• 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.

Some simple Tower 7 questions

Trigood said:
Veeerrrry interesting story. Do you know if anyone did anything to hasten the collapse, or if it just fell down? If the latter, then it's really, really lucky the building was evacuated when it was. Live loads might have made it collapse sooner, with tragic results.
Click to expand...

As far as we knew, no one did anything significant to it; but that was also the week that our three artillery batteries were live-firing; the resulting shockwaves could have been the last straw.

That was the same week my favorite coffee mug jumped off a shelf and shattered.

Artillery is rough on the fragile world...
 
zaayrdragon said:
As far as we knew, no one did anything significant to it; but that was also the week that our three artillery batteries were live-firing; the resulting shockwaves could have been the last straw.

That was the same week my favorite coffee mug jumped off a shelf and shattered.

Artillery is rough on the fragile world...
Click to expand...
Makes sense!
 
GlennB said:
No it isn't.

That photo was taken in the afternoon. The light grey smoke from dead centre of that photo is from GZ, the bulk of the dark smoke is from WTC7

Compare with :

[qimg]http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7smokemajor.jpg[/qimg]

"minor fires on a few floors" my arse
Click to expand...

If you look you can see dark smoke rising from the partially collapsed building in front of tower 7.
 
Submersible said:
If you look you can see dark smoke rising from the partially collapsed building in front of tower 7.
Click to expand...
and if you blow up the picture 20 times, zoom in on the second window from the left, solarize and find edges, and kinda squint a bit you can see george bush planting the explosives that brought wtc7 down
 
maccy said:
Do you really think it's reasonable to compare the fire in a small wooden building photographed at night with a fire in a very large metal, glass and concrete building photographed in bright sunshine and producing large amounts of thick black smoke (from diesel)?

Also, why do say that the steel has to melt in order to cause collapse?

If you're going to bring thermite into it please explain:

1. where thermite has been used to demolish buildings before;

2. how much thermite would be needed to demolish WTC 7;

3. how the thermite would be placed in the building and kept secret;

4. how that thermite would be detonated;

5. how the thermite could be made to cut vertical steel columns; and

6. if you're claiming molten metal at WTC7 and that it was caused by thermite, please specify:
a. a source for the molten metal, including when it was found;
b. what type of metal it is, and why you think this;
c. an estimate of the temperature of the metal, please show how you reached this estimate;
d. the amount of heat energy required to keep the metal at this temperature for the period that it was buried;
e. the amount of heat you would expect the rubble to trap - ie the quality of the insulation; and, from this
f. the amount of thermite required to generate this energy and the period over which it would have to burn.

As well as everything you've been recommended so far, I urge to look at this article about WTC7:

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

and, preferably, these supporting articles about the World Trade Center in general:

http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html

Please also bear in mind that we don't have a full detailed account of what happened at WTC7 as yet - that will come in the final NIST report.
Click to expand...

Two things,
first,
all it would take to surround the columns with thermite would be clay pots, they could be placed around the base of the main support columns, filled with thermite and ignited with a simple ignition source.

According to Gravy's toilet paper it would be impossible to do so without being noticed. Apparently he doesn't get from behind his computer often.
Consider this, you take pre-molded 100gal clay pots that are molded in half parts, place both sides around a column and strap them together, fill them with 50 gal of thermite and attach an ignition source.

basically it would boil down to surrounding and melting a support column in a 4000 degree pot of boiling liquid hot enough to melt the reinforced steel.

And as far as the NIST is concerned, let's make one thing perfectly clear.


The USG /NIST destroyed all of the evidence from the world's biggest and most important crime scene, so only an IDIOT would turn to the USG/NIST for factual information concerning the events in this case.

But that's what most of you refer to as the "official reports" .. because that's all you have to support your "claims".
eventho' no physical evidence remains because a different govermental agency destroyed/recycled all of the structural evidence from the scene.

