'What about building 7'?

[jaydeehess]

In the correct formulation, nano-thermite, which is customizable, can also be employed as an explosive. Whether or not it was used in that manner, I do not know.

The first impetus to the 911 conspiracy involving thermite/thermate/nano-therm?te, was to get over the hurdle of there being no concussive sounds of explosives going off in any video of the collapses. Whether nano-thermitic components are or are not used in an explosive capable of severing large steel structural components, there is neccessarily a large concussive sound produced.
So its back to square one for 9/11truth.
You now have tried explaning away this lack of audio evidence by invoking audio saturation/overmod/masking in every single video, professional and consumer grades, despite the very obvious fact that this does not appear to affect recordings of known explosive demolitions. You further try to explain that explosives in the core would have their pressure wave absorbed by office contents and will not address the obviously begged question of; "so, no explosives on the perimeter columns?".

Obviously any nano-thermite used to remove heavy steel would have to be in a bulk form and not a paint configuration. The paint formulation could still be used as a fuse.

Which begs the question of why use the paint configuration as a fuse in the first place since if its also in bulk form then whatever you use to light the fuse will suffice to light the bulk form. Unless the large cache is regular thermite in which case Glenn's query remains unanswered. You seem to be incorporating the supposed paint on substance merely because Gage mentions it.

At any rate, my post referred to the use of more conventional explosives (a fact you chose to ignore), after the thermitic activity. That applies in particular to WTC1 and WTC2.

Again, no concussive sounds. You speculate that explosives in the core would be masked by office contents absorbing the pressure wave. However there are now two problems with that explanation; first is that one result of explosive use is suppoedly the ejection out to 500-600 feet, of perimeter columns. If this is due to core placed explosives then the concussive effects reached the perimeter and should be recorded, if there were explosives loaded onto the perimeter columns then there are no office contents absorbing the supersonic pressure wave and again should be recorded; second, the underground fires supposedly hot enough to cause a phase change to liquid, of large quantities of steel, supposedly requires an enormous quantity of "leftover" thermite". Your own theory on these fires was that thermite laden dust slowly fell into these hot regions over a period of time thus keeping temps very hot for weeks. Now however you are going back to conventional explosives, possibly laced with a small percentage of thermitic compounds. How does one get these large quantities of thermite out of a small amount of conventional explosives? If the thermite was incorporated into the explosives then why did the Harrit paper not find the rest of the compound mix in the dust? It should have been there in equal or even greater concentration than the supposed thermitic components.

It is pointless for me to continue to provide speculative answers as to the methods used because people like yourself ask for speculation but always end up demanding answers that only the perps can provide.

True, gives you some idea of the ridiculousness of the speculations coming from your side of the discussion. There IS NO cohesive scenario being put forth by anyone on your side of the discussion. It runs in circles instead, trying to shoehorn ad-hoc answers to the questions begged by previous ad-hoc speculative assertions.

Of course I have noticed you do not address my posts any longer so its not likely you will address this one.

In all seriousness, please feel very free to ask anyone in AE911T to give you a run down of what they believe happened and how to address the questions that arise in this thread. you are fighting this battle alone and could apparently use a bit o' help

 

[000063]

​

I obtained a few interior views of WTC7.

Core columns are not visible and are well enclosed.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/vito2000-02-WTC7lookingsouth_zpsbec09f36.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/fl8interioric3png-WTC7-INTERIOR-sml_zps3d7063e9.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/Nyas_lobby_wtc7-sml_zpsc050bb46.png[/qimg]

Sweet, so all they had to do is tear down the walls to secretly paint the nanothermite on over multiple stories, plus rig up some way to detonate it which would reliably work though walls.

You're actually making your case worse.

Hear hear!

I wholeheartedly agree with you Georgio.

We keep hearing about this silent majority of engineers that supposedly disagree with the claims made by AE911 yet it has never been established that this silent majority is even aware of AE911 or its claims.

Than AR911T isn't doing a very good job, isn't it, and should stop presenting itself as a plurality, shouldn't it?

