So Just Fire Brought Down WTC7 In A Perfect Free Fall Collapse ?

reply to post by wmd_2008


You really aren't going to tell us that a building with such a structure would collapse straight down and symmetrically . Especially with the center section collapsing and all the façade damage could not cause that . There was not enough fire in that building to weaken anything .

The reason that only 1500 Architects and Engineers have signed is that the rest know it would be the end to their career . They know that there is some real dark and powerful plot behind it .

Give it up . People aren't stupid we saw what happened . We know Cheney was running the exercise that was training for just what happened . That in it's self was unprecedented and very suspicious . Were there not more qualified military people who would have been better for the job . Was that not their job anyway . Why did Cheney run the exercise . Has he even been in the military . Cheney is a get it done man for the Powers that Be and an ex Chairman of the CFR which puts his loyalties to the USA on shaky ground .

NYPD officer Craig Bartmer was a first responder, and he is not scared to speak the truth about WTC7.

Here the truth, from someone who was there, someone who has no agenda, or any reason to hide what really went on...




OS'ers/debunkers will take a fraudulent report as gospel, but wont acknowledge a true testimony from an honest cop that was a first responder! If this does not make you realise, nothing will!

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You really aren't going to tell us that a building with such a structure would collapse straight down and symmetrically . Especially with the center section collapsing and all the façade damage could not cause that . There was not enough fire in that building to weaken anything .

The reason that only 1500 Architects and Engineers have signed is that the rest know it would be the end to their career . They know that there is some real dark and powerful plot behind it .

Paragraph one : Care to prove it fell straight down

Paragraph two : What excuse is that in the conspiracy cliche handbook.

I removed the other paragraph not being an American I don't really care!

reply to post by DeeKlassified


So you prefer to call the firemen liars do you, after all part of there job is to ASSESS a building before doing there job is that part of a cop's remit

we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 

So you prefer to call the firemen liars do you, after all part of there job is to ASSESS a building before doing there job is that part of a cop's remit

we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors.

Most of the firemen aren't liars, but the quotes you debunkers post from firemen are just lies to fit the official story. That is, the 'firemen' you quote are either not real firemen, or they've been paid to tell lies because there is not one fireman on video that says anything that matches those deceitful quotes you have posted.

Time and time again you roll out those dubious quotes, and time and time again you get asked to provide some video of those firemen repeating the same quote on video. Funny that you have no real life people on camera saying what you claim. You call that evidence!?!

Get some real video interviews of your 'firemen' repeating their quotes, surely they would have spoken on camera too eh?! But each time you lot are asked, you never come up with the goods, because your quotes are all lies, and none of your dubious sources has the balls to lie on camera too!

Watch this, see how many firemen contradict your quotes, see how many first responders and witnesses all talk of the many explosions in the towers before and during their collapse. I know it's not a specific WTC7 video, but anyone can tell from this video that explosives were used to take down the towers, and therefore, if they used explosives on the towers, then there is no WTC7 argument.



You only need to watch the first 10-20 mins to see all the first responders (firemen, police, doctors etc) talk about the explosions, explosives, bombs etc, and you can even see explosions in the footage. If you still believe NIST after this then you're obviously batting for their side.

BTW, it moves on to WTC7 around 22:45 mins, but if you watch the first 20 mins then you'll see there is no need to even look at the WTC7 section because the first 20 mins reveals all..

While you're at it post some interviews of the people you quoted to give your theory some weight, but I expect I'll still be waiting years down the line for said video interviews, because like I say, I've asked for them many a time, and you OS pushers never deliver the goods, I say again, you never deliver the goods.

reply to post by wmd_2008


BTW, I'm not disputing their was external damage to WTC7, but if you read the NIST report they said it had nothing to do with the collapse. They seem to claim fires alone brought it down, which we all know is a lie.

Prove that it was not explosives that brought down WTC7 and the towers, post some videos of firemen saying it was not explosives, post any videos where the people that were really there in the thick of it saying no explosives brought the towers etc down. I bet you have nothing, just like NIST have nothing.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by peashooter
HERE IS THE PEER REVIEWED PAPER:

www.benthamscience.com...

That site is a pay to publish site, the editor even resigned as she did not approve the publication....

Following publication, the journal's editor-in-chief Marie-Paule Pileni resigned stating, "They have printed the article without my authorization… I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them".[10]

en.wikipedia.org...

In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science." He concluded by stating that "the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research."[11]

So it was not peer reviewed, just published at a pay to publish site that will publish anything if you pay them!

So why did she resign then if people can pay to publish anything they want? You can't say they can publish anything they want and with the next breath say she had to resign because of "unconventional and nonconformist ideas".

Either it is open access or it isn't open access. If it was open access she should HAVE NO PROBLEM with publishing anything reasonably accurate.

Clearly she resigned under durress imho!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You really aren't going to tell us that a building with such a structure would collapse straight down and symmetrically . Especially with the center section collapsing and all the façade damage could not cause that . There was not enough fire in that building to weaken anything .

The reason that only 1500 Architects and Engineers have signed is that the rest know it would be the end to their career . They know that there is some real dark and powerful plot behind it .

Paragraph one : Care to prove it fell straight down

Paragraph two : What excuse is that in the conspiracy cliche handbook.

I removed the other paragraph not being an American I don't really care!

Have you checked your eyesight lately? I wear glasses but they seem to work ok most of the time. Look at the damm video of wtc1, wtc2, wtc7 ALL falling STRAIGHT DOWN!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by peashooter

 

Steve Jones knows nothing about building design how often was he on a building site or on a multi floor construction lots of his assumptions are flawed like many members on here.

Architects don't do the structural calculations, that's correct, it doesn't dismiss the fact that they design blueprints for buildings. You mentioned structural engineers, there are many who support the truth behind 911. Why do you dismiss those professionals? You seem very selective in choosing what you believe.

Steven Jones has a phD in physics (I believe it's more impressive than a bachelor's in structural engineering) he was simply discussing the fact that thermite molecules were in fact in the debris. He did not need to go over structural analysis to tell you that an explosive was used, like he said in the video he was unaware of 911 being suspicious in the first place until he went to a conference or hearing.
That being said many of the professionals who support the truth has 20+ years of professional experience related to structures. From structural engineers, chemical engineers, physicists, architects, firemen, the list goes on.

Thermite cannot exist in any normal building debris. All structural hypothesis aside, why was thermite present?
If you watch a video on thermite, it looks eerily similar to the liquid fire pouring from WTC on 911.

Originally posted by peashooter
why was thermite present?

Sorry, there was no thermite present. It was just chips of primer paint made by the LaClede Steel Company who manufactured and painted the floor trusses used in the WTC 1&2.

Originally posted by peashooter
Steven Jones has a phD in physics (I believe it's more impressive than a bachelor's in structural engineering) he was simply discussing the fact that thermite molecules were in fact in the debris.

Thermite molecules, that would be Fe2O3 (or rust) and Al. So he was discussing why there was rust and aluminum in the debris.

If I may make a suggestion: rust because that is what steel does, especially in fires. aluminum because that is what the cladding was made of.

Besides, it was pretty conclusively determined that what he found was actually paint chips. Its not for nothing that almost all truthers defending the thermite theory have disappeared.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


We are talking about WTC 7 on this thread but hey lets have a look

WTC 2



Didn't start of staight did it!

WTC 7

When it fell showed a kink in the roof line which was off centre and in the area below the East Penthouse.



Here is the debris after collapse , if it fell straight down why is most of the debris on the SOUTH side of the building (top of picture) the side DAMAGE by debris impact and part of the North wall is lying on the debris pile



Back to YOU!!!

Originally posted by peashooter

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by peashooter

 

Steve Jones knows nothing about building design how often was he on a building site or on a multi floor construction lots of his assumptions are flawed like many members on here.

Architects don't do the structural calculations, that's correct, it doesn't dismiss the fact that they design blueprints for buildings. You mentioned structural engineers, there are many who support the truth behind 911. Why do you dismiss those professionals? You seem very selective in choosing what you believe.

Steven Jones has a phD in physics (I believe it's more impressive than a bachelor's in structural engineering) he was simply discussing the fact that thermite molecules were in fact in the debris. He did not need to go over structural analysis to tell you that an explosive was used, like he said in the video he was unaware of 911 being suspicious in the first place until he went to a conference or hearing.
That being said many of the professionals who support the truth has 20+ years of professional experience related to structures. From structural engineers, chemical engineers, physicists, architects, firemen, the list goes on.

Thermite cannot exist in any normal building debris. All structural hypothesis aside, why was thermite present?
If you watch a video on thermite, it looks eerily similar to the liquid fire pouring from WTC on 911.

Lets correct some WRONG assumptions in a structural steel frame building a DETAIL draughtsmen draws the drawings for the FABRICATION workshop, the STRUCTURAL ENGINEER will do the layout drawing indicating beam sizes etc after doing the required calculations an ARCHITECT would be no were near those, HOW do I know I worked in the design and drawing office for guess what a structural steelwork company when I first left school.

I have also work for a concrete reinforcement company and for the last 15 years or so have had a technical role on construction sites dealing with various products training men on site (even doing seminars to architects and engineers) site testing sometime to destruction so I do have a grasp of this subject

reply to post by wmd_2008


I see you have skipped past the stuff you have no answers for, and are just cherry picking again.

Go back up, watch the video I posted (if you're truly into 9/11) and get back to me.

I have a feeling that video and it's contents are beyond your debunking capabilities.

Also, watch the Craig Bartmer video whilst you're at it.

Avoiding certain replies deliberately, highlights you're not here for genuine reasons.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by peashooter
Steven Jones has a phD in physics (I believe it's more impressive than a bachelor's in structural engineering) he was simply discussing the fact that thermite molecules were in fact in the debris.

Thermite molecules, that would be Fe2O3 (or rust) and Al. So he was discussing why there was rust and aluminum in the debris.

If I may make a suggestion: rust because that is what steel does, especially in fires. aluminum because that is what the cladding was made of.

Besides, it was pretty conclusively determined that what he found was actually paint chips. Its not for nothing that almost all truthers defending the thermite theory have disappeared.

No, it is not conclusive that he found paint chips.

www.youtube.com...

"National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) , US agency who investigated the causes for the destruction of the WTC buildings, reported that the reddish primer paint of World Trade Center steel columns contained zinc yellow(Zznc chromate), but the red-gray chips found in the WTC-dust apparently do not contain zinc or chromium above the "back ground noise".

Dr. James Millette claim the WTC red-gray chips are paint, but Dr. Niels Harrit explains that the zinc and chromium they discovered on the surface of the chips are contamination from the actual primer paint of the WTC columns. But when the red-gray chips are cut in half and the cut-surface is analyzed, there is no zinc or chromium present, explains Dr. Harrit."

Now we know we cannot trust NIST with technical reports, after all they are the ones holding back reports on 911.

reply to post by wmd_2008


The top part of the building was tilting but the rest of the building fell straight down. The building should not have collapsed at all from local fires. There simply wasn't enough fire damage to weaken the beams enough to cause total collapse.

You actually made my point about damaged beams on one side of the building causing the building to tilt. If the explosives did not go off then guess what would of happened. Either nothing or the top part of the building would have broken off.

As for WTC7 collapsing, and falling straight down too, that is preposterous considering minor debris had fallen on it.

Originally posted by peashooter
Now we know we cannot trust NIST with technical reports, after all they are the ones holding back reports on 911.

Kind of funny you say that as Jones and Harrit said they would do additional tests that would conclusively show whether their chips were really thermite.... Or not. We never saw the results though, why would that be.

So which reports is NIST holding back?

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by peashooter
Now we know we cannot trust NIST with technical reports, after all they are the ones holding back reports on 911.

Kind of funny you say that as Jones and Harrit said they would do additional tests that would conclusively show whether their chips were really thermite.... Or not. We never saw the results though, why would that be.

So which reports is NIST holding back?

One of the authors of the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal was BYU physics professor Jeffrey Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust

Why is it you will accept NIST's fraudulent report, created by their incompetent investigators, who were shown up by a physics teacher (David Chandler) with not much effort, but you wont accept highly respected professors' research?

Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence can see how laughable the NIST report is.

reply to post by -PLB-


911research.wtc7.net...


911research.wtc7.net...

Accidental double post, please remove!