WTC 7 (Building 7)

[Landru]

It may well take months to prepare a 'properly controlled demolition', but this was not 'properly controlled', it merely needed to be 'a demolition'. In a 'properly controlled demolition' there should have been no 'appreciable' or 'meaningful' damage to surrounding buildings.

As posted, Susan Lindauer claims explosives were planted beforehand and there was a verified shutdown of all security the weekend before 9/11 with workmen working all weekend and strange noises and dust being reported.

Exotic explosives could easily have been placed at key points and would explain the strange steel degradation as well as burning for many weeks and reports of molten steel.

It's a theory guys... and it ticks the boxes.

Ok, this is a bit fanciful but it is merely a simile. If the Towers had been in Iran and were say nuclear armament strategic command centres, and by taking them out it would destroy the nuclear armament program, are you saying, (if security was circumvented), it could not be rigged in a weekend?

It may tick the boxes but it doesn't jibe with facts.

• No explosions heard.
• Fire burned for hours but didn't set off the explosives
• Still needed to bare walls, and bring a lot of explosives to tie to each steel frame member
• Replace all drywall, tape, mud and paint in 36 hours in 3 buildings
• Only one guy remembers this supposed stay away order
• Still have to cut some steel

No evidence was found to support any of this.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

But why not? After all, this was already done and lots of people believed Anastasia was who she claimed to be for about half a century. She made a good living a it too, at times, even after she was shown to be a fraud.

You are not that good. . .

 

[George B]

And they are?

Special Ops, Delta Force, LLNL, JPL, NSA, CRO, DARPA, Black Ops and many others without names or acronyms . . .

 

[hiper]

It's ironic...the official explanation of the entire 9/11 event and everything that has happened
because of it stands or falls with people believing or not believing that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

Given that it was not hit by a plane I just can't join the believers.

 

[Landru]

It's ironic...the official explanation of the entire 9/11 event and everything that has happened
because of it stands or falls with people believing or not believing that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

Given that it was not hit by a plane I just can't join the believers.

No. A belief in this:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

[h=3]Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)[/h]
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, and 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
The probable collapse sequence is described in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 2.4 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Chapter 13.

Content from External Source

Any other explanation (explosives, cable pulling, nano thermite, etc.) requires the suspension of belief.

 

[Jazzy]

The point is F4Jock that people questioning the government explanation are also questioning that same government's role as the lead investigator in this case.

I can't see this as relevant to the thread title - about WTC 7. And whether it fell down naturally, or not. I don't see how politics enters forensics.

Unless you have some new forensic evidence, interpretation, analysis, what are you doing?

 

[F4Jock]

You are not that good. . .

True. If I was I'd be rich, but she was. So are others.

 

[F4Jock]

Special Ops, Delta Force, LLNL, JPL, NSA, CRO, DARPA, Black Ops and many others without names or acronyms . . .

None of which have the reach buy themselves and if so any expletive were involved not ONE talked? Not ONE contained a single person wily enough to not only be upset enough to now the whistle but smart enough to be able to prevent and / or prove same afterward? I know some of these people. Don't know one who would go along with this.

 

[F4Jock]

It's ironic...the official explanation of the entire 9/11 event and everything that has happened because of it stands or falls with people believing or not believing that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.Given that it was not hit by a plane I just can't join the believers.

But it was hit by damn near everything else that fell.

 

[Oxymoron]

It may tick the boxes but it doesn't jibe with facts.

• No explosions heard.

Thermite/thermate burns and melts, doesn't explode (sulfur... weakened steel... collapse)

Fire burned for hours but didn't set off the explosives

• Still needed to bare walls, and bring a lot of explosives to tie to each steel frame member
• Replace all drywall, tape, mud and paint in 36 hours in 3 buildings

Not if they were on unoccupied floors.

Only one guy remembers this supposed stay away order

This is well documented

Still have to cut some steel

Cutting some steel is not beyond reason. Bearing in mind 7 was supposed to be brought down from the chain reaction from ONE beam failure. I have pushed over tons of brickwork with one hand once the supports have been taken out. It will stand but takes little to topple it with the right preparation. Its all a question of 'how much support to remove'.

No evidence was found to support any of this.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

Can you say what methods were used to investigate this as they certainly did not test for explosives?

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

Not so if thermitic substances were used and/or some supports were pre cut

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes.

Could be done in a weekend. It is a question of weakening the structure so that the plane will ensure destruction.

Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Dealt with previously... definitely not necessary to prepare that many. I have to smile... we go from, one beam failure demolished the whole building to ... it's impossible to bring down the building unless it, "requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building. "

Where is the logic in, 'you HAVE TO believe in either one or the other extreme'... what about some combination somewhere in between?

Shades of grey...

 

[F4Jock]

I can't see this as relevant to the thread title - about WTC 7. And whether it fell down naturally, or not. I don't see how politics enters forensics.

Unless you have some new forensic evidence, interpretation, analysis, what are you doing?

I draw your attention to portions of post 98 in the Irony of Conspiracy Theories thread. I believe it is on page 3. To me this is very enlightening.

 

[Landru]

Thermite/thermate burns and melts, doesn't explode (sulfur... weakened steel... collapse)

[/LIST]
Not if they were on unoccupied floors.


This is well documented


Cutting some steel is not beyond reason. Bearing in mind 7 was supposed to be brought down from the chain reaction from ONE beam failure. I have pushed over tons of brickwork with one hand once the supports have been taken out. It will stand but takes little to topple it with the right preparation. Its all a question of 'how much support to remove'.



Can you say what methods were used to investigate this as they certainly did not test for explosives?



Not so if thermitic substances were used and/or some supports were pre cut


Could be done in a weekend. It is a question of weakening the structure so that the plane will ensure destruction.


Dealt with previously... definitely not necessary to prepare that many. I have to smile... we go from, one beam failure demolished the whole building to ... it's impossible to bring down the building unless it, "requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building. "

Where is the logic in, 'you HAVE TO believe in either one or the other extreme'... what about some combination somewhere in between?

Shades of grey...

Thermite was tested as was discussed elsewhere on metabunk. Didn't find any. Also, you would need an awful lot of it. 100lbs per girder. And it is not fireproof.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound’s thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

Content from External Source

You have to put thermite directly on the steel which means baring metal which means removing the drywall. You have provided zero evidence to support your theory. No evidence of pre cut steel. No evidence (other than one guy) who says there was a stand down. You say it is well documented but you only provide one guy. You state all this could be done in a weekend and provide no proof.

 

[Cairenn]

Really, an 'exotic' explosive. It has to be bought and then someone has to go in and use it.

Has anyone talked to the workers that were doing work that weekend when the cameras were off? I have to think that finding and interviewing them might be able to put you minds to rest.

 

[George B]

None of which have the reach buy themselves and if so any expletive were involved not ONE talked? Not ONE contained a single person wily enough to not only be upset enough to now the whistle but smart enough to be able to prevent and / or prove same afterward? I know some of these people. Don't know one who would go along with this.

I was just answering the question you posed. . .

One interesting aside: We have a government that is demonstrably incapable of walking and chewing gum concurrently, yet it's being given credit for flawlessly pulling off one of the biggest and most audacious technically-based cons in history, a covert con that included the murder of thousands. Talk about suspension of disbelief!

The agencies I mentioned in Post #811 above were very capable of chewing gum . . . whether they would participate . . . Not the people I knew either . . . but IMO there are black hats and white hats in every organization and these agencies are very compartmentalized and stove piped as well . . . not enough reach . . . don't know about that one but I think several agencies have the knowledge, covert capacity and brain power . . .

 

[Cairenn]

How many folks reported the work? What kind of work was done? What floors was it done on?

The government is not in the business of demolishing buildings, especially skyscrapers. They would not have folks with the proper training. There is fairly small list of companies that can do a building implosion. It is specialized training.

A simple structure like a chimney can be prepared for demolition in less than a day. Larger or more complex structures can take up to six months of preparation to remove internal walls and wrap columns with fabric and fencing before firing the explosives.

Content from External Source

You are trying to tell us that untrained personal prepared 3 buildings, all of which are taller than any imploded building, in one weekend.

I don think so.

Hmm it seems that even demolishing old housing is contract to civil firms

Some have already been demolished, and the base has a contract to demolish eight more buildings toward an effort to reduce the costs of owned and leased property by 20 percent, according to a news release. Some old railroad tracks and a concrete platform also will be removed.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/11/17/2254251/robins-demolishing-buildings.html#storylink=cpy

Content from External Source

About

This award-winning replacement housing for military families, a $78 million-dollar project, consists of a contemporary community at two neighborhoods. The scope of work included demolishing 132 units and designing and building 129 new JNCO/CGO replacement units in tri-plex and four-plex building configurations. The project included a complete site...


http://www.architizer.com/en_us/pro...tary-family-housing-units/31403/#.UXdZPvJPdcU

Content from External Source

 

[geeksquad100]

Of course it has also been shown that the collapse was not really symmetrical and the word "reminiscent" is of itself an equivocation but.....

Postulate what you will, it is obvious to most that no matter the CT protestations, for better or worse no meaningful investigative agency is going to pursue this particular matter further. It's over, except in the mind of the CT. I might suggest you'd have more success finding another theory to champion.

Uhhh well I believe 1,900 architects and engineers would beg to differ! 1,900 architects and engineers some of the nations and worlds top are calling for a new investigation!

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-third-wtc-building-which-collapsed-on-911-was-not-hit-by-a-plane/

But I guess they are all just conspiracy theorists right......lol

actually your a conspiracy theorist too. If you believe the official conspiracy theory that the government has told then you are in fact a conspiracy theorist my friend.

 

[geeksquad100]

But it wasn't so it doesn't,

lol how long have you been in the military? how much do they pay you for being a disinfo agent?

 

[Mick West]

I'm increasingly wondering if AE911 is just a way for Richard Gage to make a living:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

 

[Mick West]

24 hour ban to geeksquad100 for impoliteness.

 

[Cairenn]

And HOW many architects and engineers are there? Over 105,000 architects and over 1.6 million engineers.

Less than 2,000 is less than 2 per cent. Why that few?

The government report has SCIENCE on it's side, it also has REASON.

The CTer's story has neither.

FACTS are not a conspiracy. Believing in fallacies can be

 

[jomper]

No, I'm assuming both methods would take down the building. Not "like that". Does the dog end up the same?



What problem should I have? Relative to the height of the building the plane and fire damage was a few percent. The majority of the damage came from the collapse.


The plane and the fire were initiating events, like the collapse of a floor in verinage demolition.

Verinage invloves the simultaneous removal of structural supports across whole floors. Has this everbeen done to a steel framed building?

 

[Cairenn]

To some extent the planes did a lot of that structural removal. But verinage also requires cables and there were no cables

 

[jomper]

The absence of comment does not prove your case. Has Verinage ever been applied to steel framed buildings? I think not...?

 

[Cairenn]

Why did all of a sudden you switch from a 'controlled demolition' to verinage?

Are there ANY experts in it, in the US?

I asked for an explanation of how explosives could have been planted. and silence on your side.

Why don't you make your point instead of asking questions?

 

[jomper]

Was trying to reply to Mick upthread on crap smartphone as have no Internet ATM. There are no sides to me: the adversarial nature of these exchanges is laughable. Verinage IS controlled demolition, but I don't think it can apply to steel structures.

 

[Jazzy]

Was trying to reply to Mick upthread on crap smartphone as have no Internet ATM. There are no sides to me: the adversarial nature of these exchanges is laughable. Verinage IS controlled demolition, but I don't think it can apply to steel structures.

Yes it could. Verinage with fire. Take a tower frame, clad on the outside to reflect the heat back in, and ignite a few tons of fuel within it, and see what happens.

More to the point, one could actually reconstruct a six story high WTC tower section say three elements wide, between core and exterior columns, loaded and broken in the same way, and ignite a commensurate amount of kerosine and office furniture within it, and watch it collapse.

Why don't you conspire together (a buck each) and get it built and demonstrate how wrong the 'official version" is? I'd like a good laugh. Or build a whole real tower. That would be better.

Better still would be for you to improve your understanding of the physical world around you. That would be cheaper for all concerned, and much better for you.

 

[hiper]

Thermite was tested as was discussed elsewhere on metabunk. Didn't find any. Also,
you would need an awful lot of it. 100lbs per girder. And it is not fireproof.

Don't try to shift the focus away...

Some tested the dust and found residue but this doesn't matter...
Some tested the dust and didn't find residue but this doesn't matter either...

What really matters is that NIST as the official investigator didn't test the dust while the whole official explanation of 9/11 de facto depends on it...
If that does not ring a bell with you well...

You have provided zero evidence
to support your theory. No evidence of pre cut steel. No evidence (other than one guy)
who says there was a stand down. You say it is well documented but you only provide one guy.
You state all this could be done in a weekend and provide no proof.

Well that's easy isn't it..

Saying a building collapses due to fire...

not test the dust for evidence of accelerants/explosives...

not examine the steel for evidence because it was gone...

not releasing the 3D model parameters to provide evidence for their model...


...and then telling the people who have a problem with this kind of behavior from NIST they have no evidence...

They would not have folks with the proper training. There is fairly small list of companies that can do a building implosion. It is specialized training.

What you are saying is the US government can't rig a building for demolition... but it can put a man on the moon.. is that what you're saying?

And HOW many architects and engineers are there? Over 105,000 architects and over 1.6 million engineers.

Less than 2,000 is less than 2 per cent. Why that few?

Do you know how many people genuinely stood up to the Nazi regime in Germany (outside of those that were rounded up in camps) in the 1930's at the risk of loosing everything?
You can count them on a few hands... the majority was silent it's the same everywhere.

 

[hiper]

Why don't you conspire together (a buck each) and get it built and demonstrate how wrong the 'official version" is? I'd like a good laugh.

You think you are in a position that allows you to be funny about this.. this is not the case.
You think you are backed by a solid government explanation.. this is also not the case.
Your air of superiority is painfully misplaced.

 

[Jazzy]

You think you are in a position that allows you to be funny about this.. this is not the case.

Humor is the best use to be made out of this case.

You think you are backed by a solid government explanation.. this is also not the case.

I had no interest in any "government case". I'm just a guy who trained as an aero-engineer fifty years ago who knew those towers would be down within an hour just as soon as I saw the second plane enter WTC2. WTC2 fell more quickly, and WTC1 more slowly, than I anticipated, but I also knew that WTC2 would go down first. I was both aware of the manner of construction of the towers AND the approximate constituents of the aircraft, mass, speed, fuel at the time I saw the incident (on television).

Your air of superiority is painfully misplaced.

No, it's just a natural reflection of your rigidly-held inferiority. Relax, learn some real scientific understanding, get rid of that chip on your shoulder, and there be no difference between us.

 

[Jazzy]

not test the dust for evidence of accelerants/explosives.

The cause of the fire was known already.

not examine the steel for evidence because it was gone.

The cause of the fire was known already.

not releasing the 3D model parameters to provide evidence for their model.

The fire timeline, fireman and witness testimony, video evidence, and their explanation all provided that evidence. They say the 3d model simulation was used to refine their report, and it is its own evidence. I'm sure that were you capable of duplicating the work they did, you would produce a very similar report and simulation.

and then telling the people who have a problem with this kind of behavior from NIST they have no evidence.

