." ~ John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9-11 Commission in his book The Ground Truth (Page 4)

"FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue...We, to this day, don't know why NORAD told us what they told us...It was just so far from the truth." ~ Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean, Former Governor of New Jersey
August 9, 2006: A shocking new book by the 9/11 Commission co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton says we still don't know the whole truth about 9/11. The book outlines repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and the FAA. Untrue—the military's original timeline of United Flight 93. Equally untrue, the government's timeline for American Flight 77 and details about fighter jets scrambled to intercept it. CNN News anchor Lou Dobbs: "The fact that the government would permit deception ... and perpetuate the lie suggests that we need a full investigation of what is going on." [CNN, 8/9/06 , MSNBC/AP, 8/4/06, more]
According to the media advisory about the final report of the 9/11 Commission, the total budget for the investigation was $15 million. By contrast, the government, according to the General Accounting Office, spent nearly $80 million on the investigations of Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and other Clinton-related matters.
The bill for investigating 9/11 vs. the Clinton investigation bi

www.invisibleempire.net...

[color=gold]The Numbers of the 9/11 Commission

Days until an investigation was ordered into the Pearl Harbour attack: 9
Days until an investigation was ordered into the Kennedy assassination: 7
Days until an investigation was ordered into the Challenger disaster: 7
Number of days until an investigation was ordered into the sinking of the Titanic: 6
Number of days until an investigation was ordered into the 9/11 attacks: 411
Amount of money allocated for the 1986 Challenger disaster investigation: $75 million
Amount of money allocated for the 2004 Columbia disaster investigation: $50 million
Amount of money allocated for Clinton-Lewinsky investigation: $40 million
Amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission: $14 million

www.911blogger.com...


Your NIST has been proven a fraud by experts in A&E. The problem we have is the criminals who are behind the real treason in our government have close the doors to any new investigation. (They do not want to be caught) These people in our government do not want to explain to the American people that someone blew up the WTC.
Because, we all know that no foreign terrorist had the capabilities to bring down the WTC, much less get their hands on Supper nano Thermite & nano Thermate and the know how, to cover-up their evidence, these terrorist would definitely need the help of our government to cover up the demolition of the WTC and the circumstantial evidences certainly supports it.

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

"Questions and Answers" page (www.nist.gov...), NIST has attempted to refute many of the points that members of our group and others have made regarding the WTC 7 destruction. However, NIST did not provide any references to sections of the Report that support its alleged refutations. How is a member of the public, then, able to verify NIST’s refutation without reading through the entire 1000+ page Report? Our comments are directed to many of the areas addressed in the "Questions and Answers" page, and without citations directly to the Report itself, it was extremely difficult and time consuming for us see whether our main criticisms of the NIST theory of collapse have been adequately addressed in the Report. This is especially true in light of the fact that this latest draft Report is the third different story NIST has come up with.

www.911blogger.com...

So, NIST cannot keep their stories straight, they have lied repeatedly and here is your proof!

Read this, and then tell me if you support NIST. Because, it is a clear slam dunk in proving NIST lies.

[color=gold]The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

www.journalof911studies.com...


[edit on 13-4-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by jthomas

[color=gold]Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage

www.journalof911studies.com...

[color=gold]Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

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

www.911review.com...

Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT

911research.wtc7.net...



Our government does not want the WTC debris examine, not the dust, or the steel. No one on planet earth besides Pro Steven Jones has done such a test and Jones has found chemical compounds that should not been in the WTC dust. These chemicals are ingredients of bomb making materials used in our military it is already proven these ingredients are in different applications of making highly explosive weapons.

The government has said absolutely NOTHING about the demise of the WTC, only NIST has tried to convinces the American people by putting together a fraudulently report based on proven lies. This is an undeniable fact

You think one person like me can take on the entire corrupt government, that are doing their best to stop a new investigation by ignoring everyone.

Who asked you to?

You did, read below. And BTW that the first time you have ever ask me not frequently.

I have asked frequently here how that "new" investigation will ever come to fruition without answer.

How do you think you'll ever be able to get a new investigation?

You should get a grasp on the magnitude and substance of just what's missing from these feeble attempts to attract attention.

What we see is groups like Architects and Engineers resort to posting a dishonest account of the fires in WTC 2 (see: www.abovetopsecret.com...) as a fund raising event, and resort to pleading for anybody to sign a petition.

That does not prove anything, you have a problem with organizations raising money? Just because they raise money, it does not discredit them.

Do you have a scientific report to refute A&E? No, I didn’t think so.

I've already shown that studies to determine the chemical components of the dust had already long-since been done before the NIST investigation. No evidence of explosives was ever found.

Really, what was the chemical component found in the dust?
Who did these tests?
When, what date?
What laboratories did these analyses?
Where these people looking for any unusual explosives chemicals and who authorized it?

I have not seen any such report put out, besides NIST and Jones report.

We had most of a thread about it starting here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And what was the outcome to this thread? Nothing you were not able to prove anything.

The study is here:
ehp.niehs.nih.gov...

I read the report and I find it amusing that you presented it as your evidences.

After reading the report I notices no testing was done into looking for any explosives chemical compound, nothing. It is clear they were not testing for any residue.
Furthermore, this is an agency working for our government, so perhaps they did find the chemical residue of Na-no Thermite who really knows, but if they did, I can guarantee the government had it remove from their reports. Why not, it’s already proven the Bush administration cover-up everything else.

You are not acting as a skeptic; any skeptic would not stand behind NIST proven, fraudulent, pseudo report. Skeptics do not support proven lies.


[edit on 13-4-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by spy66


So if Building 7 didnt take 14 seconds to collapse, then why exactly is the seismic signal lasting for 18 seconds? Especially since the signal itself is more indicative to a progressive collapse than any magic silent explosions?

Seems to me the building was internally collapsing for nearly 18 seconds, right up to where we FINALLY see the exterior shell fall apart.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by jthomas

Which building collapsed in 7 seconds. WTC 1, 2, & 7 all took around 14 seconds.

Building 7.

Building 7 didn't take 14 seconds to collapse. NIST cant add the interior collapse (1) and the penthouse collapse (2) to the time of the main building collapse (3). The main building is collapsing from the ground floors. The main structure is almost intact all the way down until it is hidden by debris.

Let me get this straight. The fact that you cannot see the internal collapses going on for 7-8 seconds that removed the support for the outer shell means it didn't happen? How do you figure?

Yes how do you figure?

Everything that happens inside that building is based on assumptions. Because there was no one there to observe it.

The simulations are based on information from their investigation. But the simulations dont even come close to resemble the actual event.

There is no visual ID of any of the floors collapsing below the Penthouse.

There is no visual ID of the column 79 collapsing as the Penthouse is collapsing between the 7th and 13th floor.

Their vertical and horizontal explanation for the collapse for all the columns from 79 and so forth, is impossible at the speed they have used.

Do you know what energy it would take to just move the debris horizontally (Away from the collapsing aria) to make the building fall this fast. With all these columns giving away?

EDIT to add: What i mean is. Do you know what energy is needed to move the columns out of the way horizontally to make the building collapse at the speed it does?

According to the NIST report the columns dont break of, they buckle do to weaken columns structure and down force.

EDIT to add: The NIST report also admit that the building fell at free fall speed for at least 2.25 seconds. You know the impossible speed that can only be accomplished in a vacuum state. Maybe that's why they didn't bother to finish their Time scale properly. (The graf that explains the collapse speed).

EDIT to add. If you delivered the NIST report to a science teacher as a final exam. I really wonder if you would pass at all.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by spy66

 

So if Building 7 didnt take 14 seconds to collapse, then why exactly is the seismic signal lasting for 18 seconds? Especially since the signal itself is more indicative to a progressive collapse than any magic silent explosions?

Seems to me the building was internally collapsing for nearly 18 seconds, right up to where we FINALLY see the exterior shell fall apart.

I haven't looked at this yet. I am going to do that right now. This should be able to say something about the fall. Good point.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by spy66

 

So if Building 7 didnt take 14 seconds to collapse, then why exactly is the seismic signal lasting for 18 seconds? Especially since the signal itself is more indicative to a progressive collapse than any magic silent explosions?

Seems to me the building was internally collapsing for nearly 18 seconds, right up to where we FINALLY see the exterior shell fall apart.

Could you show me your information on this seismic data. I can only find one image of the seismic data on wtc7. But it lacks information. I think i have the same image as you do? But it doesn't explain if it is sound traveling in air or ground. And the scale is only from 0d to 10d. So the image i have could be seismic data of anything!

It doesn't seam like NIST have used any seismic data in their modules?