World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Hot Spots still smoldering taken from space October 8, 2001


Hot Spots


Notice all 3 buildings have similar heat signatures almost a month later, remember firemen working on the site saying they saw molten metal running weeks after.

Why is the WTC7 site just as hot as WTC 1 & 2 almost a month later ?

No temperature scale so what were the values

Finally, the value of thermal data was questioned because initial EarthData coverage, captured using a Raytheon camera, failed to display absolute temperatures. Ideally, fire fighters require a scale of values in degrees Fahrenheit, rather than a relative scale of 8-bit values

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Thermite burns, and then its done. Cutting through the beams...and then, its done. It isn't going to burn for weeks on end.

originally posted by: waypastvneSo Jim Hoffman is claiming that that 8.3 tones of TNT would need to be placed on every floor in order to make WTC ! & 2 collapse.

I don't think THAT is what he said. I believe he said that that is the amount of energy needed to PULVERISE the building like it did.

You might want to stop and think about that for a minute. Yes 8.3 tones of TNT per floor had to be snuck in and hidden without any one noticing.

You probably haven't read my take on it, but I don't claim explosives were used. All I know is that additional energy must have been supplied, hence I presumed the use of a destructive alien beam.

I DO know that yes, to pulverise that much solid steel and concrete, you need a helluvalot energy. I have seen how much time and effort it takes to break slabs of concrete into managable chunks during demolition, let alone steel beams. I can appreciate that yes, perhaps, to reduce a WTC tower to rubble and dust you indeed DO need 8-9 tonnes of TNT per floor.

If so, we agree that that could not have been done with explosives (not the ones I know of, at least). So, that's why I brought up the magical alien dis-integration beam, as that is the only thing I can think of that would create this effect.

But for the sake of the argument, if we assume that the amount of energy that was available in the relatively light floor constructions was sufficient to generate the necessary energy - the question remains how that energy was distributed to the beams and concrete in the core. And how come that the totally different volumes of core, outer skeleton and floors collapsed simultaneously and with near free fall speed?

Do you Think there might be something wrong in his calculations?

Perhaps, perhaps not. But let's say the are wrong - do you have any plausible answers do the questions above?

lets be serious here,how could a building like this gets collapse by fire,hahaha # that # americans thinks that people are dumb,like wtf

a reply to: deepthinker1508

Massive damage and fire. What is it that so many of those who believe in conspiracy theories always forget one of them?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

I DO know that yes, to pulverise that much solid steel

NO steel was turned to dust, all the concrete was NOT turned to dust either.

This guy Steve Spak took pictures of the aftermath he even has one of pancaked floors !

From the link

As a photographer and an Honorary Deputy Chief with the New York Fire Department, Steve Spak has attended thousands of fires. In this interview with Bob McKeown, Spak gives his first hand account of what he saw at ground zero on 9/11, including World Trade Centre Building 7.

Enjoy, it is a gem, and one of the many weapons against Alex Jones types

From a link on the above

Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
do you have any plausible answers do the questions above?

Yes, the answer is this.

a reply to: waypastvne

Ahja, the legendary 10 Red Arrows of Death and Destruction. Great find!

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: scottyirnbru

It ignores the obvious problem that this theory poses

That's your take on it, mate. But it actually just throws up another question.

You just don't seem to realise the problems, the NIST-report quite obviously creates. The OT is bliss, I guess.
Now go ahead and show me the study regarding the complete destruction of the cores. That's one of those problems you 'somehow' forgot to mention so far.

Chuckle away, eh? Sure.

What do you want to see to be convinced? I'm not sure I can find that because I'm not sure it's a particular issue. I've made concrete cubes and crushed them in a lab, I've seen the remnants of different cubes that have been crushed. I agree the lift shafts are generally the most reinforced areas but you are still ignoring the fact that whole storeys are shifting and dropping. The changes in direction of the forces would be almost random as loads appear and disappear and move. Also, when we had school parties visit the materials lab we used to crush concrete for them because of the wild noise and effect that you get. It's truly impressive. It's very noisy when concrete (and steel and wood and brick) gives up. I also don't think you are fully appreciating that nobody is claiming complete destruction. Total collapse and material displaced in a number of directions yes. Also were the lift shafts concrete? What was the make up? They don't necessarily need to be concrete.

I gave you my best answer of what I think happened to the cores. Perhaps you can have a run at the few that I posed.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

WTC 7 did not have data recorders, did not have sensors, there was nothing to show the exact sequence of events inside the building before/during the collapse.

