Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[grndslm]

Why? Have you or anyone else confirmed that in absolutely no natural collapse can these features be observed?

Prove that aliens don't exist.

Better yet... let's just replicate what actually happened that day. Build the THREE buildings relative to their original placement & design, fuel up the TWO jets, smash the jets into the New Twin Towers. Watch what happens.

It's the only way to get scientific about the process. Anything else that doesn't observe a repeated procedure is merely conjecture, and I'll continue to submit that the laws of physics didn't just stop for that one day. Laterally ejected debris. ~10 stories of WTC 7 (which wasn't hit by a plane) offering NO RESISTANCE, until hitting the rubble on the ground.... did NOT take place from a non-intensive fires. One picture of an intense fire makes NOT a 7-hour intensive fire.

Can you tell us which explosives capable of cutting WTC7's support colums also produce a sound less than 130dB?

Umm... nanothermite seems to be a pretty good start. For some reason, you guys have heard this explanation before, but you just can't play "devil's advocate" and expect that it's coming. Why?

 

[Sunstealer]

apparently this is not the case. 'As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have
explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability.' -qt from jim hoffman

http://multisearch.deepwebaccess.com/multisearch/result-list/fullRecord:explosive+thermite/

You didn't actually read any of those documents did you? You just typed thermite and explosive into the search fuction and linked to the list didn't you? You didn't realise that someone would actually read the papers did you?
We aren't truthers you know. We will read what you link.

As a materials engineer I'm always interested in reading new things so I read this one.


Explosive consolidation of combustion sythesized ceramics: TiC and TiB2

Basically it's a process called self-propagating high-temperature synthesis (SHS) used to make ceramics with a density of 98%.

Simply react a powder by combustion in an insulated container and then use the pressure from a separate* explosive to compact the hot pourous ceramic instead of sintering and pressing or hot isostatic pressing (HIP).

*

The explosive used in this experiment was Amatol, an 80/20 mixture of TNT
and ammonium nitrate. This explosive has been well characterized 14 having a
Chapman-Jouguet pressure of 3.75 GPa and a detonation velocity of 3.85 km/sec.

Page 7.

There are 2 references to thermite in the paper and none of them relate to thermite being used as an explosive.

The thermite reactions that are widely used for field welding
of steel are probably the most common application of the SHS reaction
principle.

Funny how the welding of rails on railways can be done using thermite. Why would you want to use a material that will blow up and destroy the very thing you want to weld together AND kill the operators? Genius!

2. Odawara, 0. and Ikeuchi, J., "Study on Composite Materials with a
Centrifugal-Thermite Process," J. Japan Institute of Metals, V.45, No.3,
316-321, 1981.

This is a reference.

So atavisms: why are you linking us to something that has no relevance to thermite being an explosive? Are you being dishonest on purpose?

Why is thermite used to weld rails together when it's a dangerous explosive capable of destroying steel and flinging steel hundreds of feet? atavisms?

 

[Edx]

It's the only way to get scientific about the process. Anything else that doesn't observe a repeated procedure is merely conjecture, and I'll continue to submit that the laws of physics didn't just stop for that one day. Laterally ejected debris.

Go watch some Verinage demolitions, the debris "ejected" out of the collapse front has the same tragectory as it had with the WTC collapses.

You however believe that giant explosives flung heavy steel around quietly. Apparently you think that is more likely despite quiet explosives being physically impossible.

~10 stories of WTC 7 (which wasn't hit by a plane) offering NO RESISTANCE,

10 stories now? I thought it was 8 stories.

So you think 10 stories each the size of city blocks were apparently vaporised like Star Trek by some kind of explosive at the same exact time and this happened without making sound louder than a gust of wind on a microphone

And you wonder why people dont take you seriously.

Umm... nanothermite seems to be a pretty good start. For some reason, you guys have heard this explanation before, but you just can't play

Even if nano thermite was explosive, you still cant create a quiet explosive and the idea that it could remove 10 stories instantly would still be insanity, much less doing it quietly which you believe.

 

[twinstead]

Personally, I find it humorous that people who have no idea what they are talking about are pontificating on some relative obscure internet forum as if it is the front lines in the war against the evil government.

Talk about irrelevant....

 

[grndslm]

UH thats wind genius.

Explosive demolition is DEAFENING and they do not try and remove entire floors at once, much less 8 foors at once "in the same exact instant".

Real explosive demolition is not powerfull enough to fling heavy steel around, yet is always easily picked up on video.

You have clearly have no idea how explosives or demolitions work or what they sound like.

Wind? Riiiiight!!!

Once again... define: "Explosives".

They dont claim that thought, they claim 8 floors were vaporised like Star Trek all at the same exact instant.

They, in fact, must have been "vaporised", or else there would have been SOME form of resistance. But there was ZEROOOOOOOOOOO. Do you understand the number ZERO? NO RESISTANCE for 2.5 seconds EQUALS 10 floors that didn't even cause a HICCUP in the free fall descent.

The much smaller (& so weaker) WTC6 stood between the North Tower and WTC7 right next to the NT and took the full brunt of its explosive debris full on...and yet, miraculously, it did not lose a single vertical column! How can this be a reasonable person might ask? The thing was hollowed like a shell but there the perimeter columns stood intact until the frame was pulled down with cables.

The mostly superficial damage to the SE face of wtc 7 (despite how bad it is) obviously cannot account for it's going into symmetrical freefall. Neither can one column failing (no 79 as per NIST).

I know just how difficult this is to believe but remember, just bc something seems unlikely doesn't mean it isn't so. We must use the available evidence. And the evidence in the WTC attacks overwhelming points to pre-planted explosives.

Exactly.

Except

1. In the WTC the collapse starts before what you call "explosions" can be seen.

2. Verinage looks much more like your "explosions" of the WTC, yet it uses no explosives at all.

Get you some GOOD HEADPHONES, then pay attention at 0:02, before the penthouse falls...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI3wZM47LxU&feature=share

You are in the minority opinion on this. There is absolutely NO evidence of ANY explosive device in the WTC7. Pre-planted? Seriously? When would these explosives been planted? That day? The week before? When the building was built? I challenge you to supply any evidence that explosives were pre-planted or that ANY explosives were present that day in that building at all. So, what evidence points to pre-planted explosives?

On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the building was heavily damaged, and burned. In fact, the evidence in the WTC attacks overwhelmingly points AWAY from pre-planted explosives.

"Minority"?? What poll are you referring to?? I don't ever remember being asked to take place in such a poll. Exclusive polls are just that... exclusive.

The explosives could have been laced up and down the elevator shafts with nobody knowing. Might take a week or two, but it's entirely plausible. More plausible than the law of physics just suspending itself for one day.

 

[Sunstealer]

So lets look at another paper so kindly linked to by atavism.

THE USE ANT) EFFECTIVENESS OF SABOTAGE AS A MEANS OF
UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE - AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
FROM WORLD WAR I THROUGH VIET NAM

American Guerrilla.

Being a part of an organized military unit, these guerrillas used some'of the more sophisticated materials for sabotage. The explosives used were soft, moldable
plastic demolitions made of explosives and thermite. The explosive fragmented the objective while the thermite was mainly considered an incendiary material which set fire to the material it contacted after the explosion.

Page 55.

This is the only quote with the word thermite in. Oh look thermite isn't an explosive it's an incendiary.

So again atavism - why are you linking us to material that does not show that thermite is an explosive? Infact these papers show the opposite. You didn't actually bother to read these papers did you? Come on now don't be a lying truther, you didn't did you?

 

[DGM]

Personally, I find it humorous that people who have no idea what they are talking about are pontificating on some relative obscure internet forum as if it is the front lines in the war against the evil government.

Talk about irrelevant....

The really sad part is they are.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

So atavisms: why are you linking us to something that has no relevance to thermite being an explosive? Are you being dishonest on purpose?

Actually, I believe they think it's expected behavior not to go any futher. Most truthers probably believe that when we provide links for them, we're not expecting them to actually read the material. So they don't, and in turn they think we won't look at original source links ourselves.

It's true that we tend not to look at truther sites, but that's a whole other thing. If they link a legit search or site, I'll look. Specifically because it's legit. And (admitting to cynicism) because I'm often curious to see specifically how they're misrepresenting the original, legit source, but that's just what I do.

 

[Edx]

Wind? Riiiiight!!!

Lets put it this way, its indistinguishable from wind and isnt present on any other recording of the collapse.

Bottom line is, if its an explosive it wouldnt have the power to do anything which is the point you continually miss.

Once again... define: "Explosives".

Whats wrong with wikipedia?

They, in fact, must have been "vaporised", or else there would have been SOME form of resistance. But there was ZEROOOOOOOOOOO. Do you understand the number ZERO? NO RESISTANCE for 2.5 seconds EQUALS 10 floors that didn't even cause a HICCUP in the free fall descent.

