PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Well if there is a placard, that seals it. No one can argue with a placard.

Even I would not go that far but what do you have?

Molten concrete would show how hot the underground fires were during the aftermath which would account for all of the hot metal beneath the rubble.

I'm glad to see that you accept the truth that the authorities have provided us. You have come a long way down the path toward enlightenment.

So, since you do not even have the flimsy level of evidence I showed you, you spout some nonsense? Where is the truth that explained this heat again?

Oh yeah, and if you ever get tired of making crap up and then deflecting when asked to back it up, I would love to see your placard stating what you said. Better yet, real solid proof would be cool. Got anything like that at all?

reply to post by weedwhacker

If we are considering conpiracies...then have we thought about conspiracies within the powers that be?

We on ATS may not be the only ones pissed...and I am sure all relevant information was not released...or could have been.

How naive would that make me?

reply to post by MemoryShock


I am not sure...IF you are proposing wheels within wheels within wheels...well, those are the machinations that drive (or derive) many 'conspiracies'.

AS TO this thread title, I still tend to fall back on logic, and try to ask, firstly: "How Could WTC 7 Have Been Prepped for CD"?

Beforehand, is my question. Given that it (WTC 7) was not a 'target' of a hijacked airliner. AND, IF (WTC 7) was 'prepped' for 'CD'...why? I mean, 'HOW' was this to be explained, after-the-fact?

I stumble over the illogic of it, constantly.

What bothers me about this whole 9/11 thing... is if the government DID fake it so we could go to war......

It means we've become so spineless that we need a grand excuse to go kill people who need killing.

What's next? Farmers are going to have to fake cow stampedes that trample children so we allow them to butcher and feed us?

reply to post by weedwhacker

It's just....the "Planned Demolition" of WTC 7 is too far gone, in terms of this other aspect that you are proposing.

Are you sure of that? Perhaps, you are an expert in demolition; I would like to see your hypotheses against A&E or any real scientific reports or credible Journals that dispoves A&E findings. Other then your “opinions” you really don’t have a leg to stand on, when it comes to the credible facts that have been proven by very credible science.

It certainly appears that “demolition" has been proven and this is the only logical and scientific method that has explained the true demise of WTC 7 and to the visual effects that we all witnessed on television to what really happened to the WTC 7.

Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories

www.911truth.org...

I suppose all these credible people like the NYC Firemen, NYC police officers, First responders, professional, such as bankers office workers lawyers who were in these “explosions “, who witness the “explosions” and heard all these “explosions” first hand are all lairs to? Just because the government said there were no explosions, [color=gold]it doesn’t mean it is true.

Why do you think the FBI went out of their way to hide all these credible people statements from the public? It took a lawsuit from the New York Times against the NYC government under the FOIA to get the truth exposed

[color=gold]Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53

firefightersfor911truth.org...

[color=gold]Eyewitness Reports Of Explosions
Before WTC Collapses

whatreallyhappened.com...

You have well over five hundred witness who were in and saw and heard these demolition, yet today you only have a handful of people working for our government ( NIST) and a distorted media circus, who were not there today, saying there was no explosions . Most of us know who is lying, and it sure isn’t the real eyewitness that were there in and at the WTC7.

[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...

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

www.911review.com...

[color=gold]The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and
Nano-Thermites

www.journalof911studies.com...

Only because, to "buy in" to the WTC 7 'planned CD' requires WAY too much....just think about it.

---Prepping

---Timing

---Reasons (Since a lot of lost data has been recovered)

Fails the logic "smell" test, to me.

That’s your opinion and you haven’t presented any facts to support them either.

[color=gold]The Destruction of WTC 7

11syyskuu.blogspot.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...

[color=gold]Explosives Found in
World Trade Center Dust
Scientists Discover Both Residues
And Unignited Fragments
Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics
In Debris From the Twin Towers

911research.wtc7.net...

[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

WTC 7: A short computation

www.journalof911studies.com...

I like your path, but steer it away from the 'demolition' idea, and you may have a winner.