It's about like approaching a murder suspect in court where a crime scene and a victims body doesn't exist, and turning to the only suspect in the case to act as the prosecution.
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
So the amount of smoke doesn't depend at all on what's burning and how complete the combustion is, just how big the fire is?

STRAWMAN! Chief Palmer was referring to the 78th floor, the lowest floor to receive any direct damage. It was impacted only by the tip of a wing. The bulk of the fire was higher up.
Click to expand...


The amount of the smoke is a direct reflection on the contents of the fire and the amount of O2 allowed to be introduced to the flame, as well as the fire's ability to ventillate. A fire can actually suffocate itself if it does not produce enough heat to burn through whatever surroundings contain it. I've seen this happen many times, unfortunately it generates enough heat and toxic gasses to kill whoever is inside of the structure. (A young woman I used to date and her two young children died from smoke inhalation inside a structure that was found to be burned long after the fire started, more than 24hrs after their death)


Here is an explanation about the fire tetrahedron that should explain most of your questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_triangle
http://www.matchrockets.com/fire/firemain.html
 
Bell said:
*sigh*

I really didn't want to comment on Das Boat's comment, but what the hell...
Lookit here, where's the 78th floot?

[qimg]http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-5fd/6-32_wtc2-northeast-corner-exit.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Apparently from the image you posted, one of the FUEL FILLED wings hit the 79th floor, so the fuel would have been burning on that floor as well.
And please, don't say that if there aren't flames showing from the outside windows that there isn't a massive fire burning inside.... because that is exactly what I am trying to show.

I have one question, from the image you posted, what could have penetrated tower 7 and broken two elevator shafts... when the airplaines didn't have the impact ability to destroy the EXTERNAL structural integrity of the tower shown in that image?? ??????????????????????

DID YOU COVER THAT BIG GRAVY ??

HELLO !!!!

Debris from tower 1 flew across tower 6 and destroyed the structural integrity of tower 7... when the airplane that struck tower 2 didn't have enough impact strength to destroy the facia supports on tower 2??

or is that an image of the "external wound" created from the airplane strike on tower 2??????????
 
Last edited:
Submersible said:
Apparently from the image you posted, one of the FUEL FILLED wings hit the 79th floor, so the fuel would have been burning on that floor as well.
And please, don't say that if there aren't flames showing from the outside windows that there isn't a massive fire burning inside.... because that is exactly what I am trying to show.

I have one question, from the image you posted, what could have penetrated tower 7 and broken two elevator shafts... when the airplaines didn't have the impact ability to destroy the EXTERNAL structural integrity of the tower shown in that image?? ??????????????????????

DID YOU COVER THAT BIG GRAVY ??

HELLO !!!!

Debris from tower 1 flew across tower 6 and destroyed the structural integrity of tower 7... when the airplane that struck tower 2 didn't have enough impact strength to destroy the facia supports on tower 2??

or is that an image of the "external wound" created from the airplane strike on tower 2??????????
Click to expand...

:confused:

I have no idea what you're trying to say?
 
Submersible, if you wanted to coverup your planning of a major terror operation, would you:

1. Use paper shredders/sledgehammers/fire to destroy documents and hard drives contained in the planning building?
2. Set the building on fire, CD it at a later time after deeming it a total loss - a less suspicious method of blowing the building up if thats what your heart is set on.
3. Blow up your building in broad daylight while the whole world was watching, possibly having the planning papers fall innoncently onto the street below for anyone to pick up. Then payoff and intimidate all ASCE members(or hope they dont care)?

Look forward to your answer...
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
I referred you to the many pages of those accounts in the paper I wrote.

I'm very, very sorry that you think the NIST report on the WTC firefighting operations is a waste of time.

