WTC-7 Was NOT A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[kyzr]

The point is that there is no dispute about WTC-7. It was deliberately taken down since it was so severely damaged by the WTC collapse and subsequent fire that it could not be restored.

If there is a "conspiracy" it has to be about the WTC towers, NOT WTC-7.

 

[eots]

The point is that there is no dispute about WTC-7. It was deliberately taken down since it was so severely damaged by the WTC collapse and subsequent fire that it could not be restored.

If there is a "conspiracy" it has to be about the WTC towers, NOT WTC-7.

well the fact is there is a dispute as the official lie is that it fell due to building fires
and that is in fact a conspiracy

 

[SFC Ollie]

The point is that there is no dispute about WTC-7. It was deliberately taken down since it was so severely damaged by the WTC collapse and subsequent fire that it could not be restored.

If there is a "conspiracy" it has to be about the WTC towers, NOT WTC-7.

well the fact is there is a dispute as the official lie is that it fell due to building fires
and that is in fact a conspiracy

I suppose the damages to the s/w corner and the south side of the building had nothing to do with it? You know the areas where the tower fell on it and ripped the whole corner out for 10 stories or so? Remember what started the fires and why they had to burn out of control for hours? Once again I offer the only proof I need to know that the building fell because of damages it sustained during the fall of the towers, and the uncontrolled fires.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

 

[Dante]

All Anyone needs to know about why or how WTC7 fell.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

The real professionals laid it all out for us.

but, but, but...what about the big bad government coverup? without IT my world is just as shitty as my outlook on life?

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha!


thanx for the clairity in this thread, but it is not going to generate enough controversy to keep it alive.

 

[eots]

The point is that there is no dispute about WTC-7. It was deliberately taken down since it was so severely damaged by the WTC collapse and subsequent fire that it could not be restored.

If there is a "conspiracy" it has to be about the WTC towers, NOT WTC-7.

well the fact is there is a dispute as the official lie is that it fell due to building fires
and that is in fact a conspiracy

I suppose the damages to the s/w corner and the south side of the building had nothing to do with it? You know the areas where the tower fell on it and ripped the whole corner out for 10 stories or so? Remember what started the fires and why they had to burn out of control for hours? Once again I offer the only proof I need to know that the building fell because of damages it sustained during the fall of the towers, and the uncontrolled fires.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

it makes no sense at all for the building to collapse in the controlled Even way it did every single beam and column would need to fail at the same precise moment even though both fire and structural damage was random and dispersed unevenly...if anything the building would have a partial collapse or topple over

 

[eots]

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[Toro]

Good job Gamolon.

Get ready for a barrage of 485 youtube videos by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[eots]

Good job Gamolon.

Get ready for a barrage of 485 youtube videos by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

good job at denial....so you are plannig on postimg 485 videos..toto ?

 

[Bern80]

The point is that there is no dispute about WTC-7. It was deliberately taken down since it was so severely damaged by the WTC collapse and subsequent fire that it could not be restored.

If there is a "conspiracy" it has to be about the WTC towers, NOT WTC-7.

well the fact is there is a dispute as the official lie is that it fell due to building fires
and that is in fact a conspiracy

To say that the non-truthers are claiming building fires did it is a bit simplistic, dishonest and misleading. If you want to have an honest conversation about this please attempt to show a little integrity.

That said I am inclined to accept either scenario simply because there are plenty of logical reasons for the government to bring the building down.

 

[Toro]

Good job Gamolon.

Get ready for a barrage of 485 youtube videos by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

good job at denial....so you are plannig on postimg 485 videos..toto ?

Not 485 videos by a bunch of dumb goobers, id-eots.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Nothing like denouncing Terral to really set this nutbar loon off!

 

[Terral]

Hi Kyzr:

I saw very plainly on the news that WTC-7 was demolished because it was structurally unsound and could not be repaired. I have no idea what the conspiracy buffs are whining about.
Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition

The Official Cover Story LIE says WTC-7 collapsed from building fires/debris, after being hit by no jetliner or anything else. For WTC-7 to be intentionally 'demolished' (Controlled Demolition), the job requires a good amount of 'time' that nobody had on 9/11 'after' the inside-job attacks began. Surveying and wiring WTC-7 for Demolition would take weeks or even months to complete and the idea that the 2800-degree steel-frame network was 'damaged beyond repair' from building fires is absolutely ridiculous!!!!

WTC-7 Controlled Demolition << Click here

Watch the short video and decide for yourself. Again, Gam is trying to prove a negative thesis, which amounts to proving nothing at all. Zip, zero, nada, nothing. He can say, "WTC-7 Did NOT Collapse From Santa And His Reindeer," but that also makes a case for nothing at all. For the explanation that "WTC-7 Definitely Collapsed From Controlled Demolition," see my Topic here.

GL,

Terral

 

[Bern80]

Hi Kyzr:

I saw very plainly on the news that WTC-7 was demolished because it was structurally unsound and could not be repaired. I have no idea what the conspiracy buffs are whining about.
Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition

The Official Cover Story LIE says WTC-7 collapsed from building fires/debris, after being hit by no jetliner or anything else. For WTC-7 to be intentionally 'demolished' (Controlled Demolition), the job requires a good amount of 'time' that nobody had on 9/11 'after' the inside-job attacks began. Surveying and wiring WTC-7 for Demolition would take weeks or even months to complete and the idea that the 2800-degree steel-frame network was 'damaged beyond repair' from building fires is absolutely ridiculous!!!!

WTC-7 Controlled Demolition << Click here

Watch the short video and decide for yourself. Again, Gam is trying to prove a negative thesis, which amounts to proving nothing at all. Zip, zero, nada, nothing. He can say, "WTC-7 Did NOT Collapse From Santa And His Reindeer," but that also makes a case for nothing at all. For the explanation that "WTC-7 Definitely Collapsed From Controlled Demolition," see my Topic here.

GL,

Terral

Again, so what? It's actually something that makes sense to do given the nature of the information housed within that building. You complain that it was CD and that the area was cordoned off too quickly, yet that is exaclty what the government should have done at that point.

 

[manu1959]

The point is that there is no dispute about WTC-7. It was deliberately taken down since it was so severely damaged by the WTC collapse and subsequent fire that it could not be restored.

If there is a "conspiracy" it has to be about the WTC towers, NOT WTC-7.

well the fact is there is a dispute as the official lie is that it fell due to building fires
and that is in fact a conspiracy

To say that the non-truthers are claiming building fires did it is a bit simplistic, dishonest and misleading. If you want to have an honest conversation about this please attempt to show a little integrity.

That said I am inclined to accept either scenario simply because there are plenty of logical reasons for the government to bring the building down.

yes blowing up wtc 7 was intregal to taking over the world....

wtc 7 was hit by the colapsing wtc towers..tearing out almost ten floors of structure....disabling the fire sprinnkler system.....steel loses its strength at .....come on terll tell my at what temperature it fails.....hint it isn't 2800 deg.....

as someone said....it takes weeks or months to prep a building and as someone said...every column and beam would need to be preped......the planning prior to starting this work would takes many more months of engineering....

so ....lets see sept 11.....bush took office what january 20... so that would mean there were 7 months to do the engineering hire the contractor (no bid contractor i am sure) and wire the building....meanwhile another team is working to make four planes disapear along with all the people....

7 months isn't enough time.....

i say bill and hillary clinton along with richard clarke and george tenant planned it all and set it in motion with the help of bills big contibutors from dubai....

 

[Gamolon]

Hi Kyzr:

I saw very plainly on the news that WTC-7 was demolished because it was structurally unsound and could not be repaired. I have no idea what the conspiracy buffs are whining about.
Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition

The Official Cover Story LIE says WTC-7 collapsed from building fires/debris, after being hit by no jetliner or anything else. For WTC-7 to be intentionally 'demolished' (Controlled Demolition), the job requires a good amount of 'time' that nobody had on 9/11 'after' the inside-job attacks began. Surveying and wiring WTC-7 for Demolition would take weeks or even months to complete and the idea that the 2800-degree steel-frame network was 'damaged beyond repair' from building fires is absolutely ridiculous!!!!

WTC-7 Controlled Demolition << Click here

Watch the short video and decide for yourself. Again, Gam is trying to prove a negative thesis, which amounts to proving nothing at all. Zip, zero, nada, nothing. He can say, "WTC-7 Did NOT Collapse From Santa And His Reindeer," but that also makes a case for nothing at all. For the explanation that "WTC-7 Definitely Collapsed From Controlled Demolition," see my Topic here.

GL,

Terral

So let's set things straight. You provide a theory as to how WTC7 came down. You say it was controlled demolition by thermite cutting charges. You provide pictures, videos, and quotes as a basis for coming to your conclusions of WTC7 being brought down by thermite charges.

I provide evidence that shows that on many of your pieces of evidence you use to come to your conclusion are INCORRECT. Let's go through those, shall we.

1. This picture below. You ADMITTED that you were wrong about the upper right column being cut at 45 degrees. This renders your follow up claim that nobody could have gotten up their to cut it moot. 2 claims rendered incorrect and useless in one swing.

2. Then there's this major lie form you, which you try and play off as a mistake. Now you admit that you were wrong about that.

WTC-7 is already imploding at free fall speed, but there is 'no' sign of any building fires through any of the unbroken windows! And yet, this same skyscraper was reduced to this little pile . . .

3. Let's return again to this photo that you annotated. You claim that there is "thermite signature" everywhere such as cuts and thermite froth. Yet in this photo, you admit that there is no "MELTING" or " BURN " marks rendering your "tons of thermite signatures" null and void. You effectively canceled your own claim out in the same damn photo. What an idiot.

4. Then you go on a rant that the cuts in this photo cannot be made from a torch, but from thermite.

But after further review, these photo show the same exact types of cuts and slag as the photo above. These next photos show torch cuts.

5. You keep lying about the fact that WTC7 COMPLETELY collapsed in 6.6 seconds at free fall. Video evidence provided here shows you are COMPLETELY wrong. It shows more than DOUBLE your idiotic 6.6 seconds.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k]YouTube - WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse[/ame]

6. You have been explained many times about thermal expansion and how it affects steel, welds, and connections. I have seen first hand welds that have been snapped under piping supports due to incorrect installation of thermal expansion loops.

7. Your understanding of structures, loads, and stresses is severely lacking. You claim that steel structures cannot collapse by office fire. You try and complicate things for the reader by added the term COMPLETELY collapse. This is misleading. Per the Windsor building pictured below, the steel part of this structure collapsed due to fire. Period. Whether it collapsed totally or not, the STEEL STRUCTURE part of the building still COLLAPSED due to fire. This is why you and your lemming Eots won't touch that piece of evidence.

8. You try and confuse the reader by using the fact that steel doesn't melt until temps reach 2800 degrees and office fires only reach temps of 800F-1000F. First, steel doesn't need to melt to cause problems. Steel loses it's strength starting at mush lower temps. Then there is thermal expansion that SNAPPED CONNECTIONS in WTC7 as I have provided proof of.

9. James Quintiere isn't calling for a new investigation because he believes that it was a controlled demolition. He wants one because he thinks that the fires caused the TRUSS CONNECTIONS to fail, not the columns as NIST's conclusion states. His quote is in his paper.

10. STILL waiting for you to provide just ONE good photo of all this "thermite siganature" garbage you keep claiming is out there on the columns and beams of WTC7. Not ONE picture can be found with what you say is there.


It's amazing how much shit you try and mislead people with to believe your deluded fantasies. It seems that every time you do address my evidence (which is like pulling teeth) is only to admit you were wrong about something. THAT'S why you avoid my proof. Eots' issue is that he has his head so far up your ass, he could probably tell you what you had for lunch last week. This is evident that he he NEVER says one word against your theory OR evidence even when you are caught red handed in a lie or mistake. Hey Eots? Where's your criticism of Terral's major mistakes? What a biased dolt you turned out to be.

So Terral, let's debate your WTC7 claims if you have the guts and quit trying to redirect the conversation elsewhere. You're nothing but a bible thumping coward at this point. You think that because you have God behind you and quote passages from the bible, people will put that much more faith into what you say.

I have shown you to be nothing more than a liar and miscreant and that you use God's word as nothing more than a shield to hide behind.

How sad for you.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I see that Terral still isn't addressing the Damages done to WTC7 by the falling towers. Hard to believe anyone over the age of 12 is that short sighted. (That's a code word for Dumb Ass btw)

 

[eots]

ames Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST&#8217;s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, &#8220;Questions on the WTC Investigations&#8221; at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. &#8220;I wish that there would be a peer review of this,&#8221; he said, referring to the NIST investigation. &#8220;I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they&#8217;ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.&#8221;

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST&#8217;s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. &#8220;And that building was not hit by anything,&#8221; noted Dr. Quintiere. &#8220;It&#8217;s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!&#8221;

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[LA RAM FAN]

you guys still wasting your time with these disinfo agent plants?

 

[eots]

Hi Kyzr:

I saw very plainly on the news that WTC-7 was demolished because it was structurally unsound and could not be repaired. I have no idea what the conspiracy buffs are whining about.
Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition

The Official Cover Story LIE says WTC-7 collapsed from building fires/debris, after being hit by no jetliner or anything else. For WTC-7 to be intentionally 'demolished' (Controlled Demolition), the job requires a good amount of 'time' that nobody had on 9/11 'after' the inside-job attacks began. Surveying and wiring WTC-7 for Demolition would take weeks or even months to complete and the idea that the 2800-degree steel-frame network was 'damaged beyond repair' from building fires is absolutely ridiculous!!!!

WTC-7 Controlled Demolition << Click here

Watch the short video and decide for yourself. Again, Gam is trying to prove a negative thesis, which amounts to proving nothing at all. Zip, zero, nada, nothing. He can say, "WTC-7 Did NOT Collapse From Santa And His Reindeer," but that also makes a case for nothing at all. For the explanation that "WTC-7 Definitely Collapsed From Controlled Demolition," see my Topic here.

