WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

tfk said:
Has this ever happened to anyone else?

It has never happened for me, but that's not the source of my skepticism.

Clearly it doesn't happen using an axe. But I do not believe that one could do this with a chain saw or hand saw without getting the saw immovable clamped in the cut by the weight of the tree before the cut was finished.
Click to expand...

Axe? Saw??
Don't you cut trees with shaped charges, thermite devices or energy rays??
 
A team of Navy seals could get the job done fast if they were authorized to do so. My point is that sufficiently trained and experienced people wouldn't require days to bring down WTC 7.
Click to expand...

The world's leading experts took several months to load and demo a building less than 1/2 the size. A building that is the world record. You're suggesting fewer people demo'd a building over 2x the size in one afternoon while the building was ON FIRE.

:crazy:
 
NoahFence said:
The world's leading experts took several months to load and demo a building less than 1/2 the size. A building that is the world record. You're suggesting fewer people demo'd a building over 2x the size in one afternoon while the building was ON FIRE.

:crazy:
Click to expand...
It really is pointless to argue the time it takes to rig and CD a building. Nearly all of that time is spent to limit damage to other structures (control). This does not apply to 9/11. Any CD company could drop that building in a matter of hours if they didn't care about the surroundings or safety.

Why argue oranges when they are talking apples?
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...

That's very European (the UK especially) where people that are accused of libel have to prove their position. For Americans, however, proof is required from the plaintiff.

Anyway, this is a discussion, not a trial in a court of flaws. In other words, you give me some information and I give you some. Otherwise, forget about it!
 
DGM said:
It really is pointless to argue the time it takes to rig and CD a building. Nearly all of that time is spent to limit damage to other structures (control). This does not apply to 9/11. Any CD company could drop that building in a matter of hours if they didn't care about the surroundings or safety.

Why argue oranges when they are talking apples?
Click to expand...

Problem is, "they" don't know whether they want to talk apples or oranges.

AE911Truth for example says WTC7 was demolished because it neatly imploded into it's footprint ("Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint"); on the same page they argue that the twin towers were demolished because they exploded and fell all over the place ("Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally ... 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found")

In the case of WTC7, it seems they are arguing for the controlled type of demo that takes at least a fine-tuned collapse sequence, according to them.
 
DGM said:
Funny thing, I agree with you here. :eek:

If someone approached my company and gave me 8 hours to take down that building, I'd say no problem (the fires would be a concern but, not a show stopper).

The whole argument it would take weeks to "rig" is lame at best. The problem is, if I took it down, everyone in the world would know I did it. Lower Manhattan would be covered in glass and there would not be an intact window for a several blocks. BTW (any flavor) of "thermite" would be just as noticeable. You would need tractor trailer loads and a small army of worker to pull it off.

It's all about being "covert". That could never happen.
Click to expand...

Massachusetts has the best schools according to Romney. Funny thing, I agree with him there.
 
LoneRanger said:
That's very European (the UK especially) where people that are accused of libel have to prove their position. For Americans, however, proof is required from the plaintiff.

Anyway, this is a discussion, not a trial in a court of flaws. In other words, you give me some information and I give you some. Otherwise, forget about it!
Click to expand...

In other words...you have no evidence, and are making this up as you go along. :D
 
Oystein said:
Problem is, "they" don't know whether they want to talk apples or oranges.

AE911Truth for example says WTC7 was demolished because it neatly imploded into it's footprint ("Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint"); on the same page they argue that the twin towers were demolished because they exploded and fell all over the place ("Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally ... 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found")

In the case of WTC7, it seems they are arguing for the controlled type of demo that takes at least a fine-tuned collapse sequence, according to them.
Click to expand...

I have not been making the claim that the towers were brought down by explosives. A large jet slamming into them at over 400mph could have brought them down immediately, I would have thought. Add to that the fact the fire proofing was knocked off the girders and beams, that the sprinkler system was disabled, the fire was spread over several floors and very hot. It's a wonder the towers took as long as they did to fall.
 
LoneRanger said:
I have not been making the claim that the towers were brought down by explosives. A large jet slamming into them at over 400mph could have brought them down immediately, I would have thought. Add to that the fact the fire proofing was knocked off the girders and beams, that the sprinkler system was disabled, the fire was spread over several floors and very hot. It's a wonder the towers took as long as they did to fall.
Click to expand...
So, what again is your problem with building 7?
 
DGM said:
I didn't say that. Frankly, I have no idea why you think this has anything to do with my post. :confused:
Click to expand...

Not your post. I'm making an analogy. People here demand evidence of me the same way a court of flaws demands evidence from the person they accuse of libel (the defendant) in the UK. In the USA, the plaintiff has to give the proof.
 
LoneRanger said:
Not your post. I'm making an analogy. People here demand evidence of me the same way a court of flaws demands evidence from the person they accuse of libel (the defendant) in the UK. In the USA, the plaintiff has to give the proof.
Click to expand...
I understand this. The point is, you are the one presenting the alternative "theory" expecting us to defend the accepted consensus.. That make you the plaintiff. Thus, the request you present evidence. Understand?
 
Last edited:
LoneRanger said:
Anyway, this is a discussion, not a trial in a court of flaws.
Click to expand...

LoneRanger said:
Not your post. I'm making an analogy. People here demand evidence of me the same way a court of flaws demands evidence from the person they accuse of libel (the defendant) in the UK. In the USA, the plaintiff has to give the proof.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to make some point with this phrase?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom