• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

How can explosives or thermite be used to remove all the columns from multiple floors simultaneously? Do you really think that thermite can be timed that accurately, even though it has never been used in a CD? Do you really think that many explosives can be timed to do so simultaneously? Why do you keep avoiding this question?
I have answered that question many times. I don't know how it was done but the resulting FFA means that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors was removed simultaneously. If you can think of something other than explosives that can do that then say what it is or accept that it was some form of explosives or thermite.
 
Wrong!
Read the final report. That is NOT what NIST says happened. Show where NIST says what you claim or stop making that claim.
You are ignoring the computer simulation that clearly shows the exterior walls folding up.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=814

Ummm, if 16 tons were to drop on you, what would your organs do?

A: Explode through your skin.

or

B: Flatten inside your body along with you.

If you picked "B", you've got alot to learn about pressure!
 
Not that I really need to respond to C7 directly - it's too much like conversing with a vacuum cleaner - but no, nobody is saying that the lower floors of the North face fell away.
Dave Thomas said that in his video.
"There were 2 seconds of free fall at world Trade Center 7 but that's because the collapse took 16 long seconds and by the time those 2 seconds happened the part of the building underneath had collapsed already."

The 2.25 seconds of FFA was measured using a point on the roof line of the north wall. The "part of the building underneath" the north wall had NOT collapsed already.
 
I have answered that question many times. I don't know how it was done but the resulting FFA means that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors was removed simultaneously. If you can think of something other than explosives that can do that then say what it is or accept that it was some form of explosives or thermite.

Right, and super-dooper-nano-thermite painted on caused it to simultaneously be removed.

I kind of look at it this way. My city had a major flood in 1889 here in Johnstown, PA, the South Fork Dam broke because it rained & caused it to fail. The witnesses who saw the dam break said: "Then the whole dam seemed to push out all at once. Not a break. Just one big push."

Now, what you believe is that "explosives/thermite" caused the dam to fail & that it wasn't the rain.

Since you claim that fire couldn't bring down the WTCs', you make up a fairy tale story to fit your perverted arguements that it was "explosives/thermite".

Dude, you are so screwed!
 
The core was targetted first so the walls would fall inwards to form a neat(ish) little pile. The penthouses just happened to be supported by the core.

In fact the attached photos go a long way to showing that the Penthouse collapses ( which took place several seconds before there is any other detectable movement of the building ) did not affect the virtual perfection of the full controlled demolition which then took place.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg WTC7 Before
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG WTC7 after

It all seems to lead to the conclusion that the Penthouses were deliberately dropped into the building.
 
The evidence shown from the 9/11 Commission Report, Controlled Demolition Experts, Purdue University, FEMA, MIT, EMRTC, NIST, NORAD, NEADS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Engineers, FAA, American Airlines, United Airlines, Eyewitnesses, 9/11 Victims and their Families, Air Force, State Government, State Senate, National Government, Congress, New York City, Fire Investigators, Fire Sciences, Fire Dispatchers, FDNY, NYPD, Police Dispatchers, New York Port Authority Police, Pentagon, Emergency Service Unit, Bode Technology, New York Medical Examiners Office, Military and Local sources from Government and Civilian sectors support the evidence that 9/11 was caused by radical Islamic terrorist, known as Al Qaeda, and not the U.S. Government. It would probably take thousands of people to "cover-up" 9/11, not a single person or Truther, has ever come forward to confirm that 9/11 was a "Government Conspiracy". There is no evidence to support the Truthers because they don't conduct tests to help support their theories. The Truthers bear the full burden to prove their theories with evidence.

Conspiracy Theory: The World Trade Centers were destroyed by explosives, as a result of Controlled Demolition, in the basement and plane impact areas. Firefighters heard explosives going off. The WTCs' fell symmetrically. A remote detenator was used.

This would be impossible since there were people in the basement at the time, William Rodrigez, FDNY firefighters and NYPD police officers were very much alive at the time and so were French cameramen filming. Explosives in the plane impact areas would not have survived the nearly 1 hour of burning time. They would have detonated after an immediate fire and the primacords would've been severed or rendered useless by the planes impact. William Rodrigez, a janitor in WTC1, was in Basement Level 1 with his supervisor, at the time Flight 175 impacted the building and heard nothing. He did not say anything about ever seeing an explosive device in the basement or one going off there. No "controlled demolition" occured, and that theory has no evidence to support it. A controlled demolition starts at the bottom to the top, not the top to the bottom. Plus the fires that raged inside both towers would've set the demolition prematurely, causing the towers to fall sooner than later. But the towers fell later, about 1 hour later, by the extreme fires that raged to soften the steel and causing the bolts and rivets to pop, the fires inside the towers reached between 1,300*F to about 2,000*F, well below the 2,600*F+ heat to melt steel.

Explosive shape charges leave behind copper when exploded. Not a single piece of WTC steel that was looked at had any type of copper residue on the columns. The "controlled demolition" theory can't exist because elements don't exist to confirm that 9/11 was an "Inside Job". The FDNY firefighters heard what represented explosives. They heard things exploding inside offices that would be combustible in an office, such as: TV's, computer monitors, electrical wiring, coping machines, furniture, ect. Another possible explosive sound they heard would've been the fuel tanks for the generators, the bolts and rivets holding the outter and inner columns popping from the collaspe. The Twin Towers didn't fall "symmetrically", the outter columns fell out and away from the buildings while the floors and inner columns fell almost inside the building. The buildings surrounding the 16 acre site were damaged by the Towers collapse, indicating that they didn't fall symmetrically.

A remote detenator wouldn't have worked either, because they rely on radio frequencies and there's too many radio frequencies that could set off an explosive prematurely. Controlled Demolitions Expert, Brent Blanchard, who was at Ground Zero, didn't see detenation cords or copper residue on the inner and outter columns of the Twin Towers within the debris. Proving that the claim for Controlled Demolition is a fairy story.

Come you Truther nutcases, prove me & the 9/11 Commission Report, Controlled Demolition Experts, Purdue University, FEMA, MIT, EMRTC, NIST, NORAD, NEADS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Engineers, FAA, American Airlines, United Airlines, Eyewitnesses, 9/11 Victims and their Families, Air Force, State Government, State Senate, National Government, Congress, New York City, Fire Investigators, Fire Sciences, Fire Dispatchers, FDNY, NYPD, Police Dispatchers, New York Port Authority Police, Pentagon, Emergency Service Unit, Bode Technology, New York Medical Examiners Office, Military and Local sources from Government and Civilian sectors, wrong.

Or don't ya have the guts?
 
Last edited:
I don't know how it was done but the resulting FFA means that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors was removed simultaneously.

Your argument might make sense if the 8-story section of the building had been perfectly intact prior to t=1.75 s, and then collapsed instantaneously without resistance.

But that's not what happened.

Prior to the 2.25 seconds of free fall, there was a 1.75-second period where the roofline descended only about 7 feet. This is when the structural elements were buckling and resisting; during this period the failure progressed through the 8 stories until the whole section finally gave way at t=1.75 s. The supporting structure wasn't "removed" all at once.

So what's your problem with a multi-story section of building resisting, weakening, and then giving way as a unit? Does the building have to gradually crumble downward inch by inch, foot by foot, floor by floor, or else it's a CD?



If you can think of something other than explosives that can do that then say what it is or accept that it was some form of explosives or thermite.

How are explosives or thermite a viable explanation? Thermite won't melt through the columns with the split-second timing you think is necessary to remove all columns at once. As for explosive charges, even one makes an incredible noise; setting off dozens simultaneously would create a monumentally earthshaking bang which wasn't observed.
 
Last edited:
I don't know how it was done but the resulting FFA means that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors was removed simultaneously.
Your argument might make sense if the 8-story section of the building had been perfectly intact prior to t=1.75 s, and then collapsed instantaneously without resistance.
7 to 8 stories of the exterior wall did not suddenly give way, providing no resistance. The computer graphic clearly shows the exterior columns folding up but still providing resistance well into the period of FFA. Why do you keep ignoring this?

http://a.imageshack.us/img830/7267/n...video14s16.jpg
 
I have one: it was not FFA but FFA minus a negligible bit.
Semantics. Negligible means too small to be considered. The exterior columns were providing resistance. You persist in ignoring what has been acknowledged by Dr. Sunder:

"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . [FONT=&quot]. . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

He clearly states that the computer model provided resistance. Why do you guys persist in ignoring the facts?
[/FONT]
 
He clearly states that the computer model provided resistance. Why do you guys persist in ignoring the facts?
[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]

Why do you insist that WTC7 was "CDed" & that it fell at "free fall speed"?

Sure, stick a rocket to the whole damn building & make it crash to the ground at 130 mph.
 
Do you have another explanation for the instantaneous FFA for 100 feet?

It was not instantaneously. The building dropped several feet before achieving free fall acceleration. In other words it build up momentum.

Semantics. Negligible means too small to be considered. The exterior columns were providing resistance. You persist in ignoring what has been acknowledged by Dr. Sunder:

"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . [FONT=&quot]. . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

He clearly states that the computer model provided resistance. Why do you guys persist in ignoring the facts?
[/FONT]

And the building also provided resistance for most parts of the collapse. When he talked about a free fall time, it would be free fall from start to finish, that did not happend. As said, the building dropped slower than FFA to begin with and build up momentum before it got to FFA, and then slowed down again.
 
[FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot]He clearly states that the computer model provided resistance. Why do you guys persist in ignoring the facts?[/FONT]
[/FONT]

It's fascinating that you quote the NIST model to support your "simultaneous 2,400 explosive charges" theory. Perhaps the NIST model was close to the truth but not a precise description of the actual collapse sequence?

What happened to the 2,400 flashes and 130db booms, Chris?
 
Semantics. Negligible means too small to be considered.
Aha, that's exactly what it means.

The exterior columns were providing resistance.
You have not proved it.

You persist in ignoring what has been acknowledged by Dr. Sunder:

"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."
Because you are cherry-picking a quote from before their corrections. The public comments sessions were there for a reason. They neglected to account for the buckling of the bottom floors in their first analysis, and that's why they mention that the structural components that they assumed were not buckled would oppose resistance.

He clearly states that the computer model provided resistance. Why do you guys persist in ignoring the facts?
Are you implying that the computer model represents that aspect accurately? What about the rest?
 
I have answered that question many times. I don't know how it was done but the resulting FFA means that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors was removed simultaneously. If you can think of something other than explosives that can do that then say what it is or accept that it was some form of explosives or thermite.

Actually, you never answered this specifically. As pointed out, it would be impossible to time thermite to act on all columns simultaneously (even if you consider you haven't even proven you can use thermite to melt a column). Take a look at a video of how thermite works, and then explain how to control it over 7 or 8 floors.

Now, consider explosives - again disregarding the lack of other evidence - it would be impossiblt to sever all connections simultaneously over 7 or 8 floors using explosives. You are so hung up on it being simultaneous as if this proves something, but there will always be a difference in timing between the electronics.

Of course there is something that made WTC7 collapse - that was the unfought fires that raged for hours.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom