What brought down WTC7

[Number1]

The truth is simple. I saw the planes hit the buildings. I saw the buildings burn. I saw the buildings fall. It does not get more real then that.

I concluded that the planes brought the buildings down.


But the twuthers keep telling me that's not what happened. They tell me the government set this up using countless agents of darkness to further some dementedly evil plot to justify wars in far away countries. Not an ounce of evidence has ever been found, 9 years later, to substantiate any of these allegations but that's what they want their truth to be.

Then the OP, supremely confident, arrogant, zealous as a fundamentalist preacher, tell me I base my conclusions on faith!

FAITH!!! he says


FUCK YOU OP, FUCK YOU ALL TWUTHERS!! There is nothing you can tel me that will change what I saw. You will not explain the truth away.

Twuther's truth is a fools truth. A truth designed to profit many and to satisfy the morbid fantasy of those who like to think the federation is out to get them.

In the end twuthers deserve to be treated like Buz Aldrin handled a conspiracy theorist who was harassing him. Look it up on Google. :laugh:

I see NOTHING legitimate about the twuther movement.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Moon beam,

Why does it have to be one or the other?

why not??
It would be way too easy if it could --which it cannot--be both!!

The evidence suggests only one possibility while the anomalies remain. Rid the anomalies and we are left with one single simple cause of everything... A terrorist attack...

Not related, imo, is who knew what and when did they know it.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Moon beam,

Why does it have to be one or the other?

why not??
It would be way too easy if it could --which it cannot--be both!!

The evidence suggests only one possibility while the anomalies remain. Rid the anomalies and we are left with one single simple cause of everything... A terrorist attack...

Not related, imo, is who knew what and when did they know it.

Use the balance and place the anomalies on one side and the rest on the other side and tell me witch side will the balance tip.

That's what the justice system is based on and that's good enough for me.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1

I see NOTHING legitimate about the twuther movement.

You are dressed in Moonbeam's clown outfit... now what? Edit: ok, you back to you again.. hehehe

If you prove one plane you proved all planes. IF you prove one collapse you probably can prove all collapses... Probably!..

I can't find anywhere the counter math to the NIST math. I read all I can stand to read from Authors debating Scientists and Engineers making models that don't scale... to well, I've read just about everything... and I can't see the notion government caused it. I do see them anomalies here and there but they are not evidence that government did it.. they are anomalies...
WTC 7 collapse is an anomaly to me... I'd love to solve that one but I can't yet.

Has anyone seen how the facade was attached to the exterior vertical support columns.. aside from the NIST or FEMA blurb on that issue? I've seen them already... The drawings or some authoritative thing?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Moon beam,

Why does it have to be one or the other?

why not??
It would be way too easy if it could --which it cannot--be both!!

The evidence suggests only one possibility while the anomalies remain. Rid the anomalies and we are left with one single simple cause of everything... A terrorist attack...

Not related, imo, is who knew what and when did they know it.

The anomalies mean nothing to me so long as the cover up is so good. They mean nothing because they lead nowhere. Nobody to punish, nobody to bring to justice, nobody by nobody anywhere. Might as well call it an act of God cause the evidence for the termite folk is of the same nature as the proof of God. The buildings were demolished by invisible beings. OK so what? Why not just assume that the any anomaly is just that, and anomaly for which we have no scientific explanation because our science isn't good enough or how we look at the data induces a self confusion?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1

Use the balance and place the anomalies on one side and the rest on the other side and tell me witch side will the balance tip.

That's what the justice system is based on and that's good enough for me.

That is correct regarding our Justice System. Even if you use the strictest threshold of beyond reasonable doubt a reasonable person would conclude as you do... I fully agree!

I'm the sort of person that wonders about stuff... Stuff that would otherwise generate reasonable doubt... I like stuff in nice neat packages with bows all nicely binding it together....

Our system does not proclaim a defendent to be innocent... it is Guilty or Not-Guilty... did the State prove its case... At this point I'd say yes... So, go ahead and convict but I'll see if there is something, some rock unturned that goes to overturning that verdict..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

The anomalies mean nothing to me so long as the cover up is so good. They mean nothing because they lead nowhere. Nobody to punish, nobody to bring to justice, nobody by nobody anywhere. Might as well call it an act of God cause the evidence for the termite folk is of the same nature as the proof of God. The buildings were demolished by invisible beings. OK so what? Why not just assume that the any anomaly is just that, and anomaly for which we have no scientific explanation because our science isn't good enough or how we look at the data induces a self confusion?

We are not talking about stuff that I've reason to be able to dismiss stuff. We are talking about stuff that I labor to follow... So I don't know or am not able to simply dismiss stuff like you all can. You want to talk about stuff in the context of my somewhat expertise... that would be different. I know what is relevant and what is not. Not here, though...

I am --- and for the gazillionth time --- only stuck on WTC 7's collapse... not that it has a bearing on the evidence of any thing else related to 9/11.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Number1

Use the balance and place the anomalies on one side and the rest on the other side and tell me witch side will the balance tip.

That's what the justice system is based on and that's good enough for me.

That is correct regarding our Justice System. Even if you use the strictest threshold of beyond reasonable doubt a reasonable person would conclude as you do... I fully agree!

I'm the sort of person that wonders about stuff... Stuff that would otherwise generate reasonable doubt... I like stuff in nice neat packages with bows all nicely binding it together....

Our system does not proclaim a defendent to be innocent... it is Guilty or Not-Guilty... did the State prove its case... At this point I'd say yes... So, go ahead and convict but I'll see if there is something, some rock unturned that goes to overturning that verdict..

I am happy there are folk like you, smart unbiased folk willing to look deeply. Me, I'm simple and fire is good enough for me.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

I am happy there are folk like you, smart unbiased folk willing to look deeply. Me, I'm simple and fire is good enough for me.

Come come Moonster.... We both know what you know about stuff in this arena. You conclude as you do cuz your mind allows you to do that.. You know what is the extrapolation of this or that... you know where it leads... In your mind the anomalies go no where... even if they point away from the NIST hypothesis.

In my mind after I find an evidence, I then have to figure out how it relates... hehehehehe I have to learn what you already know and I can't take for granted that you are right until I can...
Maybe that is a reason why it is so easy for me to accept God created the universe... Makes what I know I'll never know otherwise so easy to fit into.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Moon beam,

Why does it have to be one or the other?

why not??
It would be way too easy if it could --which it cannot--be both!!

I am glad that you understood my question. Heh Heh.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Number1

Use the balance and place the anomalies on one side and the rest on the other side and tell me witch side will the balance tip.

That's what the justice system is based on and that's good enough for me.

That is correct regarding our Justice System. Even if you use the strictest threshold of beyond reasonable doubt a reasonable person would conclude as you do... I fully agree!

I'm the sort of person that wonders about stuff... Stuff that would otherwise generate reasonable doubt... I like stuff in nice neat packages with bows all nicely binding it together....

Our system does not proclaim a defendent to be innocent... it is Guilty or Not-Guilty... did the State prove its case... At this point I'd say yes... So, go ahead and convict but I'll see if there is something, some rock unturned that goes to overturning that verdict..

I am happy there are folk like you, smart unbiased folk willing to look deeply. Me, I'm simple and fire is good enough for me.

fire hot enough to "vaporize" steel? 15.9 mm to be exact....and from the context of this engineers statement, not as it was in the rubble pile but as it was attached to the column.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10...lues-and-remedies.html

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Number1
The truth is simple. I saw the planes hit the buildings. I saw the buildings burn. I saw the buildings fall. It does not get more real then that.

I concluded that the planes brought the buildings down.


But the twuthers keep telling me that's not what happened. They tell me the government set this up using countless agents of darkness to further some dementedly evil plot to justify wars in far away countries. Not an ounce of evidence has ever been found, 9 years later, to substantiate any of these allegations but that's what they want their truth to be.

Then the OP, supremely confident, arrogant, zealous as a fundamentalist preacher, tell me I base my conclusions on faith!

FAITH!!! he says


FUCK YOU OP, FUCK YOU ALL TWUTHERS!! There is nothing you can tel me that will change what I saw. You will not explain the truth away.

Twuther's truth is a fools truth. A truth designed to profit many and to satisfy the morbid fantasy of those who like to think the federation is out to get them.

