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

[Capstone]

It figures a Twoofer would resort to an edited video as evidence of their hallucinations. ...

I posted that compilation video as evidence of the symmetry of the "collapse", which is proven thoroughly by the various perspectives of the excerpts used in the compilation. In other words, in order to support the claim I made, it was necessary to appeal to more than one recording. Obviously, using the edited-together compilation was the most efficient way to get the job done. Beyond that, I wonder how realistic it is to expect that any of the 9/11 videos available to amateur researchers haven't been cropped or edited in some way or other over the past 13 years.

Regarding the side issue of the "possible explosions" that can be heard between 0:46 and 0:50...

...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. ...

...yet, despite the missing time, the noises I mentioned can still be heard.

But again, that's a side issue, and as usual, one you've raised without having bothered to address the main issue.

...The rest of your idiocy is just that. There's no evidence explosives were used. There's no visual evidence or audible evidence. ...

Both the observed symmetry and the charted freefall are based on "visual evidence" that supports the CD hypothesis and defeats the fire-induced progressive collapse model in one fell swoop, which further reinforces the common pattern exhibited by several other bodies of evidence, including hundreds of highly credible eyewitness accounts involving a great deal of 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.

I never claimed that thermate was the sole demolition material used on 9/11. In fact, I've always maintained that a smaller amount of more conventional explosives likely played a crucial role in heavily clouding what went on nearer the core columns. The thermate would have worked "in concert" with other materials to "entirely remove" all physical resistance "from the path of descent" (which is something that must have preceded the 105 ft. freefall, whether one believes it was accomplished by explosives or not).

The disingenuous assertion that "there were no such devices available at that time" is cast into doubt by a string of military patents going back to the early 70's. It's been said that the military (not just the US military) often controls access to technology that's up to 30 years ahead of what's available to the general public at any given point in time.

...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. ...

Both of which were likely circumvented by predetermined impact zones that were later ensured by precision RC/laser guidance of the aircraft/drones.

The high ignition temperatures of the demolition materials that were likely used would have been key in safe-guarding against premature detonations, as well.

...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?

Here you go: US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I know it's your style to ignore the aspects of your opponents' arguments for which you apparently have no rebuttals (besides the usual name-calling and the telling efforts to change the subject), but the facts remain: the observed symmetry and charted acceleration of Building 7's "collapse" (with the 2.25 seconds of freefall admitted by NIST) are proof positive that the official explanation is a farce.

 

[Capstone]

Since the permalink feature didn't work properly in my previous post (I know, user error, right?), here's the post to which I intended to link:

The Fire Department of New York had a very different account. They cited the structural damage and most significantly, the fires that raged for most of the day. The FDNY noted the massive structural damage caused by falling pieces of the WTC and put a transit on WTC 7. Over several hours they measured the building's buckling, bulging and leaning as it burned out of control.

The FDNY ancticipated the collapse due to fire and structural damage by hours. They were accurate to within about 30 minutes of the collapse.

No bombs needed.

I'd put more weight on the eye witness accounts of experts in the FDNY who where there and observed the fire for hours. As, I think, any rational person would.

From Graeme MacQueen's targeted analysis of the FDNY oral histories, in which the testimonies of 60 firefighters indicated forewarnings of building 7's "collapse" (in some cases, 4 to 6 hours in advance):

"...is it true that the collapse warnings were mainly the result of a rational conclusion based on observation and training? No. As far as we can tell, no rational conclusion based on direct perception was made in the vast majority of cases. ..."

"...As will be clear by now, my research refutes the claim that the FDNY witnesses as a body perceived with their own eyes that Seven was severely damaged and on that basis concluded that it was at risk of total collapse. My research shows that the great majority of witnesses accepted that Seven was going to collapse because they were told that it was going to collapse. ..." (bold emphasis mine)

Only 7 of the 60 eyewitnesses relayed that the forewarnings were corroborated by their own observations, and while in positions of authority, this handful was likely influenced by sources outside of the FDNY and the unprecedented events of the day that preceded the "collapse" of building 7.

Again from MacQueen's analysis:

"...There is another possibility that does not require anyone in the FDNY to have been 'in the know.' I refer to one of the options Mackey apparently regards as outlandish:

'''someone ‘in the know’ tricked a high-ranking member of the FDNY into thinking that it would collapse, and:
e.
This duped individual convinced many more firefighters that it would collapse;
f.
Those so informed believed it would collapse'''.

I have seen no direct evidence in the FDNY oral histories to support this hypothesis. But it is certainly not irrational to include it in our repertoire as a possibility and to explore it further. We have, as a comparison case, the important warning relating to the Twin Towers, made shortly before the collapse of the South Tower. I believe it is worth reminding readers of this warning so I will quote FDNY Chief Peruggia’s account at length. [13]

“'I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse. I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located...”'

Q. ''“They felt that just the one building or both of them?”''

A. ''“The information we got at that time was that they felt both buildings were significantly damaged, but they felt that the north tower, which was the first one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was significant structural damage to the exterior of the building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this is not a scene where the thought of both buildings collapsing ever entered into my mind. I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the bomb went off. I operated some 16 hours at the building and with all the post-incident critiques and debriefings with various agencies. We were always told by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way they were designed. They went through all of this architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my knowledge. It was hit by an airplane. That's okay. It's made to be hit by an airplane. I mean I think everyone may have believed that. We were all told years ago it was made to be hit by an airplane.”''

When Zarrillo carried Peruggia’s startling news of imminent collapse to Chief Ganci, Ganci’s response was, '“who the fuck told you that?”' [14] Ganci had bet the lives of his firefighters on the stability of the Towers.

In fact, the lives of hundreds of firefighters had been wagered on the experience of fire chiefs who never suspected collapse. Ganci had almost certainly been told, like Peruggia and others in the FDNY (see Appendix E), that planes could not cause the Towers to collapse. Ganci is dead—he died in the collapse of the North Tower—but his question remains a good one: Who told you that?

In my view, all three building collapses were peculiar in the extreme, and we have a perfect right to ask who determined that they were going to collapse and on what basis. We need not apologize for asking whether there might have been an “engineer type person” who told crucial members of the FDNY that Seven’s stability was compromised, after which this warning was passed on and largely accepted by the rank and file. (Note Goldbach’s statement in Appendix C that “they said it suffered some form of structural damage”—do we know who “they” refers to?) Exploring this possibility further remains an important task."

It should go without saying, that the type of "imminent collapse" referred to by Chief Peruggia was not of the type that occurred on that day. His testimony there was in reference to the warning he received by largely unnamed sources prior to any of the previously unprecedented 'global collapses' that would later take place.

Skylar never bothered to reply...

 

[hadit]

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.

Do you realize how stupid your post sounds? Read it carefully. You just tried to make the case that a jet fuel fire can't melt a marshmallow. That's seriously screwed up, and you just lost the credibility you so desperately need right now.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

mary is getting desperate now.hee hee.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

mary and the other bush dupe trolls cant get around bld 7.barry jenning who they murdered cause his testimony sunk NISTS lies,is the crux of the 9/11 coverup they can only sling shit in defeat on like the monkey trolls they are.lol.

 

[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.

Do you realize how stupid your post sounds? Read it carefully. You just tried to make the case that a jet fuel fire can't melt a marshmallow. That's seriously screwed up, and you just lost the credibility you so desperately need right now.

you idiot,dont know what SARCASM is,also you prove what an idiot you are because the collapse violated the laws of physics that all junior high school students learn at that age,and you cant get around bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup no matter how desperately you try.

 

[hadit]

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.

Do you realize how stupid your post sounds? Read it carefully. You just tried to make the case that a jet fuel fire can't melt a marshmallow. That's seriously screwed up, and you just lost the credibility you so desperately need right now.

you idiot,dont know what SARCASM is,also you prove what an idiot you are because the collapse violated the laws of physics that all junior high school students learn at that age,and you cant get around bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup no matter how desperately you try.

You're not helping your case, you do realize that, right? I mean, communicating like a 6 year old does not make you sound like you understand metallurgy or anything much at all, for that matter. And yes, the fires were hot enough to weaken steel.

 

[Skylar]

Since the permalink feature didn't work properly in my previous post (I know, user error, right?), here's the post to which I intended to link:

The Fire Department of New York had a very different account. They cited the structural damage and most significantly, the fires that raged for most of the day. The FDNY noted the massive structural damage caused by falling pieces of the WTC and put a transit on WTC 7. Over several hours they measured the building's buckling, bulging and leaning as it burned out of control.

The FDNY ancticipated the collapse due to fire and structural damage by hours. They were accurate to within about 30 minutes of the collapse.

No bombs needed.

I'd put more weight on the eye witness accounts of experts in the FDNY who where there and observed the fire for hours. As, I think, any rational person would.

From Graeme MacQueen's targeted analysis of the FDNY oral histories, in which the testimonies of 60 firefighters indicated forewarnings of building 7's "collapse" (in some cases, 4 to 6 hours in advance):

"...is it true that the collapse warnings were mainly the result of a rational conclusion based on observation and training? No. As far as we can tell, no rational conclusion based on direct perception was made in the vast majority of cases. ..."

"...As will be clear by now, my research refutes the claim that the FDNY witnesses as a body perceived with their own eyes that Seven was severely damaged and on that basis concluded that it was at risk of total collapse. My research shows that the great majority of witnesses accepted that Seven was going to collapse because they were told that it was going to collapse. ..." (bold emphasis mine)

Only 7 of the 60 eyewitnesses relayed that the forewarnings were corroborated by their own observations, and while in positions of authority, this handful was likely influenced by sources outside of the FDNY and the unprecedented events of the day that preceded the "collapse" of building 7.

Again from MacQueen's analysis:

"...There is another possibility that does not require anyone in the FDNY to have been 'in the know.' I refer to one of the options Mackey apparently regards as outlandish:

'''someone ‘in the know’ tricked a high-ranking member of the FDNY into thinking that it would collapse, and:
e.
This duped individual convinced many more firefighters that it would collapse;
f.
Those so informed believed it would collapse'''.

I have seen no direct evidence in the FDNY oral histories to support this hypothesis. But it is certainly not irrational to include it in our repertoire as a possibility and to explore it further. We have, as a comparison case, the important warning relating to the Twin Towers, made shortly before the collapse of the South Tower. I believe it is worth reminding readers of this warning so I will quote FDNY Chief Peruggia’s account at length. [13]

“'I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse. I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located...”'

Q. ''“They felt that just the one building or both of them?”''

A. ''“The information we got at that time was that they felt both buildings were significantly damaged, but they felt that the north tower, which was the first one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was significant structural damage to the exterior of the building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this is not a scene where the thought of both buildings collapsing ever entered into my mind. I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the bomb went off. I operated some 16 hours at the building and with all the post-incident critiques and debriefings with various agencies. We were always told by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way they were designed. They went through all of this architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my knowledge. It was hit by an airplane. That's okay. It's made to be hit by an airplane. I mean I think everyone may have believed that. We were all told years ago it was made to be hit by an airplane.”''

When Zarrillo carried Peruggia’s startling news of imminent collapse to Chief Ganci, Ganci’s response was, '“who the fuck told you that?”' [14] Ganci had bet the lives of his firefighters on the stability of the Towers.

In fact, the lives of hundreds of firefighters had been wagered on the experience of fire chiefs who never suspected collapse. Ganci had almost certainly been told, like Peruggia and others in the FDNY (see Appendix E), that planes could not cause the Towers to collapse. Ganci is dead—he died in the collapse of the North Tower—but his question remains a good one: Who told you that?

In my view, all three building collapses were peculiar in the extreme, and we have a perfect right to ask who determined that they were going to collapse and on what basis. We need not apologize for asking whether there might have been an “engineer type person” who told crucial members of the FDNY that Seven’s stability was compromised, after which this warning was passed on and largely accepted by the rank and file. (Note Goldbach’s statement in Appendix C that “they said it suffered some form of structural damage”—do we know who “they” refers to?) Exploring this possibility further remains an important task."

It should go without saying, that the type of "imminent collapse" referred to by Chief Peruggia was not of the type that occurred on that day. His testimony there was in reference to the warning he received by largely unnamed sources prior to any of the previously unprecedented 'global collapses' that would later take place.

Skylar never bothered to reply...

Here's my reply: "Why would I care what Graeme MacQueen thinks?"

As best as I've been able to glean, Graeme MacQueen is an associate professor of Buddhist Studies at McMaster University in Ontario Canada. He has no engineering experience, no fire fighting experience, no direct knowledge of anything that occured on 911, didn't directly witness anything that happened to WTC 7.

So why would I care what he has concluded is or isn't a 'rational reason' for determining that WTC 7 was going to collapse?

If this were say, Sanskrit, I might be interested in what he had to say.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

Do you realize how stupid your post sounds? Read it carefully. You just tried to make the case that a jet fuel fire can't melt a marshmallow. That's seriously screwed up, and you just lost the credibility you so desperately need right now.

you idiot,dont know what SARCASM is,also you prove what an idiot you are because the collapse violated the laws of physics that all junior high school students learn at that age,and you cant get around bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup no matter how desperately you try.

You're not helping your case, you do realize that, right? I mean, communicating like a 6 year old does not make you sound like you understand metallurgy or anything much at all, for that matter. And yes, the fires were hot enough to weaken steel.

you troll are not helping yourself ignoring barry jennings witness testimony.

another disinformation agent paid troll who can only fart in defeat when cornered with facts to add to ignore.

you should change your user name to HAD IT WITH THE TRUTH.

like an idiot,you worship the government and medias version of events instead of listening to the witnesses,"many being very credible firefighters experienced in explosives." and experts as well.


keep on believing in your fantasys they were hot enough to weaken the steel troll.lol.

you can brainwash others with your lies,wont work on me though idiot.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[hadit]

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.

Do you realize how stupid your post sounds? Read it carefully. You just tried to make the case that a jet fuel fire can't melt a marshmallow. That's seriously screwed up, and you just lost the credibility you so desperately need right now.

you idiot,dont know what SARCASM is,also you prove what an idiot you are because the collapse violated the laws of physics that all junior high school students learn at that age,and you cant get around bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup no matter how desperately you try.

You're not helping your case, you do realize that, right? I mean, communicating like a 6 year old does not make you sound like you understand metallurgy or anything much at all, for that matter. And yes, the fires were hot enough to weaken steel.

you troll are not helping yourself ignoring barry jennings witness testimony.

another disinformation agent paid troll who can only fart in defeat when cornered with facts to add to ignore.

you should change your user name to HAD IT WITH THE TRUTH.

like an idiot,you worship the government and medias version of events instead of listening to the witnesses,"many being very credible firefighters experienced in explosives." and experts as well.


keep on believing in your fantasys they were hot enough to weaken the steel troll.lol.

you can brainwash others with your lies,wont work on me though idiot.

You are rapidly devolving into a playground idiot, mindlessly regurgitating idiocy, desperately hoping to obtain some legitimacy. All that's left at this point is to watch you spin yourself uselessly into the ground, and laugh. Tell you what, find for us some demolition wires, a few unexploded charges, some traces of a planned demolition, and you are not allowed to claim that every single trace was destroyed in the collapse because that does not happen. That is your assignment, should you wish to stop digging deeper the hole in which you currently reside.

 

[hadit]

someone farted in here.^

I've never seen anyone so thoroughly disparage their own post <polite chuckles and winks all around>.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

the disinfo agent trolls handlers are really getting desperate now the way they got them trolling with their lies in droves out in force now.

 

[Capstone]

As best as I've been able to glean, Graeme MacQueen is an associate professor of Buddhist Studies at McMaster University in Ontario Canada. He has no engineering experience, no fire fighting experience, no direct knowledge of anything that occured on 911, didn't directly witness anything that happened to WTC 7. ...

His analyses of the transcripts from the FDNY oral histories were textual in nature. They required no expertise other than the abibilities to read and appeal to what the witnesses actually stated during those interviews.

Is that the best you could come up with after two months, Skylar? Ad hominem based on a man's scholarly credentials, which, BTW, are more than adequate for the type of critical analysis in question? Talk about anticlimactic!

...So why would I care what he has concluded is or isn't a 'rational reason' for determining that WTC 7 was going to collapse?

If this were say, Sanskrit, I might be interested in what he had to say.

You know what, let me think about it for a couple of months and get back to you later.

 

[daws101]

2.5 seconds is of partial free fall is no evidence of cause...

It is, however, clear evidence that certain means could not have been causal, namely any means that would call for interaction between the portion of the building that descended 105 ft. against zero resistance and a solitary speck of debris from the building materials that must have been removed from the path of descent (as opposed to having been crushed or destroyed under the weight of the "collapsing" structure).

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), ...[emphasis Capstone's]

Typical. Even after I specified the charting that was done in the "revised (Novemeber 2008) version of NIST's final report", you go and cite the earlier non-revised version.

Nevertheless, the measurement from a single data point at the center of the roof-line doesn't override the clearly observable facts that both the roof-line and the "facade" remained intact throughout the 105 ft. drop of the "north face". Accordingly, even with limiting the freefall to the northern "facade", an incredible amount of material would still had to have been completely removed from its visually symmetrical path of descent. What makes an already laughable notion truly hilarious, though, is that the prospect of such an occurrence is clearly defeated by the video itself. If only the north side fell against zero resistance, where the hell were the remaining three sides of the building that should have been observed collapsing more slowly and in a non-symmetrical fashion?!

Contrary to such ridiculous assertions by the NEOCT's apologists, there's plenty of video evidence that shows various sides of Building 7's exterior walls coming down intact, empirically proving the symmetry of the "collapse", which in turn demands that the freefall was evenly distributed among all four exterior walls.



The 40% longer than freefall time has not only been exposed as the likely result of 'dry-labbing' the timeframe on which NIST's multi-stage analysis was based; it's irrelevant anyway, because the 2.25 sec. period of freefall was admitted and charted through the second stage. As I've said before, the building could've taken a week to completely collapse, and that still wouldn't account for the period of freefall admitted by NIST, despite the fact that the admission amounts to a violation of physical law under the fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis (yes, even if it only applies to the "north face").

the old baffle um wit bullshit ploy is still in operation..

 

[daws101]

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.

Do you realize how stupid your post sounds? Read it carefully. You just tried to make the case that a jet fuel fire can't melt a marshmallow. That's seriously screwed up, and you just lost the credibility you so desperately need right now.

you idiot,dont know what SARCASM is,also you prove what an idiot you are because the collapse violated the laws of physics that all junior high school students learn at that age,and you cant get around bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup no matter how desperately you try.

You're not helping your case, you do realize that, right? I mean, communicating like a 6 year old does not make you sound like you understand metallurgy or anything much at all, for that matter. And yes, the fires were hot enough to weaken steel.

you troll are not helping yourself ignoring barry jennings witness testimony.

another disinformation agent paid troll who can only fart in defeat when cornered with facts to add to ignore.

you should change your user name to HAD IT WITH THE TRUTH.

like an idiot,you worship the government and medias version of events instead of listening to the witnesses,"many being very credible firefighters experienced in explosives." and experts as well.


keep on believing in your fantasys they were hot enough to weaken the steel troll.lol.

you can brainwash others with your lies,wont work on me though idiot.

You are rapidly devolving into a playground idiot, mindlessly regurgitating idiocy, desperately hoping to obtain some legitimacy. All that's left at this point is to watch you spin yourself uselessly into the ground, and laugh. Tell you what, find for us some demolition wires, a few unexploded charges, some traces of a planned demolition, and you are not allowed to claim that every single trace was destroyed in the collapse because that does not happen. That is your assignment, should you wish to stop digging deeper the hole in which you currently reside.

hey hadit hand job is the site's fool and should be treated as such..

 

[daws101]

http://youtu.be/Atbrn4k55lA
as for cappy's analysis of the audio between 40 and 50secs on this clip what he and everyone else are hearing is the sound of rushing air and breaking glass, and steel .
plush a million other things crashing into each other before hitting the ground.
if there had been explosives used as they are in actual CD'S the sound would have been like a string of firecrackers going off ,only louder.
besides cappy like most people is unable to tell the difference between a tire blowout and backfire.
imo, he like all the other twoofers wants to believe explosives were used in spite of the fact there is no evidence of any kind for their use.

 

[Faun]

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.

The claim made was that fire doesn't weaken steel. The video I posted proves that's bullshit.

 

[Faun]

It figures a Twoofer would resort to an edited video as evidence of their hallucinations. ...

I posted that compilation video as evidence of the symmetry of the "collapse", which is proven thoroughly by the various perspectives of the excerpts used in the compilation. In other words, in order to support the claim I made, it was necessary to appeal to more than one recording. Obviously, using the edited-together compilation was the most efficient way to get the job done. Beyond that, I wonder how realistic it is to expect that any of the 9/11 videos available to amateur researchers haven't been cropped or edited in some way or other over the past 13 years.

Regarding the side issue of the "possible explosions" that can be heard between 0:46 and 0:50...

...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. ...

...yet, despite the missing time, the noises I mentioned can still be heard.

But again, that's a side issue, and as usual, one you've raised without having bothered to address the main issue.

...The rest of your idiocy is just that. There's no evidence explosives were used. There's no visual evidence or audible evidence. ...

Both the observed symmetry and the charted freefall are based on "visual evidence" that supports the CD hypothesis and defeats the fire-induced progressive collapse model in one fell swoop, which further reinforces the common pattern exhibited by several other bodies of evidence, including hundreds of highly credible eyewitness accounts involving a great deal of 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.

I never claimed that thermate was the sole demolition material used on 9/11. In fact, I've always maintained that a smaller amount of more conventional explosives likely played a crucial role in heavily clouding what went on nearer the core columns. The thermate would have worked "in concert" with other materials to "entirely remove" all physical resistance "from the path of descent" (which is something that must have preceded the 105 ft. freefall, whether one believes it was accomplished by explosives or not).

The disingenuous assertion that "there were no such devices available at that time" is cast into doubt by a string of military patents going back to the early 70's. It's been said that the military (not just the US military) often controls access to technology that's up to 30 years ahead of what's available to the general public at any given point in time.

...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. ...

Both of which were likely circumvented by predetermined impact zones that were later ensured by precision RC/laser guidance of the aircraft/drones.

The high ignition temperatures of the demolition materials that were likely used would have been key in safe-guarding against premature detonations, as well.

...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?

Here you go: US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I know it's your style to ignore the aspects of your opponents' arguments for which you apparently have no rebuttals (besides the usual name-calling and the telling efforts to change the subject), but the facts remain: the observed symmetry and charted acceleration of Building 7's "collapse" (with the 2.25 seconds of freefall admitted by NIST) are proof positive that the official explanation is a farce.

The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing.

Still, there were no explosives used. Explosives are incredibly loud and very visible. That never happened.

And your idiocy of a patent is beyond stupid. A patent in no way proves the product existed nor does it even prove the patent would work even had it been built, which there is zero evidence beyond your hallucinations that it did.

 

[Faun]

Since the permalink feature didn't work properly in my previous post (I know, user error, right?), here's the post to which I intended to link:

The Fire Department of New York had a very different account. They cited the structural damage and most significantly, the fires that raged for most of the day. The FDNY noted the massive structural damage caused by falling pieces of the WTC and put a transit on WTC 7. Over several hours they measured the building's buckling, bulging and leaning as it burned out of control.

The FDNY ancticipated the collapse due to fire and structural damage by hours. They were accurate to within about 30 minutes of the collapse.

No bombs needed.

I'd put more weight on the eye witness accounts of experts in the FDNY who where there and observed the fire for hours. As, I think, any rational person would.

From Graeme MacQueen's targeted analysis of the FDNY oral histories, in which the testimonies of 60 firefighters indicated forewarnings of building 7's "collapse" (in some cases, 4 to 6 hours in advance):

"...is it true that the collapse warnings were mainly the result of a rational conclusion based on observation and training? No. As far as we can tell, no rational conclusion based on direct perception was made in the vast majority of cases. ..."

"...As will be clear by now, my research refutes the claim that the FDNY witnesses as a body perceived with their own eyes that Seven was severely damaged and on that basis concluded that it was at risk of total collapse. My research shows that the great majority of witnesses accepted that Seven was going to collapse because they were told that it was going to collapse. ..." (bold emphasis mine)

Only 7 of the 60 eyewitnesses relayed that the forewarnings were corroborated by their own observations, and while in positions of authority, this handful was likely influenced by sources outside of the FDNY and the unprecedented events of the day that preceded the "collapse" of building 7.

Again from MacQueen's analysis:

"...There is another possibility that does not require anyone in the FDNY to have been 'in the know.' I refer to one of the options Mackey apparently regards as outlandish:

'''someone ‘in the know’ tricked a high-ranking member of the FDNY into thinking that it would collapse, and:
e.
This duped individual convinced many more firefighters that it would collapse;
f.
Those so informed believed it would collapse'''.

I have seen no direct evidence in the FDNY oral histories to support this hypothesis. But it is certainly not irrational to include it in our repertoire as a possibility and to explore it further. We have, as a comparison case, the important warning relating to the Twin Towers, made shortly before the collapse of the South Tower. I believe it is worth reminding readers of this warning so I will quote FDNY Chief Peruggia’s account at length. [13]

“'I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse. I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located...”'

Q. ''“They felt that just the one building or both of them?”''

A. ''“The information we got at that time was that they felt both buildings were significantly damaged, but they felt that the north tower, which was the first one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was significant structural damage to the exterior of the building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this is not a scene where the thought of both buildings collapsing ever entered into my mind. I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the bomb went off. I operated some 16 hours at the building and with all the post-incident critiques and debriefings with various agencies. We were always told by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way they were designed. They went through all of this architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my knowledge. It was hit by an airplane. That's okay. It's made to be hit by an airplane. I mean I think everyone may have believed that. We were all told years ago it was made to be hit by an airplane.”''

When Zarrillo carried Peruggia’s startling news of imminent collapse to Chief Ganci, Ganci’s response was, '“who the fuck told you that?”' [14] Ganci had bet the lives of his firefighters on the stability of the Towers.

In fact, the lives of hundreds of firefighters had been wagered on the experience of fire chiefs who never suspected collapse. Ganci had almost certainly been told, like Peruggia and others in the FDNY (see Appendix E), that planes could not cause the Towers to collapse. Ganci is dead—he died in the collapse of the North Tower—but his question remains a good one: Who told you that?

In my view, all three building collapses were peculiar in the extreme, and we have a perfect right to ask who determined that they were going to collapse and on what basis. We need not apologize for asking whether there might have been an “engineer type person” who told crucial members of the FDNY that Seven’s stability was compromised, after which this warning was passed on and largely accepted by the rank and file. (Note Goldbach’s statement in Appendix C that “they said it suffered some form of structural damage”—do we know who “they” refers to?) Exploring this possibility further remains an important task."

It should go without saying, that the type of "imminent collapse" referred to by Chief Peruggia was not of the type that occurred on that day. His testimony there was in reference to the warning he received by largely unnamed sources prior to any of the previously unprecedented 'global collapses' that would later take place.

Skylar never bothered to reply...

That's not what I asked. I asked you what role you think they played in your conspiracy.