• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

thewholesoul said:
summary:
(1) truthers have stronger historical argument
(2) it both "looks" and at times "sounds" like a CD
(3) truthers have a stronger argumnet from probability
Click to expand...

Since you wish to debate the historical angle --- Can you provide an example of a steel framed skyscraper that was felled with a non-traditional controlled demolition while never being announced as a demo project AND while the building was on fire???

When debunkers look at the collapse of building 7, they are also thinking about the damage done to the building and the fires. They make note that two of the largest buildings in the world also collapsed on that day in the same complex. When debunkers hear hoof beats, they think horses, not zebras.

When you hear explosions during a chaotic time like 9/11 and you don't see a demo crew, fuses, blasting caps or any other demo materials, the person thinking logically wouldn't suspect controlled demolition was happening.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
the mainpoint is how it collapsed, not that it collapsed, oc buildings can collapse when they are on fire long enough, but normally those collapses dont look like a CD or WTC7.

to bring a building down that symmetrically and straight needs normaly a well calculated sequence of exploding well placed explosives, or it will not come down that straight.

and that is very very unlikely to happen in a fire. Especially when the building is onesided damaged.
Click to expand...

Show us proof of the bolded above and you may have a starting point to debate from. Audio or video.
 
NOVA: Why do the explosive charges go off at intervals rather than all at once?

SL: Well, if I kick both your legs out from under you, you're going to fall right on your butt. If I kick one leg out from under you, you'll fall left or right. So the way we control the failure of the building is by using the delays. And, again, that varies structure to structure and depending on where we want the building to go. A lot of people, when they see a building implosion, expect it to go into its own basement, which is not always what the contractor wants. Sometimes the contractor wants to lay the building out like a tree. And, sometime, we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings.

NOVA: How do you do that?

SL: Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done.
Click to expand...

link
 
4 Molten steel was found under the rubble of all three buildings inculding 7. here you will find at least 17 witnesses to this fact http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/200...metal-under-ground-zero-for-months-after-911/ I could find more testimony if i bothered doing a little more research.

We know it was molten steel and not molten alumium by the reddish orange colour of the material. Bottom line is that Molten steel cannot be explained by a gravity collapse from a “normal office fire”. Hence the presence of molten steel beneath tower 7 is evidence that something other than an office fire could have brought 7 down.

The fact that NIST simply deny the existence of molten steel should be a red flag for any objective minded person. Watch the lying snake oil salesman in action: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY

5. New York Times, November 29. 2001. Engineers were baffled over what caused steel to evaporate. Normal office fires cannot not cause steel to melt let alone evaporate. This fact is evidence that something other than normal office fires caused structural failure of the core columns in 7.

The following s a statement from Dr. Barnett from FEMA

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
Click to expand...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/engineers_are_baffled_over_the_collapse_of_7_wtc.html

For those who dont know
max temperature of a hydrocarbon fire is 825ºC (1517ºF)
melting point of typical structural steel 1510ºC (2750ºF)
temperatures required for steel to evaporate is around 2650 C (5000 F)

like molten steel debunkers must deny the existence of evaporated steel because there is NO EXPLANATION for such phenomena in the context of the offical theory.

6 Thermate reactions can melt and evaporate steel. Professor steven jones conducted tests on the dust samples at ground zero and he found iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese. The aforementioned chemicals are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate.

Thermite can explain why there were molten pools of iron at the bottom of the wtc wreckages for up to 3 months. Thermite with sulphur will continue to react with iron for weeks in an oxygen starved environment and will keep it molten. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water.

an underground fire fueled by normal office contents cannot explain the molten pools burning for three months.

7 Barry Jennings and Mike Hesh both experienced explosion(s) INSIDE wtc 7 on the 6th floor and lobby BEFORE any tower collasped. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc4zi6epQfI The fact these explosions occured before the towers collapsed is establushed here in the port authority ploice reports page 79 last paragraph: www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports01.pdf

Anyone with an objective mind after listening to the testimony of Jennings and Hesh should arrive at the conclusion that wtc 7 was a CD because they is no other rational explanation for the explosions he experienced other than “exploives.”

Summary:
(4) the existence of molten steel is denied by NIST because it cannot be explained in the context of the official story
(5) the evaporation of steel cannot be explained by the official story
(6) molten pools of steel and the evaporation of steel can be explained by thermite reactions
(7) there is no plausible explanation for the testimony of Jennings and Hesh in the context of the official story

1-7 taken cumulatively strongly support the CD hypothesis, they refute the offical hypothesis, and at the very least demand that a new independent investigation take place.

peace
 
thewholesoul said:
correct and it will never end until a new independent investigation is established and those guilty face justice.
Click to expand...

No, it will never end until fools like Jones understand that they have no idea what they are talking about and are laughed at by the vast majority of REAL experts from around the world.
 
Last edited:
thewholesoul said:
4 Molten steel was found under the rubble of all three buildings inculding 7. here you will find at least 17 witnesses to this fact http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/200...metal-under-ground-zero-for-months-after-911/ I could find more testimony if i bothered doing a little more research.

We know it was molten steel and not molten alumium by the reddish orange colour of the material. Bottom line is that Molten steel cannot be explained by a gravity collapse from a “normal office fire”. Hence the presence of molten steel beneath tower 7 is evidence that something other than an office fire could have brought 7 down.

The fact that NIST simply deny the existence of molten steel should be a red flag for any objective minded person. Watch the lying snake oil salesman in action: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY

5. New York Times, November 29. 2001. Engineers were baffled over what caused steel to evaporate. Normal office fires cannot not cause steel to melt let alone evaporate. This fact is evidence that something other than normal office fires caused structural failure of the core columns in 7.

The following s a statement from Dr. Barnett from FEMA

http://www.prisonplanet.com/engineers_are_baffled_over_the_collapse_of_7_wtc.html

For those who dont know
max temperature of a hydrocarbon fire is 825ºC (1517ºF)
melting point of typical structural steel 1510ºC (2750ºF)
temperatures required for steel to evaporate is around 2650 C (5000 F)

like molten steel debunkers must deny the existence of evaporated steel because there is NO EXPLANATION for such phenomena in the context of the offical theory.

6 Thermate reactions can melt and evaporate steel. Professor steven jones conducted tests on the dust samples at ground zero and he found iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese. The aforementioned chemicals are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate.

Thermite can explain why there were molten pools of iron at the bottom of the wtc wreckages for up to 3 months. Thermite with sulphur will continue to react with iron for weeks in an oxygen starved environment and will keep it molten. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water.

an underground fire fueled by normal office contents cannot explain the molten pools burning for three months.

7 Barry Jennings and Mike Hesh both experienced explosion(s) INSIDE wtc 7 on the 6th floor and lobby BEFORE any tower collasped. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc4zi6epQfI The fact these explosions occured before the towers collapsed is establushed here in the port authority ploice reports page 79 last paragraph: www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports01.pdf

Anyone with an objective mind after listening to the testimony of Jennings and Hesh should arrive at the conclusion that wtc 7 was a CD because they is no other rational explanation for the explosions he experienced other than “exploives.”

Summary:
(4) the existence of molten steel is denied by NIST because it cannot be explained in the context of the official story
(5) the evaporation of steel cannot be explained by the official story
(6) molten pools of steel and the evaporation of steel can be explained by thermite reactions
(7) there is no plausible explanation for the testimony of Jennings and Hesh in the context of the official story

1-7 taken cumulatively strongly support the CD hypothesis, they refute the offical hypothesis, and at the very least demand that a new independent investigation take place.

peace
Click to expand...



Do a forum search for the points you have above.
All the points you raised have been dealt with before.
None of them are problematic.
Several of them are outright false.
 
thewholesoul said:
correct and it will never end until a new independent investigation is established and those guilty face justice.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It will continue while the intellectually challenged people such as your self refuse to even attempt to acquire basic research skills. Until then, people like you will post:
The fact that NIST simply deny the existence of molten steel should be a red flag for any objective minded person.
Click to expand...
While blatantly ignoring the fact that the UNCONFIRMED "molten steel" which was not present before the collapse has nothing to do with the collapse initiation, therefore has nothing to do with what NIST was investigating.

AND
Thermate reactions can melt and evaporate steel. Professor steven jones conducted tests on the dust samples at ground zero and he found iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese. The aforementioned chemicals are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate.
Click to expand...
While ignoring the fact that Dr. Jones has abandoned the thermate fallacy.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Uso9sCOakEQ
Click to expand...
Um, "radios exploding" is not the same as explosives exploding. His ONLY indication that anything was happening was the radio chatter and NOTHING ELSE. He says very specifically at around 2:30 that he had no idea what was going on until he looked at the building and it started collapsing. As the Landmark implosion video you posted shows, he would have heard the explosion sequence PRIOR to the start of the collapse. You have just debunked yourself.
 
lapman said:
Um, "radios exploding" is not the same as explosives exploding. His ONLY indication that anything was happening was the radio chatter and NOTHING ELSE. He says very specifically at around 2:30 that he had no idea what was going on until he looked at the building and it started collapsing. As the Landmark implosion video you posted shows, he would have heard the explosion sequence PRIOR to the start of the collapse. You have just debunked yourself.
Click to expand...

i think you should listen again to his words :)
 
Dictator Cheney said:
i think you should listen again to his words :)
Click to expand...
No, you should. Listen again. He only hears the "thump, thump, thump" while he is running away from the building AFTER the collapse started. Listen again. The only time he mentions "explosion" prior to the collapse, he is talking about the radio chatter and nothing else.
 
Last edited:
thewholesoul said:
correct and it will never end until a new independent investigation is established and those guilty face justice.
Click to expand...

Better get started on that investigation. You may want to find answers to these questions:

1. Why blow up a heavily damaged building that would have to be destroyed anyway?
2. If the explosives were put in place before 9/11, why didn't anyone in the building notice? If they were put there on 9/11, why didn't the firefighters notice?
3. How did the explosives survive six hours of fire?
4. How does thermite or explosives explain molten metal better than underground fires, given that both have short-term effects, and the metal would have had to remain molten for a long time?

As we have noted many times before, the notion of a secret destruction of WTC7 is preposterous. It would have been an extremely difficult operation to pull off, was almost guaranteed to fail, and hundreds of people would have had to keep their mouths shut for years afterwards.

What was so important about blowing up WTC7 that it was worth risking the exposure of the whole operation?

And please don't say, "that's why we need a new investigation". If you want to throw away your money looking into this foolishness, that's your business. Not a dime of taxpayer money should be wasted on it.
 
Next time I fall down I will have to remember it was a, CD.
What a bunch of junk. Why is 9/11 truth so much a failure? Lack of knowledge.
 
BTW, DC, how are you doing on finding the silent CDs that have been done before or since 9/11?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom