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

[Swagger]

As I've previously stated on other threads (on several occasions), I am a building/demolition contactor and I have personally imploded several steam stacks, chimneys and multi-storey structures. There is no way that the U.S. government (or anyone else, for that matter) could implode the W.T.C onto its footprint without raising the suspicion of its occupants. The building would have to be gutted, walls removed, beams weakened with oxygen lances and RDX charges embedded and wrapped around the superstructure stanchions. Not forgetting the miles of detonator cord. Furthermore, such a conspiracy - which is physically impossible - would require the hundreds of men needed to keep silent about their murderous intentions.

 

[n0spam4me]

Speculation about how it may have been done doesn't change the fact that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed. Given that controlled demolition is a very precise science in that when controlled demolitions go wrong it results in the incomplete demolition of the structure, and of course, a successful controlled demolition results in complete destruction of the building, therefore, simply by accident, the conditions for complete destruction of not just one, but three buildings just happened to be present in these skyscrapers. odds of that really happening? Without help from somebody planning to demolish said buildings?

 

[SAYIT]

As I've previously stated on other threads (on several occasions), I am a building/demolition contactor and I have personally imploded several steam stacks, chimneys and multi-story structures. There is no way that the U.S. government (or anyone else, for that matter) could implode the W.T.C onto its footprint without raising the suspicion of its occupants. The building would have to be gutted, walls removed, beams weakened with oxygen lances and RDX charges embedded and wrapped around the superstructure stanchions. Not forgetting the miles of detonator cord. Furthermore, such a conspiracy - which is physically impossible - would require the hundreds of men needed to keep silent about their murderous intentions.

Speculation about how it may have been done doesn't change the fact that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed. Given that controlled demolition is a very precise science in that when controlled demolitions go wrong it results in the incomplete demolition of the structure, and of course, a successful controlled demolition results in complete destruction of the building, therefore, simply by accident, the conditions for complete destruction of not just one, but three buildings just happened to be present in these skyscrapers. odds of that really happening? Without help from somebody planning to demolish said buildings?

Except that demo people have repeatedly stated what Swagger just told you ... that prepping the buildings for a CD would have taken a small army of workers weeks or months and necessitated the gutting of the buildings. I would add that the explosions necessary to destroy key structural supports would have been numerous and very loud and would have left clear evidence of CD explosions.
All of that is just one small facet of the planning, perpetration and cover-up of what would have been the largest, most complex conspiracy in the history of man and no one from within that massive alleged conspiracy has whispered a word in over 13 years. No one.
Stop beating that dead horse, Princess ... the "Truther" Movement is O-V-E-R.

 

[n0spam4me]

There was an age when the "knowledge" base of humanity included such gems as
Heavy things fall faster than light things, witness the feather & stone drop.
Now, given the scientific method, we know better, There are features of the events of 9/11/2001
that include things that, if the official explanation is followed, violate the laws of physics.

Just because a lot of people are in denial, in no way modifies the laws of physics.

 

[eots]

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.

Relax, chuckles. Your conspiracy was already proven impossible 6 times over.

Read above.

that's never stopped the troofer butters, has it.

wtf are you babbling about ?

no one is babbling but the troofer idiots.

of course, troofer idiots are deranged and don't understand that.

now run along.

how about you run along bitch..you have nothing relevant offer you could not debate this subject if your life depended on it

 

[daws101]

those who pretend to know the future are frauds

There is a video with somebody saying "keep your eye on that building, its coming down"
and there are all sorts of claims that the firefighters, and others knew that WTC7 was going to fall, before it fell.
Chrystal ball?

Apples and oranges but you make an important point. Those at ground zero on 9/11 could see the damage done to WTC7 by large falling chunks of the Towers and knew what came next. Neither Eots nor anyone else can predict "that will never happen again."

according to your NIST report damage was not factor in the collapse of wtc 7..you have read the NIST report right ?

WTC7 was not severely damaged by falling chunks of the Towers and damage was not a factor in the collapse? Really dude ... "Truthers" say the silliest things.

it's eots what did you expect .......

 

[daws101]

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.

Relax, chuckles. Your conspiracy was already proven impossible 6 times over.

Read above.

that's never stopped the troofer butters, has it.

wtf are you babbling about ?

no one is babbling but the troofer idiots.

of course, troofer idiots are deranged and don't understand that.

now run along.

how about you run along bitch..you have nothing relevant offer you could not debate this subject if your life depended on it

same old dumbfuck eots...

 

[n0spam4me]

Wow...... & I thought we were having a discussion about 9/11

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Relax, chuckles. Your conspiracy was already proven impossible 6 times over.

Read above.

that's never stopped the troofer butters, has it.

wtf are you babbling about ?

no one is babbling but the troofer idiots.

of course, troofer idiots are deranged and don't understand that.

now run along.

how about you run along bitch..you have nothing relevant offer you could not debate this subject if your life depended on it

How about you run along, BITCH.
You, like the rest of the foil-hat brigade, have never offered anything of value on this subject.

 

[eots]

Wow...... & I thought we were having a discussion about 9/11

We are...the rest have nothing but strawmen and ad hominem

 

[eots]

Relax, chuckles. Your conspiracy was already proven impossible 6 times over.