But your 'educated guess' suggests, that one column failed and thus the whole building collapsed as we have seen in the OP. That's what I would consider an epic fail, just like the lack of any study regarding the cores.

I see no reason to discuss this further. It's just hilarious.

Not his educated guess. The consensus of a number of structural and material engineers. The result of a huge number of hours of research and study.

YouTube videos though. That's where the truth lies.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

I'm not sure I can find that because I'm not sure it's a particular issue.

And I am very sure that you can't find it because you will just have to read the last NIST-report yourself.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: scottyirnbru

I'm not sure I can find that because I'm not sure it's a particular issue.

And I am very sure that you can't find it because you will just have to read the last NIST-report yourself.

So just ignore the how and the why part then? I gave you my opinion. I can't do anything more than that.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
Also were the lift shafts concrete?

2" drywall with a metal mesh sandwiched in the middle.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
Also were the lift shafts concrete?

2" drywall with a metal mesh sandwiched in the middle.

So plasterboard sheets? I think I may have worked out how they appear to disappear....Over to you public opinion.

Premise of this thread was that blasts could be heard throughout the day and right before collapse. It Is fact that loud explosions were heard emitting from under the WTC 7 and when collapsing.

World trade Center 7 was brought down in a controlled manner because there were no fire crews or water available to able to contain the fire, so the smartest thing they could think of was to "PULL IT", so they may the decision to pull and they watched the building come down.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
It Is fact that loud explosions were heard emitting from under the WTC 7 and when collapsing.

Are you claiming explosives in the basement ?

Thats funny because WTC7 didn't have a basement.

Did the Evil Government dig a big hole under WTC 7 before they blew it up ?

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Premise of this thread was that blasts could be heard throughout the day and right before collapse. It Is fact that loud explosions were heard emitting from under the WTC 7 and when collapsing.

World trade Center 7 was brought down in a controlled manner because there were no fire crews or water available to able to contain the fire, so the smartest thing they could think of was to "PULL IT", so they may the decision to pull and they watched the building come down.

What explosion? There is no actual evidence of these explosions. You keep ignoring the questions I pose of you. Fancy them now.

So, NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that? They don't. They simply state, without elaboration, that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fire induced collapse hypothesis. The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time. In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall. They just walked away from it without further comment.

The fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall. Given that even known controlled demolitions do not remove sufficient structure to allow for actual freefall, how could a natural fire-induced process be more destructive? Add to that the synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse, and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall. Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. Yet freefall did in fact happen. This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.

The freefall of Building 7 is one of the clearest of many "smoking guns" that proves explosives were planted in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11, 2001.

SOURCE

EDIT : Now start reading from this page 24 on, to the end (now page 33), and you have all the reasons to confront all these OS Trusters with.
I have other things to do there, for example, I'll put Reheats "debunking of the NoC theory" signature line in its right destination, the dustbin.

Btw, that OP its low explosion sound in his WTC 7 collapse video, I have a much better one in my signature LINKS at the bottom of all my posts, and a lot more videos and evidence that the OS-Trusters have no answers for. They were there for many years already...
My post from the above page 24 link asks a few nagging questions, for which I never got a satisfactory answer, by any of the usual OS Trusters.

originally posted by: LaBTop

So, NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that? They don't. They simply state, without elaboration, that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fire induced collapse hypothesis. The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time. In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall. They just walked away from it without further comment.

The fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall. Given that even known controlled demolitions do not remove sufficient structure to allow for actual freefall, how could a natural fire-induced process be more destructive? Add to that the synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse, and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall. Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. Yet freefall did in fact happen. This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.

The freefall of Building 7 is one of the clearest of many "smoking guns" that proves explosives were planted in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11, 2001.

SOURCE

EDIT : Now start reading from this page 24 on, to the end (now page 33), and you have all the reasons to confront all these OS Trusters with.
I have other things to do there, for example, I'll put Reheats "debunking of the NoC theory" signature line in its right destination, the dustbin.

Btw, that OP its low explosion sound in his WTC 7 collapse video, I have a much better one in my signature LINKS at the bottom of all my posts, and a lot more videos and evidence that the OS-Trusters have no answers for. They were there for many years already...
My post from the above page 24 link asks a few nagging questions, for which I never got a satisfactory answer, by any of the usual OS Trusters.

www.nist.gov...

Question 11. They do deal with it.

a reply to: waypastvne

Good grief, do you actually suggest that the very same bolts that NIST said were weak enough to simply break away from the core to create the pancake effect now all of the sudden are strong enough to tranfer kinetic energy in such amounts that he entire steel colums of the core simply vaporised?