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

[atavisms]

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.

Try the NY Times. The FEMA BPAT, Its freefall implosion.
why would a highly redundant building massive skyscraper go into symmetrical freefall? It has ONLY ever happened from planned demos so the burden of proof lies on anyone saying it wasnt a demolition! (that's you)


You think, I am in the minority of the opinion that wtc 7 looks just like an implosion? No one could argue that? Its falls into a neat rubble in 6.5 seconds!

Fire could not have cause all of those columns to suddenly go into freefall.
could it have? It was damaged on one side. Ive seen the photos -look them up. in sure theyre on http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

Trust me..I know just how difficult it is to believe. (nearly impossible),. but thefacts speak louder than my incredulity -overwhelmingly so.

And if it seems like Im in the minority it is probably because of where and with whom you've spent your time. Where I come from, everyone knows this.
My friend is a producer for cnn -- he knows this. He "wouldnt say so in public bc people will think IM aloon" but he knows the truth. and tells me most people
he knows do too. Ive been talking to people on this issue for years now. o I dont think u;r quite correct in this assertion.

(*u should check socrates (plato) on how social cohesion is actually maintained (through conformity) ..
(you can also read the 'Emperors New Clothes' -same message. ^^

how can anyone look at this and say no explosives were used: (?)
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/...J.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/groundzero.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/surroundings.html

hi res stills of the north tower: http://smu.gs/jvzZxu


^^ cheers.

 

[triforcharity]

Oh no.. each one coming down made a very loud 15 second roar. The sound of hundreds (thousands?) of explosives going off. You can see this clearly in the unnaturally violent lateral energy the perimeters were subjected to. The squibs, the pulverized concrete the debris fields. And 1100 unaccounted for people.
You know, bombs experts whose job it is to survey the sites of bombings have a method to help determine how powerful a blast was (if it was in a building) They look at the concrete/ and structure to see how damaged it is.
That is why we have these regulationsin place:
There is no justifiable reason for not applying the national standard, for NOT testing for explosives! and that is another red flag.

NFPA 921 *http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

18.3.2 - “High-Order Damage. High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.”

NIST didn't even test for explosives. what the hell else do we need to know/?
we are manipulated because 'justice will only exist where those who are unaffected by injustice respond with the same outrage as those offended.' -Plato.

*the first (most crucial) investigation FEMA was not even given access to the site and then after 4 weeks were given what was described as a 'guided tour.' of GZ. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html
And still, they brought us this: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
and that (like wtc7s freefall 99 fires, excessive temps.. and everything Ive mentioned ad nauseum, conclusively reveal preplanted explosives in wtc 1,2&7 Lower Manhattan on 9.11.01

Blah blah blah.....

You do realize that NFPA 921 is NOT a national standard?

You also realize that NIST was not tasked with the criminal investigation, right?

NFPA 921 would have been adheared to by......the FDNY.

 

[twinstead]

Try the NY Times. The FEMA BPAT, Its freefall implosion.
why would a highly redundant building massive skyscraper go into symmetrical freefall? It has ONLY ever happened from planned demos so the burden of proof lies on anyone saying it wasnt a demolition! (that's you)

It was NOT symmetrical, but nice try to shift the burden of proof. The commonly-held narrative of WTC7 is that it collapsed by fire and damage. If you disagree, don't take it up with me, take it up with the world's engineering organizations.

You think, I am in the minority of the opinion that wtc 7 looks just like an implosion? No one could argue that? Its falls into a neat rubble in 6.5 seconds!

This is a lie. The building did NOT fall in 6.5 seconds, and it did NOT fall into a neat rubble pile.

Fire could not have cause all of those columns to suddenly go into freefall.
could it have? It was damaged on one side. Ive seen the photos -look them up. in sure theyre on http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

So you tell me what could have caused all those columns to "suddenly go into freefall". The NIST report explains it to not only my satisfaction, but to the satisfaction of every single reputable engineering organization on Earth. Unless you think they actually disagree, but aren't saying anything because they are afraid to speak up?

Trust me..I know just how difficult it is to believe. (nearly impossible),. but thefacts speak louder than my incredulity -overwhelmingly so.

I have NO reason to "trust you" for ANYTHING, certainly not when you tell me things that I know are not true. The facts speak louder than YOUR incredulity. You don't appear to be qualified to make ANY judgement on the collapse and are relying on other people to do your thinking for you. 911research.com indeed! LOL

And if it seems like Im in the minority it is probably because of where and with whom you've spent your time. Where I come from, everyone knows this.
My friend is producer for cnn, he knows this.. He says he wouldnt say so inpublic, but he knows the truth. and he tells me everyone he knows does.
and Ive been talkign to people ont his fore years..
so I dont think u;r quite correct int hsi assertion

IF only I trusted everything I read on the internet like you apparently do. I prefer to listen to real experts. It "seems" like you are in the minority because YOU ARE. It's not my fault you don't see it. You are a member of a tiny, insignificant cult that thinks they are WAY more important than they are. Rightly so, I suppose, because that's what cult members do, so at least you're true to form.

=
read socrates (plato) on how social cohesion is maintained (through conformity) or you can just read the 'Emperors New Clothes.'

^^ cheers.

This subject requires reading of engineering manuals and having an education, not Plato. If you think some anonymous ideologue posting on a relatively obscure internet forum is going to convince a real skeptic that he isn't full of crap then you have another thing coming, sir.

Bottom line: Convince somebody who can actually DO something about it that you aren't a looney tunes. Wake me up when the "revolution" comes, okay?

 

[atavisms]

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?s.

what does that matter? At sometime prior to the event.
Asking a redundant question that cant be answered and linking it to the central premise is a way of avoiding the the issue.
In psychology it's a form of 'avoidance.

The point is the evidence points to explosives.
Because local damage and fires burning all day cannot possibly account for it's sudden freefall. (pls consider the fact that even a single intact vertical column would have caused an asymmetrical collpase0
(did you see the thing before it fell, did it look like a roman candle to you? please. even then it would not have fallen in the manner it did any more than your stove grill could melt from your cooking on it. In fact ur stove, being a controlled oxygen burn, is actually hotter than the standard uncontrolled hydrocarbon (the dif is a yellow or blue flame) fires in an office fire.

 

[triforcharity]

why would a highly redundant building massive skyscraper go into symmetrical freefall? It has ONLY ever happened from planned demos so the burden of proof lies on anyone saying it wasnt a demolition! (that's you)

Maybe you can show me another known controlled demolition, that achieves FFA.

You'd be the very first. You could even change your name to "ThePioneerOfTheTruthMovement" or some other rediculous name.

You think, I am in the minority of the opinion that wtc 7 looks just like an implosion? No one could argue that? Its falls into a neat rubble in 6.5 seconds!

Neat rubble? Isn't that kind of an oxymoron?

Does "neat rubble" also hit 3 other buildings, one on it's roof?

Did you forget to start your watch at the time the kink develops and the EMP falls into the building?

Imagine that.

 

[cyclonic]

Try the NY Times. The FEMA BPAT, Its freefall implosion.
why would a highly redundant building massive skyscraper go into symmetrical freefall? It has ONLY ever happened from planned demos so the burden of proof lies on anyone saying it wasnt a demolition! (that's you)


You think, I am in the minority of the opinion that wtc 7 looks just like an implosion? No one could argue that? Its falls into a neat rubble in 6.5 seconds!

Fire could not have cause all of those columns to suddenly go into freefall.
could it have? It was damaged on one side. Ive seen the photos -look them up. in sure theyre on http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

Trust me..I know just how difficult it is to believe. (nearly impossible),. but thefacts speak louder than my incredulity -overwhelmingly so.

And if it seems like Im in the minority it is probably because of where and with whom you've spent your time. Where I come from, everyone knows this.
My friend is a producer for cnn -- he knows this. He "wouldnt say so in public bc people will think IM aloon" but he knows the truth. and tells me most people
he knows do too. Ive been talking to people on this issue for years now. o I dont think u;r quite correct in this assertion.

(*u should check socrates (plato) on how social cohesion is actually maintained (through conformity) ..
(you can also read the 'Emperors New Clothes' -same message. ^^

how can anyone look at this and say no explosives were used: (?)
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/...J.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/groundzero.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/surroundings.html

hi res stills of the north tower: http://smu.gs/jvzZxu


^^ cheers.

PICK A SCENARIO
1. WTC7 was rigged with demolition charges before 911 using fireproof charges and wiring, got severely damaged by WTC1 collapse and was then allowed to burn out of control for SEVEN hours with absolutely no firefighting and then blown up in the quietest and most perfect building demolition ever ever.

2.a team of secret demo experts entered a burning WTC 7 and in just hours rigged it for demo and then blew it up quietly and perfectly.

which one?
ill go for
3. WTC7 burned out of control for 7 hrs and eventually collapsed because in the first time in history a hi-rise fire was not fought by firefighters due to broken water mains and unsafe area. you do know the fireproofing in WTC7 was only rated for 2 hrs right?

 

[Venom]

The "rigged with explosives" scenario is getting on my nerves.....quiet demo, months of preparation in plain sight, no physical evidence of the explosives afterwards, etc etc etc...

 

[triforcharity]

In fact ur stove, being a controlled oxygen burn, is actually hotter than the standard uncontrolled hydrocarbon (the dif is a yellow or blue flame) fires in an office fire.

A stove doesn't burn oxygen. Typically, it burns natural gas.

Natural gas burns at about 900°C, but in a lab, can burn up to 1150-1250°C. (That is about 1600°F up to 2100-2200°F)

Typically, an open hydrocarbon fire will produce heat upwards of 2000°F. Not far off from a lab-controlled experiment)

Your knowledge of fire is limited to "****, that's HOT!! Better not touch that lit cigarette again!!"

 

[Edx]

Lol do you mean trajectory? Well show the picture/printscreen

So the first time I make a typo you finally notice the word. Congratulations.

If I take a screenshot all you'll do is claim its different to a picture of the WTC collapses. Yes, it is different, but not where it matters.

You do not understand, the prinicple, its about the force to get that effect. Thats what im trying to show you with the example. Thats impossible with verinage. The video you show, shows it, ofcourse you have a little bit ejection, thats logical. But you dont see the same effect like wtc and the chinese building.

You still have not recognised the differences between your chinese demolition and the WTC collapse. Why not?

No its not a total collapse. The rest of the building remains

No the rest of the building does not remain. You can see that 3-4 floors easily crush over 12. You can see that happen. Im sorry you are too blind or dishonest to see it.

By the way why you are ignoring the fact its not a steelframe building?

Why is it you can compare the china demolition to the WTC collapse even if it isnt a steel building, yet I cannot compare verinage to the WTC unless its made of steel?

Maybe i have to repeat. Show me an example, of a steelframe building, where you can see the upper small block can destroy a whole building

Show me an example of thermite being used in a demolition
Show me an example of explosives being used to propel heavy steel around in a demolition
Show me an example of demolition of a steel frame building with the same noise profile of the WTC collapses.
Show me an example molten metal or steel after a demolition
Show me an example of molten metal being around for weeks after a thermite reaction.

etc.

Apparently you have rules for others you dont want to follow yourself.

 

[Edx]

Oh no.. each one coming down made a very loud 15 second roar. The sound of hundreds (thousands?) of explosives going off. You can see this clearly in the unnaturally violent lateral energy the perimeters were subjected to. The squibs, the pulverized concrete the debris fields. And 1100 unaccounted for people.

Congratulations on being another great example of a truther that doesn't have any idea what explosives sound like.

 

[Edx]

A good video to educate truthers on how explosives actually work:

 

[atavisms]

It was NOT symmetrical

Clearly it was in the manner of a controlled demolition. You can also argue the sky is orange. it wont make it so.

If you disagree, don't take it up with me, take it up with the world's engineering organizations.

You replied here. I didnt take it up with you.
It's clear you're frustrated.

This is a lie. The building did NOT fall in 6.5 seconds, and it did NOT fall into a neat rubble pile.

how many secs do you reckon it was:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ni0i2KZn9Hc


Obviously that means, in a manner completely consistent with controlled demolition.
Certainly compared to the Twin Towers. you will concede it was a neat rubble pile:



compared to:

So you tell me what could have caused all those columns to "suddenly go into freefall". The NIST report explains it to not only my satisfaction, but to the satisfaction of every single reputable engineering organization on Earth. Unless you think they actually disagree, but aren't saying anything because they are afraid to speak up?

then you dont't need to look any further

I have NO reason to "trust you" for ANYTHING, certainly not when you tell me things that I know are not true. The facts speak louder than YOUR incredulity. You don't appear to be qualified to make ANY judgement on the collapse and are relying on other people to do your thinking for you. 911research.com

'Trust me' means I understand. Not let me hold your hand. heh..
if something is reasonable you can trust it. If it's sincere you can recognize that. Most of us can anyway.
http://911research.wtc7.net is an excellent will researched and well referenced and documented website. That doesn't mean you agree. The difference I can articulate a sound argument and you so far have been mostly dismissive, evasive (and I wont mention the childish names).

IF only I trusted everything I read on the internet like you apparently do. I prefer to listen to real experts.

I would never suggest suh a thing. but you seem to be doing one thing removed and just as bad. 'listening to experts'
'Appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy for a reason. BC an 'expert can be found to say ANYTHING (look at thomas eager who told us these buildings went through the paths of least resistance!. is that what hap's No. The Towers were shredded in billions of pieces and pulverized concrete and the wtc 7 went straight down in a manner completely consistent with a planned implosion -NIST admits freefal: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...hB3CmiZKgd7lpiQiw&sig2=aA_4bIlkq6HYt5Sk9VGK-Q
freefall= explosives)

This subject requires

a well informed lay person and common sense.
aka REASON (U know, the stndr we use in a trial)

Bottom line: Convince somebody who can actually DO something about it that you aren't a looney tunes. Wake me up when the "revolution" comes, okay?

No revolutions or evil gov't's that is what you respond with to dismiss it in your own mind..bc you cant explain away the facts. I hear you.
but no, this was just about people abusing their positions of power to reap large personal rewards all while doing what they thought was best for America.
And people who call other people names reveal more about themselves, their own frustrations and intellectual limitations, than about their intended target . just thought you might wanna know that

 

[Edx]

'Appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy for a reason.

Oh look, you don't know what an appeal to authority fallacy is either.

NIST admits freefal:

Only 2.25 seconds worth. Show us a demolition that is free fall. You cant because demolitions are not free fall either

You guys also think an impossibly violent weapon was used to remove 8-10 stories instantly like some kind of Star Trek weapon and it did this silently.

 

[atavisms]

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
Oh no.. each one coming down made a very loud 15 second roar. The sound of hundreds (thousands?) of explosives going off. You can see this clearly in the unnaturally violent lateral energy the perimeters were subjected to. The squibs, the pulverized concrete the debris fields. And 1100 unaccounted for people.
You know, bombs experts whose job it is to survey the sites of bombings have a method to help determine how powerful a blast was (if it was in a building) They look at the concrete/ and structure to see how damaged it is.
That is why we have these regulationsin place:
There is no justifiable reason for not applying the national standard, for NOT testing for explosives! and that is another red flag.

NFPA 921 *http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

18.3.2 - “High-Order Damage. High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.”

NIST didn't even test for explosives. what the hell else do we need to know/?
we are manipulated because 'justice will only exist where those who are unaffected by injustice respond with the same outrage as those offended.' -Plato.

*the first (most crucial) investigation FEMA was not even given access to the site and then after 4 weeks were given what was described as a 'guided tour.' of GZ. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html
And still, they brought us this: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...WTC_apndxC.htm
and that (like wtc7s freefall 99 fires, excessive temps.. and everything Ive mentioned ad nauseum, conclusively reveal preplanted explosives in wtc 1,2&7 Lower Manhattan on 9.11.01

Blah blah blah.....

