Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of World Trade Center Building 7

Seriously, you can't just rig a sky scraper for a controlled demolition and just leave it like that with no one noticing.

Even people working on the controlled demo would not just go into a building rigged to explode, cut up support columns with torches (to weaken the structure) and just leave it like that for a few years. Even the people who do the work themselves would say "go in there to work everyday? are you kidding me?"

reply to post by Malcher

Seriously, you can't just rig a sky scraper for a controlled demolition and just leave it like that with no one noticing.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Even people working on the controlled demo would not just go into a building rigged to explode, cut up support columns with torches (to weaken the structure) and just leave it like that for a few years. Even the people who do the work themselves would say "go in there to work everyday? are you kidding me?"

......They wouldn't need to leave it like that for a "few years". In my last post, I explained how Turner Construction had a contract starting December 2000 which would last 0-1 years, and September 2001 fits in that 1 year window. They were working on the core columns in the elevator shafts, but all of their records were destroyed in the destruction of the towers. Plus, the CEO had ties to Bush, and Securacom also had ties to Bush as I explained earlier.

Sure, they are going to rig a sky scraper (actually 3 of them) cut all the major supports with torches, rig it up to explode and just go in there and have lunch..oh, and to do that every day for a few years and thousands of people every day in and out, contractors working on the building, maintenance men, electricians in and out working. Does that seem logical to you?

OK, saw your last post. So even just for a year. I don't care if it is for a day i'm not walking around a building rigged to explode and weakened support structure.

Hows this "go on the 90th floor of that building and btw, we cut the support structure with torches and have explosive devices attached...but don't worry about that."

reply to post by Malcher

Sure, they are going to rig a sky scraper (actually 3 of them) cut all the major supports with torches, rig it up to explode and just go in there and have lunch..oh, and to do that every day for a few years and thousands of people every day in and out, contractors working on the building, maintenance men, electricians in and out working.

Does that seem logical to you?

So first we're discussing the controlled demolition of WTC7 and you don't get anywhere there, then the discussion shifts to when the demolition could be rigged up, then I provide you with evidence that it could have been rigged up in the year prior to 9/11, now your asking me how they did it?

And you say they have to cut all of the major supports with torches, maybe thermite was used to do that prior to the collapse? Would they even need to cut them beforehand? Thermite can cut steel, so they could have set up charges in there, and set it up so first the thermite charges would weaken the core, then explosives would finish the job.

The discussion has shifted into complete speculation though, with you saying what you think it would take to rig up a demolition, and me saying what I think.

How about we get back on track? Remember what we were talking about earlier, the facts that prove WTC7 was a controlled demolition and prove the official story to be impossible? You know you haven't debunked any of that yet, right? You just changed the subject...

Originally posted by Malcher
Does that seem logical to you?

Aren't you saying that it is LOGICAL to believe that an airliner weighing less than 200 tons could completely destroy a skyscraper over 400,000 tons in less than two hours even though you don't even know how steel and concrete were distributed down the building?

Inanimate objects do not do LOGIC! They just do what physics dictates. Unless you think human beings can change physics then what anyone BELIEVES human begins did is irrelevant. It is the workings of the inanimate that dictates what could and could not have happened on 9/11/01.

psik

Hes not looking for logic, hes not even looking for an explanation or anything, Tupac has already addressed what was there, not much more to say really.

And you say they have to cut all of the major supports with torches, maybe thermite was used to do that prior to the collapse? Would they even need to cut them beforehand? Thermite can cut steel, so they could have set up charges in there, and set it up so first the thermite charges would weaken the core, then explosives would finish the job.

So now it was not an actual controlled demo in the traditional sense but maybe it was thermite. At least now you say "maybe". Maybe there are tiny pink elephants but there really are no tiny pink elephants. I thought you guys gave up on the thermite fantasy.

reply to post by Malcher


When all you can do is try and ridicule, we know the battle is over.

reply to post by Malcher

So now it was not an actual controlled demo in the traditional sense but maybe it was thermite. At least now you say "maybe".

No, read it again, I said thermite could have been used to weaken the core column, and then explosives were used just like any other controlled demolition.

Maybe there are tiny pink elephants but there really are no tiny pink elephants. I thought you guys gave up on the thermite fantasy.

Hey dude you were the one that steered this conversation in this direction, and I said this department was speculation. But the "thermite" fantasy has some evidence backing it, there were thermite chips found in the dust that reacted when ignited by a blowtorch.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Malcher

 

So now it was not an actual controlled demo in the traditional sense but maybe it was thermite. At least now you say "maybe".

No, read it again, I said thermite could have been used to weaken the core column, and then explosives were used just like any other controlled demolition.

Maybe there are tiny pink elephants but there really are no tiny pink elephants. I thought you guys gave up on the thermite fantasy.

Hey dude you were the one that steered this conversation in this direction, and I said this department was speculation. But the "thermite" fantasy has some evidence backing it, there were thermite chips found in the dust that reacted when ignited by a blowtorch.

edit on 20-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

Maybe...but that didn't happen.

forums.randi.org...

reply to post by Malcher

Maybe...but that didn't happen.

forums.randi.org...

Why did you just link me to some thread? Is there something in particular you wanted me to see there that relates to what I just said?

That did happen, watch the video and see:
journalof911studies.com...

Actually I said ignited by a blowtorch, but that's clearly not a blowtorch. Still, that's not the important part, it was ignited, and it reacted as you can see in the video.

Also I would like to point out that the OP is about WTC7, but we're talking about thermite found in the dust of the World Trade Centers....so do you want to get back on topic and talk about WTC7 being brought down by explosives?

After watching that video of the CDI loader, we have at least two demolition experts that have looked at WTC7 and said that is a "Controlled Demolition", and yet the trusters of the OS are totally ignoring this.
A total global collapse at free fall speed occurs from the failure of one beam on one side of the building, yeah sure that's a good one.
Patriotic denial will not serve you well, just ask the Germans.

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Malcher

 

So now it was not an actual controlled demo in the traditional sense but maybe it was thermite. At least now you say "maybe".

No, read it again, I said thermite could have been used to weaken the core column, and then explosives were used just like any other controlled demolition.

Maybe there are tiny pink elephants but there really are no tiny pink elephants. I thought you guys gave up on the thermite fantasy.

Hey dude you were the one that steered this conversation in this direction, and I said this department was speculation. But the "thermite" fantasy has some evidence backing it, there were thermite chips found in the dust that reacted when ignited by a blowtorch.

edit on 20-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

Maybe...but that didn't happen.

forums.randi.org...

ha ahhahahaha, that is too funny also, i was reading those forums, those guys think they debunked something then they give themselves a high 5 and then a big group hug, malcher, please go back to your little goofy forum where you don't need to actually have proof to say that something is debunked...we here at ats actually prefer proof, at least most of us do....

Great video! Not just for architects, engineers, chemists, and scientists.

Check out the body language of NIST's Sunder. Psychologists will tell you his body language is text book for someone lying.

The jig is up. Nobody is safe until the psychopaths responsible for 911 are taken out.

Now let's see if the Patriots can rise to the occasion and do something about it.

reply to post by beijingyank

Check out the body language of NIST's Sunder. Psychologists will tell you his body language is text book for someone lying.

I thought the exact same thing. He immediately looks straight down at his paper after he said it, that looked extremely suspicious to me.

reply to post by nedined



Well first of all a "chemical engineer" yes thats the first person I would think of when look at a structure

Lots of people on here talking about what architects actually do well lets look at typical architects drawings.

Typical drawings doing a search on google images.







They show layout of walls postions of doors,switches,sockets etc etc what they dont show is the size of a steel section or timber frame etc ie WHATS REQUIRED TO HOLD IT UP!!!

Structural engineers drawings

For example a foundation drawing showing position and size of required rebar.





Typical detail sheet from a structural engineer.



Drawing showing steel section size required for the loads.
You dont get that from an architect!

An architect is concerned with the look,materials,layout etc and most drawings will be sketches of how it will look outside and inside etc, no detail will be given about section sizes material sizes etc.

Ask any structural engineer after contractors who his best customer is will be the answer will be architects!

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.