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

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Most of the NIST videos have been tampered with having key moments removed and sound cut.

I think you mean ALL of the truthers videos have been tampered with.

Look they got the confederate flag removed in a couple of weeks.
The truthers have had 14 years and they still can't get any traction.
The reason is that ALL of their evidence is smoke and mirrors.
You are flat out wrong in your ideas of 911.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Most of the NIST videos have been tampered with having key moments removed and sound cut.

I think you mean ALL of the truthers videos have been tampered with.

.

No, I meant that fact. THE FOIA released videos by NIST have been tampered with. Edited and cut to exclude key moments.

NIST scenarios had it possible to install 9 lbs of explosives on one column and have the building collapse as it did. NIST discounts this theory only on the basis that the video they had contained no audible explosions sounds when clearly the opening post of this thread shows as you can hear massive explosions.

Failure occurred on the 13-17th floors on one column. floors 14-17 were kept vacant. NIST states that the outer damage to building 7 did not contribute to the collapse of building 7.

FDNY told silverstein early in the morning that they weren't going to contain the small fires in World Trade Center 7. They decided that they would not let it burn up without out a controlled collapse otherwise it would of burned all day and night causing much more danger and damage to surrounding areas. This demolition allowed the building to fall without casualties and would allow fire and rescue to search the WTC towers for survivors without the threat of building seven collapsing chaotically over the search area teams.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

NIST also states that WTC 7 was going to collapse, from just the fire alone. SO, if you are going to live by the NIST report, then you die by the report as well. Because it also points out that there were no conventional explosive events that day. A fact backed up by FDNY officers on scene.

Tested blast scenarios.

Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set
explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7 . As a minimum, the explosive material would have had to cause sufficient damage to a critical column or truss that it became unable to carry its service load or that a lateral deflection would cause it to buckle.

Six combinations of explosive location and column/truss sections and two implementation scenarios were
considered. In the first scenario, there was ample time for optimized preparation of the structure (including possible preliminary cutting of structural members) and use of the minimum mass of explosives. In the second scenario, the explosive charge was to be placed in the shortest possible time, which was to be no more than a 7 h to 8 h time frame.

Simulations were performed for differing degrees of partitioning of a tenant floor. Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario. This scenario involved preliminary cutting of Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection.

Here is just some explosives caught on tape of WTC 7. Firefighters and NYPD members heard 'clap of thunder' before the collapse




First responders heard multiple blasts before and during the controlled collapse of building 7.

From the NIST Report on WTC 7....

" Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130dB to 140dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as a long Greenwich Street and West Broadway). This sound level is comparable to a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. The sound from such a blast in an urban setting would have been reflected and channeled down streets with minimum attenuation. However, the soundtracks from videos being recorded at the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast"

So, again, live by the NIST report, die by the NIST report. So, now we have the FDNY saying no explosions that indicated a bomb or demolition charge and we have NIST saying the same thing....well then there are the live recordings that exist in the archives of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and FOX all which carried it live and had no explosions heard....then there is you Shadow, clinging to this idea that Silverstein ordered his demolition Supermen to break through the NYPD/FDNY cordon to run into the building and plant your miracle Hush a Boom explosives.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
From the NIST Report on WTC 7....

" Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130dB to 140dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as a long Greenwich Street and West Broadway). This sound level is comparable to a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. The sound from such a blast in an urban setting would have been reflected and channeled down streets with minimum attenuation. However, the soundtracks from videos being recorded at the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast"

So, again, live by the NIST report, die by the NIST report. So, now we have the FDNY saying no explosions that indicated a bomb or demolition charge and we have NIST saying the same thing....well then there are the live recordings that exist in the archives of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and FOX all which carried it live and had no explosions heard....then there is you Shadow, clinging to this idea that Silverstein ordered his demolition Supermen to break through the NYPD/FDNY cordon to run into the building and plant your miracle Hush a Boom explosives.

I'm done with this thread. He's reposts the same stuff again and again and refuses to answer any question posed of him. He'd be better off with a blog instead of a forum.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Tested blast scenarios.

Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set
explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7 . As a minimum, the explosive material would have had to cause sufficient damage to a critical column or truss that it became unable to carry its service load or that a lateral deflection would cause it to buckle.

Six combinations of explosive location and column/truss sections and two implementation scenarios were
considered. In the first scenario, there was ample time for optimized preparation of the structure (including possible preliminary cutting of structural members) and use of the minimum mass of explosives. In the second scenario, the explosive charge was to be placed in the shortest possible time, which was to be no more than a 7 h to 8 h time frame.

Simulations were performed for differing degrees of partitioning of a tenant floor. Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario. This scenario involved preliminary cutting of Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection.

Except for one thing....

Oh so close but you ignored the next three paragraphs on pages 27 and 28 of the report. They are the ones that tell you why even this hypothetical scenario doesn't work. Helps to read all the evidence and not just cherry pick.

Show us. Copy paste them and a link and I will rip that apart too.

Read it context son.

There were 3 scenarios "This scenario involved preliminary cutting of
Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges.

The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection.

Calculations were also performed for a lesser charge size of 1 kg (2 lb) to evaluate threshold explosive requirements for window fragility. Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection."

In the second scenario, the explosive charge was to be placed in the shortest possible time, which was to be no more than a 7 h to 8 h time frame. Which was the time the building was empty.


Don't forget that floor above 13 to the 17th floors were vacant in 2001 which are the floors in which the main column was severed causing progressive collapse

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
From the NIST Report on WTC 7....

.

I'm done with this thread. He's reposts the same stuff again and again and refuses to answer any question posed of him. He'd be better off with a blog instead of a forum.

Are you sure, it is the only thread you have posted on since June. What will you do? Is 911 debunking all you try to do?

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
From the NIST Report on WTC 7....

.

I'm done with this thread. He's reposts the same stuff again and again and refuses to answer any question posed of him. He'd be better off with a blog instead of a forum.

Are you sure, it is the only thread you have posted on since June. What will you do? Is 911 debunking all you try to do?

I'm on my phone so I never post links or vids or anything. Too much hassle. You've got a copy of the report though so you don't really need me to show you anything. Rip it apart? Dearie me. The report explains why this explosion theory isn't possible. Unless you've knowledge of some non shock wave generating explosive which is also tremendously quiet. I don't think you do though.

Another thing. You're wrong on the floor occupancy. Floor 13 - American Express and the SEC. Floor 14 - vacant. Floors 15 to 17 - Citigroup. Again. All in the report you have.

You are correct. This is the only forum I post in. I sometimes go read the UFO stuff and have a little chuckle. I wonder if those typing and those reading believe what is there. I find the whole thing amazing. I used to be a UFO nut. Then I thought about it. If it was true, why no evidence? Then I decided that while there may be other life on other planets who is to say they are visiting? Not me. No evidence. I like the 9/11 forum. I've a seven week holiday and I like to amuse myself. I also admire the guesswork physics that goes on. I like the hilarious misunderstanding of "melting" steel. I have a degree in civil engineering. I'm not making up spurious facts about materials. This stuff is written down and repeatable in lab conditions.

I've repeatedly asked you questions and you've repeatedly dodged and deflected. I know why. It's because you can't explain or answer because at that point things get too tricky. You said you didn't need to explain the who or the why or the how. You said this was only about wtc7. Unfortunately it can't be. It can't be because this can't be the only corrupt aspect. It all must be. So you need that global rational explanation for it all. And it falls apart at the single question of how many people need to know. It's not tens or hundreds. It's thousands. And they've all kept silent since. Some must have shuffled off this mortal coil and none have had death bed pangs of guilt. If you and other conspiracy chaps for together and funded a kickstarter for a full peer reviewed analysis of all aspects of the nist report and the events of that day. If you used independent and fully qualified engineers and scientists then I'd put in. It would be a small price to pay for the end of this. But that won't happen. Too many people make too much money from the conspiracy idea to want it to end one way or another. So it'll continue. And you'll continue and I'll continue even though I said I wouldn't. Truthfully I enjoy it. I don't know you. If you lived local I'd offer to meet you for a pint and a chat because I find it fascinating.

This might ease your mind but the evidence I show still does not mean the Gov had something to do with it, Bin ladens planes still hit the tower. They should give medals out to those who decided it would be best to pull building 7. Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

I don't think its an inside job if WTC 7 was controlled demolition. Truthers cry conspiracy but quite honestly it was the only thing to do.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
I don't think its an inside job if WTC 7 was controlled demolition.

There is zero evidence for WTC 7 being a controlled demolition - in fact the evidence shows it was not.

However, some people for some strange reason want to push a silly conspiracy theory that the FDNY does what civilians tell them to do, and blow up buildings! With no evidence at all.

a reply to: Shadow Herder. Why do you ignore that NIST itself says no explosives were uses? Why is that?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
I don't think its an inside job if WTC 7 was controlled demolition.

However, some people for some strange reason want to push a silly conspiracy theory that the FDNY does what civilians tell them to do, and blow up buildings! With no evidence at all.

No one but you is regurgitating such nonsense. The FDNY did not implode building 7. Silverstein didn't give orders to FDNY. The FDNY let him know quite early that they weren't going to contain the fires dues to the loss of life and lack of water.. WTC 7 was evacuated in the A.M and no fire crews were in the building.

They (not the FDNY) made the decision later on in the p.m that before the fire became wild and the building would then be at risk of chaotically collapsing on the rescue workers digging for survivors at ground zero that they would control its collapse to protect property and life.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Shadow Herder. Why do you ignore that NIST itself says no explosives were uses? Why is that?

Not ignoring, if you read it carefully they rule out explosives based on the videos they released, NIST say there is no explosions heard and that windows were still intact where the computer simulation said it should of blown out , but that was using one of the loudest explosives RDX (c4) as the base for the simulation when there are numerous types. So they dismiss the controlled demolition on unbroken windows. That's pretty weak.

Though NIST does say that planting 9 lbs of explosives is all you would need to take down wtc 7 and their simulation allowed for demolitions to be installed in a 8 hour frame.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
No one but you is regurgitating such nonsense.

You are the one pushing the nonsense that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, with no evidence showing that at all - in fact the evidence shows the building was damaged, was bulging and creaking - all evidence that it would collapse. The FDDNY had a transit on it and knew it would collapse.

The FDNY did not implode building 7.

True, no one did. The FDNY through their experience knew it was going to collapse.

WTC 7 was evacuated in the A.M and no fire crews were in the building.

Because the FDNY knew the building was going to collapse.

that they would control it collapse to protect property and life.

You are very confused - what life needed protecting? The FDNY knew the building was going to collapse, so they had cleared the area.

Exactly when did anyone have time to sneak the explosives into the bulging building and rig it for demolition? Why did no one hear these mythical explosives go off? Unless they used the secret hush a boom explosives, that also do not blow out any windows...

Just a silly conspiracy theory!

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Charlie Chaplin looked like Hitler.

Whatever you say, Chief Eagleeye.
And now back to some facts:



See any differences? Experts... you are absolutely hilarious, Sir!

a reply to: waypastvne

An example of the force exerted by air:

Vacuum Airtubes for trainloads of vacuum cleaners?
Brilliant! Somehow.

May the force be with us then.