There are any number of ways that weekend 'renovation-al work' could have been orchestrated. The important part would be to make sure that fresh drywall was in place before the next work day.

I highlighted the parts that are hand-waves and goalpost-moving.

My best guess is that thermite would be used to initiate a major structural failure and that once that was in play, conventional explosives would immediately take out the required perimeter and core columns.[/color]

So the big bad conspiracists have never heard of the KISS principle. Because a major structural failure wouldn't be bad enough on its own.

You don't really know what you believe, do you?

Whatever's convenient for his current argument, it seems. Actually, it's more like paragraph.

 

[DGM]

Nano-thermite has been shown by Dr. Harrit et al to ignite at the more manageable temperature of ~806F (430C).

Why not just use regular epoxy based primer? It contains more chemical energy and it starts burning at relatively low temps (in air no less). It can be applied by the steel fabricator so no one would be the wiser. It's far more stable over time. It also matches what was found in the dust.

 

[Redwood]

​

I obtained a few interior views of WTC7.

Core columns are not visible and are well enclosed.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/vito2000-02-WTC7lookingsouth_zpsbec09f36.png[/qimg]

Mega-fail, MM! On multiple levels! Is THIS the best you can do, after all these years?

One, it seems that this is a photo of the interior of WTC 1, as seen in this photo (Picture 1). Two, we're not talking about the core columns; we're talking about the columns underneath the East Penthouse. Remember?

Originally Posted by Redwood

The visual evidence shows the collapse beginning with the fall of the East Penthouse. From that, it's a reasonable assumption that, one way or another, the columns supporting the East Penthouse were no longer functional. If the columns supporting the East Penthouse were surreptitiously destroyed by demolition charges placed prior to 9/11, how were they concealed, given that the columns were in open work space, not inside the core part of the structure?

Of course, if you look in the right direction, AWAY from columns 79, 80, and 81, you won't see them! (But it won't prove a thing.) Here, I'll do it for you (Picture 2), looking along the north side of WTC 7 - note the square windows (but no structural columns visible, except the perimeter columns ):

If you don't look at them, you won't see them!

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/fl8interioric3png-WTC7-INTERIOR-sml_zps3d7063e9.png[/qimg]

Still confused after all these years, MM? That's not WTC 7! It's one of the Twin Towers! How do I know? Look at the windows! Tall, thin rectangles, right? Just like the Twin Towers. NOT squares, like WTC 7. Can't you at least try?

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/Nyas_lobby_wtc7-sml_zpsc050bb46.png[/qimg]

This picture is so worthless, I won't even bother to respond. Meantime, let's look at some ACTUAL photos of the interior of WTC 7, namely the "double-height" trading floor of Salomon Brothers (pictures 3 and 4.)

What are those big things in the background? Why, they look like structural columns! Right in the middle of the work space!

Truthers should have learned long ago to think like lawyers; but they never have. When a lawyer is preparing his case, he looks at the strongest evidence against his position, and figures out how to deal with it, as the opposition surely will. In this case, Truthers should long ago have interviewed folks who worked in WTC 7, to find out if there was a floor where demolition charges could have been placed around columns 79, 80, and 81 without anyone noticing, or where the workers would all have been loyal members of the Vast Conspiracy. (I would suggest interviewing the janitorial service; they know everything.) But nothing was ever done, except to surf the internet.

The complete failure of Trutherism, in a nutshell.

 

[GlennB]

They were identified as WTC7 interior photographs.

IMHO, The windows do not appear to be sufficiently revealed to claim with such certainty that they are not.

They clearly show column/window proportions at ~ 50:50. Not even remotely resembling WTC7, and after all these years of argument it should really have been *very* clear to you.

 

[Miragememories]

In the correct formulation, nano-thermite, which is customizable, can also be employed as an explosive. Whether or not it was used in that manner, I do not know.

The first impetus to the 911 conspiracy involving thermite/thermate/nano-therm?te, was to get over the hurdle of there being no concussive sounds of explosives going off in any video of the collapses.

Whether nano-thermitic components are or are not used in an explosive capable of severing large steel structural components, there is neccessarily a large concussive sound produced.