You have the same evidence. It's your interpretation of the evidence that's your problem, and it's up to you to solve it.

What you are saying is the US government can't rig a building for demolition... but it can put a man on the moon.. is that what you're saying?

Wernher Von Braun could have done it, but it would have been cheaper to crash planes.

Do you know how many people genuinely stood up to the Nazi regime in Germany (outside of those that were rounded up in camps) in the 1930's at the risk of loosing everything?
You can count them on a few hands... the majority was silent it's the same everywhere.

Nobody's coming for you.

 

[jomper]

Yes it could. Verinage with fire. Take a tower frame, clad on the outside to reflect the heat back in, and ignite a few tons of fuel within it, and see what happens.

More to the point, one could actually reconstruct a six story high WTC tower section say three elements wide, between core and exterior columns, loaded and broken in the same way, and ignite a commensurate amount of kerosine and office furniture within it, and watch it collapse.

Why don't you conspire together (a buck each) and get it built and demonstrate how wrong the 'official version" is? I'd like a good laugh. Or build a whole real tower. That would be better.

Better still would be for you to improve your understanding of the physical world around you. That would be cheaper for all concerned, and much better for you.

Verinage is not done on steel framed buildings, still less with fire. You are speculating that fire can achieve the same simultaneous movement of structural columns across entire floors of a building as a carefully-arranged set of hydraulic rams or chains, and yet you claim to take a scientific perspective on these questions?

Nevertheless, you have raised an interesting question, despite your characteristically patronising tone. Where is there any physical scale model demonstrating the complete collapse sequence as the "official version" describes it? Engineering faculties around the world have only had a decade to investigate the effect that destroyed the towers. I am not aware of a physical scale model that has reproduced it: I am not even aware of a computer model that shows the complete collapse sequence. All I am aware of is the bluster of people like you who would pretend that such a project is laughable or unnecessary.

Jazzy: you have shown your commitment to sincerity in the past by putting words in my mouth (or elephants in my room, or whatever you want to call it) and then attacking a position I have not adopted in the most risible fashion. This is the underhand tactic of a person who has no real interest in a proper debate, and I do not expect you to engage in anything I say with any honesty, despite your supposed superior wisdom. However, I would be grateful if you did not adopt such an air of superiority, as I do not believe that anyone thinks it is amusing apart from you.

 

[hiper]

The cause of the fire was known already.

We are not talking about the cause of the fire.
We are talking about the cause of the collapse.
To not test the dust from a scientific point is.... FAIL

The cause of the fire was known already.

We are not talking about the cause of the fire.
We are talking about the cause of the collapse.
To not investigate the steel from a scientific point is... FAIL

The fire timeline, fireman and witness testimony, video evidence, and their explanation all provided that evidence. They say the 3d model simulation was used to refine their report, and it is its own evidence. I'm sure that were you capable of duplicating the work they did, you would produce a very similar report and simulation.

From a scientific point... FAIL

You have the same evidence. It's your interpretation of the evidence that's your problem, and it's up to you to solve it.

My interpretation of the evidence? NIST didn't scientifically investigate the evidence.

Wernher Von Braun could have done it, but it would have been cheaper to crash planes.

...

Nobody's coming for you.

Fact remains the majority is always silent.

 

[F4Jock]

lol how long have you been in the military? how much do they pay you for being a disinfo agent?

This assertion is so patently laughable it doesn't deserve an answer but because I'm big into letting people do their own research I'll give you a hint: Research the F4Phantom II that I use as an avatar. I was, as I have said, a combat pilot. This just MIGHT give you a bit of a timeline on my military service.

I get paid as much for being a disinformation agent as you do for leaping to unsupported conclusions. I do, however, have over thirty years engineering experience in field applications, as well as a fire service background.

And other than making unfounded personal accusations your area of expertise is?

Now, unless you have something better to contribute I bid you good day.

Note to Mick: If the above violates the "Politeness Policy" so be it. Ban me, I'm not in the mood to take crap like this so that people with nothing to say can say it at the expense of intelligent give and take. There are several CT'ers on this site who while I disagree with them, at least have the decency and intelligence to present lucid arguments. I have to respect them for that. Comments as above are not only personally insulting but add nothing to the site. Of course, if this is what's wanted....I will now report my own post and leave it up to you.

 

[Oxymoron]

Thermite was tested as was discussed elsewhere on metabunk. Didn't find any. Also, you would need an awful lot of it. 100lbs per girder. And it is not fireproof.

100lbs per girder? I think not. There only needs to be a sufficiency to weaken key girders or connections, then gravity takes over

I have to smile... we go from, one beam failure demolished the whole building to ... it's impossible to bring down the building unless it, "requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building. "

Perhaps you would like to comment on the above. Does it not seem farcical that the official position is one or the other, i.e. 'There is absolutely no need for any explosives to cause the collapses', (which is why we did not check for them) OR 'It would take masses of explosives on virtually every girder'.

Now does that seem 'scientific' to you? Or does it seem like a ridiculous disparity?
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column,

This is risible. To multiply 0.13 by 1000 would mean you would intend to destroy the entire beam. The object would be to weaken or cut the beam at a strategic point... likely by using 0.13 lbs up to 6lbs lbs per beam... not vaporize the whole thing.

You have to put thermite directly on the steel which means baring metal which means removing the drywall. You have provided zero evidence to support your theory.

Which would be entirely possible over a weekend of unfettered access to untenanted areas.

No evidence of pre cut steel. No evidence (other than one guy) who says there was a stand down. You say it is well documented but you only provide one guy.

I actually provided 2. Susan Lindauer also documents it. See also:
http://rense.com/general94/missing.htm

[SIZE=+1]For the next 10 to 12 nights, the same mysterious truck vans arrived at the World Trade Center at the same mysterious hour--- after the janitorial crews had left the building and before the most fanatic robber barons on Wall Street showed up for work. The vans appeared at the World Trade Center from approximately August 23, 2001 until September 3 or 4, 2001. After that last night, they never appeared at the Towers again.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The vans were never heard of again, either. The 9/11 Commission was never informed of their surprising presence in the Towers three weeks before the 9/11 attack. Most of the 9/11 Truth Community has no knowledge of this extraordinary nightly activity, either.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]For all the public's ignorance, video from the security cameras could be the most significant missing part of the 9/11 puzzle. This State Department source was convinced the mysterious trucks were used to transport explosives into the building, and that an unidentified orphan team wired the World Trade Center for a controlled demolition in those late night hours. He has stayed quiet to protect his job, his retirement pension and his reputation-knowing that others who spoke up have gotten fired or thrown in prison (myself included).[/SIZE]

Content from External Source

There is also this:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7396

Rodriguez re the 30th floor and the IT guy on the 100th floor about construction noises on floors that were untenanted.

Content from External Source

You state all this could be done in a weekend and provide no proof.

Can you prove it could not be done?

 

[F4Jock]

Don't try to shift the focus away...

Some tested the dust and found residue but this doesn't matter...
Some tested the dust and didn't find residue but this doesn't matter either...

What really matters is that NIST as the official investigator didn't test the dust while the whole official explanation of 9/11 de facto depends on it...
If that does not ring a bell with you well...



Well that's easy isn't it..

Saying a building collapses due to fire...

not test the dust for evidence of accelerants/explosives...

not examine the steel for evidence because it was gone...

not releasing the 3D model parameters to provide evidence for their model...


...and then telling the people who have a problem with this kind of behavior from NIST they have no evidence...




What you are saying is the US government can't rig a building for demolition... but it can put a man on the moon.. is that what you're saying?




Do you know how many people genuinely stood up to the Nazi regime in Germany (outside of those that were rounded up in camps) in the 1930's at the risk of loosing everything?
You can count them on a few hands... the majority was silent it's the same everywhere.

Wow! The linkages here are stunning! Nazis and moon landings aside I'm unclear on something; do you think the dust was ever tested or not?

 

[George B]

I think the following is a problem for the US Government as it relates to 911. . . .

1) There exists a segment within the US, its allies and within its opponents around the world a mistrust and suspension that the 911 Official Story is in some way flawed. . .
2) These flaws carry within it a penalty which can and has impacted the US's foreign policy and credibility even among its own citizens. . .
3) Whether these flaws are real or not is debatable; however, they IMO have not been properly addressed . . . and is this the fault of the second amendment (rather the first amendment) or the enemies of US interests or simply being arrogant and unwilling to use prudent and transparent investigatory process . . . or possibly . . . Which is my choice . . . The full details would be even more embarrassing to the US Government than the aggravation and disfunction caused by withholding full disclosure . . .

 

[hiper]

I'm unclear on something; do you think the dust was ever tested or not?

Glad you asked.
Let me put it this way...

NIST giving "no audible evidence of a blast event" as the reason for not testing the WTC 7 dust is incriminating from a scientific standpoint. NIST knows this.

So NIST must have been presented with a choice :
(and yes we can reasonably assume given the many years of investigation NIST unofficially did test the dust so it knew what was in it)

A) not officially test the dust and use "no audible evidence of blast event" as a fig leaf
B) officially test the dust

Why did NIST chose option A over B?

It likely must have found option B to be more of a potential quagmire than A.

 

[F4Jock]

I think the following is a problem for the US Government as it relates to 911. . . .

1) There exists a segment within the US, its allies and within its opponents around the world a mistrust and suspension that the 911 Official Story is in some way flawed. . .
2) These flaws carry within it a penalty which can and has impacted the US's foreign policy and credibility even among its own citizens. . .
3) Whether these flaws are real or not is debatable; however, they IMO have not been properly addressed . . . and is this the fault of the second amendment or the enemies of US interests or simply being arrogant and unwilling to use prudent and transparent investigatory process . . . or possibly . . . Which is my choice . . . The full details would be even more embarrassing to the US Government than the aggravation and disfunction caused by withholding full disclosure . . .

So George, what you are in effect saying is that ultimately the genesis of conspiracy is rooted in distrust of government or authority of some sort. That no matter what is done or said in research and explanation the questions surrounding past events like 9/11 or things that may occur in the future or have happened in the more recent past will continue based largely on this mistrust.

The obvious conclusion under these circumstances is that rebuttal of any kind is pointless because it will either never be accepted or there will just be a new conspiracy to "prove" that government and authority are evil.

Oh and I'm not sure exactly how the second amendment figures into this......

Thoughts?

 

[F4Jock]

Glad you asked.
Let me put it this way...

NIST giving "no audible evidence of a blast event" as the reason for not testing the WTC 7 dust is incriminating from a scientific standpoint. NIST knows this.

So NIST must have been presented with a choice :
(and yes we can reasonably assume given the many years of investigation NIST unofficially did test the dust so it knew what was in it)

A) not officially test the dust and use "no audible evidence of blast event" as a fig leaf
B) officially test the dust

Why did NIST chose option A over B?

It likely must have found option B to be more of a potential quagmire than A.

You didn't understand what I meant. NIST aside, did ANYBODY test the dust. You imply they did and that the results were mixed, thus inconclusive, or did I misread?

 

[hiper]

You didn't understand what I meant. NIST aside, did ANYBODY test the dust. You imply they did and that the results were mixed, thus inconclusive, or did I misread?

It is reasonable to assume NIST unofficially tested the dust leaving in the middle the results of that test (because we don't know what those possible unofficial results are).

NIST as the government agency tasked with the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse is the only entity we have to look at regarding the trace chemical analysis of the WTC 7 dust.
What 'ANYBODY' else did regarding the WTC 7 dust is of secondary importance.