Audio of the explosives which brought down WTC 7

[alkemyst]

god shut the fuck up with your JFK shit, I don't care about JFK

WTF man. You may not, but there are a ton of others out there whose entire lives revolve around that ex-President.

There is actually a lot of new research on the matter.

 

[Cogman]

WTF man. You may not, but there are a ton of others out there whose entire lives revolve around that ex-President.

There is actually a lot of new research on the matter.

Great, he can start a new thread about it. It has no bearing on the WTC debate.

 

[xj0hnx]

it is hilarious watching xj0hnx, tastes&runslikeachicken, and other liars continuously say they are "open minded" while claiming there are no facts or evidence to support a controlled demolition of the twin towers + wtc 7. it is especially laughable for xj0hnx, who claims to be an explosives expert.

I never claimed to be open minded, stop lying.

first, let's address the lie he stated in the quoted response above: "why are there only two [squibs]".

no, there were not only two squibs. if you've done any research whatsoever you would have known this. there were plenty of squibs from many different angles for each collapse. just a few that other people have pointed out

Those aren't squibs, they are pockets of air being forced out under the collapsing building.

xj0hnx, who claims to be an explosives expert, then asks "if those are controlled demolitions... why are they [the squibs] so far apart?". seriously? in a controlled demolition, are all the explosives set off simultaneously, in the same area, all the time? of course not. one could rig a building to come down in any way, shape, or form. it is controlled, and the planners decide which set of explosives are detonated, depending on their liking. one could rig a bottom to top controlled demolition, along with a top to bottom controlled demolition. of course, you knew this xj0hnx, because you're "open minded", yet you and others in this thread have been pushing the fact that because the twin towers did not look like a "classic (bottom to top) controlled demolition", the possibility of it being a controlled demolition is out of the question.

Yip, they sure could, but they didn't. The possibility of a controlled demolition is out not because of things like "squibs" that you idiot truthers that don't know anything about explosives try to pretend are something they are not, but because logistically, and based on evidence, or complete lack there of.

so once again, let's go ahead and list out numerous other FACTS that support the case for a controlled demolition (because you, chickens, etc, claimed there are no facts to support a case for controlled demolition, right?) i stated these facts previously, yet nobody has dared to respond. i wonder why 🙂

Show me one piece of controlled demolition found by one of the hundreds of workers going through the rubble, or I guess they were all in on the conspiracy too right?

Fact #1)

Large earthquake type rumbles were reported by witnesses the minutes and seconds preceeding the collapse of the twin towers. Earthquake type rumbles also preceed the collapse of buildings in classic controlled demolitions, as explosives are being detonated inside the buildings, correct? By definition of a controlled demolition, explosives can be detonated at any time interval.

Video of an earthquake / rumbling that shakes the tripod of this camera 10+ seconds before the tower's collapse. A chunk of black debris can be clearly seen falling off the right side of the tower at the same time Etienne Sauret's camera is shaken. That was one hell of a rumble to cause buildings to shake many blocks away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ah8xoQgmI

I posted that video before, I guess you are too stupid to watch it, and see that VERY CLEARLY the there are no explosions what so ever before the building collapses. The camera shakes because ...someone touches it. BWAHAHAHAHAHA the camera shaking BEFORE collapse? Watch the video dumbass, there's absolutely NO explosions, nothing but smoke, then the building starts to collapse, and that's when your mythical "squibs start going.

well well. now you have a problem, don't you?

No, I don't.

it is a fact that there were large earthquake rumblings starting at least 10+ seconds before the towers came down. it is also a fact that the rumbles and vibration shook buildings many blocks away, and even reached across the river. the rumbles also shook the ground enough so that dust / smoke rose several stories high right before the tower began collapsing. now the problem: how do you explain away the earthquake rumblings?

Huge skyscrapers collapsing fool.

these rumblings are facts that are consistent with and support the case of controlled demolition.

Only in the mind of a deranged truther that has no evidence of demolitions at all.

~snipped for dribble~

People's "eye witness" testimony means nothing. People on the ground didn't know what was going on up high, especially people close to the base of the buildings. If they heard something go boom it was the buildings starting to collapse.

Fact #3)

See squibs at the top of this post. the numerous squibs / ejections of debris are not proof of explosives,

That's just about the only true thing you have said.

but the fact that they occurred and visible tens of stories below any collapse points are again consistent with and supports the case for controlled demolition.

No they aren't consistent with demo unless demo was found.
No demo was found there fore they are air being forced out under the collapse of the floors above falling.

Fact #4) Barry Jennings: on record about numerous large explosions in WTC 7 before any of the towers came down, and reported bodies in the lobby of WTC 7, contradicting official reports. Jennings himself explains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI

BWAHAHAHAHA Alex Jones, LOL. LooseChange LOL.

So they heard an explosion, but ...the buildings didn't fall as they would during a controlled demo ...weird, maybe they heard one of the many gas tanks in there exploding.

Fact #5)

Because WTC 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition 🙂

One of many experts who agree (and notice his shocked reaction when told it collapsed on the same day):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

Now that is some hard evidence ...it looked like a controlled demolition, wow, so a collapsing building looks like a controlled demolition? Amazing, take that to teh Supreme Court, I'm sure it will completely out weight the fact that zero physical evidence of controlled demolitions were found.

xjonx, do you have the guts to agree or disagree with cogman's miracle statement in my sig? feel free to demonstrate how "open minded" you are. try not to shoot yourself in the foot like cogman did 🙂. after all, it is about the assassination of a US president.

Not to entertain your delusional state of mind, but no, I most certainly do not agree, and have never agreed that the bullet they claim is the one that caused 8 wounds is real. I shoot a lot of guns, and have seen bullets come out of people, and they are deformed, that bullet never hit a bone. This thread isn't about JFK, start another one.

 

[alkemyst]

well, this was about the WTC7 building only and no ones doing a good job sticking with that either.

I haven't even stated what I believe happened and already I am labelled a 'twuther'.

 

[BeauJangles]

al981,

no, there were not only two squibs. if you've done any research whatsoever you would have known this. there were plenty of squibs from many different angles for each collapse. just a few that other people have pointed out:

Okay, so let me understand what you're driving at here. In the photo you've included we see two mysterious clouds of dust / debris / smoke being forcefully shot out of the side of the tower. In other photos we can clearly see a similar random dispersal of these effects elsewhere on the buildings. According to the NIST report (I'm just going to call it The Report from here on out), these air pockets are attributable to air being rapidly forced out of the building. I can see your skepticism concerning the issue, because clearly these unidentified clouds are nowhere near the actual collapse.

In this vein though, I'd simply ask, what are the mechanics of the tower collasping (in your view)? What physical effects brought the tower to the ground?

]xj0hnx, who claims to be an explosives expert, then asks "if those are controlled demolitions... why are they [the squibs] so far apart?". seriously? in a controlled demolition, are all the explosives set off simultaneously, in the same area, all the time? of course not. one could rig a building to come down in any way, shape, or form. it is controlled, and the planners decide which set of explosives are detonated, depending on their liking. one could rig a bottom to top controlled demolition, along with a top to bottom controlled demolition. of course, you knew this xj0hnx, because you're "open minded", yet you and others in this thread have been pushing the fact that because the twin towers did not look like a "classic (bottom to top) controlled demolition", the possibility of it being a controlled demolition is out of the question.

Agreed. Controlled demolitions are controlled and timed specifically to cause certain structural components to fail at specific times in order to ensure the building collapses into its footprint (usually).

If we can both agree that the building pancaked itself to the ground, then why would "squib" charges be going off up to thirty floors below the building? If the building is already in collapse mode at the time these photos were taken, why do they need to weaken anything and, if floors did need to be weakened it isn't too unreasonable to think that there should be some uniformity or pattern to the charges.

Besides, The Report covers much of this, stating that these forceful expulsions of air were created by the pressure built up inside the building as it was collapsing. That statement is supported by survivors who state that, as the tower collapsed, the rush of air down the staircases was tremendously powerful.

In fact, before we delve any further I have one simple question. Can you provide me (or anybody here) with a photograph of these "squib" charges going off prior to the tower's collapse? After all, something needed to get this collapse rocking and rolling and, if the arichtects of this collapse were detonating squibs after the collapse began, then wouldn't they also have set some off to make sure that the floors started to collapse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ah8xoQgmI

A camera that shakes is not evidence, unfortunately. The seismic record does not support any evidence of an earthquake prior to the towers collapsing. Though there are inconsistencies with the exact time of the collapse, the seismic monitoring only detected each plane's impact and each tower's subsequent collapse. Presumably, an explosion of the magnitude required to begin the process of the collapse would also have registered and would have done so with more power than the planes hitting the building.


Moving on...

The red + orange flashes of lights on the lower levels are not proof of explosives. however, it is a fact that the flashes of lights occurred on the lower levels, and is once again, consistent with and supports the case for controlled demolition.

Fact #3) See squibs at the top of this post. the numerous squibs / ejections of debris are not proof of explosives, but the fact that they occurred and visible tens of stories below any collapse points are again consistent with and supports the case for controlled demolition.

Sure flashes of light could be an indication of an explosion. They could also be one of a number of things. Truthfully, this isn't conclusive one way or the other.

Your squibs point is a little misguided because the forceful expulsions of air are also consistent with.... air being forcefully expelled through broken windows as the pancaking mass forces air down and out of the building.



I've given you a little food-for-thought regarding your own questions, so why don't you be a gentleman and respond in kind to mine.

Right off the bat we have a problem here -- the problem of scope and completeness. The NIST report and the 9/11 Commission Report both do one thing that no other theory does: they explain every event and they address the entire scope of the events of September 11, 2001.

With that in mind, let's go:

1) If explosives were used to take down WTC 1 and WTC 2, why the planes? A controlled demolition is an extraordinarily complicated thing so why, after spending months (at least) setting up these explosives, would those behind the scenes decide to allow two hijacked aircraft to slam right into their work? Doesn't that strike you as just slightly foolish? Plus, if you're going to blow the buildings up, why not just say that terrorists did it and plant the evidence? Why create this whole elaborate story about the hijackings? Why not simply say, "hey, remember when these guys tried to blow up the WTC in 1993? Well, they pulled it off this time."

2) Speaking of demolitions, if your stated goal is to kill lots of people and foment anger in the US, why even bother with a controlled demolition? Why not simply just strap as many pounds of explosives as you could to the lower floors of the building and just let 'er rip?

The reason I ask is an obvious one. If the towers had keeled over like a guy who had one too many drinks at the bar, people wouldn't ask as many questions. It wouldn't *look* like a controlled demolition which wouldn't raise the suspicions of certain members of our society. If I'm going to destroy my car to collect the insurance money, you better believe I'm going to make it look like an accident and not leave a trace of doubt in the insurance company's mind.

3) If explosives were used, where were they? Any sort of demolition on this scale would require thousands of pounds of explosives, miles of detonation cord and, according to the way you tell the story, all of this would have to be wired to a switchboard. How did these individuals sneak into one of the biggest buildings in New York and plant all of this stuff without a single soul seeing it? How did they manage to keep this under wraps for months (at least) while they wired two 110 story buildings?

Also, what explosives were used?

4) A really easy one: Whodunnit? Who masterminded these attacks, who carried them out? Assuming it was the President, then this conspiracy involves at least hundreds people. The sheer amount of materials required, the secrey involved, and the expertise needed means that there should be lots of conspirators and, while I can believe that a few would have been bought off or convinced that this was "good for the country" or whatever, I fail to believe that out of hundreds of people there hasn't been a single person who would tell the truth. Not a single soul has come forward, written an anonymous book, or said *anything* about participating in the largest terrorist attack in American history. Strange, right?

5) How did the towers collapse? I asked it above, but I wanted to make sure you answered. Did the towers 'pancake' as proposed by both government reports or did something else happen?

 

[LunarRay]

Fact #3) See squibs at the top of this post. the numerous squibs / ejections of debris are not proof of explosives, but the fact that they occurred and visible tens of stories below any collapse points are again consistent with and supports the case for controlled demolition.

I'm currently trying to sort that bit out. So I've selected out of the post this item.
They are indeed pressure ejections of something that appears to be smoke sans to any significant degree macro or micro scopic pulverized stuff. It appears the ejections slow down rapidly as they are met with air resistance. The first few meters they travel out of the building they are accelerating, it seems from the slope of the curve and initially at high speed > 70mph.
Points to ponder:

There does not appear to be an event occurring at or proximate to the core structure. I say this because: Why are the ejections localized to a window and not what a pressure increase ought to do further into the building, which imo, is diminish based on the size of the room and the other egress available, ie. the elevator shafts and stairways all of which are in the core area.

There is a bit o logic employed by me here. IF it was from an 'explosion' at a particular exterior column more than one window ought to be involved and to my eye these ejections exit a single window area. Additionally, I'd expect to see the result of that activity reflected in the exterior columns near the 'explosion'.

The failure by me to be able to with clarity of precision determine just prior to the collapse who was calling 911, who was exactly where in that building and in communications with someone, or any other evidence that someone was able to communicate the condition of the floors they may have been standing on... This would have helped determine if the 'squibs' were from falling floors which I can't really see happen... parts of floors ok... but not the entire floor albeit this occurs rather quickly it may seem to be the case, but my mind says it won't occur that way...

In order for ejections to occur 20 or more floors below the current crush floor the falling floors must have occurred in sections. But, why again only one exit and not a series of them on the floors with this alleged pressure condition. We can assume that in the current crush zone the video depiction of matter being ejected out is from the heat etc. forming the thermal expansion but not way down below. UNLESS... that occurs there too...(thermal expansion) AND that window area is the 'weak link' on that floor. IF that is the case, I'd expect to see many more 'squibs' during the event than what I count. Both Towers seem to undergo this event...

Video of the Towers does not depict a reason for windows to break on those floors [prior to the arrival of the collapse proper] and thus provide the 'weak link' capability... However, I can visualize exterior column deformation traveling down the building and the dynamics of that could explode out a window coupled with building pressure from the upper bit coming down and the total needed air egress not available to vent the areas below to sufficient extent. The window was the path of least resistance...

 

[LunarRay]

al981,


In this vein though, I'd simply ask, what are the mechanics of the tower collasping (in your view)? What physical effects brought the tower to the ground? Because the way I see it, even if explosives were involved, it is indisputable that the towers fell from a pancake -- that is the top of the tower crushed the floors below it on the way down. Can we agree on this?

I see the building collapsing not from pancaking but rather from a slow build up of stress from bits of floors falling down until enough mass built up there to proceed further....(scrambled egging :sneaky🙂 However, there is another bit to consider and that is the core column sections.... And I do consider them as follows: Once there was enough truss sections no longer providing the Exterior to Interior column bracing the core structure started to bend and twist because they lost significant load bearing capacity... The three elements of structure is what provided the ability for those Towers to 'carry the load'... The truss system was essential but redundancy allowed for about five or so levels to be absent before a plastic event would insure the upper bloc (assume it to be containing its floors, etc. a few floors above the crash zone) had enough mass to inflict the twisting etc of the core... tis why we didn't see the core standing 400 meters in the sky... And why the last building hit fell first... more mass above the zone of initial destruction.
IOW, I don't need no stinkin splosives to collapse the building but if you bring me evidence of them... then of course they would or could be involved...
I don't answer other anomalies that are evidence occurring there... like molten stuff at the base, up in the building itself, and stuff ejected 600' that weigh 4 tons... and stuff consistent with Nano-Thermite allegedly in the dust of the WTC collapse.

EDIT: Since we don't have a way of knowing for sure anything about the collapse the best we can do is assign a probability of occurrance.... I feel strongly that my version has maybe a 70 percent probability and some version a bit different but including the thesis I've propounded would be over 90 percent and the need for explosives to induce any portion at < 5 percent.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It's more of a reverse design which you are claiming to fully grasp.

