Nice post Grizzly, and Welcome!
Thank you... perhaps I should have done my intros first
oh well... I got interested in this above everything else
hi everyone
why i think 7 was a CD
1. the so-called “collapse” of 7 does not look like a natural collapse; it looks like a CD. now i know this fact alone does not prove it was a CD nevertheless can anyone cite me just ONE example of a natural collapse that "looked" like a CD?
-- I've found that most videos videos of WTC 7's collapse are an unreliable measure of how the building collapsed as a whole. Admittedly, from certain perspectives it appeared to be a close relative of a controlled demo, it's limited only to the video. Most truther's I speak to have the misconception that the
entire collapse took only 7 to 8 seconds, however, there's a video floating around which I have compared with NIST, and the time line of both is consistent with a collapse which progress over the course of 15 to 18 seconds.
-- The east penthouse collapsed 8 seconds prior to the global collapse, meaning the
initiating event was not very visible from the north angle in which most videos of the collapse are taken. I've compared diagrams of the building and one of WTC 7's main trusses was standing directly below the penthouse, suggesting the initial failure was interior.
-- Seismic records further corroborate the total collapse time as being closer to 18 seconds which supports the initiating event being a part of the overall collapse
The truth is prior to 911 debunkers have not one single example of a natural collapse resembling a CD and yet they still believe that wtc 7 was a natural collapse eventhough the honest among them admit that it does resemble a CD?
-- To date there have been no genuine physical examples shown the indicate 'explosives' as having brought the tower down. Forget chemical traces, explosives leave physical remains, non of which have been presented by advocates of the CD theory.
-- Molten metal does not mean thermite, or other explosives when the idea of natural corrosion reactions and the inability of incendiaries to combust for extended periods is taken into consideration. As I stated, natural chemical reactions are capable of generating heat as a byproduct, and seeing as chemical reactions at that scale are certainly plausible given extended periods of time to be able to mix, it casts questions to the evidence it poses for thermite. If thermite were still actively combusting and melting the steel I'd have expected parts of these incendiaries to have been extracted in the process of removing the molten metal.
Truthers on the other hand believe wtc 7 was a CD. Since no collapse that wasnt a CD resembled a CD, historically at least truthers are in a much stronger position that debunkers.
-- Historic precedence is about the only real observation the truth movement has on debunkers. But debunkers are aware of the 'firsts' of the event:
1) -- No sky scraper at the same scale as the twin towers has ever collapsed to provide historical precedence of how the twin towers should have performed.
2) -- No building is available as historical precedence for comparison with world trade center 7, because before then, there was no record of a building collapsing after being struck by debris from an adjacent collapse of two skyscrapers, and subsequently set on fire.
3) The twin towers were the first sky scrapers in history to have planes intentionally rammed into them.
4) While one can make the argument that they could have survived a fire, or they could have survived the initial plane impacts individually, the towers suffered both, a factor which many examples of steel building fires presented by conspiracy sites like to ignore. There is no such historical precedence for a building suffering from both impact damage AND fire simultaneously.
-- The reason why I am not convinced that the truth movement has the correct answers is because while some of the evidence they provide is valid, they intentionally have left out details which are imperative to making the proper comparisons:
1) The examples of steel building s and fire for example are valid examples, but they ignore two major factors:
Structural systems, and impact damage. Several cited examples have completely different structural systems, and do not represent an accurate model of the twin tower's performance. None of the cited examples suffered significant structural damage at the same moment the fires were ignited, non of the cited examples had fire ignited on several floors simultaneously, most of their fires start on one floor.
2) In all of the cited examples of steel structure fires, the fires were fought, in the case of the twin towers, this was
not possible. The fires were never fought.
3) You see where I am going with my point right? Until you all actually make reasonable comparisons to model these circumstances it is my understanding that the more reasonable argument belongs to the 'debunkers' as they've been so coined.
2. Loud explosions were caught on video
and heard by several witnesseses including Craig Bartmer and a radio host et cetera. her are som etelling testimonies:
“When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes” CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri
Refer to my post:
#635 of the
DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?
Last time I checked controlled demolitions use explosives that sound like loud explosions.
Yes they do, but as this was not explicitly known to be a controlled demolition, we cannot associate every load BANG with a bomb. Remember, not only did we have planes hit two towers, we had debris strike WTC 7. Every building has electrical wiring, and WTC 7 had a substation. Since we clearly have other factors of damage to consider it opens up other area that must be eliminated to conclude bombs being used, not to forget physical remains of these explosives must be found to ultimately prove without a doubt that such explosives or incendiaries were used.
it appears to me that explosives were detonated over a long period of time disguising the fact that it was a controlled demolition.
Very vague and broad speculation, especially considering the other possibilities I brought up in the post I linked to a couple of lines up...
i am simply saying that i believe the witnesses that they heard a loud explosion and whe i hear the explosion in the video i sighted it sounds like an explosive detonation.
I would approach that concept with great caution, as there are many things (and I sound like a broken record for saying this) which can sound VERY SIMILAR to explosions.
3. No plane hit 7 so fireproofing was not removed from the steel and fires were not feed by jet fuel
Tower 7 was situated 300 feet from two 1300 ft collapsing towers whos debris mushroomed outward over a 16-acre site. It would be foolish to ignore the potential for tower 7 to have received structural damage as a result. Does the fact that the twin towers were struck by planes necessitate that WTC 7 have the same done to it in order to dislodge the fireproofing?
Not really, the fire proofing was simple foam, and I can scrape that off with my bare hands (believe me I've tried). Direct debris impact could have had a similar effect.
-- UNLIKE towers 3, 4, 5, and 6, tower 7 had it's
entire load to carry
after sustaining its damage, all of the others did not have that as they each either partially, or totally collapsed as a direct result of the debris impact.
-- The proportions of these buildings (short and flat vs. tall and slender) also makes the difference in how the building reacts to the damage.
Be it office fires or otherwise, the full extent of the damage to WTC7 remains a relative mystery because it was obscured by a huge column of smoke. However, on the same token, using the north east, and west facades to measure the severity of the structural damage and the magnitude of the fires would be ignorant to say the least, particularly given that if
ANY side of WTC 7 was to receive damage as a result of the other nearby collapses, it'd have been the south side which has the
LEAST video documentation, but nevertheless has significant eye witness accounts.
prior to and after 911 no steel frame skysraper has ever “collapsed” due to an office fire and some relatively minor damage when compared to wtc 3, 4, 5 and 6, who all by the way still remained standing.
[/quote]
-- Not a very reasonable argument to make as WTC's 3-6 were very 'short' compared with WTC 7, not to mention the all that was really left of WTC 6 was the outer walls... Tower's 5 & 6 were partial collapses, whatever remained 'standing' didn't have to support the original
REDISTRIBUTED WEIGHT of the buildings, the debris that hit then basically hit the roof and tore the structures all the way down to the basements.
-- WTC 7 was a different matter, whatever debris that smashed into it hit from the side, and hit structural supports well below roof, therefore you now have to consider how much of the total weight of the building had to be redistributed, and then came the fires which were UNFOUGHT to make the conditions and strain on the structure worse.
one column failure should not have resulted in global collapse. according to city code when the building was comstructed “if one column is removed the other columns have to take up the load” Artur Scheueman
The problem for WTC 7 was that everything above the 7th floor was supported chiefly on three trusses. What if one of these three main trusses gave way?
Q: what has a higher probability of occurence? (a) a steel frame highrise structure collaping near symetrically due to an office fire and asymetric structural damage or
(b) a steel frame high rise structure collapsing near symterically due to an office fire, structural damage, and contolled demolition?
-- Circumstance A would depend on
WHERE the collapse initiated, as the the structural columns from floor 7 and higher were cantilevered, thus not being supported at the facades, but rather interior by the main vertical trusses. NIST diagrams this detail. As the east Penthouse was the first collapse event preceding the global collapse, it would be fair to say that the collapse initiating failure was
INTERIOR and not related directly to damage sustained on the immediate exterior facade.
--Circumstance B would require that explosives are definitively known to have been planted, and as of this time, it's still relatively speaking, not
confirmed due to the lack of physical remains of explosives, and the availability of other factors (IE the items which create similar sounds of alternate sources of explosions) which have not been eliminated on the side of the truth movement.
In terms of probability truthers again are in by far a stronger position than debunkers.
Gauging building damage only by what you see in video tapes and making judgements on what kind of collapse took place based only on limited video angles of the collapse does not make the truth movement argument stronger. It makes the argument
weaker when not all details are presented. In my argument, the fact that many conspiracy theorists seem to ignore the south face damage makes it all the more difficult for me to take the claims seriously.
summary:
(1) truthers have stronger historical argument
(2) it both "looks" and at times "sounds" like a CD
(3) truthers have a stronger argumnet from probability
[/quote]
1) Because there were
NO historical precedents whose circumstances met the criteria for the events of 911 period. 9/11 sat numerous firsts, but the events were just as unique.
2) Looks... maybe, sounds.... maybe... perfect imitation... no
Seismic readings do not support controlled demolition conclusions, and fires are not part of standard controlled demolition, this is FAR from a perfect imitation on many levels.
3) Very questionable at best, given the more outrageous claims I've seen from less rational truthers...
hey aggle
comparatively speaking with all other wtc buildings it wasnt heavily damaged
Once again, I hope you are not basing this claim on videos of the north facade. It's horribly misleading to base it from just that, and to ignore the south side.
the fact is molten iron was found at gorund zero under tower 7 rubble, and steel samples tested from wtc 7 had evaporated - these two facts cannot be explained by the official spoof.
-- First fact can be explained by corrosion reactions generating heat as explained in post
#635 of the
DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?
-- as for the evaporated steel, I got little explanation for it, however on the same token, the molten steel has it's own logical points.
but one thing i do know is that such a feat although improbable is by no means impossible. molten metal and evaporated steel on the other hand cannot possibly be caused by fire.
Which leaves either incendiaries which would have necessarily had to 1st survive the collapses, and secondly be combustible for several weeks, or heat generating corrosive reactions which can easily be conceived to last over extended periods of time.
-- Which is the more plausible given the circumstances? Because thermite reactions run out of steam quickly, corrosion reactions, can sustain themselves if the conditions supporting them remain reasonably constant.
they didnt they were exploding throughout all this time
Another broad statement which does not eliminate other potential causes for such sounds before making the conclusion.
because molten iron is a bi-product from a thermite reaction.
When thermite is used...
and an underground fire cannot survive for months in a oxygen starved environment with constant water being applied.
However there are water-based corrosion reactions which do generate heat and are capable of generating plenty of it. the post I linked to covers it as well.
molten steel heated by thermite can.
The root of the problem with this argument, while true, is the amount of time that the thermite would have needed to burn.
perhaps insurance frawd may explain why it was demolished.
I've found that many arguments that center around the 'insurance fraud' idea have originated from Silverstein's supposed confession of 'pulling' WTC 7, which anybody reading his statement level heatedly would realize that he was referring to pulling out the firefighters... You may or may not be drawing that from the statement as well, but I'm not going to assume something that I don't know about you.... That's simply the original that I hear about most commonly regarding the fraud theory.
