WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

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...

Hours? That wouldn't even allow them enough time to get a copy of the blueprints and figure out where they needed to place the charges. A lot of time is also spent exposing the columns that would be covered in fireproofing, drywall, concrete, etc. The also need to cut holes in the columns to allow the shaped charges to be placed correctly. And plan and run thousands of feet of detcord. In a burning building.

The only plan that could be executed in a couple hours would be to plant a huge bomb in the bottom of the building and hope it does the job better than the 93 bombing. And that's only if you happened to have thousands of pounds of explosives ready to go in advance.
 
LoneRanger said:
Video of possible explosive charges before the fall of WTC 7

Video of the fall of WTC 7
Click to expand...

Why does the one video show explosions and the other doesn't?

Hint: You might want to read this thread.

:boxedin:

ETA: Holy crap! There were 7 posts made while I typed mine. I must be slow.
 
Last edited:
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...

My first thought too. Him talk piffle and balderdash.
 
phunk said:
Hours? That wouldn't even allow them enough time to get a copy of the blueprints and figure out where they needed to place the charges. A lot of time is also spent exposing the columns that would be covered in fireproofing, drywall, concrete, etc. The also need to cut holes in the columns to allow the shaped charges to be placed correctly. And plan and run thousands of feet of detcord. In a burning building.

The only plan that could be executed in a couple hours would be to plant a huge bomb in the bottom of the building and hope it does the job better than the 93 bombing. And that's only if you happened to have thousands of pounds of explosives ready to go in advance.
Click to expand...
What you describe is "controlled" demolition. What part of 9/11 falls into that description?

I never said it would be pretty (and obviously not covert).

The whole argument "it would take months" is based on "control" and is pointless. The "CD on 9/11 idea" fails right out of the box. There simply is no evidence to support the idea. Let them tell us how they did it. ;)
 
phunk said:
Hours? That wouldn't even allow them enough time to get a copy of the blueprints and figure out where they needed to place the charges. A lot of time is also spent exposing the columns that would be covered in fireproofing, drywall, concrete, etc. The also need to cut holes in the columns to allow the shaped charges to be placed correctly. And plan and run thousands of feet of detcord. In a burning building.
Click to expand...

Amen. Plus they'd need an experienced team ready to go.
 
Yep. It was controlled demolition in the same sense that a B-52 would do controlled demolition. As in 'not very controlled', but lots of demolition. ;)

Also not very covert.
 
DGM said:
What you describe is "controlled" demolition. What part of 9/11 falls into that description?

I never said it would be pretty (and obviously not covert).

The whole argument "it would take months" is based on "control" and is pointless. The "CD on 9/11 idea" fails right out of the box. There simply is no evidence to support the idea. Let them tell us how they did it. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about control, I'm just talking about ensuring collapse. The last thing a demolition company wants to do is make a building more unstable without bringing it down because they rushed it.
 
Hilarious thread. +1. Will read again.

Could LoneRanger by chance tell us which website/forum he's going to for the videos he has linked so far? They all have the tell-tale signs of having been viewed on a website prior to linking, so it would be easier on everyone if he'd just link said website/forum.
 
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...

You made this claim:
LoneRanger said:
My point is that sufficiently trained and experienced people wouldn't require days to bring down WTC 7.
Click to expand...
You did not support it. Part of a discussion is to support your claims. What is your evidence that "sufficiently trained and experienced people wouldn't require days to bring down WTC 7"?

It's your claim. You back it up. Assertions are nothing, and until you back your claim up, you've posted an unsupported assertion. Posting unsupported assertions isn't having a discussion, it's salesmanship. Prove that you have some substance behind that claim, and you can have your discussion. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss.
 
phunk said:
I'm not talking about control, I'm just talking about ensuring collapse. The last thing a demolition company wants to do is make a building more unstable without bringing it down because they rushed it.
Click to expand...
That's why you would concentrate on one floor and "blow the balls" out of it. The place to start would be the elevator shaft area on the ground floor+ take a few exterior columns..... You don't need to drop if far, only get it to move, gravity will do the rest.

Did I mention it would be obvious?

ETA: Yes the amount of explosives available could be problematic.
 
Last edited:
KDLarsen said:
Hilarious thread. +1. Will read again.

Could LoneRanger by chance tell us which website/forum he's going to for the videos he has linked so far? They all have the tell-tale signs of having been viewed on a website prior to linking, so it would be easier on everyone if he'd just link said website/forum.
Click to expand...

I,m not 100% but it may of come from in here ?

http://www.disclose.tv/
 
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...

A series of high explosive bombs dropped into a burning Building 7 might have done the job, but think of the mess! Plus, the high probability of spreading fire and destruction even further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom