Split Thread WTC7 is a problem for the 9/11 official story

[Dave Rogers]

Let's have it right - the planes gave both buildings a hell of a whack, took big chunks out of each of them and they remained standing for +/- a hour. Then, apparently, all the steel either turns to rubber or becomes as brittle as a pensioners bones, and down the lot comes.

Then, apparently, the steel reacts to heat in exactly the way steel is well known to react to heat; it gets weaker, and can't support the loads on it. Your disbelief of basic materials science doesn't affect its results.

Instead of just shouting "HUSH-A-BOOM" and other childish crap, imagine that there was something set off inside the towers core and describe to me how it would be different?

No large, visible and measurable deformations of the building structure several minutes in excess of the collapse.

Yes. I was shown a video of a conventional controlled demolition. Have I ever said the same occurred on 9/11?

As usual for the no-claimer approach, you've said that maybe something happened that none of us understand, including you, and that nobody knows any details about because it's top secret military research that nobody knows about yet. This is known as the "Appeal to Magic" argument; you're invoking unlimited capabilities of an unknown technology to overcome otherwise insurmountable flaws in your theory. The problem with that is that, unless you can now meet the additional burden of proof that this technology actually exists, the flaws are still there.

No, I don't; I just have to raise the possibility it could happen, and you have to disprove it couldn't, seeing as you are the ones with all the facts at your disposal.

I suggest you maintain that approach, and sit back and watch your precious new investigation never happen. For it to happen, you have to convince other people, not just stick your tongue out and jeer at them because they haven't proven you wrong to your own personal satisfaction.

Dave

PS: You have as many facts as I have at your disposal. Perhaps it would help if you learned to understand what they mean.

 

[triforcharity]

You don't need explosives; you just need heat, apparently. Lest we forget, the plane's impacts, other than providing the heat source, had nothing to do with the collapses.

Wow, somone has no concept of fire. Heiwa, is that you???

Now, the heat source was not the plane crash, that would be the ignition source. The HUGE, ACRE SIZED fires were the heat source. Now, I know they have term for this type of conclusion, I believe it is "Mutually inclusive" but thata just doesn't sound quite right. Someone help me with this??

Without the plane crash, there wouldn't have been the massive fires. Without the massive fires, there wouldn't have been the collapse. So, how esle would you start acre-sized fires?? Oh, yeaah, thats right.....Super-duper invisible ninja skilled thermite!! Gotcha.... You're not very good at this game.

 

[dudalb]

Did they even mention nanothermite ?

No, and they did not mention Death Rays From Space, MiniNukes, or
Steel Eating Termites as possible causes of the collapse either.

 

[triforcharity]

Are you calling all the people that heard very loud sounds before the collapses liars?

Red red red, we have gone over this before.

There are many things that go boom in an office fire, especially one of this size.

There were NO reports of MANY MANY booms going off in sucession right before the collapse.

There were 1000's of video taken that day, and NOT ONE has ANY audio of many VERY LOUD BOOMS going off.

Take that **** back to the sewer where you found it.

 

[DGM]

No, and they did not mention Death Rays From Space, MiniNukes, or
Steel Eating Termites as possible causes of the collapse either.

In "GI Joe" they had everything eating nano-things. I saw it (they took down the Eiffel tower) it has to be true,I haven't seen a live picture on utube of the tower since.

Warning: watching "GI Joe" the movie is harmful to gray matter!

 

[triforcharity]

But where did you see the molten steel ? I bet it wasn't all the way down in the basement where the bulk of it was ?

I saw NO molten steel, or any other molten metal. I saw melted PLASTIC, but not metal. Maybe a scorched car, but never pools of molten metal, ESPECIALLY the amount that you ellude to. Which, BTW, EVERYONE would have heard about.

I also saw the entire cleanup first hand from day one. Nobody ever found a huge block of molten anything like you claim was there.

 

[triforcharity]

I haven't seen the National Geographic Show but if they didn't explore nanothermite in detail that should tell even you debunkers that the fix was in.

Does nano-thermite burn hotter than regular thermite??

Has anyone found a way to logistically attach such a creature to a steel column or beam??


The answer is no, and no. Try again bill.

 

[TheBigKahuna]

You got that proof the GZ investigators were all trained demolition experts and were looking for secondary devices yet?

Seems like the guy from implosion world, Brent Blanchard, covered that one in his paper.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

this guy has some interesting opinions too.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

 

[bill smith]

I saw NO molten steel, or any other molten metal. I saw melted PLASTIC, but not metal. Maybe a scorched car, but never pools of molten metal, ESPECIALLY the amount that you ellude to. Which, BTW, EVERYONE would have heard about.

I also saw the entire cleanup first hand from day one. Nobody ever found a huge block of molten anything like you claim was there.

I will let your post speak for itself.

 

[TheBigKahuna]

No twoofer has ever been able to offer a plausible motive for blowing up WTC 7. Perhaps Ragnarok will be the first?

OK, that last part was a joke. He, of course, will do no such thing.

Isn't that the best way to wipe a hard drive?

 

[TheBigKahuna]

Oh, not very important then? http://www.wtc7.net/background.html

Have you seen the list of tenants?

Quote:

IRS Regional Council 90,430 24, 25 Government

U.S. Secret Service 85,343 9,10 Government

C.I.A. N/A N/A Government

Oh, he was doing Obama a favor wiping out the democrats tax records!

 

[TheBigKahuna]

Three buildings fell as a result of 2 planes crashing into 2 of them and you think there are no suspicious circumstances? But you are quite prepared to accept the explanation that dislodged fireproofing and lack of water supply for sprinklers is a valid reason for their collapse?

You could peel that fireproofing off by hand, the remnants of a plane would scour those beams clean. Why would we bother fireproofing a steel beam in the first place if it wasn't vulnerable to a fire initiated collapse?

 

[triforcharity]

I will let your post speak for itself.

I think that is usually best, especially when you cannot refute it.

 

[TheBigKahuna]

You don't need explosives; you just need heat, apparently. Lest we forget, the plane's impacts, other than providing the heat source, had nothing to do with the collapses.

Wrong, they shredded the fireproofing, basically scouring it from beams. You think they put the fire proofing on in the first place because otherwise the building would be in danger of collapsing during a fire?

 

[TheBigKahuna]

Originally Posted by BigAl
Nobody knows how to use therm-anything to demolish large steel beams in any way useful to make a WTC tower collapse as it did.

How does a plane's black box survive a fire? Are you saying it is impossible to conceive of a device that would allow a steady amount of thermi-stuff out onto the structure it was secured to?


Which is what I am asking you to describe. How would it be different?

Never said there were.


And you know this, how?

He watch the National Geographic special. They did that experiment, right?

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by RedIbis
Are you calling all the people that heard very loud sounds before the collapses liars?

The last time you said something like this you were asked to put forward one witness who heard loud noises who supports the CD theory, a single fire fighter, just one.

Red; just 10 seconds of video tape with the audio of a blast immediately followed by some part of a tower collapsing would do it.

There were countless video cameras in operation at WTC recording the towers from all angles. Somehow all of the cameras missed the sound of a blast that would have been recorded on all of them.

Nobody saw or heard evidence of man-made demolition at WTC.

 

[dudalb]

In "GI Joe" they had everything eating nano-things. I saw it (they took down the Eiffel tower) it has to be true,I haven't seen a live picture on utube of the tower since.

Warning: watching "GI Joe" the movie is harmful to gray matter!

I took one look at the trailer, then the reviews, and decided that I did not need to waste two hours of my life watching this drek.
But it sounds as if the Nano-things in GI Joe are just as based in reality as Nano Thermite, which I have not heard of outside of 9/11 COnspiracy Theories.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Are you calling all the people that heard very loud sounds before the collapses liars?

Now Red, think about it. These people have witnessed a building collapsing around them for the first time in their lives. Needless to say, an extremely frightening, disorienting moment of noise and chaos that could confuse a persons perception.

Or have you avoided taking this into consideration?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Double

 

[lapman]

Nanothermite is a whole other beast by comparison to regular thermite. NG know that so if they did not report on it in detail in their documentaary on thermite they are being deliberately misleading. The fix like I said.

Nanothermite is an experimental version of thermite. It may burn quicker, but it is still the same reaction. It's Jones, et al that have made up the super properties. Remember, they did not do a direct comparison to real nanothermite. So their contentions are based on their own made up theories.