Why? Why not talk about the “Truth of demolition” and the hard scientific facts that support it. Science wins, opinions loses in this search for the truth.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by MemoryShock

 

Fascinating topic, MS....

Worthy of its own thread?

"Bilderburg", anyone?

Oh, no. Sorry.

It's just....the "Planned Demolition" of WTC 7 is too far gone, in terms of this other aspect that you are proposing.


I like your path, but steer it away from the 'demolition' idea, and you may have a winner.

Only because, to "buy in" to the WTC 7 'planned CD' requires WAY too much....just think about it.

---Prepping

---Timing

---Reasons (Since a lot of lost data has been recovered)

Fails the logic "smell" test, to me.

lol....what..."fails" is YOUR attempt to...'sweep under the carpet'...


why..is it that...they can take...YEARS to learn how to fly and...PREPARE,...BUT, explosives and accelerants 'MUST' be placed within..hours of the collapse...

mmmm....logic

so...WHO fails here?

reply to post by K J Gunderson

The thread topic is "PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!" I am still waiting for any sort of evidence. If molten concrete was present, as per placard, how does this prove anything about demolition? If you are trying to connect thermite with molten concrete and hot metal, you have some steps to fill in.
Jones has been shown to be in error, so his conclusions are invalid. High temperatures weeks and months later cannot be ascribed to thermite. Slow oxidation of the aluminum fascia in underground fires and continued burning of the carbonaceous fuel could explain the heat output. Aluminum oxidation has a significant exotherm, as you know. Under these conditions, melting concrete would be possible. Hot steel and aluminum will react with water to generate hydrogen, which is also known to combust.
There is sufficient fuel for combustion processes that are able to generate high temperatures without invoking tons of unreacted thermite as the cause. There is no proof of CD, as per thread title, and no evidence of explosives, including thermite.



[edit on 4/21/2010 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

The thread topic is "PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!" I am still waiting for any sort of evidence. If molten concrete was present, as per placard, how does this prove anything about demolition? If you are trying to connect thermite with molten concrete and hot metal, you have some steps to fill in.
Jones has been shown to be in error, so his conclusions are invalid. High temperatures weeks and months later cannot be ascribed to thermite. Slow oxidation of the aluminum fascia in underground fires and continued burning of the carbonaceous fuel could explain the heat output. Aluminum oxidation has a significant exotherm, as you know. Under these conditions, melting concrete would be possible. Hot steel and aluminum will react with water to generate hydrogen, which is also known to combust.
There is sufficient fuel for combustion processes that are able to generate high temperatures without invoking tons of unreacted thermite as the cause. There is no proof of CD, as per thread title, and no evidence of explosives, including thermite.



[edit on 4/21/2010 by pteridine]

Yeah, so anytime you want to retract or prove your claim that it was not melted but was liquid and re solidified...I am ready to read that.

Sudden and uncharacteristic need to get back to exactly what you expect from the OP noted. Funny how far off topic you are willing to go until you are forced to come up with proof of the things you say.

You asked me for proof, I showed it. You can call it crap all you like but at least I put some effort into proving my claim whereas you are just trying to pretend you were not cornered. Gotcha!

reply to post by K J Gunderson


"Gotcha?" Does this have something to do with your inabilty to prove thermite or explosives? The lack of evidence for your claims is certainly a gotcha in all of your arguments. As to the molten concrete, that is still unknown in spite of the all-knowing placard. It would seem that when something suits your predetermined conclusions, you lose your mistrust of officialdom and the incessant demands for proof-beyond-doubt are repressed. Things are accepted at face value when they are consistent with your theories.

If the concrete did melt and drip on part of a small arms arsenal, explain how this would prove thermite or CD of building 7. Show how the only conclusion could be thermite or high explosives used in the demolition of #7.

This could be a real gotcha and not your imagined variety.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

"Gotcha?" Does this have something to do with your inabilty to prove thermite or explosives? The lack of evidence for your claims is certainly a gotcha in all of your arguments.

Project much? What claims would you be speaking of, exactly? Quote me. I see the one about concrete along with the evidence asked for. What claims are you talking about or is this more nonsense you make up to distract?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

When something suits your predetermined conclusions, you lose your mistrust of officialdom and the incessant demands for proof-beyond-doubt are repressed. Things are accepted at face value when they are consistent with your theories.

One of the best "diagnostics" of how the "truth movement" works.
They are constantly supporting claims on what NIST said, FBI, NORAD, Cheney, Silverstein, but that´s only when they can be used in favor of their pre-established conclusions. Otherwise, NIST, the FBI or anybody else is a big lier and is "in" on the "job".

Originally posted by rush969

One of the best "diagnostics" of how the "truth movement" works.
They are constantly supporting claims on what NIST said, FBI, NORAD, Cheney, Silverstein, but that´s only when they can be used in favor of their pre-established conclusions. Otherwise, NIST, the FBI or anybody else is a big lier and is "in" on the "job".

One of the most common traits of the Anti-truther movement is that they lie.

Another common trait is there need to read better or get a dictionary - not sure which is really the problem.

Now, your statement puts in a bit of a dilemma. Either what you are saying is just a bunch of pointless bluster and you are here to derail and insult with not facts

or

You can show me where I ever once denigrated a source I also used as evidence.

reply to post by hgfbob


Wait...has the script flipped?

why..is it that...they can take...YEARS to learn how to fly and...PREPARE,...BUT, explosives and accelerants 'MUST' be placed within..hours of the collapse...

"they"?

By "they" you are assuming the hijackers, yes?

Now the "Truth" script has changed, and the same group that planned the hijackings is now responsible for the "demolitions"?

Oh, and WTC 7 building was NOT targeted by a hijacked airplane. There was NO guarantee of the substantial damage being inflicted by falling debris from WTC 1.

Yet, the "logic" of these "Truth Movement" types insists that it was "Pre-planned"?

Logic fail. sorry. Only those incredibly married to this "conspiracy" notion can skew "logic" in this manner.....

Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by Orion7911

Loud noise does not mean explosion and explosion does not mean demolition.

You can deny it if you wish... it won't change the facts which anyone can verify from the visual evidence and testimonies. And considering these testimonies, its more than reasonable aside even from the Science, Squibs, what was HEARD and SEEN and from just basic common sense, The EXPLOSIONS could only be DEMOLITION.

So, you are claiming that witnesses were perfectly able to tell the difference between explosions and collapse and that they heard only explosions.

are you saying the firefighters are lying and wouldn't be able to tell the difference between explosions and collapse?

Originally posted by pteridine
You then claim that "from just basic common sense, The EXPLOSIONS could only be DEMOLITION."

NO, you quote-mined what i said to make it look like i said something else.

a tactic i've seen you use and others have accused you of using many times here.

Originally posted by pteridine
This argument does not hold up on many levels.

that would be true if my argument was what you changed it to.

Originally posted by pteridine
Primarily, you assume CD

I don't ASSUME anything... there's overwhelming visual and scientific evidence to support CD... but one doesn't even need science, expert opinion, and other data to understand using basic common visual sense, wtc7 was an OBVIOUS CD.

Originally posted by pteridine
and then try to justify it with "basic common sense." You show no causation. You have no visual evidence of explosions.

uhm, yes there is.

Originally posted by pteridine
You show no diagnostic parallels between actual CD's and the collapse of WTC7.

something thats not needed in proving CD of wtc7

Originally posted by pteridine
In fact, you have no evidence of CD whatsoever and show that lack with emoticons, "LOL's", and caps in your text as an appeal to incredulity.
Bottom line: no evidence of CD.

except the VISUAL and SCIENTIFIC evidence alone PROVES otherwise.

Originally posted by Orion7911

one doesn't even need science, expert opinion, and other data to understand using basic common visual sense, wtc7 was an OBVIOUS CD.

Get it right.

The continued belief that 7 was CD'ed RELIES ON the exclusion of science, expert opinion, and other data.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by rush969

One of the best "diagnostics" of how the "truth movement" works.
They are constantly supporting claims on what NIST said, FBI, NORAD, Cheney, Silverstein, but that´s only when they can be used in favor of their pre-established conclusions. Otherwise, NIST, the FBI or anybody else is a big lier and is "in" on the "job".

