• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How WTC 7 was pulled down

Heiwa said:
Thanks for calling me a genius engineer. Yes, when the thermite burns very quickly it uses oxygen mainly in the gel itself but also in the surrounding air that creates a temporary and local under pressure (not vacuum) that assists in the pull down.
Click to expand...

oh my. Now that I can again breath, I have to thank H for that bit of hilarity.
At first I thought he was serious with his OP but with this post its obvious he's just having a bit o'fun.

Yes, H even my woodstove produces its own draft, pulling in air from the surrounding volume but its enough to barely move a piece of paper held near the air intake (where flow is the fastest). The amount of air moved by a thermite 'burn' might increase that by a factor of ten and would still be unable to move a chair on wheels nearby let alone assist in pulling down a building.
 
Horatius said:
But on the plus side, I can safely remove Heiwa from my ignore list!
Click to expand...
With all these zombie threads being bumped? You might accidentally see one of his posts without protective filtering...........
 
3bodyproblem said:
I'm sorry but I am truly baffled by the notion that an educated person could believe this idea. The amount of energy needed to instantly vaporize large quantities of steel is enormous. I can't imagine a substance that could be applied to steel in order to do this. Or maybe I can?
Click to expand...

It would work fine if they would have just put the charges on column 79.

No need to place them all over the building, just on column 79... bad bing, bada boom. WTC 7 goes down perfectly. Good job, let's get lunch.
 
UWdude said:
It would work fine if they would have just put the charges on column 79.

No need to place them all over the building, just on column 79... bad bing, bada boom. WTC 7 goes down perfectly. Good job, let's get lunch.
Click to expand...

But even using Hush-A-Boom, a sudden collapse of WTC7 would be inconstant with the evidence, the observations collected all afternoon showing a building on fire and beginning to collapse as early as 2:00PM.
 
BigAl said:
But even using Hush-A-Boom, a sudden collapse of WTC7 would be inconstant with the evidence, the observations collected all afternoon showing a building on fire and beginning to collapse as early as 2:00PM.
Click to expand...
So you are suggesting that collapse initiation began at 2:00 p.m.?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
So you are suggesting that collapse initiation began at 2:00 p.m.?

MM
Click to expand...

Sort of. When the FDNY noticed that the building was showing signs of being structurally unstable, they created the collapse zone.

I would say the collapse began sometime around the fire ignition, but you won't understand....
 
triforcharity said:
Sort of. When the FDNY noticed that the building was showing signs of being structurally unstable, they created the collapse zone.

I would say the collapse began sometime around the fire ignition, but you won't understand....
Click to expand...
bolding is mine

Well if you want to get into the laws of decay, one could argue that WTC7 collapse initiation began as soon as its construction was completed.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
bolding is mine

Well if you want to get into the laws of decay, one could argue that WTC7 collapse initiation began as soon as its construction was completed.

MM
Click to expand...

Whatever the "laws of decay" are, they have nothing to do with the fact that WTC7 was on fire for hours when it collapsed and the cause of the collapse was unfought fire in the steel-framed building.
 
UWdude said:
No need to place them all over the building, just on column 79... bad bing, bada boom. WTC 7 goes down perfectly. Good job, let's get lunch.
Click to expand...

How did that one bomb that didn't go boom, manage to to cause the building to be leaning, groaning, creaking and have it in such disarray that the firefighters all thought with not a single dissenter in all the years since 911 that it was going to collapse? Did this bomb have HAARP technology in it, that it brainwashed all the firefighters?
 
triforcharity said:
"...I would say the collapse began sometime around the fire ignition, but you won't understand...."
Click to expand...
Miragememories said:
"Well if you want to get into the laws of decay, one could argue that WTC7 collapse initiation began as soon as its construction was completed."
Click to expand...
triforcharity said:
"Sure, I can agree with that. Your point would be????"
Click to expand...

That in terms of a discussion about how WTC7 was felled, your tying collapse initiation to fire ignition has about as much value as Monopoly money.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
That in terms of a discussion about how WTC7 was felled, your tying collapse initiation to fire ignition has about as much value as Monopoly money.

MM
Click to expand...

Fire began in the building, there was no water to put that fire out, do you need help with the conclusion?

Firefighters know that steel framed structures do not play well with fire. We have known that for years. It is NOT a new discovery.

But, BigAl is technically correct, as the collapse initiation did begin around
2pm EST, as that was when the buldge and transit data was collected.
 
BigAl said:
Whatever the "laws of decay" are, they have nothing to do with the fact that WTC7 was on fire for hours when it collapsed and the cause of the collapse was unfought fire in the steel-framed building.
Click to expand...
Your "cause", is only a theory Al.

A more accurate statement would have been; "the cause of the collapse is unknown at this time, but a widely accepted theory has it that unfought fire in the steel-framed building was the cause.".

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom