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

[dafydd]

Yes. There is no evidence what so ever of explosive use. No sound, no debris, no seismic recording.




The only thing amazing is the troofer cult continuing to ignore the overwhelming evidence in order to maintain their religious beliefs.

Could they get some tax benefits if they registered as a religion? It qualifies as a religion.

 

[Animal]

Could they get some tax benefits if they registered as a religion? It qualifies as a religion.

It would have to be "Not for profit"

 

[Marokkaan]

This is like debating an illiterate child with a learning difficulty. I cant keep saying the same things over and over again, you ignore all my points and then restate the same thing as if I never said anything. I have better things to do than waste my time with you Marokkaan

You'll be forever inconsequential and irrelevant. You'll forever fail to understand that explosives in a demolition are not powerful enough to propel steel around and that nothing except fictional Star Trek weapons can vaporise an entire 8 stories in an instant which is what you fools claim happened.

I knew this was waste of time, you can show nothing, you do know nothing and you trying to act as an expert.

You are going on ignore.

 

[Marokkaan]

explosives so powerful they completely obliterated the WTC

And yet you're saying that the WTC(buildings) were completely obliterated without any explosives.


A freaking amazing.

They never see their own contradiction, its indeed amazing.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

They never see their own contradiction, its indeed amazing.

You guys are incredibly dense aren't you? He was saying the exact opposite. You guys are the ones claiming "explosives so powerful they completely obliterated the WTC" and he is pointing out that there is absolutely no evidence for that.

You guys have the reading comprehension and attention spans of squirrels with ADD (with my apologies to any squirrels who may be reading this).

 

[twinstead]

I knew this was waste of time, you can show nothing, you do know nothing and you trying to act as an expert.

You are going on ignore.

You are trying to act as an expert too, then you expect us to believe everything your "experts" say and you ignore any experts we provide that don't agree with you.

You have some nerve putting anybody on ignore.

 

[DGM]

You are trying to act as an expert too, then you expect us to believe everything your "experts" say and you ignore any experts we provide that don't agree with you.

You have some nerve putting anybody on ignore.

Any bets he'll eventually have everyone on ignore and claim he wins because no one responds?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Hey. Has anyone seen DGM around lately?

 

[dafydd]

I knew this was waste of time, you can show nothing, you do know nothing and you trying to act as an expert.

You are going on ignore.

You do nothing else but act like an expert. Where did you study engineering and what are your qualifications?

 

[dafydd]

They never see their own contradiction, its indeed amazing.

The only amazing thing is why people like you and Clayton believe the garbage that you spout.

 

[dafydd]

Any bets he'll eventually have everyone on ignore and claim he wins because no one responds?

That is the only way that truthers will win. By ignoring reality.

 

[tjlance1]

What truthers ignore is the fact that all CD's have a series of explosions BEFORE the collapse, where are these "explosions" for WTC 1 & 2?

Also they ignore that an essential ingredient with CD is that a buildings central core must be taken out, why then, was a large portion of the central cores for WTC 1 & 2 still intact after the collapse?

 

[twinstead]

I'd like to know where Marokkaan's CD knowledge comes from. Are you a CD expert Marokkaan?

 

[tsig]

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



That is because this wasnt a single "Boooom!" Instead it was approx. 15 seconds of continual explosions in each Tower. This is well and clearly documented in numerous videos and many eyewitness testimonials from
the FDNY "Oral Histories" (NY Times). and people at the site/

Cool video you linked to,, I learned a couple of things.


Speak for yourself. Making excuses for people's immaturity sounds even more pathetic. Just concede the point because we, I think, can all agree that name calling is the domain of people without a good argument or the mental wherewithal to make one and the inability to deal with the frustration that evokes.

Its not unreasonable to expect a proper response addressing and countering the points I raised. You obviously have none or you would have made it simply and clearly,.,instead of focusing on me personally. Im sharing how and why I came to this conclusion. It is all very sincere. If you cannot raise yourself to this level. Then just move on.

Fact is that without explosives no large steel framed building has ever behaved the way wtc 7 did on 9.11. That being so, the burden of proof clearly lies with anyone saying otherwise of wtc7 bc doing so flies in the face 125 years of steel framed hi-rise engineering and construction history and precedence.

WTC 1&2both go without saying how incredibly explosive they were.

Obviously not traditional demolitions, they could nonetheless ONLY have been demolished with explosives because of how incredibly explosive these events were. http://911review.com/attack/wtc/[HILITE]explosion[/HILITE]s.html

This clip cuts off too soon but we can clearly hear the loud roar of the continual explosions.
I know numerous people who were there and their testimony onfirms what is clearly in so many video clips. VERY Loud & VERY explosive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE7fWV2qUVU

And her is another revealing clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3g-gzVvxRo

See how fast and symmetrical and explosive laterally?
Clearly, hundreds of powerful lateral explosions going off simultaneously. Just blowing out those massive multi-ton perimeter wall assemblies in every direction all the way down.

on a different note: The Harrit study is definitive proof of explosives..
but you can still dismiss it outright and ignore it. (some people think the world is flat too) You can imagine they're paint chips..But letting personal incredulity get the best of you does not usually get one any closer to the truth.

To the people who say there were desks and chairs burning underground for 99 days. (Like that could be possible even if they were there!) I say, Please look at the fact that the majority of both towers' were blown violently and widely outside their footprints. and literally pulverized!

How explosive were they?
1100 people remain unaccounted for
Those (intact below the impact zones) massive cross-braced substructures that could hold up 5 times the weight of the entire building were blown to many thousands of pieces. That's explosive!

And there is no need to get personal. Address the points raised with ones you think explain these issues logically.. or please dont bother. Ill just ignore it and people will see it for what it is.

Its the facts and the evidence which point so overwhelmingly to explosives. Nothing personal and nothing to do with my knowledge of anything but common sense and the well established facts of the 9/11

Just saying 'explosions' over and over doesn't prove there were explosives there.

 

[fitzgibbon]

So with your explosives the "booms" get quieter if you set off lots of them?

Sure. Out-of-phase explosions. Makes all kinds of sense.

Just ensure all charges are precisely the same size and shape and then on placement, alternate the wire placement. Charge "A" gets the red lead on the left; Charge "B" gets the green. Just swap the lead order on every other charge all the way through. Then when all the charges are set off at the same time, the noise from Charge "A" is cancelled-out by the noise from Charge "B" the same way having an out-of-phase lead going to one stereo speaker cancels out the sound on the other.

Quite elegantly simple when you think about it. I'm surprised it hasn't been suggested before.

 

[atavisms]

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

That is a search engine where you can probably find descriptions of the issue we were discussing -the claim that thermite cannot be engineered to have high explosive properties. It can.
You'll have to do your own research but I think that is a good place to start, -if that is your desire.

Of course we dont know this was the case in the twin towers. The thermitic red gray chips (found in every sample tested by the Harrit group) could have been used for something other than blasting apart the buildings, but there is no question that the destruction of wtc 1&2 were explosive (in the extreme) events, and that gravity alone cannot account for that level of energy. Not to mention wtc7

 

[tsig]

explosives so powerful they completely obliterated the WTC

And yet you're saying that the WTC(buildings) were completely obliterated without any explosives.


A freaking amazing.

What was that cherry picking supposed to prove?

 

[Edx]

explosives so powerful they completely obliterated the WTC

And yet you're saying that the WTC(buildings) were completely obliterated without any explosives.

A freaking amazing.

Good job cutting out one sentence. Tell me when you have found out where they hide all the Star Trek weapons that can vaporise entire 8 stories instantly or explosives that can fling heavy steel around silently and not exhibit any characteristics associated with actual high explosives like blast waves or gigantic explosions.

 

[NoahFence]

Truthers in general are a special breed of special needs, but these two take the cake, really.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That is a search engine where you can probably find descriptions of the issue we were discussing -the claim that thermite cannot be engineered to have high explosive properties. It can.
You'll have to do your own research but I think that is a good place to start, -if that is your desire.

It can be engineered to have explosive properties, at the cost of a significant reduction of its already rather low energy yield. Nobody, as far as I know, has found a way to make thermite have high explosive properties. Of course, such a thing would be pointless anyway, as there are plenty of higher efficiency high explosives already available. But even the engineering of thermite to have high explosive properties, if it were possible, would fail to produce the effect that truthers want it to have: the ability to sever steel with precise, millisecond scale timing without producing explosive sounds so loud and well-defined that nobody witnessing them could have the slightest doubt that they occurred. Thermite used as a heat source cannot conceivably do the former; no explosive can possibly avoid the latter.

Of course we dont know this was the case in the twin towers. The thermitic red gray chips (found in every sample tested by the Harrit group) could have been used for something other than blasting apart the buildings

A couple of problems with that. Firstly, the red-grey chips have not been demonstrated to be thermitic, or indeed to exhibit any reaction in which the material supplies its own oxidising agent, because the tests were carried out in an oxygen-containing atmosphere, as has been pointed out ad nauseam on this forum to truthers who refuse to understand its implications. Secondly, the evidence strongly indicates that the red-grey chips are not thermitic, because the energy yield is very much higher than thermite could possibly produce, suggesting that the single reaction exotherm observed is from some other reaction. Thirdly, the quantity of material observed, and the energy yield from it, appears many orders of magnitude too small to have been used for blasting anything.

but there is no question that the destruction of wtc 1&2 were explosive (in the extreme) events

Bare assertion fallacy. No evidence has ever been advanced, other than cherry-picked eyewitness accounts in which reports of explosions are deliberately taken out of context, to indicate that any explosions were involved in the collapses of WTC1 or WTC2.

and that gravity alone cannot possibly account for that level of energy.

Please state your figures for the energy available to the collapses from gravity, and for the energy released during the collapses, explaining how you arrived at both figures. Simply stating that one number is greater than another, when you have derived neither, is not an argument.

Not to mention wtc7

Whose collapse has also been explained in sufficient detail to satisfy every competent structural engineer who has studied it.

Dave