POSITIVE EVIDENCE for WTC7 Controlled Demolition

[GStan]

Is there any evidence of steel melting in fires from the past? Can I have a link if there is.

Here's some:

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/878/35074328.JPG
http://www.imt.si/images/oddelki/kovinski-laboratorij_za_metalurske_procese01.jpg
http://www.ussteel.com/metal/graphics/coated_sheet_2.jpg

I'm pretty sure these are all examples of steel melted by fire. Do we know for sure that the melted metal at GZ was actually steel and not some other metal known to be in the buildings?

 

[cisco]

Thanks for the explanation about CD.

However, surely they place a fair bit of explosives that severe most of the lower columns at once or rather quickly.

So to suggest that fire created the same results, seems illogical to me for a few reasons.

1. most of the lower columns were not severed
2. and even if they did, would fire cause them to all severe (bend, whatever) at the same time, just like demolition?

In one way you are saying WTC7 was not unlike demolition, except fire is the cause. But then in a whole other breath you are saying it was nothing like a demolition. Which is it?

1. They didn't have to sever, they had to weaken to the point of failure.
2. Extrapolate from 1. One of the columns, when it reached its failure, was the straw the broke the camel's back.

There are similiarities and there are differences. Didn't you ever write a compare/contrast paper in English class?

(By the way, I'm not an engineer or demolitions expert. This is based on the excessive reading I've done on the subject. If someone who knows better could please correct me if I'm wrong I would appreciate it .)

 

[Dave Rogers]

In one way you are saying WTC7 was not unlike demolition, except fire is the cause. But then in a whole other breath you are saying it was nothing like a demolition. Which is it?

The ways in which WTC7 was like demolition were, in general, the ways that don't tell us anything useful. The ways it was unlike demolition include:

No big bang.
No flash.
The columns clearly didn't all fail at the same time (prior collapse of the penthouse, kink in the structure).

The point about the columns not failing at the same time is quite an important one. As each column fails its load is transferred to another group of columns. If one or more of those is overloaded as a result, that column (or those columns) will fail. That can happen very quickly; at the limit, as fast as an elastic wave can propagate - in other words, the speed of sound (but in steel, not air, so it's even faster). However, in WTC7, the kink in the facade shows that it wasn't instant; the middle of the south facade failed before the sides. That's exactly what you'd expect from a progressive failure.

Note that it might well be possible to produce the same effect using an extremely complex set of explosions (although the lack of a flash and a huge bang are still a problem). That's not really important, because we're looking for positive evidence here, and saying "It could have been a really complex set of charges" isn't positive evidence, just a lack of evidence against. And there's still the lack of a flash and a big bang.

Dave

 

[DGM]

Thanks for the explanation about CD.

However, surely they place a fair bit of explosives that severe most of the lower columns at once or rather quickly.

So to suggest that fire created the same results, seems illogical to me for a few reasons.

1. most of the lower columns were not severed
2. and even if they did, would fire cause them to all severe (bend, whatever) at the same time, just like demolition?

In one way you are saying WTC7 was not unlike demolition, except fire is the cause. But then in a whole other breath you are saying it was nothing like a demolition. Which is it?

Actually they don't. I've been involved with CD's before and not all of the columns need to be cut at once. The building is weakened to remove most of it residual strenght (much like a fire would do) then a few key columns are severed.

I see where you might think differently due to the number of charges set in a CD. Mostly these are set to break up the building into more manageable chunks and to steer it to avoid collateral damage. Gravity does most of the work.

One thing I can tell you about going into a building that has been "rigged", You don't feel very safe or sure that it's not going to fall any second.

 

[GStan]

Thanks for the explanation about CD.

However, surely they place a fair bit of explosives that severe most of the lower columns at once or rather quickly.

So to suggest that fire created the same results, seems illogical to me for a few reasons.

1. most of the lower columns were not severed
2. and even if they did, would fire cause them to all severe (bend, whatever) at the same time, just like demolition?

In one way you are saying WTC7 was not unlike demolition, except fire is the cause. But then in a whole other breath you are saying it was nothing like a demolition. Which is it?

No matter how the columns fail, gravity dictates the speed from there. The speed is not unique to CD. That is the only similarity. Your assumption that all columns severed/failed at the same time is false, it did not happen that way. The column failures were not at the same time or symmetrical, something that can clearly be seen on page 26 of this:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

 

[BenBurch]

Somehow I think Sizzler is not being completely honest with us...

When I see his name I can only think of the Dave Foley character "Jerry Sizzler" from Kids In The Hall (on the left);

 

[BenBurch]

Sizzler,

Steel DOES melt in some fires. And I mean literally melt and not just soften, but those fires usually involve large quantities of burning magnesium or some other very, very hot-burning fuel.

But steel softens in fire literally all the time!

An example is the Bay Bridge fire;

EDIT: And of course, steel is MADE with fire.

 

[bwinwright]

Incredulity seems to be the operative word here

Are all these engineers and architects insane? Why would they be attempting to establish the truth about how WTC 7 actually collapsed? It seems pretty clear, based on these facts and expert testimony that WTC was an inside job.

What's so frightening about many of the folks who believe the "official version" is that many of them still believe Osama bin Laden was responsible for the crime.

These gullible believers of the official version (GBOTOV) remind me of the atheist who wants people to believe that law and orderliness does not require intelligent direction and that something can come from nothing. Absolutely ludicrous!!!!

 

[DGM]

Are all these engineers and architects insane? Why would they be attempting to establish the truth about how WTC 7 actually collapsed? It seems pretty clear, based on these facts and expert testimony that WTC was an inside job.

What's so frightening about many of the folks who believe the "official version" is that many of them still believe Osama bin Laden was responsible for the crime.

These gullible believers of the official version (GBOTOV) remind me of the atheist who wants people to believe that law and orderliness does not require intelligent direction and that something can come from nothing. Absolutely ludicrous!!!!

But why do you believe something with no clear evidence and no coherent story. Because it has to be? Do you have a better more supported narration?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are all these engineers and architects insane? Why would they be attempting to establish the truth about how WTC 7 actually collapsed?

That's what's known as the special pleading fallacy. Very nicely stated example, too. What you're trying to say is that anything believed by a couple of hundred people must be true because so many people believe it...

What's so frightening about many of the folks who believe the "official version" is that many of them still believe Osama bin Laden was responsible for the crime.

... but the same cannot be said of something believed by a couple of hundred million people. Argumentum anti populum?

Dave

 

[cisco]

Are all these engineers and architects insane? Why would they be attempting to establish the truth about how WTC 7 actually collapsed? It seems pretty clear, based on these facts and expert testimony that WTC was an inside job.

What's so frightening about many of the folks who believe the "official version" is that many of them still believe Osama bin Laden was responsible for the crime.

Perhaps you'd like to remind us what some of these facts are, or are you just driving-by again like all your other posts? Is there no stigma here against chronic drive-by posting?

Let's see, in column A, which we'll call 19 Pissed Off Muslims (19POM), because "Official Story" makes it sound as if there is another viable explanation, we have:

• Unfathomable amounts of factual evidence
• Unprecedented number of eyewitnesses and video recordings
• Extremely detailed investigations by separate, independent individuals and institutions
• Testimony from countless experts in relevant fields
• Confessions of hijackers and planners

In column B, which is championed by the Drug-Influenced Conspiracy Klan (DICK), we have:

• Some quotes by some dudes
• Some really killer youtube vids that will like, open your eyes, man

As you can clearly see, we have the facts and evidence on our side, and you guys have DICK.

 

[Belz...]

Do we seriously have a "faster than freefaller" in our midst? I'd have sworn those were extinct!

Unfortunately they're now a protected species!

 

[Belz...]

How hot can a smoldered fire get? Say, the inside of the rubble pile. Keep in mind the surface temperatures.

Is there any evidence of steel melting in fires from the past? Can I have a link if there is.

Also, is free sulfur needed? How likely is the sulfar content in the walling a source? Would crushing the walling onto a red hot steel beam have any effect?

JOM reports intergranular melting. Isn't that melting or is that something else?

I thought firefighters were stunned that they found "thinned" steel. No?

How do investigators test for thermite in arson cases if there is no way to test for it?

And again, near free-fall time is the smoking gun. You say other steel structures have fallen like that, which ones? WTC1 and 2?

Wow. You'd expect that, several years later, you'd actually know something.

 

[DGM]

Perhaps you'd like to remind us what some of these facts are, or are you just driving-by again like all your other posts? Is there no stigma here against chronic drive-by posting?

Let's see, in column A, which we'll call 19 Pissed Off Muslims (19POM), because "Official Story" makes it sound as if there is another viable explanation, we have:

• Unfathomable amounts of factual evidence
• Unprecedented number of eyewitnesses and video recordings
• Extremely detailed investigations by separate, independent individuals and institutions
• Testimony from countless experts in relevant fields
• Confessions of hijackers and planners

In column B, which is championed by the Drug-Influenced Conspiracy Klan (DICK), we have:

• Some quotes by some dudes
• Some really killer youtube vids that will like, open your eyes, man

As you can clearly see, we have the facts and evidence on our side, and you guys have DICK.

 

[CurtC]

These gullible believers of the official version (GBOTOV) remind me of the atheist who wants people to believe that law and orderliness does not require intelligent direction and that something can come from nothing. Absolutely ludicrous!!!!

Probably not the best simile to use on this particular forum.

 

[twinstead]

Argumentum anti populum?

Oh. I LIKE it!

 

[1337m4n]

Please tell me bwinwright is trying to be funny.

 

[twinstead]

Please tell me bwinwright is trying to be funny.

If only...

 

[DGM]

Please tell me bwinwright is trying to be funny.

I'm still trying to figure out what's up with these drive-by posters. Is there some kind of point to it? The lurkers afterward see the replies and they don't defend their position. Seems kind of pointless.

 

[beachnut]

from innocent person, to spamming truther?

I am currently going through my own process of research to understand the 9-11 debate.

My question is for those that know the official hypothesis inside and out.
Help from the debunkers on board would be great!
Thanks guys.

Trying to be so innocent like at first, and now you just post the dumbest 9/11 truth ideas there are. Without researching them first on your own.
Are you a full blown truther? You come with the intention of trying to show how many facts you have. You are unable to see that you came only with hearsay, false information, lies, and far out junk science ideas. You believe 9/11 truth and have joined the cult of Jones and thermite.

You continue your false information spree of woo questions.

BTW, do you have a wood stove? My wood stove goes to 1500 degrees when I shut off most of the air supply. It becomes a catalysis, like a breeder reactor of wood, making charcoal and burning it. If I would leave the air open, the fire would burn out in a few minutes, but I close off the air and it burns for hours! Minutes to hours, 100 times longer! You need to study and understand the real world. You need to stop listening to liars from 9/11 truth and learn how to find neutral information.

Most the posters here are giving you rational answers for your piles and piles of woo, you keep dishing out as if you were falling into darkness, a kind of 9/11 ignorance. The more rational ideas people give you, the more junk you dig up. Are you degenerating into Dylan Avery, or some dim witted truther?