Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

WTC7


  • Please log in to reply
1999 replies to this topic

#1066    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2012 - 07:57 PM

Quote

The Tale of Fire and Steel

"Explosives used to demolish steel are called ‘linear-shape charges," says Bill Moore, of Brandenburg Industrial Service Co., and former president of the National Demolition Association from 2003-2005.

"They cut steel like a hot knife through butter and leave a very distinctive looking cut plus a copper residue. Just putting explosives on a piece of steel would do nothing unless the amount was huge.

That huge amount would have blown out every window in Manhattan from the sound pressure."

My link


Once again, where is the evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings? Did someone blow up the explosives evidence? Apparently the investigators who have examined the WTC wreckage and structure could find no evidence of pre-weakening nor anything else related to a controlled demolition of the WTC buildings.

That would explain that after more than 10 years not one government official has been arrested for blowing up the WTC buildings and why nosy news reporters could find no evidence either, but foreign terrorist have been arrested for the 9/11 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 April 2012 - 08:12 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1067    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 22 April 2012 - 08:42 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 April 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

Apparently the investigators who have examined the WTC wreckage and structure could find no evidence of pre-weakening nor anything else related to a controlled demolition of the WTC buildings.
Look at the state of it: -

Posted Image

That is not natural, but indicative of melting/explosive damage.

And NISTís own John Gross posing with the piece!

The evidence is in plain view, some just prefer not to see it.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1068    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2012 - 08:43 PM

View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

Look at the state of it: -

Posted Image

That is not natural, but indicative of melting/explosive damage.

And NIST's own John Gross posing with the piece!

The evidence is in plain view, some just prefer not to see it.


That is not evidence that explosives were used.Look at the bent beam below that panel. What does that tell you?

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 April 2012 - 08:44 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1069    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 22 April 2012 - 08:53 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 April 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

That is not evidence that explosives were used.Look at the bent beam below that panel. What does that tell you?
As I said - the evidence is in plain view, some just prefer not to see it.

The photo shows a hulking great piece of melted steel and you want to look at "the bent beam below that panel".

Classic.

:lol:

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1070    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:11 PM

View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

As I said - the evidence is in plain view, some just prefer not to see it.

The photo shows a hulking great piece of melted steel and you want to look at "the bent beam below that panel".

Classic.

:lol:

Look at the beam below. It is clearly evident that it suffered from heat deformation and I assume it is part of what that person is holding. Bending from a force without heat or should I say, annealing, would have cracked the flange. What makes you think the guy is holding melted steel?

Now, where is your evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings? It has been more than 10 years and yet, no evidence has surfaced.


Quote

A Tale of Fire & Steel

Another demolition expert who worked at Ground Zero also finds no trouble debunking the claim of explosives.“Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event,” says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com. “You just can’t clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can’t see how it happened that way.”

Moore adds to the counter demolition theory.

“Implosions are initiated by weakening structural members with explosives,” he explains. “The steel in the WTC buildings was weakened not only by the crash but by the intense heat from the jet fuel fire. Thus, instead of explosives, fire was used to weaken the steel. Once the steel gave, the weight of the upper floors collapsed onto the lower floors, thus creating a domino effect.

Posted Image
Some of the steel inspected was bare, the foam fireproof completely absent from the components. The theory is that the impact from the jets “blew” the foam off the steel, making it more susceptible to heat or destroyed completely by the crashes.“The fireproofing material I’ve seen sticks very well and a ‘jolt’ would not knock it off,” says Moore. “If the steel was directly hit knocking off the fireproofing, then the steel would have been damaged and weakened, as well.”

Dr. Saeed Mirza, professor of civil engineering and applied mechanics at McGill University, Montreal, Canada, agrees that the fire was enough to initiate total structural failure.

“At temperatures of 120 degrees C (248 F) until 300 degrees C (500 F) or so, there is no change in the properties of steel or concrete, no loss of strength. Beyond that, steel loses strength. At 800 to 1,000 degrees C (1,472-1,832 F) it is 20 percent of what it should be.

Gravity of the situation

The dynamics of the collapses are unique to all three WTC buildings in that they collapsed into their own footprints in less than 16 seconds. How could these buildings collapse so quickly? Wouldn’t there be some resistance to a freefall at the rate of gravity?

“We think the idea that the collapse was essentially a free fall is incorrect,” comments Dr. Louis F. Geschwindner, PE and professor of architectural engineering, Pennsylvania State University. “The part of the tower above the zone of plane damage started down when the remaining strength at the damage location was exceeded. The structure below provided upward resistance but not enough to overcome the progression of failure directly under it. “As the failure propagated down, the failed elements added to the mass acting downward, increasing the load incrementally as the mass traveled down. This pattern occurred all the way down, increasing at the rate of gravity.”

My link

Still no evidence that explosives were used.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 April 2012 - 10:00 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1071    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:37 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 April 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Over 2000 people were inside the WTC buildings


:sleepy:


In the years, months and weeks leading up to 9/11 the towers were nowhere near operating at capacity.


Entire floors stood empty, their exposed ceiling beams visible from the floor.


There were very few full time tenants.


