PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by iamcpc1

 

You know what you proved? You proved that no one should be buying any bumb thermite mixed by the Mythbuster brothers. they obviously don't have the correct formula.

Do you have a source that says that was bumb thermite? Do you have a source that says they don't have the correct formula?

or were those 100% your un-expert opinion?

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by iamcpc1

 

How does this prove your point? Thermite burns at hotter degrees than fire, yet it doesn't burn through a car the way you want it to? How do you expect fire to weaken steel?

It can't.

When you say that fire can't weaken steel do you have a source or is that your 100% un-expert opinion?


Fire can weaken steel.


SOURCE:
www.youtube.com...

The discovery channel.


If that beam was holding up floors of the WTC I would say that those floors of the WTC collapsed.


"Complete structural failure took less than 4 minutes"

"the steel twisted in the heat and the weights fell off"

"exposed steel heated by jet fuel will commence to lose it's strength"

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Are you being serious? Type dancing israelis into google.

whatreallyhappened.com...
whatreallyhappened.com...
abcnews.go.com...
www.fpp.co.uk...
whatreallyhappened.com...

Like I said about Flight 93, I don't know.

I am aware of the conspiracy theorist urban myths that have grown around the so-called " 5 dancing Israelis ":-

www.911myths.com...

What I was asking you to do was to provide evidence for your specific claims that (a) they were Mossad agents (b) they were in a van full of explosives (c) they were in posession of fake arab passports.

reply to post by iamcpc1

Do you have a source that says that was bumb thermite? Do you have a source that says they don't have the correct formula? or were those 100% your un-expert opinion?

By watching these 2 videos almost anyone should be able to figure it out. In the Mythbuster video they had to mix their own and the end product was RED. didn't work very well at all for how much they used.
www.youtube.com...

In this video the professionally made product is GREY. A small flower pot of it burns completely through a car.

video.google.com...#

Also you can also add sulfur making thermate which burns hotter yet. Evidence of unexplained Sulfur and the end product of a thermate reaction was found at the WTC Complex.

www.youtube.com...







[edit on 16-5-2010 by Doctor Smith]

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by iamcpc1

 

By watching these 2 videos almost anyone should be able to figure it out. In the Mythbuster video they had to mix their own and the end product was RED. didn't work very well at all for how much they used.

In this video the professionally made product is GREY. A small flower pot of it burns completely through a car.

Actually there's more than one type of iron oxide with the major ones being ferrous oxide FeO which is black and ferric oxide Fe2O3 which is red and blending Al with black iron oxide results in a grey thermite while red iron oxide produces red thermite. Either type works and it's just a matter of getting the ratios right (available oxygen for Al oxidation). Powdered magnetite Fe3O4 should work in thermite too but not sure of the colour (leaning toward a reddish hue tho).



[edit on 16/5/2010 by Pilgrum]

reply to post by pteridine


You should learn to read.

The fires in WTC 1, 2, and 7 did not burn hot enough. This is admitted and well documented, on this very forum.

reply to post by iamcpc1


Who says I'm not an expert.

The fires in WTC were not hot enough. My point is that thermite burns at much hotter degrees. Yet you try to prove that NOT EVEN THERMITE could burn through steel.

It's troubling for your opinion, it's constantly moving.

reply to post by Alfie1


Read through those link, that is if you trust the New York Times and the New York Police department.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


On the contrary, the temperatures were well documented, and they indeed reached temperatures where the steel can and did deform plastically. You really should go over all the facts first before saying it didnt happen. It did.

Oh refresh my memory, at what temperature does steel begin to lose its strength? I know you know this, so please post the temperature, and then, post the temperatures observed and recorded in the WTCs during the most severe fires. (Also, are you aware of something called creep? I would like to know that as well)

I know the answers already, but I would like to see if you have them too. Or are you unwilling to post the fats as they will directly debunk your beliefs?

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by iamcpc1

 

Who says I'm not an expert.

The fires in WTC were not hot enough. My point is that thermite burns at much hotter degrees. Yet you try to prove that NOT EVEN THERMITE could burn through steel.

It's troubling for your opinion, it's constantly moving.

I say you're not an expert for making claims like the following:

"How do you expect fire to weaken steel? It can't. "

Did you notice the independant investigation that the Discovery channel did on the effects of fire on steel? Did you notice how an airplane fuel fire weakened steel?

I did.

If you are an expert then feel free to link me to your published findings.

Also I don't attempt to prove that thermite can't burn through steel. I saw a video and asked a question. Why didn't thermite slice through that car like a hot knife through butter?


[edit on 17-5-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Read through those link, that is if you trust the New York Times and the New York Police department.

The van or truckload of explosives story arose from the confusion of 9/11 and was denied and retracted almost as soon as it was put out :-


www.911myths.com...

So, there never was such a load of explosives and you have failed completely to show that it had anything to do with the 5 Israelis or that they were Mossad agents or that they had fake arab passports in their possession as you alleged.

9/11 was an inside job NoDoubt !

Originally posted by the404man
9/11 was an inside job NoDoubt !

Do you have an expert source to confirm that or is that statment 100% your un-expert opinion?

Everybody in this thread has more knowledge about these events then I do except for one thing.

I have been a Commercial Mason for 20 years and have worked with iron workers and structural aspects of buildings my whole life. I know how much load any given beam can take before it it fails. I know how much 14" I-beams can actually bend before they fail.

I have seen many buildings been explosively demolished as well as some buildings (parts of) coming down due to bad engineering during the building phases...

I have seen 50 foot walls fall over due to wind, and seen 14' I-beams bend like a flex straw. But during all my experiences of buildings or parts of buildings coming down, breaking, or being rebuilt after a fire, one thing has always remained true.

NEVER, NEVER , NEVER, Have I ever seen any component of a building ( elevator shafts, walls, stairwells, ect) come strait down. There is all ways something or some element that impedes a structure from falling precisely strait down. It will always, lean this way or that, bend, or even break. Especially with fires--There is usually some element of the building that was effected less than the rest-due to fire location; and will cause it to fall or lean towards the effected area.

I do not claim to know what happened exactly...However, from my own personal life experience I can say that I am 99.9 percent sure theses buildings were brought down in a controlled manner. And for 3 big buildings to all come down precisely the same way and all being due to "fire" reasons is utter and complete non-sense to me.

My heart goes out to those that were effected.

reply to post by GenRadek


I've already posted them here, we've done this dance already.

Facts is the word you're looking for.

reply to post by iamcpc


Thermite is an incendiary that has the capability to burn through steel. The fires in the WTC buildings 1 and 2, and admittedly by NIST in WTC 7, could not.

I don't see the point of this conversation.

Originally posted by Software_Pyrate
Everybody in this thread has more knowledge about these events then I do except for one thing.

I have been a Commercial Mason for 20 years and have worked with iron workers and structural aspects of buildings my whole life. I know how much load any given beam can take before it it fails. I know how much 14" I-beams can actually bend before they fail.

I have seen many buildings been explosively demolished as well as some buildings (parts of) coming down due to bad engineering during the building phases...

I have seen 50 foot walls fall over due to wind, and seen 14' I-beams bend like a flex straw. But during all my experiences of buildings or parts of buildings coming down, breaking, or being rebuilt after a fire, one thing has always remained true.

NEVER, NEVER , NEVER, Have I ever seen any component of a building ( elevator shafts, walls, stairwells, ect) come strait down. There is all ways something or some element that impedes a structure from falling precisely strait down. It will always, lean this way or that, bend, or even break. Especially with fires--There is usually some element of the building that was effected less than the rest-due to fire location; and will cause it to fall or lean towards the effected area.

I do not claim to know what happened exactly...However, from my own personal life experience I can say that I am 99.9 percent sure theses buildings were brought down in a controlled manner. And for 3 big buildings to all come down precisely the same way and all being due to "fire" reasons is utter and complete non-sense to me.

My heart goes out to those that were effected.

First off you can say you're an expert. I can say that i have 2 phd's in physcis and engineering and i've run my own demolition crew for 30 years. That does not make them true. I'm not callying you a liar i'm just saying that for the point of debate you can't really call upon yourself as an expert source without giving your credentials.

I agree that the building 7 from the limited camera shots we have looks like a demolition. Even the WTC towers look like a demolition (except for the flaming airplane sized holes in them)

I feel that to assume that it was demolished based entirely on the fact that it looks like it was demolished is a gross injustice to the scientific process.

1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results
source: www.sciencebuddies.org...


You are at phase one. Asking why the building 7 resembles a demolition in the videos that you have seen. A good question. One worthy of the Scientific process.


You then skip to phase 6 communicating results.
"I am 99.9 percent sure theses buildings were brought down in a controlled manner."

I beg of you before you start on phase 6 at least have phases 2-5 to back it up. I call into light the study done by MIT. A group of scientist who went through all 6 steps.

"we do believe that the primary damage suffered by the South Tower via the initial impact alone was severe enough to bring it down with very little outside help."

"we fully agree that the fire effects played a large role in the deferred damage."

SOURCE: web.mit.edu...

web.mit.edu...


"NEVER, NEVER , NEVER, Have I ever seen any component of a building ( elevator shafts, walls, stairwells, ect) come strait down."

Have you EVER EVER EVER seen a skyscraper hit by a 110 to 150 ton airplane going 500 miles per hour and then set on fire?





[edit on 17-5-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by Alfie1


The officer who arrested these men is on camera, in the links I posted, stating that they found explosives in the car. You and your debunking sites, while motivated by good intentions I'm sure, muddy the waters of truth and shouldn't be posted here simply because you want to believe something that isn't true.

reply to post by Software_Pyrate


In total and complete agreement.