Building 7 symmetry- yes or no?

Originally posted by 4hero

and thermite was most likely used to cut the beams.

No, the bombs were responsible for the explosions

So thermite was used to cut the beams. What were the bombs for then?

and no, explosions are not necessarily normal in office fires,

Yes they are. Your ignorance of this doesn't make you right.

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


News flash: Rapidly heating up material a) Vaporizes some of that material, creating gasses and b) Causes gasses already present to expand in keeping with those pesky little things called the gas laws...

Furthermore...

HIGH explosives do NOT do their damage because of expanding gasses as low explosives do. They do their damage by virtue of the rapidity of the reaction itself which induces a high velocity shock wave which, by virtue of its being high frequency interacts readily with surrounding materials, something that is not true of the low velocity shock wave generated by low explosives.

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous

the noise is attenuated cuz it's underground.

Oh, and here I was thinking that the mere fact that this is happening not 100m away means that by NECESSITY my ear-drums should be shattered and bleeding as we speak.

I thought that the mere fact that the sound was attenuated means it was not explosives.

Because there is NO WAY do dampen sound other than placing it underground....

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Darkwing01

News flash: Rapidly heating up material a) Vaporizes some of that material, creating gasses and b) Causes gasses already present to expand in keeping with those pesky little things called the gas laws...

Yes, I believe that's how nuclear bombs do their damage, through the heating effect of a massive X-ray dose.

Now, do you have any evidence at all that thermite could vaporize enough material rapidly enough to bring about this result?

HIGH explosives do NOT do their damage because of expanding gasses as low explosives do. They do their damage by virtue of the rapidity of the reaction itself which induces a high velocity shock wave which, by virtue of its being high frequency interacts readily with surrounding materials, something that is not true of the low velocity shock wave generated by low explosives.

Making stuff up doesn't mean you're right.

The shock wave of which you speak regarding high explosives is...... expanding gasses. Same with low explosives like ANFO and black powder.

Steel can be cut 2 ways. the most common is with cutter charges. It uses RDX or similar high explosive and copper. the copper is turned into a plasma by the explosion, and the directional nature of the shape charge drives it through the steel. But it can also be cut (sloppily) by a high explosive. Place enough in close proximity to the steel and the explosion creates a shockwave that essentially "tears apart" the steel.

But the "brute force" approach of high explosives alone is not desireable due to the increased amount that must be used.

You're just making up garbage regarding frequencies though. Did you actually believe that anyone would fall fr that?

Originally posted by Darkwing01

I thought that the mere fact that the sound was attenuated means it was not explosives.

The earth attenuates the high frequencies.

You believe, through anecdotal evidence, that it is the frequency range that is responsible for what you see, from reading your prior post.

This is wrong. Expanding gases (the shock wave) account for everything you see.

It fell because somebody said "pull it", thats I'm pretty sure.
I think the 911 might be a false flag.
Keep pushing the truth guys. We need more eye opener, even if its old, keep it resurface, so at least people like me know.

We have to wait the culprit get "silenced" by their own gang to close the matter.
You burn a house. I saw you do it. I testify that you don't, but people smell gasoline
Who will get killed first to close the matter ?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by 4hero

and thermite was most likely used to cut the beams.

No, the bombs were responsible for the explosions

So thermite was used to cut the beams. What were the bombs for then?

and no, explosions are not necessarily normal in office fires,

Yes they are. Your ignorance of this doesn't make you right.

Wow, I didnt expect you of all people to actually own up about thermite!

Erm, quite simple really, both were used in combination.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Steel can be cut 2 ways. the most common is with cutter charges. It uses RDX or similar high explosive and copper. the copper is turned into a plasma by the explosion, and the directional nature of the shape charge drives it through the steel. But it can also be cut (sloppily) by a high explosive. Place enough in close proximity to the steel and the explosion creates a shockwave that essentially "tears apart" the steel.

So you agree that fire alone is not responsible for the simultaneous failing of all the crucial steel beams in the towers/WTC7.

Originally posted by 4hero
Erm, quite simple really, both were used in combination.

Man this is a day of confusion for me haha!

I thought the point of using Thermite was that it was silent and hard to detect and could be ignited by the fires themselves. Surely if you're adding bombs that means there'll be huge loud noises and a bunch of extra wiring and fire protection needed (to make sure the primers don't go off from the heat of the fire).

It seems a bit of an odd plan to me, why wouldn't they just go with cutter charges if they were making the big bangs anyway. That way you don't have huge pools of iron to worry about, just a lot of detcord/detonators/copper ejecta etc.

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by 4hero

and thermite was most likely used to cut the beams.

No, the bombs were responsible for the explosions

So thermite was used to cut the beams. What were the bombs for then?

and no, explosions are not necessarily normal in office fires,

Yes they are. Your ignorance of this doesn't make you right.

Wow, I didnt expect you of all people to actually own up about thermite!

Erm, quite simple really, both were used in combination.

So in your view thermxte was used to cut the columns. And bombs were also used to cut the columns......

Ok.....

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Steel can be cut 2 ways. the most common is with cutter charges. It uses RDX or similar high explosive and copper. the copper is turned into a plasma by the explosion, and the directional nature of the shape charge drives it through the steel. But it can also be cut (sloppily) by a high explosive. Place enough in close proximity to the steel and the explosion creates a shockwave that essentially "tears apart" the steel.

So you agree that fire alone is not responsible for the simultaneous failing of all the crucial steel beams in the towers/WTC7.

Nothing in that paragraph could lead a sane and rational person to state that I believe that.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by 4hero

RDX is just a punt on your behalf, you have nothing to back this up, thermite is more probable based on particle findings.

Thermite doesn't explode brah. And thermite wasn't found either. Paint was found.

The recordings were captured at a safe distance from the towers, and they were still audible, and as for the brissance, you certainly had that in close proximity.

Delusionally wishing this to be true doesn't make it so...

I am glad you told us that thermite does not explode.

However, as most people already know, those pretty little sparklers you get at the fireworks store is a wire
coated with a commercial low grade form of thermite. As you can see by following these links;

www.youtube.com... .0.0.0.250.1406.0j3j4.7.0...0.0.HTAGL0AOsqE

[www.youtube.com...

it will explode.

Actually most combustible materials, when suffiently mixed with an oxydizer and confined, will explode.

When I was much younger, I worked one fall in my uncle's cotton gin. I noticed the metal sheeting on the
walls was about to fall off and I ask him about it. He explained that because the cotton dust was so explosive,
the walls needed to "blow off" so those of us inside were not killed if the dust in the air should catch fire.

I "know" you looked at the vids which I posted earlier. "If" what is mentioned there is near correct, it should not
be a great surprise that there are systems available which could be used to pulverise and bring down structures
in a fashion similar to the WTC on 9/11.

Of course, I can't prove this is the case. But, "if it walks like a duck" and I hear some quacking sounds.
I am going to think a duck is close by.