someGuy
New Member
I could also ask you the same question, reversed
And since you're not an explosive expert, 'I'm not expecting my mind to be blow at all'
WTC 7 (Building 7)
- Thread starter LogicAndSanity
- Start date
- Status
I could also ask you the same question, reversed
And since you're not an explosive expert, 'I'm not expecting my mind to be blow at all'
someGuy
New Member
Again I'm not conviced by the explosives theory, and here's why:
If explosives were used in WTC7, it is safe to assume it was also used in WTC 1 and 2, in the entire tower,110 stories, twice....
I'm no demolition expert, except in video games, but I can't imagine people planting so much explosives without being noticed
To the point that Cobra's nanomites seem more realistic
Besides, if explosives were used, I'm not even sure it would work properly on that scale
If explosives were used in WTC7, it is safe to assume it was also used in WTC 1 and 2, in the entire tower,110 stories, twice....
I'm no demolition expert, except in video games, but I can't imagine people planting so much explosives without being noticed
To the point that Cobra's nanomites seem more realistic
Besides, if explosives were used, I'm not even sure it would work properly on that scale
Chuck
Active Member
If that "reasonable person" had ever seen and HEARD controlled demolitions, they wouldn't have even considered such as the reason for the collapse. The concussion from the explosives is absolutely unmistakable and deafening. Nothing of the kind was heard before any of the collapses. Some explosions, yes of course, but none of the magnitude that would have been necessary.
I keep hearing about the dishonesty of the NIST report (in ignoring incriminating evidence), yet the truthers of which I was one (especially those who produced "Loose Change"), used a variety of very deceptive techniques to mislead their audience.
I just don't know how one can watch the following video and argue that reasonable people would automatically conclude that controlled demolition was the paramount cause of the collapses. Presupposition is a far greater driving force in the truth movement than is admitted.
[video=vimeo;65357946]http://vimeo.com/65357946[/video]
[video=youtube_share;OWpC_1WP8do]http://youtu.be/OWpC_1WP8do[/video]
joelb79
Active Member
And you are an explosives expert? Get real.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I personally believe accelerants and explosives should have been tested for as a minimum at WTC 1,2&7 that does not mean I believe they had a high likelyhood of being used . . . any investigation should be a process of elimination and IMO such testing was reasonable and prudent. . . there are advances in technology every day especially in the area of military grade explosives, etc . . . shaped charges, covert entry techniques etc . . . The covert loosening or severing a support beam might not be as difficult as one may think . . .
someGuy
New Member
Get real ?
You asked first about explosives, and you're not even in a position to evaluate the quality of the answe/to desprove it, SINCE YOU ARE NOT AN EXPLOSIVE EXPERT
You're just as legit as me on such question !
[...]
WTC's have massive implications for new and current building designs and safeguards. Not to investigate this properly is not only dishonouring the victims, it also places others at risk from collapsing buildings.
Either these buildings were brought down by fire in which case all similar buildings are suspect re safety or there were some form of demolition type weakening of structural integrity involved.
If there is one single event that needs the utmost clarity of investigation... it is this event. The implications are world changing and no stone should be left unturned.
SFRM application
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build05/art042.html
WTC7 Fires Between Approx. 3:42pm and 4:05pm (an hour and fifteen minutes prior to collapse and 45 mins prior to announcements that it had collapsed)
Either these buildings were brought down by fire in which case all similar buildings are suspect re safety or there were some form of demolition type weakening of structural integrity involved.
If there is one single event that needs the utmost clarity of investigation... it is this event. The implications are world changing and no stone should be left unturned.
SFRM application
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build05/art042.html
Inspection of 85th floor SFRM May 2001 WTC 2External Quote:
WTC7 Fires Between Approx. 3:42pm and 4:05pm (an hour and fifteen minutes prior to collapse and 45 mins prior to announcements that it had collapsed)
joelb79
Active Member
I was commenting on your theory of how the explosives would be C4 and placed beforehand, therefore able to survive the fires that are known to have burned. I was simply pointing out you noted that they burn. Then the simple question one would ask is how could the explosives that are flamable survive the fires? Your pushing the burden of proof onto me, but your the one making the claim or theory. I would simply ask that you prove that, but I'm not expecting a good answer because you are likely not a person skilled in controlled demolition.
I might not be an explosives expert, but that doesn't mean I can't ask the question of you since you are the one putting a 1, 2, 3, 4 theory online. Why is it my duty to prove your theory? [...]
Grieves
Senior Member
utter tripe.
see at 25 seconds in. Danny Jowenko was not a conspiracy theorist or a proponent of the truth movement. He did not believe the two towers fell due to demolition, and explained why. He was shown the footage of the Building 7 collapse with absolutely no context, other than him having just watched the twin towers collapse and explaining why he thought the idea explosives were involved is silly. He didn't even know there was a building 7, and had never seen the footage before. Danny Jowenko was a demolitions expert of considerable prominence.
someGuy
New Member
I've not limited my choice to C4
Do you know something about T36 explosives ?
Of course not, because it's classified
So, tell me now how T36 reatcs to heat, I'M ALL LISTENING
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
CWC, it might or it might not . . . however, the JFK reinvestigations at least gave the doubters hope their concerns were being addressed . . . the belief that you have significant concerns and are being ignored creates a deep sense of distrust and frustration . . . something I hope our government would want to avoid . . .
hiper
Active Member
This is the 'crime' of the century we are talking about.
"no audible evidence of a blast event"... that was the reason given for not scientifically investigating the dust.
Pseudoscience this is called.
Cherry picking specific evidence to support a preformed conclusion is another description.
joelb79
Active Member
So.. Whatever your point is, you are making the theory and asking me to comment on some classified explosive? [...] First off, if you know about this T-36 first hand and it is indeed classified, why are you blowing your security clearance? then demand that I, one who said he is not an expert, make a comment on it?
What is wrong with this reasoning? Somebody help me.. I cannot figure out how I am supposed to prove Someguy's theory.
His analysis is quite interesting, probably should be discussing in a separate thread though.
hiper
Active Member
With all due respect this is the WTC 7 thread yes?
Grieves
Senior Member
And lo the point did sail o'er without a glance toward it.
He's saying he can't speculate as to the specific kinds of explosives, or how they might have survived the fires (if that would even have been an issue), because he's not a demolitions expert. He mentioned C4 simply as part of a plausible scenario which was requested of him, while maintaining he wasn't even sure if explosives were involved. He then pointed out why demanding he explain how the explosives survived the fires is foolish, both because he knows very little about explosives, you know very little about explosives, and there are explosives out there next to nobody knows anything about... making that issue largely moot.
No, because nobody has ever claimed that that particular video didn't resemble a demolition. It does, which is why we arrive here.
It should be in a separate Because it is so interesting. It's just gong to get lost in this thread. 1,400 posts in.
Focus is the key to getting things done here. These long rambling threads don't go anywhere. People need to be a bit more bold about starting new threads on specific topics.
Yes it's the "perhaps they did it in a way that did not leave any evidence" argument.
hiper
Active Member
Buildings do not fall like a controlled demolition by accident/fire Mick.
It doesn't. I'm just trying to be efficient
His death was a normal car accident. It's very unfortunate that he's no longer around, because I feel very sure he would concur with the full NIST report.
WTC7 only did in a superficial manner, from a distance.
It was leaning and creaking for some time before the collapse.
Is that like
A) Fire gradually weakening the structure
B) Controlled demolition.
?
I'd be incredibly surprised and interested. The political fallout from such a revelation would also be massive.
Grieves
Senior Member
From where does this feeling stem? He seemed pretty firm in his position on it being a demolition, expressing pretty evident incredulity at the notion it was anything else.
