Split Thread WTC7 is a problem for the 9/11 official story

[Dave Rogers]

You don't need explosives; you just need heat, apparently.

Well, if it took more than that you could rule out thermite, couldn't you?

Dave

 

[BigAl]

And yes, you obviously are aware of all developments in the explosive and destruction industry, and Black Budget Projects, because of what?

Going BOOM is a fundamental aspect of explosive demolition.

No BOOM , no demolition.

Nobody heard BOOM at WTC consistent in timing, loudness or brisance with man-made demolition.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hey, people have been executed with less than irrefutable evidence.

So that means that the absence of explosive sounds is better than the evidence that some people have been executed on. Nice own goal.

Dave

 

[dtugg]

You don't need explosives; you just need heat, apparently.

About the only true thing you've said all day.

 

[TokenMac]

And yes, you obviously are aware of all developments in the explosive and destruction industry, and Black Budget Projects, because of what?

This is familiar

Erm, the fact that he was good mates with the CIA and other dubious personalities, maybe?

Oh yeah,
Hey Rag, can we skip the two pages of "I can't prove but niether can you" and go right to

... no conclusive answer...

 

[BigAl]

You don't need explosives; you just need heat, apparently.

Yup. (And the lack of water for firefighting.)

 

[Dave Rogers]

Lest we forget, the planes, other than providing the heat source, had nothing to do with the collapses.

This is a lie. The planes significantly weakened the structures of both towers, reducing the amount of further heat-induced damage needed to initiate collapse.

Dave

 

[nicepants]

How many other NY buildings had branches of the CIA, the IRS AND the Secret Service in them? They'll be on the list of "most important buildings"!

By your own (arbitrary) standard, WTC 1 and 2 would not make your list of "most important buildings". Nor would wtc 4, 5, or 6.

There is no correlation between the presence of a building on your made-up list and the fate of said building, therefore alleging that the collapse is somehow extra suspicious because the building is on your imaginary list is a fallacy.

 

[BigAl]

You don't need explosives; you just need heat, apparently. Lest we forget, the plane's impacts, other than providing the heat source, had nothing to do with the collapses.

The unplanned 100+ tons of aircraft debris was concentrated in part of the impact floors and would have contributed to the local floor overload and helped the collapse along.

 

[Ragnarok]

This is a lie. The planes significantly weakened the structures of both towers, reducing the amount of further heat-induced damage needed to initiate collapse.

Dave

A lie? Not just a mistaken assessment?

Do you call everyone a liar who doesn't see things your way?

 

[lapman]

A lie? Not just a mistaken assessment?

Do you call everyone a liar who doesn't see things your way?

Since this has been discussed here many times in the 14 months you've been here, you already know the part the damage from the plane crashes played in the collapses. Therefore, you are lying.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A lie? Not just a mistaken assessment?

No. You're familiar enough with the subject matter not to make that kind of mistake. It's very clearly a deliberate falsehood.

Dave

 

[mike3]

There were lots of demolition people at WTC7. As regards the noise, I believe that the only explosives really used there were the ones used to weaken he structure pre-demolition that Barry Jennings and Michael Hess reported.

For he rest I think the building was brought down by using a 'melt' technique rather than a 'blast' one..

What do you mean by "melt", and what's the proof you have to back up that claim? And any explosions will make noise, so what would be the point of using "melt" instead of "blast" if the "melt" needs explosions beforehand to get it "weak" enough? Sorry, but I just don't think there was a controlled demo with 9/11.

 

[mike3]

'' by Scott Creighton
While attempting to find out who the “special engineer” was that accurately predicted the collapse of Building 7 five hours before it fell, I ran across an article written by Brett Blanchard, Director of Field Operations for Protec Documentation Services. In that article, he lets it slip that “several” demolition teams were on site at Ground Zero before building 7 came down ''
<can't quote url due to "15 posts" limit>

Even if they were present, that doesn't prove they were actually demolishing the building.

 

[Arus808]

Yes. Because destroying an entire skyscraper is much easier and less supsicious than destroying that evidence beforehand.

...with industrial paper shredders, or huge magnets for the computers..

as if this "only" office would be the place to have such "evidence" in the first place.


Troofers live in a reality that says that only one office exists where only those computers have the information, and the only "copies" of such are on the paper only found in that office.

 

[jaydeehess]

Three buildings fell as a result of 2 planes crashing into 2 of them and you think there are no suspicious circumstances? But you are quite prepared to accept the explanation that dislodged fireproofing and lack of water supply for sprinklers is a valid reason for their collapse?

well three buildings fell and at least 6 more had to be demolished. Had all 9 collapsed on the same day that might have been a teeny bit odd. the fact that only one of 7 not hit by the planes fell is not suspicious in the least.

I always am fascinated at the way that TM's manage to ignore inconveinent facts.

How many other NY buildings had branches of the CIA, the IRS AND the Secret Service in them? They'll be on the list of "most important buildings"!

Oh, and Guilliani's waste of money "emergency bunker"!

If you are going to contest whether WTC7 was an 'important building', it's pointless communicating with you any further.

As I pointed out in posts past, the buildings that WERE hit by planes all have several things in common.
1) they are very large
2) they all represent the power and wealth of the USA
3) they are all well known around the world as icons of American wealth and power.
4) they are all easily identified from the air for several reasons. As said, they are very large, the towers were the highest items on the horizen against a backdrop of the Atlantic Ocean and the Pentagon lies alongside a major waterway, the Potomac.

These are the things that made them targets for persons willing to commit suicide by crashing aircraft into them.

Outside of NYC few had ever known that the WTC towers were only two of a complex of structures known as the WTC.

These buildings were hit because they were 'important' I suppose but moreover they were hit because of what they represent and because of the were easily identified

 

[jaydeehess]

You don't need explosives; you just need heat, apparently.

Quite true and the basis for the NIST conclusions.

Lest we forget, the plane's impacts, other than providing the heat source, had nothing to do with the collapses.

Well you went and ruined the run of one true statement with this follow up sentence.
The aircraft impacts removed a significant load carrying capacity from the structure, tore away the sprinkler and standpipe systems, abraded significant amounts of spray on fire insulation, immediatly started a multi-floor, widespread office fire (a situation that never, ever occurs in 'normal ' office fires), and added 100 tons of debris (give or take) to the impact floors.

Yeah other than that they had nothing to do with the collapses.

 

[Ragnarok]

Quite true and the basis for the NIST conclusions.



Well you went and ruined the run of one true statement with this follow up sentence.
The aircraft impacts removed a significant load carrying capacity from the structure, tore away the sprinkler and standpipe systems, abraded significant amounts of spray on fire insulation, immediatly started a multi-floor, widespread office fire (a situation that never, ever occurs in 'normal ' office fires), and added 100 tons of debris (give or take) to the impact floors.

Yeah other than that they had nothing to do with the collapses.

Let's have it right - the planes gave both buildings a hell of a whack, took big chunks out of each of them and they remained standing for +/- a hour. Then, apparently, all the steel either turns to rubber or becomes as brittle as a pensioners bones, and down the lot comes. I'm suggesting the collapse could have been initiated within the core and it wouldn't look any different than what happened on the day; you are saying it would be remarkably, or noticeably different.

Instead of just shouting "HUSH-A-BOOM" and other childish crap, imagine that there was something set off inside the towers core and describe to me how it would be different?

 

[lapman]

Let's have it right - the planes gave both buildings a hell of a whack, took big chunks out of each of them and they remained standing for +/- a hour. Then, apparently, all the steel either turns to rubber or becomes as brittle as a pensioners bones, and down the lot comes. I'm suggesting the collapse could have been initiated within the core and it wouldn't look any different than what happened on the day; you are saying it would be remarkably, or noticeably different.

So now you're ignoring the affects of fire on steel. Sheeze. The difference would be the ear splitting BOOM! Not just one, but a whole sequence of them. Kinda like this:

What part of this are you refusing to comprehend?

 

[BigAl]

Instead of just shouting "HUSH-A-BOOM" and other childish crap, imagine that there was something set off inside the towers core and describe to me how it would be different?

How would anything set in the core on the impact floors survive the fire?

Anything anywhere else would cause the tower to collapse in a way that is different from what we all saw and is remembered on audio and video.

There were no man-made demolition explosions at WTC.

Nobody knows how to use therm-anything to demolish large steel beams in any way useful to make a WTC tower collapse as it did.