WTC7

[Stundie]

You've put me into a position where I must agree with Stundie, and I don't much appreciate that sky.

Seriously though, there is no doubt that explosions, or loud bangs that sounded like explosions, were heard. They were captured on video. They were reported by a great number of witnesses. There is no question that there were very loud noises which sounded like explosions.

Now, that isn't to say that the explosive sounding bangs were from any kind of demolition charges. In fact, there could well have been bombs in addition to the crashes. This doesn't equate to government involvement though. Loud bangs could be the result of many things.

Do you recall the white vans that were reported about? I believe one was at the George Washington bridge, and others in different places. Could there have been others parked under the WTC towers? I don't know personally. This topic isn't discussed in great detail anywhere that I've found, but I do remember the news reports when they first aired because I was glued to the TV like most people.

These points shouldn't be ignored or denied. Saying things like "there were no explosions" only adds fuel to the conspiracy theorist's fires.

WOW!!! I'm truly gobsmacked boo!!

Thank you for the acknowledgment and showing good faith and honesty in the evidence presented as I honestly expected some more denial.

Of course, the fact that explosions were heard doesn't prove anything other than there were probably explosions of some sort, it could have been explosives as I seem to think, it could have been something else, anything else. Until there is a source for the explosions that people heard and were recorded, then all I am saying is that this doesn't rule out the possibility that explosives could have been used.

I have to agree with your whole post which may be something of a first, it doesn't prove that the towers were demolished, nor does it prove that it was an inside job either. It just shows it as a possibility.

Thanks again booNyzarC.

Cheers

Stundie

[skyeagle409]

Seriously though, there is no doubt that explosions, or loud bangs that sounded like explosions, were heard. They were captured on video. They were reported by a great number of witnesses. There is no question that there were very loud noises which sounded like explosions.

There are major differences between real explosions and sounds, which might sound like explosions. That is why I posted the video of the collapsing crane to bring up a point that the collapse of the crane sounded just like an explosion just before it collapsed.

Do you recall the white vans that were reported about? I believe one was at the George Washington bridge, and others in different places. Could there have been others parked under the WTC towers? I don't know personally. This topic isn't discussed in great detail anywhere that I've found, but I do remember the news reports when they first aired because I was glued to the TV like most people. These points shouldn't be ignored or denied. Saying things like "there were no explosions" only adds fuel to the conspiracy theorist's fires.

The explosions that I am referring to are chemical, or should I say, bomb-related. They could have heard electrical tranformers or even bodies striking the ground from the WTC buildings, which some have decribed as sounding like explosions. In addition:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center

Published: July 24, 1992

An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said.

My link

----------------------------------------------------------------------

New York City and Transformer Explosions

Transformer vault (also called manhole) explosions are fairly common place in Manhattan, especially during wet weather. They're highly visible and normally generate numerous telephone calls to the Central Office. We didn't think this one was going to be any different. When Engine 10 advised us by radio they had a working fire in the Trade Center, we thought the transformer vault was located within the basement of the complex. Not a routine event, but still,it's only a transformer vault we thought.

“When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go.

The way I see it, it had to be the rivets.

The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_broadway_electrical_supplys/

He said

"The way I see it, it had to be the rivets"

but the conspiracy sites remove this important insight. They skipped over the sentence. There is only one reason to do something like that. To mislead the reader by removing all other possibilities for the sounds.

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

Even bodies hitting the floor sounded like explosions.

“The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said ‘Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.’ I couldn’t fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.

“I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets.

They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Now a real explosion, but unfortunately you cannot feel the blast wave from the explosion, which can really shake a person up. I can still remember bomb blast pounding the walls of our barracks even though the detonations were far away. Turn up the volume as high as you can but understand that still falls far short of being there because you cannot feel the blast wave.

The fact that no evidence of explosives were found indicates that the sounds they heard were not associated with bomb explosives.

Edited April 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

WOW!!! I'm truly gobsmacked boo!!

