'What about building 7'?

[Richard the G]

Is there evidence we haven't seen yet? There's no evidence for intentional demolition as far as I know.

No there is no evidence of intentional demolition and if it was done the way I said you would never find it since any demolition would likely be destroyed in the collapse and the fire.

All you could ever hope for would be a confession and of course who would believe that

That's why Gage loves WTC 7 and it's his dinner ticket.

 

[Richard the G]

No Jay, I disagree. It was Super invisible 12th dimensional reptilian Masereftians who detected a disturbance in the ether that they determined could only be corrected by causing WTC7 to collapse in a very specific manner. Doing so was of course, childs play for them.

I'm sure Richard will agree that this would be difficult to prove and therefore a viable alternative to the official story.

Yes I agree that would also be impossible to prove!

 

[Richard the G]

I only ask one simple question for this one... were any remnants of explosives found? No, so there's not much else to discuss. Nobody needs to prove explosives were absent if theres no evidence if their presence to begin with

All I am saying is that you can take the NIST collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 and get the exact same failure mechanism with a CD hypothesis. It is of course quite absurd. As engineers we should not be afraid of this. It has been discussed in structural engineering circles for many years. So what...?

It is not possible to come up with a CD hypothesis for WTC 1& 2

 

[Richard the G]

No.



Have you ever been physically present when an RDX demolition charge goes off? Yes or no.

If that's what they use for concrete. Then I have been within about 1000ft of a demolition.

But sound intensity reduceS with the square of the distance and is significantly effected by cover and damping. So if it was in the middle if a floor plate then perhaps not so loud.

I still think that a piece of glass falling 49 stories 20 ft away from you would sound much louder.

 

[fitzgibbon]

But sound intensity reduceS with the square of the distance and is significantly effected by cover and damping. So if it was in the middle if a floor plate then perhaps not so loud.

And around and around we go, back to Hushaboom© non-explosive explosives that are magically silent while other mundane sounds like the collapse of WTC 7 is unaffected. This is (and I suppose really always has been) insane. 'Truthers' are a walking, posting oxymoron

Fitz

 

[Animal]

I still think that a piece of glass falling 49 stories 20 ft away from you would sound much louder.

You think.............poorly.

 

[Miragememories]

I make no pretense to be an engineer...

My understanding of structure is all I need to have for the type of practice I do...

I have read parts of the NIST reports and find their explanations do not satisfy me and leave much to be desired...

...But perhaps I am too inexperienced in engineering to understand NIST...

It is ridiculous to say the fall of WTC 7 was not a symmetric collapse. Try showing it from the start, instead of after it came down about ten stories.

This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Kx2AkXEg shows just how symmetric it was. The entire exterior falls in unison.

What do you mean by symmetry?

I studied "symmetry" in architecture at college.

Using this term to mean something only reveals how idiotic this claim connecting the collapses to CD is.

Those who make it reveal how uninformed they are and are reaching for some sort of phrase which sounds for lack of a better word... cool.

When someone clings to and repeats this... you know that you can't take them seriously and have a deficit in their thinking... not that uncommon but a hallmark of truthers - they can't think.

Delusion or what? While it may not be a cut diamond, a good portion of the collapse of WTC7 certainly qualifies as symmetrical.

"As others have noted.. the collapse took longer than 6 or 7 seconds... the interior collapsed well before the facade which you and others seem to think is the entire building coming down. It was not. It was the shell... the interior had already collapsed."

All that internal devastation before global collapse, yet so little external evidence.

As you can see, the floors were solidly connected to the perimeter.

When the east penthouse collapsed, several floors below did reveal some but not a lot, of window breakage.

Unlike the twin towers, WTC7's rapidly collapsing floors strangely did not appear to compress air sufficiently to produce debris squibs.

Hypocrisy 101.

"There was no evidence of explosives and gravity (FF) has nothing to do with explosives."

" A CD... where is the hard evidence of that? There is none... no sounds... no flashes.. no witnesses... no snitches.. no real motive (destroying SEC files is a joke)... no residue that is seen in the dust of explosives and no examples of NT used as an explosive... no signs of steel columns over 8 floors (81 column line) being destroyed simultaneously over 8 floors... Where is one spec of hard evidence?

It's all disbelief, junk science and amounts to a non-convincing case to anyone rational but persuasive to naive people and those with bias against the USG and so forth."

I say hypocrisy because before an ego-bruising dispute with others at AE911, this was some of the adult, thoughtful reasoning that he was arguing.

http://my.firedoglake.com/members/sandero/

"It should be noted that conspiracy is not a dirty word.

Conspiracies have existed and the word conspiracy only means that more than one person is involved in the planning of a crime.

The conventional explanation is also conspiracy theory.

It states that Al Qaeda formed cells and 19 members hijacked the planes and crashed them into buildings carrying out the planned attacks.

“They” did find the finger prints of explosives.

The official investigators (government) claimed they did not find any explosives because they didn’t look for them.

Essentially they decided to assemble a narrative without explosives so why look and find an inconvenient truth?


The evidence of explosive that is undisputed as far as I am concerned is that the building could not fall as quickly as they did UNLESS explosives destroyed the lower parts so the parts above could descend so fast and un impeded."

Seeing things from his own unique perspective, JSanderO now claims the real cause of the failure was some mysterious combination of events in the first 8 floors involving the truss system.

The fact that NIST engineers spent years studying the collapse and do not agree fails to dissuade him in the least.

 

[kookbreaker]

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/EPenthouse-WTC7-droppedbelowroofline-UpperFacade-5336F_zps2ecd0b9c.png[/qimg]

Unlike the twin towers, WTC7's rapidly collapsing floors strangely did not appear to compress air sufficiently to produce debris squibs.

Hypocrisy 101.[/color]

You know a lot of plungers that are half as wide as they are long then?

Going to the doctor for a shot must be a surprise to you.

 

[JayUtah]

If that's what they use for concrete....

It isn't. Not even remotely the same thing.

But sound intensity reduceS with the square of the distance and is significantly effected by cover and damping. So if it was in the middle if a floor plate then perhaps not so loud.

That doesn't even begin to cover the absurdity of comparing an RDX demolition charge to blowing up a paper bag.

I still think that a piece of glass falling 49 stories 20 ft away from you would sound much louder.

Not even remotely the same character of sound. Go back and read the thread, where I discuss the physics of sound in this context.

 

[JayUtah]

While it may not be a cut diamond, a good portion of the collapse of WTC7 certainly qualifies as symmetrical.

Backpedaling. Something that is only partly symmetrical is not symmetrical. Further, symmetry is not the hallmark of controlled demolition. Your argument along this line is broken in several places.

As you can see, the floors were solidly connected to the perimeter.

Begging the question. In your uninformed layman's view, you purport to be able to determine that from largely completely construction.

This is why you aren't taken seriously.

 

[DGM]

All that internal devastation before global collapse, yet so little external evidence.

As you can see, the floors were solidly connected to the perimeter.

When the east penthouse collapsed, several floors below did reveal some but not a lot, of window breakage.

Are you calling this eyewitness a liar? (funny that you posted this).

Radio Anchor: "Let's go to 1010 reporter Eileen Lapalmer (sp). Eileen?"
00:01:34 Reporter Eileen Laplamer: "Alright, Ralph I'm here on Hudson St.

As you've been hearing 7 WTC just collapsed about 5 minutes ago.....

I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there. He was trying to help people. His name is Daryl."

Daryl: Yeah..ahh. I was just standing there.

We were watching the building actually [WTC7] because it was on fire.

The bottom floors of this building were on fire and we heard this sound. It sounded like a clap of thunder.

We turned around and we were shocked to see that the building was..it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building.

