AE911Truth Watch

[JamesB]

yes, tell it to them
http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html

you say WTC7 fell mostly into its own foothprint, an imploded building falls entirely within its own footprint so it doesnt damage neighboring buildings (which WTC7 did, quite badly too)

Actually what is most amusing about that argument is that Gage says that WTC7 falling in its own footprint is a sign of controlled demolition. Then he says for the twin towers, falling outside of its footprint is a sign of controlled demolition.

Essentially, ANYTHING to him can be a sign of controlled demolition.

 

[Architect]

I wish the AIA had a more robust professional practice committee.

 

[DGM]

You nitpick and babble about the precise meanings of words and ignore the point.

This column was cut at a 45[FONT=&quot]° angle.
This is consistent with CD, it is NOT consistent with cutting a column manually as it requires more cutting than a straight cut.

[qimg]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8391/pic879706ic1qe7.jpg[/qimg]

[/FONT]

Chris:
Do loggers cut their trees straight across or do they angle the cut to direct the fall? Iron workers don't like things falling wherever they please either. Think!

 

[Dave Rogers]

This column was cut at a 45[FONT=&quot]° angle.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is consistent with CD, it is NOT consistent with cutting a column manually as it requires more cutting than a straight cut.[/FONT]

Just so everyone knows Chris is lying here, go to:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

and scroll down to the fourth photo, which shows a steelworker at Ground Zero during the cleanup in the process of cutting a column manually, which he is doing at an angle rather than making a straight cut. There are, of course, perfectly good reasons for cutting a column at an angle rather than straight. If the upper part of the column is supported by a crane, then a cut angled such that the bottom of the cut faces the direction of motion of the crane will allow the crane to move the upper part away without the possibility of it snagging on the lower part. If the aim is to allow the upper part to fall clear, then an angled cut ensures that it will fall clear in the desired direction. Chris cannot have made as many posts as he has here without having been told all this many times, yet he is pretending here that he doesn't know anything about it. This is a typical level of honesty within the truth movement.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Just so everyone knows Chris is lying here, go to:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm


Dave

You're quick to call someone a liar without cause.

Debunking 911 tries to make the case for the column being cut after the collapse.

It does NOT disprove the possibility that the column was cut using Thermite.


BTW: What is the source of the Oct. and Dec. dates for those pictures of the firefighters on the pile?
What are the qualifications of the authors?
More on this site to follow.

 

[Christopher7]

Actually what is most amusing about that argument is that Gage says that WTC7 falling in its own footprint is a sign of controlled demolition. Then he says for the twin towers, falling outside of its footprint is a sign of controlled demolition.

That's because you don't know the difference between implosion and explosion.

 

[Christopher7]

yes, tell it to them
http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html

you say WTC7 fell mostly into its own foothprint, an imploded building falls entirely within its own footprint* so it doesnt damage neighboring buildings** (which WTC7 did, quite badly too)

*Not so.
Implosions bring a building 'more or less' straight down and cause it to land 'mostly' in its own footprint, to minimize damage to surrounding buildings.
Very few implosions land entirely within their own footprint.

**Prior to 911, the tallest building ever imploded was Hudson's, a 26-story, 439-foot tall structure that was brought down in 1998. [FONT=&quot]
Hudson's footprint was much larger WTC 7's. There were large spaces on two sides, yet:
Pile up of debris during the fall of Hudson’s pushed four steel columns against and two columns over the post-tensioned concrete elevated People Mover Tramway near the south west corner of the structure.

[/FONT]
Because of WTC 7's height and narrow footprint, there was damage to some of the surrounding buildings.
This does not mean that it didn't implode.

FEMA recognized that WTC 7 imploded.
Danny Jowenko recognized that WTC 7 imploded.
Saying WTC 7 didn't implode is just denying the obvious.

 

[Minadin]

My point is that they are using the word (implosion) to figuratively describe what they are doing (removing key supports in the building) to achieve their goal (building collapses upon itself due to gravity). They use the word to describe the overall effect. Essentially any situation that meets their primary condition (the removal of key supports in the building) will have the same effect (building collapses upon itself due to gravity) and will look very similar. Some people might use that same sort of figurative language to describe the event.

You can't rely solely on visual data here. Many of the conditions would be the same, since the main condition and driving cause of the collapse is the same in both cases. But what's the cause of that condition (the removal of key supports)? In the case of the videos you see on the Implosion World website, it's explosive charges cutting those key supports. In the case of WTC7, it's failure due to fire and prior impact damage from the collapse of WTC1. What's the difference? Detonations of explosive charges make extremely loud, percussive noises. (some of the charges CDI likes to use explode at 17,000 fps / 11,500 mph) Fire, by comparison, is relatively quiet.

Um, Chris7?

 

[Dave Rogers]

This column was cut at a 45[FONT=&quot]° angle.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is consistent with CD, it is NOT consistent with cutting a column manually as it requires more cutting than a straight cut.[/FONT]

You're quick to call someone a liar without cause.

The statement that the 45º angle is inconsistent with cutting a column manually is an incorrect statement. It is proven incorrect by the picture of a steelworker cutting a column manually at 45º. You have seen this picture before and had its significance explained to you, therefore you knew the statement to be incorrect when you made it. That's the definition of a lie.

Dave

 

[Drs_Res]

And I post this video of cleanup. Watch and listen.

 

[boloboffin]

Excellent video, Drs_Res.

 

[Drs_Res]

Thanks.
It needs to be seen by more people.

 

[peteweaver]

Chris, even explosive demolitions do not literally implode a building, they collapse it, into the smallest space they can, but its not literally imploding something, its a figure of speech.

As for your claim about thermite.

I have yet to see any evidence that thermite can burn horizontally, or even make neat 45 degree cuts through large load bearing steel columns.

Truthburn were going to do that last year at the burning man festival, and then they chickened out at the last minute because it cannot be done.

 

[twinstead]

I have yet to see any evidence that thermite can burn horizontally, or even make neat 45 degree cuts through large load bearing steel columns.

Truthburn were going to do that last year at the burning man festival, and then they chickened out at the last minute because it cannot be done.

This isn't an insurmountable problem for most truthers. The easy answer is "well, then they must have had some special technology that we don't know about".

For tried and true truthers, lack of technology doesn't appear to be a show stopper for their theories; they just assume the NWO scientists figured it out. (hey, they had all that practice fooling experts for their moon landing hoax project, right?)

 

[Christopher7]

My point is that they are using the word (implosion) to figuratively describe what they are doing (removing key supports in the building) to achieve their goal (building collapses upon itself due to gravity). They use the word to describe the overall effect

The word 'implosion' is now demolition industry nomenclature.

Essentially any situation that meets their primary condition (the removal of key supports in the building) will have the same effect (building collapses upon itself due to gravity) and will look very similar. Some people might use that same sort of figurative language to describe the event.

True, any situation where the central supports fail in the correct sequence will result in an implosion.
Getting that sequence correct is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance.
Implosions have always been a result of CD.
The NIST hypothesis says bad design caused the collapse.

 

[Christopher7]

The statement that the 45º angle is inconsistent with cutting a column manually is an incorrect statement. It is proven incorrect by the picture of a steelworker cutting a column manually at 45º. You have seen this picture before and had its significance explained to you, therefore you knew the statement to be incorrect when you made it. That's the definition of a lie.
Dave

Note the slag is on the back side of the cut.
A cutting torch creates a high pressure stream of fire that blows away the steel as it cuts. There is buildup of slag [melted steel running down and hardening like candle wax] on the backside of the cut.

There is very little slag on the cutting side.

Now note that there is slag on the outside as well as the inside of this column.
To get that much slag on the outside, it would have to be cut from inside the column, or cut with Thermite.

Now note that this cut has been made from the back side as is evidenced by the slag and the uncut steel strap in front of the cut.
They had to cut away a section of the other side of this column to do this.
That's a lot of unnecessary cutting.

This photo appears to have been staged.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Late to this discussion, but has the term "implosion" been agreed upon for purposes of this thread?

In my work-a-day world, I tend to think of "implosions" as materials failures that occur in systems under vacuum.

I also tend toward the belief that every implosion ultimately can become an explosion (for certain values of vacuum, etc.)

Just curious.

Sorry if this is off topic/derail.

 

[beachnut]

To get that much slag on the outside, it would have to be cut from inside the column, or cut with Thermite.

Cut during clean up; nice photo

Not staged; wrong again. They cut off the 3 inches of wallboard and then started to cut. There is no thermite that cuts horizontally, it works vertically. If you use the thermite cutting device, you would have hundreds of them after the collapse found in the pile! Sorry 9/11 truth still has no facts or evidence, just worthless hearsay junk and false conclusions. Why is that? Thermite is just another dumb of 9/11 truth idea.

 

[Minadin]

Now note that there is slag on the outside as well as the inside of this column.
To get that much slag on the outside, it would have to be cut from inside the column, or cut with Thermite.

If they started the cut at the upper left and ended at the lower right, they'd be cutting from the outside on one end and the inside on the other. Mystery solved?

Also, I note without satisfaction that you completely avoided the half of my prior post which was the most damaging to your mythology. I'll assume that was on purpose.

 

[Christopher7]

If they started the cut at the upper left and ended at the lower right, they'd be cutting from the outside on one end and the inside on the other. Mystery solved?

No.
This is a BOX column. In order to have slag run down the outside of the box, the cutter would have to be inside the box