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

[haissem123]

why do you suppose the check badges and have security, as they call it? besides the average guy who could climb to the top of any of these buildings undetected, some security we have, you think they just let anybody into these buildings with no cause or identification? counting?

 

[Montrovant]

go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings. plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building

"Pull it" is not an implosion demo term and has been amply and resoundingly proven there is no evidence of a controlled demo. No explosions, no residuals, no cut girders, no known conspirators, no site prep and nothing which could have survived hours of raging fires only to be part of a controlled demo.
As Skylar already noted, no rational person would argue that a damaged building could collapse in any direction but down an in my experience those who make such irrational claims - despite the availability of real facts and logic - are either trying to sell T-shirts and coffee mugs to not-too-brights, a consumer of these T-shirts and mugs or have a nefarious agenda. So which are you ... a seller, a buyer or a snake-in-the-grass?

I would guess that the poster means it is odd that the buildings collapsed straight down, without any particular lean to any given side. The whole 'falling into their own footprint' thing. I found it odd when it happened, that neither of the tower tops had enough extra resistance on one side to cause them to fall to the side.

I wasn't. There's no structure in the buildings capable of stopping a collapse once its initiated. And as the debris field is accelerated under gravity, the energy of impact from the debris field increases exponentially. Worse, it gains mass with each floor it destroys.

Greater velocity and greater mass translates into wildly greater energy with each impact. Meaning if the first floor couldn't catch the debris field when it was lightest and slowest....then there's nothing that could catch it until you reach the ground as each impact after is heavier and faster..

Each floor, however, has roughly the same static resistance as the first floor the debris field impacted.

Nothing needed to stop the collapse. The point is that both buildings fell straight down upon themselves, there was no topple. Once it has begun that way, sure, it's understandable. That both began that way, that neither began with a noticeable lean, is what seems strange.

Not strange enough for me to shout, "Conspiracy!". Just an oddity.

 

[haissem123]

im still waiting for one collapsed building from fire? we have what seven in one shot but no more in history?please

 

[Skylar]

go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings. plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building

"Pull it" is not an implosion demo term and has been amply and resoundingly proven there is no evidence of a controlled demo. No explosions, no residuals, no cut girders, no known conspirators, no site prep and nothing which could have survived hours of raging fires only to be part of a controlled demo.
As Skylar already noted, no rational person would argue that a damaged building could collapse in any direction but down an in my experience those who make such irrational claims - despite the availability of real facts and logic - are either trying to sell T-shirts and coffee mugs to not-too-brights, a consumer of these T-shirts and mugs or have a nefarious agenda. So which are you ... a seller, a buyer or a snake-in-the-grass?

I would guess that the poster means it is odd that the buildings collapsed straight down, without any particular lean to any given side. The whole 'falling into their own footprint' thing. I found it odd when it happened, that neither of the tower tops had enough extra resistance on one side to cause them to fall to the side.

I wasn't. There's no structure in the buildings capable of stopping a collapse once its initiated. And as the debris field is accelerated under gravity, the energy of impact from the debris field increases exponentially. Worse, it gains mass with each floor it destroys.

Greater velocity and greater mass translates into wildly greater energy with each impact. Meaning if the first floor couldn't catch the debris field when it was lightest and slowest....then there's nothing that could catch it until you reach the ground as each impact after is heavier and faster..

Each floor, however, has roughly the same static resistance as the first floor the debris field impacted.

Nothing needed to stop the collapse. The point is that both buildings fell straight down upon themselves, there was no topple. Once it has begun that way, sure, it's understandable. That both began that way, that neither began with a noticeable lean, is what seems strange.

Not strange enough for me to shout, "Conspiracy!". Just an oddity.

For it to 'topple', something would have had to stop it. Toppling requires that the downward momentum stop and be translated to lateral momentum. But there's nothing in the WTC to do the translating. Any floor impacted immediately collapsed and fell like a traincar dropped out of the sky. Where then could a topple occur?

It couldn't. And it didn't. Only at the initial collapse could there have been any semblance of a 'topple' where the structural failure occurred asymmetrically. And even that would only last until the first impact.

And we do actually see evidence of this. There was a noticeable pivot in the initial collapse of WTC 2. A pretty dramatic one.

The entire section of he building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block( all four faces; not only he bowed and uickled east face) to the east (about 7 degrees to 8 degrees) and south (about 3 degrees to 4 degrees) as colum instability progressed rapidly from the eastwall along the adjacent north and south walls.

308 of Chapter 9 of NISTSTAR 1-6

There are videos and photographs of this if you'd like to see.

 

[Skylar]

im still waiting for one collapsed building from fire? we have what seven in one shot but no more in history?please

I'm still waiting for a skyscraper to fall any direction but down, as you insinuate the WTC 7 should have. The only building that collapsed primarily due to fire was WTC 7. All the other structures destroyed on 911 succumbed to a combination of fire and structural damage.....like, oh....a plane flying into them. Or a 110 story sky scraper falling on top of them.

Which, astonishingly, you fail to mention.

And can I take it from your complete and utter abandonment of all your previous bullshit about Silverstein that you realize how silly it was?

 

[Skylar]

I know my cousins boss knew to stay home that day. i know they keep records of people entering buildings of this size and importance. You think they don't? Shall we go to google or did that conspiracy police get there first? lol. would you know or care if they did? lol. you presume all is coincidence and is as it seems or has been told to you.

Sigh....bullshit. You don't know any such thing. You're offering us 13 year old rumor and innuendo as evidence of your rumor and innuendo. Its a perfect circle of useless nonsense.

And again, you don't know the record you're demanding even exists. And if existing, why in God's name would they just hand over private records to any schmo who demands them? Just because you label yourself 'truth seekers' doesn't mean you're 1) seeking truth 2) get special access to private records.

And finally, and perhaps most relevantly......you don't have the evidence to carry the latest conspiracy you're insinuating. You *claim* that certain people were 'told' not to go to the WTC on September 11th. But you can't back that up with anything.

Which is the perfect metaphor for most of the truther arguments I've heard.

 

[haissem123]

ok. give me another building the fell from plane crashing into them then? lol.

 

[SAYIT]

go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings. plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building

"Pull it" is not an implosion demo term and has been amply and resoundingly proven there is no evidence of a controlled demo. No explosions, no residuals, no cut girders, no known conspirators, no site prep and nothing which could have survived hours of raging fires only to be part of a controlled demo.
As Skylar already noted, no rational person would argue that a damaged building could collapse in any direction but down an in my experience those who make such irrational claims - despite the availability of real facts and logic - are either trying to sell T-shirts and coffee mugs to not-too-brights, a consumer of these T-shirts and mugs or have a nefarious agenda. So which are you ... a seller, a buyer or a snake-in-the-grass?

I would guess that the poster means it is odd that the buildings collapsed straight down, without any particular lean to any given side. The whole 'falling into their own footprint' thing. I found it odd when it happened, that neither of the tower tops had enough extra resistance on one side to cause them to fall to the side.

I wasn't. There's no structure in the buildings capable of stopping a collapse once its initiated. And as the debris field is accelerated under gravity, the energy of impact from the debris field increases exponentially. Worse, it gains mass with each floor it destroys.

Greater velocity and greater mass translates into wildly greater energy with each impact. Meaning if the first floor couldn't catch the debris field when it was lightest and slowest....then there's nothing that could catch it until you reach the ground as each impact after is heavier and faster..

Each floor, however, has roughly the same static resistance as the first floor the debris field impacted.

Nothing needed to stop the collapse. The point is that both buildings fell straight down upon themselves, there was no topple. Once it has begun that way, sure, it's understandable. That both began that way, that neither began with a noticeable lean, is what seems strange.

Not strange enough for me to shout, "Conspiracy!". Just an oddity.

Implosion World has a somewhat different take:
(http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm)
DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

 

[Skylar]

ok. give me another building the fell from plane crashing into them then? lol.

How many skyscrapers have had passenger jets collide with them? To the best of my knowledge that would be WTC 1 and WTC 2.

So the odds of a skyscraper collapsing when it hit by a passenger jet are apparently 2 in 2. Or 100%.

 

[Skylar]

go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings. plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building

"Pull it" is not an implosion demo term and has been amply and resoundingly proven there is no evidence of a controlled demo. No explosions, no residuals, no cut girders, no known conspirators, no site prep and nothing which could have survived hours of raging fires only to be part of a controlled demo.
As Skylar already noted, no rational person would argue that a damaged building could collapse in any direction but down an in my experience those who make such irrational claims - despite the availability of real facts and logic - are either trying to sell T-shirts and coffee mugs to not-too-brights, a consumer of these T-shirts and mugs or have a nefarious agenda. So which are you ... a seller, a buyer or a snake-in-the-grass?

I would guess that the poster means it is odd that the buildings collapsed straight down, without any particular lean to any given side. The whole 'falling into their own footprint' thing. I found it odd when it happened, that neither of the tower tops had enough extra resistance on one side to cause them to fall to the side.

I wasn't. There's no structure in the buildings capable of stopping a collapse once its initiated. And as the debris field is accelerated under gravity, the energy of impact from the debris field increases exponentially. Worse, it gains mass with each floor it destroys.

Greater velocity and greater mass translates into wildly greater energy with each impact. Meaning if the first floor couldn't catch the debris field when it was lightest and slowest....then there's nothing that could catch it until you reach the ground as each impact after is heavier and faster..

Each floor, however, has roughly the same static resistance as the first floor the debris field impacted.

Nothing needed to stop the collapse. The point is that both buildings fell straight down upon themselves, there was no topple. Once it has begun that way, sure, it's understandable. That both began that way, that neither began with a noticeable lean, is what seems strange.

Not strange enough for me to shout, "Conspiracy!". Just an oddity.

Implosion World has a somewhat different take:
(http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm)
DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

Exactly.

There's also the fact that the buildings came down exactly opposite of controlled demolition. Actual controlled demolition occurs bottom to top. The base of the structure is demolished and rest of the building above falls together. The first floor destroyed is at the bottom of the building.

But that's not how the WTC went down. It went down top to bottom. With the collapse initiating at the point of impact with the planes. And then proceeding, 1 floor at a time, all the way to the ground. The last floor destroyed is at the bottom of the building.

 

[haissem123]

people implode buildings regularly, why don't we suggest they end the controversy.? Have one of these demo companies fly a plane into one with ratio proportion equal to towers. Then we can watch it burn and see if they fall anyway.?

 

[haissem123]

we can raise billions from pay for view and ring side seats etc... if money is to be made, then what's the harm? all win when moneys made

 

[SAYIT]

ok. give me another building the fell from plane crashing into them then? lol.

No one has to do your bidding, Princess. You have posted absolutely nothing in support of any of your foil-hat CT claims. That finally said, I will once again allow Steven Dutch to explain away your silliness:

"So if something happens for the first time, it can't happen because it never happened before?
No 110-story buildings were ever hit by fuel-laden airliners hard enough to strip the insulation off the structural steel before, either. Steel-frame buildings are incredibly strong. They have survived major earthquakes and fires, and the Twin Towers merely rocked when hit by airliners at full throttle. But the towers were not designed to survive an impact by fully-laden airliners at full throttle, then a fire in contact with unprotected steel. An impact from a jet approaching JFK at 200 miles an hour, with nearly empty tanks, and one slamming into the building at 450 miles an hour with full tanks, are two quite different things."
Nutty 9-11 Physics

 

[Skylar]

people implode buildings regularly, why don't we suggest they end the controversy.? Have one of these demo companies fly a plane into one with ratio proportion equal to towers. Then we can watch it burn and see if they fall anyway.?

Probably because its ridiculously unsafe and hideously expensive. Remember, the WTC 1 and 2 took the rest of the WTC plaza with them. Usually when a building is being demolished, the company doing it *doesn't* want to destroy all adjacent buildings as well.

we can raise billions from pay for view and ring side seats etc... if money is to be made, then what's the harm? all win when moneys made

The aforementioned ridiculous degree of danger and hideous expense.

 

[haissem123]

there are tons of empty buildings in iceland now that we collapsed their economy through war of wall street. they can be hit risk free for a fee of course.

 

[SAYIT]

people implode buildings regularly, why don't we suggest they end the controversy.? Have one of these demo companies fly a plane into one with ratio proportion equal to towers. Then we can watch it burn and see if they fall anyway.?

Again I defer to Steven Dutch:
Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition theory is Bringing Down The House by Michael Satchell in US News and World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it.
Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck. But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark.
Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply," says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know how we would have done it."
So according to the world experts on building demolition:

• It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall
• They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in a controlled demolition.

Nutty 9-11 Physics

 

[daws101]

still waiting for any other buildings that collapsed from plane fire or fire etc... where are they out of all the towering infernos over the past? buildings of similar construct.

 

[daws101]

they keep records of everybody that enters the towers as to have accurate evacuations I presume. But on that fateful day, we the people seeking truth through all info, aren't allowed to see those that stayed home that day. why not? if it's the truth, why hide it? cause it will point to a certain group of chosen few that had more then a clue that something was gonna happen that day? yep, you betya. It will be all the big bosses in the know

sorry but that's false.. each company is responsible for it's own attendance records the check in desk is primarily for victors and contractors and deliveries..
your assumptions are based on paranoia

 

[daws101]

I know my cousins boss knew to stay home that day. i know they keep records of people entering buildings of this size and importance. You think they don't? Shall we go to google or did that conspiracy police get there first? lol. would you know or care if they did? lol. you presume all is coincidence and is as it seems or has been told to you.

bullshit, you know what you cousin told you. my guess is his boss stayed for other more ubiquitous reasons. the he knew myth grew from that and you wanting to believe the conspiracy bullshit swallowed it whole.

 

[Skylar]

Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck. But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark.

still waiting for any other buildings that collapsed from plane fire or fire etc... where are they out of all the towering infernos over the past? buildings of similar construct.

In all fairness, WTC 7 is the first skyscraper to collapse due primarily to fire.