WTC 7 (Building 7)

[F4Jock]

I agree the present Administration has no stomach to open a new investigation of the events of 911. . . I think what you have suggested to MythBusters (by the way . . . Thanks) is the only thing that might open the door for public pressure to do further research . . . as I have stated several times IMO we have a crisis of TRUST in government and I think they can gain much more than they could lose by sponsoring a reexamination. I will continue to raise my small voice in that manner . . . do yourself a favor "Government" due diligence would be refreshing . . .

I'll go you one better: Nobody is going to reopen this. If you want due diligence, and here I'm with you, I suggest concentrating on contemporary events. Much more likely to be able to influence them. There is so much horse manure being shoveled over the Sequester, health care, the present situation in the Middle East.... These are affecting our lives at present and will do so in the very near future. Pressure and action now may just change things for the better......

 

[Oxymoron]

Did he manage to cut through a column like the WTC1&2 core columns? Or the WTC7 column that failed?

And why exactly did they need to "weaken" the columns? It's been shown they could not support the dynamic load.

Are you suggesting he tries it out 'in situ' on a building?

The guy did what all others, inc Mythbusters, (who are ergo mythbusted themselves), said could not be done. 'All officialdom' said "Thermite cannot cut steel" and a guy in his back garden proves positive that they were full of BS... and he gets labeled a 'loony' by Metabunks metaphysicist

It has never been shown that the columns could not support the dynamic load. That is the starting point of the whole conspiracy theory. These events were/are unprecedented.

​

Epic fail. I wonder why?

 

[Oxymoron]

They weren't "my" "top scientific brains", they were yours. Just a straw man.


No, it's not "like blowing a dam", because the structures were all seen to deform progressively over time. In the case of the towers, floors were seen to sag and collapse. Within a minute of those detaching floors the initial buckling failure occurred, and the collapse began.

These events are absolutely consistent with progressive fire damage to stability failure. In your scenario they never feature. You never use the word "buckling" when the video demonstrates it straight to your face.

[video=youtube_share;9SSS0DDqfm0]http://youtu.be/9SSS0DDqfm0[/video]

[...]

Now try to be polite Jazzy.

It is exactly like blowing a dam... if key supports are weakened then physics will do the rest, inc buckling. It is patently plausible.

​

You state "These events are absolutely consistent with progressive fire damage to stability failure."... consistent with what ? A theory to explain something that has never ever happened before?

It is a fact, no other buildings have collapsed like it before... does that not tell you anything? It must at least tell you that it cannot be 'consistent' with anything.

 

[George B]

I'll go you one better: Nobody is going to reopen this. If you want due diligence, and here I'm with you, I suggest concentrating on contemporary events. Much more likely to be able to influence them. There is so much horse manure being shoveled over the Sequester, health care, the present situation in the Middle East.... These are affecting our lives at present and will do so in the very near future. Pressure and action now may just change things for the better......

I am with you there. . . however, the present nature of things is generally so confusing in a contemporary sense that some more time needs to pass to be able to make sense of it all. . . the 911 saga has IMO reached that point and we can now see with 20/20 hindsight . . . the investigation was lacking and incomplete and needs reevaluation . . . the Vietman War is a prime example . . . a tragic misapplication of political, military, and human resources . . . What did it accomplish? 911 will not ever be laid to rest without a proper postmortem . . . the autopsy has not been accomplished . . .

 

[F4Jock]

I am with you there. . . however, the present nature of things is generally so confusing in a contemporary sense that some more time needs to pass to be able to make sense of it all. . . the 911 saga has IMO reached that point and we can now see with 20/20 hindsight . . . the investigation was lacking and incomplete and needs reevaluation . . . the Vietman War is a prime example . . . a tragic misapplication of political, military, and human resources . . . What did it accomplish? 911 will not ever be laid to rest without a proper postmortem . . . the autopsy has not been accomplished . . .

The dead are dead and all of the autopsies and postmortems in the world won't bring them back or change the past. I look at it this way, the chances of revisiting 9/11; about zero unless, as I said, new, different and compelling information is presented. Chances of preventing more BS moving forward are much better.

 

[Grieves]

You cannot be talking about WTC1 & 2, because the collapses propagated from the points of impact.

No, we're talking about building 7, which is the topic of this thread, Jazzy. For a guy who insists on pointing out when others wander off-topic, you sure do it a lot yourself.

. "They" couldn't have placed charges* (each time at a future point of impact) in the time claimed available.

that could set non standard charges in a fraction of the time normally needed.

Where are you getting this projected time-frame? Who's to say, if a crew of highly trained individuals gained clearance to be there, they didn't have days/weeks/months to discreetly do their work?

Ok, Where did they hire demo experts that could bring down buildings of the size of even WTC7? Enough folks to work quickly?

Blackwater, who changed its name to Xe, who changed its name to Academi, (with a considerable image-change as demonstrated by their website) comes to mind. They're a private mercenary army with a corporate structure, employing ex special forces, ex CIA, and yes, demolition experts... hiring out their services for very tidy sums. They've been the go-to guys for the American Military ever since the current stream of invasions began, have been raking in massive profits, and have been shrugging off massive amounts of criticism for the horrors they're reported as inflicting, hence their frequent name and image changes. I'd consider them a possible suspect, as well as Halliburton, who similarly had extremely questionable connections to certain members of the Administration where matters of conflict of interest are concerned, are also a private security firm (though more rooted in logistics than force), and also have a demolition branch.

And did they teach them drywall work also.

Again, drywalling isn't exactly a specialist skill requiring years of training or something. It takes a while to get really good at, but it's not something trained demolition experts would find themselves struggling with either.

Both of those groups have to be sworn to secrecy and NONE of them have revealed anything in over 10 years.

Extremely well paid mercenaries have every reason to keep their mouths shut, and wouldn't exactly be creatures of conscience.

Large amounts of thermite would have had to be bought or made, either way there are more folks that KNOW about it.

Why? Demolition experts employed by corporate mercenaries wouldn't know where to get/how to mix explosives?

Then those charges would have to been fireproofed and ALL the wiring for them, the same.

No need for fireproofing if the sub-levels are rigged. Again, there's no real feasible way for fire to reach the basement unless the building burns to the ground. Wireless detonators wouldn't require a great deal of wiring, presumably. The only reason most demo-crews use wired detonators is because they're way cheaper. If building 7 was rigged with explosives, it wouldn't have been on a budget.

You would have to figure out how to make sure that a part of the WTC hit the building and started fires.

Or be entirely confident a section of the towers would hit building 7, given sections of the towers hit most every building in the area.

The dead are dead and all of the autopsies and postmortems in the world won't bring them back or change the past.

Again, you urge us to move on, suggesting that even if there was something to find, finding it wouldn't change anything, because it doesn't change what happened. I agree, nothing is going to change what happened. But if we're actually going to change what's -happening-, we need to honestly address the catalyst of this destructive North American ethos the mind-fuck of 9/11 opened the door for, and truly get to the bottom of it, to make absolutely certain those who are responsible have been held accountable.

 

[jomper]

Politeness note: Please try to discuss claims and facts, not each other, and certainly not rudely.

I apologise if I gave offence, although I was summarising arguments, not people. In terms of the argument from science, Karl Popper's falsification principle is perhaps the best guide to separating credible research from pseudo science. How can the NIST report be falsified? I think this great philosopher of science would be appalled.

 

[F4Jock]

Who's to say, if a crew of highly trained individuals gained clearance to be there, they didn't have days/weeks/months to discreetly do their work?

Illogical speculation.

Blackwater, who changed its name to Xe, who changed its name to Academi, (with a considerable image-change as demonstrated by their website) comes to mind. They're a private mercenary army with a corporate structure, employing ex special forces, ex CIA, and yes, demolition experts... hiring out their services for very tidy sums. They've been the go-to guys for the American Military ever since the current stream of invasions began, have been raking in massive profits, and have been shrugging off massive amounts of criticism for the horrors they're reported as inflicting, hence their frequent name and image changes. I'd consider them a possible suspect, as well as Halliburton, who similarly had extremely questionable connections to certain members of the Administration where matters of conflict of interest are concerned, are also a private security firm (though more rooted in logistics than force), and also have a demolition branch.

Unprovable speculation.

Again, drywalling isn't exactly a specialist skill requiring years of training or something. It takes a while to get really good at, but it's not something trained demolition experts would find themselves struggling with either.

Improbable that demo experts under a time crunch would be responsible for this the of clean-up work.

Extremely well paid mercenaries have every reason to keep their mouths shut, and wouldn't exactly be creatures of conscience.

Why? Demolition experts employed by corporate mercenaries wouldn't know where to get/how to mix explosives?

Mercs have blabbed before. IMO given the enormity of pulling this off it would be hard to keep quiet,

No need for fireproofing if the sub-levels are rigged. Again, there's no real feasible way for fire to reach the basement unless the building burns to the ground. Wireless detonators wouldn't require a great deal of wiring, presumably. The only reason most demo-crews use wired detonators is because they're way cheaper. If building 7 was rigged with explosives, it wouldn't have been on a budget.
Or be entirely confident a section of the towers would hit building 7, given sections of the towers hit most every building in the area.

So the whole idea was to destroy WTC 7?

Again, you urge us to move on, suggesting that even if there was something to find, finding it wouldn't change anything, because it doesn't change what happened. I agree, nothing is going to change what happened. But if we're actually going to change what's -happening-, we need to honestly address the catalyst of this destructive North American ethos the mind-fuck of 9/11 opened the door for, and truly get to the bottom of it, to make absolutely certain those who are responsible have been held accountable.

Noble sentiments but they require one to 1) believe your original premise, 2) agree that this is an effective and timely way to change things that are happening now AND 3) that you will get this revisited.

Although I want to see change as much as you do, for reasons previously stated throughout this thread I categorically disagree with 1 and 2 and in the absence of any new, different and compelling reasons to do so, 3 isn't happening either.

 

[SR1419]

I'd consider them a possible suspect, as well as Halliburton, who similarly had extremely questionable connections to certain members of the Administration where matters of conflict of interest are concerned, are also a private security firm (though more rooted in logistics than force), and also have a demolition branch.

What?

Since when is Halliburton a private security firm?? They are an oil field services firm:

http://www.halliburton.com/

If building 7 was rigged with explosives, it wouldn't have been on a budget.

If building 7 was rigged with explosives there would be evidence of their detonation.

 

[F4Jock]

What?

Since when is Halliburton a private security firm?? They are an oil field services firm:

http://www.halliburton.com/

Could this perhaps be the much discussed Dick Cheney "connection?"

 

[SR1419]

Could this perhaps be the much discussed Dick Cheney "connection?"

I am sure it is...he was CEO from '95-2000- then quit to become VP.

I am sure we will be told that the US went to war to boosts Halliburton's profits.

 

[SR1419]

sorry- double post

 

[F4Jock]

I am sure it is...he was CEO from '95-2000- then quit to become VP.

I am sure we will be told that the US went to war to boosts Halliburton's profits.

Already been done. One of the prime reasons.

 

[Grieves]

If building 7 was rigged with explosives there would be evidence of their detonation.

Like explosives residue in the dust, eye-witness accounts, and the very unorthodox 'collapse' of the structure as witnessed by all those who were either there or have done the searching necessary to see the building 7 footage? That's evidence.

Since when is Halliburton a private security firm?? They are an oil field services firm:

Sorry, private *military contractor.

Could this perhaps be the much discussed Dick Cheney "connection?"

Halliburton is connected to more than just Cheney. A decent book on the subject can be found here.
And yes, I do believe profit-motivation for companies like Halliburton, Blackwater, and organizations like the Carlyle Group, all of which had heavy ties and influence within the administration (not just Cheney, but Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell as well all had deep connections with these companies) had a lot to do with why a reason was rather blatantly and obviously fabricated to invade Iraq as a response to 9/11, yes. You, I suppose, think the invasion of Iraq was all about your goofy old administration getting hugely confused, right? Not about them doing exactly what they'd been wanting / planning to do for years with the first excuse to come along?

 

[F4Jock]

Like explosives residue in the dust, eye-witness accounts, and the very unorthodox 'collapse' of the structure as witnessed by all those who were either there or have done the searching necessary to see the building 7 footage? That's evidence.