With that in mind, shouldn't his opinion alone be enough to at least consider a demolition scenario from an honest and evidence-based investigative standpoint? I keep hearing that NIST did that already, but NIST freely admits it didn't test for physical evidence of explosives, apparently with the excuse that the implications preclude the possibility, and hey, there was a big fire. It's really quite an interesting scenario NIST presented, and its not completely implausible... a great deal of legitimate science going into the process of speculation to come to the most likely scenario for a fire-induced collapse. That's not what I, or anyone else with concerns in this regard, wants to see. What we want to see is any kind of conclusive proof explosives weren't used based on an examination of the physical evidence from building 7 for any clear signs of their use... even if that proof is a lack of any results strongly indicating explosives. Independent investigations of pre-cleanup dust has turned up what seem to be clear indications of highly reactive pyrotechnic material, as well as the micro-spheres of iron which are a byproduct of molten steel, though because the dust was independently sourced, there's no chain of custody. It looked, and looks like a demolition to me. It looked, and looks like a demolition to millions of others. It looked like a demolition to a professional in the field of demolition, and he was hardly alone in that. So can we run some actual fucking tests already? Preferably a few hundred/thousand? I realize the wreckage of building 7 was the first to start being trucked off unmarked so the structural steel (which somehow doesn't constitute evidence) could be melted down for various commemorative nick-knacks, military tools and monuments, but surely they have a few bags of pre-cleanup dust with a solid chain of custody kicking around in an evidence locker somewhere that they could open up, divide into portions, and pass around to various chemists and universities? If they actually don't, how can the investigation which was conducted be called anything but a sham?
jomper
Inactive Member
There's a huge amount of circumstantial evidence out there about 9/11. That's why it's a conspiracy theory dude.
It stems from him seeming fairly sensible, and from him being a demolition expert. At that point all he had seen was the video of the collapse, which does look superficially like a controlled demolition. He was not familiar with the entent of the fires, the internal structure of the building, of the fact that it was leaning and groaning before it collapsed. I think if he had read the NIST report he would have agreed with it.
SR1419
Senior Member.
So, does his opinion that WTC 1&2 were not demolitions mean that you are willing to rule that out as a possible cause of their collapse?
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
To believe that WTC7 was planted with explosives and secretly demolished, means that they had prior knowledge of the WT1 and 2 collapse. If they hadn't collapsed, they couldn't have 'pretended' that their collapse caused 7's collapse. So to believe 7 was rigged, means you believe 1 and 2 were rigged also, correct? In for one rigged building, in for all of them.
(sorry if this has already been covered, I'm sure it has)
(sorry if this has already been covered, I'm sure it has)
Cairenn
Senior Member.
And when does a controlled demolition result in this?
Looks like the truthers love to pick and choose only the things that support their 'theory', while ignoring the mountains of ones that don't.External Quote:
joelb79
Active Member
Keep in mind, when saying that the NIST didn't test for explosives forensically; but they concluded it did not happen.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
I'm sure this has already been mentioned in this thread but it's worth mentioning again that they did conclude it was not explosives based on the effect explosives would have had on the building. I would urge you to read 3.3 of the NIST PDF. I cannot copy paste the document into here to highlight key parts; but please read it. I think it answers a lot. I wonder if those asking questions have not read this.
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
External Quote:
I'm sure this has already been mentioned in this thread but it's worth mentioning again that they did conclude it was not explosives based on the effect explosives would have had on the building. I would urge you to read 3.3 of the NIST PDF. I cannot copy paste the document into here to highlight key parts; but please read it. I think it answers a lot. I wonder if those asking questions have not read this.
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610
Last edited:
Tazmanian
Account Closed
Tazmanian
Account Closed
A convenient pile leaning up against the Verizon building:
Well, the hole created by fire, the one that caused the building to lean, caused this part of the collapse. So this is the only part of the collapse that can be attributed to fire.
Last edited by a moderator:
joelb79
Active Member
That's new to me. Can I assume you think the other part that did not collapse was due to some form of CD?
Tazmanian
Account Closed
The other part is something other than fire. I'm not speculating on what that might be.
jomper
Inactive Member
That really is a lot of steel right there. But not a single piece of it was available to NIST. It was evidence of an unprecedented total structural failure and yet, apparently, the confusion and urgency of the clean-up operation was so great that the entire building was disposed of without a single piece of it being properly catalogued for examination later.A convenient pile leaning up against the Verizon building:
I would describe this as criminal destruction of evidence, and it is deeply ironic that it is only the absence of the pile of evidence in this photo that allows people such as Cairenn to insist that fire was the sole cause of the collapse.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
