WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: LaBTop
if he really ever saw these non-existing PROTEC seismograms

hellobruce : Here are what some real demolition experts said who actually examined the wreckage, had portable field seismographs set up in the surrounding area -snip- So real experts who were there, as opposed to an expert who watched youtube video's say there is zero evidence explosives were used, including the evidence of their own portable field seismographs

Where did I say I saw them? I prefer to listen to real experts, not people posting and believing silly youtube video's posted from their basement! All because some random pushing silly conspiracy theories rang them up, and was told to go away does not a conspiracy make!

We know what caused the buildings to fall, it was not silent explosives, or nanoo thermite, or beam weapons from space, or invisible ninja's putting egg timers on the walls!

So you say you rather listen to "experts" who run around yelling that they have the evidence at hand but yet never have been able to produce. I think you fit in nicely with that description you just gave of conspiracy theorist's.

At least the people who have video of the event occuring from multiple angles have something to analyze. Your so called expert has exactly nothing to show for so far and by the looks of it he never will (he would have already , if he could).

I hope this will one day see the light of day. And put those to trail who were responsible for this , I don't even got a name for something like this!

I'm asking myself what's worse a serial killer or mass murderers. . I think this will be put on a secret shelf next to the JFK story..what a world we live in...

originally posted by: DerekJR321

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: DerekJR321
People seem to forget a simple thing called Newtons 3rd Law. The structure above the impact zone simply did not have enough energy to destroy 70+ floors of the towers. This is simple physics.

So simple truthers have trouble understanding physics! The structure above the impact zone had more than enough energy to destroy one floor, then had more energy to destroy another floor, then had enough energy to destroy another floor etc.
youngausskeptics.com...

Explain to me how human remains ended up on top of the Deutsche Bank roof?

They could have been ejected when the plane hit the building, we know undercarriage, a engine, documents etc were ejected then...
911research.wtc7.net...

Sigh.. okay..

Energy usage can not generate NEW energy. The force used to crush the floor below uses up the momentum and energy. It doesn't create NEW energy to continue down 70+ floors.

Here is an explanation of the conservation of energy. I'm sure you already know this so I am including it just for reference for others viewing.

The conservation of energy is a fundamental concept of physics along with the conservation of mass and the conservation of momentum. Within some problem domain, the amount of energy remains constant and energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Let's just look at WTC1. The impact was between the 92nd and 98th floors. The total height was 110 stories. So if we start at the highest point of impact (the 98th).. that leaves us 12 intact stories. If we were to completely remove floors 98 to 92, and drop the remaining 12 stories down onto the structure.. at BEST we can expect that only up to the 80th floor would be destroyed, along with the impacting 12 stories. Mass was also ejected away, thus taking away any added force. There was minimal resistance per floor. Thus implying that every truss, every brace, every support column, every rivet failed at the same exact time, floor by floor, in order to allow for a 10-12 second collapse. Also, the first tower to collapse began with a tip. Meaning the force downward was not center mass. One would have expected the top of the tower, radio antenna and all, to continue its tip and fall over. Yet instead it tipped, then collapsed straight down. This goes against physics. The simple physics that you pointed out.

Here is a simple example. Two cars are traveling at 60mph in opposite directions. They collide head on. They will both crumple and then stop their momentum. One car will not continue to travel through the other.

This isn't the same for WTC7, which.. according to NIST had a single column fail due to fire, which then trigger a complete collapse vertically down. It didn't tip.. it didn't fall partially. The entire structure compressed itself.


In regards to the body parts found on top of surrounding buildings.. some were DNA identified as firefighters. So that takes care of you "bodies from the planes" theory.

Your physics is just wow. No wonder there is even a debate. I'm assuming in your model floor 80 was designed to hold up the weight of 12 floors. Conservation of energy has nothing to do with it. But again, let's toss out a law of physics and shroud it in nonsense.

a reply to: Rocker2013

I'm still waiting on that evidence..

And not the b/s rhetoric that was supposed to be some kind of proof to the contrary of my request, but still all nonsense troll filler, nonetheless.

I like your little, "I'll break everything down piece by piece, quote by quote, and make it look all fancy" like you did some actual PROVING, when all I ask for is something a little concrete, other than "yeah, lots of witnesses were there".. I just said show me a body part, a wing, an engine "and dont tell me a freaking giant jet engine vaporizes dude..

And wait, did I see you actually came back with something to the effect of "no you're wrong johnofsecrets, a jetliner dropped from 1,000 feet directly on top of building 7 ACTUALLY WOULD collapse the entire building in its own footprint!" Sorry man, things don't collapse naturally so nice and neat and ready to pack up and ship off across the atlantic never to be seen again or able to be thoroughly inspected.. Yes, that's exactly what happened to the debris.. Much less, 3 buildings in a row, "so nice and neat", on the same day, independently, but because of the same event... Come onnnnn, really? Let's drop the normalcy bias for even a moment here..

Common sense. Let's just go back to some common sense like I said before, so that we don't have to all constantly prove how high our Junior Scientist Clearance is to each other, and how bad we can prove the other wrong to satisfy our own who knows what?!

COMMON SENSE, MY PEOPLE, Let's take the dang science expert badges off for even a moment...

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Wouldn't we see a difference in their size and mainly iron(-oxide), if that really would have been the case? How did the molybdenum or the aluminosilicates come into our equasion?

There were steel plates in the exterior wall columns and the core box columns and molybdenum and chromium were added to strengthen and harden the plates, and that is where molybdenum fits in. Aluminosilicates can also be found in fly ash at power stations.

In other words, it would have been an astronomical mystery if aluminosilicates and molybdenum were not found in the samples at ground zero.

Molybdenum, and aluminosilicates were expected to be found at ground zero, but Steven Jones decided to add a little twist in order to misled people in order to push his false thermite claim.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Ok, you will stick with S. Jones regardless of the other participants. Screw that study, I don't care about the Thermite-discussion. Read the one they were referring to instead:

The analytical results are as follows:
...
• Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust.

911research.wtc7.net...

High temperatures are validated, but we can't find a single shred of evidence for weakened steel due to pre-collapse fires in the Nist-report. How fishy is that?

Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in combination. However, it is worth noting that fly ash and partially combusted products can occur in trace concentrations in ordinary building dusts, but not in the concentrations observed in WTC Dust.

Your opinion is not very attractive so far. The real astronomical mystery is the concentration of said particles, in the summary we can even find this:

The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize. Vapor phase components with high boiling point and high melting point would have, as they cooled, tended to form precipitated particles or thin film deposits on available surfaces through condensation mechanisms. The results of this process would be the presence of a thin layer of deposited material on the surfaces of the dust particulate matter. Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.

There you go. And yes, if molybdenum was added to harden the steel and found as a thin layer on the dust, you can stop saying there was no molten steel. Aluminium molybdenum-rich particle, remember?

Nuf said, cya later. Maybe. Thanks for your replies anyway, I've learned a lot today.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Rocker2013

You can stand down with your 'no god' signs.
911 has become a religion with the truther's.
Scientific facts mean nothing unless it's skewed in favor of the conspiracy believers.

You might do better arguing evolution to a southern Baptist church.
Assuming they don't tar and feather you.

No, the real religion is in the controlling of minds such as yourselves.

You are actually worse off than most any religious person ever was, and that is saying a lot in the field of being had, taken, misdirected, programmed, and completely and totally made to see things that do not exist.

This whole exercise was to show them just how far the programming had gone, that people could believe such an impossible fairy tale while always believing they were separate from religion.

I think they had perfect success, they showed how religion is now underground, out of sight , the person does not even REALIZE they have been altered, they do not care, this is what describes someone who sees the towers as "collapsing" when it is clearly being disintegrated by forces that are anything but gravity.

You are done, we get that, continue telling us how done you are , and we will carry on ever more prepared in the knowledge of how bad things REALLY ARE,

I have personally reprogrammed at least 100 people I know from this sickness you have, but most are incapable of fully escaping the invisible ties they have, no need trying anymore, it is FINISHED.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Salander

Stored iron?

No, but shows that such metal can generate temperatures high enough to start fires.

Are you seriously claiming that stored iron had anything to do with the molten iron at WTC?

First of all, there was no molten steel nor iron at ground zero. Recorded temperatures were much too low to melt steel and thermite reaction is short-lived and does not last hours, days, much less weeks. However, recorded temperatures were far above the melting point of aluminum, which was in abundance from the aircraft and the facade of the WTC Towers.

Secondly, heat is generated by a processl known as exothermic reaction. Exothermic reaction occurs when a piece of steel rusts and rust is iron oxide, which generates heat and there was a lot of steel buried within the ground zero rubble.

How do you figure it rusted in mere SECONDS to the point it looked like it had been out in a nuclear rain for 10 years ??

originally posted by: ParasuvO
How do you figure it rusted in mere SECONDS

What makes you claim it rusted iron in seconds?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

This is from your link.

The analytical results are as follows:
...
• Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust.

There you go. And yes, if molybdenum was added to harden the steel and found as a thin layer on the dust, you can stop saying there was no molten steel. Aluminium molybdenum-rich particle, remember?

Once again, temperatures did not reach the level needed to melt steel, but were far above the level of the melting point of aluminum, which can be seen dripping from one the corner of WTC 2. Guess where all of that molten aluminum ended up.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

Come on dude, give me something to work with and stop the gibberish.

There was a Truther named Dr. Tracy Blevins who had a chunk of of the WTCs fire proofing. It was defiantly spray on fire proofing, it was soft crumbly and had bubbles in it like foam. She thought it was dustified steel. She hung it on a string and held a magnet next to it. It was attracted to the magnet, so the fire proofing had iron content. This leads to the possibility in the process of manufacturing of the fire proofing, the portland cement was crushed, powdered and superheated to dry. The iron spheres could have been produced at this time. When the building collapsed the fireproofing turned to dust freeing up the iron spheres.


ETA Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Manganese Nickel and molybdenum are all used as paint pigments.

ETA
www.cement.org...

a reply to: waypastvne

ETA Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Manganese Nickel and molybdenum are all used as paint pigments.

Barium was also used as emitter in florescent lights - care to guess how florescent lights were in 2 110 story buildings

Lead would be present in solder - both on plumbing and electronics, Another source would be in batteries for UPS
system for computers

Cadmium used as undercoating for plating

Substances like strontium were present screens for TV and CRT

Everything in building has a explanation

a reply to: skyeagle409

What happened on 911 was a great deception. We were all fooled by that deception.

Some of us have now come to realize we were fooled, and some have not. Apparently you do not yet understand that we were all tricked.

You and I don't share the same illusions, simply put. The damage observed at WTC was NOT the result of office fires and gravity.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: TWILITE22

The quality of your work you have put into your threads here on ats is by far the best I've seen ,the evidence you have amassed should be pick up by mainstream media

Too bad his conclusions are incorrect.

Like I have said before.
Labtop is NOT a seismologist.
He should take his evidence and conclusions to a real seismologist not a bunch of web warriors.

jealous a little?...that's your opinion and I've stated mine LabTop has put quality work into his 911 threads and he does know what he's talking about. I also know why he does what he does...why don't you explain to the audience why you do what you do?
this is how you refute the evidence

Labtop didn't you beat this seismic thing to death already in another thread that went on for 894 pages?
Where did it get you last time?
No where!

and

Labtop Since you are NOT a seismologist shouldn't you run this past a professional seismologist instead of a bunch of basement keyboard warriors?

Or did the government buy off all the seismologist's too?

and my favorite

You can stand down with your 'no god' signs.
911 has become a religion with the truther's.
Scientific facts mean nothing unless it's skewed in favor of the conspiracy believers.

You might do better arguing evolution to a southern Baptist church.
Assuming they don't tar and feather you.

really this is how to deny his evidence?
you and the rest of the 911 stalkers will not stop the truth of 911 from coming out,truth always wins.
if you are so sure of yourself go after his evidence instead of me, tell us exactly why he's wrong and not the lame posts I've pointed out.

a reply to: firerescue

Yes, but nearly everything observed does not have an explanation. Or, the government explanation fails utterly upon close examination.

originally posted by: everyone
So you say you rather listen to "experts" who run around yelling that they have the evidence at hand but yet never have been able to produce.

That's what I'm thinking, every post you get official story believers claiming "after all the evidence proving this that and other". . . but never produce it. WTC fell down due to fire is the official story. . . the only other building in history to fall flat on it's footprint (the other two being WTC 1 and 2 which where hit by planes).

a reply to: BlueJacket

WHO tho. Was it FBI agents dressed as Janitors who did it?

WHO.. ??

a reply to: waypastvne

ETA Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Manganese Nickel and molybdenum are all used as paint pigments.

Chromium and molybdenum were used in structural plates of the WTC Towers and yet, Steven Jones managed to dupe people that the presence of chromium and molybdenum was proof that thermite was used. Simply amazing!

Originally posted by: waypastvne

Yes both of these explosions are the same explosion. The time of the explosion is 11:01:07 it's right there in the seismograph read-out, and the shadows confirm it.

The explosion is captured in 2 other videos and just missed in another with the camera man saying another explosion just happened. All of the videos have time confirming shadows.


Sorry to disappoint you.....but it turns out to be a gas leak explosion. It's confirmed in one of the videos.

(The shadow software in that photo was not mine, it was done by an Italian debunker. But you don't really need the software, all you need is Google Earth and this: )

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

Position of the sun at 11:01:07 = 137.96 45.89

I've been working on this subject for the last 2 weeks and will start a thread on it soon. I will present my evidence there.

Waypastvne found these data :
Azimuth (in °) at Local Time 11:01:07 = 137.96°
Elevation (in °) at Local Time 11:01:07 = 45.89°

Waypastvne, thanks for the ESRL link, very helpful.
You left an awfull lot of questions open, in the above post. I suppose you want to keep the answers for your intended new thread about it?

It could just as well be a near noon shadow and the nearer noon seismic spike of 11:22:40 EDT, based on my sunlighted window-corner created shadows on the Fulton St. its left side situated Bank building's deep windows-frames (see the yellow sunlight lines in my picture below) :

WTC-7 Explosion Fulton St-Broadway Shadows point to SUN.JPG
files.abovetopsecret.com...


And a gas leak, which results in an aerial explosion, will not result in a seismic spike.
If gas explodes in a confined space like in a metal tank from a gasoline tank park in earlier years before 9/11, it probably will, depending on the strength of the walls and floors.
But it was reported as a gas leak, not a tank exploding.
I eagerly await your links to that report, since it could be interesting to know from who that gas leak explosion remark came.

NY Police Chief Kirik f.ex. turned out to be a criminal, who served time for that. The Secret Service man with that peculiar plastic chemical warfare helmet on, that he took off after a news crew with camera came up the rolling stairs in WTC-7 and interviewed him on that empty floor and empty smoke filled building, turned out lately to also not hold the law high up as a shining example for all of us.
He sold a few cars after repairing them, cars that were written off as total losses by the Insurance Companies as non recoverable after having been hit by Twin Towers debris or burned out. He got a probational sentence and a heavy fine.

As I hinted on in my post about that long explosions examples video, Mayor Giuliani told the reporters that the gas main pipe was already closed very early, shortly after the first plane hit.
Of course there will have been lots of gas left in the kilometers long pipes in South Manhattan.
By the way, gas is forbidden following building rules, in high rises.
I vaguely remember ever seen a report about a gas pipe having blown up under West Street, tearing open its road surface. You meant that one, and do you have better details now.?

WTC-7 Explosion Fulton St-Broadway Solar Noon p.m..JPG
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Azimuth (in °) at Local Time 12:52:34 = 180.00°
Elevation (in °) at Local Time 12:52:34 = 53.65°


WTC-7 Explosion Fulton St-Broadway Solar Calculator 11:01:07 a.m..JPG
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Azimuth (in °) at Local Time 11:01:07 = 137.97°
Elevation (in °) at Local Time 11:01:07 = 45.90°


WTC-7 Explosion Fulton St-Broadway Solar Calculator 11:22:40 a.m..JPG
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Azimuth (in °) at Local Time 11:22:40 = 144.93°
Elevation (in °) at Local Time 11:22:40 = 48.44°


WTC-7 Explosion Fulton St-Broadway Solar Calculator 17:20:37 p.m..JPG
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Azimuth (in °) at Local Time 17:20:37 = 257.87°
Elevation (in °) at Local Time 17:20:37 = 20.14°




In every picture of the position of the camera man (Spak) at the corner of Broadway and Fulton St., the green line is degrees at sunrise, the red line is degrees at sunset and the yellow line is degrees for Azimuth.
The building on the left side of Fulton St., on each map, is that Bank building with those deep window-frames where I took the sunlight created shadow lines from, in my above first picture.

I hope waypastvne or anybody else, can offer a better method than mine, to show the three real X, Y and Z axis-angles those beams of sunlight are comprised of, as situated in the 3D realm of those already quite strongly distorted four map screen shots of mine.

I think the best bet to get a convincing result for the real time belonging to that explosion would be precise measurement of the Elevation angles of my yellow sun beam lines in my first screen shot picture of the Fulton St. situation.

My bet? 46°, which confirms waypastvne's proposal of the 11:01:07 time.

files.abovetopsecret.com...


Am I making any photo distortion mistakes, which could alter the above outcome?

On a side note, this quest for the right time of this Phone boot and Fulton St. explosion is of course of no importance for my OP (opening post). Those times starting at 17:20:37 are pretty definitive set in stone by now.
Based on the (sometimes FOIA freed) video, photo and audio evidence.

Note : I am reading at page 4 now, I still have to read quite a lot more of the posted comments.

a reply to: LaBTop

On October 2014, there was a replay of an original NBC news broadcast where firefighters reported the sound of exploding gas lines at ground zero, which had nothing to do with explosives.

On another note, there was no evidence of explosives.

No Evidence of Explosives at Ground Zero Video

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.


The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report,

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives".

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

How the WTC Towers Collapsed Video