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

originally posted by: skyeagle409
There were no explosions during the 9/11 terrorist incident. Employees of Protec, a company of demolition engineers and experts, were operating seismic monitors in another project at the time and at no time did their monitors detect bomb explosions. In regard to WTC7, there was a 20-story hole punched on the south facade from the collapse of WTC1. It was evident that fire had weaken WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 because those buildings buckled from high temperature just before they collapsed.

Thanks for adding something of substance to this thread

Alien ray. Told ya.

No explosions indeed. The miraculous collapse of a very rigid core and the buckling just before collapse. The impossible hole in the Pentagon. Only WTC7 is dubious, may have been rigged and brought down to prevent loss of data.

Let's not forget that governments don't have much problems with loss of life; loss of "just" a human being is not seen as very important on the grander scale; but loss of DATA is seen as very important on the grander scale (e.g. Watergate, Cigargate, Snowden, McKinnock) - hence it is quite plausible that governements have systems in place that destroy important files in case of an emergency.

Was the demo team also monitoring during WTC7 collapse?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

You are welcome! I have been a pilot and an airframe technician for over 40 years and I have been amazed at the misconceptions relating to the 9/11 attacks. I have seen comments that the transponders were tampered with to make the airliners invisible, but that is not true at all because the B-757 and the B-767 are not stealth aircraft and even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar. Tapering with the transponder only makes it difficult for controllers to track but does not render an aircraft invisible to radar. I have seen comments that the aircraft were switched, but that would have been impossible with safeguards in place at that time and in addition, I have modified many aircraft, large and small, and there was no way to modify a B-767 or a B-757 without drawing a lot of attention because those aircraft are not fly-by-wire aircraft and it would taken me less than 30 minutes to uncover and identify a modified aircraft and even less if it was modified illegally, and by that very fact no one in their right mind would have tried to modify and use airliners in such an attack because the persons involved would have been identified within the first week because such modifications would have involved many people and companies, which would have left paper trails from Washington State to Washington D.C. In regard to the dripping metal from the corner of WTC2, I recognized the molten metal as aluminum mixed with the contents of United 175 and from WTC2.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Explosives cannot bring down a steel frame building if the building has not been structurally pre-weakened, which is a very noisy and dirty process that takes many months and such a process would would not have been tolerated in an occupied building. The process would have generated tons of waste material and afterward, special explosives that cut away the steel frame before the main charges are detonated, which would have had to be firmly attached to the steel frame otherwise, the blast wave will simply flow around the steel column like wind flowing around a flag pole as was the case when terrorist detonated a huge bomb in 1993 beneath WTC1 and you can review photos of the steel columns sitting within the huge bomb crater. If explosives are firmly attached to the steel columns, the blast will generate a powerful signal that will travel down through the steel column and into the ground where the signals will be detected by seismic monitors. Seismic monitors in the area did not detect such signals which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that no explosives were used to bring down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. Fire is what brought down the WTC buildings as evident by the fact that each building was seen buckling from the temperature of the fires just prior to their collapse. Temperature of the fires were high enough to easily weaken steel to the point of failure and I know that as a fact because I have had to place aircraft-grade steel into ovens in order to soften the steel for forming complex shapes. The temperature needed to soften the steel was only 1000 degrees F., which is below the melting point of aluminum. However, temperatures generated from the fires inside the WTC buildings were hundreds of degrees higher but hundreds of degrees below the melting point of steel. To sum it up, it would have been impossible to prepare WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 for explosive demolition unnoticed. The noise, waste materials and airborne dust from the pre-weakening process would have made sure of that in the crowded buildings.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
Explosives cannot bring down a steel frame building if the building has not been structurally pre-weakened,

So, actually, you're confirming my statement. Alien ray. Told ya.

[...]signal that will travel down through the steel column and into the ground where the signals will be detected by seismic monitors.

Interesting point - actually, a lot of seismic data is available and it shows that the collapse of all three buildings (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7) was hardly registered at all. Now imagine that explosives had been used, or that the official story was true, in that case you'd expect a significant trembling of the floor as 500.000 tonnes of steel and concrete hit the ground. But since the alien ray was used to pulverise a large part of the building the impact was far less. Kinda like it was snowing.

Fire is what brought down the WTC buildings as evident by the fact that each building was seen buckling from the temperature of the fires just prior to their collapse. Temperature of the fires were high enough to easily weaken steel to the point of failure

Well, no. Actually the fires were modest, oxygen starved and by far not sufficient to weaken anything. See, for example this picture. In the red frame you'll see Edna Cinton, who stood there for at least 20 minutes, waving for help. Which did not come, alas.



So, 'intense heat' - nope, I don't think so.

To sum it up, it would have been impossible to prepare WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 for explosive demolition unnoticed.

I agree. Alien ray. Told ya.

a reply to: ForteanOrg
Alien Ray?
This guy?
www.facebook.com...

He should be arrested or something.

a reply to: Phage

Nope. Alien ray as in "bundled energy that loosens the bounds between molecules". Alien as in "not from this world".

Alien Ray. Told ya.

a reply to: skyeagle409

There is only one problem with your conclusions.
They fly in the face of conspiracy thinking.

In the mind of a conspiracist there is always something behind what you see.
Nothing can be accepted at face value.
If you trip over loose shoe laces some evil hidden person must have swapped the laces with special slippery laces.
If you crash your car some entity hacked the computer and drove it into the tree.

originally posted by: samkentNothing can be accepted at face value.

That's the weirdest thing: if we see a building clearly turning into dust by some unknow force - right before our own eyes - not once, but twice - not twice but even three times - we can't take that at face value. We need an explanation. And we need it quick, or we will feel unsafe and start doubting our authorities. Especially if they just proved to be incompetent, not even capable of protecting their best guarded building in the entire nation.

Since it was known in advance that these buildings would be brought down a cover story HAD to be invented. It did not matter if it was inconsistent with anything anybody ever had seen, it was not important that it actually contradicted known laws of physics - as long as the message was brought with sufficient authority and by sufficient authorities, the general public would believe it. And so it happened.

And you bought it. You actually believe the official BS.

But it weren't planes that dustified the buildings. They provided dots, you connected the wrong ones, as you were expected - no - as you were TOLD to do.

Obey!

Alien ray. Told ya.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: samkentNothing can be accepted at face value.

That's the weirdest thing: if we see a building clearly turning into dust by some unknow force - right before our own eyes - not once, but twice - not twice but even three times - we can't take that at face value. We need an explanation. And we need it quick, or we will feel unsafe and start doubting our authorities. Especially if they just proved to be incompetent, not even capable of protecting their best guarded building in the entire nation.

Since it was known in advance that these buildings would be brought down a cover story HAD to be invented. It did not matter if it was inconsistent with anything anybody ever had seen, it was not important that it actually contradicted known laws of physics - as long as the message was brought with sufficient authority and by sufficient authorities, the general public would believe it. And so it happened.

And you bought it. You actually believe the official BS.

But it weren't planes that dustified the buildings. They provided dots, you connected the wrong ones, as you were expected - no - as you were TOLD to do.

Obey!

Alien ray. Told ya.

So. . . the planes had absolutely no effect at all? That is seriously your contention? We all watched the planes slam into the buildings. We're not the one connecting dots here, my friend.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Interesting point - actually, a lot of seismic data is available and it shows that the collapse of all three buildings (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7) was hardly registered at all.

The seismic data recorded the collapse of the WTC buildings, but did not detect the signals associated with explosives.

a reply to: jaffo

Indeed, had only these planes hit the towers, not much else would have happened. The few remaining fires would have been put out and the path to the upper floors would have been cleared. After all, these buildings were designed to withstand such impacts.

So, indeed, no, these planes did not cause the collapse of the WTC buildings. Remember that WTC 1 and 2 were hit, but not WTC7, WTC 6, WTC 4 and the Marriot Hotel, whom all were taken out that day. In yet another unbelievable "coincidence" only WTC buildings were flattened. Adjacent buildings even if they suffered damage, remained standing.

Please keep in mind that the authorities were doing damage control and doing it as good as they could. They DID try to protect us as good as they could given the circumstances. The planes were necessary because the public needed a "probable" explanation for what would happen. Had these planes not been flown into the buildings, firstly a lot more lives would have been lost. As it was now, most people got out before the buildings were pulverized. Imagine the surprise, shock and awe of the public if the buildings simply had been pulverised WITHOUT planes being flown into them. No, these planes were necessary allright.

Please consider: what is more plausible: that the US of A is not even capable of intercepting a few slow commercial air planes over their own soil in one of the most protected airspaces in the world - or that they WANTED these planes to hit the towers? What is more plausible: that Bush was left in that school he was in unprotected as an oversight - or because they KNEW nothing would happen to him there? What is more plausible: that the government witholds proof that a plane hit the Pentagon because they think the public can't handle that (the same public that saw both planes hit the Towers) - or that there was something more disturbing to see on these video's? What is more plausible: that the government finds out in just a few hours "who did it" - or that they thought up that story to begin with? What is more plausible: that WTC7 spontaneously fell into it's own footprint as it did because of fires - or that this reinforced building was taken out too? What is more plausible: that OBL voluntarily refused to claim his long before planned victory over these bastard American infidels - or that he actually did NOT plan this?

If you eliminate the impossible you are left with the truth, however implausible.

Alien ray. Told ya.

a reply to: samkent

There is only one problem with your conclusions.
They fly in the face of conspiracy thinking.

That is correct. As a pilot and airframe technician, I have had to correct conspiracy theorist on a number of things. It is no secret that the U.S. received warnings that al-Qaeda would attack American with aircraft and we can also take a look at the Bojinka Plot, where terrorist had planned to use airliners to kill thousands of people, including a plot to fly an aircraft into CIA headquarters.

The Bojinka Plot

Phase III, CIA plane crash plot

Abdul Hakim Murad confessed detailed Phase III in his interrogation by the Manila police after his capture.

Phase three would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in the Langley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.

There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.

A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

Another plot that was considered would have involved the hijacking of more airplanes. The World Trade Center (New York City, New York), The Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.), the White House (Washington, D.C.), the Sears Tower (Chicago, Illinois), and the U.S Bank Tower (Los Angeles, California), would have been the likely targets.

Abdul Hakim Murad said that this part of the plot was dropped since the Manila cell could not recruit enough people to implement other hijackings in his confession with Filipino investigators, prior to the foiling of Operation Bojinka.

This plot eventually would be the base plot for the September 11, 2001 attacks which involved hijacking commercial airliners as opposed to small aircraft loaded with explosives and crashing them into their intended targets. However, only the World Trade Center (which was destroyed) and The Pentagon (which suffered partial damage) were hit.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ramzi Yousef, the the terrorist who detonated a bomb beneath WTC1 in 1993 and nephew of the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Well, no. Actually the fires were modest, oxygen starved and by far not sufficient to weaken anything. See, for example this picture. In the red frame you'll see Edna Cinton, who stood there for at least 20 minutes, waving for help. Which did not come, alas.

An ordinary fire is all that is need to weaken steel. Check out the links where steel was weakened due to fire.

Purdue engineers test effects of fire on steel structures

lunaticoutpost.com...


Overpass Near San Francisco Collapses After Fire

www.nytimes.com...
lapse.html?_r=0


April 1959, Fire Destroyed the Port Arthur YMCA Building

texashistory.unt.edu...:/67531/metapth201993/


The Russwood Park Fire

www.memphismagazine.com...

edit on 22-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: skyeagle409

There was only a very limited amount of fuel available, most kerosine exploded in mid-air just after the impact. Additional fuel was scarce: the WTC buildings were set up spacious and with office furniture that had to confirm to strict fire-safety regulations. You can clearly see the thick black smoke, a clear sign of low temperature, oxygen starved fires. Fires also weren't hot enough to break any windows, which would have happened when temperature exceeds 600° C. Actually, in the South Tower people that were trapped ABOVE the impact zone escaped using a remaining passage - they did not report significant heat. The unlucky souls trapped above the impact zone in WTC1 suffered from the thick black fumes and may even have experienced what they would have felt as 'intense heat' - but humans aren't made of steel. Steel can withstand a temperature of say 200 degrees celsius without any problem, humans can't.

But even if you were right - there was no way any heat from these fires could have weakened any steel in the upper 20 or so floors above the impact zone, nor could it weaken any steel in the remaining say 90 floors below. So, even IFF the temperature had risen high enough to weaken the steel it does NOT explain how it is that the upper portion of the building is falling down with free-fall speed INTO ITSELF (the antenna starts moving before the rest of the building does).

Alien ray. Told ya.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
The seismic data recorded the collapse of the WTC buildings, but did not detect the signals associated with explosives.

It did record the collapse of the WTC buildings - but it is actually quite hard to see it, as the "collapse" was not much louder / harder than background noise levels. Which makes sense to me, as the entire metal- and concrete structure was disintegrating simultaneously due to the ..

Alien ray. Told ya.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

After all, these buildings were designed to withstand such impacts.

No they wern't.
I have already provided a video with one of the designers stating they were NOT designed to withstand such a large plane traveling at high speed.

It's these same BS one liners that keep being repeated by people who only get their information from conspiracy sites.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

there was no way any heat from these fires could have weakened any steel in the upper 20 or so floors above the impact zone

They only had to weaken the two or three at the impact site.

Just remember that this conspiracy hasn't gone anywhere in 14 years.
Only one or two engineers have staken their reputation to the conspiracy side.
In fact one of them makes his living by perpetuating the conspiracy without solving the methods used.

All the worlds other engineers don't believe in this silly conspiracy.

a reply to: samkent

Nobody wants to be silly of course

But nevertheless, facts are facts and what I wrote are just that: facts. Nothing silly about them.

I'm not sure what you mean by "this conspiracy hasn't gone anywhere in 14 years". Perhaps you meant to say "our government has never said anything else than they did just 2 hours after the planes hit the towers" - that's right, and I don't expect them to do anything else. Governments, up to the level of presidents, seem to be quite capable of lies, remember "I did not have sex with this woman"..?

But what DID change in those 14 years is that thousands of highly trained engineers and architects now speak out against the official story. Of course they are ridiculized, it's just a normal part of the truth-denial cycle: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident". You are still in the first phase, methinks.

But what DID we see? Simple: a building that collapsed as if some magic hand destroyed the material it was build from. Huge dust clouds, consisting of very fine dust. Weird changes in materials: fusion of metals, inexplicable warping, instant but selective rusting of cars. Police cars that were "burned" but somehow the plastic lights on top of the cars were left untouched. The 'heat' you mentioned, heat that supposedly warped and bent steel - left paper undamaged. Dust that fell - upwards! What happened to these buildings?

Buildings can not collapse like what we saw that day without some "help" from the outside. Even NIST has never explained how these buildings could fall like they did. Their "pancaking" theory was dismissed - by NIST themselves. Their original stanza "no free fall speed" was withdrawn and now they say there was (near) free fall speed.

So, it takes time, but we're getting there. And in the end you will say, like I do now:

Alien ray. Told ya.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

But what DID change in those 14 years is that thousands of highly trained engineers and architects now speak out against the official story.

Prove that there are thousands.
Show us their bio's and what they say is wrong.
I'll bet you can't.
At best just a hand full. There's always a few nuts in a fruit cake.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

There was only a very limited amount of fuel available, most kerosine exploded in mid-air just after the impact. Additional fuel was scarce: the WTC buildings were set up spacious and with office furniture that had to confirm to strict fire-safety regulations.

Even office furniture is flammable when coated with jet fuel. WTC5 suffered an internal collapse due only to office furniture and contents. No jet fuel responsible for the internal collapse of WTC5.

World Trade Center 5 Failure Analysis

World Trade Center 5 (WTC 5) was a 9-story office and retail building at the World Trade Center complex in New York City, NY. On September 11, 2001, flaming debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers penetrated the roof of WTC 5, causing a fire that burned unchecked until the fuel from building contents was consumed (FEMA, 2002, p. 4-4).

While impact damage over a portion of the building and an intense fire throughout are not surprising given the assault this building received, engineers inspecting the building after the event were not expecting to see an interior collapse, due entirely to the influence of the fire. The floors collapsed between the 8th and the 4th levels in the eastern section of the building, where there was no initial impact damage (Figure 1).

www.metabunk.org...

graphics8.nytimes.com...

i0.wp.com...

The above photos depict how fire had weakened and buckled steel beams.

You can clearly see the thick black smoke, a clear sign of low temperature, oxygen starved fires. Fires also weren't hot enough to break any windows, which would have happened when temperature exceeds 600° C.

Remember, WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 suffered impact damages whereas fire further weakened their steel structures to the point of collapse. That was evident when witnesses in the sky and on the ground reported that the WTC buildings were buckling in the minutes before they collapsed. That is firm evidence that fire was slowly weakening the steel frames of the WTC buildings.

And, we can do comparisons between the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. Demolitions using explosives are extremely noisy yet there are no sounds of explosions as the WTC buldings collapse. Check it out.

Demolition Vs. World Trade Center: Audio Comparison

www.youtube.com...

Actually, in the South Tower people that were trapped ABOVE the impact zone escaped using a remaining passage - they did not report significant heat. The unlucky souls trapped above the impact zone in WTC1 suffered from the thick black fumes and may even have experienced what they would have felt as 'intense heat' - but humans aren't made of steel. Steel can withstand a temperature of say 200 degrees celsius without any problem, humans can't.

Temperatures within the WTC buildings were recorded as high as 2000 degrees, which is why these steel beams look like this.

www.luogocomune.net...

But even if you were right - there was no way any heat from these fires could have weakened any steel in the upper 20 or so floors above the impact zone, nor could it weaken any steel in the remaining say 90 floors below.

Once the collapse commenced, there was no way of stopping the collapse itself and there was no way the supporting L-brackets, which were supporting floors, could have stopped the collapse either.

Each floor level could handle only a certain amount of weight and once that weight was exceeded, the brackets would fail and yet, there were the full weights of the upper levels in downward motion collapsing on each floor and as each floor level failed, it added to the weight and momentum of the collapse. In other words, the momentum of the collapse continued to build at each floor level.

So, even IFF the temperature had risen high enough to weaken the steel it does NOT explain how it is that the upper portion of the building is falling down with free-fall speed INTO ITSELF (the antenna starts moving before the rest of the building does).

As mentioned above, the supporting floor brackets for each floor level could only handle a certain amount of weight, and as each floor level failed, they added to the weight and momentum of the collapse.

I might add that at no time did the WTC buildings collapse at free-fall speed, which is evident by the fact that dust plumes and debris are outpacing the collapse itself.

For further review

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

www.representativepress.org...

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

www.representativepress.org...


Seismic Data Chart

www.911myths.com...

In the seismic chart, there are only detection of the aircraft impacts and collapse of the WTC buildings, but none for explosives.

That is why demolition experts in the area who were working on other projects at the time have stated that they heard no demolition explosions before the WTC buildings collapsed.

Explosives alone cannot bring down a steel frame building, but fire can as evident when 3 steel frame buildings collapsed in Thailand that was due to fire only.