Residue shown to be more likely from building and contents. Analysis inconclusive. Eyewitnesses = unreliable in the best of circumstances. Collapse reasonably explained in terms of science and engineering.

Not evidence but unsupported speculation.

Sorry, private *military contractor.

Halliburton is connected to more than just Cheney. A decent book on the subject can be found here.
And yes, I do believe profit-motivation for companies like Halliburton, Blackwater, and organizations like the Carlyle Group, all of which had heavy ties and influence within the administration (not just Cheney, but Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell as well all had deep connections with these companies) had a lot to do with why a reason was rather blatantly and obviously fabricated to invade Iraq as a response to 9/11, yes. You, I suppose, think the invasion of Iraq was all about your goofy old administration getting hugely confused, right? Not about them doing exactly what they'd been wanting / planning to do for years with the first excuse to come along?

Accusations in the first portion of the paragraph unsupportable by facts.

Said it before, I never agreed with going into Iraq for many reasons so you may ditch the "your" reference and take that one elsewhere. Oh and one minor thing: As a result of 9/11 we went into Afghanistan. Doesn't ave oil. Doesn't even start with the same letter. You want to talk Iraq start a WMD thread.

Same old same old. As I said, this reasoning is more flawed than that which you are trying to overturn. Show me some new, different and compelling reasons this investigation should be reopened and I'll be happy to join in the call. Until then.....

 

[joelb79]

You state "These events are absolutely consistent with progressive fire damage to stability failure."... consistent with what ? A theory to explain something that has never ever happened before?

It is a fact, no other buildings have collapsed like it before... does that not tell you anything? It must at least tell you that it cannot be 'consistent' with anything.

So in leu of a report that completely explains the fire related structural failure of the building with certainty; just because of the rarity of the event you postulate that the accident report is false and therefore it validates a huge conspiracy theory? This sounds like a logical fallacy; No it doesn't tell me anything regardless of the uniqueness of the event. The NIST report explains it perfectly, and it also happens to be a unique report about a unique event; backed with strong evidence and good explanation. What does that tell you when the unique CT has little direct evidence to support its theory?

 

[Jazzy]

Now try to be polite Jazzy.

[...]

It is exactly like blowing a dam

It is NOT. There is a fire taking place. If you want to use the dam analogy, then the dam you are using is an already leaking earth dam which will fail by itself..

if key supports are weakened then physics will do the rest, inc buckling. It is patently plausible.

That is exactly my point. The physics does do the rest. It is eminently plausible.

Key supports were weakened by the impact - and the fire did the rest. Thanks for the flick, Oxy.

You state "These events are absolutely consistent with progressive fire damage to stability failure."... consistent with what?

"Consistent with progressive fire damage" - Worsening conditions, fire progressing upward into the interior, building sagging increasing, floors sagging, dropping and cascading.

"To stabilty failure" - where a slender column loses its side restraint (the floor connection) then its ability to resist downward loading falls to a quarter of its original value.

If it loses TWO connections (a floor above or beneath) then it retains one ninth of its original ability to resist downward loading.

That is why the towers and WTC7 fell within moments of their floors cascading.

A theory to explain something that has never ever happened before?

Exposed steel collapsing at fires has happened for hundreds of years. It's just the amount of it falling at once, and from such a great height, that is new.

It is a fact, no other buildings have collapsed like it before... does that not tell you anything?

Not much. No buildings were built like that before the sixties anyway. The ones built since and having been subject to fire must have been saved by their sprinklers.

It must at least tell you that it cannot be 'consistent' with anything.

It might not tell you much because you're not an engineer.

Actually, it is consistent. It is consistent with steel held anywhere at a high temperature and loading. It will always "collapse". It is why it is used - you can FORM it using HEAT.

Any steel you have seen working at a dull red temperature (in jet engines, for instance) is actually a heat-resistant nickel-molybdenum alloy steel. It's grain structure resists CREEP.

Civil steel's grain structure doesn't. It creeps under load at office fire temperatures. Creep allows a loaded structure to load up its weakest link until it fails.

