Another uncontrolled yet controlled demolition that fell into it's own footprint. Of course footprint must mean accross the street. Cute how our resident woo uses a picture of the debris pile with the NORTH WALL lying on top of the pile and he/she/it still expects us to believe that it was a symmetrical collapse. Terral, I hope you understand that if I saw you on the street and you asked me if I knew what time it was, I would look at my watch and say yes....then I'd keep walking.
WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition
- Thread starter Terral
- Start date
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I've read this several times and I still can't figure out what the hell he's talking about. Is he telling me I(we) don't have the right to criticize his paper? Am I reading this wrong?
ETA Brain fade I just got it. The words "on other boards" escaped me.
Last edited:
Terral:
Can you explain to me how the building I worked in for three years including 9/11 was wired for controlled demolition without myself or any of my fellow employees at Salomon noticing it?
Keep in mind that three floors had coverage 24/7/365 (trading floors). Many others had people working early to late. I averaged 75 hours a week when I was there. Salomon had floors 27-44 and portions of the floors below that.
Was this done at night time? How did they handle when someone came on the floor? How did they handle security?
Can you explain to me how the building I worked in for three years including 9/11 was wired for controlled demolition without myself or any of my fellow employees at Salomon noticing it?
Keep in mind that three floors had coverage 24/7/365 (trading floors). Many others had people working early to late. I averaged 75 hours a week when I was there. Salomon had floors 27-44 and portions of the floors below that.
Was this done at night time? How did they handle when someone came on the floor? How did they handle security?
Before ANYONE gets too involved maybe it would be best to know that the supposed "largest" truther board (9/11 truth group on myspace) really didn't accept this bs well and if I recall correctly, the woo that introduced it was systematically dismantled and then banned. BTW, that group shut down a few days ago.
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
i dont see it in there, what page is it on?
however regardless of origin the statement is still a strawman, the steel did not melt
could you please tell me how thermite could be made to cut horizontally across a column? perhaps provide a real picture of such a device, or at least evidence of existance not coming from a truther website?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
It doesn't state anything of the sort. It states that the Twin Tower collapses were caused by a combination of the initial damage and thermal weakening of the surviving structure. I searched all nine pages and found not one single occurrence of the word "melt".
Dave
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Mind if I answer for him?
Terral can't explain that, but he can post all sorts of BS written from the perspective of people who had no personal involvement or physical presence at the WTC at all and try to get people to believe that his list of long debunked anomalies somehow add up to something, while he ignores or "misinterprets" (I'm being charitable here) such obvious issues as witness testimony and physical evidence.
It's futile to get a truther to admit that his/her list of anomalies and misinterpretations of phenomena are trumped by witness experience and other physical data; they'll either ignore your statements, or try to prove the experiences you had are somehow not what you think they are. But don't take my post as discouragement; on the contrary, keep putting that question up front. It helps to see that these crazy explanations have to pass the test of convincing those who were actually there.
Terral,
I think you will get much better results if you do all of the following things:
1. Go do some research at www.911myths.com and www.debunking911.com.
2. Take everything out of your original post that has already been debunked and explained.
3. Take one item from whatever is left from your original post that you don't feel is debunked and start a thread about that one item here so that you and others can have a focused discussion of that one item to determine whether that one item has alternative explanations or not.
4. Don't respond only to the cherry picked responses you can easily dismiss while ignoring the responses that debunk parts of your theory.
I know that if you try it this way, you will have a much more effective time here. You are currently doing the opposite of the four items above and you can see the fruits of that labor already. Go ahead and try something new - it might actually work.
I think you will get much better results if you do all of the following things:
1. Go do some research at www.911myths.com and www.debunking911.com.
2. Take everything out of your original post that has already been debunked and explained.
3. Take one item from whatever is left from your original post that you don't feel is debunked and start a thread about that one item here so that you and others can have a focused discussion of that one item to determine whether that one item has alternative explanations or not.
