Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


exactly!!! bonez

the whole point of all of this which seems to the OP is off topic is not true

it proves the damage and fire couldnt have done it

thats what all this info posted means

it had to be another form of energy but it sure wast fire thats a proven fact without a doubt
the science alone proves that very fact

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Because steel-structured high-rises have never failed due to fire.

Do you agree that local collapses are possible, due to fire?

If so, doesn't it then become an issue for structural engineers?

And not an issue of "first times"?

Look at that shuttle - it was brought down by a foam strike, the first time in history.Or the other one - by cold temps causing an o-ring failure.

Things happen for the first time.

Buried inside these types of incidents is an opportunity to learn about principles. Incidents mean nothing.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Do you agree that local collapses are possible, due to fire?

Local collapses are not uncommon. However, local collapses in a steel-structured high-rise would not cause a global collapse.

Once again, if it were possible, then demo companies would wire only a few floors in the middle of a building, again saving alot of time and money. But that's now how demo's work. Most buildings have to be wired from top to bottom

It doesn't matter how you spin it, you cannot make a steel-structured high-rise globally collapse from anything other than explosives.

The amount of time it took the towers to fall (near free-fall) and the squibs (which can only be found in demo's) added to the fact that no steel-structured high-rise has ever globally collapsed due to fires, is proof beyond any reasonable doubt that 3 WTC buildings were brought down with explosives. Especially when you add in the destruction of the lobbies, lower basement levels and parking garages, even though the planes hit almost a quarter mile away. The video evidence and hundreds of witness testimony. All these pieces added together show the big picture. This is all fact. There's no fiction or speculation here.

Until someone can show that squibs are seen at any other time throughout history outside of controlled demo's, or until someone can show a steel-structured high-rise to have globally collapsed due to fire, then all available evidence will show that 3 WTC buildings were brought down with explosives.

To say that it was a "first" is just a cop-out and allows one to deny all available evidence.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Local collapses are not uncommon. However, local collapses in a steel-structured high-rise would not cause a global collapse.

99.99% of all structural engineers disagree with that assessment.

They know that it depends on the particulars of the specific building.

They use incidents like these to learn the principles that are necessary to their trade.

Truthers use incidents to say that it can't happen.

Originally posted by pteridine
and no identifiable explosive residue was found.

How do you test for explosive residue from non-existent steel?

Remember that the WTC 7 steel was completely shipped away. Also as admitted by NIST. If there would have been steel for NIST to subpoena, they would have. And therefore wouldn't have to say in their report "NO steel from WTC 7 was analyzed".

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Look at that shuttle - it was brought down by a foam strike, the first time in history.Or the other one - by cold temps causing an o-ring failure.

The difference is: There were actually real investigations to figure these things out. Not just computer mumbo-jumbo.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Look at that shuttle - it was brought down by a foam strike, the first time in history.Or the other one - by cold temps causing an o-ring failure.

This is what you're missing there buddy, 'O' ring failure does not contradict the laws of physics. 'O' ring failures are not a new never before seen event. For the shuttle yes, but ever, NO.

Now, the complete global collapse of three steel framed buildings in one day, from office fires and asymmetrical damage, is not only a never before seen event, it is a never will be seen again event. I will bet you my life on that.

There is precedence for 'O' ring failure, there is NO precedence for global collapse of steel framed buildings.

Read all about 'O' ring failure here...
O-Ring Failure Information

If you have something about steel framed buildings globally collapsing post it, otherwise your analogy FAILS.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
99.99% of all structural engineers disagree with that assessment.

Show me a list or post a link of the 99.99% of all structural engineers that have publicly stated that they disagree. Because I can show you a few links with hundreds that do agree and have stated it publicly.

I also think you're stretching the truth a little by saying 99.99% of all structural engineers disagree and I'll even bet you can't come close to finding a list of that many structural engineers that have publicly stated they disagree.

Unless you can show proof of your claims that 99.99% of all structural engineers disagree, or show proof that steel-structured high-rises can globally collapse due to fires (demo companies would love to know how to do this), then your words are meaningless.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Show me a list or post a link of the 99.99% of all structural engineers that have publicly stated that they disagree.

There is none; people like "Seymour Butz" (honestly, just read the name -- can you say troll?) and CameronFox/ThroatYogurt both say the same thing.

It's just a made up number, and it's simply why they believe what they do: because they think everybody else believes it, too.

How many Americans have studied any of the reports and know what they say? Realistically, not very many, including engineers. How many even know a 3rd skyscraper "collapsed" on 9/11? Again, not very many. That includes structural engineers, who have day jobs just like everybody else. In fact most SEs I've talked to all have differing opinions as to why exactly the buildings fell but don't seem interested in the details. And none of them had access to any evidence or peer-reviewed work, which was of course not provided by the government. But all of this is lost on people who are too naive to understand that this makes masses of people uninformed and therefore ignorant. That means nothing. I suppose they're fond of their imagination when they post.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Because I can show you a few links with hundreds that do agree and have stated it publicly.

I bet you can't.

Unless you think that the guys at ae911 are all se's.

they're not.

Originally posted by Griff

How do you test for explosive residue from non-existent steel?

easy. first thing ya do is check for 140 db blasts.

when none are found... you're done...

Originally posted by Griff

The difference is: There were actually real investigations to figure these things out. Not just computer mumbo-jumbo.

funny, i remember you complaining about how the new recs from nist would be expensive, etc.

looks like someone learned something from that investigation.

Originally posted by ANOK

1-Now, the complete global collapse of three steel framed buildings in one day, from office fires and asymmetrical damage, is not only a never before seen event, it is a never will be seen again event.

2- I will bet you my life on that.

1- so can we now see how your physics knowledge trumps an investigation by scores of se's? or is you skeered to show your work?

2- i'll take that bet....

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Unless you think that the guys at ae911 are all se's. they're not.

I know they're not all SE's as I'm a member of AE911T. I was including AE911T with a couple other links. So where's your links? Hmm? Or were you just typing BS out of your keyboard?

Please show proof to back up your claims, thanks.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
easy. first thing ya do is check for 140 db blasts.

when none are found... you're done...

How loud is a building falling down in 6 seconds?

Some titanium golf clubs can reach over 300 db.

"Interestingly, the club used by our patient (King Cobra LD) was not the loudest." That honour went to the Ping G10 at over 310 decibels.

www.stuff.co.nz...

Also what I find interesting about that magic number of 140 db that NIST came up with: I never see at what distance. There was a collapse zone of almost 600 feet around the building when it fell.

I wonder how loud the explosions witnessed by Barry Jennings and others where?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
looks like someone learned something from that investigation.

Name one recommendation by NIST that directly relates to their new found theories.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


My 'work' is here, all over ATS. Maybe you should read some of it?

OK show me ONE single steel framed building that globally collapsed from fire and asymmetrical damage. And NO partial collapses, we are talking complete global collapse with no resistance.

Put your money where your mouth is for once....

Originally posted by ANOK
OK show me ONE single steel framed building that globally collapsed from fire and asymmetrical damage. And NO partial collapses, we are talking complete global collapse with no resistance.

We're gonna be waiting a while...

Originally posted by ANOK

My 'work' is here, all over ATS.

Riiiiiiight.

I've yet to see anything from ya.

Assertions of competence is it.

So it should be easy to repeat it for us all right here, right now.

Otherwise.........

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

I know they're not all SE's as I'm a member of AE911T. I was including AE911T with a couple other links.

Translation:

You got called out for your positive claim of hundreds...... and now you can't back it up.

Since we both misspoke, how about we compare articles written and published in reputable se and architectural journals?

Care to take the challenge?