The windows all busted out and it was horrifying.

Then ahh..about a second later, the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that. And uhm..we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground.

 

[Redwood]

No Jaydee. Disagree
Any good engineer would weaken the column first so that only needed a few cutter charges needed

But now you're right back to the point I made when I revived this thread:

Given that columns 79, 80, and 81 were in the middle of rentable space, how could you do this surreptitiously? Do you walk into an office with a cutting torch and a pick and say, "Excuse me lady, could you move your desk? Gotta get in here to work on this structural column!"

Or do you wait until the building has caught fire, and do the work in a creaking, leaning, fully-involved in fire skyscraper, installing your fire-protected explosives and detonating system?

 

[pgimeno]

The sound of WTC7's high speed collapse would have been extremely loud. Certainly loud enough to compete with that of explosives.

That's ludicrous. The Landmark tower in Texas was a 30 story steel building, i.e. with a height comparable to that of WTC7. The sound of the collapse could not remotely compete with that of the deafening explosions that induced it.

Not to mention that such a "high speed collapse" would need the explosions to occur before the "high speed" phase started.

What's your second-best guess?

 

[Richard the G]

Wow mirage what nonsense you spout

The floor plate on WTC 7 is smaller and the air being blown out of the windows after the initial collapse was quite small. We don't know what the state of failure was. The central col had failed but the floors may have been hanging in catenary if the perimeter walls

The squibs on 1&2 came after many floors had collapsed and the air had to escape much g
Faster because the speed of failure was much faster and the walls of 1&2 were more solid

 

[Richard the G]

But now you're right back to the point I made when I revived this thread:

Given that columns 79, 80, and 81 were in the middle of rentable space, how could you do this surreptitiously? Do you walk into an office with a cutting torch and a pick and say, "Excuse me lady, could you move your desk? Gotta get in here to work on this structural column!"

Or do you wait until the building has caught fire, and do the work in a creaking, leaning, fully-involved in fire skyscraper, installing your fire-protected explosives and detonating system?

It's nonsense but if you leased a floor then you turn off the smoke detectors, open some windows and cut a little bit at a time. Absurd yes, impossible no.

 

[Richard the G]

It isn't. Not even remotely the same thing.



That doesn't even begin to cover the absurdity of comparing an RDX demolition charge to blowing up a paper bag.



Not even remotely the same character of sound. Go back and read the thread, where I discuss the physics of sound in this context.

So what is used to demolish concrete towers.

 

[jaydeehess]

So what is used to demolish concrete towers.

Drill a hole in it and pack with dynamite, same as you would for carving out a rock cut through granite for a highway. Though of course concrete is not as solid as granite.

 

[jaydeehess]

No there is no evidence of intentional demolition and if it was done the way I said you would never find it since any demolition would likely be destroyed in the collapse and the fire.

All you could ever hope for would be a confession and of course who would believe that

That's why Gage loves WTC 7 and it's his dinner ticket.

Why is it "likely' that all evidence will be destroyed in a collapse and fire?

 

[GlennB]

Unlike the twin towers, WTC7's rapidly collapsing floors strangely did not appear to compress air sufficiently to produce debris squibs.

Hypocrisy 101.

In one of my very early viewings (years back) of a CT site dealing with WTC7 the 'squibs' on the upper W side were proposed as evidence of CD.

Link , with an original quote.

 

[DGM]

Seeing things from his own unique perspective, JSanderO now claims the real cause of the failure was some mysterious combination of events in the first 8 floors involving the truss system.

The fact that NIST engineers spent years studying the collapse and do not agree fails to dissuade him in the least.

He's been saying this for years as far as I remember. His explanation is plausible. NIST dismissed it bases on the lack of conditions needed to fail these components (they did fail at some stage). It shouldn't dissuade him. NIST considers their scenario to be the most probable.

Did you miss where NIST said this? You got a better one with the same detail?