WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Well, you are in the same boat, denying accurate and viable facts.

Where have I denied any facts concerning molten steel?? Again you are making a false claim about me. I have asked you nicely to stop attacking me personally yet you continue to persist that I am some kind of Truther denier.

Again stick with the topic, WTC 7.

Molten Metal

The large volume of liquid metal observed pouring from the tower. The sudden appearance of the flow at the top of the window was likely the result of the formation of a pathway from the 81st floor where the aluminum possibly had pooled on top of the floor slab as it melted. This, in turn suggests that the 81st floor slab possibly sank down or pulled away from the spandrel at this time.

debunking911.com...

I do not support the lies from a well know debunking website.

Furthermore it is "suggested" that the 81st floor slab possibly sank down or pulled away from the spandrel at this time.

Again the word that is being used is suggest this is their "opinion" nothing more.

Pay close attention to this video.

a reply to: Informer1958

Where have I denied any facts concerning molten steel??

Then, that brings up this question: Why are you arguing with me over molten aluminum flowing from the corner of WTC 2?

Furthermore it is "suggested" that the 81st floor slab possibly sank down or pulled away from the spandrel at this time.

With the aluminum airframe of an airliner that weighs well over 100,000 + pounds on a floor level that was not designed to handle that much weight after suffering from structural load redistribution due to the impact and fires raging within, why would it not do so?[

a reply to: skyeagle409

That doesn't fly considering that it is clear that molten aluminum is seen flowing from the corner of WTC 2.

That is your "opinion" and it is not a fact.

Well, looking at the facts, after 14 years, the OS is still standing.

Again this is your "opinion" and the OS is the conspiracy theory with little to no facts to validated it.

14 years and still no evidence for explosives nor thermite, which means that you are incorrect at best.

Thermite? You have never proved the thermite theory is wrong but only gave your opinion, and nothing else. and again stick with the topic WTC 7 stop moving the goal post.

a reply to: Informer1958

That is your "opinion" and it is not a fact.

My experience and knowledge automatically overrules your lack of knowledge.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Then, that brings up this question: Why are you arguing with me over molten aluminum flowing from the corner of WTC 2?

Because you brought it up in several posts or did you forget.

With the aluminum airframe of an airliner that weighs well over 100,000 + pounds on a floor level that was not designed to handle that much weight after suffering from structural load redistribution due to the impact and fires raging within, why would it not do so?

If you are going to debate me then STOP ignoring my post. There are no facts supporting this rubbished as I have pointed out the word uses in your claim was suggest Lets stick to real facts here and not what some debunker on a well known debunker websites stating his " opinions" please.

a reply to: skyeagle409

My experience and knowledge automatically overrules your lack of knowledge.

And my Daddy is bigger then your daddy...

My friend you are sadly wrong I have seven years of research of 911 under my belt and that makes me a little more knowledgeable then you.

a reply to: Informer1958

[
The Report summary


Summary and Conclusions

In this article I take a close look at the role of aluminum in the World Trade Center

(WTC) disaster of September 11th , 2001. Metallic aluminum was present in the WTC on
9-11 not only as the familiar shiny cladding on the faÄade of the Twin Towers, but also as
a major component of the Boeing aircraft that penetrated deep into the cores of these
buildings. The article first reviews what is known about the physical condition of
aluminum in the Twin Towers before, during and after the terror attacks and discusses the
evidence for the formation of molten aluminum from the heat of the fires. It is concluded
that as much as 10,000 kg of molten aluminum flowed from the Boeing 767 airframes
lodged in the upper floors of the Towers prior to their collapse.

The chemistry of molten aluminum has also been reviewed and the corrosive and highly
reactive nature of this material highlighted. It is shown that molten aluminum readily
undergoes violent explosive thermite reactions when dropped into slurries of lime,
gypsum or rust – materials that were present in great abundance in the impact zones of
WTC 1 & 2, a place where fires raged and aluminum was being heated above its 550 C
melting point on the morning of 9-11.

Based on these findings it is proposed that the formation of molten aluminum in the Twin
Towers just before their collapse, accounts for most of the startling and controversial
observations that accompanied the spectacular destruction of these massive structures. It
is suggested that molten aluminum initiated the global collapse of each Tower by burning
through key structural supports in the impact zones. Molten aluminum-thermite reactions
could explain the rapid intensification of the fires and the many detonations seen and
heard moments before and during the collapse of each Tower.

Molten aluminum-thermiteexplosions - reactions that are quite capable of shattering ceramic or metal molds during
aluminum casting - would help to explain the much-debated pulverization of the WTC
concrete. And, remarkably, the production and combustion of hydrogen gas by reactions
of hot aluminum with high pH water at ground zero, explains why the WTC rubble pile
continued to burn for so long.

It is indeed ironic that the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has prompted many
9-11 researchers to reach the erroneous conclusion that deliberately placed thermite
“cutter charges” must have been used to bring down these buildings. The findings
outlined in this article show the underlying reasons for this misconception. Simply put,
thermite-induced reactions were largely responsible for the destruction of the Twin
Towers on that terrible September day in New York City – but the fatal damage was not
from deliberately planted thermite charges. Molten aluminum was the culprit, and the
true terrorist!

F. R. Greening Ph.D.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I have no idea where you get this stuff? SOURCES PLEASE.

Nothing but more copy and past garbage.

a reply to: Informer1958

If you are going to debate me then STOP ignoring my post.

You can't argue with facts and evidence. You have been ignoring facts and evidence, which BTW, why haven't you posted those video time lines that I have requested from you?

a reply to: Informer1958

Nothing but more copy and past garbage.

Call it what you like, but after 14 years, those facts and evidence remain standing to this very day. This video also proves that no explosives were used to bring down the WTC builidings. You can plainly hear the difference.

a reply to: skyeagle409

You can't argue with facts and evidence. You have not case and all you have been doing was showing your anti-government side of things.

So now I am anti-government???? You need to STOP your personal attacks and now you are spreading lies about me personally.

Your OS debating skills are dying very quickly as you continue slap lies and insults to undermine my character. I guess you lose in this debate when one has to resort to these tactic.

a reply to: skyeagle409

You can't argue with facts and evidence. You have been ignoring facts and evidence, which BTW, why haven't you posted those video time lines that I have requested from you?

I have given you all the facts and as of some video of a time line I don't believe it existed and you know that. However what you give as your facts clearly demonstrated it comes from a well known fallacies debunking website . You have failed miserably to prove the OS narrative.

Call it what you like, but after 14 years, those facts and evidence remain standing to this very day.

Wrong.

And no one supports your fallacies on this thread either.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Call it what you like, but after 14 years, those facts and evidence remain standing to this very day. This video also proves that no explosives were used to bring down the WTC builidings. You can plainly hear the difference.

No one including me supports your fallacies. When one has to resort to telling fallacies he has already lost.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Call it what you like, but after 14 years, those facts and evidence remain standing to this very day. This video also proves that no explosives were used to bring down the WTC builidings. You can plainly hear the difference.

You seem to forget that in those buildings all the windows, interior walls, carpet, furnishings, doors etc have been removed, whereas in the WTC buildings, nothing had been removed.....big difference in sound levels.

originally posted by: CALGARIAN
Yes, this was def FINALLY resolved... back in 2001.
The MASSIVE amount of fire debris that crushed the side of the building caused it to collapse.

WHY (or who) would have planted explosives in WTC7? lol.

Either you are choosing not to look at the evidence with an objective mind or you are afraid of what it would mean if that you suggest is not true.

point one.... The damage caused by falling debris was not sever enough to cause any part of the building to collapse...

point two.... The fires were not raging long enough to cause any part of the building to collapse...

point three.... Natural building collapse does not occur uniformly, and it does conforms to the same laws of physics as everything else on the planet...

point four.... For the building to fall at free fall speed, there must have been zero resistance for the roof material to fall to ground level - in a natural collapse the resistance may be zero in some places, but not uniformly (please see point three)...

point five.... Due to point 3, any collapse would not happen straight down within it's own footprint, the only way this could happen is if simultaneously all support for all of the building was pulled in quick succession...

point six.... BBC report building 7 collapse 20 minutes before it collapsed.... chances of this being a coincidence billions against...

point seven.... The audio evidence and timing data shown within the OP.

Please have the decency to open your mind to the above facts, then ask yourself given the above, was the WT7 as closed a case as you seem to think?

Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

point one.... The damage caused by falling debris was not sever enough to cause any part of the building to collapse...

Let's take a look here because debris from WTC 1 punched a hole on the south facade of WTC 7. Here is that account.

WTC 7 Damage

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out.

debunking911.com...

In other words, WTC 7 suffered from massive impact damage on its south facade. That is why WTC 7 leaned toward the south in the final two seconds of its collapse. The bulge is proof that fire was slowly weakening the steel structure of WTC 7.

point two.... The fires were not raging long enough to cause any part of the building to collapse...

Not true. Fires raged for hours inside WTC 7.

Raging Fires

We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

point three.... Natural building collapse does not occur uniformly, and it does conforms to the same laws of physics as everything else on the planet...

WTC 7 suffered massive impact and fire damage and gravity eventually took over.

point four.... For the building to fall at free fall speed, there must have been zero resistance for the roof material to fall to ground level - in a natural collapse the resistance may be zero in some places, but not uniformly (please see point three)...

WTC 7 did not collapse at free fall speed because the total collapse was 17 seconds.

point five.... Due to point 3, any collapse would not happen straight down within it's own footprint, the only way this could happen is if simultaneously all support for all of the building was pulled in quick succession...

On the contrary, in the final two seconds of tis collapse, WTC 7 leaned toward the south.

point six.... BBC report building 7 collapse 20 minutes before it collapsed.... chances of this being a coincidence billions against...

That claim was debunked. Check it out.

point seven.... The audio evidence and timing data shown within the OP.

Audio and video evidence and seismic data proved that explosives did not bring down WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

a reply to: Informer1958

Your OS debating skills are dying very quickly as you continue slap lies and insults to undermine my character.

That doesn't fly because facts and evidence support what I have presented.

a reply to: Informer1958

I have given you all the facts and as of some video of a time line I don't believe it existed and you know that. However what you give as your facts clearly demonstrated it comes from a well known fallacies debunking website . You have failed miserably to prove the OS narrative.

That doesn't fly because after 14 years, facts and evidence continue to prove my case, which explains why no one found evidence of explosives or thermite after all of these years.

a reply to: Informer1958

No one including me supports your fallacies.

Let's take a look to see if you are right.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail.

Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

vincentdunn.com...


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee.

That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

www.representativepress.org...


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."

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.


Van Romero: New Mexico demolitions expert

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

911research.wtc7.net...


Brent Blanchard: Demolition Expert

www.jod911.com...


As you can plainly see, you are incorrect because demolition experts, architects, civil engineers, firefighters and others, have said what I have been saying all along about what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings.