How WTC 7 was pulled down

[Furcifer]

Your point?

This is news?

MM

Your own statements suggest the lack of explosives. Those close enough to hear it would have felt it, the rest should have recorded it.

Either way this always reduces back down to some magic silent explosives that don't exist and were never found.

It's no wonder, because it's been shown time and time again that explosives weren't needed. Let a fire burn long enough to severely weaken the structure and let gravity take over.

 

[kylebisme]

Oxford's English Dictionary defines Wishful Thinking as: maintaining the belief for 9 years that the US government or its agents managed to demolish 3 buildings in a controlled manner infront of thousands of eye witnesses without them suspecting a thing.

Rather, a good example of wishful thinking maintaining the belief impact damage and fires brought the buildings down, despite the fact that even 9 years later nobody has come anywhere close presenting a model to exemplify as much, neither for WTC 7 or the towers. Another good example of wishful thinking is imagining that none of the witness suspected the buildings were brought down with explosives, even though many did, first responder Craig Bartmer being one notable example:

I can look at the video evidence however and determine that the ejecta was not traveling at super sonic speed and from that determine it wasn't explosives being set off.

That's wishful thinking too.

I can't prove it wasn't sky pixies either; what's your point, caller?

I wasn't asking you to prove a negative, but rather pointing out the ongoing inability of anyone to prove a building could come down anything like WTC 7 did without columns being intentionally and systematically severed, and the same goes for the towers.

And are you familiar with Van Rijn's invisible elf?

After a taking moment with Google I am familiar with his claim, and its just as unsubstantiated as the official story for how the WTC buildings came down.

Those close enough to hear it would have felt it, the rest should have recorded it.

And there are both witness and recordings which attest to both, some of which I've presented in this thread.

It's no wonder, because it's been shown time and time again that explosives weren't needed.

What do you believe best supports this claim, in regard to either WTC 7 or the towers?

 

[Furcifer]

Rather, a good example of wishful thinking maintaining the belief impact damage and fires brought the buildings down, despite the fact that even 9 years later nobody has come anywhere close presenting a model to exemplify as much, neither for WTC 7 or the towers.

"Model or it didn't happen", that's a quaint notion conspiracy nuts made up. That's not how things work, I'm sorry you don't understand this yet.

edit: Sorry, none of the debris coming from the WTC during the collapse was moving anywhere near what would be expected if it was due to explosives. That's irrefutable.

As for the need for explosives, it's been established by several sources that once the upper section began to fall gravity would have been sufficient to perpetuate it. Explosives amount to a fart in the wind, peeing in the ocean. Pointless and inconsequential.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yep, explosives are one way to sever columns to make a building come down as quickly and completely as WTC 7 did, and I've provided multiple recordings from around WTC 7 which document bangs throughout the day, and witness reports of such to too.

Not all that quickly, then?

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

...Yep, explosives are one way to sever columns to make a building come down as quickly and completely as WTC 7 did, and I've provided multiple recordings from around WTC 7 which document bangs throughout the day, and witness reports of such to too. But again, you can't provide even a single example to support the notion that a building without any such systematic severing of columns could come down anything like WTC 7 did, can you?

Not all that quickly, then?

Dave

...amazing how often they "debunk" themselves and don't even realise it.

...don't even understand their own posts.

 

[triforcharity]

LOL!!! Wow.....Just......Wow.....

Wait, so this guy claims it came down quickly, then, in the VERY SAME POST< says it took ALL DAY to come down.

Well, 7 hours might be quick if he was running an Ironman Triatholon, but not for a building collapse....

 

[ozeco41]

LOL!!! Wow.....Just......Wow.....

Wait, so this guy claims it came down quickly, then, in the VERY SAME POST< says it took ALL DAY to come down.

Well, 7 hours might be quick if he was running an Ironman Triatholon, but not for a building collapse....

New one on me, and unknown to the Aussie Army Engineers who trained me in demolition.

(But that was "X" years ago where "X" is longer than I care to think about. )

So we now have an explosive that goes "bang" early in the day then actually cuts the steel with delayed action some hours later.

As a military engineer I would prefer it to cut the steel now and let out the bang later - give the soldiers time to get away from the site covertly.

Still I suppose that version will come in the Mark 11 models.

 

[kylebisme]

"Model or it didn't happen", that's a quaint notion conspiracy nuts made up.

Rather, testing a hypothesis through experiment is a fundamental principle of the scientific method, and is what NIST claims to have done with their model, yet they've proven unwilling to even show their video of their model comming down to demonstrate as much.

Sorry, none of the debris coming from the WTC during the collapse was moving anywhere near what would be expected if it was due to explosives. That's irrefutable.

No, that's supposition.

....once the upper section began to fall gravity would have been sufficient to perpetuate it.

More supposition, completely unsupported by experiment.

Not all that quickly, then?

Again; far quicker, and more completely, than any such building coming down as a result of impact damage and/or fires.

Edit: Doh, missed this:

So we now have an explosive that goes "bang" early in the day then actually cuts the steel with delayed action some hours later.

Rather, multiple explosives. some earlier in the day severing some columns, leaving the building bulging as it remained held up by the rest of the columns, and then finial sequence of explosives taking those columns, and WTC 7 came down quickly after that.

 

[triforcharity]

Again; far quicker, and more completely, than any such building coming down as a result of impact damage and/or fires.

Argument from personal ignorance. Cite your source for this knowledge, or admit you pulled that nugget from your ass....

 

[triforcharity]

Edit: Doh, missed this:


Rather, multiple explosives. some earlier in the day severing some columns, leaving the building bulging as it remained held up by the rest of the columns, and then finial sequence of explosives taking those columns and the building coming down quickly after that.

And not one consistant it timing and brisance of an explosive capable of cutting a core column.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Rather, multiple explosives. some earlier in the day severing some columns, leaving the building bulging as it remained held up by the rest of the columns, and then finial sequence of explosives taking those columns, and WTC 7 came down quickly after that.

Witness statements never confirmed that explosives were used. It's their word against yours.

The likely chance of you proving that explosives were used is 1 in 1,000.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

In a natural collapse the building's columns would have sagged, gently relaxing as they set the building onto the structure below. I know, because Richard Gage says so. No, it doesn't matter whether the column buckles or not, its strength is the same, it should have offered incredible resistance!!!

[/sarcasm]

 

[DGM]

In a natural collapse the building's columns would have sagged, gently relaxing as they set the building onto the structure below. I know, because Richard Gage says so. No, it doesn't matter whether the column buckles or not, its strength is the same, it should have offered incredible resistance!!!

[/sarcasm]

I'm thinking you forgot to add the "smilies".

 

[kylebisme]

And not one consistant it timing and brisance of an explosive capable of cutting a core column.

I cite everyone here, as none of you have even come close to presenting an example to refute my argument.

 

[triforcharity]

You haven't provided any evidence of an explosive capable of cutting a core column. Care to do so?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm thinking you forgot to add the "smilies".

I didn't want to spoil it so quick but....


[ invisible ][/sarcasm][ /invisible ]
at the bottom

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I cite everyone here, as none of you have even come close to presenting an example to refute my argument.

I hate to be a smartass, but you never had an arguement to begin with!

 

[DGM]

I hate to be a smartass

No you don't!

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No you don't!

You're right, I don't hate to be a smartass. I just am! LOL!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Rather, testing a hypothesis through experiment is a fundamental principle of the scientific method, and is what NIST claims to have done with their model, yet they've proven unwilling to even show their video of their model comming down to demonstrate as much.

Scientific method:

Observations:
Fire was observed in WTC 7 after WTC 1 collapsed on it

Fire burns for 7 hours unfought, and uncontrolled

Explosions reported during the event

Step 2:
Take into account the construction of the building: Steel frame, long spans, unconventional framing system

Examine Thermitics: Were any brilliant sparkles obsrved? No such thing observed or reported

Examine explosions: Any 140 DB sequential sounds recorded in the entire duration of the event by camera in and around the vicinity. No such thing observed or reported

ANy damage consistent with bombs? None found

Determine whether or not fires can cause materials to explode? Yes
Most likely source: fires

Check the steel properties tables and determine the circumstances in which weakening or instability in the structure might initiate.

Observe the collapse: Initiation point? Interior
Progresses from the east side to the west side, before enough structure fails to render the building too unstable to continue standing.

Conclusion: Any characteristics of "controlled demolition" are purely cosmetic, and given a lack of any evidence to suggest otherwise, the hypothesis questioning about the possible use of explosive charges to cut the beams and columns is found to be insignificant according to the scientific method.

Evidence points to WTC 7 being a classic case of progressive collapse, and initiated due to a scenario that was completely unforeseen at the time in which the building was being planned and engineered for construction.