Thank you for the acknowledgment and showing good faith and honesty in the evidence presented as I honestly expected some more denial.

Of course, the fact that explosions were heard doesn't prove anything other than there were probably explosions of some sort, it could have been explosives as I seem to think, it could have been something else, anything else. Until there is a source for the explosions that people heard and were recorded, then all I am saying is that this doesn't rule out the possibility that explosives could have been used.

I have to agree with your whole post which may be something of a first, it doesn't prove that the towers were demolished, nor does it prove that it was an inside job either. It just shows it as a possibility.

Thanks again booNyzarC.

Cheers

Stundie

What you hear here.

Is what you don't hear here.

Exploding the Myths

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

My link

Edited April 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I know, like I've said previously, they should have used fire as it would have been much better at destroying the buildings!!

Since it takes many weeks of planning and preparation,to conduct a precision demoliton of a building a one-hour fire cannot be considered a form of precise demoliton and neither can explosives if proper measures are not undertaken.

Now,where is your evidence that explosives were used?

[skyeagle409]

And how do you know this?? lol

Simple! The beams are bent, not broken

Edited April 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Czero 101]

Regarding what was perceived as the "explosions", or at least addressing some of them, I posted this a while back:

Now, if you told me you were there when this all came down, I just might believe a little of what you've said, but, if not, than why would I dismiss the numerous witnesses accounts of having heard loud explosions during this episode. How can you state that the sounds these people heard were not loud enough to be considered as explosions--if you weren't there.

How about the words of someone who was there, in one of the towers, when it was hit:

The Elevator Man's Tale

Featuring the unabridged transcript and audio.

Robert Jones

Age: 52

Hometown: Montgomery

Family: Two children

Occupation: Elevator mechanic for Ace Elevator in the World Trade Center

Was in the south tower when the first plane hit.

...

As I turned around to go back toward the core of the building in the lobby, the second plane hit, and that shook the building.

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

I’m looking from the lobby up to a mezzanine area or the second floor where they lined up all the people to go up to the rooftop, and I’m looking up expecting something, building parts to be coming down, because I wasn’t quite sure what that noise was.

But I found out later, when the plane came through the building, it cut the hoist ropes, the governor ropes, of (the) 6 and 7 cars, which was the observation cars.

Every night they would park those two cars up on the 107th floor. At the time the plane impacted B Tower, the observation deck wasn’t open yet, which was another life-saving factor. At the time it impacted the building, they hadn’t opened the observation deck.

Had they, there would’ve been many, maybe another 1,000, 2,000 people on the rooftop, because it was a clear day. It was a beautiful day.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car.

[SOURCE]

Cz

Edited April 16, 2012 by Czero 101

[skyeagle409]

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.

The engineers are not demolition experts. Let them have another investigaton because another investigation will further prove that there was no evidence that explosives were used.

Did anyone hear the sound of explosions on the video as WTC 7 collapsed? Did the collpase of WTC 7 sound like this?

Edited April 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Do you recall the white vans that were reported about? I believe one was at the George Washington bridge, and others in different places. Could there have been others parked under the WTC towers?

I vaguely remember such reports, but I found this.

Terrorist Plot to Bomb Holland Tunnel Uncovered

The FBI has uncovered what officials consider a serious plot by jihadists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in hopes of causing a torrent of water to deluge lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned. The terrorists sought to drown the Financial District as New Orleans was by Hurricane Katrina, sources said. They also wanted to attack subways and other tunnels.

Counterterrorism officials are alarmed by the "lone wolf" terror plot because they allegedly got a pledge of financial and tactical support from Jordanian associates of top terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before he was killed in Iraq, a counterterrorism source told The News.

My link

Had the terrorist been successful we probably would have had a message board on a U.S government conspiracy to blow up tunnels in the United States in order for the Pentagon to receive an increase in its budget. Why blow up bridges and tunnels to gain an increase in funds for the budget when all they had to do was to do it the old-fashion way and just ask for it?

Blowing up buildings, tunnels, and bridges in such a manner is like a spoiled brat throwing a brutal temper tandrum because his father said no to a raise in his allowance.

Edited April 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

What you hear here.

Is what you don't hear here.

What you see in the first video is a traditional demolition.

What you see in the second video isn't a traditional demolition.

Like the Skyride Tower back in 1935, I'm sure there were no explosions in that demolition either.

[Stundie]

Since it takes many weeks of planning and preparation,to conduct a precision demoliton of a building a one-hour fire cannot be considered a form of precise demoliton and neither can explosives if proper measures are not undertaken.

Now,where is your evidence that explosives were used?

But you believe that fire demolished WTC7 which fell straight down into it's own footprint in around 7 hours, so therefore it is a precise form of demolition.

Very quick too!!

Unless you think that a building falling down into it's own footprint isn't a precise!

[Stundie]

The engineers are not demolition experts.

Whoever said they were??

Let them have another investigaton because another investigation will further prove that there was no evidence that explosives were used.

So you support another investigation?? WOW!!!

I've been stunned twice in 2 days on here.

Did anyone hear the sound of explosions on the video as WTC 7 collapsed?

No, but there were lots of people who heard explosions just before it collapsed and videos which captured it too.

Did the collpase of WTC 7 sound like this?

No, but the WTC7 wasn't a traditional demolition.

However, as we all know, all those noisy explosives, pre-weakening, planning which takes many many man hours are not needed.

All that is needed is some flammable office equipment and a match.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

What you see in the first video is a traditional demolition.What you see in the second video isn't a traditional demolition.

The second video had nothing to do with the demolition process and no evidence of explosives were found.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

[skyeagle409]

But you believe that fire demolished WTC7 which fell straight down into it's own footprint in around 7 hours, so therefore it is a precise form of demolition.

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

Unless you think that a building falling down into it's own footprint isn't a precise!

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

Building Collapse in Seoul, Korea

CollapseIn April 1995, cracks began to appear in the ceiling of the south wing's fifth floor. During this period, the only response by Lee and his management staff involved moving merchandise and stores from the top floor to the basement.

On the morning of June 29, the number of cracks in the area increased dramatically, prompting managers to close the top floor and shut the air conditioning off. The store management failed to shut the building down or issue formal evacuation orders, as the number of customers in the building was unusually high, and they did not want to lose the day's revenue. However, the executives themselves left the premises as a precaution.

Civil engineering experts were invited to inspect the structure, with a cursory check revealing that the building was at risk of collapse; the National Geographic documentary series Seconds From Disaster indicates that the facility's manager was examining the slab in one of the restaurants on the fifth floor, eight hours before the collapse, when, unknowingly, vibration from air conditioning was radiating through the cracks in the concrete columns and the floor opened up.

Five hours before the collapse, the first of several loud bangs was heard emanating from the top floors, as the vibration of the air conditioning caused the cracks in the slabs to widen further. Amid customer reports of vibration, the air conditioning was turned off, but the cracks in the floors had already widened to 10 cm.

At about 5:00 p.m. Korea Standard Time (UTC+9:00), the fifth floor ceiling began to sink, resulting in store workers blocking customer access to the fifth floor. According to Seconds From Disaster, the store was packed with shoppers 52 minutes before the collapse, but the owner did not close the store or carry out repairs at that time. When the building started to produce cracking sounds at about 5:50 p.m., workers began to sound alarms and evacuate the building, but by then it was too late.

Around 5:52 p.m., the roof gave way, and the air conditioning unit crashed through into the already-overloaded fifth floor. The main columns, weakened to allow the insertion of the escalators, collapsed in turn, and the building's south wing pancaked into the basement. Within 20 seconds, all of the building's columns in the south wing gave way, trapping more than 1,500 people and killing 501

My link

In addition:

High-Rise Intl. Building Code Changes Reflect Lessons Learned from 9/11

Before September 11

Before September 11, 2001, building codes in the United States focused on structural stability and routine fire safety. Buildings like the World Trade Center Twin Towers were considered safe because they could withstand hurricane-force winds and even the impact of a small plane. A typical fire did not spread beyond a few floors, so skyscrapers weren’t required to provide enough escape routes for speedy evacuation of the entire building. Using fewer stairways and slim, lightweight construction materials, architects could design skyscrapers that were slender, elegant, and amazingly tall.

After September 11

After two hijacked jet planes struck the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, teams of architects and engineers studied ways to make skyscrapers safer. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) compliled their findings in a hefty report. New York City, which suffered the most catastrophic losses on 9/11, took the lead passing legislation to save lives in the event of another terrorist attack.

The changes will be incorporated into the 2009 edition of the ICC’s I-Codes (the Intl. Building Code, or IBC, and the Intl. Fire Code, or IFC), a model code used as the basis for building and fire regulations promulgated and enforced by U.S. state and local jurisdictions, which have the option of incorporating some or all of the code’s provisions, but typically adopt most of them. The proposals were developed and refined based on feedback from many U.S. building and fire code experts.

The new provisions address many areas relating to design, construction, and emergency egress from tall buildings, such as increasing structural resilience to building collapse from fire and incidents, requiring a third stairway for tall buildings, increasing width of all stairways by 50 percent in new high-rises, calling for luminous markings delineating exit paths in buildings more than 75-feet tall to facilitate rapid egress and full building evacuation, and a host of other recommendations relating to construction and emergency response.

My link

Edited April 17, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Whoever said they were??

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

So you support another investigation?? WOW!!!

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. 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.

Post 9/11 Developments in Changi Airport

The SPF adopts an 'onion defence' or layered-defence strategy. As we all know, terrorism is a problem that cannot be fought in isolation. Thus, the SPF has, at several levels, been co-operating with local and international partners to fight this threat. During the past seven years, there has been unprecedented degree of international co-operation in intelligence sharing, regionally and beyond. At the national level, the SPF co-operated and shared intelligence with local security outfits such as the Internal Security Department (ISD), Homefront Security Office (HSO) and Joint Counter-Terrorism Centre (JCTC). Besides intelligence sharing, there have been conducting joint exercises and seminars with the regional counterparts so as to boost joint operations capabilities. Some of these initiatives include:

ASEANAPOL Counter Terrorism Workshop on Civil Aviation Security.

ASEANAPOL Counter Terrorism Workshop on Explosive and Suicide Bomber Counter Measures.

Terrorism Seminar: Policing in the Age of Terrorism.

Joint exercises with Japan's Coast Guards to handle maritime threats.

My Link

　

Building Safety Codes Changed as a Result of 9/11

WASHINGTON, Aug. 30, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center identified a new, challenging frontier in public safety for the International Code Council, the primary developer of construction industry building safety codes used throughout the United States.

"The hazards we historically evaluated and planned for in building safety and fire prevention codes to save lives and reduce property damage are largely measurable and predictable when applied to natural disasters ranging from tornadoes to hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and fires. But the events of 9/11 revealed the effects of terror attacks on buildings are neither quantifiable nor predictable. They are limited only by the expertise and resources available to those bent on destruction," said Gary Lewis, who for several years chaired the International Code Council Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism-Resistant Buildings.

Among the experts serving on the committee created to address the 9/11 tragedy were code enforcement officials representing building and fire departments, design professionals and fire protection engineers, including Lewis who is the Chief Inspector for Summit, N.J., and has been in code enforcement for more than 30 years. The committee finished its work in May 2010.

My link

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.

Edited April 17, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

The second video had nothing to do with the demolition process and no evidence of explosives were found.

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.

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

And if you never bother looking for it, chances are you won't ever find it.

[Stundie]

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.

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.

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 April 18, 2012 by Stundie

[Stundie]

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.

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??

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!!

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]

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.

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.

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 April 18, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

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.

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 April 18, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

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]

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

[/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]

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 April 19, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

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]

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.

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.

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!

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]

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??

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

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!!

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!!

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!!

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