Botched Building Demolition Reinforces WTC 7 Lie...

Demolition workers facing questions over the botched implosion of a building in Turkey only have themselves to blame, since they didn’t follow new laws of physics introduced on 9/11 which dictate that to achieve a perfect demolition of a building all you need to do is set a few office fires and wait for the entire structure to fall perfectly in its own footprint while partially evaporating into dust.

The planned demolition of a 25-metre high structure in Cankiri, central Turkey went badly wrong last week when the building rolled over onto its roof like a giant matchbox.

Despite the fact that the building was an old disused flour factory from 1928, its underground support structure proved strong enough to resist the blasts, unlike World Trade Center 7 which crumbled neatly into its own footprint within seven seconds on 9/11 after suffering sporadic fires across no more than 8 floors.

Other buildings that suffered fires since 9/11 have also stubbornly refused to follow the new laws of physics, coined “thermal expansion” by NIST, that were introduced on the day of the terror attacks.

Take for example the Windsor Building in Madrid, a 32 story skyscraper which was a raging inferno for no less than 24 hours before fire crews were able to put out the flames. Despite the building being constructed of columns a fraction as thick as those used in the WTC twin towers, as well as a total lack of fireproofing, the building’s top section only partially collapsed while the integrity of the whole structure remained firmly intact.

Likewise, the Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire in Beijing suffered raging fires across the entirety of its structure for hours, turning the building into a towering inferno and yet the structure did not collapse. The fires that consumed the Beijing building were on a completely different scale to those witnessed on 9/11, with the flames so violent and widespread that they masked almost the entire view of the building, yet the structure still annoyingly refused to comply with the new laws of physics introduced by NIST.

This frustrated 9/11 truth debunkers who were boisterous about the collapse of bridges in San Francisco and Minnesota in 2007, bizarrely claiming that quarter inch dowels could be compared to 5 inch thick steel plate core columns, and yet were strangely silent when the hotel in Beijing did not conform to their expectations.

Source


Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8/5/2009 by semperfortis]

reply to post by Neo-V™


The Brits have been trying to get the Yanks to show them how to do it right for years.



Well at least the tenants have a shorter climb to their floors.

Hope the dinnerware will stay on the tables.

Another angle of one of yours



Gotta start the severing early

Google Video Link

See the Yanks know how. 30 story demolition, but they don't count the 3 buildings in New York.



Largest building ever imploded (439 ft) not counting the 3 WTC buildings in New York City.

reply to post by Neo-V™

Your OP said :
Botched Building Demolition Reinforces WTC 7 Lie...

I just thought I would point out that this building is a reinforced concrete structure, not a structural steel frame building, so the analogy you are making doesn't not hold.

Don't get me wrong : I am not trying to debunk the controlled demolition theory of the WTC, just only that your OP is comparing apples and oranges.

Pretty good clip though.

Nice, in my 9/11 arguments, to not sound like a looney I stick with this subject, and the no F16s for over an hour after a plane turned it's transponder off and turned around.

I think it is very telling that professional demolition had to be used to bring down buildings that buildings 1+2 fell directly upon.

GREAT video, thanks for the find!

Originally posted by visible_villain
Your OP said :
Botched Building Demolition Reinforces WTC 7 Lie...

I always name any thread on any forum with the title of the original article. I think thats one thing alternative media and the MSM have in common, (a little) misleading headlines.

reply to post by Neo-V™

I always name any thread on any forum with the title of the original article.

I think this is very good practice, and for some reason keeps the copyright police as happy as possible.

I think it is very telling that professional demolition had to be used to bring down buildings that buildings 1+2 fell directly upon.

Telling of what precisely?

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Originally posted by Neo-V™

LOL! Maybe they should have just set it on fire!

Originally posted by discombobulator

I think it is very telling that professional demolition had to be used to bring down buildings that buildings 1+2 fell directly upon.

Telling of what precisely?

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Telling that building 7 had some help, as all reports show the vast majority of the building is intact, and completely breaks ALL the core columns almost at ground level at the exact same time to the point of falling in uniform.

However, in these buildings, columns still stood stories high, even though the trade centers fell directly upon them and were not just hit with falling debris.

Now how about answering why F16s that take 2:30 to take to the air failed to do so for over an hour after planes turned off transponders and turned around. The first ones showed up about 5 minutes after the second tower was hit.

Did Al CIAda get NORAD to stand down from a cave in Afghanistan?

[edit on 5-8-2009 by breakingdradles]

Haha, the funniest part is that debunkers never bother to show up for threads such as these. They would rather throw around inane, illogical comments that don't actually refute presented evidence, rather deflect it in a manner that causes others to bring new evidence to the table. Despite the fact that a debunker never comes to the table with evidence - or any logic for that matter.


With the specular success of erasing buildings from history as witnessed on 911, I think the whole demolition industry is pointless. Why waste the time and risk lives with highly explosive blasts, when you can simply set some fires through perhaps 10% of the structure, wait a few hours and then watch the entire thing (even parts of the building NOT effected by any fire whatsoever,) uniformly, and completely collapse into a neat pile.

Now before I get hate mail, I know that this plan has never worked on any day in all of history other than 911, but I don't care. If it was good enough to work that day, it should be industry standard. And if NIST says it's true, I would rather believe them then some hockey pockey "CONSPIRACY" theorists who have no financial benefit to telling me the truth.

Indeed.. no debunkers yet.

I still want to form a company that demolishes buildings by flying surplus KC-130 tankers into them. It worked three for two on 9/11 and it's got to be easier than spending all that time painstakingly laying charges through the building.

Just buy some old tankers, fit Global Hawk, fill 'em up with kerosene, and fly 'em into the building you want to take down. Easy!

Any backers on ATS?

Originally posted by rich23
Just buy some old tankers, fit Global Hawk, fill 'em up with kerosene, and fly 'em into the building you want to take down. Easy!

You know that's only going to work on buildings that have recently changed ownership, along with having interesting insurance policies!!!

Originally posted by breakingdradles

Telling that building 7 had some help, as all reports show the vast majority of the building is intact, and completely breaks ALL the core columns almost at ground level at the exact same time to the point of falling in uniform.

Not sure how you can make that leap when the structures you are referring to were much smaller than WTC7, and did not have a comparable mass sitting above the alleged point of failure.

The damage and collapse of the smaller structures is attributed to direct impact from falling objects.

The collapse of WTC7 is attributed to fire.

Apples, oranges.

Now how about answering why F16s that take 2:30 to take to the air failed to do so for over an hour after planes turned off transponders and turned around. The first ones showed up about 5 minutes after the second tower was hit.

I'm not sure. Are you?

Did Al CIAda get NORAD to stand down from a cave in Afghanistan?

I don't know. Did they?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by rich23
Just buy some old tankers, fit Global Hawk, fill 'em up with kerosene, and fly 'em into the building you want to take down. Easy!

You know that's only going to work on buildings that have recently changed ownership, along with having interesting insurance policies!!!

And precisely what about Silverstein's WTC insurance policy is it that you find interesting, Tez?

As an aside, do you actually play 40K?

reply to post by discombobulator


Wow, complete disregard for physics.

There's no hope in explaining such issues to the general public who cannot
grasp the basics. Unfortunately, it seems a great deal of people fall into this category.

We just saw three failed demolitions where the buildings started to come
down at freefall and then STOPPED and are somewhat INTACT.

Momentum/Kinetic energy could not finish the task...

The buildings tipped over, or stopped falling NOT SMASH APART STRAIGHT DOWN into the most resistive path.

There is a point where people are clearly disinfo, or ignorant beyond education.





[edit on 5-8-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by rich23
I still want to form a company that demolishes buildings by flying surplus KC-130 tankers into them. It worked three for two on 9/11 and it's got to be easier than spending all that time painstakingly laying charges through the building.

Is there anything in particular about the quad prop KC-130 that makes it a great selection for fooling people into believing a twin jet commercial aircraft hit the twin towers?

Sure, they both have wings, I'll grant you that. But beyond that you've lost me I'm afraid.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by discombobulator

 

Wow, complete disregard for physics.

There's no hope in explaining such issues to the general public who cannot
grasp the basics. Unfortunately, it seems a great deal of people fall into this category.

We just saw three failed demolitions where the buildings started to come
down at freefall and then STOPPED and are somewhat INTACT.

Momentum/Kinetic energy could not finish the task...

The buildings tipped over, or stopped falling NOT SMASH APART STRAIGHT DOWN into the most resistive path.

There is a point where people are clearly disinfo, or ignorant beyond education.

In two of the three failed implosion videos above (I cannot view the third, it is unavailable), all of the charges have been placed in the lower floors of the building. The upper portion of the structure is not damaged and retains structural integrity.

The WTC7 collapse, however, the entire east Penthouse drops below the visible roofline 6-7 seconds prior to the global collapse, during which you can see the rest of the Penthouse structure drop before the rest of the building does. There is also a very visible kink right down the middle of the building, which in addition to the Penthouse evidence suggests that the structural integrity of the upper portion of the building had been severely compromised prior to the global collapse, offering reduced resistance.

I'm not at all surprised that it did not collapse in the same manner as the buildings you refer to.

But it's a great point that you raise, so I'd like to ask you this.

Given that..

A) 9/11 truthers hand wave the structural damage to WTC7 and the fires on many floors as irrelevant.

B) no detonations, in my opinion, are visible in the middle and upper structure leaving us to believe that they must have been placed in the lower portion of the building if a controlled demolition did indeed take place.

Wouldn't the occurance of a controlled demolition of the WTC7 be more likely to produce the result shown in the three buildings above?

And if not, why not?

[edit on 5-8-2009 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by discombobulator
Is there anything in particular about the quad prop KC-130 that makes it a great selection for fooling people into believing a twin jet commercial aircraft hit the twin towers?

Sure, they both have wings, I'll grant you that. But beyond that you've lost me I'm afraid.

They're bigger and heavier, especially full of fuel, so should do a better job even than the WTC jets. I mean, we want these buildings to come down, don't we?

And tezza...

You know that's only going to work on buildings that have recently changed ownership, along with having interesting insurance policies!!!

These things can be arranged, surely? I'm sure Larry would help out if he can make a buck on it. Again.

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by discombobulator
Is there anything in particular about the quad prop KC-130 that makes it a great selection for fooling people into believing a twin jet commercial aircraft hit the twin towers?

Sure, they both have wings, I'll grant you that. But beyond that you've lost me I'm afraid.

They're bigger and heavier, especially full of fuel, so should do a better job even than the WTC jets. I mean, we want these buildings to come down, don't we?

First, you may want to reread the question and have another crack at it.

Second, your opening statement above is factually incorrect in multiple ways.

reply to post by discombobulator


The use of the term "structural damage" when referring to what WTC 7 experiences, is wrong. There was only superficial damage to the facade on one side. This is from the official version of events.

Additionally, as previously mentioned, there were only sparse fires across only a few floors out of 50 (fifty). This is according to the official story.

So it remains to be seen how you can explain that according to your own official version of events, parts of the structure which had experienced no fire, or superficial damage to it's facade, still managed to pulverize itself into nothing. Pushing through maximum resistance, rather than cascading towards a weakened portion of the building, as is the case in practically every other historical structural failure.

This dilemma is only highlighted in the above footage which show that even with deliberate, unilateral failure of the entire bottom sections of buildings, the weight of the entire structure was unable to achieve a fraction of the results witnessed in WTC 1, 2, and 7.


I am also going to assume that the answer to why you have not bothered to explain how, not one piece of footage clearly showing a 757 smashing into the pentagon has been released - is due to matters of national security.

Why do you guys even bother anymore, you have run out of ways to debate the facts that don't specifically require the suspension of the laws of physics to support your outrageous conspiracy theory known as the Official Story.