4. Don't respond only to the cherry picked responses you can easily dismiss while ignoring the responses that debunk parts of your theory.
I know that if you try it this way, you will have a much more effective time here. You are currently doing the opposite of the four items above and you can see the fruits of that labor already. Go ahead and try something new - it might actually work.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Every time I see this all I can think of is the "truthburn" fiasco. They had all the time in the world and they still couldn't pull it off. Funny "truthers" don't talk about this much.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about here, have you? Linear shaped charges are explosive charges that use the shaped charge effect to direct the blast of the explosion so as to cut through a steel member. Thermite, as it isn't an explosive, doesn't create a shaped charge effect, as there is no blast to direct. The same is true of thermate. If thermite (or thermate) were fixed against the columns in the same shape and mounting as a shaped charge, whatever the shape, the only result would be for the thermite / thermate to burn through the support medium holding it on to the column, and for the molten iron and aluminium oxide to flow away. There is not, and cannot be, such a thing as a thermite shaped charge. It's a self-contradictory term.
Dave
HeyLeroy
Vegan Cannibal
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 5,567
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The softening of steel by heating is permanent.
Annealing.
I work with steel every day.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Dave Rogers:
"If thermite (or thermate) were fixed against the columns in the same shape and mounting as a shaped charge, whatever the shape, the only result would be for the thermite / thermate to burn through the support medium holding it on to the column, and for the molten iron and aluminium oxide to flow away."
Not if the non-existent therm*te support was MAGIC
The same MAGIC that Terral once used to prove that the Pentagon was five feet tall.
"If thermite (or thermate) were fixed against the columns in the same shape and mounting as a shaped charge, whatever the shape, the only result would be for the thermite / thermate to burn through the support medium holding it on to the column, and for the molten iron and aluminium oxide to flow away."
Not if the non-existent therm*te support was MAGIC
The same MAGIC that Terral once used to prove that the Pentagon was five feet tall.
Over on the old LCF board, Terral was corrected time and time again about the temperatures routinely achieved in typical building fires. He was provided with many quotes and links from expert fire-investigation sites that proved his numbers wrong. He stuck to the one site that supported his idea (as I recall it was a site advertising fire safes, and one that obviously hadn't done much research).
He also would not budge on his perception of the "necessity" for the temperatures to be sufficient to melt steel, even when provided with studies and graphs and all that showed the weakening effect of temperature on structural steel.
Terral is incorrigible. Address his points for the sake of the waverers, newbies and fence-sitters by all means, but you waste your breath trying to talk to Terral himself.
eta: yep he's still using the SchwabCorp fire safe website for his evidence.
Apart from being incorrigible (which we're all capable of from time to time) I do believe he's slightly mad. Nobody could put this much effort into such totally unsupportable gibberish - over such a long period of time - unless they are a bit off their rockers.
He also would not budge on his perception of the "necessity" for the temperatures to be sufficient to melt steel, even when provided with studies and graphs and all that showed the weakening effect of temperature on structural steel.
Terral is incorrigible. Address his points for the sake of the waverers, newbies and fence-sitters by all means, but you waste your breath trying to talk to Terral himself.
eta: yep he's still using the SchwabCorp fire safe website for his evidence.
Apart from being incorrigible (which we're all capable of from time to time) I do believe he's slightly mad. Nobody could put this much effort into such totally unsupportable gibberish - over such a long period of time - unless they are a bit off their rockers.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
That's how I keep my patience. I remember I'm addressing people who think Terral's IQ has as many digits as theirs, and helping them to understand that this is not the case.
Dave
Debunkers . . . Heh . . .
Hi BJE:
Your idea of a ‘challenge’ (heh) is posting three sentences of nonsense to my threads. Get a case and please try again.
