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

[Faun]

Speculation about WHO may have been the real perpetrator(s)
in no way negates the observed phenomenon of 9/11/2001.

who: the World Heath Organization!
AS TO YOUR BOGUS REASONING: BIAS OBSERVATION IS NOT EVIDENCE.

Biased observation is NOT what is going on here,
at the heart of the argument is the fact that WTC7 is seen falling at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 sec and the fact that even some part of the building is seen falling in the manner that it did, is very clear proof that the falling bit had NO structure under it at all, that is this was NOT "negligible" resistance, this was very clearly NO resistance and some people are clearly on a mission to muddy the waters here, rather than embrace the reality that WTC7 fell as the result of an engineered event that was intended to destroy the building.

With no explosions immediately preceding the collapse, there is nothing to muddy since it couldn't have been a demolition without explosives.

 

[n0spam4me]

it couldn't have been a demolition without explosives.

Hey Boris, whachU got there
>> New Super Secret Weapon - HUSHABOOM!

wow man ...

& All joking aside, the narrow minded view that only high explosives & extremely loud noise would have been the way to create the observed "collapse" oh well + the fact that at such time as explosive sounds are pointed out as to having been part of the audio track to recordings made that day, the anti-truther faction back-peddles and insists that any sounds hear/recorded were most certainly not explosions ..... The fact is that by the very nature of the "collapse" event, the chances of it happening just like that are more remote than you winning the lottery & getting struck by lightning on the same day.

 

[Faun]

it couldn't have been a demolition without explosives.

Hey Boris, whachU got there
>> New Super Secret Weapon - HUSHABOOM!

wow man ...

& All joking aside, the narrow minded view that only high explosives & extremely loud noise would have been the way to create the observed "collapse" oh well + the fact that at such time as explosive sounds are pointed out as to having been part of the audio track to recordings made that day, the anti-truther faction back-peddles and insists that any sounds hear/recorded were most certainly not explosions ..... The fact is that by the very nature of the "collapse" event, the chances of it happening just like that are more remote than you winning the lottery & getting struck by lightning on the same day.

The explosions heard that day came throughout the day. They didn't occur when they needed to occur in order for it to be a controlled demolition, which is within seconds of the building collapsing.

No explosions ... no controlled demolition.

 

[n0spam4me]

No explosions ... no controlled demolition.

Really? and the concept of a thermite induced "collapse" simply isn't in the cards, right? Have you seen the videos by Jonathan Cole? and also, how is it DOCUMENTED that anybody actually looked for traces of accelerants or explosives immediately post-collapse? There is something VERY wrong with this picture, in that the "collapse" seen in all the various videos that show WTC7 falling in a manner that is clearly an UNNATURAL act.

 

[Faun]

No explosions ... no controlled demolition.

Really? and the concept of a thermite induced "collapse" simply isn't in the cards, right? Have you seen the videos by Jonathan Cole? and also, how is it DOCUMENTED that anybody actually looked for traces of accelerants or explosives immediately post-collapse? There is something VERY wrong with this picture, in that the "collapse" seen in all the various videos that show WTC7 falling in a manner that is clearly an UNNATURAL act.

A "concept" is not reality. You might as well say it's possible aliens from another planet used a death ray to destroy the building. That's a "concept" too.

 

[SAYIT]

No explosions ... no controlled demolition.

Really? and the concept of a thermite induced "collapse" simply isn't in the cards, right? Have you seen the videos by Jonathan Cole? and also, how is it DOCUMENTED that anybody actually looked for traces of accelerants or explosives immediately post-collapse? There is something VERY wrong with this picture, in that the "collapse" seen in all the various videos that show WTC7 falling in a manner that is clearly an UNNATURAL act.

A "concept" is not reality. You might as well say it's possible aliens from another planet used a death ray to destroy the building. That's a "concept" too.

One trotted out by no less than Dr. Judy Wood and Jesse Ventura, neither of whom ever saw a foil-hatted conspiracy theorist they wouldn't fleece.

Review Jesse Ventura Death Ray Conspiracy Theory - PESWiki

 

[n0spam4me]

Of course derail the discussion into speculation about HOW it was done, first of all, examine what we can see in what was done.

Also, note that demonstrations by actual engineers, that is having both the advanced degrees & state licenses, prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that Nat-Geo published fraud in alleging that thermite could not be used to cut steel.

 

[daws101]

Speculation about WHO may have been the real perpetrator(s)
in no way negates the observed phenomenon of 9/11/2001.

who: the World Heath Organization!
AS TO YOUR BOGUS REASONING: BIAS OBSERVATION IS NOT EVIDENCE.

Biased observation is NOT what is going on here,
at the heart of the argument is the fact that WTC7 is seen falling at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 sec and the fact that even some part of the building is seen falling in the manner that it did, is very clear proof that the falling bit had NO structure under it at all, that is this was NOT "negligible" resistance, this was very clearly NO resistance and some people are clearly on a mission to muddy the waters here, rather than embrace the reality that WTC7 fell as the result of an engineered event that was intended to destroy the building.

bullshit!

 

[daws101]

Of course derail the discussion into speculation about HOW it was done, first of all, examine what we can see in what was done.

Also, note that demonstrations by actual engineers, that is having both the advanced degrees & state licenses, prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that Nat-Geo published fraud in alleging that thermite could not be used to cut steel.

lots O thermite no cuts.

 

[daws101]

 

[n0spam4me]

and so when it is a contest between "mythbusters" & people who hold advanced degrees + state licenses to be ENGINEERS, people accept the "mythbusters" as proof?

 

[daws101]

and so when it is a contest between "mythbusters" & people who hold advanced degrees + state licenses to be ENGINEERS, people accept the "mythbusters" as proof?

do you miss the point on purpose or as I suspect your connection with reality is tenuous at best?

 

[n0spam4me]

Who here, reading this forum .. understand the difference between applying Thermite as a loose powder, and having a purpose built fixture to apply the energy to a specific location?

 

[daws101]

Who here, reading this forum .. understand the difference between applying Thermite as a loose powder, and having a purpose built fixture to apply the energy to a specific location?

no evidence of "fixtures" were found. But anything is possible in fantasy,

 

[n0spam4me]

Who here, reading this forum .. understand the difference between applying Thermite as a loose powder, and having a purpose built fixture to apply the energy to a specific location?

no evidence of "fixtures" were found. But anything is possible in fantasy,

Maybe the fact that nobody was looking for anything of the sort, the clean up operation focused on locating humans ( or remains ) and yet another twisted bit of metal was most probably not at all interesting. The fact remains that there is a HUGE difference between applying loose powder thermite to any given bit of steel, or using a fixture ( that indeed may have been designed to be self-consuming ) to focus the heat against a given bit of steel. In exactly what way should the results obtained by Jonathan Cole be discredited? Be specific.

 

[SAYIT]

Maybe the fact that nobody was looking for anything of the sort, the clean up operation focused on locating humans ( or remains ) and yet another twisted bit of metal was most probably not at all interesting. The fact remains that there is a HUGE difference between applying loose powder thermite to any given bit of steel, or using a fixture ( that indeed may have been designed to be self-consuming ) to focus the heat against a given bit of steel. In exactly what way should the results obtained by Jonathan Cole be discredited? Be specific.

But it was indeed looked for:

"NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely...
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used."

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[n0spam4me]

Maybe the fact that nobody was looking for anything of the sort, the clean up operation focused on locating humans ( or remains ) and yet another twisted bit of metal was most probably not at all interesting. The fact remains that there is a HUGE difference between applying loose powder thermite to any given bit of steel, or using a fixture ( that indeed may have been designed to be self-consuming ) to focus the heat against a given bit of steel. In exactly what way should the results obtained by Jonathan Cole be discredited? Be specific.

But it was indeed looked for:

"NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely...
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used."

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Before I address this, PLEASE are there others who read this forum who see the obvious problem with the "NIST looked for it" argument
+ what about the mystery steel, that is the eutectic melting of steel, caused by the sulfur in the gypsum board? REALLY PEOPLE.
Talk about low hanging fruit.......

 

[SAYIT]

Maybe the fact that nobody was looking for anything of the sort, the clean up operation focused on locating humans ( or remains ) and yet another twisted bit of metal was most probably not at all interesting. The fact remains that there is a HUGE difference between applying loose powder thermite to any given bit of steel, or using a fixture ( that indeed may have been designed to be self-consuming ) to focus the heat against a given bit of steel. In exactly what way should the results obtained by Jonathan Cole be discredited? Be specific.

But it was indeed looked for:

"NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely...
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used."

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Before I address this, PLEASE are there others who read this forum who see the obvious problem with the "NIST looked for it" argument
+ what about the mystery steel, that is the eutectic melting of steel, caused by the sulfur in the gypsum board? REALLY PEOPLE.
Talk about low hanging fruit.......

There is no evidence of "melting of steel" and if you insist on rejecting out-of-hand the NIST findings which were authored by real experts (both gov't and private) while accepting and promoting your "Truther" silliness, you expose yourself to the ridicule you so richly deserve.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Still waiting for real proof of molten steel.

 

[n0spam4me]

Still waiting for real proof of molten steel.

9-11 Research Forensic Metallurgy