So its back to square one for 9/11truth.

As long as you define the issue according to your own frozen point of view I guess you can continue to draw the same conclusion.

I do not call into question the fact that explosions make large sounds.

What I am challenging is the assertion that given the conditions that existed on 9/11 at the World Trade Center, that any and all explosions had to have been documented in the videos.

You now have tried explaning away this lack of audio evidence by invoking audio saturation/overmod/masking in every single video, professional and consumer grades, despite the very obvious fact that this does not appear to affect recordings of known explosive demolitions.

"Known" explosive demolitions are public exhibitions which by their very design can be expected to well heard and video documented.

An empty, windowless building is an ideal candidate for projecting the sound of explosives generated from its core.

This is all an argument about expectations.

Take a look at this video at ~00:01:42. Keep in mind that the camcorder had a clean line of sight straight down the street to the north face of WTC7.

NIST FOIA: WTC 7 - N. Face Fires & Bldg. Collapse - Part #2 (Mike H., CBS)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2hVku6MYo

In a typical public controlled demolition, a recording of a huge tall building, such as the WTC7 in this video, totally collapsing at high speed, would by your expectation capture a lot of concussive sound.

Close your eyes and tell me how well this collapse is conveyed to you by audio alone.

 

[DGM]

Still confused after all these years, MM? That's not WTC 7! It's one of the Twin Towers! How do I know? Look at the windows! Tall, thin rectangles, right? Just like the Twin Towers. NOT squares, like WTC 7. Can't you at least try?

It wouldn't be as funny if that picture wasn't supplied to NIST (and used in the report) as a "typical WTC tower office" space by the PANYNJ. So he posts two from the wrong building and anouther that could be anywhere and does not support his arguement.

 

[DGM]

"Known" explosive demolitions are public exhibitions which by their very design can be expected to well heard and video documented.

If only you could figure out how to make this magic stuff (odd considering you say you have known samples). You would be rich beyond your wildest dreams. A demolition explosive where you would not need to worry about concussion. You would expect a $2.3 billion industry to be interested. Sucks, no ones been able to crack this secret except your 9/11 perps.

 

[jaydeehess]

As long as you define the issue according to your own frozen point of view I guess you can continue to draw the same conclusion.

I do not call into question the fact that explosions make large sounds.

What I am challenging is the assertion that given the conditions that existed on 9/11 at the World Trade Center, that any and all explosions had to have been documented in the videos.

"Known" explosive demolitions are public exhibitions which by their very design can be expected to well heard and video documented.

You now have tried explaning away this lack of audio evidence by invoking audio saturation/overmod/masking in every single video, professional and consumer grades, despite the very obvious fact that this does not appear to affect recordings of known explosive demolitions. You further try to explain that explosives in the core would have their pressure wave absorbed by office contents and will not address the obviously begged question of; "so, no explosives on the perimeter columns?".

Once again, in the consumer grade camcorder videos of true demolitions, a case in which there is no or little ability to change audio settings such as sensitivity, we DO witness these concussive sounds. THAT IS LACKING in every and all videos of each of the three global collapses. Do I expect that there would be such audio in many if not most videos of the 911 collapses, yes, it is idiotic to expect that there wouldn't be such sounds on all videos.

An empty, windowless building is an ideal candidate for projecting the sound of explosives generated from its core.

What about a half dozen floors where a lot of the furnishings have been rubblized and pushed through the building by a very large fast aircraft which has also consequently broken out a large percentage of the windows on those floors. How effective would that be in absorbing a supersonic blast wave?

This is all an argument about expectations.

Take a look at this video at ~00:01:42. Keep in mind that the camcorder had a clean line of sight straight down the street to the north face of WTC7
NIST FOIA: WTC 7 - N. Face Fires & Bldg. Collapse - Part #2 (Mike H., CBS)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2hVku6MYo

In a typical public controlled demolition, a recording of a huge tall building, such as the WTC7 in this video, totally collapsing at high speed, would by your expectation capture a lot of concussive sound.

Close your eyes and tell me how well this collapse is conveyed to you by audio alone.

Yes, by all means I would expect to hear concussive sounds in that video, at least if the clip at the 1:42 mark had started just a few seconds earlier. Instead it begins after the final collapse phase initiates. ( it begins after the EPH disappears, it begins after the "kink" appears, it begins after the western screenwall begins in falling, it even begins after the facade begins falling. That means its begins about ten seconds after col 79 fails. One might however expect that the delay due to distance might have some effect in that clip. Ten seconds amounts to a sound travel of about 1.25 miles. Didn't you say that col 79 was explosively severed? That's a VERY large column.

Are you trying to make my point for me? There are no sounds of explosives in that video. In that video, if there were explosives going off, I would indeed expect them to be audible on the recording. They are not, therefore I conclude there weren't any, at least while these clips were being recorded. There are no sounds of the collapse at all that I could detect so its certainly not a masking by the loud sound of tons of steel and concrete falling and I fully expect that, as in all videos of true demolitions, the explosives to be much louder than the sounds of collapse. ESPECIALLY if, as we are told by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, that every single column had to be severed in WTC 7 including perimeter columns and not just on one level but on 8 of them
HOWEVER, that is but one(a single example, just a lone, all by itself, uno, ein, one, video)
Yes I EXPECT that there will be these sounds on at least some if not most recordings just as there are in real demolitions, some taken from much farther away than were the ones of the towers on 9/11.

Why do you EXPECT that these sounds will not be evident on ANY of them?



I also note that you once again completely ignore the issue of explosive demolition of the perimeter columns where office furnishings and windows would have no effect whatsoever.
Are you or are you not abandoning the idea that there were explosives on the tower's and #7's perimeter columns?

If you are then you are abandoning the notion that explosives were required to send the WTC1 sections into WTC7, and you are abandoning the notion that WTC 7 perimeter columns needed to be explosively taken out in order to effect free fall.

If you are not abandoning the notion that perimeter charges were used then you are abandoning the office furnishing/windows absorption of the sound of those charges going off.

 

[000063]

What I am challenging is the assertion that given the conditions that existed on 9/11 at the World Trade Center, that any and all explosions had to have been documented in the videos.

No, you're actively asserting that the explosions would not have been caught on camera. Except for the dubious ones in the videos you showed.

"Known" explosive demolitions are public exhibitions which by their very design can be expected to well heard and video documented.

An empty, windowless building is an ideal candidate for projecting the sound of explosives generated from its core.

This is all an argument about expectations.

And you have yet to demonstrate with anything more than handwavium why we should expect any sort of CD on 9/11 to notably differ from known CDs.

In a typical public controlled demolition, a recording of a huge tall building, such as the WTC7 in this video, totally collapsing at high speed,

Oh, look, a technically meaningless but impressive sounding phrase.

would by your expectation capture a lot of concussive sound.

Except for the teeny little fact that no building the size of WTC7, much less the Towers, has ever been bought down in a known CD, ever.

Close your eyes and tell me how well this collapse is conveyed to you by audio alone.

Why? What's your point? 'Cause I also note the lack of anything demonstrably explosive.

 

[jaydeehess]

Except for the teeny little fact that no building the size of WTC7, much less the Towers, has ever been bought down in a known CD, ever.
.

Which in fact would cause me to expect, due to the neccesarily larger dimensions of the lower columns in structures of these sizes, even greater explosive sound than is evident in the much smaller buildings that have actually undegone such demolitions(notably, often with pre-weakened structure as well)

 

[JSanderO]

Which in fact would cause me to expect, due to the neccesarily larger dimensions of the lower columns in structures of these sizes, even greater explosive sound than is evident in the much smaller buildings that have actually undegone such demolitions(notably, often with pre-weakened structure as well)

Yes and no... you don't have to explode the columns of 7WTC to make it drop. It had those transfer truss with panels which were bolted together and destroying truss connection would render the truss useless and it could as I have shown in some graphics lead to pulling columns and having they carried collapse.

My *belief* is the truss failure led to the column 79 failure... not the other way round. And this makes more sense to me. In the end it all came down....

 

[DGM]

My *belief* is the truss failure led to the column 79 failure... not the other way round. And this makes more sense to me. In the end it all came down....

You're not as far from NIST as the polar opposite this suggests. NIST never claimed there wasn't other structural problems. They just pointed to the one they consider the straw that finally broke the camels back. (not you) I see so many "truthers" arguing the NIST theory like it was one failure in isolation. That's not what their report says.

 

[JSanderO]

You're not as far from NIST as the polar opposite this suggests. NIST never claimed there wasn't other structural problems. They just pointed to the one they consider the straw that finally broke the camels back. (not you) I see so many "truthers" arguing the NIST theory like it was one failure in isolation. That's not what their report says.

Obviously the entire structure failed or it would ALL have come down like humpty dumpty. To me the interesting *thing* IS the straw that broke the camel's back. And I think most would agree that not any column failure would lead to the total collapse... but SOME would... 79 might have... but the failure of the transfer structures clearly would lead to the total collapse.

My understanding is that NIST basically suggests that when column 79 failed it's collapse destroyed the transfer structures. Perhaps and I don't see why this would depending on how much involvement other parts around 79 were in play. Without real data it can't be proven nor disproven. But I don't think any would argue that the failure of one of the 3 transfer trusses would not take the entire building down.

Truther positions are unsupportable in any case.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes and no... you don't have to explode the columns of 7WTC to make it drop. It had those transfer truss with panels which were bolted together and destroying truss connection would render the truss useless and it could as I have shown in some graphics lead to pulling columns and having they carried collapse.

My *belief* is the truss failure led to the column 79 failure... not the other way round. And this makes more sense to me. In the end it all came down....

I know, but I am addressing the truther meme, column servering.

 

[ProBonoShill]

As long as you define the issue according to your own frozen point of view I guess you can continue to draw the same conclusion.

I do not call into question the fact that explosions make large sounds.

What I am challenging is the assertion that given the conditions that existed on 9/11 at the World Trade Center, that any and all explosions had to have been documented in the videos.



"Known" explosive demolitions are public exhibitions which by their very design can be expected to well heard and video documented.

An empty, windowless building is an ideal candidate for projecting the sound of explosives generated from its core.

This is all an argument about expectations.

Take a look at this video at ~00:01:42. Keep in mind that the camcorder had a clean line of sight straight down the street to the north face of WTC7.

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC7Collapse-CBS_zps6879a5da.png[/qimg]

NIST FOIA: WTC 7 - N. Face Fires & Bldg. Collapse - Part #2 (Mike H., CBS)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2hVku6MYo

In a typical public controlled demolition, a recording of a huge tall building, such as the WTC7 in this video, totally collapsing at high speed, would by your expectation capture a lot of concussive sound.

Close your eyes and tell me how well this collapse is conveyed to you by audio alone.

Are you really still trying to assert demolition explosives were used yet not a single camera anywhere captured the sound?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Not to mention there are no visible explosions prior to the collapse.

So your explosives are now invisible, silent and leave no residue.

Where can one get this special item?

Ohh I know! They are magical truther explosives found only in Trutherland!

 

[pgimeno]

My best guess is that thermite would be used to initiate a major structural failure and that once that was in play, conventional explosives would immediately take out the required perimeter and core columns.

With no audible booms and no window shattering? No, not possible. Your guess is wrong. Try another guess.

 

[NoahFence]

With no audible booms and no window shattering? No, not possible. Your guess is wrong. Try another guess.

How do you know the glass wasn't reinforced by the equations presented to its manufacturer, given to him by a time travelling Scottish engineer from the far future?

Transparent aluminum. That's the key to why the windows didn't break.

 

[Animal]

With no audible booms and no window shattering? No, not possible. Your guess is wrong. Try another guess.

And no seismic record either.

 

[turingtest]

And no seismic record either.

Well, obviously, the waves produced by the explosives were so powerful that they over-modulated the seismic detectors. Plus the furniture and carpets in the buildings muffled the vibrations- carpet does that, you know.

Anyway, apply argument prn.