WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath




You think so?

Why don't you look at this brochure;

www.dynonobel.com...

One problem the receiver needs batteries. Batteries don't like fires.

It is not only batteries that don't like fires but WTC 1 and 2 did not burn down, it collapsed so your point is illogical.

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


Nice picture of open pit quarry .....

You do realize the differences betwena 110 story skyscraper and an open pit quarry in regards to radio
signal propogration....

On second though you probably dont have a clue.......

reply to post by GenRadek


1. Its called BUILDING CODE kiddo. There have been plenty of fires in steel towers. And what happened to those?..... But knowing you so well ,your rebuttal would be the other towers didn't have a plane causing some kinetic havoc impact ,,bla ,,bla jargon... Your story is a constant cycle only to make us dizzy and frustrated. Give up Gdeck or ask for a pay raise.


2.Fuel wasn't available for the flying debris . Try counting how much fuel was in those jetliners and continue counting the time the debris started flying in thin air; doesn't pan out Gdeck. And you talk about desks, Furniture? You're stating that a desk with fire on it flew into some window in building 7 and started a fire? Oh that's right,, building 7 didn't have a ConEd so that's why fire commenced in building 7... My mistake.. Very weak Gdeck.. And you say some 20 acres of supposed furniture(even though ,you are assuming... You love doing that) is what caused the detrimental fire in one specific building ,but when you see any of the WTC videos(any of the videos), there is a vacuum of sort that suffocates the fire in WTC's impacted zones. In fact ,the weight of the above floors compressing the floors on fire should do the trick of putting out any fire...ask any firefighter and see what they tells you.



3.As for head hunting for your past ATS research I don't have that much time. But I know you're talented enough to copy 'n paste everything. Surely you could do it one more time, old friend.

And the core did not survive,,, nothing survived in all three buildings. Unless you consider rubble as structural. Again for your FTP theory to fully stand ,the core would have to be blown to bits. If your not going to talk about demolition & code/safety as a priority then ,,NO, there is not a standard in demolishing a structure. Again if jetliners can do this much damage then we should be using these planes as weapons of war. Don't see why you don't get that part.
And how can the top-section of a building, with no sufficient velocity, can knock or pulverize the tubed steel/concrete core?? Boy, you love to assume physics.


4. We lost only 3 USS carriers to Kamikaze. And 2 out 3 continued its tenure. Those three carriers had bombs and the Jap planes had bombs. No bombs were used in WTC, according to you and NIST..The Kamikaze damages were not caused by the fuel or the impact of the aluminum Jap planes. Seems You are in denial of your own history. And please don't give me a list of fighters and artillery ship that sank do to Kamikazes. Let's compare the sheer size of carrier to the sheer size of a skyscraper.

And ,,, You're not trying to laugh? I think I pulled a muscle...

reply to post by GiodanoBruno


The building being damaged changes its ability to resist fire. That should be elementary.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath


It is not only batteries that don't like fires but WTC 1 and 2 did not burn down, it collapsed so your point is has no bearing.

Silly Truther, the collapse initiated on the floors containing the fires. The batteries would not survive the heat.

reply to post by HolgerTheDane2
800 degrees Fahrenheit is not 800 degrees Celsius for a free burning jet fuel . 1800 degrees Fahrenheit is attained when burning under a controlled oxygen rich condition such as in a jet engine .The 800 degrees F was a generous estimate . Fema stated that the Jet fuel burned off in a few minutes .It never reached maximum near the temperature of 1800 F.The carpet and plastic along with the paper fires reached 500 plus degrees F. Yet there was reported and photographed molten metal that was 1500 degrees F in the rubble for some time . The one thing not found was molten Gold in the basement . Last I heard there was quite a bit missing of Comex gold .

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


ConED??????That has nothing to do with your infamous voodoo fire that some how pulverized 1,200,000 tons of steel/concrete. Again you're stretching....

You are really not making any sense! Its like you have no freaking idea about anything on 9/11.

What a great video. Did I here explosives to bring down a flimsy tower?. And again, you're assuming , you state "its is very possible this occurred with the spire".... All you do is assume. I think if you ever been to court you would never show that video, it would do more harm than good for your case. You continue to ignore logic . I hope you understand logic doesn't need videos,attachments and pictures .


And for these 2 pictures. You said it "after the clean up" , suddenly appears a tiny part of the core. That pictures shows nothing and who know what the footing truly looks like. I suggest ,to see a crater, you need aerial photos.


Sorry I am not familiar with reptilian aliens nor the illumanati crap. I don't believe in that stuff. You must have me confused with other's delusions....

Did you really read all the great google links that you sent me? Are you telling me all those startling accounts came from a total of 2 elevators (per tower)? All that from two elevators that suddenly caught on fire ,from an overwhelming amount of jet fuel and the brake sudden massive failed? Sorry your case is filled with holes and assumptions.

And to answer your other response on how I am not making any sense,,, try to logically explain how 392tons of something can pulverize 1,200,000 of something else.?

Try

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Romekje

Bending the truth to fit the OS is easy.

The beams were cut in exactly the same way as they would have been with a controlled demolition.

LOOK at how the buildings come down, are you blind or just plain ignorant?

IF it wouldve even been possible for the towers to come down with the relatively miner damage they recieved, they would've topled over, not crumble into it's own footprint.

But can't have damage to the surrounding buildings now, can we?

You are right, they were cut for demolition: AFTER 9/11/01

Oh I am well aware of how they fell. For starters, if the column was cut at the base, then why did the collapse start at the top of the structure at the impact point? Also, why did people survive in the stairwells in the core? Third, why did the core remain standing after initial collapse if the core columns were cut at the base?

You have a lot of catching up to do. Arguments from personal incredulity are worthless here.

Keep shooting yourself in the foot. You're stretching buddy.

Where exactly am I doing that? I have yet to see you post anything substantive.

Because the core didn't remain standing. You show pictures of rubble and assume : "there we have the core still standing and people survived in the stairwell"... No one was discovered in the stairwell after the building being demolished went strait down. You want to believe that fine,and you want to believe someone's eyewitness account go right ahead. I clearly do not believe what people tell me or what I read in the internet.


I post logic my old friend.. Something you paid OSers choose to ignore. try it some time..........

reply to post by GiodanoBruno


The demolition workers who apparently had to make some repairs to the demo wiring and charges came out saying don't go to BLD.7 it's coming down in a few minutes . The premature announcement made by the news about bld 7 falling had to be revised until the repairs could be made apparently .
The highly publicized World Com , Enron , etc along with the backup Pentagon financial records were kept in BLD 7 . The SEC was headquartered there and so was Rudy Giuliani has his disaster bunker there at least until 2 weeks before 911 . He had a 23rd floor hardened disaster command center .He moved it down the street 2 blocks 2 weeks before that day .No wonder he was so brave unlike our esteemed leaders . It has been said that the Pentagon could not justify 3 trillion in expenditures and the point of impact on the recently modified Pentagon structure held the other controversial expenditure records . All records were destroyed of the unexplained 3 Trillion dollar missing from the budget. It would seem that no one gets prosecuted for embezzlement by the SEC .
But thats not a big thing when you consider that the United States Constitution is being done away with for the NWO , United Nations way of government . The old Russian shoe beating on the podium dictator Khrushchev was right . They will take us over with out a shot and we will be Socialist/ Communist , but it will be the UN that will do it under the direction of the Bilderberg bunch

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
reply to post by GenRadek

 

1. Its called BUILDING CODE kiddo. There have been plenty of fires in steel towers. And what happened to those?..... But knowing you so well ,your rebuttal would be the other towers didn't have a plane causing some kinetic havoc impact ,,bla ,,bla jargon... Your story is a constant cycle only to make us dizzy and frustrated. Give up Gdeck or ask for a pay raise.

Ah yes, BUILDING CODE! Now why oh why would there be a building code requiring fire-proofing on steel structures, if as you claim, that fire cannot affect steel even after 5-6 hours of exposure? Allowing the fire-proofers to make a quick buck?

2.Fuel wasn't available for the flying debris . Try counting how much fuel was in those jetliners and continue counting the time the debris started flying in thin air; doesn't pan out Gdeck. And you talk about desks, Furniture? You're stating that a desk with fire on it flew into some window in building 7 and started a fire?

Funny how you do not even know, or recognize the proper term for something that can readily burn. I see that english words are not your strength. Did I say jet fuel? I thought I was speaking with someone that has a decent understanding of the English language and terminology. But I guess that if the only thing that pops into your head when I mention "fuel for the fire" you only think of jet fuel. Sad. Also sad is you believing that 20+ acres of fire can magically extinguish and cool off rapidly during collapse, and any burning debris would go out and cool off seconds after being ejected. Also if you didnt realize, that WTC7 was SMASHED in the face by a large piece of WTC1 which ripped a hole down its center. I guess gas lines, oil lines, and electrical vaults magically freeze up and do not explode during such an impact. I'm surprised at how little you know of the events on 9/11.

Oh that's right,, building 7 didn't have a ConEd so that's why fire commenced in building 7... My mistake.. Very weak Gdeck..

What the hell are you blabbering about? Are you or are you not aware of the ConEd substation that was located at the base of Building 7, which required transfer trusses and beams to bridge the gap and create a certain weak point in the structure?

And you say some 20 acres of supposed furniture(even though ,you are assuming... You love doing that) is what caused the detrimental fire in one specific building ,but when you see any of the WTC videos(any of the videos), there is a vacuum of sort that suffocates the fire in WTC's impacted zones. In fact ,the weight of the above floors compressing the floors on fire should do the trick of putting out any fire...ask any firefighter and see what they tells you.

No, of course, nothing was burning inside WTC. Nothing at all. Riigghhtt....... And magically any superheated debris that was oxygen deprived for a moment stayed that way even though it was re-introduced to oxygen mere moments later didnt burst back into flame. You really should read up on fires.

3.As for head hunting for your past ATS research I don't have that much time. But I know you're talented enough to copy 'n paste everything. Surely you could do it one more time, old friend.

I only copy and paste the facts straight from the source, which is backed up with facts. Unlike your fellow compatriots.

And the core did not survive,,, nothing survived in all three buildings. Unless you consider rubble as structural. Again for your FTP theory to fully stand ,the core would have to be blown to bits. If your not going to talk about demolition & code/safety as a priority then ,,NO, there is not a standard in demolishing a structure. Again if jetliners can do this much damage then we should be using these planes as weapons of war. Don't see why you don't get that part.

Excuse me, did I say the cores survived to this day? No. I stated the cores survived the initial collapses, and lasted nearly 15+ seconds, before succumbing to gravity and damage. I never said, nor did anyone else state, that the core needed to be blown to bits. It is the truthers that constantly harp about nonsense like that. Also your strawman about using airliners as weapons...... really cute. But hey, for terrorists, yeah, it is a pretty good weapon. Especially when you cant afford a Tomahawk or a B-52.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I have alot of catching up to do?

Dude when ever have you seen a building collapse at free fall speed?

If indeed the cores survived (which they didnt) it would cause friction, slowing down the collapse.

Same goes for the pancake theory, if the floors pancaked onto eachother they would slow down the collapse and not go at full speed.

No, what happened here, is that as one story was falling, the story below got demolished, exactly like they would do in a controlled demo, so that the building collapses onto itself and doesn't damage surrounding buildings (much).

Your avatar says you are a "critical thinker" though you think critically wrong.

Since the trusses were the main thing failing, and the core was bypassed by the collapsing floors, I think it's safe to say that the core was not really offering the resistance. The floors were the only resistance, and they were being overcome by the weight and acceleration of the other floors.

You are assuming..

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2

Originally posted by Varemia
Here's a decent picture of the smoke-from-fire of WTC 7:

edit on 24-5-2012 by Varemia because: Resized the image

That's not smoke!

It's the dust flying because of the earth trembling when the demolition charges were let loose in WTC1 and WTC2.

Reading this thread I think it is about time you had a new amendment to your precious constitution:

It is the right of every man and woman (even gay) to ignore facts and use bogus science and lack of knowledge of physics to explain anything they choose.
Doing this also entitles them to insult people trying to bring to their attention, facts established by real scientists.

Most Truthers are laughed at in the rest of the world. Some of the truthers in this thread (likke funnyhead) is particularly entertaining.

It is my hope that the mods stay off this thread - as they apparently have till now - and allow a few to read this post before I get banned for telling the truth.

If you will note the row of blackened window surrounds, they are four on top of four windows towards the corner. The glazing is blown out and there is no fire.

I pose this explanation; the billowing dust clouds was drawn up WTC 7 because of wind shear and it smothered the localised fires within the building.

If the fires were so great and they caused the trusses to slump because of the fires, why is there no fire licking out of the broken windows?

edit on 24-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

Could it be that the fires were further in than the windows you see?

Why does the flames absolutely have to lick out of the windows?

And regarding explosions. Have you ever heard the noise a concrete slab makes when it cracks because of heat? Would you at least acknowledge the possibility that the strain the trusses and what-have-you makes a significant noise when they give way?

Have you heard the noise from a flash over? Would you even consider that the explosions that some firemen refer to could be their "technical" term for smoke gasses igniting?

And the most important - for Truthers - have you asked MythBusters their opinion?

But what caused the fire in the first place?

reply to post by GiodanoBruno

And how can the top-section of a building, with no sufficient velocity, can knock or pulverize the tubed steel/concrete core?? Boy, you love to assume physics.

It is something called: potential energy and kinetic energy.

4. We lost only 3 USS carriers to Kamikaze. And 2 out 3 continued its tenure. Those three carriers had bombs and the Jap planes had bombs. No bombs were used in WTC, according to you and NIST..The Kamikaze damages were not caused by the fuel or the impact of the aluminum Jap planes. Seems You are in denial of your own history. And please don't give me a list of fighters and artillery ship that sank do to Kamikazes. Let's compare the sheer size of carrier to the sheer size of a skyscraper.

The plane didnt cause much damage to the ships? Really? I am aware of the bombs strapped to planes or loaded for added punch, but the plane impact DID do quite a bit of damage to the ships, depending on where and how it hit.

Also why are you comparing a warship to a building?

You want to complain about size vs size, how is it that a bullet the size of a bumble bee can kill a person that is 180lbs and stands 6'5"? How is it that a bullet can kill a full sized rhino? Please do not go down this ridiculous path about size and how something small cannot do serious damage to something much larger. Explain that to the Shuttle Columbia, or the Titanic. A piece of ice, something you can throw in your drink, or cut into funny shapes, or break off your gutter and smash on the side walk, managed to destroy two large complex vehicles, which were both technologically complex and sophisticated. I guess they were actually sabotaged too right? After all, I once threw ice at a car door, and the ice exploded. There is no way ice could sink a ship or destroy a space shuttle.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
***snip***
But what caused the fire in the first place?

A plane crashing into a nearby WTC tower.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2

Originally posted by 4hero
***snip***
Also, steel is capable of withstanding the temperatures of jet fuel, even without fire proofing. Come back once you've done some more reading.

OK - you read this then:

Have you ever heard anything about how superheated steel behaves? Did you know that it expands? Did you know that the expansion caused it to NOT fit in the brackets where it was supposed to rest?
Did you know that steel becomes softer when it is superheated? Do you think that the inherrent strength stays the same? Have you wondered if the weight of the floors above would be enough for the softened steel to bend and be torn out of the brackets?
What ever would a few heavy gauge bolts sound like when they suddenly snap because of the severe strain?

But of course. It is easier to disregard things like that. After all it is written by someone who doesn't believe in the "inside job" - hence its invalidity.

So you are assuming the steel was "super-heated"?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by Alfie1

 

But do you have any evidence of cut steel pre-clean-up ? And why do the cuts show typical characteristics of cutting by thermic lance ?

Considering that you broached the subject and I merely raised a point of logic, do you believe there is no evidence that cutting charges were used?

If there was that evidence, it would be known and you would have presented it.

You didn't, therefore it isan admission that it does not exist.

Assumimg?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
So why didn't it collapse then? Apparently OS'ers believe the debris from WTC 1 brought down WTC 7, therefore, the Fiterman Hall building should have suffered the same fate.

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Most of the buildings surrounding the WTC complex didn't collapse. They sustained damage, but the varying designs led to varying results. Are you trying to say that it's a conspiracy that the buildings were considered unsafe and had to be deconstructed one floor at a time due to damage?

So what you are saying is that many buildings suffered damage and the only one that collapsed without an airplane striking it was WTC7?

No, Building 3 also collapsed, and many other buildings suffered partial collapses. The firefighters were watching Building 7 ALL DAY because they knew it was damaged too far and would collapse. How do you consistently forget that?

Firefighters watching?,but not trying to put the fire out??mmmm?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2
***snip***

***snip***

You will also see that the majority of windows are intact and there is little evidence of wide spread fires.

That's a really funny statement. Stupid - but funny.

Please tell me how you can see behind the smoke and see that all those windows are intact.
Doesn't it make sense that the smoke exits the broken windows?

edit on 25-5-2012 by HolgerTheDane2 because: (no reason given)

You are without a doubt an offensive person. If you bothered to follow the conversation you would see that I was discussing the 8 blackened window to the edge of elevation without any smoke.

I pointed out that the fire had stopped and the majority of windows on that elevation are intact.

When there is a serious fire in a building, the windows are the first things to go. In the case of WTC 7, the majority of windows of the visible elevation are intact.

The windows of highrise building during extensive fires blow in and not out. This is because of the stack effect of lift shafts and stairs. There are at least a dozen of these conduits in WTC 7.

This is what Firetactics.com say about high rise fires;

STAIR-SHAFT NEGATIVE PRESSURES CAUSED THROUGH STACK EFFECTS MAY LEAD TO
LODD!

An event that will most certainly take firefighters by surprise is the negative pressure that often exists
BEHIND them as they advance into a fire involved floor of a high-rise structure causing the fire to be 'sucked'
out of the apartment or floor to head directly into the stair-shaft. This negative pressure may be substantial
and is a by-product of natural stack effects in the stairway itself. On occasions this effect can cause a
negative pressure in the fire area itself to cause outside windows to break inwards, allowing exterior winds to
intensify fire conditions.

www.firetactics.com...

So based on this behaviour of fires in high rise buildings, it is entirely reasonable to believe that;

>there were only localised small fires in the WTC 7

>that these fires did not contribute to the collapse of WTC 7

>that the intact windows indicate that there was no high rise stacking effect associated with serious fires

>the dust and smoke to the front of the South elevations is unrelated to the interior of WTC 7 and is in fact an external wind shearing of dust and smoke from the other destroyed WTC buildings.