WTC 7 fell in relative silence, no detonation capable of cutting steel.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: neutronflux

What always got me was Silvermen saying pull it.

Well I became proactive and researched this myself. Saw the pictures of the cables they used to "pull
the remaining facade of WTC7 down. 911 sucked me into this conspiracy stuff and has caused me too waste my life the past 15 years to a large degree. This thread combined with the responses to this school shooting and the thread linked below, have made me reconsider my participation on this and similar sites. Gotta go live life. Thank You.

Schrodingers Dog thread

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Can you post the whole quote and context of the pull it statement. Of course not. It becomes clear Larry Silverstein was talking about first responders. Who is Silvermen by the way?

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Before you rant and get your innuendo on.

Then explain for your narrative if the floor to floor resistance had to be removed for the facade to achieve the cited NIST rates of collapse, how that floor to floor resistance was removed. How that system of floor to floor resistance survived wide spread fires and WTC 7 building damage. Then explanation how the NIST’s explanation for the rate the facade collapse is wrong. You can find NIST’s explanation at this link. www.nist.gov...

Then you need to explain how the penthouse and items on the roof completely disappeared in to WTC 7’s interior if up to sixty percent of WTC 7 did not collapse from east to west before the facade even started to fall.

Then you need to cite visible and tangible evidence that are solely characteristics of charges setting off with enough force to cut steel. Your false roofline argument is not physical proof charges set off with enough force to cut steel.

Please cite a source that states rooflines are a characteristic of a detonation?

a reply to: neutronflux

Actually he was talking about the cables attached to the remaining facade of WTC 7. They pulled the cables and the rest came down. They didn't use explosives to do it.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: neutronflux

Actually he was talking about the cables attached to the remaining facade of WTC 7. They pulled the cables and the rest came down. They didn't use explosives to do it.

I've not seen the photos of the cables used to pull it down. I'm guessing they've all been deleted now?

a reply to: mrthumpy

I've not seen the photos of the cables used to pull it down. I'm guessing they've all been deleted now?

It's just more made up stuff about 911.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: mrthumpy

I've not seen the photos of the cables used to pull it down. I'm guessing they've all been deleted now?

It's just more made up stuff about 911.

You mean it's a lie???!!??

According to Hollywood, rivets are made from lead.

If every rivet in the structure was made of lead, the collapse could be logical.


As long as we live in a fantasy world, the story makes sense.

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. It can bend them. It can't snap them, or cut them. A plasma cutter could. Thermites could. Power tools could.

a reply to: AdKiller

Do you have evidence of anything other than buckled or bent steel? Can you cite/reference any video or photos? Can you reference any documents that state WTC fell from something other thansteel buckling? Can you cite any physical evidence of steel being cut during collapse.

Thermite would be very hard to create a floor to floor CD system. It cuts relatively slow, and the cut time can very from column to column. It would be very hard to create the timing. Then you still have to state how that system would maintain its integrity through building damage and wide spread fires. I think the figure given was as much as as 30 percent of WTC 7 was gutted by fire.

Is it still true that WTC 7 had to have the resistance of each floor removed? The truth movement put themselves in a box with that argument.

I guess it would be more accurate to say the truth movement put themselves in a box by arguing the resistance of each floor had to be reduced to zero by CD to achieve the witnessesed collapse speeds. Totally ignoring fire and thermal stress can buckle and misalign steel to make its resistance negligible. And ignoring that the floor connections my have been the weakest link. If floor connections fail, steel columns lose lateral support which is needed to keep steel columns straight which in return prevents bowing and buckling.

www.youtube.com...

This could be the proof WTC7 was demolished by explosives, this the back of the WTC7 when the towers collapsed. All that came to the back was plumes of smokes.

Thermite is not hard to make.
It will shear steel.
I made a brick of thermite from easily available materials.
I does not go boom, but it does burn very hot.
I lit a small brick of it on the hood of a car in a salvage yard.
It burned a good 1/3rd of the way through a cast-iron engine block.
A kid can do it.

a reply to: neutronflux


If the mass of WTC 7 had been doing the work of buckling columns, it wouldn't have been in free fall.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

One, what does this have to do with no evidence of devices releasing enough energy with enough consistency to cut steel columns in a sophisticated floor to floor CD.

Two, the mass of a building does not create work. Think of the columns of a building as a trigger on a crossbow, and gravity the bowstring. Once a column buckles, it provides essential no resistance. This triggers the conversation of potential energy to kinetic energy. Changing a static load to a dynamic load. Converting potential energy to kinetic energy by the lose of resistance resulting in movement is how work is created. If nothing moves, there is zero work.

Three, the items on the roof disappearing into WTC 7 indicates the interior of WTC 7 collapsed before the facade of WTC 7 began to fall. The only thing the NIST report claims is an isolated pixel on the north face of the facade, which the facade only started to fall once the interior collapsed, reached the rate of free fall for a period of time in the middle of the collapse of the facade.

Is it really that hard to understand the only claim of WTC 7 falling at the rate of free fall only applies to the north facade for a period in the middle of the facade’s collapse. Can you quote NIST to prove otherwise.

And is it really that hard to understand once a column buckles, it provides negligible resistance in the face of a dynamic load the building was most likely not designed for? Especially if torque is applied at angles structural connections were never designed for.

If all resistance was removed, why did the facade slow down to a rate less the the rate of free fall before total collapse.

a reply to: neutronflux

Clean, perfect freefall. It happens all the time with buildings. Steel and concrete are nothing. Keep on posting!

a reply to: skunkape23

Sure thermite is simple and the reaction produces liquid iron that's hot enough to slowly melt any metal of the same, or lower, melting point it can be kept in contact with for a sufficient length of time. The primary use of it was for welding joints in things like railway tracks but it's about the last thing you'd consider practical for demolition purposes because it's very slow and unpredictable compared to better options. The only reason it was ever suggested as being the cause of the WTC collapses was in a desperate, but failed, attempt to explain the lack of traditional explosive methods being observed.

I'd sworn to never post in this forum ever again. My bad!

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: neutronflux

Clean, perfect freefall. It happens all the time with buildings. Steel and concrete are nothing. Keep on posting!

What a good conspiracists. Create a agreement based on implications instead of using actual facts.

a reply to: neutronflux

what does this have to do with no evidence of devices releasing enough energy with enough consistency to cut steel columns in a sophisticated floor to floor CD.

Why did NIST not test for explosive residue?

Not testing for something because you don't think you are going to find something does not classify as a serious research.

So, even if the multiple witnessed heard explosions were bunk, why would you still not test anyways?

You can't find what you don't look for.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

You;

Why did NIST not test for explosive residue?

Test what?

Randomly test 1,000,000 million tons of building? How would that have any context or meaning? Test Debris that sat smoldering in a toxic chemical soup of charred office furniture and equipment? Exposed to weather up to three months, and hosed down constantly to stop fires from reflashing?

Up to 19,000 human remains were recovered from the WTC rubble. Six thousand could fit in a test tube. Yet, no demolitions shrapnel recovered from the injured, the human remains, or the street. No bomb fragments. No blasting cap fragments. No detonator fragments. No columns cut. No remains of a wiring system. What was there to test? Just randomly test 1,000,000 tons of water doused chemically tainted weather exsposed rubble with no physical evidence of a floor to floor CD system or indications of detonations with the energy to cut steel?