PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by iamcpc

 

To answer your questions.

1. Bring forward the seismograph you are speaking of and let's analyze it.
2. Nobody knows the answer to this question. Head of security at WTC 1 and 2 was Marvin Bush. There are reports weeks before the attacks of "clean up" crews coming in and out of the buildings.
3. I don't understand this. What fire are you referring to? What 12+ buildings?

THE AQUARIAN 1

[edit on 7-5-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

[edit on 7-5-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

Aquarian thank you so much for your reply! It's so refreshing to come to this forum and have someone actually present you with information. It's also refreshing to have the person who is presenting you with said information to appear to have done some research. I've done upwards of 20-40 hours of research thus far and all that i've managed to conclude is that that both sides don't have the facts or evidence needed to prove that wtc 7 was or was not demolished.

The thing is that people took the EXACT same seismograph readings on demolition websites and said this is proof of explosions! Yet Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University said otherwise:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam

www.popularmechanics.com...

www.mgs.md.gov...

Someone who is not an expert is seismograph readings who does not work for Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory is going to say that's evidence of demolition.


1. Seismograph presented.

2. In order to believe one side or the other shouldn't that question have a very good answer?

3. I was talking about the examples I gave of fire causing massive damage to buildings. How is it possible that fire can cause massive damage/collapse in steel buildings but not possible that they can cause massive damage/collapse in other steel buildings?


I would just like to conclude that so many people on this board have blindly made up their mind without doing any sort of research. The people that have actually done research that i've come across have admitted that there are questions on both sides of the coin that need to be answered before ANYONE should make up their minds.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by iamcpc

 

To answer your questions.

1. Bring forward the seismograph you are speaking of and let's analyze it.
2. Nobody knows the answer to this question. Head of security at WTC 1 and 2 was Marvin Bush. There are reports weeks before the attacks of "clean up" crews coming in and out of the buildings.
3. I don't understand this. What fire are you referring to? What 12+ buildings?

THE AQUARIAN 1

[edit on 7-5-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

[edit on 7-5-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

Aquarian thank you so much for your reply! It's so refreshing to come to this forum and have someone actually present you with information. It's also refreshing to have the person who is presenting you with said information to appear to have done some research. I've done upwards of 20-40 hours of research thus far and all that i've managed to conclude is that that both sides don't have the facts or evidence needed to prove that wtc 7 was or was not demolished.

The thing is that people took the EXACT same seismograph readings on demolition websites and said this is proof of explosions! Yet Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University said otherwise:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam

www.popularmechanics.com...

www.mgs.md.gov...

Someone who is not an expert is seismograph readings who does not work for Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory is going to say that's evidence of demolition.


1. Seismograph presented.

2. In order to believe one side or the other shouldn't that question have a very good answer?

3. I was talking about the examples I gave of fire causing massive damage to buildings. How is it possible that fire can cause massive damage/collapse in steel buildings but not possible that they can cause massive damage/collapse in other steel buildings?


I would just like to conclude that so many people on this board have blindly made up their mind without doing any sort of research. The people that have actually done research that i've come across have admitted that there are questions on both sides of the coin that need to be answered before ANYONE should make up their minds.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
2. Nobody knows the answer to this question. Head of security at WTC 1 and 2 was Marvin Bush.

Do you really believe this? You think that Marvin Bush was literally "Head of Security" for WTC towers 1 and 2?

The internet is an amazing thing.

Originally posted by spy66
There is no real proof of that. Because the top penthouse fell does not mean the whole inside of the building collapsed. And it doesn't explain the free fall NIST have displayed in their graph.

A collapse is not the same as a free fall. Its a whole different ball game.

A free fall would cover a lot more distance in 2.25 seconds. Than a collapse would cover in 2.25 seconds. Do to resistance in the materials compare to the resistance of air.

Even if the building did collapse within first. It cant explain the free fall speed of the out side walls and the perfect symmetry of the collapse.

For the outside standing walls to free fall for 2.25 seconds with nearly perfect symmetry, No part of that building could have touched the ground at any time for 2.25 seconds. That's quite of lot of air/distance for the building to cover when it is free falling for 2.25 seconds.

Do you care to explain it to us please?

I think you misunderstood. I'm not in no way defending NIST's version of events. WTC7 dropped as though the 260+ remaining vertical support simply were not there and physics says it can't happen.

The fact is, no matter what NIST claims, WTC7 fell in a way not contsistant with the gradual deformation of steel through fire. Fire is not capable of producing the catastrophic failure across the entire structure that we see. The entire structure gives way across the entire building for it to drop in the manner it did.

Sure, the building was hit by debris, yet the debris in no way penetrated to a depth that would severe main load baring members for the building. The entire perimeter, except for the very small section hit by debris was completely intact and continuing to support the building.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Nathan-D]

OK.
I don´t know why we keep arguing about this but here it goes again.
This video:

www.youtube.com...

Shot on 9/11 as the building was collapsing CLEARLY SHOWS that the
building took A LOT MORE THAN 7 seconds to come down.
Actually, we can´t see all the way to the bottom of the building, so we must estimate how long of the collapse isn´t even visible.
But we can tell FOR SURE, that from the moment the east PH starts to collapse, (which I believe we must take as "the beginning") to where we can see no building anymore, IS AT LEAST 13 SECONDS.

PS. Almost 100 pages and no "proof" shown.



[edit on 10-5-2010 by rush969]

Originally posted by rush969
PS. Almost 100 pages and no "proof" shown.

This thread starts with a very impressive line:
Proof that building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

And for those who haven´t read the whole thing you know what the proof supposedly is??


"The windows braking up across the sides of the building as it is collapsing"


THAT, and only that, is what is being PUSHED as the proof of explosives.
And of course, IT DOESN´T MAKE ANY SENSE.

It is obvious that the windows are going to brake with the collapse of the building.
No case has been made for explosives, for thermite, or thermate, or nano-thermite, or nano-thermate, or super thermite or super thermate.
And no evidence of any components of any type of explosive has been provided, shown, or even presented from a witness.

Thank you, good day.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Are you confused?

whatreallyhappened.com...

reply to post by rush969


Opinions mean a lot around here, apparently.

What else can you prove???!!!??

The thing is that people took the EXACT same seismograph readings on demolition websites and said this is proof of explosions! Yet Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University said otherwise:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam

I have links to my sources in my previous post.

Someone who is not an expert is seismograph readings who does not work for Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory is going to say that's evidence of demolition.


Isn't the fact that there are no seismic records showing explosions proof that none of the WTC towers were demolished with explosives?

How was WTC7 demolished with explosives without it showing up on the seismographs?

Did demolition crews complete a month long job in a few hours?

Why did all the video cameras go away after the twin towers collapsed?

Why don't we have 15 different shots of WTC7 collapsing from all different angles like we did w/ the twin towers?

Why do so many people post "facts" without citing an expert source?




[edit on 10-5-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by iamcpc


Answers to your questions.

1. Nobody knows what kind of explosives were used at WTC 7. I know there were explosions heard before the building collapsed as well as during the collapse. The seismic evidence you have posted shows the sound of the building collapsing. If we could compare that to other controlled demolition seismic readings there might be something to discuss. But as you state yourself, other people use the seismic graph as evidence in either direction of this discussion. This usually means it's not evidence for anything.

2. WTC 7 could have been demolished using non-conventional explosive techniques. The existence of thermite points in this direction.

3. I don't know why this continues to be a question. Demolition crews didn't rig WTC 7 on September 11th. If they did, I'm very impressed. The building would have been rigged beforehand, probably a month, as you stated.

4. WTC 7 collapsed in the late afternoon. I don't know why it wasn't still being covered like the towers. Probably because the building wasn't hit by an airplane and didn't show any signs of danger. Why were news outlets reporting that the building had collapsed even though it was still standing?

5. See above.

6. What "facts" are you referring to?

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Noise was heard long before the collapse; no one has shown what it was other than it was not similar to conventional CD explosions.
There is no proof of thermite. Jones paper has been shown to be inconclusive.

reply to post by pteridine

Noise was heard long before the collapse; no one has shown what it was other than it was not similar to conventional CD explosions.
There is no proof of thermite. Jones paper has been shown to be inconclusive.

Jones paper shown to be inconclusive, by whom?
I assume you have some credible sources by real scientist who have done a Peer Review against Jones work?

reply to post by impressme


No scientist has reviewed Jones paper in a legitimate journal. That is mainly because Jones could not get it published in a legitimate journal. Consequently, it is invisible to most scientists.
I pointed out its many flaws when it was being discussed on several threads.

I haven't read through the whole thread and this may be a repeat of a previous post or posts, but i would for people to take a quick look at these 2 reports.(these are pdf files)

The first is The Final Report of WTC 7 from NIST.

wtc.nist.gov...

The second is the Steven Jones review of the NIST report on WTC 7.

wtc7.net...

The first thing you'll notice in the NIST report is that you go through some 40 pages of introduction before the actual report.(almost a 1/3 of the entire report) It is flooded with names associated with the report that almost give you the impression that all these people can't be wrong.

The second thing you'll notice is that there is not ONE video or picture from 911 or after during the clean up? Instead it is made up with man made exhibits.

Now go look at Mr Jones Report on the review of the NIST report. The first thing you'll notice it's very direct and to the point. He has links to videos, pictures and testimony from an eyewitness William Rodriguez and maybe more on 911 and after.

I hope some can see the picture i'm painting here? I haven't read through either, but in my opinion at the very least NIST should hire Mr Jones for the next time they're tasked with putting a report together.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by curious_soul]

[edit on 12-5-2010 by curious_soul]

[edit on 12-5-2010 by curious_soul]

[edit on 12-5-2010 by curious_soul]

reply to post by pteridine

No scientist has reviewed Jones paper in a legitimate journal. That is mainly because Jones could not get it published in a legitimate journal. Consequently, it is invisible to most scientists.
I pointed out its many flaws when it was being discussed on several threads.

No, you are wrong Jones journal was peer- reviewed and here is the proof and I have pointed this out in many threads.

[color=gold]There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a vanity publication. It is an open journal which means anyone can read the papers within it for free. Closed journals require you to purchase an expensive subscription in order to read the papers. Open journals instead charge the authors a fee to submit a paper. Some open journals only charge the fee when the paper is accepted for publication. Open journals are a superior format because they allow scientific data to be freely accessible to everyone instead of being closed off to a small minority. This journal was chosen because it is open. That means everyone on Earth can read the paper for free. Only subscribers can read articles from closed journals. Everyone else can only read abstracts. This paper needs to be read by everyone and that is exactly why it should have been published in an open journal.

There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is not a peer-reviewed journal. All the evidence suggests that it is in fact a peer-reviewed journal. It looks like a peer-reviewed journal and acts like a peer-reviewed journal. Bentham, the publisher, says that it is peer-reviewed. The journal editors and the journal contributors say it is peer-reviewed. So until someone provides evidence to the contrary The Open Chemical Physics Journal is, as far as we know, a peer-reviewed journal.

Recently Philip Davis submitted a fake manuscript to another Bentham open access journal [3], The Open Information Science Journal. The paper was created by a computer program named SCIgen and contained nonsensical statements. This paper was allegedly accepted after undergoing peer review. Obviously the peer review process appears to have been conspicuously absent in this particular case.

"Debunkers" of the thermite paper take this as proof that no Bentham open publications have peer-review. However, Davis also admits that a similar submission was rejected by another Bentham journal, The Open Software Engineering Journal. So clearly there is only evidence that one Bentham journal, at one time, had a problem with its peer review process. What the "debunkers" have put forth is merely a fallacious guilt by association argument, in particular they commit the hasty generalization logical fallacy [4].
In other words, there is absolutely no substance to this argument. Bentham publishes over 200 scientific journals [5]. To say all Bentham journals are not peer-reviewed because one journal at one time had a problem with the peer review process is like saying all coins are green because you found copper oxide on a penny. The paper is bunk because its editor in chief resigned saying she was not aware it was published in her journal and that it had nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics. She also claimed she cannot judge the paper because the subject matter is outside her field of experience.

The paper does in fact deal with physical chemistry. Physical chemistry involves among other things, reaction kinetics on the rate of a reaction and the identity of ions on the electrical conductivity of materials [6]. In the paper they documented the reaction rates of the chips in relation to thermite and paint chips. They also subjected the red/gray chips to an electron beam and noted the poor conductivity of the red layer.

Chemical physics is the branch of physics that studies chemical processes from the point of view of physics [7]. This would involve things like studying the dissolution of chemical bonds as they did when they soaked red/gray and paint chips in MEK. Chemical physics also involves the study of nanoparticles, which is what the whole paper is about.

[color=gold]Every debunker argument leveled against the nano-thermite paper [color=gold]reeks of faulty reasoning and ignorance of the facts. Those that use [color=gold]illogical reasoning and who distort and ignore facts are not skeptics but [color=gold]pathological skeptics. [color=gold]Pathological skepticism has absolutely no place in science.

www.the-peoples-forum.com...

Consequently, it is invisible to most scientists.

No, that is your opinion, and not a fact.

[color=gold]Journal of 9/11 Studies
Thank you for visiting The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001. Many fields of study are represented in the journal, including Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Psychology. All content is freely available online. Our mission in the past has been to provide an outlet for evidence-based research into the events of 9/11 that might not otherwise have been published, due to the resistance that many established journals and other institutions have displayed toward this topic. The intention was to provide a rapid acceptance process with full peer review. That has been achieved. It is now our belief that the case for falsity of the official explanation is so well established and demonstrated by papers in this Journal that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here. Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust. Refereed papers have already been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals: Fourteen Points...[Bentham] and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink], andActive Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [The Open Chemical Physics Journal] .
www.journalof911studies.com...
Jones has published several papers suggesting that the World Trade Center was demolished with explosives, but his 2005 paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" was his first paper on the topic and was considered controversial both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.[30] Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;[31] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[32]
Jones maintained that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication within a book "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" by D.R. Griffin[33] The paper was published in the online peer-reviewed, "Journal of 9/11 Studies", a journal co-founded and co-edited by Jones for the purpose of "covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001." The paper also appeared in Global Outlook,[34] a magazine "seeking to reveal the truth About 9/11"[35] and in a volume of essays edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott.[36]
In April 2008, Jones, along with four other authors, published a letter in The Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal, titled, 'Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction'[37]. In August 2008, Jones, along with Kevin Ryan and James Gourley, published a peer-reviewed article in The Environmentalist, titled, 'Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials'.[38] And in April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[39] The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,[40][41] resigned. She received an e-mail from the Danish science journal Videnskab asking for her professional assessment of the article's content.[42][43]

en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 13-5-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by pteridine

BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work.

Perhaps, the BYU faculty members distanced themselves for other reasons, perhaps they were informed if they go alone with Jones hypotheses, they would be out of a job. Perhaps, BYU would not continue getting any more state funding if they continue to rattle suspicions towards 911 inside job of the WTC being demolished by chemicals the US military uses in making highly explosive weapons.

They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[32]

The fact is, it was “[color=gold]peer reviewed”, and Jones work has never been disproven in any Journal by any scientists.
Who really knows the truth why faculty members distant themselves from Jones journal there are hundreds of reasons they might have and only gave this excuse. You and I don’t know the true facts to their reasons, we can only speculate.
You have made it clear enough in most of the 911 threads that you support the OS. Perhaps you feel this justifies enough reason Jones work is discredited by BYU scientific community, but you are sadly mistaken, because the rest of the world outside of BYU do take his work seriously.

In case you didn't know, read below.

[color=gold]Enhanced Explosive Materials Using Nano-Particulate Metal Fuels
Summary:
Metal fluorocarbon mixtures have been recognized since World War II as highly reactive pyrotechnics. Their use as explosives, however, has, until recently, been limited due to the inherently low reaction rates of the metal particles with the fluorocarbon material. Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory have discovered that these slow reaction rates can be greatly enhanced by substituting nano-sized aluminum for the conventional micron-sized metal powders, enabling various applications heretofore not possible with metal fluorocarbon mixtures.

Nano-sized aluminum acts as a burning rate modifier. Its high surface area allows for fast chemical reactions enabling explosive, propellant, and pyrotechnic applications that could not previously be achieved using metal fluorocarbon mixtures. Additionally, nano-sized aluminum acts as a thickening agent, meaning that one can use a liquid fluorocarbon as part of the mixture. The liquid fluorocarbon completely coats the aluminum particles, while the mixture’s consistency remains suitable for use as explosive, propellant, and pyrotechnic fill material.

The nano-sized aluminum and fluorocarbon mixture has a high weight and energy density compared with standard explosives—-ideal for small and medium caliber bullets. The burning material also produces very bright light, enabling its use in flash devices and flares. Because the compositions ignite only at very high temperatures, they can be used in situations that require resistance to large swings in environmental temperature, such as in actuator applications.
3
Since metallic fuels have long been used in rocketry and ballistics, there is a great deal of information on the subject that operatives planning the 9/11 attack could draw upon. Additionally, they would be able to take advantage of recent advances in nano-thermite research by some of the same entities that were involved in the official WTC investigations.

Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.
But, as Kevin Ryan points out in his July 2008 article The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites, NIST, including its leadership, has been on the forefront of research into advanced [color=gold]aluminothermic mixutures, also described as energetic [color=gold]nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites, and [color=gold]superthermites.
Perhaps this explains why NIST's answers to questions about [color=gold]aluminothermic arson seem so transparently disingenuous, and why NIST avoided even mentioning the material in Appendix C of FEMA's Report.

911research.wtc7.net...

I suppose you are going to say “Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory” do not know what they are talking about and they are really just looking at red paint chips as well.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by pteridine

Noise was heard long before the collapse; no one has shown what it was other than it was not similar to conventional CD explosions.
There is no proof of thermite. Jones paper has been shown to be inconclusive.

Jones paper shown to be inconclusive, by whom?
I assume you have some credible sources by real scientist who have done a Peer Review against Jones work?

No scientist has reviewed Jones paper in a legitimate journal. That is mainly because Jones could not get it published in a legitimate journal. Consequently, it is invisible to most scientists.
I pointed out its many flaws when it was being discussed on several threads.

I asked you a vey simple question.
So I will ask you again, you said read the quote below.

Jones paper has been shown to be inconclusive.

By whom? , Name one credible scientist who’s done a journal that proves Jones work is "[color=gold]inconclusive" and is being excepted by all scientist around the world.
I am sure you have plenty of credible sources to share with us.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Are you confused?

whatreallyhappened.com...

The first line of your link:

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport

Never mind that this is in itself misleading - Securacom were a subcontractor for a specific time period, not the security provider for the towers, and Bush left them before 9/11 - but it doesn't even say that he was "head of security for WTC 1 and 2".

reply to post by impressme


These are your opinions only.

They are not backed up buy the facts.