AE911Truth Watch

[DGM]

How far outside a footprint should gravity throw things?

 

[X]

The squibs in question are the ones in WTC 7, not the Trade Towers.

Ah.
Thanks for the clarification.

 

[boloboffin]

Edited: Never mind. The page is alternating the Twin Tower list and the 7 World Trade list as the top and bottom of that column. Why would they do that? Weirdest thing I've ever seen.

 

[pomeroo]

Pure denial.
You call Gage a liar because the squibs in WTC 7 are inconclusive and then you make asinine statements like this one.

[FONT=&quot]Stacy Loizeaux:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." [/FONT]


FEMA 5-31
"Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded"
"WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down"

NIST L-33
"The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building."

Building implosion is a fine art. It cannot happen by chance. WTC 7 was a CD

No, there is no evidence to suggest that the collapse of WTC 7 was a demolition.

 

[Christopher7]

No, there is no evidence to suggest that the collapse of WTC 7 was a demolition.

The FACT that it IMPLODED is evidence that it was a CD.

CD is the ONLY known cause of high rise building implosion.

It is a fine art, extremely difficult to accomplish.

To say that the implosion of WTC 7 isn't evidence, is pure denial.

The fires in WTC 7 did not burn long enough to heat a column weigh over 7 tons per floor to over 1000[FONT=&quot]° [/FONT]F.

 

[boloboffin]

The FACT that it IMPLODED is evidence that it was a CD.

CD is the ONLY known cause of high rise building implosion.

It is a fine art, extremely difficult to accomplish.

To say that the implosion of WTC 7 isn't evidence, is pure denial.

The fires in WTC 7 did not burn long enough to heat a column weigh over 7 tons per floor to over 1000[FONT=&quot]° [/FONT]F.

This is not true, Christopher. The use of the term by FEMA should tell you that implosion doesn't mean "with explosive devices."

Stars implode all the live long day. Are they controlled demolitions?

 

[twinstead]

Please don't let Chris get into another semantics discussion. It is a prime truther tactic to avoid answering legitimate contradictions to their points.

 

[FactCheck]

"The FACT that it IMPLODED is evidence that it was a CD. "

The fact that it hit other buildings around it and fell to the south proves it didn't implode. That is also evidence it isn't CD

"CD is the ONLY known cause of high rise building implosion."

Since it didn't implode it doesn't matter

"It is a fine art, extremely difficult to accomplish."

It fell, that not hard for a building constructed like WTC 7 to do in a fire.

"To say that the implosion of WTC 7 isn't evidence, is pure denial."

To say it was an implosion is pure denial.

The fires in WTC 7 did not burn long enough to heat a column weigh over 7 tons per floor to over 1000°F.

That's your uninformed statement out of ignorance. The WHOLE FREAKEN FIRE DEPARTMENT KNEW THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE BY FIRE BEFORE IT FELL. THE ENTIER MEDIA KNEW! Structural engineers have created papers saying how they think the fires collapsed the building... Just who the hell are you??? Heh!

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Again, just who the hell are you and wheres your peer reviewed paper from a respected journal saying anything close to what you're saying??? That the WTC 7 could not have collapsed by fire??? No quote mining please...

 

[Christopher7]

This is not true, Christopher. The use of the term by FEMA should tell you that implosion doesn't mean "with explosive devices."

Correct. It's just stating the obvious. WTC 7 IMPLODED.
[fell in on itself]

NIST L-33
The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. From aerial photos, the debris visible on top of the pile is mostly façade structure. This failure sequence suggests that the interior of the building collapsed before the exterior.

Although they don't use the word 'implosion', NIST is describing a building implosion.
Blowing the interior columns first, in a precisely timed manner, will make a building implode.
WTC 7 IMPLODED.

 

[Arus808]

no, wtc 7 did not implode,. you might want to educate yourself on its definition first

 

[Christopher7]

The fact that it hit other buildings around it and fell to the south proves it didn't implode. That is also evidence it isn't CD.

WTC 7 was 576 feet tall. Damage to some of the surrounding buildings is not surprising.
The fact that the center of the debris pile is near the center of the footprint clearly shows that WTC7 fell mostly straight down.

The interior falls first, the building falls in on it self and mostly straight down. This is a classic* building implosion.

L-51
The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis, would suggest that it was a classic* progressive collapse.
Progressive collapses of the kind in WTC 7 have occurred only in controlled demolitions.

Encarta Dictionary [Windows XP Microsoft word]
classic[FONT=&quot]: [/FONT]
1]top quality, the highest quality
2]definitive , a standard of it’s kind

It fell, that not hard for a building constructed like WTC 7 to do in a fire.

Normal building fires could not heat columns weighing over 7 tons per floor to over 1000° F on 1 floor, much less 4 contiguous floors.

That's your uninformed statement out of ignorance. The WHOLE FREAKEN FIRE DEPARTMENT KNEW THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE BY FIRE BEFORE IT FELL.

Two chiefs and a Capt. thought WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. [one chief disagreed]
The WHOLE FREAKEN FIRE DEPARTMENT and the ENTIRE MEDIA heard about it thru the grapevine.

Structural engineers have created papers saying how they think the fires collapsed the building.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

He just repeated the NIST hypothesis and offered no detail to back it up.

Again, just who the hell are you and wheres your peer reviewed paper from a respected journal saying anything close to what you're saying??? That the WTC 7 could not have collapsed by fire??? No quote mining please...

You believe the unproven official hype on blind faith and demand a "peer reviewed paper from a respected journal" to tell you that normal building fires could not heat columns weighing over 7 tons per floor to over 1000° F on 4 contiguous floors.

 

[Christopher7]

no, wtc 7 did not implode,. you might want to educate yourself on its definition first

Perhaps you missed this:

[FONT=&quot]Stacy Loizeaux:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion."[/FONT]

Since the Loiseaux family coined the term "implosion" to describe what they do, it has become synonymous with a controlled demolition that causes a building to fall in on itself.
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

This does not mean that stars are CD's, as someone asked, it only means that the word "implosion" now has another definition.

Every high rise building that has ever imploded was a CD.

 

[funk de fino]

C7

NIST call it a collapse. They do not call it an implosion.

Lets see what the definition of collapse is and if it could apply to WTC7

1.To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.
2. To break down suddenly in strength or health and thereby cease to function: a monarchy that collapsed.
3. To fold compactly: chairs that collapse for storage.
v.tr.
To cause to fold, break down, or fall down or inward.
n.
1. The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports.
2. An abrupt failure of function, strength, or health; a breakdown.
3. An abrupt loss of perceived value or of effect: the collapse of popular respect for the integrity of world leaders.

Yes, it seemingly can. Motion denied C7

Now I will let you define progressive collapse as well as classic.

 

[CHF]

I joined with a fake engineer name just to get on his nutcase email mailing list.

After realizing that the emails were garbage, I replied to the last one (about 3 weeks ago) and fessed up. I told him to remove the name.

Guess what.

It's still there...

That's what they get for putting Doug Plumb in charge of quality control

 

[boloboffin]

To be perfectly honest, the way that the website flips the two lists back and forth, I might have mistaken when Gage changed the website's front page.

However, the slideshow remains the same, as do the downloadable handouts.

 

[boloboffin]

A video presentation of the new slideshow has just been released:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4182115161669945121&hl=en

The date of this presentation is February 9, 2008.

At 31 minutes in, Gage presents the controlled demolition slide now visible on his front page. The squibs argument is IN. He specifically refers to it.

However, when he applies this to 7 World Trade, he refers not to the "mistimed explosions" but to "chemical evidence of thermite cutter charges," evidence for which he will present when he gets to the Twin Towers, because "the evidence is the same."

 

[slyjoe]

How's he doing on that gravity thing?

 

[Christopher7]

C7
NIST call it a collapse. They do not call it an implosion.
Lets see what the definition of collapse is and if it could apply to WTC7
Yes, it seemingly can.

A rose by any other name .........

1.To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.
v.tr.
To cause to fold, break down, or fall down or inward.
n.
1. The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports.

WTC 7 fell inward and landed mostly in its own footprint.
i.e. it fell mostly straight down.

You can use implode or collapse if you like, both are correct.
The building demolition community uses the word implode because the family that developed the fine art of getting a building to collapse into its own footprint coined the term "implosion" to best describe what they did.
Hence:
http://www.implosionworld.com/

 

[defaultdotxbe]

A rose by any other name .........

1.To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.
v.tr.
To cause to fold, break down, or fall down or inward.
n.
1. The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports.

WTC 7 fell inward and landed mostly in its own footprint.
i.e. it fell mostly straight down.

You can use implode or collapse if you like, both are correct.
The building demolition community uses the word implode because the family that developed the fine art of getting a building to collapse into its own footprint coined the term "implosion" to best describe what they did.
Hence:
http://www.implosionworld.com/

are you saying implode and collapse are the same thing? if so you may want to rethink this statement of yours:

"CD is the ONLY known cause of high rise building implosion."

 

[boloboffin]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4182115161669945121#37m10s

At :37:20 in that movie, Richard says that some people believe that those upper floor blobs are "squibs." He says that it needs further investigation. He doesn't disavow it as he did at 911 Blogger. He made no mention of the "stationary" part AT ALL.

Pure grade snake oil going on right there.