Read above.

that's never stopped the troofer butters, has it.

wtf are you babbling about ?

no one is babbling but the troofer idiots.

of course, troofer idiots are deranged and don't understand that.

now run along.

how about you run along bitch..you have nothing relevant offer you could not debate this subject if your life depended on it

How about you run along, BITCH.
You, like the rest of the foil-hat brigade, have never offered anything of value on this subject.

why don't you tell us again how NIST determined the collapse wtc 7 was from structural damage...lol

 

[deep_space]

"People, I just want to say, can't we all get along?....."

 

[daws101]

Wow...... & I thought we were having a discussion about 9/11

we are, problem is you aren't

 

[daws101]

Wow...... & I thought we were having a discussion about 9/11

We are...the rest have nothing but strawmen and ad hominem

false you are quoting the same bull shit you were in 2011.and it's still bullshit

 

[daws101]

that's never stopped the troofer butters, has it.

wtf are you babbling about ?

no one is babbling but the troofer idiots.

of course, troofer idiots are deranged and don't understand that.

now run along.

how about you run along bitch..you have nothing relevant offer you could not debate this subject if your life depended on it

How about you run along, BITCH.
You, like the rest of the foil-hat brigade, have never offered anything of value on this subject.

why don't you tell us again how NIST determined the collapse wtc 7 was from structural damage...lol

ok
What is progressive collapse?
Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. The failure of WTC 7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse.

Progressive collapse did NOT occur in the WTC towers, for two reasons. First, the collapse of each tower was not triggered by a local damage or a single initiating event. Second, the structures were able to redistribute loads from the impact and fire-damaged structural components and subsystems to undamaged components and to keep the building standing until a sudden, global collapse occurred. Had a hat truss that connected the core columns to the exterior frame not been installed to support a TV antenna atop each WTC tower after the structure had been fully designed, it is likely that the core of the WTC towers would have collapsed sooner, triggering a global collapse. Such a collapse would have some features similar to that of a progressive collapse.

How did the collapse of WTC 7 differ from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.

The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.

Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

KEY sentence: The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires." Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

primarily
[ prīˈme(ə)rəlē ]
ADVERB
adverb: primarily

1. 
   for the most part; mainly:

 

[eots]

wtf are you babbling about ?

no one is babbling but the troofer idiots.

of course, troofer idiots are deranged and don't understand that.

now run along.

how about you run along bitch..you have nothing relevant offer you could not debate this subject if your life depended on it

How about you run along, BITCH.
You, like the rest of the foil-hat brigade, have never offered anything of value on this subject.

why don't you tell us again how NIST determined the collapse wtc 7 was from structural damage...lol

ok
What is progressive collapse?
Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. The failure of WTC 7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse.

Progressive collapse did NOT occur in the WTC towers, for two reasons. First, the collapse of each tower was not triggered by a local damage or a single initiating event. Second, the structures were able to redistribute loads from the impact and fire-damaged structural components and subsystems to undamaged components and to keep the building standing until a sudden, global collapse occurred. Had a hat truss that connected the core columns to the exterior frame not been installed to support a TV antenna atop each WTC tower after the structure had been fully designed, it is likely that the core of the WTC towers would have collapsed sooner, triggering a global collapse. Such a collapse would have some features similar to that of a progressive collapse.

How did the collapse of WTC 7 differ from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.

The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.

Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

KEY sentence: The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires." Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

primarily
[ prīˈme(ə)rəlē ]
ADVERB
adverb: primarily

1. 
   for the most part; mainly:

NIST admits that their simulation does not match the actual collapse.

“The results of this scenario were consistent with observations except that the screening wall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse.” NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 612

In the NIST computer simulation, the interior columns under the screenwall and west penthouse collapse east to west in about three seconds. (These sections of the building are shown in the top-down diagram below.) However, the actual collapse progression of these columns in the video takes only about 1/2 second. While NIST acknowledged the "almost simultaneous" collapse of the screenwall and west penthouse in the 2004 Progress Report (Appendix L, p. 34 and 44), in their computer simulation, this collapse took nearly three seconds.

This is yet another example of the NIST simulation being completely inconsistent with the actual features of the destruction of this building.

 

[eots]

NIST has refused to release the computer model input data in response to FOIA requests, claiming that its release would “jeopardize public safety"

Gross Negligence DeNISTifying the Destruction of the WTC Skyscrapers

 

[eots]

. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
Page 2 of Article Former Chief of NIST s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation OpEdNews

 

[SAYIT]

that's never stopped the troofer butters, has it.

wtf are you babbling about ?

no one is babbling but the troofer idiots.

of course, troofer idiots are deranged and don't understand that.

now run along.

how about you run along bitch..you have nothing relevant offer you could not debate this subject if your life depended on it

How about you run along, BITCH.
You, like the rest of the foil-hat brigade, have never offered anything of value on this subject.

why don't you tell us again how NIST determined the collapse wtc 7 was from structural damage...lol

How 'bout you put the magnifying glass and tweezers down and leave your pecker alone, Princess.

 

[eots]

wtf are you babbling about ?

no one is babbling but the troofer idiots.

of course, troofer idiots are deranged and don't understand that.

now run along.

how about you run along bitch..you have nothing relevant offer you could not debate this subject if your life depended on it

How about you run along, BITCH.
You, like the rest of the foil-hat brigade, have never offered anything of value on this subject.

why don't you tell us again how NIST determined the collapse wtc 7 was from structural damage...lol

How 'bout you put the magnifying glass and tweezers down and leave your pecker alone, Princess.

You clearly have lost the debate...again