You do realize that NFPA 921 is NOT a national standard?

You also realize that NIST was not tasked with the criminal investigation, right?



NFPA 921 would have been adheared to by......the FDNY.

Such a response to a scene described is an international standard actually.

NIST was tasked with finding out why they blew up and fell down.
They should have tested for explosives. WHY WOULDNT THEY?

 

[Edx]

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
Oh no.. each one coming down made a very loud 15 second roar. The sound of hundreds (thousands?) of explosives going off.

You said the same thing a page ago, yet again you have no idea what real explosives sound like or what energy it would take from a bomb to propel heavy steel hundreds of feet away.

Educate yourself on how explosives work.
http://youtu.be/rdHRX7iIAQs

18.3.2 - “High-Order Damage. High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.”

Hmm I wonder where the pressure would have come from!!!

 

[cyclonic]

A good video to educate truthers on how explosives actually work:

That was a great video Edx! here's one comparing cds to the twin towers.

 

[atavisms]

Maybe you can show me another known controlled demolition, that achieves FFA.

You'd be the very first. You could even change your name to "ThePioneerOfTheTruthMovement" or some other rediculous name.

Neat rubble? Isn't that kind of an oxymoron?

Does "neat rubble" also hit 3 other buildings, one on it's roof?

Did you forget to start your watch at the time the kink develops and the EMP falls into the building?

Imagine that.

why does everyone here immediately resort to personal attacks? You argue like u'r in high sshool!

Im just stating points in fact/. You dont need to agree or even respond.
It seems that u'r saying that WT7 went down too quickly yo be an implosion !
I should find you another example of an imploded building exhibiting freefall. So according to you, that is very unlikely and yet this wasnt an implosion this was office fires and nature?
Just dont see it. Nothing personal.

And No, 'neat rubble' is not an oymoron. You see those large sections of perimeter wall laying on the rubble pile? That's what "neat" means in this context.



and it is a very neat pile (typical of such an implosion) especially when compared to this:

 

[Edx]

why does everyone here immediately resort to personal attacks? You argue like u'r in high sshool!

The treatment you get in this forum is due to most of us have no patience left for intentionally ignorant dishonest truthers.

I should find you another example of an imploded building exhibiting freefall. So according to you, that is very unlikely and yet this wasnt an implosion this was office fires and nature?

What he is saying is free fall has nothing to do with a demolition because demolitions are not free fall.

You dont understand demolitions, you dont understand explosives, you dont understand sound. You dont understand anything about this topic and you're really proud of your ignorance, thats why we have no patience for you.

 

[atavisms]

You said the same thing a page ago, yet again you have no idea what real explosives sound like or what energy it would take from a bomb to propel heavy steel hundreds of feet away.

Educate yourself on how explosives work.
http://youtu.be/rdHRX7iIAQs





Hmm I wonder where the pressure would have come from!!!

I can see the thing being blown up in a dozen videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
I was down there and saw what remained with my own eyes. I ran from the wtc7 dust cloud. You're never going to convince me they werent blown up/

You think the 12 story upper block of the north tower http://smu.gs/jvzZxu can account for what happened to it. How can I argue with that?
Its like if you said. The sky is orange and that is all there is to it and all the experts agree.'
ok dude.

You dismiss the Harrit study.. etc//
so being reasonable is not something your engaging in.
That's fine.

peace.

 

[Animal]

what does that matter? At sometime prior to the event.
Asking a redundant question that cant be answered and linking it to the central premise is a way of avoiding the the issue.
In psychology it's a form of 'avoidance.

The point is the evidence points to explosives.
Because local damage and fires burning all day cannot possibly account for it's sudden freefall. (pls consider the fact that even a single intact vertical column would have caused an asymmetrical collpase0
(did you see the thing before it fell, did it look like a roman candle to you? please. even then it would not have fallen in the manner it did any more than your stove grill could melt from your cooking on it. In fact ur stove, being a controlled oxygen burn, is actually hotter than the standard uncontrolled hydrocarbon (the dif is a yellow or blue flame) fires in an office fire.

Argument gross ignorance.