Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here is where the rubber meets the road in this WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Case: Demolition Supervisors work for months preparing the demo 'plans' and months setting the charges to bring down a massive structure of this size with this kind of efficiency. There is NO WAY that anybody started a few fires and ran away to watch this skyscraper collapse CD-style. You could dump a million gallons of jet fuel (kerosene) onto WTC-7 and light a match and the building would remain standing if you repeated the process a million times; because hydrocarbon fuels simply do NOT burn hot enough to melt one pound of 2800-degree red-iron steel.
Watch The Short Video
Now I have admitted the error in my work to everyone here 'and' the "Building Fires Did It" Official Cover Story LIARS can do the same thing . . .
GL,
Terral
Another "mistake". Not 6.6 seconds. Why are you not including the fact that part of the mechanical penthouse fell INTO the building 7 seconds BEFORE the entire structure collapsed? I showed you the Jowenko video that CLEARLY shows that part.
Is there some reason why you are ignoring this part of the collapse?
The answer to your question is "Yes." My time today is spent going through the information related to the ongoing Swine11 Attack (my Topic) and Medical Martial Law that is coming on October 15, 2009 (my Topic). Is there some reason you think this WTC-7 Case has more importance at this time? This is FAR more important right now . . .WTC 7
Ryan concludes with a brief look at the fall of WTC 7, noting that NIST still hasn't produced their final report on the incident. WTC 7 would have been the tallest building in 33 states and it collapsed in 6.6 seconds.
Hi Gamolon:
Another "mistake". Not 6.6 seconds. Why are you not including the fact that part of the mechanical penthouse fell INTO the building 7 seconds BEFORE the entire structure collapsed? I showed you the Jowenko video that CLEARLY shows that part.
Is there some reason why you are ignoring this part of the collapse?
Do not push it, Gamolon. We are still looking at just 'two' explanations for what took WTC-7 down into its own footprint in "6.6 seconds," according to many sources.
911Research.wtc.7.net
The answer to your question is "Yes." My time today is spent going through the information related to the ongoing Swine11 Attack (my Topic) and Medical Martial Law that is coming on October 15, 2009 (my Topic). Is there some reason you think this WTC-7 Case has more importance at this time? This is FAR more important right now . . .WTC 7
Ryan concludes with a brief look at the fall of WTC 7, noting that NIST still hasn't produced their final report on the incident. WTC 7 would have been the tallest building in 33 states and it collapsed in 6.6 seconds.
GNCLive.com Podcast Link
Nutrimedical Report Sept. 23 Hour 1
GL,
Terral
Do not push it, Gamolon.
We are still looking at just 'two' explanations for what took WTC-7 down into its own footprint in "6.6 seconds," according to many sources.
Sorry, but "your sources" are completely wrong. The collapse STARTED with the partial collapse of the mechanical penthouse which was 7 seconds BEFORE your proposed (and incorrect) collapse start.
Again, you are wrong.
Hi Gam:
Sorry, but "your sources" are completely wrong. The collapse STARTED with the partial collapse of the mechanical penthouse which was 7 seconds BEFORE your proposed (and incorrect) collapse start.
Again, you are wrong.
No. This time Gam is wrong. Add seven seconds to the collapse time in 'your' WTC-7 commentary if that makes sense to you and blows air up your skirt. The start of the penthouse collapse is NOT the moment when the main structure began to collapse in the CD process.
GL,
Terral
Riiiggghhhttt.
Let's ignore the partial mechanical penthouse collapse because you just CAN'T be proven wrong twice in the same day by the same person can you.
no, as always YOU are wrongHi Gam:
Sorry, but "your sources" are completely wrong. The collapse STARTED with the partial collapse of the mechanical penthouse which was 7 seconds BEFORE your proposed (and incorrect) collapse start.
Again, you are wrong.
No. This time Gam is wrong. Add seven seconds to the collapse time in 'your' WTC-7 commentary if that makes sense to you and blows air up your skirt. The start of the penthouse collapse is NOT the moment when the main structure began to collapse in the CD process.