GL,

Terral

So let's set things straight. You provide a theory as to how WTC7 came down. You say it was controlled demolition by thermite cutting charges. You provide pictures, videos, and quotes as a basis for coming to your conclusions of WTC7 being brought down by thermite charges.

I provide evidence that shows that on many of your pieces of evidence you use to come to your conclusion are INCORRECT. Let's go through those, shall we.

1. This picture below. You ADMITTED that you were wrong about the upper right column being cut at 45 degrees. This renders your follow up claim that nobody could have gotten up their to cut it moot. 2 claims rendered incorrect and useless in one swing.

2. Then there's this major lie form you, which you try and play off as a mistake. Now you admit that you were wrong about that.

WTC-7 is already imploding at free fall speed, but there is 'no' sign of any building fires through any of the unbroken windows! And yet, this same skyscraper was reduced to this little pile . . .

3. Let's return again to this photo that you annotated. You claim that there is "thermite signature" everywhere such as cuts and thermite froth. Yet in this photo, you admit that there is no "MELTING" or " BURN " marks rendering your "tons of thermite signatures" null and void. You effectively canceled your own claim out in the same damn photo. What an idiot.

4. Then you go on a rant that the cuts in this photo cannot be made from a torch, but from thermite.

But after further review, these photo show the same exact types of cuts and slag as the photo above. These next photos show torch cuts.

5. You keep lying about the fact that WTC7 COMPLETELY collapsed in 6.6 seconds at free fall. Video evidence provided here shows you are COMPLETELY wrong. It shows more than DOUBLE your idiotic 6.6 seconds.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k]YouTube - WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse[/ame]

6. You have been explained many times about thermal expansion and how it affects steel, welds, and connections. I have seen first hand welds that have been snapped under piping supports due to incorrect installation of thermal expansion loops.

7. Your understanding of structures, loads, and stresses is severely lacking. You claim that steel structures cannot collapse by office fire. You try and complicate things for the reader by added the term COMPLETELY collapse. This is misleading. Per the Windsor building pictured below, the steel part of this structure collapsed due to fire. Period. Whether it collapsed totally or not, the STEEL STRUCTURE part of the building still COLLAPSED due to fire. This is why you and your lemming Eots won't touch that piece of evidence.

8. You try and confuse the reader by using the fact that steel doesn't melt until temps reach 2800 degrees and office fires only reach temps of 800F-1000F. First, steel doesn't need to melt to cause problems. Steel loses it's strength starting at mush lower temps. Then there is thermal expansion that SNAPPED CONNECTIONS in WTC7 as I have provided proof of.

9. James Quintiere isn't calling for a new investigation because he believes that it was a controlled demolition. He wants one because he thinks that the fires caused the TRUSS CONNECTIONS to fail, not the columns as NIST's conclusion states. His quote is in his paper.

10. STILL waiting for you to provide just ONE good photo of all this "thermite siganature" garbage you keep claiming is out there on the columns and beams of WTC7. Not ONE picture can be found with what you say is there.


It's amazing how much shit you try and mislead people with to believe your deluded fantasies. It seems that every time you do address my evidence (which is like pulling teeth) is only to admit you were wrong about something. THAT'S why you avoid my proof. Eots' issue is that he has his head so far up your ass, he could probably tell you what you had for lunch last week. This is evident that he he NEVER says one word against your theory OR evidence even when you are caught red handed in a lie or mistake. Hey Eots? Where's your criticism of Terral's major mistakes? What a biased dolt you turned out to be.

So Terral, let's debate your WTC7 claims if you have the guts and quit trying to redirect the conversation elsewhere. You're nothing but a bible thumping coward at this point. You think that because you have God behind you and quote passages from the bible, people will put that much more faith into what you say.

I have shown you to be nothing more than a liar and miscreant and that you use God's word as nothing more than a shield to hide behind.

How sad for you.

this building looks burnt to a crisp compared to the small random fires at the wtc 7 and it appears to be standing..this building also appears to be under construction..and it certainly has not collapsed into its own footprit at near free fall speed

 

[Gamolon]

this building looks burnt to a crisp compared to the small random fires at the wtc 7 and it appears to be standing..this building also appears to be under construction..and it certainly has not collapsed into its own footprit at near free fall speed

Mistake number one. The part that is shown to have collapse was a STEEL STRUCTURE.

Mistake number two. It was a building fire. According to you, Terral, and 9/11 inside job, building fired only reach 800F-1000F.

Mistake number three. The part that is still standing was reinforced with CONCRETE.

So let's discuss this part of your quote eots.

this building looks burnt to a crisp

Are you suggesting that the severity of a building fire would contribute to the partial collapse of a STEEL STRUCTURE?

I'm really curious now. What caused the collapse of the STEEL STRUCTURE part of this building? It's either fire or something else. What's your answer?