So you literally do believe that 10 stories were removed instantly like in Star Trek by a explosive that is so quiet it can be mistaken for a gust of wind on one video and isnt picked up by any others?

What kind of explosives could do that?

Get you some GOOD HEADPHONES,

I am a composer, I only use good headphones. What you are hearing doesnt sound anything like an explosive, its like you have never heard a real demolition before. Real demolitions are not instantly removing 10 stories worth of matter, real explosives everywhere that we know about are not capable of doing that.

The explosives could have been laced up and down the elevator shafts with nobody knowing. Might take a week or two, but it's entirely plausible. More plausible than the law of physics just suspending itself for one day.

What kind of explosives can vaporise like Star Trek 10 stories instantly and not create a sound louder than a gust of wind on a single video?

What kind of explosoves can fling heavy steel around and yet create quiet shock waves?

 

[grndslm]

Funny how the welding of rails on railways can be done using thermite. Why would you want to use a material that will blow up and destroy the very thing you want to weld together AND kill the operators? Genius!

This is a reference.

So atavisms: why are you linking us to something that has no relevance to thermite being an explosive? Are you being dishonest on purpose?

Why is thermite used to weld rails together when it's a dangerous explosive capable of destroying steel and flinging steel hundreds of feet? atavisms?

Torches weld, right? Torches also cut, right??

Perhaps one bomb was setoff by the choppers flying immediately overhead WTC 1 and 2, in order to ignite "cutting torches", made of thermite?? Hence, the few seconds delay AFTER hearing the explosion and then watching the penthouse collapse.

Go watch some Verinage demolitions, the debris "ejected" out of the collapse front has the same tragectory as it had with the WTC collapses.

You however believe that giant explosives flung heavy steel around quietly. Apparently you think that is more likely despite quiet explosives being physically impossible.

It's not physically impossible.

Removed breach of Rule 2. This kind of thing is entirely inappropriate, grndslm.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

10 stories now? I thought it was 8 stories.

So you think 10 stories each the size of city blocks were apparently vaporised like Star Trek by some kind of explosive at the same exact time and this happened without making sound louder than a gust of wind on a microphone

And you wonder why people dont take you seriously.

ME SERIOUSLY??

You have yet to explain how the 8, 9, 10 floors can possibly offer not a single shred of resistance. The only one who should be laughed at and ridiculed is someone who doesn't understand the importance of them NOT EVEN BEING THERE to offer a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of resistance. There was ZEROOO POINT ZEROOOOOO resistance. None. Nada. That means... the steel columns, the concrete walls, etc... were AS GOOD AS not even being there at all. There was no bending, no melting, no gradual descent. Core columns cut first, then POOF... free fall acceleration for 8, 9, 10 floors.

Did I say 8 floors? Did NIST say 8 floors? I just remember a 2.4 or 2.5 sec timeframe of FREE FALL ACCELERATION (aka: a big fat 0.00 resistance for 8 to 10 floors).

Even if nano thermite was explosive, you still cant create a quiet explosive and the idea that it could remove 10 stories instantly would still be insanity, much less doing it quietly which you believe.

FACT: There was an explosion seconds before the penthouse fell.

FACT: Thermite can be used as a kind of stationary cutting torch.

FACT: It would take a few seconds for it to cut thru steel columns & beams.

FACT: This all jives perfectly well with the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI3wZM47LxU&feature=share

 

[grndslm]

Actually, I believe they think it's expected behavior not to go any futher. Most truthers probably believe that when we provide links for them, we're not expecting them to actually read the material. So they don't, and in turn they think we won't look at original source links ourselves.

It's true that we tend not to look at truther sites, but that's a whole other thing. If they link a legit search or site, I'll look. Specifically because it's legit. And (admitting to cynicism) because I'm often curious to see specifically how they're misrepresenting the original, legit source, but that's just what I do.

Off-topic. Mod, please stop this person from derailing threads.

 

[grndslm]

What can explain 8, 9, or 10 stories of a building offering *NO* RESISTANCE???

Can fire cause a building to fall at FREE-FALL ACCELERATION for even 0.1 seconds??

GO!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

They dont claim that though, they claim 8 floors were vaporised like Star Trek all at the same exact instant.

grndslm is claiming it's a possibility, though.

Prove that aliens don't exist.

Exactly. Prove that the observed features WTC7's collapse don't exist in "natural" collapses. Just like I can't prove that aliens don't exist, you can't prove this. In light of that, claiming that explosives are the only way to explain those features is ludicrous, wouldn't you agree?

