WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition

[1337m4n]

Ohhhoh, this is going to be fun.

A building fire has never destroyed a steel-framed skyscraper in US history before or after 9/11

You know what else has never destroyed a steel-framed skyscraper in US history before or after 9/11? Thermite. Oh wait, you claim that thermite destroyed the building. Non-unique.

Your argument is also a wonderful example of circular logic.

and WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 were owned by Larry “Pull It” Silverstein. Many fail to realize the World Trade Center Towers had never been in private hands prior to the summer of 2001, when Mr. Silverstein received possession from the New York Port Authority.

Cooperative Research Website:

Are you making a formal accusation against Mr. Silverstein? If so, I'd like to hear his means, motive, and opportunity for taking down WTC7, as well as hard evidence that he did it, and how he managed to get away with it.

The roof section and the center of the building collapse first, then the two sides plummet at ‘free fall’ velocity

I'm calling BS on this one. Can you show me the calculations that prove "free fall velocity"? Or is a wild guess based on a heavily obscured Youtube video clipped at the beginning the only proof you need?

like any successful controlled demolition.

Okay as long as you are promoting the "free-fall" fantasy, you accept that there would have to be explosives on EVERY FLOOR, otherwise free-fall makes no more sense under your theory than it would under mine.

All of the WTC-7 steel columns, beams, girders and bar joists were bolted down and welded together into a single unit creating literally thousands of connections that must be severed to cause the catastrophic failure seen from the aftermath of the attack.

And there is your problem. Under your theory, explosives would have to be placed on every one of these. Without being detected or heard and felt from miles away.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103289

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103789

So far the evidence you are missing is:
--Sounds of successive explosives
--Blast effects
--Explanation of how such a massive quantity of explosives got into the building undetected.

The melting point of WTC-7 structural steel is 1535 degrees Celsius or 2795 degrees Fahrenheit. The first problem with the ‘Fire Caused The Collapse’ Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit , or about one third the required temperature to melt structural steel.

Ah, the typical "fire can't melt steel" nonsense.

Not counting all the fuel stored in WTC7, do you think that blacksmiths actually MELT the metal that they work with? Or do they just heat it to a point where its real soft and they can pound it into different shapes?

The second problem is that building fires typically burn for only 20 minutes in any given area, because the fuel is depleted and the fire moves in the direction of a fresh fuel source.

The WTC7 was on fire for hours. Try again.

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.

This just demonstrates an awful understanding of physics. You expect the heat to spread uniformly across the entire building? It takes time to transfer from place to place, and as the heat is moving, NEW heat is continually being added by the fire that's still there. Furthermore, it's not as if the entire building is one single continuous chunk of steel.

Another problem is that all supporting columns were coated with 3-hour ‘spray-on’ fireproofing insulation, which is nine times more protection needed for the typical building fire; even if the required 2800 degree temperatures were reached.

Yes, the 3-hour spray-on fireproofing for a fire that lasted much longer than 3 hours that was utterly torn apart by the massive amounts of debris hitting the building and which would contradict your third point above by preventing heat transfer between different beams if it somehow remained functional.

This information is very important, because remember WTC-7 collapsed in one single smooth motion, which means extra attention was paid to placing charges to sever these thicker and stronger steel supports. Try to imagine the amount of energy required to break all of these connections simultaneously and you begin to see the ‘building fire theory’ is certainly a hoax.

Try to imagine the amount of energy required to break all of these connections simultaneously and you begin to ask, "Where is the sound of repeated explosions audible for miles away? Where is the blast wave that shatters the glass of buildings blocks away, registers a 3.0 on the Richter scale and is not only heard but FELT by ALL of the onlookers?" Oh that's right, there isn't. You contradict yourself by saying it was some kind of covert controlled demolition but then this incredibly MASSIVE amount of energy would be needed to destroy the building, which means huge shape charges which would have an effect like this.

Your fallacy is in your belief that all of the columns had to fail "simultaneously", did you not see the way the building collapsed? The building collapsed inwards, suggesting that some columns buckled before others, PLUS you are forgetting the Penthouses, which CLEARLY collapsed before the rest of the building, thus proving this "columns failed simultaneously" nonsense is just that.

Even if two or five or ten fires were started, the fuel source within those particular compartments would be consumed LONG before the fireproofing safety countermeasures were compromised; and the fire had no way to pass through solid concrete slabs or curtain walls to invade the neighboring compartments. This does not even account for the fully functional sprinkler system that had to be turned off for these fires to spread any distance at all.

Oops! You seem to have forgotten that the WTC7 was RAVAGED BY SEVERAL TONS OF FALLING CONCRETE AND STEEL. You also seem to have forgotten the fuel stored in the building.

“Fire has never destroyed a steel building,”

Stupid.

but three steel buildings owned by Larry Silverstein were ‘Pulled’ on 9/11.

You are making a formal accusation against Mr. Silverstein, please provide your evidence of his involvement.

“Pull it” is controlled demolition lingo for wiring the building up and pulling it down.

Dude. Seriously. "Pull it"? That is the weakest argument the Truth Movement has ever come up with.

Mr. Silverstein was obviously lying about speaking to the New York Fire Chief, as the firemen only entered the scene on 9/11 after the Twin Towers attacks. This Fire Chief had no access to Controlled Demolition charges when he arrived at WTC-7 for “Pulling” down the 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that could possibly be placed in a single day. Here we have a few small fires burning on a few floors, but the Fire Chief cannot figure any way to extinguish them. Since the firemen had no time to set all the required charges to “Pull” WTC-7 down in just a few hours, as if firemen even have controlled demolition crews, then Mr. Silverstein just pointed the finger at himself about having prior knowledge of these 9/11 attacks.

Do you honestly believe any of this? Have you even SEEN the whole quote in context? Silverstein does not just say "Pull it!" What he says is,

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Please explain why he would mention "terrible loss of life" if he were talking about demolition. Please also explain away these problems with your theory:

Problem #1, Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they’d be using slang demolition terms?

Problem #2, Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.

Problem #3, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.

Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?

Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?

Problem #6, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud?

Problem #7, and why would Silverstein admit this on television?

You also forget who else you are implicating by using "pull it" as evidence: the FDNY. Silverstein was talking to the FDNY Cheif Nigro. If "they made that decision to pull", and Silverstein was NOT referring to the much more logical explanation of ceasing the firefighting operation, there's only one possibility: the FDNY was in on it.

Let's hear your formal accusation against the men and women who risked their lives to pull people out of the rubble of the buildings, Terral. I don't see how you can possibly reconcile "'Pull-it' is evidence" without having the FDNY in on it. You are a sick man, accusing heroes of murder.

More "pull it" debunking:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT0WjGyZW1M

Now compare our images of WTC-7 and these “Pull It” videos:

Paris Building

Office Building

Landmark Tower Implosion

Did you even your own videos?

Take the third one, for instance. Did you notice the

"Bane bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang KABOOOOOM BANG BANG BANG BANG"

Where was that on 9/11?

Many buildings have been demolished using controlled demolition looking exactly like WTC-7 on 9/11, but again, no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire in the history of this planet. Twenty-first century demolition techniques include the use of Thermite Shaped Charges

Really? Demolition companies use thermite to destroy buildings?

I would REALLY love to hear confirmation of that from a source other than PrisonPlanet (which regularly posts proven lies and is thus not a reliable source).

The damage from a thermite shaped charge is exactly what you see above the fireman’s confused head.

Can you point to other examples of "thermite shaped charges" being used to destroy steel, for comparison?

What is a "thermite shaped charge", anyway? Could you please explain for us what a "thermite shaped charge" is and precisely how it works? Because I've googled "Thermite Shape Charge" and all I get is Truther nonsense.

You know what I think? I think there's no such thing as a "thermite shape charge". I think you just made it up. Care to prove me wrong?

As a trained demolition supervisor tearing down buildings for many years

Screens of your transcripts or I am calling BS. It's not that I don't trust you, it's just...actually, wait, it IS that I don't trust you. Pics, please, or it never happened.

I know of nobody using 45-degree angle cuts to remove any red-iron part of any conventional demolition job. This particular column has molten iron residue, which is a ‘Controlled Demolition’ Signature, as any torch cut would blow the molten iron off the column entirely away from the worker. There is no cut from any torch that would leave molten iron residue on the inside and outside of 'all' the sides of a column this way. The idea that any demolition worker would make a 45-degree cut is ridiculous, because of the danger to other workers and the waste of fuel.

A failure is you.

I think I'll talk to REAL demolition experts about this.

Oh, also, what's YOUR explanation of these "mysterious" 45-degree angle cuts? All you've said is that "there's no way the workers would've done it" (without really explaining why at all", but you haven't presented an alternative that works. Do these fantasy "thermite shape charges" of yours magically deal 45-degree angle cuts to EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF STEEL that they sever?

Another problem with the Official ‘Fire’ Cover Story is these 45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts appear everywhere . . .

[qimg]http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7_3.jpg[/qimg]

Right, next time you want to show me something, try a photo that doesn't suck, so I can actually SEE the thing you're pointing at. I don't see any "45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts" "everywhere". I see ONE piece of steel that's too far away for me to be able to tell anything about it.

. . . even in locations where demolition crew workers could not possibly reach. The common practice is to remove steel debris in an orderly ‘pick and remove’ manner, which eliminates the possibility of needlessly shifting weight and putting workers in danger. We play this dangerous game like a child plays ‘Pickup Sticks,’ as any skilled demolition foreman can look at the pile and tell you which debris to remove first. None of the demolition workers in the picture above climbed up any ladder forty or fifty feet in the air to make that 45-degree angel cut, because that was part of the original ‘Controlled Demolition’ of WTC-7. Note the clean 90-degree cuts labeled “Severed Column End” scattered throughout the debris pile. However, also note these steel members are buried under the debris of the walls collapsing upon them ‘during’ the controlled demolition process. These cuts could not have been made by this demolition crew, because they still have mountains of debris to remove before even thinking about cutting any structural steel; which would only serve to shift weight in this very dangerous situation. The very best work on these WTC controlled demolition attacks is presented by Dr. Steven E. Jones (Brigham Young University) here:

more nonsense based on fantasies I've already dealt with.

WTC-7 was definitely (100 percent certainty) brought down using Controlled Demolition techniques also found in WTC-1 and WTC-2. This evidence explains why we have reports on hundreds of ‘explosions’ taking place throughout the day.

stupid debunked nonsense I'm not even going to go into, learn the definition of a "simile", compare the sparse explosions to the ordered sequence of dozens of blasts in the Landmark Tower demolition, etc.

Bamm, Bamm, Bamm; then Three Big Explosions . . .

More deception and lies, for all I know the part you quote might not even be about 9/11 since there is no eyewitness on screen when it is said, just a black screen. All of these quotes are taken out of context, just like a Truther, take things out of context to support your fantasy.

And yet, the ‘keyword sanitized’ 911Commission Report only uses the term ‘explosion’ six times outside the notation references for ‘all’ these 9/11 cases and never uses the term ‘explosions’ (plural) even once. Guess what? The bogus Arlington County After-Action Report uses the term ‘explosion’ six times in 215 pages ‘and’ also never uses the term ‘explosions’ even one time the very same way, even though we can hear multiple explosions taking place in this single News Video.

Where did this junk video about the Pentagon come from? I thought the subject was WTC7. Way to derail your own thread. You do the Truth Movement proud!

9/11 was definitely and inside-job and many LIARS are helping the real terrorists get away with murdering thousands of our innocent fellow Americans [/QUOTE]

The liars are the people mining quotes and making up falsehoods to promote their anti-Bush agenda. There is nothing wrong with hating Bush, but that does not give you any excuse for making up lies about 9/11 and blaming the heroes of the FDNY for covering up murder, "Hey I hate Bush! let's lie and blame the fire department for murder on 9/11" You are sick, spreading lies and filth just for your political agenda. You do not care about the truth because if you did you would have an open mind and not cherrypick evidence and quotes. Explain to me the motive for bringing down WTC7. Explain to me how they managed to wire the building with tens of thousands of pounds of "thermite shape charges" without being noticed. Explain to me what a "thermite shape charge" even is. Explain to me why there was no pattern of blasts audible for miles away, the only reports of anyone hearing any explosions are a handful of cherrypicked quotes of people hearing ONE OR TWO explosion-LIKE sounds which could be anything. In a REAL controlled demolition, there would be a rapid succession of MANY explosions, EVERYONE would hear AND feel it for MILES away, and there would be no mistaking it for anything else.

You have no evidence. You cannot show evidence of explosives in the rubble because there was none, proving no explosives. So instead you use things like "pull it" and blame the FDNY. Next time you blame people for covering up murder, have some evidence and have a motive.

Good luck spreading your lies Terral, you're doing everyone proud.

 

[leftysergeant]

That irregular-edged column was probably cut with a torch while lying horizontal, with what is the upper surface in the photo on the bottom when it was in situ. I would suspect that it was in a location which was difficult to reach,

The slag appears to have been blown out from inside the box, which is obviously inconsistant with there having been thermite on the outside.

(DOWN, MAX!)

 

[Terral]

Thank You For Helping Me Solve This Mark Roberts Mystery :0)

Hi Calcus with Red Dawn and Mark Roberts (Gravy) mentioned:

Terral Original >> 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,

Calcus’ Reply >> You're joking right? Here's a link for you. Check out the link in his siggy and come back in a few days if you still have any questions.

Well my Mark Roberts investigation led to just one Pentagon thread here where he was asked to explain himself, but the debate was quickly shuttled over to the garbage can here where Gravy’s (Mark’s) name was promptly removed from the equation. Apparently only Terral is supposed to answer questions around here . . . Anyway, one of our Loose Change members posted a link to Mark’s Pentagon commentary for this Loose Change Thread, so Calcus, Mark or anyone here can begin drafting defending arguments for that Official Cover Story position.

Many thanks to Red Dawn, Calcus and others for helping me track down Mark Roberts (Gravy), so perhaps we can have a meaningful debate on these 911Truth Topics beginning with the Pentagon case. My apologies for bringing this up on the WTC-7 thread, but this is the place where Calcus began helping me solve this mystery and my Pentagon thread is part of Page 2 history anyway. :0) I will begin addressing your WTC-7 concerns shortly, just as soon as time permits. Thank you for your patience and kind consideration.

GL,

Terral

 

[1337m4n]

I will begin addressing your WTC-7 concerns shortly, just as soon as time permits.

You can start by proving that the concept of a "thermite shape charge" is anything more than a figment of your imagination.

If the weapons you think was used to bring down the towers does not actually exist in real life, I'd say that's a pretty big ding against your theory.

 

[beachnut]

Terral has avoided posting one fact to support his delusional efforts. How can he post lies so effortlessly?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Terral has avoided posting one fact to support his delusional efforts. How can he post lies so effortlessly?

It helps that his posts, bizzarely, seem to be responding to posts in a completely different thread on a completely different forum. They only SEEM to synch up, but it's clear that what he is describing as "debate" is not what is occuring here.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Ohhhoh, this is going to be fun.

I'm glad you're still getting some enjoyment from it. I'm burned out. For me, it stopped being fun a year ago.

These troofers are so practiced at generating a smoke screen in their own heads, it's pointless to try to get through to them -- there's nothing to get through to.

 

[Terral]

Grandstanding In This Thread Deserves No Reply At All. GL.

Hi Lefty:

Lefty >> Oy! The stupid! It BURNS!

Where to start?

How about with the columns? That they were cut off above the leve lof the fire fighter's heads in the famous photo, they were not neccessarily cut off above what was ground-level when the photo was taken.

No sir. Start by quoting anything you find errant in the Opening Post and support your opposing views with third-party resources like you see in my work. Otherwise Lefty is grandstanding and proving nothing at all.

GL,

Terral

 

[leftysergeant]

Hi Lefty:




No sir. Start by quoting anything you find errant in the Opening Post and support your opposing views with third-party resources like you see in my work. Otherwise Lefty is grandstanding and proving nothing at all.

GL,

Terral

I pointed out to you that your own ecvidence, on that sleazebag WRH site shows that the columns were being cut off at ground level. I even pointed othe cylinders for the cutting torch. what else do you need?

 

[Dave_46]

<snip>

Yes, the 3-hour spray-on fireproofing for a fire that lasted much longer than 3 hours that was utterly torn apart by the massive amounts of debris hitting the building and which would contradict your third point above by preventing heat transfer between different beams if it somehow remained functional.
<snip>

A point that I think I have made before, but it bears repeating.

The nominal duration of the protection is that which it would give to a sample steel member in a standard test. My experience is with the British Standard test, but I believe that the American test is similar. The fire protection (not fireproofing please) for a nominal three hour rating has protected a steel member in a test for that period. This is usaully measured by whether the steel reaches a critical temperature, which I can't remember exactly, but I think it is about 500 deg C. (I haven't done any of this type of testing for at least sixteen years now.) This is in a standard test, with standard test conditions (temperature/time regime).

If the conditions in a real fire are more severe than the test, then the steel will fail earlier. If the conditions are less severe, then the steel will fail later.

It should be noted that the reason for having this test is to enable fire protection manufacturers to test their product against standard conditions for marketing purposes. (e.g. My system provides protection for x hours)

1337m4n, I'm not criticising your post, just giving a bit of background information, so that people can understand what the time mentioned for fire protection actually means.

Dave

 

[Terral]

The Inside-Job List Is Longer Than Both Your Arms And Mine Too :0)

Hi Alt+F4:

Alt >> Names please. Oh, that's right...you don't have any.

Do not have any? :0) Start with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove and their henchman Dick Cheney who orchestrated the 9/11 wargame military exercises, Rudy Giuliani the key player in implementing Tripod2, Larry “Pull it” Silverstein (you now him already), NORAD and the Joint-chiefs, John Ashcroft and the Justice Department (part of Tripod2 in NYC) and the FBI who continues placing roadblocks in the way of any real 9/11 investigation. The list is a mile long, so just much do you really want to know? :0)

This is a good chapter from Michael Ruppert’s Book “Crossing The Rubicon” that will open many eyes. :0)

GL,

Terral

 

[DGM]

Hi Alt+F4:




Do not have any? :0) Start with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove and their henchman Dick Cheney who orchestrated the 9/11 wargame military exercises, Rudy Giuliani the key player in implementing Tripod2, Larry “Pull it” Silverstein (you now him already), NORAD and the Joint-chiefs, John Ashcroft and the Justice Department (part of Tripod2 in NYC) and the FBI who continues placing roadblocks in the way of any real 9/11 investigation. The list is a mile long, so just much do you really want to know? :0)

This is a good chapter from Michael Ruppert’s Book “Crossing The Rubicon” that will open many eyes. :0)

GL,

Terral

Terral:
Why don't you start by explaining why the "truth" movement can't duplicate your "thermite" cut the way you said it was done but I can with my cutting torch?

 

[Drudgewire]

All of the evidence points directly to insider terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11.

Wow, didn't even take a 2nd sentence to figure out there's no reason to ever click on this thread again. Gotta be some kind of record.

So... um... congrats?

 

[twinstead]

Do not have any? :0) Start with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove and their henchman Dick Cheney who orchestrated the 9/11 wargame military exercises, Rudy Giuliani the key player in implementing Tripod2, Larry “Pull it” Silverstein (you now him already), NORAD and the Joint-chiefs, John Ashcroft and the Justice Department (part of Tripod2 in NYC) and the FBI who continues placing roadblocks in the way of any real 9/11 investigation. The list is a mile long, so just much do you really want to know? :0)

This is a good chapter from Michael Ruppert’s Book “Crossing The Rubicon” that will open many eyes. :0)

Oh, more stuff that you accept without question because it supports your world view. And WE'RE the sheep? LOL

Oh, by the way, not to attempt to tie you down to answering any specific questions (I know you HATE that. It's all about the links to stuff that you think will 'open many eyes'), but did I miss your take on the DNA evidence? Do you think it's faked?

 

[The Big Dog]

Terral sez:

"Many thanks to Red Dawn, Calcus and others for helping me track down Mark Roberts (Gravy), so perhaps we can have a meaningful debate on these 911Truth Topics beginning with the Pentagon case."

This whole Terral "I don't know who Gravy is" has been puzzling me. If you go to Terral's very first post on this site, you will see that it is addressed to Gravy and posted in the GravySites sticky. Yet now he hasn't a clue who he is? Well, one never has accused a Twoofer of not being disengenious.

Anyhow: We all continue to await your design for a structure that allows for thermite to angle cut a vertical I beam.

 

[leftysergeant]

Anyhow: We all continue to await your design for a structure that allows for thermite to angle cut a vertical I beam.

It can be done, but it would involve tearing out a lot of drywall to access the beams, miles of mechanical linkages and chemical initiators, and it would have produced a blinding light that would have made a jock-0-lantern of the impacted areas.

And it would leave a hard white crust of alumina and chalk on everything within several feet of each charge.

 

[dudalb]

Hi Alt+F4:




Do not have any? :0) Start with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove and their henchman Dick Cheney who orchestrated the 9/11 wargame military exercises, Rudy Giuliani the key player in implementing Tripod2, Larry “Pull it” Silverstein (you now him already), NORAD and the Joint-chiefs, John Ashcroft and the Justice Department (part of Tripod2 in NYC) and the FBI who continues placing roadblocks in the way of any real 9/11 investigation. The list is a mile long, so just much do you really want to know? :0)

This is a good chapter from Michael Ruppert’s Book “Crossing The Rubicon” that will open many eyes. :0)

GL,

Terral

Michael Ruppert,one of the biggest economic crackpots on the planet. That is a great source.
He is so out there that most "Peak Oil" advocates have disowned him.

 

[DGM]

What's with the :0) after every sentence? Does this mean something?

 

[JimBenArm]

What's with the :0) after every sentence? Does this mean something?

I think it represents his nose after running into inconvenient facts again. And again. And yet again.

 

[WildCat]

Are you ever going to expain what the hell a "thermite shaped charge" is?