In the end twuthers deserve to be treated like Buz Aldrin handled a conspiracy theorist who was harassing him. Look it up on Google. :laugh:

I see NOTHING legitimate about the twuther movement.

what you saw was the end result of alittle "help" to those blazing fires.....extremely hot fires that is. so u can say fires brough it down if u wanna. but not just a hydrocarbon fire.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Abstract
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.


also-
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
http://www.journalof911studies...icles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

fire hot enough to "vaporize" steel? 15.9 mm to be exact....and from the context of this engineers statement, not as it was in the rubble pile but as it was attached to the column.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10...lues-and-remedies.html

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

You do realize that there was plenty of stuff from the planes that could heat that metal up beyond its melting point right there on the floors of the building... magnesium for instance, in the planes? I'd expect a magnesium burn to act upon steel or anything it was in contact with consistent with what our good Dr found. Not sure what he meant by vaporize.. or if a mag wheel could replicate what he found but I think it will.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
what you saw was the end result of alittle "help" to those blazing fires.....extremely hot fires that is. so u can say fires brough it down if u wanna. but not just a hydrocarbon fire.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

For the sake of argument is there a reasonable argument that the Towers, the aircraft that hit them and the contents of all four, WTC 7 and the stuff inside it, could provide the very same substance as was found and was all aspects of the Thermate etc. found... I understand Barium was not found in the dust.. and should have been?

Edit: iow, is there but one and only one explanation to what was found. AND if some of what needed being found to be evidence of something was not does that not weaken the argument that it existed?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: event8horizon

fire hot enough to "vaporize" steel? 15.9 mm to be exact....and from the context of this engineers statement, not as it was in the rubble pile but as it was attached to the column.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10...lues-and-remedies.html

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

You do realize that there was plenty of stuff from the planes that could heat that metal up beyond its melting point right there on the floors of the building... magnesium for instance, in the planes? I'd expect a magnesium burn to act upon steel or anything it was in contact with consistent with what our good Dr found. Not sure what he meant by vaporize.. or if a mag wheel could replicate what he found but I think it will.

the steel that he is talking about was from wtc 7.......no plane there. but i think you are the first to bring up magnesium!! haha

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: event8horizon


the steel that he is talking about was from wtc 7.......no plane there. but i think you are the first to bring up magnesium!! haha

I brought it up earlier on regarding some melting stuff dripping from the tower impact floor.. Planes have magnesium in them...

Assuming The Dr. is certain he was dealing with WTC 7 steel and that he is certain of his analysis It might be another of them anomalies unless the steel burned after building collapsed in the rubble and was bent by the heat and pressure of the debris and the vaporizing agent was there in WTC 7 or met the steel he examined subsequent to the collapse as well...

I seem to remember pools of molten stuff under or near '7' as well... could be from the Con Ed stuff there...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Number1

Use the balance and place the anomalies on one side and the rest on the other side and tell me witch side will the balance tip.

That's what the justice system is based on and that's good enough for me.

That is correct regarding our Justice System. Even if you use the strictest threshold of beyond reasonable doubt a reasonable person would conclude as you do... I fully agree!

I'm the sort of person that wonders about stuff... Stuff that would otherwise generate reasonable doubt... I like stuff in nice neat packages with bows all nicely binding it together....

Our system does not proclaim a defendent to be innocent... it is Guilty or Not-Guilty... did the State prove its case... At this point I'd say yes... So, go ahead and convict but I'll see if there is something, some rock unturned that goes to overturning that verdict..

I am happy there are folk like you, smart unbiased folk willing to look deeply. Me, I'm simple and fire is good enough for me.

fire hot enough to "vaporize" steel? 15.9 mm to be exact....and from the context of this engineers statement, not as it was in the rubble pile but as it was attached to the column.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10...lues-and-remedies.html

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

I have wondered for years, as the piece in question was viewed on the back of a truck, on its way to a dump, how the good doctor was able to ascertain that it came from WTC7? The damage is more like with what you might expect in WTC1 or 2.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: event8horizon



the steel that he is talking about was from wtc 7.......no plane there. but i think you are the first to bring up magnesium!! haha

Don't you find it odd that the only source for this info always leads to only one story,,,that it can't be sourced beyond that.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I have wondered for years, as the piece in question was viewed on the back of a truck, on its way to a dump, how the good doctor was able to ascertain that it came from WTC7? The damage is more like with what you might expect in WTC1 or 2.

I think every bit of the steel in the Towers had an ID on it to its exact location but perhaps it was the bit burned or melted off.. the steel from '7' had no such markings...
I'm uncertain if ALL steel was marked but seem to recall even the flooring stuff did.. to insure proper location by the folks installing it..

IT could have been building 3, 4, 5 or 6 steel too... gee.. or Verizon's building and that 'hall' behind '7'

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: event8horizon



the steel that he is talking about was from wtc 7.......no plane there. but i think you are the first to bring up magnesium!! haha

Don't you find it odd that the only source for this info always leads to only one story,,,that it can't be sourced beyond that.

why odd? there are other stories describing wtc 7 steel. so its not odd at all. notice the "extraordianrily high temps" he mentions. also see the fema bpat report appendix c for more info regarding "swiss cheese" steel from wtc 7. and of coarse we have the "free fall", just put one and one together. temps that "vaporized" 15.9 mm of steel before the building collapsed, and freefall.........what does that equal. and remember what sunder said about freefall.

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11...rade.html?pagewanted=2

 

[LunarRay]

During 'Racing Season' at Del Mar, I watched this fellow take a rather hot 'coal' fire and turn it into a really white hot one by hitting this billow thingi... made the metal really white hot.. or appear that way then he took a hammer or mallet and turned it into a custom shoe for a horsey. I think he had coals burning in the ummmm sorta pot thingi.. but they sure did make that steel bend like it was really soft.

I asked him why the pot thingi didn't melt too... he shook his head and said I don't know but it don't.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: event8horizon


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11...rade.html?pagewanted=2

Ayup, just like this story. It is speculation, as was later ascertained, when the bulk of the diesel fuel was recovered.

How do you discount possible (political) manipulation of the facts when you search for your truth?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: event8horizon


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11...rade.html?pagewanted=2

Ayup, just like this story. It is speculation, as was later ascertained, when the bulk of the diesel fuel was recovered.

How do you discount possible (political) manipulation of the facts when you search for your truth?

Would that mean that from the time of the event start until the fuel recovery that the heat needed to explode? or what ever it would have done, never got to the fuel where ever it was... ?

And, it comes to mind that the building did collapse so where did these fuel tanks end up.. in the pool of molten steel? or nearby... or well... there was one up on the 23rd floor.. I guess that floated down....

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: event8horizon


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11...rade.html?pagewanted=2

Ayup, just like this story. It is speculation, as was later ascertained, when the bulk of the diesel fuel was recovered.

How do you discount possible (political) manipulation of the facts when you search for your truth?

speculation.....ummmm ok. did u read the fema bpat report appendix c. there is no speculation that something turned a36 steel from wtc 7 into "swiss cheese".

http://911research.wtc7.net/wt...allurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm


as for the political manipulation. maybe you forgot to read my link a few pages back:

NIST and Scientific Fraud


With regard to the question of science: Far from being supported by good science, NIST?s report repeatedly makes its case by resorting to scientific fraud.

Before going into details, let me point out that, if NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with ?distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.? By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. [10]

Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been ?fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,? with the result that scientists working for NIST ?lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ?hired guns.??11 Referring in particular to NIST?s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget---?an arm of the Executive Office of the President,? which ?had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST?s] work.? [12]

One of the general principles of scientific work is that its conclusions must not be dictated by nonscientific concerns ? in other words, by any concern other than that of discovering the truth. This former NIST employee?s statement gives us reason to suspect that NIST, while preparing its report on WTC 7, would have been functioning as a political, not a scientific, agency. The amount of fraud in this report suggests that this was indeed the case.

According to the National Science Foundation, the major types of scientific fraud are fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. There is no sign that NIST is guilty of plagiarism, but it is certainly guilty of fabrication, which can be defined as ?making up results,? and falsification, which means either ?changing or omitting data.? [13]

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been ?fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,? with the result that scientists working for NIST ?lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ?hired guns.??11 Referring in particular to NIST?s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget---?an arm of the Executive Office of the President,? which ?had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST?s] work.?

Well... NIST is under Commerce but OMB... not sure why they'd have a veto but expect NSA might have an interest in what went out... well.. maybe not NSA.. but Security Adviser to the President might, Dr Rice. Maybe they meant the National Security Adviser.

I think I remember a tape of Johnson talking to Warren about heading a Commission into the Assassanation of JFK... He said it HAD to be seen that it was an unbiased investigation and who better than the Chief Justice to insure that...
This event never did seem to come up to that level of interest... guess cuz everyone saw the planes hit... It is obvious.