PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by spy66


Seismic waves travel through the ground. Their arrival time depends on the distance and geology between the source and the detector. The geology affects the velocity and attenuation.

Originally posted by impressme
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.

The existing investigations are the FEMA, NIST, and ASCE investigations. No one has refuted them.

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.

Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton

" ~ John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9-11 Commission in his book The Ground Truth (Page 4)

Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean, Former Governor of New Jersey

The 9/11 Commission did not have responsibility for the investigations of the towers, Pentagon, and flights. We're talking, FEMA, NIST, and ASCE.

Your NIST has been proven a fraud by experts in A&E.

No, A&E has done no such thing. They have made claims with which they cannot get the majority of professionals to agree. They just try to get petitions signed and raise money by unethically misrepresenting the firemen in WTC 2. A&E has accomplished nothing.

Originally posted by impressme

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.

So determining what chemical compounds were in the dust is a proper methodology for looking for the signatures of explosives. That's what I am saying. And all the dust studies showed no chemical signatures of explosives.

The only problem is that Jones found red paint chips which turn out to be only red paint chips

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.

Raising money is fine. Raising it unethically as A&E has done is a problem.

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

...

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.

I don't have to prove anything. You do. The burden of proof remains on your shoulders to prove your claims that explosives were found and refute the NIST investigation. We see you still haven't.

Anyway, you already agreed with me above that the methodology of determining the chemical components of the dust to find explosive residue is valid. And no explosive residue has been found.

Originally posted by spy66

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.

So, let me get this straight. If, by your reasoning, "no one was there to observe" the internal collapse, then how can you claim you know something doesn't "...even come close to resemble the actual event." Explain that logic for us.

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.

Do you actually think NO structural engineers, physicists, architects, and science teachers have read the NIST reports?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by spy66

 

Seismic waves travel through the ground. Their arrival time depends on the distance and geology between the source and the detector. The geology affects the velocity and attenuation.

The thing is some seismic stations record both air,land and sea.The travel time depends on what medium the sound travels through from WTC7 to the seismic reader. So its a bit more to it than you think.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by spy66
So, let me get this straight. If, by your reasoning, "no one was there to observe" the internal collapse, then how can you claim you know something doesn't "...even come close to resemble the actual event." Explain that logic for us.

Well i have read the NIST report on WTC7, and the report even say so. They couldn't make a proper investigation do to lack of proper information gathering before and after the collapse. Do to the area was sealed of and to dangerous to enter,to do such a investigation. A proper investigation of WTC would have taken months. But they found it sufficient enough to make a report based on expertise and witnesses collaboration.

Do you know why i do this. Its because i can see with my own eyes that they have failed to complete and explain the easiest observational factor of them all: The Free Fall Speed of WTC7. If you look at the figure that explains the fall speed of WTC7 you will notice that in section two they have the building free falling in 2.25 seconds. Do you care to explain that please? NB.NIST has admitted that WTC7 free fell for at least 2.25 seconds.
And then suddenly in section 3 they just plotted some dots and that's it. Care to explain that to me please?

Edit to add:
And when you have done that. You can explain the Vertical collapse and the Horizontal expansion between floor 7 - 13 and 5 -7 that must take place for the building to fall intact with this speed.

If you support this you should be able to explain it since you understand it.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by spy66
So, let me get this straight. If, by your reasoning, "no one was there to observe" the internal collapse, then how can you claim you know something doesn't "...even come close to resemble the actual event." Explain that logic for us.

Well i have read the NIST report on WTC7, and the report even say so.

I would be grateful if you would provide the page number of the WTC 7 report and statement that the simulation doesn't "...even come close to resemble the actual event."

Where can I find that statement and/or admission?

They couldn't make a proper investigation do to lack of proper information gathering before and after the collapse. Do to the area was sealed of and to dangerous to enter,to do such a investigation. A proper investigation of WTC would have taken months. But they found it sufficient enough to make a report based on expertise and witnesses collaboration.