If you missed it before, this is what I compare the NIST report to...
A murder suspect who is expected to act as the prosecution in his own murder trial, where NO crime scene or murder victim exist.. AND the court is of the understanding that HE is responsible for destroying ALL of the evidence that could be presented in the case.
So it's not only a waste of time, it is downright IGNORANCE for a rational person to consider that the USG/NIST reports would contain "factual" information. If each building didn't collapse, as one of the three most unexplainable MIRACLES in the world.. then they were part of a somewhat SIMPLE operation that could have easily been conducted by ANYONE who had unlimited access to the buildings prior to their collapse.

Just trolling then, submersible?

I'm not the one who keeps promoting my toilet paper to people who ask questions that you can't answer. I'm sure you didn't read or consider what I posted a minute ago... but I gave a brief and simple explanation to something your "paper" claimed would be impossible. Placing a thermite "harness" around a support beam would take all of two minutes.



By the way, I'm quite familiar with Alex Jones' position on the FDNY and WTC 7. We had a little dust-up about it at Ground Zero. About me, Jones says,
“See, guys, this is all ‘straw man.’ We never said the firemen were involved. He just claimed we said it. He’s a liar! That’s what liars do. They build straw men.”

You did the same thing to me

“Just like you heard it: he claimed we blamed the firemen. We never said that. He just made it up.”

This is part of your reply to me "Then come back here and blame the FDNY if you're that stupid."

“He blamed us for saying the firefighters were in on it.”

“He’s claiming I blame firefighters. ...And none of it’s true.”

“He set the subject, he made up that we blame the firefighters.”


Alex Jones’ PrisonPlanet.com headline:
Silverstein, FDNY Decided to “Pull WTC 7”

Prisonplanet.com headline:
People Died in WTC 7: This Makes Silverstein and the FDNY Guilty of AT LEAST Manslaughter

Alex Jones’ Infowars.com headline:
“World Trade Center 7 Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY And Others”

By the way, no one died at WTC 7. Jones got that wrong, too.

You continue to act like a little child with his fingers in his ears, submersible. Read the material I referred you to, then return with your specific objections. If you can't do at least that, then you're just trolling. It isn't mature to play games with a subject this serious.
Click to expand...


I won't call you any names, but I'll just say that I am SHOCKED that you've copy/pasted a report that people in this forum refer to as "informational" , much less as FACTS. You want me to read the material you referred me to , but your head is too far up your ass to notice that I keep telling you that you've referred me to the WRONG source.
That's all I have to say, I almost feel stupid for responding to you since you've ignored or failed to respond to every question I've asked you directly.
Maybe your too high and might
Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Membership Agreement removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Submersible said:
According to Gravy's toilet paper it would be impossible to do so without being noticed. Apparently he doesn't get from behind his computer often.
Consider this, you take pre-molded 100gal clay pots that are molded in half parts, place both sides around a column and strap them together, fill them with 50 gal of thermite and attach an ignition source.
Click to expand...



I'm sorry, are you saying no one would notice if you strapped 380 litres of thermite inside a clay pot to EACH column?

That's the stupidest thing I have heard all week.

-Gumboot
 
Submersible said:
I have one question, from the image you posted, what could have penetrated tower 7 and broken two elevator shafts... when the airplaines didn't have the impact ability to destroy the EXTERNAL structural integrity of the tower shown in that image?? ??????????????????????
Click to expand...


Er... WTC1 fell on it. You know, the 110 floor skyscraper?

-Gumboot
 
Submersible said:
Two things,

The USG /NIST destroyed all of the evidence from the world's biggest and most important crime scene, so only an IDIOT would turn to the USG/NIST for factual information concerning the events in this case.

But that's what most of you refer to as the "official reports" .. because that's all you have to support your "claims".
eventho' no physical evidence remains because a different govermental agency destroyed/recycled all of the structural evidence from the scene.

It's about like approaching a murder suspect in court where a crime scene and a victims body doesn't exist, and turning to the only suspect in the case to act as the prosecution.
Click to expand...
He got that wrong also. LOL!
There's still lots of steel at Hanger 17
http://www.amny.com/news/local/groundzero/
 
Submersible said:
I won't call you any names,
Click to expand...

... then Das Boat continues ...

but I'll just say that I am SHOCKED that you've copy/pasted a report that people in this forum refer to as "informational" , much less as FACTS. You want me to read the material you referred me to , but your head is too far up your ass to notice that I keep telling you that you've referred me to the WRONG source.
That's all I have to say, I almost feel stupid for responding to you since you've ignored or failed to respond to every question I've asked you directly.
Maybe your too high and might
Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Membership Agreement removed.
.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gumboot said:
I'm sorry, are you saying no one would notice if you strapped 380 litres of thermite inside a clay pot to EACH column?

That's the stupidest thing I have heard all week.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

What? Why?

He's only talking about strapping 50 gal clay pots onto column (which you'll have to expose first), and filling them with 3300 lbs of thermite. Who would notice that? You could do it in one trip! If anyone asks about the pots say they're for geraniums!

Me, I'd use 10 lbs of linear shaped charge and a 5-lb TNT kicker, but that would take all week and a team of 10. You need to be discrete, people!
 
Gumboot
Facts about WTC you fail to mention:

1) Inspection prior to 9/11 indicated fire proofing was well below standard, and on the floor with the enormous fuel tanks it was practically non-existant.

This doesn't explain what contents could have been placed around the steel columns to heat them enough to weaken their structural integrity, or how that heat could have been directed towards the beams instead of straight up.

2) WTC7 was severly damaged in the collapse of WTC1, especially on the south face. Fire fighters reported an enormous 20-floor gash. This gash was deep enough into the structure to dislodge two elevator cars from their shafts and send them smashing into the lobby. (The elevators in WTC7 were all gathered about the core).


What could have caused those fires ??

ISN"T IT IRONIC that there were no fires reported and no structural failure reported in tower 5 or 6 eventho' they were directly underneath tower 1&2 as they collapsed??????

3) Intense fires raged across multiple floors for most of the day, and these fires remained unfought by FDNY.

I for one, would appreciate one image or one second of video tape that shows an "intense fire". Much like I would appreciate seeing an image of the airplane that struck the pentagon.

4) The building was reported as leaning on an angle, and confirmed by measurement.

Who reported this?
And WHY would any of you consider anything you've read to be "factual", when all of it would have to be dismissed if you consider ANY of these reports?

5) Rather than collapse straight down, the building fell backwards, badly damaging 30 West Broadway.


What do you expect, the falling debris from tower 1 jumped tower 6 and caused all of the damage you see in this image.
fig-5-16.jpg

(supposedly the explanation of why there were contents surrounding the support beams, with the ability to not only burn but direct their heat towards them for an extended period of time.
 
gumboot said:
I'm sorry, are you saying no one would notice if you strapped 380 litres of thermite inside a clay pot to EACH column?

That's the stupidest thing I have heard all week.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Plus wire up some sort of detonator.

And contrive of some way for the thermite in the fire zones not ignite.

And, in WTC1 and 2, time the thermite ignitions so tha collapse proceeded from the impact zone down.

In WTC7, cause a partial weakening of the structure so that the East Penthouse desended and a big kink appeared in the roof 5-6s before the building collpased.

And rely on something that has never been used to demolish buildings before to demolish 3 buildings larger than any building that has ever been demolished at all without using the normal controlled demolition techniques of removing internal walls and pre-weakening supports.

It's obvious really, but the 200 engineers employed by NIST (many of them on freelance contracts) cooked a story to cover all of this up because they were told to. And the rest of the world is either to stupid to notice or paid off.

Because it's easy to buy people's silence about your involvement in the murder of 3,000 people.

Much easier than, say, keeping the details of nuclear weapons technology out of the hands of the USSR. Or funding the Contras by selling weapons to Iran and not getting caught. Or bugging a hotel.

Damn, those things are hard!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom