911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[CAPTCHATHIS]

the last four posts are as false as they are humorous.

daws101 still thinks the Earth is flat, otherwise how do you explain the water not falling off

 

[daws101]

the last four posts are as false as they are humorous.

daws101 still thinks the Earth is flat, otherwise how do you explain the water not falling off

besides being false the worst thing about your "comments" is they have zero originality

 

[Gary Anderson]

now this is hilarious!

not even the debunker trolls want to stick their neck out on this one.

gotta love it when truthers present an unimpeachable case.

You don't know what techniques the 9/11 conspirators used to set off the thermite. And your nose is ugly. Change that picture!

 

[Gary Anderson]

since it only takes one brain cell to see there is no visible fire and fire makes light and light is visible so you are fucking delusional and seeing things that do not exist.

Agreed, there was no fire at all at WTC 7

Are you calling John Kerry a liar? That is just stupid. Kerry said it was detonated. He should know.

 

[Gary Anderson]

And no, virtually every floor was not in flames. Even if they were fires don't bring down skyscrapers at the rate of gravity.

 

[n0spam4me]

The whole argument for the untimely demise of WTC1,2 & 7
rests on the "progressive collapse" scenario and what was alleged to have happened was that the building behaved something like a row of dominoes in that all you have to do is knock over the first one, and there goes the whole thing, however, skyscrapers are NOT rows of dominoes and the statement from the taxpayer funded "report" that states "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation" is a FARCE, in fact I would go so far as to say that its FRAUD! There are a multitude of possible out-comes that do NOT include total destruction of the skyscraper.

some people may insist that since the demolition of WTC1, 2 & 7 doesn't fit their particular interpretation of what a Controlled Demolition should look like, its definitely not controlled demolition. However, the goal of controlled demolition is the demolition of the structure and in that matter, the "collapse" of WTC1,2 & 7 achieved the perfect controlled demolition.
What are the odds, that for three skyscrapers, the "accidental" collapse of these structures achieved the very same results that are achieved by very careful planning and execution of a controlled demolition.

 

[SAYIT]

wtc 7 was verified evacuated seems to me around noon, so there was no body in the building to see anything, and only takes a couple hours to tape up radio controlled charges at less than 30 seconds per pop.

The neet thing about thermate charges is they can cut any thickness silently, where as the explosives get garfuckingantuan if you are cutting 5" thick columns.

Much better way to demo a building in the city than rdx.

Dude, it was evacuated because the building was on fire. Virtually every floor was in flamers. And you're not talking about a few charges set at its base. Your 'sequence of demolition' silliness claims charges all the way to the roof.

That's thousands and thousands of charges. All installed while the building was ON FIRE? Um....somehow. You can't say. All the charges and apparatus of demolition burning themselves? And somehow going off in perfect sequence, magically disappearing from every cut girder after they cut it....while not actually cutting any girder (WTF?!), and leaving no residue of any kind?

And all without the FDNY or NYPD noticing any of it?

Um, no. That's laughably, ludicrously, insanely implausible. And just an awful, awful explanation.

debunkers made those quotes up.

anybody with 1 brain cell can see there was no fire...

Below are a few of the firefighter quotes from the 9/11 investigation. Do you have anything which supports your self-serving claim they were fabricated by "debunkers" or are you just blowing it out your nose ... again?

"WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...gro_Daniel.txt

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...ki_Richard.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...C/Cruthers.txt

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...an_William.txt

 

[SAYIT]

The whole argument for the untimely demise of WTC1,2 & 7
rests on the "progressive collapse" scenario and what was alleged to have happened was that the building behaved something like a row of dominoes in that all you have to do is knock over the first one, and there goes the whole thing, however, skyscrapers are NOT rows of dominoes and the statement from the taxpayer funded "report" that states "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation" is a FARCE, in fact I would go so far as to say that its FRAUD! There are a multitude of possible out-comes that do NOT include total destruction of the skyscraper.

some people may insist that since the demolition of WTC1, 2 & 7 doesn't fit their particular interpretation of what a Controlled Demolition should look like, its definitely not controlled demolition. However, the goal of controlled demolition is the demolition of the structure and in that matter, the "collapse" of WTC1,2 & 7 achieved the perfect controlled demolition.
What are the odds, that for three skyscrapers, the "accidental" collapse of these structures achieved the very same results that are achieved by very careful planning and execution of a controlled demolition.

Destroying your domino effect argument for the umpteenth time is the fact that many buildings were damaged on 9/11 but not all collapsed.

" ...We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about..." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...ki_Richard.txt

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

 

[n0spam4me]

Destroying your domino effect argument for the umpteenth time is the fact that many buildings were damaged on 9/11 but not all collapsed.

The fact that other buildings were damaged but not destroyed does NOTHING
to mitigate the fact that WTC1, 2 & 7 fell into complete & total destruction and this was alleged to be the result of "progressive collapse" So again, how is it that asymmetrical damage & fire, causes the exact same result as a well planned & executed controlled demolition?

 

[SAYIT]

Destroying your domino effect argument for the umpteenth time is the fact that many buildings were damaged on 9/11 but not all collapsed.

The fact that other buildings were damaged but not destroyed does NOTHING
to mitigate the fact that WTC1, 2 & 7 fell into complete & total destruction and this was alleged to be the result of "progressive collapse" So again, how is it that asymmetrical damage & fire, causes the exact same result as a well planned & executed controlled demolition?

Those buildings fell precisely according to the law of GRAVITY. You have heard of it, right? For all your huffing and puffing you (and the entire CT Movement) have yet to provide a shred of evidence which supports your CD theory, other than the fact that the buildings fell down and that, in case you don't know, is what happens when their support fails.

 

[n0spam4me]

Those buildings fell precisely according to the law of GRAVITY. You have heard of it, right? For all your huffing and puffing you (and the entire CT Movement) have yet to provide a shred of evidence which supports your CD theory, other than the fact that the buildings fell down and that, in case you don't know, is what happens when their support fails.

are you aware of the fact that in order to produce the result as observed, the buildings would have to have ALL of the bolts/welds (etc....) fail exactly on time on a schedule in order to produce the result, if any given bit were to give-way early, then the "pile driver" mass would shift and the center of gravity of the driving mass would no longer be centered on the tower(s) and therefore the mass would slide off one side or another and end the process before the total destruction of the building.
what makes anybody think that asymmetrical fires & damage, could do exactly the same job as a carefully planned & executed controlled demolition?

 

[SAYIT]

Those buildings fell precisely according to the law of GRAVITY. You have heard of it, right? For all your huffing and puffing you (and the entire CT Movement) have yet to provide a shred of evidence which supports your CD theory, other than the fact that the buildings fell down and that, in case you don't know, is what happens when their support fails.

are you aware of the fact that in order to produce the result as observed, the buildings would have to have ALL of the bolts/welds (etc....) fail exactly on time on a schedule...

Horse manure. No CD of a 100 story building or for that matter, any building, has enjoyed a perfectly timed destruction. Gravity and momentum play a large part in the nature of any CD, just as they do in any non-CD. For all your huffing and puffing you (and the entire CT Movement) have yet to provide a shred of evidence which supports your CD theory, other than the fact that the buildings fell down and that, in case you don't know, is what happens when their support fails.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have presented it, and people say NO, there would have to have been too many people involved, somebody would have talked...... ok, have it your way .... whatever ....

However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter? don't you question at all the fact that there is so little documentation of Ground Zero? ( oh ya, looky here, whole books full of pix .... as if that constitutes DOCUMENTATION .... ) and as for questions .... QUESTION EVERYTHING
like why did the worlds greatest military power fail to defend even its own HQ?

AMERICA has been flim-flamed, screwed, ripped off, lied to, and WE THE PEOPLE
need to wake up to what is going on and bust the real criminals in this case.

However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter?

What is an aluminum airliner traveling at 500 mph supposed to do when it hits a skyscraper, bounce off?

 

[n0spam4me]

However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter?

What is an aluminum airliner traveling at 500 mph supposed to do when it hits a skyscraper, bounce off?

do you understand the concept of HOLLOW POINT AMMO?
the nose of an airliner is hollow, what more need I say?

 

[Montrovant]

However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter?

What is an aluminum airliner traveling at 500 mph supposed to do when it hits a skyscraper, bounce off?

do you understand the concept of HOLLOW POINT AMMO?
the nose of an airliner is hollow, what more need I say?

Well, you could say just what, exactly, you think should happen when an airliner flies into a skyscraper.....

 

[n0spam4me]

Well, you could say just what, exactly, you think should happen when an airliner flies into a skyscraper.....

That would be the subject of some speculation, but to go off on that tangent, I can see the nose of the aircraft splat against the side of the building with the massive deceleration that would happen the entire aircraft would suffer massive deformation probably breaking of both wings in the process and most of the aircraft landing in the street below.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, you could say just what, exactly, you think should happen when an airliner flies into a skyscraper.....

That would be the subject of some speculation, but to go off on that tangent, I can see the nose of the aircraft splat against the side of the building with the massive deceleration that would happen the entire aircraft would suffer massive deformation probably breaking of both wings in the process and most of the aircraft landing in the street below.

Why do you think the side of the building is so sturdy that an airplane traveling hundreds of miles an hour would be unable to break through? You do realize a good portion of the side of the building is glass, yes? It's not a bomb shelter, it's not covered in titanium plating, it's a skyscraper where people work and enjoy a view outside. I don't understand why you think that a plane is so flimsy, with so little kinetic energy despite its mass and the speed it was traveling at, that it would 'splat' against the side of the building. What properties of the World Trade Centers' windows/facades do you think would prevent a fast-flying airliner from penetrating the building on impact?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter?

What is an aluminum airliner traveling at 500 mph supposed to do when it hits a skyscraper, bounce off?

do you understand the concept of HOLLOW POINT AMMO?
the nose of an airliner is hollow, what more need I say?

Was my question too simple for you?
Answer it.
Realizing, of course, that the WTC skin had lots of windows.
And again, the airliners were moving at something like 500 mph.

 

[n0spam4me]

Was my question too simple for you?
Answer it.
Realizing, of course, that the WTC skin had lots of windows.
And again, the airliners were moving at something like 500 mph.

#1 specious argument, "OH BUT THE PLANE WAS GOING SOOOO FAST!"
This is a matter of the strength of materials, speed alone does not impart any special qualities to anything. PERIOD!

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-2-3.jpg

Note the steel box column construction, the force required to break these columns would exceed the strength of the aluminum aircraft by orders of magnitude.

also, have you ever been up in a skyscraper? and noticed the windows, these windows would NOT be easy to break, they are quite thick and heavy because they have to withstand bird strikes and high winds and the ordinary plate glass like you see in your home windows would not do the job.

You have not even touched upon the HOLLOW POINT issue because its a big obvious glaring fault in this whole business, the airliners nose would have mushroomed out in response to striking the wall and would have spread out the surface area of the airliners attempt to penetrate the wall, in addition to breaking the monocoque structure of the aircraft and also as the aircraft struck the wall, it would decelerate and at such a rate as to cause total global structural failure of the airframe. in short, it would smash itself to bits against the wall causing minimal damage to the skyscraper and depositing most of the aircraft wreckage outside the building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Was my question too simple for you?
Answer it.
Realizing, of course, that the WTC skin had lots of windows.
And again, the airliners were moving at something like 500 mph.

#1 specious argument, "OH BUT THE PLANE WAS GOING SOOOO FAST!"
This is a matter of the strength of materials, speed alone does not impart any special qualities to anything. PERIOD!

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-2-3.jpg

Note the steel box column construction, the force required to break these columns would exceed the strength of the aluminum aircraft by orders of magnitude.

also, have you ever been up in a skyscraper? and noticed the windows, these windows would NOT be easy to break, they are quite thick and heavy because they have to withstand bird strikes and high winds and the ordinary plate glass like you see in your home windows would not do the job.

You have not even touched upon the HOLLOW POINT issue because its a big obvious glaring fault in this whole business, the airliners nose would have mushroomed out in response to striking the wall and would have spread out the surface area of the airliners attempt to penetrate the wall, in addition to breaking the monocoque structure of the aircraft and also as the aircraft struck the wall, it would decelerate and at such a rate as to cause total global structural failure of the airframe. in short, it would smash itself to bits against the wall causing minimal damage to the skyscraper and depositing most of the aircraft wreckage outside the building.

#1 specious argument

Right, a 767 loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel, traveling nearly 500 mph, and that's a specious argument. LOL!

and noticed the windows, these windows would NOT be easy to break, they are quite thick and heavy because they have to withstand bird strikes and high winds

And 767s? LOL!

You have not even touched upon the HOLLOW POINT issue

You're right, I haven't touched on your head issue.