DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[Disbelief]

I guess my sig will be getting longer in the near future.

 

[thewholesoul]

At some point in time I need to go in-depth about the examples I'm always led to... to prove that fire can't collapse a steel structure... I intended to go into that a bit in my response... Oh well spent 3 hours on that I don't feel like typing for another 2 hours tonight Xd

just one reason why i believe building 7 was a controlled demolition? barry jennings was walking over dead bodies in the lobby. this was after he experienced explosions on the 6th floor before either tower fell.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062308_dead_bodies.htm dead bodies in the lobby

 

[Alt+F4]

just one reason why i believe building 7 was a controlled demolition? barry jennings was walking over dead bodies in the lobby. this was after he experienced explosions on the 6th floor before either tower fell.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062308_dead_bodies.htm dead bodies in the lobby

Barry Jennings also said (in the same interview) that tower 1 fell before tower 2. So what's your point again?

 

[funk de fino]

just one reason why i believe building 7 was a controlled demolition? barry jennings was walking over dead bodies in the lobby. this was after he experienced explosions on the 6th floor before either tower fell.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062308_dead_bodies.htm dead bodies in the lobby

Who were these dead people? The building had been evacuated before he got there. He never mentioned these dead people in earlier interviews where he said the lobby was destroyed and looked like king kong had trashed it. This was after the tower collapsed. They took him out a large hole in the wall around 12 noon IIRC.

You should try and refrain from posting PP junk links, it only makes you look silly

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why is this relevant, anyway? Are large numbers of dead bodies the latest one of Richard Gage's imaginary characteristics of a CD?

Dave

 

[Disbelief]

Who were these dead people? The building had been evacuated before he got there. He never mentioned these dead people in earlier interviews where he said the lobby was destroyed and looked like king kong had trashed it. This was after the tower collapsed. They took him out a large hole in the wall around 12 noon IIRC.

You should try and refrain from posting PP junk links, it only makes you look silly

funk, you should really be more careful when you post. In this case, the correct term would be sillier.

 

[phunk]

The WTC7 lobby was used as a triage center before the towers collapsed. So there's nothing unusual about injured and dead people being found there.

 

[thewholesoul]

•the molten metal pouring from south tower cannot possibly be molten aluminium but could possibly be molten iron

False, you can read about it! Please prove it was not Al. But did you know lead was in the building? Guess what temperature Pb is liquid at?? Also, it does not matter if it was steel, but the only way steel cold melt is with extra heat. I am sure there were oxygen generators in the WTC due to the aircraft; maybe they could melt the steel, but what steal? More likely the cheap metal our computers are made of, or battery backup (lead acid batteries) was the metal flowing out the side. If you want thermite, you need to go to fantasy land of trutherville and spend time with the person who made it up without evidence.

Notice beachnut defends NIST’s explantion that the molten metal was aluminium and then in the same paragraph goes on to defend an alternative explanation that the molten metal was lead. Notice how he fails to provide any experimentation with published photos of the results in support of his TWO explanations. And finally, notice how Becahnut will fail to acknowledge the fact that molten aluminium and lead do not flow bright yellow-orange in daylight as does a thermite reaction as seen in Professor Jones’s real-life experiments seen here

“False, you can read about it”, in the words of Steven Jones “experiments trump any authoratative statement”


•the probabilty of three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved all failing on same day is very low

probability, You have no idea what probability theory says about this. WTC7 burned all day, buildings that are on fire can collapse, and buildings on fire without firefighting usually do collapse. You can try this out by burning your house, and not fighting the fire. See!

WTC 1 and 2, had large impacts 7 to 11 times greater than the aircraft impact design done by the chief structural engineer. You are wrong on a few counts here. The fires in WTC 1 and 2 were no fought, and the systems to fight them were destroyed in the impact! Sorry, but steel gets weak quick in fire, that is why they have insulation to keep the building standing for 2 to 3 hours to let you escape!

So far two points, and you are wrong.

Notice how Beachnut questions my knowledge of probability theory yet he is mentally unable to provide even his own opinion concerning the probability of the events on 911. Notice how he does not dispute the fact that 911 was the first time in history skyscrapers collapsed from fire. Notice how he does not recognize the fact all three skycrapers were designed for all the damage they recieved on 911.

