Should we just focus on Building 7?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

but if you have no proof then it will always just be a belief.

As are most threads on ATS.

a reply to: samkent

I am now afraid of walking into any concrete building and lighting my cigarette with a bic lighter cause it might make the whole building fall down..

We all know what fire does to concrete...PULVERIZE................

How does jet fuel melt buildings?

lol

a reply to: Flatcoat

That is very true, but it does not mean they could have entire floor collapse and its not like you could just remove a portion of the floor over night or in the space of a week. In fact there was huge renovations that took place in the upper floors were portions of the floors were removed for the Solloman trading floor. Also it was not the case that all floors could be removed like that, particularly in the lower floors. There is a huge difference between being able to remove portions of floors as part of a renovation and having those floors removed by damage.

a reply to: oxidadoblanco

How does jet fuel melt buildings?

who said anything about melting the buildings?

originally posted by: oxidadoblanco
a reply to: samkent

I am now afraid of walking into any concrete building and lighting my cigarette with a bic lighter cause it might make the whole building fall down..

We all know what fire does to concrete...PULVERIZE................

How does jet fuel melt buildings?

lol

How many times and in how many different ways do people like you need to be shown and made to understand that before something like steel melts, it becomes softer and loses almost all of its strength. I mean, really, you do realize that before something hard like steel completely turns liquid, it becomes softer, right? What is so difficult about this that people keep either failing to understand this simple truth or they choose to willfully ignore it?

originally posted by: Philippines
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Wow. That's a lot of fancy words to backup your argument. If I posted a lot of documented skyscraper videos burning for many more hours than WTC7, that did not collapse, and I'm sure you probably know of them... How does your current theory apply to other towering infernos not falling because of fires?

"A lot of fancy words to back up your argument." How insulting and contrary to the mantra of this site. What you call "fancy words" are actually "facts" and "technical terms" describing very, very clearly EXACTLY what some of the best and most respected engineers and architects in the World found to have happened to Building 7. Face it, you don't care at all about the truth or about denying ignorance. You just want to believe that you are smarter than the experts.

Fire Temps
537 degrees C
Structual steel loses 51% of its strength at 500 C.
Steel strength

But that goes against the conspiracy mantra.

originally posted by: samkent
Fire Temps
537 degrees C
Structual steel loses 51% of its strength at 500 C.
Steel strength

But that goes against the conspiracy mantra.

You know that demolitions and explosives for demolition are very expensive to setup and implement right? Okay.

So, if it is this easy, why don't they just set steel-framed buildings on fire to demolish them? Heck, the south tower (or was it the north?) came down in 54 minutes. That would be a lot less effort and a lot cheaper than the weeks it takes to setup a demolition.

The reason is because this sort of collapse of a steel building is impossible with fire.

a reply to: jaffo

very clearly EXACTLY what some of the best and most respected engineers and architects in the World found to have happened to Building 7

Be careful of who you put your faith in.
If you are referring to the ae991 group you might want to look at each ones credentials.
Under just the letter 'A'.
Architects 15
Architectural Professionals 4 (one is a psychology researcher)
Engineers 16
Engineering Professionals 35 (civil - electrical - computer - mining)
Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers 37 (degreed and non degreed) (waste water engineer???)

So just using the numbers for US 'experts', exactly half of them have no business or expertise in the fields required to make any conclusions to the buildings.
Any first year law student would have them thrown out of the courtroom.

Also if you read the '911 statement' from any of the so called 'experts', almost none of them state that the OS is impossible.
Most merely say they would like another investigation.

These are your cadre of 'experts'.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Yes Yes and Yes again focus on building 7 because there is no logical explanation for it collapsing. Its the smoking gun to the 911 inside job our government did to our own people.

Not forgetting, a government that informed a foreign news agency, the BBC, in its big secret. Always makes me laugh that bit. The utter desperation in making a journalist screw up into a conspiracy, because as we all know every single journalist is perfect, never makes a mistake, ever, which is why we are absolutely certain there is a conspiracy! DUH!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
It doesn't matter WHAT the collapse looked like; if you can't explain how the bombs got into the building in the first place then it clearly wasn't a controlled demolition.

So if it can't be explained, it can't exist? That's exactly what you are saying.

soulwaxer

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Are you going to explain how building 7 was wired to control demolition under the noses of everyone working there? I'd really like to know how you can hide bombs that completely encircle support pillars on every floor, hide the people lugging this stuff into the building, hide the lugging of stuff OUT of the building, etc.

No matter how much you yell that the fall looks like a controlled demolition, it CAN'T be a controlled demolition if the physics of actually getting the bombs INTO the building, setup and wired to blow aren't feasible.

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
It doesn't matter WHAT the collapse looked like; if you can't explain how the bombs got into the building in the first place then it clearly wasn't a controlled demolition.

So if it can't be explained, it can't exist? That's exactly what you are saying.

soulwaxer

Are you going to explain it? Because the way I see it, it is unfeasible. It looks like if it were possible, there would already be an explanation for it from the truthers. No? Y'all like giving out explanations for things with no evidence anyways.

Do you know what goes into wiring a building for a controlled demolition? Do you know what the interior of a building wired to blow up like that looks like? Because it would be pretty damn hard to hide that from a building full of innocent people.

It's not like we are talking about theoretical physics here. This was done in 2001, so it had to be done using known physics. Therefore the process to get this done should have an explanation. So yes, I CAN make the argument that without an explanation it doesn't exist. If you can't make a valid explanation using known physics and existing engineering principles then it couldn't be done. That is called logical induction.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

And again, it will be pointed out to you that WTC 1 and 2, had high speed 767s slam into them. And WTC 7, was carved up by the collapse of WTC 1. Heavy damage and fire killed those three buildings. Why is it you never remember that?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
It doesn't matter WHAT the collapse looked like; if you can't explain how the bombs got into the building in the first place then it clearly wasn't a controlled demolition.

So if it can't be explained, it can't exist? That's exactly what you are saying.

soulwaxer

Are you going to explain it? Because the way I see it, it is unfeasible. It looks like if it were possible, there would already be an explanation for it from the truthers. No? Y'all like giving out explanations for things with no evidence anyways.

Do you know what goes into wiring a building for a controlled demolition? Do you know what the interior of a building wired to blow up like that looks like? Because it would be pretty damn hard to hide that from a building full of innocent people.

It's not like we are talking about theoretical physics here. This was done in 2001, so it had to be done using known physics. Therefore the process to get this done should have an explanation. So yes, I CAN make the argument that without an explanation it doesn't exist. If you can't make a valid explanation using known physics and existing engineering principles then it couldn't be done. That is called logical induction.

Yeah whatever.

Do you know what goes into high-jacking 4 airliners with nothing more than box-cutters, and no experience flying commercial jets? And then flying them perfectly into skyscrapers?

I am much more inclined to believe that the most technically advanced and best financed agencies in the world are capable of pulling off a complex operation.

soulwaxer

I am not even looking for an in depth look on how it was wired..

Was there a long term renovation project on any of the floors in building 7?

Was there an advance on remote detonation that would make it secure enough to preclude the need for the extensive wiring?

Little things like that take controlled demolition out of the realm of pure opinion and into the realm of possible.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

So, if it is this easy, why don't they just set steel-framed buildings on fire to demolish them? Heck, the south tower (or was it the north?) came down in 54 minutes. That would be a lot less effort and a lot cheaper than the weeks it takes to setup a demolition.

Try getting a permit from the EPA on that one.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Dodging the request I see. You can't produce the means to setup the operation, but in your eyes it is more plausible than the given account which doesn't defy physics.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Do you know what goes into high-jacking 4 airliners with nothing more than box-cutters, and no experience flying commercial jets? And then flying them perfectly into skyscrapers?

If I recall correctly one of them was a licensed commercial pilot.
Also they did rent simulator time.
The company thought it was strange that they had no interest in practicing landings.

Look again at the angle of the impacts.
They were far from perfect.
The second almost missed the building completely.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Are you going to explain how building 7 was wired to control demolition under the noses of everyone working there? I'd really like to know how you can hide bombs that completely encircle support pillars on every floor, hide the people lugging this stuff into the building, hide the lugging of stuff OUT of the building, etc.

No matter how much you yell that the fall looks like a controlled demolition, it CAN'T be a controlled demolition if the physics of actually getting the bombs INTO the building, setup and wired to blow aren't feasible.

Thermite can be addressed to paint. IIRC the WTC complex had been having extensive overnight painting to common and structural areas.

Can't find the link to the construction.