Really? Posts like yours only make me laugh out loud. You guys read my OP and paste three stupid sentences about “claims are challenged” and think that means something. If I ever see a real ‘challenge’ to my OP presentation, then I will be the very first to begin drafting defending arguments. Until then the laughter from these meager offerings is about to bust my side wide open.
GL,
Terral
Hi BJE:
Your idea of a ‘challenge’ (heh) is posting three sentences of nonsense to my threads. Get a case and please try again.
Really? Posts like yours only make me laugh out loud. You guys read my OP and paste three stupid sentences about “claims are challenged” and think that means something. If I ever see a real ‘challenge’ to my OP presentation, then I will be the very first to begin drafting defending arguments. Until then the laughter from these meager offerings is about to bust my side wide open.
GL,
Terral
Obviously you are a seriously disturbed individual. Why must you compound your illness by lying about the meaning of the phrase "pull it"?
BirdyBuddy
Terrorized by 'tiels
Seems you have no support for your theory either... and we ALL (including you) know it...
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Please Explain How "Building Fires" Took Down WTC-7 In A Few Hours
Hi NDBoston:
Yes. Can you explain to me how the building you worked in for three years including 9/11 collapsed due to building fires in just a few hours? We are talking about the Controlled Demolition Theory versus the Building Fires Theory, unless you have a third hypothesis. I received my first General Contractor License in the mid 1980’s and my father is a General Contractor and together we have demolished more buildings that perhaps everyone else here combined. I know WTC-7 contained a myriad of solid red-iron steel connections that had to be ‘severed’ using ‘cutter charges’ having NOTHING to do with any building fires. The symmetrical collapse is a Controlled Demolition Signature, just like all the 45-degree cuts found all over the place in the remaining stub columns and debris. The fact that the Loyal Bushie inside-job bad guys DUPED you and your buddies changes NOTHING about the evidence in this case. No natural phenomena has the stored energy potential to ‘sever’ ALL of the steel columns, girders, beams and bar-joists in the WTC-7 steel-framed network to cause the catastrophic symmetrical collapse of the entire structure in just a few hours.
Many of your ‘Fire Myths’ are debunked here with descriptions of ‘shaped charges.’
PS. We have a Mark Roberts Lover over at the Loose Change Board talking a bunch of junk on this thread. He says "Marky" (heh) posts here at the JREF Board. Do any of you know his user name? Supposedly he is a worthy debating opponent on these 9/11 Topics and I would very much like the opportunity to see if he is worth his salt. Thanks in advance,
GL,
Terral
Hi NDBoston:
Yes. Can you explain to me how the building you worked in for three years including 9/11 collapsed due to building fires in just a few hours? We are talking about the Controlled Demolition Theory versus the Building Fires Theory, unless you have a third hypothesis. I received my first General Contractor License in the mid 1980’s and my father is a General Contractor and together we have demolished more buildings that perhaps everyone else here combined. I know WTC-7 contained a myriad of solid red-iron steel connections that had to be ‘severed’ using ‘cutter charges’ having NOTHING to do with any building fires. The symmetrical collapse is a Controlled Demolition Signature, just like all the 45-degree cuts found all over the place in the remaining stub columns and debris. The fact that the Loyal Bushie inside-job bad guys DUPED you and your buddies changes NOTHING about the evidence in this case. No natural phenomena has the stored energy potential to ‘sever’ ALL of the steel columns, girders, beams and bar-joists in the WTC-7 steel-framed network to cause the catastrophic symmetrical collapse of the entire structure in just a few hours.
Many of your ‘Fire Myths’ are debunked here with descriptions of ‘shaped charges.’
PS. We have a Mark Roberts Lover over at the Loose Change Board talking a bunch of junk on this thread. He says "Marky" (heh) posts here at the JREF Board. Do any of you know his user name? Supposedly he is a worthy debating opponent on these 9/11 Topics and I would very much like the opportunity to see if he is worth his salt. Thanks in advance,
GL,
Terral
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Just so! It would dribble off and start a fire.