Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

[TruthersLie]

W R O N G

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

The video recorded a loud explosion which clearly matches the sound characteristic of a controlled demolition blast.

The firefighters visually react to the demolition blast.

Immediately, following the explosion we can clearly hear their response;

firefighter off camera:"...we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

The video is not faked unless the firefighters are actors.

The time of day is not so important to your point as the fact that demolition type blasts were occurring in an area on 9/11
that had no plausible reason for demolition blasts unless they were deliberately planned.

MM

WRONG.

The video you are trying to pass off was filmed AFTER the first tower collapsed and before the second tower collapsed. (which makes it 7 hours before wtc7 collapsed).

There is NO video evidence of a series of rapid fire blasts preceeding the collapse of either tower.

Was it an explosion? It sounds like one.

I can think of about 20 things which were very common in the towers that explode when on fire which sound similar to the explosion of that video.

Can you eliminate ANY of those 20 things which explode when on fire? yes or no?

If you cannot eliminate them, then you cannot claim that it was a CD charge.

 

[GlennB]

That's when it was supposed to go down, under the cover of the dust cloud.

Spontaneously. With thousands of eyes and scores of cameras trained on it, WTC7 would just crumble for absolutely no reason?

And after making stunningly complex preparations over a period of months prior to 9/11, the perps released news of its collapse too soon? Did they think nobody would notice unless they told them?

What a joke.

What's also laughable is the way people like you and MM alter your theories over the years (yep, years) without blushing.

Thermite,thermate,nanothermite,high explosive CD.

Dash in and rig it on the day ... prep it months ahead.

To profit from insurance .. to destroy evidence

Deliberate slow CD of the core from E to W (one of yours as I recall) to get a tidy pile ... instant synchronised removal of 600+ columns (yours too)...

You have absolutely zero clue of what your theory actually is, do you?

 

[ozeco41]

...What happened before and after the period of FFA are irrelevant to the point. FFA for 100 feet can only occur if all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors is removed.

Correct - at least to first order approximations.

Now tell us how you took the columns out using "silent explosives".

Otherwise the conclusion is "impact damage and accumulating damage from unfought fires".

...and it isn't necessary to define the exact mechanism. However NIST has given one, it is plausible even probable. And I doubt anyone can do better BUT we don't need to know.

 

[Christopher7]

Spontaneously. With thousands of eyes and scores of cameras trained on it, WTC7 would just crumble for absolutely no reason?

Everyone had been driven several blocks away and the WTC was still shrouded in dust.

And after making stunningly complex preparations over a period of months prior to 9/11, the perps released news of its collapse too soon?

Something went wrong and WTC 7 didn't come down when it was supposed to at 10:45. The news piece was scripted and scheduled like so many that day. It was a "set up" piece to be followed by more precise coverage.

How would a story like that be an accident?

 

[Christopher7]

Correct - at least to first order approximations.

Within one tenth of one percent is not a "first order approximation" of FFA, it is "indistinguishable from" FFA.

Now tell us how you took the columns out using "silent explosives".

Side step and subject shift.

...and it isn't necessary to define the exact mechanism. However NIST has given one, it is plausible even probable.

Wrong!

Their model does not fall at FFA and it does not resemble the actual collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY

 

[TruthersLie]

Everyone had been driven several blocks away and the WTC was still shrouded in dust.

Something went wrong and WTC 7 didn't come down when it was supposed to at 10:45. The news piece was scripted and scheduled like so many that day. It was a "set up" piece to be followed by more precise coverage.

How would a story like that be an accident?

Gee... maybe because it was a chaotic day with lots of crap happening.

But under your fantastic example that means
1. the washington monument was blown up (the news reported it)
2. the tunnels out of NYC were blown up (the news reported it)
3. there were up to 11 hijacked jets (the news reported it)
4. the state department was blown up (the news reported it)

And that is just a small sample of the stuff that was reported on the most chaotic day in recent memory.

Considering that when the towers collapsed they struck 10 other buildings, setting many of them on fire, I"m not suprised they were reading off the wire, and the wire had many conflicting reports.

But it is nice to know that the MSM is "in on it." And of course NIST must be... and the vast majority of the engineerign world... so Chris... how many folks are part of this vast conspiracy?

 

[dafydd]

Spontaneously. With thousands of eyes and scores of cameras trained on it, WTC7 would just crumble for absolutely no reason?

And after making stunningly complex preparations over a period of months prior to 9/11, the perps released news of its collapse too soon? Did they think nobody would notice unless they told them?

What a joke.

What's also laughable is the way people like you and MM alter your theories over the years (yep, years) without blushing.

Thermite,thermate,nanothermite,high explosive CD.

Dash in and rig it on the day ... prep it months ahead.

To profit from insurance .. to destroy evidence

Deliberate slow CD of the core from E to W (one of yours as I recall) to get a tidy pile ... instant synchronised removal of 600+ columns (yours too)...

You have absolutely zero clue of what your theory actually is, do you?

What is your theory Chris? I have asked every truther here to explain in detail what they think happened on 9/11 and exactly how it was done.None of them have ever had the guts to give me an answer.Will you be the one to break the mold?

 

[GlennB]

Everyone had been driven several blocks away and the WTC was still shrouded in dust.

Nonsense. The WTC1 collapse was filmed and photographed left right and centre. WTC7 was filmed being hit by WTC1 debris from a helicopter, then with the dust cloud rolling past it. It was filmed from Hoboken and from Bob+Bri's apartment, among others.

Even so, WTC7 would be gone at some point post WTC1. People would notice. People would say "Weird. Why did that building collapse?"

 

[Andy_Ross]

Spontaneously. With thousands of eyes and scores of cameras trained on it, WTC7 would just crumble for absolutely no reason?

And after making stunningly complex preparations over a period of months prior to 9/11, the perps released news of its collapse too soon? Did they think nobody would notice unless they told them?

What a joke.

What's also laughable is the way people like you and MM alter your theories over the years (yep, years) without blushing.

Thermite,thermate,nanothermite,high explosive CD.

Dash in and rig it on the day ... prep it months ahead.

To profit from insurance .. to destroy evidence

Deliberate slow CD of the core from E to W (one of yours as I recall) to get a tidy pile ... instant synchronised removal of 600+ columns (yours too)...

You have absolutely zero clue of what your theory actually is, do you?

Because they have assumed their conclusion that WTC7 was blown up by someone so they pick the evidence to fit. When it is shown it doesn't fit they jump on another nugget and so on.
I honestly think they don't realise they contradict themselves and change their reasoning and move their goalposts because it happens slowlly over a period of time.

Like Apollo Hoaxers they have to ignore a lot of facts and evidence that disproves their ideas, believe things that are mutualy contradictory and invent their own facts and science.

It's only that those opposing them have been doing it over a long period and the 'encounters' are on record that these things are easily visible.

New 'truthers' just jumping onto the bandwaggon haven't seen the history of it, they only see the current cliams, that's why they look clueless and spout the same debunked ideas.

For perfect examples look over on the Apollohoax Forums or BAUTs Conspiracy Foruma t some of the long running hoax claimers.

 

[leftysergeant]

There is no excuse for this report. No other 50 story buildings went down.

http://www.youtube.com/v/9_E6RhuEQu4

Sounded to me as though he were reporting second-hand information from someone who was on the street, in a vulnerable position, who saw what appeared to be a partial collapse which was, in reality, total. He may have seen the spires and thought it was surviving structure, or saw another building through the dust.

You got nothing here.

 

[GlennB]

Because they have assumed their conclusion that WTC7 was blown up by someone so they pick the evidence to fit. When it is shown it doesn't fit they jump on another nugget and so on.

I honestly think they don't realise they contradict themselves and change their reasoning and move their goalposts because it happens slowlly over a period of time.

Yeah. And it's this very lack of self-awareness as they leap around from nugget to nugget - often returning years later when it's forgotten each nugget is already debunked - that makes me suspect there's some autistic spectrum disorder going on there.

All it really takes is one question : "Why were there no flashes and booms at the moment of CD?" to wrap it up. Try asking that and you'll get waffle about a boom several hours earlier or references to mystery munitions that weren't seen before or after 9/11, even though that CTist has made plentiful references to high explosives.

But "it was due to go down with WTC1, went wrong, but got fixed later" takes the "fruitcake of the year" award. How do these people manage to turn on their PC's ?

 

[Gamolon]

The interior columns were removed a second or two before the exterior columns.

Really?

A second or two?

Please watch this next video and tell me how you got "a second or two before the exterior columns" when the mechanical penthouse is CLEARLY seen falling into the building 8 or 9 seconds BEFORE the roof line starts it's descent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ_fFxBB4aY

 

[Gamolon]

The Chandler and NIST graphs show the north face moved downward ~3 feet at the north-west corner and ~7 feet where the kink developed over a period of ~.8 sec. and ~1.75 sec. respectively as the exterior columns buckled.

A kink developed.

Let me ask you a question.

Can a column or structural component cut with explosives or thermite yield the same results as a failed column do to fire/overstressing? Wouldn't either example above be equivalent to a "removed" structural component?

Or do you believe that a failed column/structural component can still provide support?

 

[Miragememories]

At 11:07 a.m., CNN reported that a 50 story building had gone down at 10:45 a.m. That's when it was supposed to go down, under the cover of the dust cloud. There is no excuse for this report. No other 50 story buildings went down.

http://www.youtube.com/v/9_E6RhuEQu4

Good find Chris.

CNN L I V E 11:06 a.m. ET: [extract]

Aaron Brown: "...Allan Dodds Frank joins on the phone in lower Manhattan -- Alan?"

Allan Dodds Frank: " Aaron, just two or three minutes ago there was yet another collapse or explosion. I'm now out of sight, Good Samaritan has taken me in on Duane Street (ph).

But at a quarter to 11:00 there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon."

MM

 

[excaza]

There's also a news report saying Flight 93 was shot down. What's your point?

 

[Gamolon]

New people join the debate without reading what has been presented because of all the irrelevant babbling that buries the information.

The severe reading disability of many here prevent them from understanding what Dr. Sunder is saying. Perhaps you are intelligent enough to understand this clear statement:

[FONT=&quot]At a Tech briefing on 8-26-08, lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, stated:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"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.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance. [/FONT]

Ok. I'm not a physics guy, so someone please explain what I am missing here. As far as I am concerned, the following are facts. I listened to David Chandler's video a couple of times and took a few things from it.

1. If the roofline fell at free fall, it would have taken 3.9s to fall out of view in the video.
2. The roofline according to the video, fell out of view in 5.4s
3. 5.4s is 40% longer than 3.9s

Here is Chandler's question from the video:

Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this claiming 40% slower than free fall based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visable, easily measureable quantity get set aside?

So what did NIST get wrong? It is clear to me that Shyam's answer is about the ENTIRE time it took the visible roofline to go out of view. If that is the case why are you using his reference to freefall, which he stated concerning the entire visible roofline descent in the video, in conjunction with a PORTION of the roofline drop? He is stating that if there was no structural resistance, then the roofline would have dropped out of view in 3.9s. Since it didn't, there was resistance.

What am I missing?

 

[Disbelief]

How can explosives/thermite get rid of 7 or 8 floors simultaneously? Did these floors disappear? Vaporize?

its funny you ask that!! you might be onto something......something that would help the building experience FFA:

One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''



or from another "fire wise" professor that stated:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

So, you are equating 5/8ths of an inch with 7 or 8 floors (as Chris is contending)? Really?

 

[Disbelief]

Good find Chris.

CNN L I V E 11:06 a.m. ET: [extract]

Aaron Brown: "...Allan Dodds Frank joins on the phone in lower Manhattan -- Alan?"

Allan Dodds Frank: " Aaron, just two or three minutes ago there was yet another collapse or explosion. I'm now out of sight, Good Samaritan has taken me in on Duane Street (ph).

But at a quarter to 11:00 there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon."

MM

Yes, great find. The media never makes a mistake, yet the firefighters on the scene exaggerated the fires. Keep up the great work, you are representing the CTists well.

 

[GlennB]

Good find Chris.


But at a quarter to 11:00 there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon."

Brilliant find.

a) The NWO, fearing nobody would notice WTC7 was missing, released the info to a firefighter who didn't verify the information before blabbing. Meanwhile the CD had failed.

b) WTC7 collapsed at 10:45 but was hastily rebuilt under cover of the dust cloud, because somebody belatedly realised that having it fall for no reason at all was "a bit of a giveaway". Meanwhile the new column of WTC7 dust and smoke 'roaring down the canyon' many minutes after WTC1's collapse was noticed by not one other soul, fortunately for the NWO. Phew!

c) Chinese whispers about the WTC1 core falling after the main collapse, WTC3 being wrecked, or similar.

Whaddya think, MM?

 

[Miragememories]

"we have no evidence of "explosives" being used for CD."

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

The video recorded a loud explosion which clearly matches the sound characteristic of a controlled demolition blast.

The firefighters visually react to the demolition blast.

Immediately, following the explosion we can clearly hear their response;

firefighter off camera:"...we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

The video is not faked unless the firefighters are actors.

The time of day is not so important to your point as the fact that demolition type blasts were occurring in an area on 9/11 that had no plausible reason for demolition blasts unless they were deliberately planned."

"WRONG. The video you are trying to pass off was filmed AFTER the first tower collapsed and before the second tower collapsed. (which makes it 7 hours before wtc7 collapsed)."

W R O N G

No where do I suggest the video was shot at the time of the WTC7 collapse!

From my post #1640;
Miragememories: "I also agree that based on the visual evidence contained in that video, it would appear that the footage was shot after at
least one of the Twin Towers had collapsed. .....In the following 7 hours, corrections were made and a successful controlled demolition occurred at 5:20 p.m."

"I can think of about 20 things which were very common in the towers that explode when on fire which sound similar to the explosion of that video."

20 things...wow!

Than there should be no problem for you to find a YouTube sample somewhere that compares to the blast sound heard in the video.

I look forward to hearing it.

MM