WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition

Terral said:
Shaped charges are explained here where you can see that any of 1000 different explosive types can be utilized. Thermate as an ‘explosive’ is described by Dr. Steven Jones here.
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
GL, Terral
Click to expand...
Super dumb post Terral. The site you cite shows cuts made after 9/11. BUSTED Is that your web site, it is a very dumb web site. Not one thing right.

So far all the web sites you cite debunk your ideas. You must not be very good at making up stuff, it is all pure lies.

Jones made all his stuff up. If you post Jones' stuff, you are pre BUSTED.
 
Last edited:
You Guys Crack A 911Truther Up. :0)

Hi ElMondo:

ElMondo >> He implies the fires were small and/or limited i.e. "a few building fires". On the contrary, these fires covered multiple acres and were severe:
Click to expand...


Terral does not require so many words to show ElMondo here is full of it. This picture from this website shows WTC-7 in full freefall mode ‘and’ we see no sign of FIRE (heh) anywhere. The typical Loyal Bushie Inside-Job response is, “But the fire was on the other side of the building.” Then my reply is, “Thank you for helping make my point, because WTC-7 fell ‘symmetrically’ and your fire side should have fallen first.” :0)

ElMondo >> On top of that, Terral is completely ignoring the structural damage from the Twin Towers falling on it:
Click to expand...


WTC-7 is 350 feet away from WTC-1 that fell earlier that morning and we already saw pictures of WTC-7 collapsing with NO SIGNS of fire at all. Now you want to say that falling WTC-1 debris caused the WTC-7 collapse? :0) Just what kind of DEBRIS is going to knock down an overbuilt 47-story cotton picking skyscraper from 350 feet away? Oh, the 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals devised the perfect plan . . . and knocked down WTC-7 by using WTC-1 debris. :0)

BTW, the :0) smiley faces are added, because most everything from the other side of this debate simply cracks a 911Truther up . . .

GL,

Terral
 
Last edited:
Terral said:
Hi ElMondo:




Terral does not require so many words to show ElMondo here is full of it. This picture from this website shows WTC-7 in full freefall mode ‘and’ we see no sign of FIRE (heh) anywhere. The typical Loyal Bushie Inside-Job response is, “But the fire was on the other side of the building.” Then my reply is, “Thank you for helping make my point, because WTC-7 fell ‘symmetrically’ and your fire side should have fallen first.” :0)




WTC-7 is 350 feet away from WTC-1 that fell earlier that morning and we already saw pictures of WTC-7 collapsing with NO SIGNS of fire at all. Now you want to say that falling WTC-1 debris caused the WTC-7 collapse? :0) Just what kind of DEBRIS is going to knock down an overbuilt 47-story cotton picking skyscraper from 350 feet away? Oh, the 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals devised the perfect plan . . . and knocked down WTC-7 by using WTC-1 debris. :0)

BTW, the :0) smiley faces are added, because most everything from the other side of this debate simply cracks a 911Truther up . . .

GL,

Terral
Click to expand...


Failed attempt to rebut. I am quoting firefighter testimony. You are providing zero evidence to refute the facts I present. The building debris not only landed on WTC 7, but also damaged other buildings, such as 30 West Broadway and the Verizon building. Merely pointing out that they're 350 feet away means nothing. Keep in mind that debris was found even two blocks away from WTC 7. That's well over 350 feet away. None of what he says negates the firefighter testimony.

No, the fire wasn't merely "on the other side of the building". Again, everyone, read the linked paper. Terral provides nothing to refute eyewitness testimony from firefighters who were onscene. One single photo from one single angle is insufficient rebuttal. Look at the photos posted here:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

... and reread the firefighter testimony linked above.

It is an established fact that the fires were massive and widespread, and that the building was heavily damaged from falling debris. Terral's arguments do not refute those facts. He merely links poorly supported arguments from other pages. I am providing eyewitness evidence from firefighters. If Terral is to be successful in his arguments, he must provide proof that the firefighters were wrong. Without that, his thesis is refuted. What little argument he's provided against the fires and building damage do not stand up to examination of the facts. What little support he's provided does not stand up in the light of acknowledged evidence.
 
I couldn't bare to read the whole thing past page two but I did want to clear something up just in case it wasn't mentioned.....

On the subject of shaped charges..... A "shaped charge" doesn't really have anything to do with the angle, placement or even the overall shape of an explosive so much. Its a method used to focus energy into a point rather than just blowing out in an even way in all directions like a brick of explosive or a stick of dynamite would.

In short, think of a tube packed with explosives from end to end. Then shove a large cone in the end to make a hollow cone shaped void in the explosive on one end. If you place that explosive cone shape void side down on a metal surface, when you detonate the explosive it will bore a hole straight through the metal if conditions are right. We used to practice boring holes in old tank treads with half blocks of C4. You can make a relatively clean 1 inch hole no prob.

Now take the same concept and make a long shaped charge for cutting. The simplest way is to use plastic type explosive since it molds like clay and fill a metal U shaped rail type fence post like used on wire fencing along freeways. You then create a V shaped notch in the charge along the whole length, place the charge V side down and there you have a very simple steel beam cutting "shaped charge" that will cut a line rather than bore a hole.
 
Terral said:
Hi Tsig:




However, build a fire using office furniture and try to melt massive red-iron structural columns with 3-hour spray-on insulation. :0) Just want kind of Jetliner hit WTC-7? Oh. No Jetliner at all. How does Tsig explain the fact that all the massive red-iron column, girder, beam and bar-joist connections were ‘severed’ to create this little debris pile? :0) Before the Controlled Demolition charges were detonated, then we had 47 stories of massive continuous steel beams running the entire length of the building. However, just after the CD process was complete ALL of those connections ‘and’ ALL the horizontal girder/beam connections were CUT to allow the entire structure to collapse straight down into its own footprint. Did we see the same result with any of the other buildings in direct proximity to WTC-7? No! Do you know why? I do. :0) They were not owned by Larry “Pull It” Silverstein . . .

GL,

Terral
Click to expand...

Gravity, all buildings are in constant conflict with gravity. It's not buildings falling that should have us amazed. It's that they do not fall.
 
propheteer said:
I couldn't bare to read the whole thing past page two but I did want to clear something up just in case it wasn't mentioned.....

On the subject of shaped charges..... A "shaped charge" doesn't really have anything to do with the angle, placement or even the overall shape of an explosive so much. Its a method used to focus energy into a point rather than just blowing out in an even way in all directions like a brick of explosive or a stick of dynamite would.

In short, think of a tube packed with explosives from end to end. Then shove a large cone in the end to make a hollow cone shaped void in the explosive on one end. If you place that explosive cone shape void side down on a metal surface, when you detonate the explosive it will bore a hole straight through the metal if conditions are right. We used to practice boring holes in old tank treads with half blocks of C4. You can make a relatively clean 1 inch hole no prob.

Now take the same concept and make a long shaped charge for cutting. The simplest way is to use plastic type explosive since it molds like clay and fill a metal U shaped rail type fence post like used on wire fencing along freeways. You then create a V shaped notch in the charge along the whole length, place the charge V side down and there you have a very simple steel beam cutting "shaped charge" that will cut a line rather than bore a hole.
Click to expand...

What?!? You mean the things Bill Murray was making in Caddyshack weren't shaped charges??? :D

Welcome to the forums, propheteer. Cool info on the shape charges. Learned something today.
 
Terral said:
Hi DGM:




We do not require the testimony of one WTC iron worker to know this result is IMPOSSIBLE using building fires, so stop being foolish. You are talking about the catastrophic failure of a myriad of MASSIVE 2800-degree red-iron steel supports (and I mean MASSIVE) at the VERY SAME TIME, when the damage from any building fire would affect building components only in direct proximity to those fires ‘and’ a renewable fuel source. You are talking about interviewing iron workers, when you are supposed to be presenting a case for how building fires can even possibly take down a massive steel-framed skyscraper by severing ‘all’ of the structural supports in the ENTIRE steel-framed network at the VERY SAME TIME.




Not at all. Many crimes are solved by careful examination of the EVIDENCE, when the FACTS do not even begin to match the data of the Original Cover Story. 45-degree angle cuts are Controlled Demolition Signatures where CD Supervisors move column lines in specific directions throughout the Building Implosion Process. This means you have a clear ‘PATTERN’ of entire column lines being moved in one direction, while the remaining pedestal columns stubs are pushed in the opposite direction. Where was all of this steel warehoused, so we could carry out a real investigation? :0) Oh, Rudi ‘The Culprit’ Giuliani made sure all of that evidence was destroyed in one way or the other (NY Times article). Therefore, we are forced to use pictures of the accounts, or let the real inside-job bad guys get away with murdering innocent Americans on 9/11.




Just listen to yourself! You want everyone to believe Senor Bushie, Karl “The Biggest Liar In The World” Rove, Dick “The Henchman” Cheney and Larry “Pull It” Silverstein when a ‘real’ WTC Investigation is made impossible by the destruction of evidence by these same inside-job bad guys! When a 47-story overbuilt skyscrapers does this from building fires in just a few hours, then you should be the very first person to begin asking questions about the Official Bushie/DoD/FBI Cover Story! The Controlled Demolition Explanation is the ONLY ONE that answers ‘all’ the WTC Collapse questions without creating a single contradiction in any of the EVIDENCE.

GL,

Terral
Click to expand...

I think we all know who's pulling what and why.

Just had to throw that overbuilt in there
 
Terral said:
this website shows WTC-7 in full freefall mode ‘and’ we see no sign of FIRE (heh) anywhere. The typical Loyal Bushie Inside-Job response is, “But the fire was on the other side of the building.” Then my reply is, “Thank you for helping make my point, because WTC-7 fell ‘symmetrically’ and your fire side should have fallen first.” :0)
Click to expand...

Go look at the pictures again. The south face of the building does look far more distorted as it collapses. The north wall wound up on top of the pile. That aint symetrical a bit.

WTC-7 is 350 feet away from WTC-1 that fell earlier that morning and we already saw pictures of WTC-7 collapsing with NO SIGNS of fire at all.
Click to expand...

No signs of fire? Did you see the smoke pouring out of the windows of the south side on several floors as it fell? And don't you dare try to tell me those were squibs flowing out and then flowing upward.
 
Lefty:
I can't figure out why you would bother asking him to look at something again. Did you see his picture of the 'painted up A3'? Terral clearly does not see things the way everyone else does.
 
Terral said:
Hi ElMondo:




Terral does not require so many words to show ElMondo here is full of it. This picture from this website shows WTC-7 in full freefall mode ‘and’ we see no sign of FIRE (heh) anywhere. The typical Loyal Bushie Inside-Job response is, “But the fire was on the other side of the building.” Then my reply is, “Thank you for helping make my point, because WTC-7 fell ‘symmetrically’ and your fire side should have fallen first.” :0)




WTC-7 is 350 feet away from WTC-1 that fell earlier that morning and we already saw pictures of WTC-7 collapsing with NO SIGNS of fire at all. Now you want to say that falling WTC-1 debris caused the WTC-7 collapse? :0) Just what kind of DEBRIS is going to knock down an overbuilt 47-story cotton picking skyscraper from 350 feet away? Oh, the 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals devised the perfect plan . . . and knocked down WTC-7 by using WTC-1 debris. :0)

BTW, the :0) smiley faces are added, because most everything from the other side of this debate simply cracks a 911Truther up . . .

GL,

Terral
Click to expand...


Terral, the BBC is doing a show on WTC 7. They intend to use part of a 'Hardfire' debate, but I have a problem. I've lined up Mark Roberts and Arthur Scheuerman, retired FDNY battalion chief, for the rationalist side. I can't seem to find a conspiracy liar willing to try peddling his snake oil to a worldwide audience. Isn't it strange that the champions of "truth" are so terrified of a couple of rationalists that they won't even dare to show their faces? What do you suppose is going on? How can you spread your poison if you have no guts?
 
Terral said:
Hi DGM:




We do not require the testimony of one WTC iron worker to know this result is IMPOSSIBLE using building fires, so stop being foolish. You are talking about the catastrophic failure of a myriad of MASSIVE 2800-degree red-iron steel supports (and I mean MASSIVE) at the VERY SAME TIME, when the damage from any building fire would affect building components only in direct proximity to those fires ‘and’ a renewable fuel source. You are talking about interviewing iron workers, when you are supposed to be presenting a case for how building fires can even possibly take down a massive steel-framed skyscraper by severing ‘all’ of the structural supports in the ENTIRE steel-framed network at the VERY SAME TIME.




Not at all. Many crimes are solved by careful examination of the EVIDENCE, when the FACTS do not even begin to match the data of the Original Cover Story. 45-degree angle cuts are Controlled Demolition Signatures where CD Supervisors move column lines in specific directions throughout the Building Implosion Process. This means you have a clear ‘PATTERN’ of entire column lines being moved in one direction, while the remaining pedestal columns stubs are pushed in the opposite direction. Where was all of this steel warehoused, so we could carry out a real investigation? :0) Oh, Rudi ‘The Culprit’ Giuliani made sure all of that evidence was destroyed in one way or the other (NY Times article). Therefore, we are forced to use pictures of the accounts, or let the real inside-job bad guys get away with murdering innocent Americans on 9/11.




Just listen to yourself! You want everyone to believe Senor Bushie, Karl “The Biggest Liar In The World” Rove, Dick “The Henchman” Cheney and Larry “Pull It” Silverstein when a ‘real’ WTC Investigation is made impossible by the destruction of evidence by these same inside-job bad guys! When a 47-story overbuilt skyscrapers does this from building fires in just a few hours, then you should be the very first person to begin asking questions about the Official Bushie/DoD/FBI Cover Story! The Controlled Demolition Explanation is the ONLY ONE that answers ‘all’ the WTC Collapse questions without creating a single contradiction in any of the EVIDENCE.

GL,

Terral
Click to expand...


You were caught lying about Larry Silverstein. "Pull it" does not mean "blow up the building." Why do you continue to lie?
 
Last edited:
Terral, I'm not going to bother replying to points that have been rebutted before. As that covers every single point you've raised, I'll just discuss your interpretation of what I am attempting to do and what I am supposed to do.


Terral said:
YOU are arguing for BUILDING FIRES taking down a steel-framed skyscraper in about 6.6 seconds by the severing of ‘all’ steel supports simultaneously, when I am telling you for certain that is very much IMPOSSIBLE.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not arguing that the fires "severed" all the steel "simultaneously". All it had to do was weaken a few supports to the piont where they could not sustain the load on them. Once they give way, more will give way. To use an exceedingly crude analogy, think of a house of cards, and pull one or more away.


Terral said:
Now YOU are supposed to be proving why this collapse cannot possibly be just another typical Controlled Demolition.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is most definately not on me, so don't tell me I need to prove your fantasy wrong. I'm just pointing out areas that highlight your complete lack of understanding of thermodynamics.


Terral said:
You are the victim of faulty thinking brought on by the mischaracterization of my WTC-7 explanations. In fact, your comments help make my CD case, even if you fail to realize that today.
Click to expand...
I view WTC as an inevitable collapse due to my understanding of the initial situation and my comprehension of certain elemens of basic physics. I would love to know how my thinking is "faulty" and my comments "help" you. Unless you are insinuating that I am a bad engineer?


Terral said:
Far more than half of the posts on this thread contain three sentences of nonsense. Your post received this reply, because you appear to be sincere in your search for the 911Truth.
Click to expand...
Just because they rebutt your points in three sentences does not make their points invalide, and by extension does not validate yours. If you don't like how easily your "evidence" is shown to be incorrect, perhaps you sohuld look at your evidence. This is the main point of my prior post (before the mutually-contradictory post).


Terral said:
This is where 911Truther’s come to be grilled by debunkers like you.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be offended by that or not. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
 
This is where 911 truthers come to be grilled by debunkers? Yea. you know why, Terral? They come here to hone their tactics.

It is an art to keep a debate alive when ones position is untenable, and all the accomplished truthers have it down to a tea. It does no good to preach to the choir at some conspiracy forum like LC. You have to learn how to defend your fantasies against people who actually have knowledge and experience in the relevant fields and learn how to deflect intelligent, rational counter arguments before you can effectively convince all the well-meaning but ignorant people you focus on.

Right?
 
Terral, are you going to admit that your argument about workers on ladders was just silly, or will you continue to ignore it when you silliness is exposed.


Terral said:
However, build a fire using office furniture and try to melt massive red-iron structural columns with 3-hour spray-on insulation.
Click to expand...

1,) There you go again, using the truther untruth word, "melt."

2,) What the heck is red-iron?

3,) The fires in WTC 7 burned for 7 hours before the building collapse.
 
Last edited:
Hydrocarbon office fires can get extremely hot.

And look here Terral:

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7-fire.jpg

And here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

Smoke and Fire.

The smoke was at its most intense at the south of the building, where it had suffered severe damage, and there was a lot more air available from outside.

You can't expect the north face to behave as the south face did, because the north face didn't get hit by debris from WTC 1 as it split apart.
 
Terral said:
The third problem is that steel is an excellent conductor of heat and any steel-framed network would disperse the heat much more quickly than any building fire could raise the temperature to anywhere near ‘steel-softening’ temperatures.
Click to expand...

[X] has already refuted this in terms of the thermodynamics, but let me just add that Terral's ignorance on this point is glaring. Steel is a crappy conductor of heat. I work for a company that makes all manner of thermal management products i.e. heat sinks, and not once in the company's 30+ year history have they made the part of the heat sink that carries the heat out of any kind of steel.

I don't have a citation but I recall other twoofers making the same statement about steel so I suspect that Terral is merely parroting the nonsense of others, as he has done in many of his other allegations.

Ferd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom