1999 replies to this topic

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 17 April 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Yes because the temperatures were hot enough to weaken the steel structure.

So if the tempertures were hot enough to weaken the steel structure, then explain to me how that equates to the steel losing it's entire structual support for 8 floors.

And why demolition companies don't use fires if they are capable of demolishing building such as the WTC7 into their own footprints, in the same fashion as a demolition.

skyeagle409, on 17 April 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

The way WTC 7 collapse was not evidence that explosives were used.

Sorry but the freefall for 2.25 seconds  means that the during that time, the building lost all its support.

Fire doesn't make a building lose all it's support at once, that is why the Madrid fires which you keep pointing to collapse gradually over a period of time.

skyeagle409, on 17 April 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

I can point out the steel-framed building in Mexico City and the shopping center building in Seoul, Korea, where the building collapsed straight down and you will note where the article says  that loud bangs were heard before the building collapsed. Explosions?? Nope!

You have pointed to a toy  factory in Thailand and an overpass, if you have other evidence which you think supports your case, present it.

I have only been asking you for it for umpteen pages!!  

Edited by Stundie, 18 April 2012 - 09:31 AM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 17 April 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

You have been using them as references as if they were.

Sorry but you are a desperate liar, I have never once said or refered to Architect or Engineers as demolition experts. Please find the quote you terrible liar, you won't find it because all you have done is used your imagination to equate an argument that I have never made.

Of course, lying your tits off seems in lieu of a decent argument is something of a given tactic of your internet warrior skills.

Some people have little shame Skyeagle, it appears you have none.

skyeagle409, on 17 April 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Yes indeed, I would support another investigation and the only reason why,  is because I can tell the 9/11 Truthers, "I told you so." They will do an investigation on all four aircraft and find that all four no longer exist.

Good, have you signed a petition to that effect of some sort??

skyeagle409, on 17 April 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

I might also add that changes to building codes around the world were the result of the 9/11 attacks. Look at some of the results of the 9/11 attacks.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that building codes were not changed.

Unless of course, you have imagined that I have argued that building code were not changed after 9/11??  

Which I haven't of course!!  

skyeagle409, on 17 April 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Those changes were due to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and nothing to do with the government blowing up buildings or crashing aircraft into buildings.

Well that is what you think, but I think otherwise.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 18 April 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Well until you have an explaination of how fire causes a 47 storey building to lose it's entire structual support for approximately 8 floors or 2 seconds during it's descent, then I'm afraid it has everthing to do with the demolition process. It might explain to you why demolition companies don't use fires.

That is no problem, especially considering the amount of impact damaged suffered by WTC 7. Remember, the firefighters knew from observing the amount of damage and the bulge, that WTC 7 was coming down.

Quote

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

My link




*   ...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was
badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief
Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade
Center, which we did.

*   Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

*   Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

*    Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe:The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

My link

In other words, based on the amount of impact damage observed, it was just a matter of time before WTC 7 would collapse.

Quote

And of course no evidence was found, you said yourself, they never bothered looking for it.

They wouldn't have to look for evidence because they would have had a problem avoiding the evidence. The explosive evidence would have been spread all over the wreckage and they would have been walking all over that evidence as well.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 April 2012 - 05:52 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 18 April 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

So if the tempertures were hot enough to weaken the steel structure, then explain to me how that equates to the steel losing it's entire structual support for 8 floors.

It takes time to heat-soak steel. We use huge ovens in the Air Force to soften steel in order for the steel to be formed and the same is done with 7075 T-6 aluminum used in aircraft.

Quote

And why demolition companies don't use fires if they are capable of demolishing building such as the WTC7 into their own footprints, in the same fashion as a demolition.

Because the use of fires are not considered a form of precise demolition to demolish steel-framed buildings and neither are explosives if planning and preparation are not done correctly, which take many weeks. After all, more than 1000 pounds of explosive were unable to bring down one of the WTC buildings in 1993.

As I have said, if proper preparation is not done you will have something like these bombed buildings.












You need to understand that if you don't plan, prepare, and place explosives properly, don't expect the results that you are expecting.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 April 2012 - 06:19 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 18 April 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Sorry but you are a desperate liar, I have never once said or refered to Architect or Engineers as demolition experts. Please find the quote you terrible liar, you won't find it because all you have done is used your imagination to equate an argument that I have never made.

I said that you used them as IF they were demolition experts. Once again, you have goofed.

[Wandering]

Stundie, on 16 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

But it does mean something, before it was removed for being embarressing for the official story worshippers, that list was a collection of engineers who refuted the demolition theory and support the NIST conclusions.

A&E9/11 Truth have over 1500 signatories from Architects and Engineers, that list had 58 people including a Mike Hunt.

In otherwords, if there were hundreds of thousands of people who agree with the official story, they would have more than 58 signatures in the 10 months wouldn't they??

Thats about 5 signatures per month, of course some of them were clearly faked.

I'm sure if there are as many Architects and Engineers who support the official story, then getting as many as A&E9/11 Truth shouldn't be a problem should it??  

+1

skyeagle409, on 16 April 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

[/b][/size][/color][/font]
Failing bolts or rivets also sound like explosions. Listen to the sound of the this crane and you will hear what sounds like explosions such as this crane.

That does not sound like explosions. Notice the 'keening' sound before the crane collapses, which is the actual metal frame stretching out of shape due to the load. There would have been a similar sound from the towers if their massive metal girders, beams, columns and pillars were all massively overloaded and stretching beyond their capability.

Thanks for reminding me about this and giving the Official Version another kick in the behind Sky.

[skyeagle409]

Wandering, on 19 April 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

That does not sound like explosions. Notice the 'keening' sound before the crane collapses, which is the actual metal frame stretching out of shape due to the load. There would have been a similar sound from the towers if their massive metal girders, beams, columns and pillars were all massively overloaded and stretching beyond their capability.

Thanks for reminding me about this and giving the Official Version another kick in the behind Sky.

Actually, there have been those who have described such sounds as explosions, even the sound of a falling elevator striking the ground was described as an explosion..

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 April 2012 - 08:08 AM.

[Wandering]

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

Actually, there have been those who have described such sounds as explosions, even the sound of a falling elevator striking the ground was described as an explosion..

I don't know how an object crashing to the ground can be interpreted as an explosion.



The 2 are vastly different. It's like saying a car crashing into a tree causes an 'explosion like sound'. It doesn't. It's just metal tearing.

You say you have worked with explosives, yet you cannot tell the difference between a 'bang' from an object hitting the ground and a 'bang' from an explosives?

Right.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 18 April 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

That is no problem, especially considering the amount of impact damaged suffered by WTC 7.

You keep forgetting that other buildings suffered more damage and had bigger fires and survived. Even the NIST said the damage was not a contributing factor to the collapse of WTC7.

skyeagle409, on 18 April 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Remember, the firefighters knew from observing the amount of damage and the bulge, that WTC 7 was coming down.

And remember that the NIST said the damage didn't cause the building to collapse.

skyeagle409, on 18 April 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

In other words, based on the amount of impact damage observed, it was just a matter of time before WTC 7 would collapse.

Or maybe it was those explosions that made firefighters unable to get to the building like in those news reports from those at GZ?

Or maybe it was only a matter of time before the building blew up, because people at GZ were reporting that it was going to blow up!

skyeagle409, on 18 April 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

They wouldn't have to look for evidence because they would have had a problem avoiding the evidence. The explosive evidence would have been spread all over the wreckage and they would have been walking all over that evidence as well.

Of course, you think there would be trip wires and the remnants of explosive devices lying about the office floors right??  

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 18 April 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

It takes time to heat-soak steel.

But it's a lot quicker to heat soak steel than spend weeks planning and wiring a building for demolition right??

So why don't demolition companies use it Skyeagle??

skyeagle409, on 18 April 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

We use huge ovens in the Air Force to soften steel in order for the steel to be formed and the same is done with 7075 T-6 aluminum used in aircraft.

Why bother with ovens, according to you, just use some jet fuel and it'll weaken in no time! lol

skyeagle409, on 18 April 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Because the use of fires are not considered a form of precise demolition to demolish steel-framed buildings

But fires caused the precise demolition of WTC7....according to your logic.

Unless you think a building collapsing straight down into it's own footprint is not precise!!  

skyeagle409, on 18 April 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

and neither are explosives if planning and preparation are not done correctly, which take many weeks. After all, more than 1000 pounds of explosive were unable to bring down one of the WTC buildings in 1993.

They should have used fires then hey Skyeagle!!

skyeagle409, on 18 April 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

As I have said, if proper preparation is not done you will have something like these bombed buildings.

Maybe they should have used fires as well.

Could have save a shedload of time!!  

skyeagle409, on 18 April 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

You need to understand that if you don't plan, prepare, and place explosives properly, don't expect the results that you are expecting.

Demolition sometimes goes wrong, your point being what exactly?? lol They should have used fires?? lol

You need to understand that fires don't make buildings collapse and this is why demolition companies don't use it.

However I have heard they are good at making over passes collapse! lol

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 18 April 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

I said that you used them as IF they were demolition experts. Once again, you have goofed.

Here you are lying about your lies.  

Please point out where I have SUPPOSEDLY used them (A&E for 9/11 Truth) as IF they were demolition experts.  

Cause frankly Skyeagle, your imagination is running fricking wild and inventing things which clearly don't exists.

Which probably reveal some mental health issues.  

[The Narcisse]

Stundie, on 19 April 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Of course, you think there would be trip wires and the remnants of explosive devices lying about the office floors right??  

Are you suggesting that a building that has been brought down by a controlled demolition would show no signs of explosives or other demolition materials??

[Czero 101]

Wandering, on 19 April 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

I don't know how an object crashing to the ground can be interpreted as an explosion.

Does that mean that it is impossible for the sound of something impacting the ground - typically a loud sudden "bang" - to be interpreted by people to be an explosion - also typically a loud, sudden bang"?

The "mechanics" behind a car backfire and a handgun being fired are very different, yet one is quite often confused for the other.

Quote

The 2 are vastly different. It's like saying a car crashing into a tree causes an 'explosion like sound'. It doesn't. It's just metal tearing.

There is a difference between an "impact" sound and a "metal tearing" sound, to be sure, although there have been numerous accounts of the sounds of rivets "exploding" and "sounding like gunshots" when they are actually just snapping or being torn away from whatever structure they're attached to.

Metal stain tests, when a metal sample - such as a bolt - is stretched until failure often sound like small explosions or "bangs" at the moment of failure.

Quote

You say you have worked with explosives, yet you cannot tell the difference between a 'bang' from an object hitting the ground and a 'bang' from an explosives?

Would you be able to tell the difference? How do you explain the information I posted earlier of the elevator cars crashing into the sub-basement and those sounds being confused for the sounds of explosions?




Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 19 April 2012 - 04:53 PM.

[Stundie]

The Narcisse, on 19 April 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that a building that has been brought down by a controlled demolition would show no signs of explosives or other demolition materials??

Of course not. I'm sure there would be signs somewhere buried under 47 floors of rubble.

But as Skyeagle has said, they never bothered looking for explosives.

[mrbusdriver]

There's an interesting video series that looks at 9/11 CT claims, and part of it discusses WTC7.

The "heat soak" of the steel involves not only heating, and subsequent exapnsion, weakening and bowing of beams, but also subsequent cooling (and shrinking) of the steel as the fires move on. The theory is certain beams became unseated as the cooled (relatively speaking) and contracted, with the heat induced bowing remaining...resulting in the collapse. Were talking inches here being sufficient. WTC7 was apparently kind of peculiar with it's open atrium, making it vulnerable to the single point failure.

I'll track down the link (over at JREF). Meanwhile, there was lots of foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse, which is why the firefighters were pulled back well before it fell.