But to answer more directly

• 
  [*] towers 1+2 were designed for jet impact and survived the impact as seen on television
  
  [*] tower 7 was designed to survive the failure of three core columns and 10 perimeter columns which was the estimated damage made by the falling debris
  
  [*] fires were unfought in wtc 1, 2, and 7 and ‘allegedly’ the sprinkler system was not working in wtc 1, 2, and 7; yet the steel in wtc 7 survived for 360 mins as opposed to 56 mins and 102 mins. Was the steel in wtc 7 super strong or was the steel in wtc 1 + 2 super weak? You choose Beachnut

•NIST’s claim that the floor trusses sagged 42+ inches has not been proven by a representative experiment.

Darn, I could see a floor fallen in the hole of the WTC. Seems like you pick a lot of things you got wrong out of the box. No, you lost this point too! You did not even try to get this one right.

Notice how Beachnut is unable to provide the only logical counter argument to my claim, namely - that NIST has proven through a representative experiment that the floor trusses sagged 42+ inches. Notice how Beachnut confuses the event-to-be-explained (i.e. fallen floor) with a representative experiment that proves the-explanation-for-that-event.

You know Beachnut I have also seen that sagging floor in the hole of the wtc but what I have not seen is a representative experiment that proves it sagged from fire and not some other cause. All is required is that we get a floor truss identical to the one in wtc then expose it to identical fires for an identical amount of time: then observe what happens.

•NIST’s claim that the fire proofing was widly dislogded has not been proven by a representative experiment

Oops. Yes it was! You missed the photo showing a lot of insulation dislodged. Widely dislodged, it was, but yes it was not widly.

[PHOTO OF JET IMPACT AND DEFLAGRATION] Dislodged. !

Notice again how Beachnut is unable to provide the only logical counter argument, namely - that NIST has proven through a representative experiment that the fireproofing was “widely dislodged”. Notice how Beachnut confuses the explanation-for-the-event (i.e. jet impact) with a representative experiment that proves the-explanation-for-that-event. Notice how Beachnut would kick my butt in a spelling competition but would lose in a rational debate.

According to NIST the impact deflagration was between 2 – 3psi for 0.5 to 2 seconds. Why not subject identical floor assemblies with identical fireproofing to a deflagration with an identical psi and time range: then observe what happens? As for the disintegrating plane removing all the fireproofing on 5 floors I just dont see how shooting a shotgun into a plywood box can prove this. Perhaps the ASTM E736, Standard Test Method for Cohesion/Adhesion of Sprayed Fire-Resistive Materials Applied to Structural Members would be a more relevant experiment to conduct.

•NIST admits that it was unable to explain the destruction of 4/5 intact structure below the imapct zone, so

No, they said it would fail after the top floor fell on the structure below. Sounds like you lack training in physics. You can go to school and catch up on this. You are also taking what NIST did and perverting it with your opinion and false ideas. Not too cool. Wrong again, trying to mislead others. Bad.

I’m sorry beachnut but when NIST say "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse", call me crazy but I tend to take them at their word.

“they said it would fail after the top floor fell on the structure below” – and if they said stick your hand in the fire...? but sarcasm aside I want NIST to prove what they say, to prove that the intact structure below could not arrest the smaller, weaker, and visibly disintegrating structure above. Dont you?

Perhaps you can give me just one example in the natural world when 1/5 of an oobject when dropped on the remainder of the same object - crushes it all, and then itself?

•Taken together the official hypothesis and the Total collapse remain unproven 7 years after the event

It has not been 7 years, it is the 7th year after, but only over 6 years. You seem challenges on the small points, maybe if you got some small points correct, you could shoot for getting a the big points less than totally wrong.

I was meant to say “nearly” 7 years later. But your right Beachnut – you slay me on the small points though even this small point will be right in 3 months!

Sorry, the collapse is proven. I have a video of it. Sad you have no evidence to go with your failed interpretation of NIST and what really happen on 9/11.

So NIST have proven the total collapse but they are unable to explain it?

You failed to get anything right. I suggest going to a 4 year college and taking engineering. If you are deficient in the subject areas needed to get into an Engineering school, run don't walk to the nearest junior college and get the needed subject out of the way now!

You have made a characteristically weak argument that refutes NONE of my "big" claims. Well done you should be proud. How many academic titles did you earn Beachnut?

It has been over 6 years, and you have nothing to show for it but failed ideas on 9/11. What will you do now?

I will continue to demonstrate and educate through rational dialogue that 911 was an inside job. What are you going to do about that Beachnut?

 

[thewholesoul]

Who were these dead people? The building had been evacuated before he got there. He never mentioned these dead people in earlier interviews where he said the lobby was destroyed and looked like king kong had trashed it. This was after the tower collapsed. They took him out a large hole in the wall around 12 noon IIRC.

You should try and refrain from posting PP junk links, it only makes you look silly

i look silly? your the one sticking you're hands over you're hears saying la la la la.

i posted the link to the interview. go watch it and shake that denial out of your eyes! he witnessed several explosions, and walked over dead bodies.

"who were these dead people?" - is this what you call debunking?

look there is another bbc hitpiece coming out in july. when they make their spin on his testimony get your pen and paper out so you'll have something better to say next time.

peace

 

[funk de fino]

So NIST have proven the total collapse but they are unable to explain it?

This is a mistake or a lie. They have explained it.

I will continue to demonstrate and educate through rational dialogue that 911 was an inside job. What are you going to do about that Beachnut?

What do you mean continue? You havent even started. Your posts are full of illogical assumptions and false statements.

 

[funk de fino]

i look silly? your the one sticking you're hands over you're hears saying la la la la.

i posted the link to the interview. go watch it and shake that denial out of your eyes! he witnessed several explosions, and walked over dead bodies.

"who were these dead people?" - is this what you call debunking?

look there is another bbc hitpiece coming out in july. when they make their spin on his testimony get your pen and paper out so you'll have something better to say next time.

peace

Yes, you look silly. You could have looked at his earlier claims and seen where he did not mention the dead people. You could have tried to get corroboration from Mike Hess. You could have checked if Barry really wants to put this interview out. You could check his timeline and see how it is wrong. You could check the interview and see his incorrect claims about whihc tower fell first. You could have.......done lots of things apart from making false claims on an internet board.

You wont though. Sad, very sad

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

•the molten metal pouring from south tower cannot possibly be molten aluminium but could possibly be molten iron

Why not?[/quote]

•the probabilty of three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved all failing on same day is very low

The probability of any event that happens is 1:1.
(my comments in bold)

• 
  [*] towers 1+2 were designed for jet impact and survived the impact as seen on television Yes, but you're neglecting the collateral effects of the impact. Also, it wasn't jet impact at that speeds as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
  
  
  [*] tower 7 was designed to survive the failure of three core columns and 10 perimeter columns which was the estimated damage made by the falling debris Citation?
  
  
  [*] fires were unfought in wtc 1, 2, and 7 and ‘allegedly’ the sprinkler system was not working in wtc 1, 2, and 7; yet the steel in wtc 7 survived for 360 mins as opposed to 56 mins and 102 mins. Was the steel in wtc 7 super strong or was the steel in wtc 1 + 2 super weak? You choose Beachnut Because it didn't have fireproofing knocked off via impact?

• 
  
  

  •NIST’s claim that the floor trusses sagged 42+ inches has not been proven by a representative experiment.

  
  There's also empirical evidence.
  
  

  •NIST’s claim that the fire proofing was widly dislogded has not been proven by a representative experiment

  
  .... Do you really need an experiment to demonstrate the obvious?
  
  
  
  

  Perhaps you can give me just one example in the natural world when 1/5 of an oobject when dropped on the remainder of the same object - crushes it all, and then itself?

  
  When you consider that most office builds are not one continuous mass and uh.. the falling debris weighs tons...
  
  

  •Taken together the official hypothesis and the Total collapse remain unproven 7 years after the event

  
  Uhhuh.
  
  

  I will continue to demonstrate and educate through rational dialogue that 911 was an inside job. What are you going to do about that Beachnut?

  
  When you actually have evidence, he might listen. I know I might.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But to answer more directly

• 
  [*] towers 1+2 were designed for jet impact and survived the impact as seen on television
  
  [*] tower 7 was designed to survive the failure of three core columns and 10 perimeter columns which was the estimated damage made by the falling debris
  Grizzly comment: Tower 7 only has 3 main vertical trusses supporting the upper 40 stories. As I stated earlier, even fireproofing has a time limit of about 3 hours maximum (as per required by building codes) to protect the structure, after which time the heat build up begins to reach a critical point. Figuring that the only protection the structure had was spray-insulation and not concrete, or any other more effective insulation, this seems to corroborate a fire-induced collapse even barring the structural damage. The critical failure based on the location of the collapse initiation originated in the same region that one of the 3 main vertical trusses was located at. Do the math 40 stories balanced on 3 trusses, and one gives way, that redistributes 1/3 more load to the other two.
  
  
  
  
  [*] fires were unfought in wtc 1, 2, and 7 and ‘allegedly’ the sprinkler system was not working in wtc 1, 2, and 7; yet the steel in wtc 7 survived for 360 mins as opposed to 56 mins and 102 mins. Was the steel in wtc 7 super strong or was the steel in wtc 1 + 2 super weak? You choose Beachnut

Bolded: WTC 1 & 2, you have a jet liner reap havoc on the interior of the towers, Gee that's hard to figure out. Plumbing isn't as resilient as structural steel. Assuming any of the sprinklers worked their effectivenesss was severely hampered by damage to the plumbing. WTC 7's water lines were vulnerable to failure at a single point, and the collapse of tower's 1 & 2 damaged water mains nearby.

Spray on Fireproofing has a protection rating of 3 hours, the tower had 8 hours to burn, what do you think happens when fire burns longer than the designated rating of the floor assembly?

When you consider that most office builds are not one continuous mass and uh.. the falling debris weighs tons...

He keeps telling me in response to my questions regarding that claim that he doesn't believe they were 'solid objects', but his responses continue to imply other wise...

 

[TexasJack]

I'm still waiting for a truther to adequately explain just how they pulled this CD operation off without anyone noticing a CD crew. Not one witness has come forward, not one perpetrator has said a word. You'd think at least one person with a conscience would come forward, or at least one person would have noticed suspicious activity. It's a gigantic secret, and as Ben Franklin said, "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead".

 

[lapman]

I'm still waiting for a truther to adequately explain just how they pulled this CD operation off without anyone noticing a CD crew. Not one witness has come forward, not one perpetrator has said a word. You'd think at least one person with a conscience would come forward, or at least one person would have noticed suspicious activity. It's a gigantic secret, and as Ben Franklin said, "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead".

Let's not forget that the sequence of explosions that would signify a CD is completely missing from all audio recordings. It's interesting that whenever you point this out, twoofers always fall back on the "people heard explosions" distraction.

 

[applecorped]

i look silly? your the one sticking you're hands over you're hears saying la la la la.

i posted the link to the interview. go watch it and shake that denial out of your eyes! he witnessed several explosions, and walked over dead bodies.

"who were these dead people?" - is this what you call debunking?

look there is another bbc hitpiece coming out in july. when they make their spin on his testimony get your pen and paper out so you'll have something better to say next time.
peace

If the BBC has something coming out in July then how do you know it is a hit piece? What is worrying you so much that you feel the need to attack something that isn't even out yet?

 

[thewholesoul]

Unfortunately I have to change that fickle mind of mine in light if new information. The propane torch used in Jones’ experiment did not reach 1995c after all instead it only reached 925c. Such a temperature (925c) is well within the temperature ranges recorded in the WTC rubble piles hence the nanothermite presumably would have reacted when exposed to temperatures 1500c and above. This in turn would generate heat and help maintain the high temperatures witnessed at the rubble pile.

I would also argue based on my earlier questions to you, which you can address in tandem with this, that the same would as well apply to any thermite prior to the collapse initiations.

Not at all. Unlike the unignited thermite randomly dispersed in the rubble pile the preplanted thermite would most likely have a remote fuse e.g. an electrical superthermite “match” could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal. http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

This regards issues with the metal flowing out of the 82nd floor of the WTC:
•Was the thermite charge that we supposedly see in that video 'dislodged' from where ever it was placed, and we just so happened to see it?
•or was it cutting the intended column?
•If the 1st is the case, then why do we see only one set of 'sparks' or charges? Clearly that shouldn't be the only one dislodged if that is the case. What claims can you make regarding other thermite charges?
•If the second is the case, and the thermite is cutting the intended column, then why do we see only one discharging? Clearly cutting a single exterior perimeter column does virtually nothing to violate the structural integrity. Why don't we see thousands of these going off?
•If your answer is that these thermite charges were located only within the core column grid, how do you connect it to the inward bowing perimeter columns 1st seen withing the 1st 20 minutes after the plane impacts?
•How did these thermite charges in the impact area survive the plane impacts? Were any dislodged?

Before I address the above I want to make two things clear. (1) the line of questioning above does not support the official hypothesis that the discharge from 82nd floor from south tower was molten aluminium.
(2) nor does it negate the visual identification between the molten discharge and a thermite reaction.

It is also worth noting that I could just as easily say – like you do on a growing number of occassions – that I am not qualified to answer these questions. But whats the fun in that?

So was the thermite charge accidentally dislodged? I doubt it. What dislodged it? The plane impacted the opposite side of the building and the reaction occured approximately 50+mins afterwards.

So was the thermite charge cutting an intended column? Assuming the molten metal was a thermite reaction and assuming it was located beside a column then yes it was cutting a column intentionally. It is a fact that just moments after the reaction the building began its descent and cutting vertical columns would assist in this process. But why do we see only one discharging on the north east corner and not elsewhere? Its a good question. My pennies worth is the following: a thermite incendary charge was positioned on the northeast corner to cut the outer perimeter (and perhaps some core columns?) in order to assist in the “toppling effect” we all witnessed. The “toppling effect” in my opinion was arranged to create an illusion of an asymetric-natural collapse.

There is also the possibility that the reaction was premature and was meant to have occured during the collapse and not before?

The following links address the queston as to where the thermite charges were positioned. http://www.physics911.net/thermite, http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=16&MMN_position=25:25,

How did the charges survive the impact? Presumably the terrorists who planned the event knew which direction the planes would enter the towers. With this information they could have placed the cutter charges on the blind side of the core columns. So columns that the plane did not cut through, the cutter charges would have remained and finished the job off later. Electrical matches are very resistant to friction, impact, and heat and would have insured that the ignition of the charges would have been unaffected even after the impact. See p96 http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf Remote ignition is used in demolitions.

Some argue that aluminosthermic explosions were timed for the impact of the planes and the white smoke as opposed to black sooty smoke plume is an indication of this http://www.zeitenschrift.net/news/sne-12207-911.ihtml
finally this idea with the inward bowing of the outer columns being caused by the sagging trusses connected to the core columns – can you direct me to the page in NIST`s final report where they have conducted representatuve experiments to PROVE this claim? Yes I can also see what appears to be inward bowing of outer columns but what I have not seen is an experiment to prove that fire and floor sagging was what caused it. Have you? Have you seen inward bowing in a building fire before?

So thats my answer grizzly.

As for the molten metal pouring out it is important to note that it was accompanied by “pressure pulses” and puffs of “white smoke”. Of course NIST has no explanation for this so I was just wondering what your will be? NIST (p. 412) (NCSTAR 1-5A): “the sources for the pressure pulses that created the wide-spread smoke and/or dust puffs observed on multiple faces of WTC 2 are unknown."

So – puffs of white smoke – pressure pulses – followed by molten metal flow: thermite reaction explains all of these observations. Whats your explanation?
peace

 

[thewholesoul]

a leaked NIST document reports "unusual" event just prior to collapse:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062508_unusual_event.htm

The report states, "At 4:38 p.m. all of the windows between 13-44A and 13-47C were open, and the fires responsible for opening the windows had died down to the point where they could no longer be observed."

"Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. The event that caused this unusual behavior has not been identified."

The report describes the nature of fires from floors 7-13 and also states, "With the exception of the fires on the 19th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors discussed at the start of this section, there is essentially no direct visual evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7."

any comments?

 

[DGM]

Thewholesoul:
Your quoting "prison planet". With all due respect I think the new baby isn't letting you get enough sleep. We'll let it slide this time but please get some rest and stop listening to Alex and Co.. (you'll get age lines and start looking like him, He's only 32 you know)

 

[funk de fino]

a leaked NIST document reports "unusual" event just prior to collapse:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062508_unusual_event.htm

The report states, "At 4:38 p.m. all of the windows between 13-44A and 13-47C were open, and the fires responsible for opening the windows had died down to the point where they could no longer be observed."

Doesnt say they had gone out

"Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. The event that caused this unusual behavior has not been identified."

Parts of the building collapsed inside it before the full collapse causing the east penthouse to fall inside. This may have caused it.

The report describes the nature of fires from floors 7-13 and also states, "With the exception of the fires on the 19th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors discussed at the start of this section, there is essentially no direct visual evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7."

any comments?

So there was direct visual evidence of fires on 17 floors? There may have been fires not visible on other floors? So much for small fires.

Also you missed this. You said this about the twins.

So NIST have proven the total collapse but they are unable to explain it?

This is a false statement. Please retract it. They explain the progressive collapse in the FAQs.