911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[Faun]

your assertions are based on a false premise.

Thank you ever so much for your OPINION, note that it is not a matter of opinion that the WTC wall was composed of > 2/3 steel by area. You may dispute this, but you would be wrong.

Also the quantity of jet fuel alleged to have burned in the towers has insufficient energy to cause the destruction of the towers.

and without actually looking at the blueprints of the WTC, somebody sez
"the wall was mostly glass" and when the allegation is proven wrong.
I get attacked for presenting the info that the wall was > 2/3 steel.
WHAT?
and additionally the opposition can not provide an explanation that satisfies the conditions, that is the observation that WTC7 fell at free fall and kept its shape while descending straight down.

Umm ... whom here, besides you, said, "the wall was mostly glass?"

The sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows, were they not?

From post # 879 of this thread and there are others if one but looks. This is one of the cornerstone arguments for the alleged "FLT175" being able to penetrate the wall in the manner observed. and its WRONG.
the wall is > 2/3 steel by area. Its in the blueprints, I'm not going to list a link because the links are in abundance and even in the infamous Prof. Tomasz Wierzbicki paper on the crash mechanics he at least gets the dimensions of the steel in the WTC wall(s) correct.

Nowhere in post #879 is the claim made that the walls were mostly glass.

You lied.

 

[n0spam4me]

The sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows, were they not?

How does one read this and NOT interpret that the writer was attempting to maximize the perception of window area over that of the steel structure?

Bottom line here is that the wall(s) of the WTC skyscrapers had very substantial steel structure to them and the backing by steel reinforced concrete decks at 3.6 meter intervals in the structure. Considering the fact that the aircraft body of the alleged attacking airliner was 5 meters in diameter, the aircraft would have a considerable amount of steel to break before the aircraft could penetrate the wall.

Note that in the case of actually calculating the stress to the aircraft,
Lets go with an expenditure of aprox 120,000,000 joules of energy out of the total KE of the aircraft 3,658,000,000 joules and if that expenditure of energy were to happen in the first meter of penetration, then the calculated g forces on the aircraft = 80g, therefore the 5 ton jet engines would exert a force of 400 tons upon the mounts, no aircraft ever flown could survive such forces. the aircraft would have to break up before having a chance to make the wing shaped gash in the wall.

 

[Faun]

The sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows, were they not?

How does one read this and NOT interpret that the writer was attempting to maximize the perception of window area over that of the steel structure?

Bottom line here is that the wall(s) of the WTC skyscrapers had very substantial steel structure to them and the backing by steel reinforced concrete decks at 3.6 meter intervals in the structure. Considering the fact that the aircraft body of the alleged attacking airliner was 5 meters in diameter, the aircraft would have a considerable amount of steel to break before the aircraft could penetrate the wall.

Note that in the case of actually calculating the stress to the aircraft,
Lets go with an expenditure of aprox 120,000,000 joules of energy out of the total KE of the aircraft 3,658,000,000 joules and if that expenditure of energy were to happen in the first meter of penetration, then the calculated g forces on the aircraft = 80g, therefore the 5 ton jet engines would exert a force of 400 tons upon the mounts, no aircraft ever flown could survive such forces. the aircraft would have to break up before having a chance to make the wing shaped gash in the wall.

Even you know no such statement was made. Otherwise, you wouldn't have altered his statement from "the sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows" ... to ... "the wall was mostly glass." No one in this thread said those words except for you; and even worse for your credibility -- you put those words in quotation marks as though you were quoting someone else verbatim.

You're a fucking liar.

 

[n0spam4me]

The sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows, were they not?

How does one read this and NOT interpret that the writer was attempting to maximize the perception of window area over that of the steel structure?

Bottom line here is that the wall(s) of the WTC skyscrapers had very substantial steel structure to them and the backing by steel reinforced concrete decks at 3.6 meter intervals in the structure. Considering the fact that the aircraft body of the alleged attacking airliner was 5 meters in diameter, the aircraft would have a considerable amount of steel to break before the aircraft could penetrate the wall.