One of the most common traits of the Anti-truther movement is that they lie.

First. I must say that I´m not on an "anti-truther" movement.
I´m not against asking questions or presenting theories.
What I´m against is "making up truths" that fit preconceived conspiracies which are unsupported by evidence or science.

Now, your statement puts in a bit of a dilemma. Either what you are saying is just a bunch of pointless bluster and you are here to derail and insult with not facts

Or, you can show me where I ever once denigrated a source I also used as evidence.

Neither is correct, and I didn´t address you directly did I??
And while we are challenging, you point me to where I have presented any lie, please.

And while we are discussing this I would like you to tell me.
Where do you stand on the OP issue??
Please tell me your personal theory on that.

reply to post by pteridine


For concrete to melt, temperatures are needed in the thousands of degrees to become like lava in a volcano. But nothing like that was ever seen in the WTCs.
Here are two answers about it:

Concrete does not melt, at least not in the way you may be
thinking. Concrete is composed largely of gravel an sand,
with Portland cement that holds the sand and gravel together
into a solid mass. The sand and gravel will melt, but you
will not be doing it in your kitchen oven! A temperature of
several thousand degrees is needed, and the result will be
much the same as the lava that comes out of volcanos. After
all, gravel and sand are just rock, as is molten lava. The
Portland cement in concrete, is a mixture of various hydrates
and silicates of calcium, aluminum and other elements. It too
is a "rocky" material that will not melt at any practical
temperature, either.

Regards,

Robert Wilson

-------------------------------------------

Concrete is a very complicated mixture of different metal oxides,
hydroxides, and silicates (many of which form extensive,
interpenetrating networks), mixed with a filler material such as
gravel or rock. It does not maintain its chemical identity when
heated. If concrete is heated to a high enough temperature, the
hydroxides decompose to form oxides and water; the water is quickly
lost as the vapor. The remaining metal oxides are quite refractory;
they remain solid at very high temperatures. The rock components of
concrete will decompose or melt at differing temperatures depending
on their mineral composition.

So the short answer to your question is that concrete will decompose
rather then melt when heated, and the clinker that remains after it
cools back down will unmistakably not be concrete.

Richard Barrans

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

Concrete can be degraded and decompose in high temps, which is more likely in the pile's conditions. Plus the accounts of "melted concrete" which covered a gun up looks more like corroded materials which got compressed together and heated up. Baked is more like it, the gypsom, rusting steel, all compressed in the collapse and heated up. Isnt it interesting how the "concrete," which requires thousands of degrees to be actually molten like lava didnt melt the gun, which has a lower temperature of melting relative to the concrete?

Here is the video of the alleged "melted" concrete:


Since when does concrete melt first, but the steel in the gun doesnt???

[edit fixed video]

[edit on 4/21/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by fbipeeper


This is totally ridiculous and completely ignorant.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Where are your examples of melted concrete from please KJ ?

Oh gosh, shucks - my bad. I thought an expert on 9/11 like yourself would know all of this stuff.

Here is what I do not understand. How can any of you defend the OS when you keep demonstrating how little you actually know? I mean it has been 9 years and some of you have been arguing this whole time. Yet a simple reference to something anyone looking into 9/11 from either side should know hits a dead end with you?

THESE GUNS ARE ON DISPLAY AT THE NEW YORK POLICE MUSEUM. CONCRETE MELTS AT 3000 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, PROVING THAT TEMPERATURES INSIDE THE COLLAPSED WORLD TRADE CENTER HAD TO BE AT LEAST THAT HIGH.

KJ, the reason I asked you where the guns and their accretions, however they were formed, are from is that we both know they came from WTC 6.

So, I am not sure how there is any relevance to the subject of this thread, i.e. WTC 7.

Dont know why people still discusses this. Think everybody know the truth by now, and if u dont know its because u dont want to. Time to act and cut the bs.