GL,
Terral
Hi Gam:
Sorry, but "your sources" are completely wrong. The collapse STARTED with the partial collapse of the mechanical penthouse which was 7 seconds BEFORE your proposed (and incorrect) collapse start.
Again, you are wrong.
No. This time Gam is wrong. Add seven seconds to the collapse time in 'your' WTC-7 commentary if that makes sense to you and blows air up your skirt. The start of the penthouse collapse is NOT the moment when the main structure began to collapse in the CD process.
GL,
Terral
the only reason that will come up with results is because of the lies you fucking morons keep postingHi Gam:
Riiiggghhhttt.
Let's ignore the partial mechanical penthouse collapse because you just CAN'T be proven wrong twice in the same day by the same person can you.
No. Gam has failed to convince me from the evidence that anyone should add 7 seconds to the Controlled Demolition Collapse of WTC-7. I quite frankly do not care that Gam interprets this aspect of the evidence differently than most everybody else (Google WTC 7, 6.6 seconds). Adding 7 seconds to the CD Collapse in NO WAY supports the delusion that "Building Fires Did It." Period.
Thanks again for your assistance with 45-degree cut error.
GL,
Terral
the only reason that will come up with results is because of the lies you fucking morons keep posting
cuckoo can do is come out here and use the 'f' word and throw dust into the air like an idiot.Hi DiveBomb:
the only reason that will come up with results is because of the lies you fucking morons keep posting
At least Gam 'was' able to point out an error in my WTC Opening Post. All Dive
GL,
Terral
Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom approximately 10 stories about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors along with the building's unusual construction were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
because i dont waste as much time looking up proof for you to ignoreHi DiveBomb:
the only reason that will come up with results is because of the lies you fucking morons keep posting
At least Gam 'was' able to point out an error in my WTC Opening Post. All Dive
GL,
Terral
If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down.
Dr. Quintiere
`and then proceeds with test and simulations as requested of him based on temperatures well in excess of anything that was evident at the wtc
I get it now! You are taking is quote COMPLETELY out of context in order to support your view.
So what you are TRYING to imply is that he thinks BOTH scenarios are plausible, but that his theory that the trusses failed due to heat outweighs the demolition/explosives theory.
Did i get that right?
`and then proceeds with test and simulations as requested of him based on temperatures well in excess of anything that was evident at the wtc
I get it now! You are taking is quote COMPLETELY out of context in order to support your view.
So what you are TRYING to imply is that he thinks BOTH scenarios are plausible, but that his theory that the trusses failed due to heat outweighs the demolition/explosives theory.
Did i get that right?
there is nothing to take out of context..there is zero evidence of the temperatures required to weaken steel found in the forensic test...that's just a fact...and the lead investigator requested investigation into other theory's which included hypothetical blast scenarios..but that was never done,,these are simply the facts
[Bern80;
Do you not see the double standard you have set up here? Your argument is essentially this. There is no evidence for the heat required to cause the collapse (God I can't even say that without coming up with a few dozen holes in that theory)
therefore it was a controlled demolition. In that case I should be able to just as validly state There is no evidence for a controlled demolition (which there isn't) therefore it must have been the planes and the fire that brought down the towers. At the very best eots you have no more case than i do
`and then proceeds with test and simulations as requested of him based on temperatures well in excess of anything that was evident at the wtc
I get it now! You are taking is quote COMPLETELY out of context in order to support your view.
So what you are TRYING to imply is that he thinks BOTH scenarios are plausible, but that his theory that the trusses failed due to heat outweighs the demolition/explosives theory.
Did i get that right?
there is nothing to take out of context..there is zero evidence of the temperatures required to weaken steel found in the forensic test...that's just a fact...and the lead investigator requested investigation into other theory's which included hypothetical blast scenarios..but that was never done,,these are simply the facts
Did anyone ever explain these?