So, by that logic, they should never have even bothered to have conducted an investigation to begin with. You have doomed it a priori to be a failure. You have invalidated every bit of evidence available, including how the towers were built, all videos from which measurements were taken, and all computer simulations, and the fact that it took years instead of just months as you claim an investigation should have taken.

So what value would there ever possibly be in conducting yet another investigation?

Do you know why i do this. Its because i can see with my own eyes that they have failed to complete and explain the easiest observational factor of them all: The Free Fall Speed of WTC7.

You just invalidated the investigation and all of the evidence on which NIST relied. Now, you want to change your mind and start using that evidence.

If you look at the figure that explains the fall speed of WTC7 you will notice that in section two they have the building free falling in 2.25 seconds. Do you care to explain that please? NB.NIST has admitted that WTC7 free fell for at least 2.25 seconds.

Yes, it is a period of time within a greater period of time of no free-fall. Did you miss the explanation? Why should you be surprised given the explained collapse mechanism -- which you now claim is invalid?

Edit to add:
And when you have done that. You can explain the Vertical collapse and the Horizontal expansion between floor 7 - 13 and 5 -7 that must take place for the building to fall intact with this speed.

According to you, there's nothing to explain. You've given your reasons why the investigation is invalid and, by your own criteria, no future investigation would be valid either. Remember, you said, "no one was there to observe the internal collapses" and computer simulations could not "even come close to resemble the actual event," correct?

reply to post by jthomas


First. If you cant find the information i am talking about. Your just a waste of time. Because than you haven't read or understood the NIST report.

There is a lot of information in the NIST report that you can use to give me at least.

1. The vertical collapse time.

2. The energy that must exist to move debris horizontal to give way for the collapse speed.

2. And by this explain why the building free falls for 2.25 seconds.

If you give me a sec. I will upload the graf that explains the free fall in the NIST report.









[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jthomas

 

First. If you cant find the information i am talking about. Your just a waste of time. Because than you haven't read or understood the NIST report.

Sorry, I can't find any such statement in the WTC 7 report that the simulation doesn't "...even come close to resemble the actual event."

There is a lot of information in the NIST report that you can use to give me at least.

You're supposed to be giving me the information above.



Yes, that's the image that contains the 2.25 second free fall time. Now, do you understand that it neither was in free fall before or after that period?

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

www.nist.gov...

Is there something there that confuses you?

reply to post by jthomas


No it doesn't say in the report that the simulations are far from the actual event. But if you look at them you will see that they dont resemble the actual event. Don't tell me you would rather believe the simulations than the actual event?

By looking at the figure you should see that it is not right. At stage 3 the building is free falling again (second time). But in stead they show the fall as reducing. with the black line showing a slope after 5 seconds. But what about the 2 dots above the 5 second mark?

Stage 3 is a mess and dont coexist with the black line.

I dont even think we should do stage 1. By the looks of things. That would take to long to explain.

And just to ask. Should it even be possible for the building to free fall for even 2.25 seconds?

To make it easy. Should it be possible for the building to free fall at stage 2?

To make it even easier. What is free fall?

To make it even easier. Where would the structure ( the entire structure) at at ground level have to be located to be able to create a free fall for 2.25 seconds?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jthomas

 

No it doesn't say in the report that the simulations are far from the actual event.

I accept your retraction.

But if you look at them you will see that they dont resemble the actual event. Don't tell me you would rather believe the simulations than the actual event?

You are contradicting yourself again. You cannot claim there is an "actual event" that you know about and, at the same time. claim there is no "actual event" because no one witnessed it.

By looking at the figure you should see that it is not right. At stage 3 the building is free falling again (second time). But in stead they show the fall as reducing. with the black line showing a slope after 5 seconds. But what about the 2 dots above the 5 second mark?

No, that's not what it shows.

You need to resolve your contradictions.

Originally posted 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.

In the FEMA report it can be found here:
www.fema.gov...
Its on page 23 of the actual PDF towards the bottom of the page.

And just to clarify, one cannot argue that this long of a seismic signal is the result of demo charges going off. Why? Because hearing democharges going off for 18-30 seconds prior to collapse (the global collapse we see at the end) would have been VERY obvious. But no one mentions anything doing that until the building is already falling over. Demo charges cannot be masked or silent. And if the seismic data is showing collapse for 18 seconds, then that means the building was failing internally for a majority of that time, without us seeing it until the very end. Plus no one heard any detonations during that time.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jthomas

 

No it doesn't say in the report that the simulations are far from the actual event.

I accept your retraction.

But if you look at them you will see that they dont resemble the actual event. Don't tell me you would rather believe the simulations than the actual event?

You are contradicting yourself again. You cannot claim there is an "actual event" that you know about and, at the same time. claim there is no "actual event" because no one witnessed it.

By looking at the figure you should see that it is not right. At stage 3 the building is free falling again (second time). But in stead they show the fall as reducing. with the black line showing a slope after 5 seconds. But what about the 2 dots above the 5 second mark?

No, that's not what it shows.

You need to resolve your contradictions.

jthomas. Thank you very much for your time. I know now were you stand in all this. I am going to ignore your next replies unless you can give me anything useful. Because what you are doing now is a waste of my time and everyone else's time.

For me. This is not a arguing competition for the sake of having a argument. I would like someone to challenge the questions that i have about the NIST report and the actual event it self. You dont have what it takes. But thank you anyway.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted 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.

In the FEMA report it can be found here:
www.fema.gov...
Its on page 23 of the actual PDF towards the bottom of the page.

And just to clarify, one cannot argue that this long of a seismic signal is the result of demo charges going off. Why? Because hearing democharges going off for 18-30 seconds prior to collapse (the global collapse we see at the end) would have been VERY obvious. But no one mentions anything doing that until the building is already falling over. Demo charges cannot be masked or silent. And if the seismic data is showing collapse for 18 seconds, then that means the building was failing internally for a majority of that time, without us seeing it until the very end. Plus no one heard any detonations during that time.

Thanks, but this report only showes the time table from a reacorded seismic chart and not the seismic chart it self.

This is the only seismic chart that i could find for WTC7. But where is the analysation of this chart in the NIST report?



I could create what ever story i wish with this chart. I would need some more information to tell me what i am looking at.


Edit to add. The only analysation of any movement made by NIST. Is NIST own manufactured chart. You can see it on page 329 . close to the botom of this report. wtc.nist.gov...

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


I am aware of the complexity. I gave you a concise answer to the question you posed.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by spy66

 

I am aware of the complexity. I gave you a concise answer to the question you posed.

Yes you did, and i am trying to figure it out. But there is hardly any information on the seismic chart for WTC7. There is only a lot of analyzation for the 4 seismic charts for WTC1 and 2.

NIST in their report have only focused on fire and other types of damages. They dont go in depth on any seismic data like the seismic chart it self.

Originally posted by spy66


jthomas. Thank you very much for your time. I know now were you stand in all this. I am going to ignore your next replies unless you can give me anything useful. Because what you are doing now is a waste of my time and everyone else's time.

I have already. I have repeatedly. Let's review:

1. You do not get to choose which evidence you ignore. You must deal with, and refute, the multiple lines of evidence from all sources that converge on the conclusions of the NIST investigations.

2. If you believe there were explosives, or reasons to think so, the burden of proof is on you to refute the evidence that no explosives were needed and no evidence of them was found.

3. If you intend to give reasons for a new investigation, you will have to at least satisfy numbers 1 and 2 above.

If you have any questions, let me know.

reply to post by pteridine


NIST never looked for explosives or accelerants. Stop misleading people.

reply to post by SmittyPuffs


I believe "save" is the word you're looking for.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

NIST never looked for explosives or accelerants. Stop misleading people.

NIST didn't have to. It had already been done.