Better yet... let's just replicate what actually happened that day. Build the THREE buildings relative to their original placement & design, fuel up the TWO jets, smash the jets into the New Twin Towers. Watch what happens.

Too costly and yet too simplistic. You'd need to ensure that everything was as it was on 9/11: the speed of the planes at the moment of impact, their angle of impact, the floors that they impacted, right down to the contents of the tower and their arrangement (to ensure a similar spread of the fire). Wind speed and direction should probably also be matched.

Even then, the chaotic nature of the impacts and collapses themselves would likely produce noticeably different results. In your live experiment, debris from the second collapse may not reach as far as WTC7, but that won't prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

It's the only way to get scientific about the process. Anything else that doesn't observe a repeated procedure is merely conjecture, and I'll continue to submit that the laws of physics didn't just stop for that one day. Laterally ejected debris. ~10 stories of WTC 7 (which wasn't hit by a plane) offering NO RESISTANCE, until hitting the rubble on the ground.... did NOT take place from a non-intensive fires. One picture of an intense fire makes NOT a 7-hour intensive fire.

For explosives to be a reasonable explanation for these observed features, other features must also have been observed. Those necessary features, however, were not.

Explosives don't silently eject large steel beams hundreds of feet. A natural failure of those members, however, is quite capable. Have you ever broken a piece of dried pasta and noticed how far some of its pieces fly? Same principle. (I hope you don't suspect someone planted explosives on your pasta...)

Umm... nanothermite seems to be a pretty good start.

How does nanothermite explain the features that you believe are not explained by a natural collapse? For instance, how does nanothermite hurl steel beams around without sound?

Off-topic. Mod, please stop this person from derailing threads.

There's a report feature (

), grndslm. Use it if you feel the need.

 

[triforcharity]

'Normal' in this case means standard uncontrolled hydrocarbon fires.

There was nothing normal about the fires in any of the WTC buildings. Normally, buildings don't have spontaneous fires sparked over 5 complete floors, in the course of, what, maybe 2 seconds?

Normally, building aren't allowed to burn for 7 hours unabated by even a single drop of water. (This, of course, being 7WTC)

This is what the present official account postulates caused wtc 1&2 to be shredded to smithereens and wtc7 to fall in a manner completely consistent with a planned implosion.

No, that would be gravity. Fire+impact damage-firefighting efforts=failure. Every. Single. Time.

Office furnishings, you know, metal desks, filing cabinets, chairs, papers, and carpets.

Don't forget, computers, office supplies, including chairs made of foam, countless reams of paper, hundreds of tons of plastic material, etc. All burning. Somewhere in the area of 5-10kg/sf. Times 43,560 square feet in an acre, and you get 217,800-435,600 kg/floor. Times 5 floors, 1,089,000-2,178,000 kg of fuel. Or, if you want pounds, it's 11-22lbs/sf Times 43,560 and you get 480,160 lbs-960,333 lbs/floor. Times 5 floors is 2,400,834-4,801,668 lbs of fuel. PER TOWER!! All of fire at some point within 1 hour!!

Holy **** that is a LOT of fuel!

I'm guessing, just assuming that each lb. has a fuel energy of 2-3joules, (which is the LOW LOW end) you're talking about 5-9 MILLION joules of heat energy!! Do you realize that could power the entire Eastern seaboard for a month?!?!?!

What you should look (that completely shows this cannot be true) are the recorded temps at the site..(see NASA and Bechtel readings -up to 2800f at the surface many days later, and even weeks later, temps that just completely belie the official account )

Bull ****. Nowhere does NASA's readings ever show that. In fact, the MAX is (IIRC) somewhere around 1400 deg.F.

and the 99 day fires underground. (why would there be any fire under there.. the plane impacts were high up top)

You do realize that once the building collapsed, you've added all the fuel from the other floors into the mix, right?

Do you also realize that trying to put the wet stuff, on the hot stuff, with a bunch of **** in your way, makes life very difficult, right?

In fact, a firefighter invented a tool to be used in the future, if this type of problem arises, right?

Read about it.
http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_waterjet_technology_cuts/

Pretty cool tool. I've used it myself.

What desks do you imagine were burning for 99 days while tons of water was being poured on them daily?

220+ acres of fuel.

FDNY poured so much water into ground zero that 'we are creating a lake in lower Manhattan.' -FDNY spokesman quoted in the NY Times. And still! they would not go out.

Do you also realize that trying to put the wet stuff, on the hot stuff, with a bunch of **** in your way, makes life very difficult, right?

In fact, a firefighter invented a tool to be used in the future, if this type of problem arises, right?

Read about it.
http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_waterjet_technology_cuts/

Pretty cool tool. I've used it myself.

Turns out thermite creates those super high temps and burns even under water.

Thermite doesn't do long periods of time. Asian hookers do. Thermite, of ANY flavor, does not.

 

[triforcharity]

If a building collapses due to FIRE... would it eject debris laterally like that???

Yes. Do you think any of the debris in the photo hit 7WTC??

yes

no

Your answer??

 

[triforcharity]

apparently this is not the case. 'As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have
explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability.' -qt from jim hoffman

http://multisearch.deepwebaccess.com/multisearch/result-list/fullRecord:explosive+thermite/

You're not understanding. It can be ADDED to EXPLOSIVES. It is NOT the primary.

Sunsteeler most likely will adress this post more accurately.

 

[triforcharity]

Prove that aliens don't exist.

Better yet... let's just replicate what actually happened that day. Build the THREE buildings relative to their original placement & design, fuel up the TWO jets, smash the jets into the New Twin Towers. Watch what happens.

It's the only way to get scientific about the process. Anything else that doesn't observe a repeated procedure is merely conjecture, and I'll continue to submit that the laws of physics didn't just stop for that one day. Laterally ejected debris. ~10 stories of WTC 7 (which wasn't hit by a plane) offering NO RESISTANCE, until hitting the rubble on the ground.... did NOT take place from a non-intensive fires. One picture of an intense fire makes NOT a 7-hour intensive fire.


Umm... nanothermite seems to be a pretty good start. For some reason, you guys have heard this explanation before, but you just can't play "devil's advocate" and expect that it's coming. Why?

I'll plan it, if I can pick some truthers to put on the planes to make it even more realistic. Now, who might I pick........

 

[Edx]

It's not physically impossible.

Edited by LasahL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.

UH HUH. I'll take this as a silent admission that you have no facts to counter what I said. You're not on youtube now, son.

ME SERIOUSLY??

You have yet to explain how the 8, 9, 10 floors can possibly offer not a single shred of resistance.

Why is buckling not an acceptable explanation but Star Trek style weapons vaporizing an entire 10 floors each the size of a city block instantly more likely?

Even if I found NISTs explanation ridiculous I'd still know yours was immediately obviously crazier than a mental patient on crack. You might as well start claiming Judy Woods space beam was used to vaporise WTC7.

FACT: There was an explosion seconds before the penthouse fell.

Which isnt picked up on any other video and sounds just like a gust of wind.

FACT: Thermite can be used as a kind of stationary cutting torch.

Even if it could, it cant vaporise 10 floors instantly, which is again what you claimed happened in this post. Nothing can do what you claim happened.

FACT: It would take a few seconds for it to cut thru steel columns & beams.

Once again, cutting throgh steel beams is not the same as saying 10 floors were removed instantly from the building so that not even the rubble stopped the collapse from progressing.

Your idea of how explosives work apparently comes from Star Trek. We dont actually have those kinds of weapons, its f-i-c-t-i-o-n Its also fiction to create a quiet blast wave, yet you claim that happened too.

 

[KTB]

Admitting the possibility of collapse by fire destroys the whole argument from incredulity that is the only thing remaining twoofers cling to, so it won't happen.

Seems that you know Marokkaan better than he would maybe like to admit.
He starts this thread and asks questions, then when provided with answers he just disappears with no acknowledgement of learning these to him apparently new things.
Is this standard M.O. for "truthers" (I have to use quotes because Marokkaan is starting to seem like somebody who isn't very interested in the truth.)

So Marokkaan, if you have any integrity just acknowledge that steel buildings can fail due to fire. Show that we are wrong about you.

 

[Sunstealer]

Torches weld, right? Torches also cut, right??

Where does he mention torches? Torches have nothing to do with it. I'd like to see a thermite welding torch!

Perhaps one bomb was setoff by the choppers flying immediately overhead WTC 1 and 2, in order to ignite "cutting torches", made of thermite?? Hence, the few seconds delay AFTER hearing the explosion and then watching the penthouse collapse.

How many times? Thermite is NOT and explosive - it doesn't go BANG. I'd watch out for choppers if I were you, their out to get you y'know!

It's not physically impossible.

No and nor is it physically impossible for the giant alien spacemonkey wearing an invisible suit to turn up with his discombobulator ray and cause wtc7 to collapse. Infact it's about as likely as your ludicrous and rather entertaining story

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.