I'm am claiming to have enough of a grasp of the information to make an informed decision. You are making the very same mistake that you accuse me of - inserting things that weren't even thought let alone implied.

Yeah it does, but I never said they orchestrated two jets to bring down the first two towers just to cover up WTC7.

It doesn't matter whether or not you claimed that. It's simply a description of what happened. Jets DID crash into the towers. No jet crashed into WTC7, yet people are suppose to believe, according to the truthers, that was part of this grand plan to cover up demolition of WTC7. It's silly on the face of it.

See this is how a person like you tries to win an argument. You immediately insert things that simply weren't even thought yet alone implied.

There is no way to "win" this argument. One side is right and the other is wrong. It's that simple. I look at it based on probabilities. Either side could be right. But an analysis of the available facts weighs heavily towards the 'no demolitions' side of the discussion.

What's your take on WTC7 then?

My take is that it happened similarly to how NIST described. No demolitions were necessary. If any blame can be applied, blame it on the actual structural design which left it susceptible to such an unlikely scenario. The failure of a single column should never allow the structural integrity of a building to be undermined.

 

[alkemyst]

I'm am claiming to have enough of a grasp of the information to make an informed decision. You are making the very same mistake that you accuse me of - inserting things that weren't even thought let alone implied.

I really can't argue with a guy that can do LASIK because he read and wrote the manual.

It doesn't matter whether or not you claimed that. It's simply a description of what happened. Jets DID crash into the towers. No jet crashed into WTC7, yet people are suppose to believe, according to the truthers, that was part of this grand plan to cover up demolition of WTC7. It's silly on the face of it.

See here is the point. I never said the jets were there for a cover up...yet I am already labelled a truther because I am wondering if there is more on it.

There is no way to "win" this argument. One side is right and the other is wrong. It's that simple. I look at it based on probabilities. Either side could be right. But an analysis of the available facts weighs heavily towards the 'no demolitions' side of the discussion.

hmm there is no right or wrong though...what's the two choices? This is what you and others are not getting. It doesn't always have to be black and white.

My take is that it happened similarly to how NIST described. No demolitions were necessary. If any blame can be applied, blame it on the actual structural design which left it susceptible to such an unlikely scenario. The failure of a single column should never allow the structural integrity of a building to be undermined.

So all three buildings had the same write up you are saying...you don't find it interesting they didn't research WTC7 like they do normal building failures? It's built much the same way the surrounding buildings are. This is the kind of thing I am curious about.

I am also willing to bet that for every 50 people that say they read everything only 1 probably did and out of 50 of those maybe 2-3 had the background to understand it truly.

 

[BeauJangles]

Here is your method for debate:

1) pick a derogatory term to attempt to discount the other party, rinse and repeat: 'Twuther' 'Twuther' 'Twuther' neener neener neener

2) respond to statement with words and comments the other never said as you know you have nothing concrete to add...this will ensure the epic win!

I never said I have an full opinion on why the main two towers fell. I said let's just say the jets did create that 'perfect storm' that allowed them to fall.

I have a problem with WTC7 and the historical significance that was majorly ignored.

That is my point. I still haven't formulated any opinion that there were explosives or whatever.

Are you even interested in discussion or just here to call out 'twuthers'?

Are you here to present a complete theory as to how and why the towers fell? It's been nine years and I'd say, by now, it's a pretty good starting point because right now what we have are the folks with the complete story (Da Guberment) versus the people who spend all their time trying to poke holes in the stories and claiming, "aha the government MUST have done it because":
a) This one guy who was interviewed minutes after the blast says so.
b) Because I found this shred of evidence that has tons of other explanations, but I'll stick to the one that makes no sense whatsoever.
c) This incredibly scientific youtube video doesn't have anything to do with the point I'm trying to make, but I'm going to post it anyway.
d) This incredibly scientific youtube video that I've presented is anything but scientific.
e) There is this regurgitated theory that I'm going to spew out there, even though it makes no sense and even though there is a mountain of evidence against it.
f) Any or all of the above in some cacophony of stupid.

Look, people have a right to ask questions, but when they've already formed an opinion and spend the rest of their time cherry-picking the evidence to find the shreds that may (or may not) support it, that's where this conversation gets out of hand.

Here's what frustrates me. There will NEVER be an explanation that explains how every particle of every bit of matter from the World Trade Center wound up in a certain place at a certain time. It won't happen. The event is catastrophically huge and involves two of the largest buildings on the planet. The best we can do (and anyone has done) is gather all the evidence and create models. These models are nothing but approximations of reality. They do not represent what really happened.

Think about it this way. Every 10 years the US conducts the Census which involves tens of thousands of people and billions of man-hours all attempting to count every person that lives in the country. Even with all that work, nobody can tell you exactly how many people live in the country. Shit, nobody can tell you how many people live in your neighborhood. The same goes for the World Trade Center. Nobody is going to ever present a unified theory of everything concerning the WTC. No theory will explain exactly why at 10:04 pm a window on the south side of the tower, sixty-five stories below the impact suddenly shattered.

 

[BeauJangles]

I really can't argue with a guy that can do LASIK because he read and wrote the manual.

So all three buildings had the same write up you are saying...you don't find it interesting they didn't research WTC7 like they do normal building failures? It's built much the same way the surrounding buildings are. This is the kind of thing I am curious about.

I am also willing to bet that for every 50 people that say they read everything only 1 probably did and out of 50 of those maybe 2-3 had the background to understand it truly.

Don't make it sound like the NIST report is some incredibly dense tome designed to confuse the lay-person into believing that the government is right. It is a fairly approachable, well-organized, and clearly written theory on what happened at Ground Zero.

To understand the math behind their models, to truly comprehend the theories that have produced the evidence takes some knowledge, but any person can read, and digest, the NIST report.


Right off the bat I'm going to say that you're probably one of those 50 people who claims to have read the report, but never really bothered. WTC7 was NOT like any other building near it. It wasn't originally designed to be as tall as it stood and it was built over a power substation, which made its structural support really different than most buildings. Come on, that's in the first thirty pages.

 

[alkemyst]

Don't make it sound like the NIST report is some incredibly dense tome designed to confuse the lay-person into believing that the government is right. It is a fairly approachable, well-organized, and clearly written theory on what happened at Ground Zero.

To understand the math behind their models, to truly comprehend the theories that have produced the evidence takes some knowledge, but any person can read, and digest, the NIST report.


Right off the bat I'm going to say that you're probably one of those 50 people who claims to have read the report, but never really bothered. WTC7 was NOT like any other building near it. It wasn't originally designed to be as tall as it stood and it was built over a power substation, which made its structural support really different than most buildings. Come on, that's in the first thirty pages.

First, I don't categorize any one item as 'the government'.

Second, people can barely read and write at an 8th grade level and you think they understand basic construction and physics.

To your other post, I am not going to make up some belief of what I "think" happened. That's all most have done and in the end sided with the 'official' story because it was official, not because they researched to get there.

What I am looking into now is more info on the WTC7. There really isn't much out there about it in detail.

 

[BeauJangles]

First, I don't categorize any one item as 'the government'.

Second, people can barely read and write at an 8th grade level and you think they understand basic construction and physics.

To your other post, I am not going to make up some belief of what I "think" happened. That's all most have done and in the end sided with the 'official' story because it was official, not because they researched to get there.

What I am looking into now is more info on the WTC7. There really isn't much out there about it in detail.

Why not read the report? They have an eight page summary of how the building was constructed. Wait, I mean you've already read the report so you must know this... or something.

As to the rest, anybody with a decent education can follow the NIST report and their lines of thinking and logic. I'm not saying that people can just go out and do their experiments (youtube is a prime example of why morons doing science is a failure), but I AM saying that the report isn't some grand mystery that can only be decoded by The Ancients when they descend from the Timesphere.

People should read the damned thing. Often the answers to the questions they ask in these threads are already answered in the report.

 

[alkemyst]

I have read the 56 page report on the WTC7 quite a few times now. I am not buying a layman can even understand the drawings. I am not buying they understand what the claims of a 600C temperature threshold and beyond really mean. I am not buying they understand what it means when a 47 story building falls in 6.5 seconds. I am not buying they understand why none of the actual steel was even fucking tested physically.

What is your take on the NIST's WTC7 report? Also are you really buying American Engineers decided to make a building over a sub-station weaker or it somehow passed by just going with the original design? In that very report you are referencing they talk about the reinforcements. Why did it take 7 years to come up with such a lacking report?

Also I just got your whole 'youtube' thing. I am not using any of youtube at all. There are quite a few decent papers out there at colleges and other engineering circles.

 

[LunarRay]

My NIST "Final Report of the collapse of WTC 7" is 130 pages long... including all the stuff at the back...
I probably should get this 56 page one too... Do you have a title for it?

 

[BeauJangles]

What is your take on the NIST's WTC7 report? Also are you really buying American Engineers decided to make a building over a sub-station weaker or it somehow passed by just going with the original design? In that very report you are referencing they talk about the reinforcements. Why did it take 7 years to come up with such a lacking report?

Honest to god I wish I knew what you were talking about. Are you now disputing that there was a power substation under WTC 7 and that the substation was built specifically to have a skyscraper erected over it?

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

Please read section 1.

 

[alkemyst]

My NIST "Final Report of the collapse of WTC 7" is 130 pages long... including all the stuff at the back...
I probably should get this 56 page one too... Do you have a title for it?

My error. Opened a bookmark to get the pages...it was an interm report.

Direct link is http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

 

[alkemyst]

Honest to god I wish I knew what you were talking about. Are you now disputing that there was a power substation under WTC 7 and that the substation was built specifically to have a skyscraper erected over it?

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

Please read section 1.

huh again see my post above. You are playing the discredit with something I never said.

There was a substation, they originally planned a building on top of it.

WTC7 was biggest than originally planned and the substructure was fortified.

Do you think they'd have let it be built on an improper foundation?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I really can't argue with a guy that can do LASIK because he read and wrote the manual.

lol. That's generally the sort of disdain that technical writers receive on the job. We are a misunderstood lot.

See here is the point. I never said the jets were there for a cover up...yet I am already labelled a truther because I am wondering if there is more on it.

The point is that I didn't base my statement on what you personally said. My statement was a general observation intended for someone to explain the logistic discrepancies involved.

hmm there is no right or wrong though...what's the two choices? This is what you and others are not getting. It doesn't always have to be black and white.

In this discussion it is completely black and white. Either there was a conspiracy or their wasn't. There is no in-between regarding the issue.

So all three buildings had the same write up you are saying...you don't find it interesting they didn't research WTC7 like they do normal building failures? It's built much the same way the surrounding buildings are. This is the kind of thing I am curious about.

How often does NIST research conspiracies about demolitions? What, exactly, is abnormal?

As I pointed out previously, NIST is not a law enforcement agency. Their job is to look at a collapse and create standards and codes for future projects that help buildings to remain standing. They don't write standards or codes that address buildings that might have been surreptitiously planted with demolitions by ninjas that never left a single trace of their visits.

I am also willing to bet that for every 50 people that say they read everything only 1 probably did and out of 50 of those maybe 2-3 had the background to understand it truly.

That's very likely to be true. And those who don't really have a clue will eventually get weeded out in this debate.

 

[LunarRay]

Being one of them numbskulls what read the NIST report(s) and still didn't get the answers I expected... I wondered if the questions were so ill worded that they begged the answers given or that we encountered a non denial denial... An Example follows from an 8/30/2006 FAQ that NIST provided.


"13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)&#8212;who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards&#8212;found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."

The above question, I believe, was ment to inquire into the pools of molten steel at the base, running in channels as per credible witness statements and the odd bits of stuff that were termed 'meteor' by NY Times as indicative of a very high heat source present and that it most likely had to be other than what would be from the plane crash and resulting fires... IE, some kind of Thermite type gizmo...

EDIT: Actually, I liked the answer given in the video often referred to... where the guy said basically that there was no evidence of molten steel...

 

[alkemyst]

lol. That's generally the sort of disdain that technical writers receive on the job. We are a misunderstood lot.

I do technical writing...not my main job function, but seriously that doesn't make you proficient in the subject matter. This is like a collector of swords thinking he is Musashi or something.

In this discussion it is completely black and white. Either there was a conspiracy or their wasn't. There is no in-between regarding the issue.

There was definitely a conspiracy between the men on those 4 planes though. I don't think most people are looking for was it the "government" or not...but who was ultimately responsible and who was ultimately involved.

How often does NIST research conspiracies about demolitions? What, exactly, is abnormal?

As I pointed out previously, NIST is not a law enforcement agency. Their job is to look at a collapse and create standards and codes for future projects that help buildings to remain standing. They don't write standards or codes that address buildings that might have been surreptitiously planted with demolitions by ninjas that never left a single trace of their visits.

The problem is their lack investigation/testing really in such a major event and how little was done to preserve evidence.

You need to look outside just the WTC event to see this. There have been other buildings that burned longer and more intensely and have better write ups.

That's very likely to be true. And those who don't really have a clue will eventually get weeded out in this debate.

not really because time has proven facts aren't really what drives any argument...not only here but anywhere. Once the masses believe something they will stand behind it and even provide eye witness accounts of things that never happened yet they believe they did.

 

[alkemyst]

Being one of them numbskulls what read the NIST report(s) and still didn't get the answers I expected... I wondered if the questions were so ill worded that they begged the answers given or that we encountered a non denial denial... An Example follows from an 8/30/2006 FAQ that NIST provided.


"13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."

The above question, I believe, was ment to inquire into the pools of molten steel at the base, running in channels as per credible witness statements and the odd bits of stuff that were termed 'meteor' by NY Times as indicative of a very high heat source present and that it most likely had to be other than what would be from the plane crash and resulting fires... IE, some kind of Thermite type gizmo...

EDIT: Actually, I liked the answer given in the video often referred to... where the guy said basically that there was no evidence of molten steel...

This is one of those bits that I didn't get either. In one case they say temps inside the towers reached high enough to melt the steel, yet then say it didn't happen until it was smoldering a while.

The problem is most readers see the first statement and will believe it..then the latter and think that's ok. Being able to put multiple facts together is something most feel they can do but in testing they lack it usually at higher levels.

This is why a lot of psych panels ask the same similar question quite a few times. They know most that are lying about their answers will be caught once they get past their capacity to follow.

 

[xj0hnx]

"13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."

The above question, I believe, was ment to inquire into the pools of molten steel at the base, running in channels as per credible witness statements and the odd bits of stuff that were termed 'meteor' by NY Times as indicative of a very high heat source present and that it most likely had to be other than what would be from the plane crash and resulting fires... IE, some kind of Thermite type gizmo...

EDIT: Actually, I liked the answer given in the video often referred to... where the guy said basically that there was no evidence of molten steel...

Right. This is one of the pictures originally used in that argument that there was molten steel ...

It was later retracted because those guys would practically be standing in molten steel. Work lights for the win.

 

[Number1]

The problem is most readers see the first statement and will believe it..then the latter and think that's ok. Being able to put multiple facts together is something most feel they can do but in testing they lack it usually at higher levels.

I love how you frame the debate where only a few, like yourself can understand what really happened as detailed in the NIST report. As if this was relevant.
What is relevant is the conclusion and the fact it was accepted by the international scientific community.

No credible organization has challenged the conclusions.

That is all that matter.

 

[xj0hnx]

The problem is most readers see the first statement and will believe it..then the latter and think that's ok. Being able to put multiple facts together is something most feel they can do but in testing they lack it usually at higher levels.

The problem is people taking the predisposed idea that the government did it, and then try to fit facts about the event to fit their preconceived notion, instead of looking at what happened, and try to figure out how it happen without a conclusion already formed.