Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of World Trade Center Building 7

Originally posted by Malcher
Same for a controlled demo because the controlled demo just mimics what can very well occur naturally. An unnatural controlled demo is a mistake.

That is not true. A controlled demo does not mimic a natural collapse. If it did then why would they have to control it in the first place. No, controlled demo causes a building to fall in a way that can never happen naturally. If one mistake is made a controlled demo will not do what they wanted it to.

A building can not land with its outer walls sitting on top of the rest of the collapsed building, in its own footprint, without it being controlled. It's impossible. It's the very reason implosion demolition is done, and why it takes so long and...

This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Do you know that there has never been a building as tall as WTC 7 demolished by implosion demolition? The tallest was only 23 stories, the J.L Hudson Department Store. WTC 7 was 47 stories. You really think a natural collapse can mimic a controlled implosion demolition of a 47 story building when it would be an extremely complex job for a demo company to accomplish?

Originally posted by deadmessiah
I'd suggest you withdraw your "proven by NIST" statement then, because it wasn't proven. We normally call that disinformation. You didn't know that though, you probably just heard someone on the Daily Show say that.

Not only not withdrawn, I'll double down on it. I guess you're putting all your money on some conspiracy you read about on the internet - the modern source for the undeniable truth.

I by "we" I assume you mean yourself and the handfull of "truthseekers" who think its impossible for a building to collapse after its been burning for hours but think its more than possible that secret government ninjas, working on the orders of George Bush and Israel, snuck into the building, planted explosives in fireproof boxes and then waited 7 hours and with barely a rumble collapsed the building so that the Enron investigation and the missing 2 trillion dollars that was embezzled from the Pentagon could be secreted out of the country.

Yeah, that's a lot more rational.

reply to post by ANOK


"Do you know that there has never been a building as tall as WTC 7 demolished by implosion demolition? The tallest was only 23 stories, the J.L Hudson Department Store. WTC 7 was 47 stories."

That is an important fact Anok, although I've seen JL's listed also as 25 stories, no matter about that.
What's important is, and i'm asking, does this mean that no one considers imploding a building at more than say 50 stories, because it's either not a guaranteed success, (as no project is) or, is there a current law prohibiting this on a single building in a built up area, because this raises a heap of questions about why WTC7 was destroyed in this fashion, [as if] first fire and then total suspicious collapse. Were the actual fires and where they were of any significance for starters, in that they have been suspicious themselves as in 'burning down the house'

I'm just throwing it out, as I never considered it before, only just that the fires were used as being part of the reason for the overall cause of collapse. More than that, it could mean that there is indeed a novel way of bringing down a very tall building in a singular, or selective fashion.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by deadmessiah
I'd suggest you withdraw your "proven by NIST" statement then, because it wasn't proven. We normally call that disinformation. You didn't know that though, you probably just heard someone on the Daily Show say that.

Not only not withdrawn, I'll double down on it. I guess you're putting all your money on some conspiracy you read about on the internet - the modern source for the undeniable truth.

I by "we" I assume you mean yourself and the handfull of "truthseekers" who think its impossible for a building to collapse after its been burning for hours but think its more than possible that secret government ninjas, working on the orders of George Bush and Israel, snuck into the building, planted explosives in fireproof boxes and then waited 7 hours and with barely a rumble collapsed the building so that the Enron investigation and the missing 2 trillion dollars that was embezzled from the Pentagon could be secreted out of the country.

Yeah, that's a lot more rational.

So you're lying intentionally?

Now you're resorting to switching the subject again, if I had a nickel for every time you debunkers did that, I'd be able to bail out the country. You've already shown to have quite limited information regarding the official story and actual evidence. When called out on disinformation with factual backing to prove it, you still insist on holding to your false statement which further discredits you.

Originally posted by smurfy
That is an important fact Anok.

Yes it is.

What's important is, and i'm asking, does this mean that no one considers imploding a building at more than say 50 stories, because it's either not a guaranteed sucess, (as no project is) or, is there a current law prohibiting this on a single building in a built up area, because this raises a heap of questions about why WTC7 was destroyed in this fashion, [as if] first fire and then total suspicious collapse. Were the actual fires and where they were of any significance for starters, in that they have been suspicious themselves as in 'burning down the house'

I'm just throwing it out, as I never considered it before, only just that the fires were used as being part of the reason for the overall cause of collapse. More than that, it could mean that there is indeed a novel way of bringing down a very building in a singular, or selective fashion.

If you think about how 'implosion demolition' works, drop the middle of the structure so the outer walls can fall inwards on top of the collapsed building, the taller the building the harder that would be to do. It also depends on the size of the footprint, the towers being the best example, too tall and too small of a footprint for implosion demolition. The outer walls would hit each other, and be forced outwards again from the impact causing a spread of debris just like happened with 1&2.

If you watch that video and still have no questions, then you have denial issues.
It's the same type of emotional denial reactions to having questions about sexual abuse within a family.
People tend to protect themselves from things to horrible to contemplate.

But WTC7 is the gateway to 9/11 truth, whatever that truth may be.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Malcher
Same for a controlled demo because the controlled demo just mimics what can very well occur naturally. An unnatural controlled demo is a mistake.

That is not true. A controlled demo does not mimic a natural collapse. If it did then why would they have to control it in the first place. No, controlled demo causes a building to fall in a way that can never happen naturally. If one mistake is made a controlled demo will not do what they wanted it to.

I said can, keyword is can. I didn't say that all building that collapse will come down a certain way. That is what you are saying, see the problem?

Originally posted by ANOKA building can not land with its outer walls sitting on top of the rest of the collapsed building, in its own footprint, without it being controlled. It's impossible. It's the very reason implosion demolition is done, and why it takes so long and...

According to you it can never happen. But of course you have read the "how stuff works" web site so you know everything and can say what will never happen.

Originally posted by ANOK

This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Originally posted by ANOKDo you know that there has never been a building as tall as WTC 7 demolished by implosion demolition? The tallest was only 23 stories, the J.L Hudson Department Store. WTC 7 was 47 stories.

Of course it requires skill, an unskilled demo company is more likely to cause an unnatural collapse. This is not a literal interpretation of the word natural because sky scrapers do not occur in nature.

reply to post by Malcher

According to you it can never happen. But of course you have read the "how stuff works" web site so you know everything and can say what will never happen.

It has been explained to you several times exactly why the official story of the collapse would never happen.

I'll tell you why the explanation is impossible once again.

The damage that the buildings structure sustained from both fire and falling debris damage was asymmetrical.

The building collapsed symmetrically.

The explanation for the collapse was that one column failure initiated a total collapse.

Controlled demolition loader Tom Sullivan has explained what is needed in order to produce a symmetrical collapse: Explosive charges being detonated within milliseconds of each other in order for the building to fall exactly as planned.

(I'm sure you'll disagree with this, so if that's the case you must provide evidence through your own experimentation, providing an example of the asymmetrical removal of an objects supports causing a symmetrical collapse, using literally anything you have, legos, jenga blocks, whatever. That, or give us a historical precedent in which the asymmetrical failure of a buildings supports have caused a symmetrical collapse.)

The damage that WTC7 sustained from falling debris and fire was asymmetrical, and the event that NIST claims triggered the global collapse was a single column failure. A single core column failure cannot cause the bulding to fall perfectly symmetrically, because as controlled demolition expert Tom Sullivan explained, a buildings columns must be severed symmetrically and within milliseconds of each other in order to produce a symmetrical collapse.

While the official explanation does not make sense, there is an explanation that is consistent with all of the evidence: WTC7 was brought down by a controlled implosion.

The evidence backing this is as follows:

--The symmetrical collapse indicating the use of precisely timed explosive charges, since the fire/falling debris damage was incapable of severing the core columns symmetrically and within milliseconds of each other.

--The fault seen during the collapse, indicating a core column failure which is a trademark of implosions because it causes the building to fall in on itself.

--The neat pile of debris left after the collapse, which resulted in the outer walls being on top of the debris pile, further indicating a controlled implosion.

--The explosions heard before the collapse, which are heard when the explosive charges detonate in a controlled demolition.

--The free-fall during the collapse, which can also be acheived by the use of explosives during a controlled demolition.

The evidence backing the official story is as follows:

--There was fire in the building.

--The building sustained falling debris damage.

The evidence that debunks the official story is this:

--The fire burned asymmetrically.

--Fires have burned in skyscrapers for much longer, covering a greater area of the building, yet none of those have resulted in a total collapse.

--The falling debris damage was also asymmetrical.

--A single core column failure could not cause a symmetrical collapse, as there is no experimental or historical evidence to back this up.

--The fires near the core column that NIST claimed initiated the collapse burned out over an hour before the collapse.

--NIST never explained what caused the free-fall during the collapse.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I have heard those arguments repeatedly and they have been debunked repeatedly so at this point nothing anyone explains to you will change your mind.

www.debunking911.com...

You have pretty much ignore anything that does not fit into your narrow "symmetrical" scenario. A centrally located failure that is uniform across the lower internal perimeter will bring a building straight down.

One thing that you have brushed aside in this thread and the other is:

What was the purpose of intentionally bring building 7 down?

If "they" (the all powerful) wanted it demolished then they would have just demolished it. They would not need to explain why it was brought down. If weeks after the event nine buildings were brought down by controlled demolition would people call that a conspiracy?

Like i said earlier, could have been a week later, a day later or a month later and who is going to stop that? All you say is it cannot come down that way but it did. Don't you think that if they didn't want people near that building then no one would go near that building?

The whole point is that it makes no sense to bring it down intentionally hours after unless the building just collapsed. Sure it isn't as glamorous as a conspiracy.

reply to post by Malcher

I have heard those arguments repeatedly and they have been debunked repeatedly so at this point nothing anyone explains to you will change your mind.

www.debunking911.com...

HA! A link to debunking911, I love it.

Let's see here, my claim in the last post:

Fires have burned in skyscrapers for much longer, covering a greater area of the building, yet none of those have resulted in a total collapse.

Keywords: skyscraper, total collapse.

The debunking911 video: The only one of those buildings which is a skyscraper is the Windsor Tower in Madrid, however it was a partial collapse.

Like I said in the last post, fires have burned in skyscrapers for much longer, yet none of those have resulted in a total collapse. So where do we stand? You haven't debunked anything I've said.

You have pretty much ignore anything that does not fit into your narrow "symmetrical" scenario. A centrally located failure that is uniform across the lower internal perimeter will bring a building straight down.

..... Now I'm no structural engineer, but tell me, is the failure of column 79 a "centrally located failure"? [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5d379160c54e.jpg[/atsimg] Nope, so once again, a failed attempt at debunking the fact that the symmetrical collapse could only be acheived with the use of explosives.

One thing that you have brushed aside in this thread and the other is:

What was the purpose of intentionally bring building 7 down?

That is irrelevant in the discussion. We are not discussing the "why", we're talking about the facts that point to a controlled demolition.

What you're doing is the most common official story believer technique: change the subject, and create strawman arguments.

I don't know what the purpose is, but I can speculate on that all day however that won't make it right.

All of the facts point to a controlled demolition, you haven't debunked anything that I've presented, and you sir are in denial.

Let's go back and look at your claim:

I have heard those arguments repeatedly and [color=limegreen]they have been debunked repeatedly

My arguments: --The symmetrical collapse indicating the use of precisely timed explosive charges, since the fire/falling debris damage was incapable of severing the core columns symmetrically and within milliseconds of each other.

--The fault seen during the collapse, indicating a core column failure which is a trademark of implosions because it causes the building to fall in on itself.

--The neat pile of debris left after the collapse, which resulted in the outer walls being on top of the debris pile, further indicating a controlled implosion.

--The explosions heard before the collapse, which are heard when the explosive charges detonate in a controlled demolition.

--The free-fall during the collapse, which can also be acheived by the use of explosives during a controlled demolition.

Your debunking: A link to debunking911 that didn't debunk what I said, and a claim with no supporting evidence that a central failure could cause a symmetrical global collapse, which is false because the failure was not in the center.

You are making all straw man arguments. Of course there will be explosions in building collapse. Especially buildings those sizes. There are electrical explosions, fuel oil explosions, things that sound like explosions that are not really explosions at all so just repeating someone said explosions were heard is an exercise in stupidity yet nearly every youtube video repeats this even those under 3 minutes repeat the same thing but that does not make it true and in fact it isn't true at all that you you would not hear explosions.

Motive is crucial to any investigation. So you don't know why or can't even give a rational explanation for intentionally bringing that building down but the reality is that there was no reason to do a controlled demo on building 7 within a few hours of the towers themselves coming down.

Looking at your images one sees a building that has severe internal damage from fire.

Of course you don't like like that link but it gives examples of steel framed buildings brought down from fire:

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

www.wconline.com...

Another demolition expert who worked at Ground Zero also finds no trouble debunking the claim

of explosives.

“Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event,” says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com. “You just can’t clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can’t see how it happened that way.”

Of course now the so called "truther" (and lets face it, anyone calling themselves "truther" is probably lying to you) focuses on building 7 because even people leaning towards conspiracy pertaining to the towers would say "now wait a second, how the hell are they going to rig those enormous buildings with explosives?"

reply to post by Malcher

Don't forget, explosions make explosions.
It is called a "chain reaction", whereby when any little thing explodes, the next closest element explodes, and so on and so forth.
It totally explains how the towers collapsed, and why only certain buildings collapsed. They all had WTC numbers.
Boom boom boom...chain reaction until all of the buildings exploded.
It is all in the physics books, at least the ones that have been written since September 11, 2001.
The ones before, you just have to ignore.

reply to post by Malcher

You are making all straw man arguments. Of course there will be explosions in building collapse. Especially buildings those sizes. There are electrical explosions, fuel oil explosions, things that sound like explosions that are not really explosions at all so just repeating someone said explosions were heard is an exercise in stupidity yet nearly every youtube video repeats this even those under 3 minutes repeat the same thing but that does not make it true and in fact it isn't true at all that you you would not hear explosions.

Yeah, of course there would be explosions. Those explosions just happened to coincide with the other characteristics that match up with a controlled demolition, but that doesn't make it a controlled demolition, right?

Here is a YouTube video (because you clearly love those) which compiles dozens of witnesses to the explosions:

Motive is crucial to any investigation. So you don't know why or can't even give a rational explanation for intentionally bringing that building down but the reality is that there was no reason to do a controlled demo on building 7 within a few hours of the towers themselves coming down.

I said I could give explanations, but they would be purely speculative.

Here's my top choice: The false flag attack was being run from building 7, all of it was orchestrated from there and it was the hub of activity. After the twin towers were brought down and the false flag was almost complete, the last thing left to do was erase all evidence that our government was behind the attacks.

Looking at your images one sees a building that has severe internal damage from fire.

That's a fine observation

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. [color=limegreen]Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

You proved my point right there. You can show us that small steel buildings can collapse, but there are no historical precedents backing up a skyscraper collapsed caused by fire damage. But there have been some ragers over the years: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7b2800db79f.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/276d89561fa6.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/64fa1a23e6f3.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0f9c63b3d273.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/69d34fba92e1.jpg[/atsimg] And finally the Windsor Building which debunking911 cites in that video backing up the collapse of WTC7: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2990ebca2d9b.jpg[/atsimg] But what's this? It's still standing [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/80b56af71143.jpg[/atsimg]

Another demolition expert who worked at Ground Zero also finds no trouble debunking the claim

of explosives.

“Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event,” says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com. “You just can’t clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can’t see how it happened that way.”

Cool, you cite a Ground Zero worker who is clearly referring to the Twin Towers.

But, I'll play ball, our expert here claims that there would be evidence of the explosives, det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, and burn marks along the edges of columns. Well, how about an expert that knocks that false claim outta the park?

[color=limegreen]Well you wouldn't have found steel casings to be left in the rubble, they haven't been used for years. What we use now is RDX copper jacketed shape charges, and when they're initiated there is nothing left of those charges

[color=limegreen]You wouldn't need miles and miles of det. cord, you could have used wireless remote detonators and they have been available for years....and of course the military has them as well. Contractors don't use them on the other hand because they're just too expensive.

Of course now the so called "truther" (and lets face it, anyone calling themselves "truther" is probably lying to you) focuses on building 7 because even people leaning towards conspiracy pertaining to the towers would say "now wait a second, how the hell are they going to rig those enormous buildings with explosives?"

Gee, I don't know, I would guess maybe using the security company, Securacom, which was responsible for that complex that George Bush's brother Marvin Bush worked for until 2000, that Larry Silverstein, the guy who leased the buildings 6 months prior to the attacks and cashed in on a fat insurance payment after their destruction, hired for security. Securacom also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines.

Securacom Public Records
Marvin Bush and Securacom

LOL...Is that guy in the second video (former worker) supporting the official story?

Watch at 1 minute in and he is saying that a lot of work goes into a controlled demo and obviously true for a sky scrapper. So when was all that work done? Like using torches to weaken the support structures and all the other work like rigging the building? Oh, yeah it wasn't done. Well that is just a little problem that we need to overlook.


I can just picture it: "oh there here to use blow torches on the support columns, don't pay any attention to all these guys in the building with torches"

see what the maintenance guy of the towers says, here's the link.......


______beforeitsnews/story/931/331/WNL /Exclusive:_Last_Man_Out_Makes_Shocking_9_11_Disclosure.html

Originally posted by Malcher
LOL...Is that guy in the second video (former worker) supporting the official story?

Watch at 1 minute in and he is saying that a lot of work goes into a controlled demo and obviously true for a sky scrapper. So when was all that work done? Like using torches to weaken the support structures and all the other work like rigging the building? Oh, yeah it wasn't done. Well that is just a little problem that we need to overlook.

edit on 19-8-2011 by Malcher because: (no reason given)

I can just picture it: "oh there here to use blow torches on the support columns, don't pay any attention to all these guys in the building with torches"

edit on 19-8-2011 by Malcher because: (no reason given)

refer to my last post and you will see when it was done.....

reply to post by patternfinder


I never said that you can't believe what you want to believe.

The real issue is if rigging the buildings with explosives so no one would have any clue about it in spite of being some of the most scrutinized buildings in the world then what we would conclude is that if it could not be done then it was not done.

Putting a mic in front of someone saying they heard an explosion before a massive building collapsed doesn't tell us anything. I never said there were not explosions.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by nedined

 

Same old same old. Got anything new? These are same professional con men that have been peddling the same crap for years.

Richard Gage - he's an architect. When was the last time (or first time) you heard of anyone hiring an architect to oversee a building demolition? There's a reason for that. They're not qualified.

are you serious?

how many qualifications in engineering, architecture or chemistry/buildling demolition do you have?

the people on the video were very qualified.

If you think they're con men, you're deluding yourself.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by deadmessiah
I'd suggest you withdraw your "proven by NIST" statement then, because it wasn't proven. We normally call that disinformation. You didn't know that though, you probably just heard someone on the Daily Show say that.

Not only not withdrawn, I'll double down on it. I guess you're putting all your money on some conspiracy you read about on the internet - the modern source for the undeniable truth.

I by "we" I assume you mean yourself and the handfull of "truthseekers" who think its impossible for a building to collapse after its been burning for hours but think its more than possible that secret government ninjas, working on the orders of George Bush and Israel, snuck into the building, planted explosives in fireproof boxes and then waited 7 hours and with barely a rumble collapsed the building so that the Enron investigation and the missing 2 trillion dollars that was embezzled from the Pentagon could be secreted out of the country.

Yeah, that's a lot more rational.

wow are you paid to say this stuff or do you really believe this?

if so, we're all stuffed because if they average person can't deduce conclusions from evidence better than this there's no point in fighting.

reply to post by Malcher

Watch at 1 minute in and he is saying that a lot of work goes into a controlled demo and obviously true for a sky scrapper. So when was all that work done? Like using torches to weaken the support structures and all the other work like rigging the building? Oh, yeah it wasn't done. Well that is just a little problem that we need to overlook.

You ask me like I was one of the guys who planned the inside job, I don't know dude! Would you like me to guess?

Maybe during the Turner Construction renovations that were unspecified yet continued up until the day of the Twin Tower attacks.

A December 2000 WTC property assessment described required renovation work to be completed within one year, upon [color=limegreen]steel columns within elevator shafts of both WTC towers that was immediately pending or already underway.

Turner Construction particpated in the [color=limegreen]collection and disposal of the steel wreckage of the WTC towers following September 11, 2001.

The CEO for Turner Construction Company appointed in 1999, was Tom Leppert, who joined the board of Turner in 1998, is currently the mayor of Dallas, Texas and who [color=limegreen]has ties with former president George W. Bush and Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

A construction company working on the steel columns in the elevator shafts, with a project to be completed in 0-1 years starting December 2000, whose CEO had ties to President Bush, and whose records were destroyed in the collapse of the towers sounds pretty sketchy to me.
Source

I can just picture it: "oh there here to use blow torches on the support columns, don't pay any attention to all these guys in the building with torches"

You're very imaginative, but you do know the support columns aren't located in the middle of offices? It's not like they're going to walk into somebodys office, the bathroom, or the lobby with a blowtorch and start using them on steel columns that are located in the middle of a room.

Think about it, if people were planning the biggest false flag attack in history, which required demolishing two buildings where thousands of people worked in order to justify restricting our rights and invading the middle east, do you think they would just go to switchboard.com, type "demolition crew" in the find a business section, and say "Uh, hey, this is President Bush, I was wondering if you could rig up the Twin Towers in order to justify some wars and lots of other stuff?"

This is some serious s***, and I'm sure those involved in the planning treated it that way.