Note that in the case of actually calculating the stress to the aircraft,
Lets go with an expenditure of aprox 120,000,000 joules of energy out of the total KE of the aircraft 3,658,000,000 joules and if that expenditure of energy were to happen in the first meter of penetration, then the calculated g forces on the aircraft = 80g, therefore the 5 ton jet engines would exert a force of 400 tons upon the mounts, no aircraft ever flown could survive such forces. the aircraft would have to break up before having a chance to make the wing shaped gash in the wall.

Even you know no such statement was made. Otherwise, you wouldn't have altered his statement from "the sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows" ... to ... "the wall was mostly glass." No one in this thread said those words except for you; and even worse for your credibility -- you put those words in quotation marks As though you were quoting someone else verbatim.

You're a fucking liar.

Your opinion is NOT relevant here,
also did you notice the calculations, first the quantity of jet fuel was insufficient to raise the temperature of the steel by any stretch of the imagination such that it was in any danger of weakening. and also calculations as to the stress upon the aircraft at initial contact with the wall. Do you dispute any of these calculations and if so how do you support your case?

 

[Faun]

The sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows, were they not?

How does one read this and NOT interpret that the writer was attempting to maximize the perception of window area over that of the steel structure?

Bottom line here is that the wall(s) of the WTC skyscrapers had very substantial steel structure to them and the backing by steel reinforced concrete decks at 3.6 meter intervals in the structure. Considering the fact that the aircraft body of the alleged attacking airliner was 5 meters in diameter, the aircraft would have a considerable amount of steel to break before the aircraft could penetrate the wall.

Note that in the case of actually calculating the stress to the aircraft,
Lets go with an expenditure of aprox 120,000,000 joules of energy out of the total KE of the aircraft 3,658,000,000 joules and if that expenditure of energy were to happen in the first meter of penetration, then the calculated g forces on the aircraft = 80g, therefore the 5 ton jet engines would exert a force of 400 tons upon the mounts, no aircraft ever flown could survive such forces. the aircraft would have to break up before having a chance to make the wing shaped gash in the wall.

Even you know no such statement was made. Otherwise, you wouldn't have altered his statement from "the sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows" ... to ... "the wall was mostly glass." No one in this thread said those words except for you; and even worse for your credibility -- you put those words in quotation marks As though you were quoting someone else verbatim.

You're a fucking liar.

Your opinion is NOT relevant here,
also did you notice the calculations, first the quantity of jet fuel was insufficient to raise the temperature of the steel by any stretch of the imagination such that it was in any danger of weakening. and also calculations as to the stress upon the aircraft at initial contact with the wall. Do you dispute any of these calculations and if so how do you support your case?

It's not my opinion, ya fruit loop dingus. You posted a quote as though someone said that; when in fact, no one said that but you.

You're a fucking liar.

 

[n0spam4me]

So nobody wants to actually discuss the facts about why there could not possibly have been hijacked airliners used as weapons. Thank U very much!

 

[Capstone]

And glaringly absent from every one of those videos is the sight and sound of and explosives and/or thermite. ...

At least a couple of possible explosions can be heard between 0:46 and 0:50 (one near the onset of descent and another large one about half way down).

Of course, with the much quieter incendiary doing the lion's share of the work from deep inside the building (where its audio and visual effects would have been muffled and masked), the need for straight-up explosives would have been greatly diminished.

Having said that, the structure itself exhibited all the visual characteristics of a classic bottom-up controlled demolition, from the visible kink to the highly symmetrical drop into its own footprint, as corroborated by the eyewitness accounts between 5:30 - 6:06 and 6:46 - 7:00, as well as by some of the media commentators (most notably Peter Jennings and Dan Rather).

...And of course, while it is known much of the interior collapsed prior to the facade, it is unknown how extensively that critically damaged the building's supporting columns.

Well, this much we know for sure: no matter how extensive the pre-"collapse" internal/external damage that could have possibly been caused by the forces at work in a fire-induced progressive collapse, it could NOT have been great enough to completely circumvent the physical resistance from more than 8 stories worth of internal and external building materials. That's why the two and a quarter seconds of freefall are proof positive that the official explanation is a farce.

 

[Faun]

And glaringly absent from every one of those videos is the sight and sound of and explosives and/or thermite. ...

At least a couple of possible explosions can be heard between 0:46 and 0:50 (one near the onset of descent and another large one about half way down).

Of course, with the much quieter incendiary doing the lion's share of the work from deep inside the building (where its audio and visual effects would have been muffled and masked), the need for straight-up explosives would have been greatly diminished.

Having said that, the structure itself exhibited all the visual characteristics of a classic bottom-up controlled demolition, from the visible kink to the highly symmetrical drop into its own footprint, as corroborated by the eyewitness accounts between 5:30 - 6:06 and 6:46 - 7:00, as well as by some of the media commentators (most notably Peter Jennings and Dan Rather).

...And of course, while it is known much of the interior collapsed prior to the facade, it is unknown how extensively that critically damaged the building's supporting columns.

Well, this much we know for sure: no matter how extensive the pre-"collapse" internal/external damage that could have possibly been caused by the forces at work in a fire-induced progressive collapse, it could NOT have been great enough to completely circumvent the physical resistance from more than 8 stories worth of internal and external building materials. That's why the two and a quarter seconds of freefall are proof positive that the official explanation is a farce.

Between 0:46 and 0:50 of which video?

And with the interior collapsing of a 47 story building, it could have caused enough damage to 8 of the lower floors to remove resistance from dozens of floors above.

 

[n0spam4me]

And glaringly absent from every one of those videos is the sight and sound of and explosives and/or thermite. ...

At least a couple of possible explosions can be heard between 0:46 and 0:50 (one near the onset of descent and another large one about half way down).

Of course, with the much quieter incendiary doing the lion's share of the work from deep inside the building (where its audio and visual effects would have been muffled and masked), the need for straight-up explosives would have been greatly diminished.

Having said that, the structure itself exhibited all the visual characteristics of a classic bottom-up controlled demolition, from the visible kink to the highly symmetrical drop into its own footprint, as corroborated by the eyewitness accounts between 5:30 - 6:06 and 6:46 - 7:00, as well as by some of the media commentators (most notably Peter Jennings and Dan Rather).

...And of course, while it is known much of the interior collapsed prior to the facade, it is unknown how extensively that critically damaged the building's supporting columns.

Well, this much we know for sure: no matter how extensive the pre-"collapse" internal/external damage that could have possibly been caused by the forces at work in a fire-induced progressive collapse, it could NOT have been great enough to completely circumvent the physical resistance from more than 8 stories worth of internal and external building materials. That's why the two and a quarter seconds of freefall are proof positive that the official explanation is a farce.

Between 0:46 and 0:50 of which video?

And with the interior collapsing of a 47 story building, it could have caused enough damage to 8 of the lower floors to remove resistance from dozens of floors above.

So in your words "it could have caused enough damage.... "
then again it may not have caused enough damage to create the result that was seen. What are the odds that ALL of the structural support would be removed uniformly and all at the same time from under the bit that was seen falling?
We are talking having a pickup truck full of dice and dumping them all out and having ALL of them come up snake eyes!

 

[Capstone]

Between 0:46 and 0:50 of which video?...

You know which video, just as I'm pretty sure you know which noises I'm talking about (although you'll likely claim they're simply the sounds of the "collapse"). Obviously, people from opposing camps will interpret such things differently, which is why I referred to them as "possible explosions".

Whether you accept my interpretation there or not, the point behind posting the video was proven. Footage of the "collapse" from various angles clearly demonstrates the symmetry of descent and shows that it wasn't just a visible feature on the "north face".

...And with the interior collapsing of a 47 story building, it could have caused enough damage to 8 of the lower floors to remove resistance from dozens of floors above.

Either you don't understand what "the removal of resistance" means in this case, or you're purposely trying to obfuscate the meaning of the phrase. We're not just talking about crushed concrete, broken girders, ETC.; we're talking about the absence of physical resistance from a solitary speck of debris from more than 8 floors worth of such stuff. Unless you're suggesting that the office fires had the capacity to completely annihilate every atom of the materials that composed those 8 floors, you must accept that the debris from the damaged areas would have prevented the 105 ft. freefall.

What's more, the symmetry of the "collapse", in conjunction with the distance covered from the onset of freefall to the point at which resistance began to slow the acceleration (approximately 105 ft.), tells us two very important things: first, that around 8 floors (debris and all) were entirely removed from the path of descent, and secondly, that they were taken out simultaneously or in extremely rapid succession (neither of which can be explaind by the fire-induced progressive collapse model).

 

[Faun]

And glaringly absent from every one of those videos is the sight and sound of and explosives and/or thermite. ...

At least a couple of possible explosions can be heard between 0:46 and 0:50 (one near the onset of descent and another large one about half way down).

Of course, with the much quieter incendiary doing the lion's share of the work from deep inside the building (where its audio and visual effects would have been muffled and masked), the need for straight-up explosives would have been greatly diminished.

Having said that, the structure itself exhibited all the visual characteristics of a classic bottom-up controlled demolition, from the visible kink to the highly symmetrical drop into its own footprint, as corroborated by the eyewitness accounts between 5:30 - 6:06 and 6:46 - 7:00, as well as by some of the media commentators (most notably Peter Jennings and Dan Rather).

...And of course, while it is known much of the interior collapsed prior to the facade, it is unknown how extensively that critically damaged the building's supporting columns.

Well, this much we know for sure: no matter how extensive the pre-"collapse" internal/external damage that could have possibly been caused by the forces at work in a fire-induced progressive collapse, it could NOT have been great enough to completely circumvent the physical resistance from more than 8 stories worth of internal and external building materials. That's why the two and a quarter seconds of freefall are proof positive that the official explanation is a farce.

Between 0:46 and 0:50 of which video?

And with the interior collapsing of a 47 story building, it could have caused enough damage to 8 of the lower floors to remove resistance from dozens of floors above.

So in your words "it could have caused enough damage.... "
then again it may not have caused enough damage to create the result that was seen. What are the odds that ALL of the structural support would be removed uniformly and all at the same time from under the bit that was seen falling?
We are talking having a pickup truck full of dice and dumping them all out and having ALL of them come up snake eyes!

How unexpected that the same person who lied about another poster's description of the walls of the Twin Towers; now mischaracterizes the collapse of the interior as just the "bit that was seen falling?"

There was far more visible collapse of the interior than just the east penthouse disappearing from the rooftop. Most of the structure beneath it can be seen affected as explosions from the pressure caused by the collapse can be seen.

Again, as far as how extensive the wreckage caused by that was cannot be known since there was no one to inspect the damage before the remainder of the building fell; but in light of there being no explosives or thermite, there is no alternate explanation.

 

[Faun]

Between 0:46 and 0:50 of which video?...

You know which video, just as I'm pretty sure you know which noises I'm talking about (although you'll likely claim they're simply the sounds of the "collapse"). Obviously, people from opposing camps will interpret such things differently, which is why I referred to them as "possible explosions".

Whether you accept my interpretation there or not, the point behind posting the video was proven. Footage of the "collapse" from various angles clearly demonstrates the symmetry of descent and shows that it wasn't just a visible feature on the "north face".

...And with the interior collapsing of a 47 story building, it could have caused enough damage to 8 of the lower floors to remove resistance from dozens of floors above.

Either you don't understand what "the removal of resistance" means in this case, or you're purposely trying to obfuscate the meaning of the phrase. We're not just talking about crushed concrete, broken girders, ETC.; we're talking about the absence of physical resistance from a solitary speck of debris from more than 8 floors worth of such stuff. Unless you're suggesting that the office fires had the capacity to completely annihilate every atom of the materials that composed those 8 floors, you must accept that the debris from the damaged areas would have prevented the 105 ft. freefall.

What's more, the symmetry of the "collapse", in conjunction with the distance covered from the onset of freefall to the point at which resistance began to slow the acceleration (approximately 105 ft.), tells us two very important things: first, that around 8 floors (debris and all) were entirely removed from the path of descent, and secondly, that they were taken out simultaneously or in extremely rapid succession (neither of which can be explaind by the fire-induced progressive collapse model).

If I knew which video you meant, I wouldn't need to ask you. I'm neither a mind read nor interested in hunting for it. So which video is it?

As far as the rest of your post... it's beyond stupid since thermite cannot "entirely remove" eight floors and again, there is no way of measuring how extensive the damage was following the collapse of the interior. It cannot be ruled out.

 

[Capstone]

If I knew which video you meant, I wouldn't need to ask you. I'm neither a mind read nor interested in hunting for it. So which video is it?...

I must have given you too much credit. My bad.

How's about the only video (compilation though it is) that's embedded in the post you quoted and replied to, in part, as follows:

And glaringly absent from every one of those videos is the sight and sound of and explosives...

...As far as the rest of your post... it's beyond stupid since thermite cannot "entirely remove" eight floors...

...from the path of descent?

In concert with other materials, yes, it could! In fact, it has regularly been used to do just that in building demolitions for many years. It's a major reason why some period of freefall has been a common feature of the many controlled demolitions in which it played a role.

As far as Building 7 was concerned, the thermate would have likely been used to melt down/remove the necessary quantities of the internal supports in advance of the pressure explosives that would later blow material from the external bearing walls out from under the upper majority's path of descent, as evidenced by the uniformity and speed of the "collapse".

...and again, there is no way of measuring how extensive the damage was following the collapse of the interior. It cannot be ruled out.

Yes, it can be ruled out, by virtue of the clearly unnatural symmetry of the "collapse". As pointed out succinctly by noSpam, the prospect that such damage could have naturally occurred in the manner required to account for the observed "collapse"...is so wildly unlikely, that the only thing it deserves more than ridicule is being ruled the fuck out.

 

[Faun]

If I knew which video you meant, I wouldn't need to ask you. I'm neither a mind read nor interested in hunting for it. So which video is it?...

I must have given you too much credit. My bad.

How's about the only video (compilation though it is) that's embedded in the post you quoted and replied to, in part, as follows:

And glaringly absent from every one of those videos is the sight and sound of and explosives...

...As far as the rest of your post... it's beyond stupid since thermite cannot "entirely remove" eight floors...

...from the path of descent?

In concert with other materials, yes, it could! In fact, it has regularly been used to do just that in building demolitions for many years. It's a major reason why some period of freefall has been a common feature of the many controlled demolitions in which it played a role.

As far as Building 7 was concerned, the thermate would have likely been used to melt down/remove the necessary quantities of the internal supports in advance of the pressure explosives that would later blow material from the external bearing walls out from under the upper majority's path of descent, as evidenced by the uniformity and speed of the "collapse".

...and again, there is no way of measuring how extensive the damage was following the collapse of the interior. It cannot be ruled out.

Yes, it can be ruled out, by virtue of the clearly unnatural symmetry of the "collapse". As pointed out succinctly by no Spam, the prospect that such damage could have naturally occurred in the manner required to account for the observed "collapse"...is so wildly unlikely, that the only thing it deserves more than ridicule is being ruled the fuck out.

It figures a Twoofer would resort to an edited video as evidence of their hallucinations. During the 0:46 - 0:50 mark in that video, it's cut so badly, [edit: there] is virtually no delay between the east penthouse collapsing into the interior from the collapse of the facade, which in real time occurred some 7 to 8 seconds later.

Try harder, Twoofer.

The rest of your idiocy is just that. There's no evidence explosives were used. There's no visual evidence or audible evidence. And thermite would at best, cut beams (even that is dubious since there were no such devices available at that time), not "entirely remove" eight floors of the building.

Even worse for your delusions are the improbabilities of such devices either discharging prematurely or not firing at all due to the fires that raged uncontrollably for 7 hours.

What role do your fantasies tell you the firemen on the scene that day played in the conspiracy? You know, the firemen who were recorded speculating the building was going to come down?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Don't need termite or that. Jet A Fuel burns hot enough to melt steel girders, how about we just get back to Islamic extremist again? Same people that are beheading people in the name of some imaginary fantasy?

great fantasys you have that they are hot enough to melt steel girders.

No surprise that's the latest babble from you considering that you also have fantasy that JFK got us into Vietnam and esculated the Vietnam war.

Who says the fires had to be hot enough to melt steel? They didn't have to be anywhere near that hot because all they had to was weaken the steel enough to start the collapse. Jet fuel could easily do that, eliminating a tremendous amount of angst-filled misinformation. See how much simpler things are when you start from a factual basis?

problem with that fantasy was they were not anywhere hot enough to weaken them,they weren't even hot enough to melt a marshmellow let along weaken steel not to mention the laws of physics were violated in their collapse. that's pure fantasy that the fires cause it and wekaend them.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

What? Islam is all up into suicide bombers. Hell. Islam taxes non muslims, There is a muslim concept for that. Islam is all about submission, an not co-existence American liberals masturbate too. Islam isn't about that , shame on Obama. Islam is at war with the free world. Kill cartoonists? Really? Buggs Bunny is a threat to Allah? Islam is weak. Pitiful. Fuck Allah.

It's like talking to a wall.

You're the embodiment of everything that's wrong with our beloved country, Mary.

Good news is: the willful ignorance and hateful mores that seem so prevalent among your generation...are on their way out.

indeed.like you said,mary is just a brick wall that you end up talking with.

 

[Faun]

Don't need termite or that. Jet A Fuel burns hot enough to melt steel girders, how about we just get back to Islamic extremist again? Same people that are beheading people in the name of some imaginary fantasy?

great fantasys you have that they are hot enough to melt steel girders.

No surprise that's the latest babble from you considering that you also have fantasy that JFK got us into Vietnam and esculated the Vietnam war.

Who says the fires had to be hot enough to melt steel? They didn't have to be anywhere near that hot because all they had to was weaken the steel enough to start the collapse. Jet fuel could easily do that, eliminating a tremendous amount of angst-filled misinformation. See how much simpler things are when you start from a factual basis?

problem with that fantasy was they were not anywhere hot enough to weaken them,they weren't even hot enough to melt a marshmellow let along weaken steel not to mention the laws of physics were violated in their collapse. that's pure fantasy that the fires cause it and wekaend them.

Bullshit...

 

[n0spam4me]

Thank U ever so much for that bit of news about the freeway bridge that collapsed. Please think about this, that incident was a single failure, and what we have in the case of WTC7 collapsing is the necessity for HUNDREDS of bits of structure to disappear all at the same time to cause the observed result.

 

[SAYIT]

Who says the fires had to be hot enough to melt steel? They didn't have to be anywhere near that hot because all they had to was weaken the steel enough to start the collapse. Jet fuel could easily do that, eliminating a tremendous amount of angst-filled misinformation. See how much simpler things are when you start from a factual basis?

problem with that fantasy was they were not anywhere hot enough to weaken them,they weren't even hot enough to melt a marshmellow let along weaken steel...

WTC fires were neither hot enough to weaken steel nor "melt a marshmellow?" No wonder even your fellow "Truthers" roll their eyes at your monumental silliness. You are monumentally silly, Princess.

 

[n0spam4me]

Wow man Hyperbole all around, what a CROCK!
The critical bit of data about the whole thing is the manner in witch WTC7 is seen falling, and the news people on TV even commented that it looked just like when an old building is destroyed on purpose.