 

[SR1419]

Like explosives residue in the dust, eye-witness accounts, and the very unorthodox 'collapse' of the structure as witnessed by all those who were either there or have done the searching necessary to see the building 7 footage? That's evidence.

Not about them doing exactly what they'd been wanting/planning for years with the first excuse to come along?

They wanted to go into Iraq ever since the first Gulf War- That doesn't mean they did it for Haliburton profits

Eyewitness account of loud bangs hours before the building collapsed are not "evidence" of a controlled demolition.

Can you source ANY account of explosions immediately prior to the collapse? Anything that would be considered remotely similar to a standard demolition?

Here are some eyewitnesses- any thoughts?

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/"pull"=withdrawfirefightersfromdanger

 

[F4Jock]

So in leu of a report that completely explains the fire related structural failure of the building with certainty; just because of the rarity of the event you postulate that the accident report is false and therefore it validates a huge conspiracy theory? This sounds like a logical fallacy; No it doesn't tell me anything regardless of the uniqueness of the event. The NIST report explains it perfectly, and it also happens to be a unique report about a unique event; backed with strong evidence and good explanation. What does that tell you when the unique CT has little direct evidence to support its theory?

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=7oKyPE8P-d4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=7oKyPE8P-d4

 

[F4Jock]

Hey Jazz, take a gander at something called The Johnstown Flood....

 

[F4Jock]

They wanted to go into Iraq ever since the first Gulf War- That doesn't mean they did it for Haliburton profits

Eyewitness account of loud bangs hours before the building collapsed are not "evidence" of a controlled demolition.

Can you source ANY account of explosions immediately prior to the collapse? Anything that would be considered remotely similar to a standard demolition?

Here are some eyewitnesses- any thoughts?

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/"pull"=withdrawfirefightersfromdanger

Actually we stopped in sight of Bagdad. We were hoping to teach Saddam a lesson. He was apparently a slow learner. Also General Powell (Demonized in Grieves' accuse 'em all post above) told 41 that if he went in there he'd own Iraq. He was wise enough to realize the possible consequences.

 

[jomper]

So in leu of a report that completely explains the fire related structural failure of the building with certainty; just because of the rarity of the event you postulate that the accident report is false and therefore it validates a huge conspiracy theory? This sounds like a logical fallacy; No it doesn't tell me anything regardless of the uniqueness of the event. The NIST report explains it perfectly, and it also happens to be a unique report about a unique event; backed with strong evidence and good explanation. What does that tell you when the unique CT has little direct evidence to support its theory?

You just have to look at the animated gif of NIST's untestable collapse model upthread to see how imperfect the explanation is.

 

[F4Jock]

You just have to look at the animated gif of NIST's untestable collapse model upthread to see how imperfect the explanation is.

Once again no facts offered. No analysis offered. As I've previously stated, unless you develop new, different and compelling information to present your quest for a new investigation is going nowhere.

 

[jomper]

Explain exactly how the only way this computer model could be independently verified must ipso facto help terrorists?

 

[Jazzy]

Hey Jazz, take a gander at something called The Johnstown Flood....

"We think we know what struck us, and it was not the hand of providence".

Thanks. I didn't know of it.

 

[jomper]

I mean, a computer model which is that bad and incomplete a representation of the facts should definitely be independently checked before being accepted as evidence of anything by anyone. That's just science. Right? It's not as if there aren't independent experts out there who want to check it. They're not terrorists. They're just independent. NIST is scared of them, though, and wants us to think that the only possible way the model could be independently checked would give secrets to the enemy. Is that reasonable? I don't think so.

No need for a new investigation at this stage, as far as I'm concerned. Just genuinely independent verification by a trusted authority with no ties to the agency that produced this expensive and time-consuming animation using public funds.

 

[Oxymoron]

So in leu of a report that completely explains the fire related structural failure of the building with certainty;

It is quite simple really... Government agencies need to explain something which has never happened before. But it is a lot harder than that because there are political factors to take into account so they need to come up with 'an explanation' that minimises the culpability of the government and the U.S in general.

I think it significant that it took many years to hone a suitable politically acceptable report.

I.e, they want to limit criticism the buildings construction and design, (these were iconic, culturally important buildings), further there are acknowledged to be many, (unquantified), of similar design and construction. The collapses are unprecedented so there is no way to compare like for like, so it is necessary to come up with a completely new explanation.

There are also political implications and ideals which the report needs to support. I.e. that the terrorists did it, (thereby trying to justify two illegal wars) but it was completely unforeseen; 'so it was not our fault that they got away with it'.

All science starts with a theory but remains a theory until it satisfies scientific standards... namely it fits experiments which are Observable, Reproducible (Repeatable), and Falsifiable (Testable) The report you cite as 'completely explaining the events', satisfies none of the criteria listed.

just because of the rarity of the event you postulate that the accident report is false and therefore it validates a huge conspiracy theory?

No, people postulate that, 'in view of the many proven falsehoods and suspicious actions of the authorities, because of the lack of transparency, the withholding of data used, (even withheld from the very industry professionals who design and build such structures), the blatant political composition of the investigative panel, the deliberate deviations from statutory protocols and very many other reasons, including valid alternative theories which BETTER account for the events'; that the report is false and there is a conspiracy to cover up. Unheard of? Unprecedented? Surprising? No to all of them.

This sounds like a logical fallacy; No it doesn't tell me anything regardless of the uniqueness of the event. The NIST report explains it perfectly, and it also happens to be a unique report about a unique event; backed with strong evidence and good explanation. What does that tell you when the unique CT has little direct evidence to support its theory?

"backed with strong evidence and good explanation"

Is it?

'Thermite cannot cut steel'.... Proven false. (How can 'scientists and experts', be taken seriously when they cannot even get something as simple and basic as this correct?)
'No evidence of explosives'... Not tested for, although found in large quantities by independent and highly accredited scientists.
'Collapse due to thermal expansion of steel'.... Unheard of in any previous fire, even those that were far more severe and enduring.
Access unavailable to place charges... Compelling evidence contradicts such assertions.
Key recommendations which were made on the basis of the report, are largely ignored. If this report is so important, why are it's key recommendations being ignored?

These are but a few examples but then you are entitled to believe what you want

 

[George B]

I mean, a computer model which is that bad and incomplete a representation of the facts should definitely be independently checked before being accepted as evidence of anything by anyone. That's just science. Right? It's not as if there aren't independent experts out there who want to check it. They're not terrorists. They're just independent. NIST is scared of them, though, and wants us to think that the only possible way the model could be independently checked would give secrets to the enemy. Is that reasonable? I don't think so.

No need for a new investigation at this stage, as far as I'm concerned. Just genuinely independent verification by a trusted authority with no ties to the agency that produced this expensive and time-consuming animation using public funds.

You made a very good point regarding the animation. . . no need to divulge classified information to terrorists just a verification by third part trusted experts . . . would be most comforting. . . how much would that cost. . . .? I don't see cost as an issue ? I don't see how secrecy could be an issue with trusted experts sworn to maintain confidentiality . . .

 

[Cairenn]

I am not impressed with the thermite experiment. It was done with a 2-3 foot steel girder. Since thermite works by HEAT, the length of the steel being heated is important. With a long girder, the steel would be carrying the heat away from the area that the thermite is heating, making it a lot harder.

There is still no reasonable explanation of HOW it could have been set, or HOW it could have endured the fires.

I would like a explantion of the obvious fact that the building buldged. That is consistant with thermal expansion, but not with any explosive.

Can you give us an example of a building with long span construction that endured uncontrolled fires for hours.

The buildings that have stood up to fires were built differently and even in them, there were concerns about weakened steel joists. It is like expecting to be able to juice an apple, the same way one would juice a lemon, because the are both fruit.

 

[Oxymoron]

I am not impressed with the thermite experiment. It was done with a 2-3 foot steel girder. Since thermite works by HEAT, the length of the steel being heated is important. With a long girder, the steel would be carrying the heat away from the area that the thermite is heating, making it a lot harder.

So you would rather trust the 'evidence' of 'official scientists' who have dogmatically and emphatically claimed for years "thermite cannot cut steel"?

I can assure you from experience that the length of a beam makes no difference to the efficacy of a local cutting device whether it be oxy-acetylene or thermite. The heating process is so hot and quick there is no time for the heat to be dissipated. Anyone with basic knowledge can confirm what I state and I challenge anyone with any understanding or experience of such matters to repudiate it.

From roughly 11 mins into the demo, he shows how he can selectively blow bolts which connect the beams 'in a few seconds' and with no audible explosion that could possibly be heard unless very close (and I mean very close... certainly not outside the building).

Toward the end of the video he actually constructs replicas of the WTC box sections and blows the bolts off with very small amounts of thermite. What effect would that have on the structural integrity of a building?

​

There is still no reasonable explanation of HOW it could have been set, or HOW it could have endured the fires.

It has been fully explained and is entirely reasonable to those who are not clouded by a monological ideology that 'it is impossible that elements of our government would do such a thing'.

I have to remark on such diametrically opposed statements made, such as, 'Do you not think someone who placed the charges would have whistleblown by now', No I do not, who is going to admit they did that. Then you get statements such as 'Manning is an anarchist... there is no room in the military for anarchists'. I rest my case.

I would like a explantion of the obvious fact that the building buldged. That is consistant with thermal expansion, but not with any explosive.

Already explained but once again; Once a building has been structurally weakened, (as described above), physical forces, (such as high winds at 1000ft, fire and vibrations due to structural failures) will have normal effects in allowing the building to first deform, which can be seen by bulges, followed by total collapse. The collapse will be fast as the structure has been weakened and therefore there is little resistance from below.

Can you give us an example of a building with long span construction that endured uncontrolled fires for hours.

'Long span' is a relative term. The buildings I have previously cited could all be classified as 'long span'. I would like to know which buildings out there (and there are apparently very many), have similar construction.

The buildings that have stood up to fires were built differently and even in them, there were concerns about weakened steel joists. It is like expecting to be able to juice an apple, the same way one would juice a lemon, because the are both fruit.

The buildings cited are extremely close in structural design and have been totally engulfed for 16 hours or in some cases days without collapse. Such evidence cannot be dismissed by 'apples and pears' analogies or 'ford escort vs volkswagon golf', The buildings were designed to survive a similar plane crash and fire. That means 'not fall down', survive doesn't mean 'stand for a few hours then collapse into dust'.

It would be as illogical as saying "We have devised a vest which allows the wearer to survive a gunshot to the torso", and then when he dies two hours later from gunshot to the torso, to say... "The jacket was a complete success, he did in fact survive for a whole two hours".

 

[George B]

I am not impressed with the thermite experiment. It was done with a 2-3 foot steel girder. Since thermite works by HEAT, the length of the steel being heated is important. With a long girder, the steel would be carrying the heat away from the area that the thermite is heating, making it a lot harder.

There is still no reasonable explanation of HOW it could have been set, or HOW it could have endured the fires.

I would like a explantion of the obvious fact that the building buldged. That is consistant with thermal expansion, but not with any explosive.

Can you give us an example of a building with long span construction that endured uncontrolled fires for hours.

The buildings that have stood up to fires were built differently and even in them, there were concerns about weakened steel joists. It is like expecting to be able to juice an apple, the same way one would juice a lemon, because the are both fruit.

1) Precision of ignition is not necessary (the bulges caused by uneven ignition) . . . the fire itself could have ignited some of the thermite . . . the symmetry of the fall is not as important as is the fall . . .
2) Heat transference (dissipation) on the short girder and a long girder would not be instantaneous . . . I am sure the thermite charge would have cut a girder a mile long . . .
3) While I don't think the intentional demolition of WTC 7 is a required element for me to distrust the Official Story I do think a better investigation should have been accomplished and needs to be reexamined . . . and by a disinterested third party . . .

 

[Mick West]

No need for a new investigation at this stage, as far as I'm concerned. Just genuinely independent verification by a trusted authority with no ties to the agency that produced this expensive and time-consuming animation using public funds.

Suppose that happens? Then what?

 

[Mick West]

From roughly 11 mins into the demo, he shows how he can selectively blow bolts which connect the beams 'in a few seconds' and with no audible explosion that could possibly be heard unless very close (and I mean very close... certainly not outside the building).

