Controlled Demolitions in Action

C'mon guys.

Those are not the same picture, just look at the roof. There is an entire sequence of photos showing what happened during the collapse.

The first picture you show, there is no structure left standing on the roof. In the NIST picture there is.

It's not photoshopped, it's a different picture, taken at a different time. Funny how that works.

www.911myths.com...

I find this funny that you guys still think zooming on broken windows somehow makes them squibs, and yet your claiming the NIST is being dishonest.

Where is the evidence of explosives? Any? You believe I am brainwashed because I believe the NIST report?

You are so diluded that you think they changed the color of the picture to 'hide the squibs" but all they are attempting to do is give a good background to the explanation of the failure.

I understand it is easier to bandwagon but you have no proof. What in that link did you not understand within the NIST report? Do you even look at the design of the building?

Also, there are plenty of structural engineers and demo experts who have come forward and laughed at the idea of demolition.

Thank you to the grreat white north for a little perspective.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
C'mon guys.

Those are not the same picture, just look at the roof.

You are right...

SAME CAMERA.... SAME POSITION... Maybe 3 seconds later...

WTF happened in three seconds??? Did the sun magically shine so brightly as to totally whitewash the right side of the building? WAS THERE A SUPERNOVA I was not informed of?

The brightness and contrast are SO FAR OFF, one of the photos is NOT an untouched original... can you guess which one?

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by svenglezz
.there opinion [without the threat of them losing there jobs (give me a break)....remember many have there own firms so need to worry losing them]...and NOT one thinks TNT or other means then the planes taking them down.

So to you ...BUD....what you got?????????

Your third party hearsay is bringing NOTHING to the table.

I talked to 100 SEs and they all agree that they think it was a controlled demolition.

This is how stupid and worthless your post sounds.

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, there are plenty of structural engineers and demo experts who have come forward and laughed at the idea of demolition.

OTher than CDI... The governemtn contractor cleaning up the site... WHO? Give me your sources or do not bother to post this sort of third part unconfirmed hearsay.

By the way, squibs at the top of the building are evidence of a CD.

What does the contrast hide slapnuts?

Judging from the fact that the roof structure or "penthouse" is still intact, those pictures are more like 16 seconds or longer apart.

It is not edited to hide anything as the building was not visibly collapsing at that point.

But I guess your double standard of evidence applies, as you can accept blown up pictures of windows breaking as squibs, but how dare the NIST change the brightness, it's obviously a conspiracy.

How could they hide the broken windows, when they had not yet broken in that picture?

[edit on 23-8-2006 by LeftBehind]

You started it nuts

Making claims that Howard put me up to it....(prob. just like y'r crazy theories on TNT bringing the towers down.........JUST CLAIMS without proof)

100 SE's you talked to....got any proof to that????then y'r usual Blah blah blah.
Got proofe (or even what they stated with some good logic to it) ???????

and as noted by another post above (without naming names....you may think they put me up to it) that many have LAUGHED at the idea.

AND what you know about "CONSTRUCTION"???? hey nuts' ????????

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Originally posted by esdad71
Do you even look at the design of the building?

YEs, and the only photographed damage to the building is in the SW corner.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Far away from columns 78, 79 and 80 which are the culprits for the picture perfect, symmetrical, fast and total collapse of WTC 7. The only recorded damage to the building would not have affected the cantaleiver truss system and even if it HAD any rational person would expect at least a slightly more asymmetrical collapse MINUS the squibs shooting out of the upper floors in perfect demo charge timing.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
What does the contrast hide slapnuts?

Squibs in the upper right corner of the building.

Originally posted by LeftBehind more like 16 seconds or longer apart.

Is this when the SUPERNOVA occured on Veesey street that made the pictures so different?

Originally posted by LeftBehind, but how dare the NIST change the brightness, it's obviously a conspiracy.

It should be NOTED by the NIST that the photos are altered and the original should be referenced. IT is how scientific evidence is normally presented.... but the NIST does not adhere to any sort of scientific or academic standards.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by svenglezz
100 SE's you talked to....got any proof to that????then y'r usual Blah blah blah.
Got proofe (or even what they stated with some good logic to it) ???????

ALl I want is a list of the SEs you claim to have contact with. Without verification your post is moot.

I talked to 4,000,000 SEs and thay all agree that it was CD.

AGAIN, that is how worthless your posts are without citations, quotations or external sources.

Dear Nuts,

I have been in the building industry my hole life.......and you ?????????????
Know ANYTHING of construction????
Still no responce eh?

And yes I have asked SE's in the industry (some of the best in the field)
and NOT one has said otherwise to the planes did it.

What you got ???????????????hmmmmmm just more talk

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Originally posted by svenglezz
I have been in the building industry my hole life.......and you ?????????????
Know ANYTHING of construction????
Still no responce eh?

I graduated with honors from the University of Michigan with a BS in ME and a minor in applied mathematics. I have taken Calc 1 and 2, Dif. Eqs., Multi-var. Calc, Linear Algebra, Two semesters of Statistics , Physics 1 and 2, Fluids, Thermodynamics, Failure Mechanisms in Engineering Materials, Chem 1 and 2, Statics, Heat Transfer, DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF PHYSICAL SYSTEMS... SHALL I CONTINUE?

If I had wanted to get another degree in SE it would have taken about 6 more classes... SEs are NOTHING SPECIAL nor am I.

Sorry about your luck nailing together boards all day.

When are you going to post references to the sources you have supposedly spoken to?

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Dear Nuts,

Nice resume..........need a job

Well y'r def. educated that's for sure....way more then me...but even with your
huge resume....still going with SE people i personally know in the industry.

But for me to put there names down here........forget that....would never do
that to anyone without there permission.

But I have been working in the construction industry my hole life and know many
in the field....if you want' i would be more then happy to give you my
web page to show the projects i have worked on over the years.
I'm def. no expert on this ATS is it ok for me to post it here?

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Originally posted by svenglezz
And yes I have asked SE's in the industry (some of the best in the field)
and NOT one has said otherwise to the planes did it.
What you got ???????????????hmmmmmm just more talk

Your SE's said that planes destroyed WTC 7? SEVEN

Originally posted by esdad71

Also, there are plenty of structural engineers and demo experts who have come forward and laughed at the idea of demolition.

There were also plenty of "experts" that came forward in the Kennedy assassination that said "magic bullet". Do you believe every "expert" that states something? I myself am a structural engineer. I don't believe the "official" theory. Am I willing to risk my career and put my stamp on something related to conspiracy theories? Heck no. What if I happen to be wrong? What if I am right and the government wants me gone afterwards? These are things that other engineers have to think about when speaking with someone also. I might be paranoid...but better safe than sorry.

Also, unless these structural engineers have seen the construction documents for WTC, these "experts" don't exactly know what they are talking about. Remember the "concrete core" paper that came out from the BBC. Do you believe those "experts" as well?

Originally posted by svenglezz
I'm def. no expert on this ATS is it ok for me to post it here?

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Sure it is OK... just do not present HEARSAY as fact and expect people to accept it.

If you had a link to where these SEs "laughed" at CD... at least that would be something to look at, but to simply say it is so because you "heard it from someone" holds no water here.

Sorry to come off like a schlong... I am getting piled on here.

Here is another picture from NIST. This picture should show squibs but they are completely gone.



just like these..



st12.startlogic.com...

Ok ok now that there is a SE in the room (hope you got' some proof to that you are a SE) not that i don't trust you ........but talk is talk.

Here is my personal humble web page listing projects that i have worked on.
ca.geocities.com...@rogers.com/Projects.html

So hoping this gives some truth to what i say that i do know SE that work in the field.

and you guys' ???????

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

(please don't take this personal......just trying to help and our discussions get both sides....even if i am wronge and y'r right)

Originally posted by svenglezz
Here is my personal humble web page listing projects that i have worked on.
ca.geocities.com...@rogers.com/Projects.html

While I will gladly look at your projects as they are probably interesting, it still does not confirm the SEs "Laughing" at CD, which was presented to me earlier in the thread with no verification.

I will have to look later:

"The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer.

Access to this site will be restored within an hour. Please try again later"

Originally posted by svenglezz
Ok ok now that there is a SE in the room

Who are you talking to? And how is that link proof? Also, why would you host a portfolio on a geocities web site? That actually looks more like a fake portfolio for an amateur CAD 3D modeler. You may be able to create 3D models in CAD, but I dont see evidence that you actually structurally design buildings.

Anyway... more about WTC 7, I finally took the time to read the NIST report about WTC 7 and I came to the conclusion that they don't even know what happen. They use words like "possible structure damage", and "probable", and its all theoretical.

The NIST report is using external pictures to GUESS what caused the collapse internaly. All they can say is:

Global Collapse
- The global collapse occurred with few external signs and is postulated
to have occurred with the failure of core columns

So, how did all the core columns fail at the same time?

pos·tu·late
tr.v. pos·tu·lat·ed, pos·tu·lat·ing, pos·tu·lates

1. To make claim for; demand.
2. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.
3. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted. See Synonyms at presume.


assume
v 1: take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof;

[edit on 23-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]