This leaves more than enough opportunity for explosives to be planted.




Tell me again why this is moot because people were killed? Your logic is inexplainable.


#1072    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:41 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 April 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

That doesn't make any sense considering that:


[/b]
Because of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the government must now shell out millions upon millions of dollars each year  to support veterans who were affected by those wars, which is beyond the billions upon billions of dollars already spent and the loss of lives that were the direct result of those wars.

That doesn't sound like very good reasons to fly aircraft into buildings or crash them into the ground.


How nice it must be to live in your world Skyeagle...Of course, you are the only person there....


The Government was not trying to make money off this. Of course the Government has to hand out money. How does it do that? By borrowing more money from the banks.

Win for the banks.

Yet Weapons Manufacturers are still making more money than they did pre 9/11. Imagine if since 2001 we hadn't had 9/11, hadn't had any wars in the Muslim countries. The world would be an extremely quiet place right now. A beautiful place. No reason to stockpile weapons.

Win for the Weapons Manufacturers.


#1073    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:43 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 April 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

Then, you must understand that they are not demolition experts.
What the hell are you talking about??  :wacko: Where the hell I have ever quoted or misunderstood that A&E for 9/11 truth??  :w00t:

Sorry but you are going mental here, lets take a look at the evidence of how this merry go round of pure delusion from the very best place, the start.

You...."The engineers are not demolition experts."
Me....."Whoever said they were?? :blink:"
You...."You have been using them as references as if they were."
Me....."Sorry but you are a desperate liar, I have never once said or referred 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."
You...."I said that you used them as IF they were demolition experts. Once again, you have goofed."
Me....."Please point out where I have SUPPOSEDLY used them (A&E for 9/11 Truth) as IF they were demolition experts. :blink:"
You...."You used them as references, am I correct??"
Me....."No, you are not correct. This is why you can't point out "where I have SUPPOSEDLY used them (A&E for 9/11 Truth) as IF they were demolition experts." because you have imagined that I referenced them as demolition expert. In other words, you have lied and not for the first time either.

And now you come out with this..."Then, you must understand that they are not demolition experts."  :w00t:

Why do I need to understand they are not demolition experts when I never argued they were and I'm fully aware and already understand that they are not demolition experts?? hahahahahahahaha!!! Fricking hilarious!

Yet you have invented this position where some how you have imagined in a distance galaxy in what passes for thinking, that I think A&E 9/11 truth....are demolition experts!!  :w00t:

Its all inside your head, you are arguing with yourself because as we are all aware, including my so called dumb twoofin toofer butt, that A&E9/11 are NOT demolition experts.  :w00t:  

In your own imagination  you obviously believing you are smashing down those toofing twoofers but you ain't arguing with da twoof, just a figment of your imagination that even the most laser beaming tin hat wearing no planer would envious to posses!

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 April 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

I have provided the specifics on what it takes to bring down a building in a certain way. People think that you can just place explosives in a steel-framed building and it is going to collapse the way they want.
And hilariously, people think that you can set fire to a building and it will collapse just like a implosion directly into it's own footprint, symmetrically or and create invisible super destructive upper blocks.

Based on a third world sweat shop building and an over pass.

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 April 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

Remember, a steel-framed building is not affected in the same way as a wood-framed building, and I posted the photos to show that even though steel-framed buildings were bombed, they still remained standing whereas a wood-framed building would have been blown apart.
Oh thanks for reminding me, I honestly thought that all buildings were effected in the same way, cause like in my twoofer mind, I thought a paper framed building would be affected the same way as a steel or wood framed building, I didn't think materials as different as steel, wood, paper, liquorice, cotton buds, semtex, ice, bananas framed buildings were affected in different ways?

Not so much a bible of knowledge, more like a bible of obvious under parable pointless!

Anyway, I posted photos that show steel framed buildings with much worse damage and bigger and longer fires still remained standing, where as wood frame buildings, well you bought that up for some odd reason.

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 April 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

To demolish a steel-framed building you must pre-weaken the structure and the explosives fires must remain securely attached to the structure otherwise don't expect the building to collapse the way you want and as I have said before, it takes many weeks of no planning and preparation just to demolish a steel-framed building smaller than the WTC buildings and because not all steel-framed building are built of the same designs is another reason why it takes long-termed no planning and preparation. To think that you can just place explosives set fire in a steel-framed building and expect to blow it to pieces is pure Hollywood stuff.
Err! Fixed that for you!  :tu:

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 April 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

It would have taken many months to pre-weaken and prepare the WTC buildings for demolition, a process that could not have been done without disturbing normal operations within the WTC buildings. Any explosives attached to structural beams above the 77th floors would have either been dislodged from the structural beams after the impacts and would not have been effective in blowing apart the structure because once again, the explosives must remained attached to structural beams to be effective and that is if the explosives were not already detonated by the impacts and resulting fires.
Well it doesn't take many months to pre weaken or that long to prepare WTC for demolition, you believe that a demolition wasn't needed therefore no explosives, where as if I said that they place one explosive device in the building, or even rigged a single floor, then it would have still been effective by your own logic, because you believe it collapsed without no explosive.

It another inventive argument you've created, another Wurzel Gummage and being burnt down Champ along with Aunt Sally whose being BBQ with your flame thrower of debunking logic.

If fire is so effective at demolishing building and making them collapse into it's own footprint, all those weeks of planning are a waste of time and demolition companies would be rushing to use it, it would save them an absolute fortune, fires are easy to prepare aren't they and have the job done within hours.

The problem is as we all know, fires....they are a bit crap at making buildings collapse!

Thats my bible of the obvious!  :P

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 April 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

Despite what some may think, thermite is a very poor and ineffective substitute for the C4 explosive, which is normally used by demolition companies, so why did someone come along and claim that thermite was used to bring down WTC buildings? Because someone found traces of thermite within the building, but the thermite can come from other sources, so finding thermite was not evidence by any means that explosives were used. I posted those videos where 175 pounds of thermite was unable to burn through a small steel box beam despite care in packing the material around the beam and another case where 1000 pounds of thermite was unable to burn a vehicle in half and yet we are lead to believe that thermite is what brought down the WTC buildings.

People need to get away from the Hollywood frame of mind in regards to the collapse of the WTC buildings.
I know, my Hollywood twoofer fantasy delusions, I imagine that some men covertly placed wireless remote explosive charges and thermite devices which they slowly set of and demolish the WTC 7 which comes down at free fall speed for a short period as the devices cut all the structural support and make the WTC7 come down at near free fall speed into a nice debris pile, explaining all the eyewitness accounts of explosions.

In your reality based version of event, fires burned so hot for 1 and 7 hours in the buildings, that aluminum or melted glass started glowing bright orange in the day light from one of the buildings and because it was mixed with carpets and stuff and gypsum from the drywall, it them creates a thermite reaction, cause every knows that if you start a fire with some aluminum and gypsum, that you get thermite, and with the added continuing fire, it fell down at free fall speeds for a short period as the building is burning hotter than Dante inferno after curry night, into a nice debris pile into it's own footprint, and all the eyewitness accounts of explosions were steel crane snapping, cable cars, people throwing themselves off the buildings and Dr Pepper cans exploding in a vending machine.

Its a good job you have a grip on reality. lol

Edited by Stundie, 22 April 2012 - 11:54 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1074    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:47 PM

View PostWandering, on 22 April 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

:sleepy:


In the years, months and weeks leading up to 9/11 the towers were nowhere near operating at capacity.

The fact tha more than 2000 people occupied the WTC buildings before the impacts is really what matters.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 April 2012 - 11:48 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1075    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:50 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 April 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

People who have never heard a real bomb explosion can easily confuse other sounds as explosions.
And people who were not at GZ can easily confuse the explosions they saw, heard and felt as other sounds.

Especially internet warriors!

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1076    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:51 PM

View PostWandering, on 22 April 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

How nice it must be to live in your world Skyeagle...Of course, you are the only person there....

How amusing when the 9/11 Truthers are the minority.

Quote

The Government was not trying to make money off this.

Did any 9/11 Truther claim that one of the reasons for the 9/11 attacks was to raise the military budget?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1077    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:53 PM

View PostStundie, on 22 April 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

And people who were not at GZ can easily confuse the explosions they saw, heard and felt as other sounds.

Experts who were there have said that there was no evidence of explosives at the WTC sites, which simply means that the sounds others have heard had nothing to do with bomb explosons.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1078    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:56 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 April 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

The fact tha more than 2000 people occupied the WTC buildings before the impacts is really what matters.


......


So are you going to tell us how?

Why is that what matters?


Are you going to reinvigorate your argument that they would be attempting to plant explosives while the towers burned and people were fleeing down the stairs?

Why is that what matters Sky?


Just saying it does not make it true.

Edited by Wandering, 22 April 2012 - 11:58 PM.


#1079    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:58 PM

View PostStundie, on 22 April 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

What the hell are you talking about??  :wacko:

Just what I had said.

Quote

You...."The engineers are not demolition experts."

What I do know is what bomb explosions sound like and the blast waves they produce and that is a major difference between you and I.

View PostWandering, on 22 April 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

Why is that what matters Sky.


Why wouldn't it?

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 April 2012 - 11:58 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1080    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 23 April 2012 - 12:02 AM

View PostStundie, on 22 April 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Why do I need to understand they are not demolition experts...

To understand that using them as refences by no means support your case that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings.

Quote

In your own imagination  you obviously believing you are smashing down those toofing twoofers but you ain't arguing with da twoof, just a figment of your imagination that even the most laser beaming tin hat wearing no planer would envious to posses!

And hilariously, people think that you can set fire to a building and it will collapse just like a implosion directly into it's own footprint, symmetrically or and create invisible super destructive upper blocks.

The evidence we have is that the WTC buildings were on fire and suffered damage from impacts before their collapse. What we don't have is evidence that explosives were used.

In other words, we have evidence for fires and impact damage in the WTC buildings before their collapse, but none for planted explosives either before nor after their collapse.  BIG DIFFERENCE!!


Edited by skyeagle409, 23 April 2012 - 12:05 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users