Ignoring for a moment the validity of his tests, it's a solution seeking a problem. There was no actual need to "weaken" the structure of the building. The only thing that was needed would be to initiate a collapse of one floor. And that collapse happen on the floors that were on fire, which would have set off any thermite.

 

[George B]

Suppose that happens? Then what?

If the independent experts support the NIST findings there is one less question to be addresses. . . If they find NIST's simulation in error that is a different can of worms. ...

 

[Mick West]

If the independent experts support the NIST findings there is one less question to be addresses. . . If they find NIST's simulation in error that is a different can of worms. ...

Sure, but assuming there's one less question to address. What then Jomper?

 

[jomper]

Suppose that happens? Then what?

Then you would be able to point to credible independent verification if others continue to suggest the model was drylabbed.

 

[Landru]

Then you would be able to point to credible independent verification if others continue to suggest the model was drylabbed.

What about the work done by Popular Mechanics?

 

[Oxymoron]

Ignoring for a moment the validity of his tests, it's a solution seeking a problem. There was no actual need to "weaken" the structure of the building. The only thing that was needed would be to initiate a collapse of one floor. And that collapse happen on the floors that were on fire, which would have set off any thermite.

That argument is only valid if you accept NIST's assertion that the 3 unprecedented collapses which occurred within hours of each other, needed no other catalyst than minor fires to initiate the collapses, (and I do mean minor in relative terms to historical events where whole buildings have been engulfed).

Many people do not accept that.

Do you honestly think the science and demolition experts involved in the inquiry, are incompetent enough to not realise that thermite can effectively cut through and eat away huge chunks of steel? Please answer this question Mick... it really is the elephant in the room.

Not only that, they then spend years trying to come up with an exotic explanation to explain the presence of the 'mystery steel'.



Which is easily explained if you admit the possibility that thermite was present.

Also despite raucous calls from many sectors inc scientists and engineers, to test for explosives, NIST flagrantly and in direct contradiction of standing protocols... refuses point blank. Now even if it really did not believe it would find evidence of explosives, does it not make sense to, i) abide by it's own protocols, ii) do it anyway to avoid suspicion/criticism in the future, iii) rule out explosives planted as a failsafe mechanism by terrorists?

This was a world changing event... we are all affected and have a right to know what went on and it is absolutely criminal to treat us like 'loonies' or 'mushrooms' and feed us BS upon BS.

 

[joelb79]

It has been fully explained and is entirely reasonable to those who are not clouded by a monological ideology that 'it is impossible that elements of our government would do such a thing'.

This is going to go nowhere now. First off, this is a strawman position about the government, you cannot paint all of us with that broad brush.

We now need to address and demonstrate how Oxy has a monological belief system because he is accusing everybody of having one themselves, meanwhile leaving the assumption that he is thinking without tossing out key information. all the while he is tossing out the NIST report as conpsiracy and bunk, then concocting his own evidence from youtube.

Over time, the view of the world as a place ruled by conspiracies can lead to conspiracy becoming the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system (Clarke, 2002; Goertzel, 1994; Swami et al., 2010, 2011).

Content from External Source

http://images.derstandard.at/2012/02/22/Dead and Alive.pdf

 

[F4Jock]

This is going to go nowhere now. First off, this is a strawman position about the government, you cannot paint all of us with that broad brush.

We now need to address and demonstrate how Oxy has a monological belief system because he is accusing everybody of having one themselves, meanwhile leaving the assumption that he is thinking without tossing out key information. all the while he is tossing out the NIST report as conpsiracy and bunk, then concocting his own evidence from youtube.

Over time, the view of the world as a place ruled by conspiracies can lead to conspiracy becoming the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system (Clarke, 2002; Goertzel, 1994; Swami et al., 2010, 2011).

Content from External Source

http://images.derstandard.at/2012/02/22/Dead and Alive.pdf

Congratulations! I have long held that the solution to CT lies with understanding the basic philosophies and mindset of "True Believers." I think it has been demonstrated that they cannot easily if ever be disabused of their beliefs but it is my hope that those "on the bubble" can be shown by our efforts that there is truly, to quote Officer Barbrady, "Nothing more to see here."