Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
acidhead

WTC 7 Collapse - New Video Released

232 posts in this topic

another good post.

this theory, obviously cannot be proven, it also cannot be disproven..

Thanks :) As you say, these are only plausible theories I am suggesting that underlie all of the actual physical evidence we do have supporting controlled demolition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheeple vs. Lunatics:

ROUND 1

Lol, more like round 1,123,352,635,256,121 to infinity and beyond.

My personal views on 9/11, I don't know. That's all I'll say for now. :sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1:And why exactly would “extensive drilling” of the structure be required?

2:You don’t have to describe it so dramatically :lol:

3:Here, take a look at US Patent Application 20060266204 - a thermite charge which can be used for structural demolition.

4:Yes, I mentioned higher casualties and more damage by bringing down the structures. Do understand the aim would not be to cause maximum devastation though; just enough. If that’s still not good enough for you, there is another reason - the cost of deconstruction/rebuild of the Towers, required at some point in the future due to asbestos problems, was estimated to be in the double-digit billions. By completely removing the Towers in a terrorist attack, that is a quick solution with the insurance companies covering most of the cost.

1: The demo points in any building are not immediatly accessible for demo charges. It would still require a long time to "wire" a building for a controlled demolition even if the charges were wireless. I would say at best 6 months to wire the 3 buildings supposedly brought down by controlled demo. That's assuming several hundred people, and your hypothetical demo charge making it easier.

2: It's the drama that makes these discussions fun! :lol:

3: Just because it's patented doesn't mean it's viable. Hasn't someone patented a time machine?

4: How do you define "just enough". Why would the aim not be maximum destruction? The higher the body count = higher american outrage = more the government could have gotten away with. Asbestos removal would not require the buildings to be demolished and rebuilt. Although it would be expensive to remove the asbestos in buildings that size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, ‘dropping’ explosive charges ‘here and there’ would never do – thus why I said, “fixed to the structure at predetermined points”. By prefabricated I mean assembly or wiring of the charges would not be carried out on site. The units would be preassembled ready to be placed and ensure a more efficient setup. There may not be prefabricated charges off the shelf, I don’t really know, but I am certain the demolition team could carry out this work before entering the buildings.

You still appear to be thinking along the lines of a conventional demolition setup. Perhaps the fire-proofing would require removal and perhaps not (I doubt it would be rated against a 2,500oC thermite reaction anyway). And why exactly would “extensive drilling” of the structure be required? Wiring together of the charges could prove difficult, thus why I suggested, “units which worked independently of one another with a remote detonation system”.

And you are postulating demolition and detonation systems which don't presently exist. If they did, they be developed and used by professionals who make a living bringing down structures using explosives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“It looks like, therefore it is likely to be so”, would be more accurate. This certainly is better than your proposed alternative of disbelieving our own eyes in favour of what we are told or disregarding what we plainly see for what we want to believe.

The problem is that your eyes tell you different things from what my eyes tell me, and I have been earning my living for decades from using my eyes to tell me what is happening in engineering situations.

I haven’t looked in any detail at the NIST WTC7 modelling and, after the complete farce of their WTC1 and WTC2 impact models which relied on scenarios clearly outside of reality, I’m not going to waste my time. If you think some government employed engineers tweaking their computer models to give the results demanded of them somehow supports your idea, then so be it.

To use your technique: "We have been over all of the modelling arguments in detail previously. I can't go on a never-ending merry-go-round with you because you refuse to retain information from previous discussions." Anyone can use this sort of get-out to avoid answering the counters to their arguments. Just because you couldn't address these arguments in an earlier thread doesn't mean that you can ignore them now.

Your implication that the engineers who have modelled the collapse are all government-employed is a case in point. Once again, you choose to ignore the long list of outside experts brought in to aid NIST in their investigation. Once again, you claim that the simulations are invalid from a position of complete ignorance of how these methods are used in real engineering situations. Once again, you claim that they simulations are "outside of reality" while ignoring key physical evidence that the simulations predict and your demolition theories cannot, ie the bowing of the perimeter columns in the towers and the penthouse behaviour of WTC7.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it still bewilders some of you that people outside America are capable of doing such things. I mean, these people live in caves! And they have weird religious beliefs! SPOOOOOOKY!

Sorry, but 9/11/01 was a terrorist attack. All these people weren't a victim of a great conspiracy, you won't be bringing the perpetrators to justice seeing as they're already dead and people living in third world countries aren't as stupid as you think they are.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

Here, read this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people are still talking about thermite. It just doesn't work the way people here want it to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inside floors of the building are collapsing down on top of eachother before the outside collapses down. Making it look like an explosion is happening on the lower levels.

It is simply the inside collapsing before the outside. The impact of the inside floors hitting one another is the flash you see. (the electrical system exploding etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1: The demo points in any building are not immediatly accessible for demo charges. It would still require a long time to "wire" a building for a controlled demolition even if the charges were wireless. I would say at best 6 months to wire the 3 buildings supposedly brought down by controlled demo. That's assuming several hundred people, and your hypothetical demo charge making it easier.

Why would you say 6 months with several hundred people??? I think all three buildings could easily be set-up well within a month with only 12 people, assuming approximately 200 charges in each of the Towers and 100 in WTC7. The 12 people act in 6 two man teams and can each install say 4 charges per shift/day. That means each day up to 24 charges can be set. So to set the required approximately 500 charges would take 21 days.

3: Just because it's patented doesn't mean it's viable. Hasn't someone patented a time machine?

I don’t know about a time machine :lol: but I was just linking to the thermite demolition patent to show that far from being some complex unknown technology, the concept is actually quite simple.

4: How do you define "just enough". Why would the aim not be maximum destruction? The higher the body count = higher american outrage = more the government could have gotten away with. Asbestos removal would not require the buildings to be demolished and rebuilt. Although it would be expensive to remove the asbestos in buildings that size.

You have to use your own judgement of what “enough” would be, though I think on its own the removal of such landmark buildings and thousands of deaths meets the requirement. Regarding the asbestos removal, whether it was going to cost millions or billions, it’s something that Larry Silverstein does not have to worry about anymore.

And you are postulating demolition and detonation systems which don't presently exist. If they did, they be developed and used by professionals who make a living bringing down structures using explosives.

No one said this type of thermite demolition charge was the best way to bring a building down – just one of many options. We have to understand the WTC demolitions were not conventional for good reason.

The problem is…

… see previous hundreds of posts between us (the UM search facility is very good).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you say 6 months with several hundred people??? I think all three buildings could easily be set-up well within a month with only 12 people, assuming approximately 200 charges in each of the Towers and 100 in WTC7. The 12 people act in 6 two man teams and can each install say 4 charges per shift/day. That means each day up to 24 charges can be set. So to set the required approximately 500 charges would take 21 days.

200 charges for a 100 story building? I doubt that would be enough. Thats 2 charges per floor (less actually because the twin towers were over 100 stories).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The inside floors of the building are collapsing down on top of eachother before the outside collapses down. Making it look like an explosion is happening on the lower levels.

It is simply the inside collapsing before the outside. The impact of the inside floors hitting one another is the flash you see. (the electrical system exploding etc.)

floors do not fly through other floors like the are not there. and it got lighter the higher it went, the strongest of the building was in the loweer parts of the building. i cant believe this is still an unresolved argument, by now the whole world should know it was demolition without question. must be nice on the part of the debunkers that they got rid of all the evidence at the crime scene so fast and also didnt do an investigation till a whopping two years later and even that was whitewashed. but does that make you question the event? nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They couldn't cover up & hide everything, you could almost say it was a case of big brother backfiring on em; ya know, here a cam there a cam, everywhere a cam cam.

These pics have always fascinated me;

Now you see it, now you don't...

=====

linked-image

Note the steel, turned to dust in front of your very eyes.

Steel pillars are turned into dust. Extremely hot, sublimating pieces are not created with many methods.

Just your every day demo workers installing a RDX Linear Cutting Charge at 45-degrees (Controlled Demolitions Inc).

linked-image

What looks to be a diagonal cut by suspected Thermal Linear Cutting Charges at greater than 45-degree angle

linked-image

911lies.org

=====

hmm idk, but it appears pretty clear cut to me? :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
floors do not fly through other floors like the are not there. and it got lighter the higher it went, the strongest of the building was in the loweer parts of the building. i cant believe this is still an unresolved argument, by now the whole world should know it was demolition without question. must be nice on the part of the debunkers that they got rid of all the evidence at the crime scene so fast and also didnt do an investigation till a whopping two years later and even that was whitewashed. but does that make you question the event? nope.

I am sorry but you are wrong. The debris is falling inside the building quicker than the outside is collapsing. The debris is probably 5 stories down before you see the outside collapse. The middle of the floors give in and all that falls down to the next floor causing the impact explosions you see.

Those sparks you see are computers, light fixtures, office equipment, etc exploding from the debris from the inside.

I don't see why this is so hard to grasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
linked-image

Note the steel, turned to dust in front of your very eyes.

Steel pillars are turned into dust. Extremely hot, sublimating pieces are not created with many methods.

Look again, column falls leaving a cloud of dust hanging in the air. Third pic catches column falling.

What looks to be a diagonal cut by suspected Thermal Linear Cutting Charges at greater than 45-degree angle

linked-image

911lies.org

What is this supposed to demonstrate? Large pieces of metal need to be cut up before they can be transported elsewhere, so what? If you look closely at the cut, you can see where the slag from the cutting torch has run down the column.

What's a thermal linear cutting charge, anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
… see previous hundreds of posts between us (the UM search facility is very good).

Such a search will reveal that our long debate on the other thread ended with you going away with no explanation, leaving only the ridiculous figure of turbonium to try to defend your position.

I'll just ask once again the question you had such difficulty with:

Can you produce a single piece of incontrovertible evidence for controlled demolition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look again, column falls leaving a cloud of dust hanging in the air. Third pic catches column falling.

I'm simply asking the questions, you seem to have the answers...

I looked, just can't see anything falling, could you circle or highlight it for me by any chance?

Large pieces of metal need to be cut up before they can be transported elsewhere, so what?

Yeah maybe, i thought about that, but while the site is still smoldering?

Even so, On one half the steel column, that's gotta be the most precision ''oxy cutting'' i ever seen?

And please, feel free to show me where an oxy leaves that much slag behind, stuck to the steel even (pics if ya like)?

That's a hollow support beam/column not solid steel. My guess is meted plastic etc etc or even much lighter gauge steel from elsewhere maybe(?)

What's a thermal linear cutting charge, anyway?

I quoted 911Lies.org , hope this helps anyways...

RDX (Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine) Linear cutting charge

Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm simply asking the questions, you seem to have the answers...

I looked, just can't see anything falling, could you circle or highlight it for me by any chance?

There is a time delay in those photos. Like swan said, in the third pic, if you look to the far right of the dust cloud you can see a darker strip, that is the single column (highest point in the other photos) on its way down. The structure in those photos sank straight down. I would have circled it for you but my comp is creepin. :hmm:

Yeah maybe, i thought about that, but while the site is still smoldering?

Even so, On one half the steel column, that's gotta be the most precision ''oxy cutting'' i ever seen?

And please, feel free to show me where an oxy leaves that much slag behind, stuck to the steel even (pics if ya like)?

That's a hollow support beam/column not solid steel. My guess is meted plastic etc etc or even much lighter gauge steel from elsewhere maybe(?)

The rubble at ground zero smoldered for a couple weeks. I do find that photo interesting though. If that beam was cut during the recovery (or after the fact) why was it cut at such an angle? The photo also shows another beam (or two) which was also clearly cut, although it was cut straight across. Whats the reason for cutting one beam at an angle and the beam next to it straight across?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your implication that the engineers who have modelled the collapse are all government-employed is a case in point. Once again, you choose to ignore the long list of outside experts brought in to aid NIST in their investigation. Once again, you claim that the simulations are invalid from a position of complete ignorance of how these methods are used in real engineering situations. Once again, you claim that they simulations are "outside of reality" while ignoring key physical evidence that the simulations predict and your demolition theories cannot, ie the bowing of the perimeter columns in the towers and the penthouse behaviour of WTC7.

The "outside experts" WERE all government-employed, for all intents and purposes. They were all contracted by the government, and they were all working in support of the government's (NIST's) hypothesis of fire/damage causing the collapses of all three buildings.

None of them were independent. None of them pursued, or were even asked to consider, any hypothesis other than NIST's fire/damage hypothesis.

In fact, many of them were previously employed or contracted by the very government paying them to help NIST's investigation.

To imply they are somehow independent of NIST by calling them "outside experts" is completely ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200 charges for a 100 story building? I doubt that would be enough. Thats 2 charges per floor (less actually because the twin towers were over 100 stories).

Charges on every single floor seems rather unnecessary - look even at conventional controlled demolitions where this level of excess is not required. I was surmising charges at around 12-14 floor intervals would be quite sufficient. That could give 8 floors set with 25 charges each. The seismic data and visible squibs in video evidence also sit well with the interval spacing I suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you produce a single piece of incontrovertible evidence for controlled demolition?

The full body of evidence for a false flag operation on 9/11 is well-nigh incontrovertible unless we believe in the astronomical odds of the official fairytale. I have previously done a basic calculation on the ‘official’ Pentagon theory being true and found the chances to be around 0.5%. We have spoken previously about the seismic readings where you yourself calculated the chances of the ‘official’ collapse theory being true at only around 19%. Throw in the long odds of the ‘battery bomb chain-reaction’ theory you use to excuse the thermite flow from WTC2, etc, etc, etc. If we went through the whole evidence in this way and totted every single thing up, we would see the odds of what you are promoting are ridiculously long.

In fact, many of them were previously employed or contracted by the very government paying them to help NIST's investigation.

True, turbs. I have looked at NIST’s list of contracted staff (or what flyingswan calls ‘outside experts’ :rolleyes: ) in some detail. It happens that the largest group of contractors are employees of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) who, as well as having had well-known public servants on its Board of Directors including a former CIA Director, interestingly are the ninth largest Department of Defense contractor in the US and have also worked with the FBI and NSA – hardly unaffiliated.

The NIST theories are a mute point for me in any case – reading of the studies themselves show the ideas within are completely unproven and I have demonstrated this in some detail in previous posts to a level I know even flyingswan could understand, even if not entirely admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you produce a single piece of incontrovertible evidence for controlled demolition?

The full body of evidence for a false flag operation on 9/11 is well-nigh incontrovertible unless we believe in the astronomical odds of the official fairytale. I have previously done a basic calculation on the ‘official’ Pentagon theory being true and found the chances to be around 0.5%.

So the answer is no, you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry but you are wrong. The debris is falling inside the building quicker than the outside is collapsing. The debris is probably 5 stories down before you see the outside collapse. The middle of the floors give in and all that falls down to the next floor causing the impact explosions you see.

Those sparks you see are computers, light fixtures, office equipment, etc exploding from the debris from the inside.

I don't see why this is so hard to grasp.

now you are just making stuff up off the top of your head. but i'll entertain you. so your actually saying the building free fell faster than free fall speed. lemme guess.... the 747 was driving it. when your arguments start falling right on their face then it is time to take a really hard look at the views you hold so dearly.

Edited by Grand Inquisitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry but you are wrong. The debris is falling inside the building quicker than the outside is collapsing. The debris is probably 5 stories down before you see the outside collapse. The middle of the floors give in and all that falls down to the next floor causing the impact explosions you see.

Those sparks you see are computers, light fixtures, office equipment, etc exploding from the debris from the inside.

I don't see why this is so hard to grasp.

again, I am coming at this from a firefighters point of view; I am not getting into any conspiracy as to demolitions and such, NWO or anything of the sort. I am simply dealing with this from a structural point of view; a structure that has some damage on one end and has fires that can be seen coming from the sides.

How can you say that a the debris is probably 5 floors down before you see the outside collapse? What do you base that on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some people are unable to comprehend how strong, resilient and redundant these structures were. they weren't just a bunch of fiddlesticks and toothpicks stacked up to make a tower.

Edited by Grand Inquisitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.