WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[JBeukema]

you have zero evidence that fire temperatures were sufficient to weaken steel...there is however evidence to suggest it did not

I'm curious. What evidence do you have to support cutting charges/thermite?

​

 

[Bern80]

I'm just wondering why we don't use coals to power the nation, if they burn hotter than jet fuel

well what a stupid musing that is...however it does not change the fact that forensic testing provides ZERO evidence that temperatures required to soften the steel in question was present

You are ware that saying they couldn't find the evidence for it and saying it was impossible for it to have happened are to very different things, right?

 

[JBeukema]

I'm just wondering why we don't use coals to power the nation, if they burn hotter than jet fuel

well what a stupid musing that is...however it does not change the fact that forensic testing provides ZERO evidence that temperatures required to soften the steel in question was present

You are ware that saying they couldn't find the evidence for it and saying it was impossible for it to have happened are to very different things, right?

saying there's no evidence of it and that it was so hot it melted the metal for weeks is just retarded- but that's Eots

 

[Gamolon]

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.

Why does it have to be that the steel needed to MELT for the tower to become structurally unstable and collapse? Does that fit your claims better?

Why do you ignore the fact that steel loses it's strength at much lower temperatures and does not need to MELT.

You guys are hysterical.

 

[eots]

you have zero evidence that fire temperatures were sufficient to weaken steel...there is however evidence to suggest it did not

But your "lead fire investigator" says that he believes, based on everything he has seen, that the trusses were weakened by heat and thus caused the collapse.

The person you use to support your claim of "no evidence of temperatures existing to cause weakening of steel" says that all the evidence and testing that was done SUPPORTS his claim of the trusses being WEAKENED by heat.

How can this be? You keep pointing to him as evidence of there NOT being proof, yet he contradicts your claim in the same breath.

first off the lead investigator calls his findings questionable and pleas for a new investigation...don't forget that part...and he also complains the government was blocking the investigation...secondly it is a simple concept if cutting was used only the sections cut would show forensically the extreme temperatures ...but if it was fire dispersed throughout that caused the collapse these temperatures should be found on most of steel and materials subjected to fire...and it is not

 

[eots]

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.

Why does it have to be that the steel needed to MELT for the tower to become structurally unstable and collapse? Does that fit your claims better?

Why do you ignore the fact that steel loses it's strength at much lower temperatures and does not need to MELT.

You guys are hysterical.

because no such temperatures required to melt or weaken steel were found in forensic testing ...whats so hard for you to understand about that

 

[Gamolon]

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.

Why does it have to be that the steel needed to MELT for the tower to become structurally unstable and collapse? Does that fit your claims better?

Why do you ignore the fact that steel loses it's strength at much lower temperatures and does not need to MELT.

You guys are hysterical.

because no such temperatures required to melt or weaken steel were found in forensic testing ...whats so hard for you to understand about that

What temperatures were found then?

 

[Gamolon]

you have zero evidence that fire temperatures were sufficient to weaken steel...there is however evidence to suggest it did not

But your "lead fire investigator" says that he believes, based on everything he has seen, that the trusses were weakened by heat and thus caused the collapse.

The person you use to support your claim of "no evidence of temperatures existing to cause weakening of steel" says that all the evidence and testing that was done SUPPORTS his claim of the trusses being WEAKENED by heat.

How can this be? You keep pointing to him as evidence of there NOT being proof, yet he contradicts your claim in the same breath.

first off the lead investigator calls his findings questionable and pleas for a new investigation...don't forget that part...and he also complains the government was blocking the investigation...secondly it is a simple concept if cutting was used only the sections cut would show forensically the extreme temperatures ...but if it was fire dispersed throughout that caused the collapse these temperatures should be found on most of steel and materials subjected to fire...and it is not

He calls for a new investigation because he thinks the collapse was caused by the TRUSSES failing, not the columns as NIST states. His calling for a new investigation has nothing to do with the fact that there were explosives/thermite involved.

Quit trying to use his statements to make it sound like he wants a new investigation because he thinks there were explosives/thermite used.

You're being dishonest now.

 

[eots]

But your "lead fire investigator" says that he believes, based on everything he has seen, that the trusses were weakened by heat and thus caused the collapse.

The person you use to support your claim of "no evidence of temperatures existing to cause weakening of steel" says that all the evidence and testing that was done SUPPORTS his claim of the trusses being WEAKENED by heat.

How can this be? You keep pointing to him as evidence of there NOT being proof, yet he contradicts your claim in the same breath.

first off the lead investigator calls his findings questionable and pleas for a new investigation...don't forget that part...and he also complains the government was blocking the investigation...secondly it is a simple concept if cutting was used only the sections cut would show forensically the extreme temperatures ...but if it was fire dispersed throughout that caused the collapse these temperatures should be found on most of steel and materials subjected to fire...and it is not

He calls for a new investigation because he thinks the collapse was caused by the TRUSSES failing, not the columns as NIST states. His calling for a new investigation has nothing to do with the fact that there were explosives/thermite involved.

Quit trying to use his statements to make it sound like he wants a new investigation because he thinks there were explosives/thermite used.

You're being dishonest now.

the trusses vs columns was just a for instance..an example of alternatives...but the question he repeatedly ask and received no reply seem to be his biggest problem..and one of those questions is..if no test show the temperatures required to weaken steel...where did that heat come from ? another is to ask why the alternative theorys were not tested as promised...and those test included..hypothetical blast scenarios...clearly he feels a independent investigation is required

 

[Gamolon]

first off the lead investigator calls his findings questionable and pleas for a new investigation...don't forget that part...and he also complains the government was blocking the investigation...secondly it is a simple concept if cutting was used only the sections cut would show forensically the extreme temperatures ...but if it was fire dispersed throughout that caused the collapse these temperatures should be found on most of steel and materials subjected to fire...and it is not

He calls for a new investigation because he thinks the collapse was caused by the TRUSSES failing, not the columns as NIST states. His calling for a new investigation has nothing to do with the fact that there were explosives/thermite involved.

Quit trying to use his statements to make it sound like he wants a new investigation because he thinks there were explosives/thermite used.

You're being dishonest now.

the trusses vs columns was just a for instance..an example of alternatives...but the question he repeatedly ask and received no reply seem to be his biggest problem..and one of those questions is..if no test show the temperatures required to weaken steel...where did that heat come from ? another is to ask why the alternative theorys were not tested as promised...and those test included..hypothetical blast scenarios...clearly he feels a independent investigation is required

You obviously haven't read his paper have you. He clearly states that HIS alternative theory is that the TRUSSES failed due to HEAT and is supported by all the information provided by the tests labs. Go read it.

Also. What evidence are you using to support your claims that thermite cuts were made? Are you using the same photos as Terral?

Were "thermite cuts" made every few floors on all 47 interior core columns?

 

[Gamolon]

first off the lead investigator calls his findings questionable and pleas for a new investigation...don't forget that part...and he also complains the government was blocking the investigation...secondly it is a simple concept if cutting was used only the sections cut would show forensically the extreme temperatures ...but if it was fire dispersed throughout that caused the collapse these temperatures should be found on most of steel and materials subjected to fire...and it is not

He calls for a new investigation because he thinks the collapse was caused by the TRUSSES failing, not the columns as NIST states. His calling for a new investigation has nothing to do with the fact that there were explosives/thermite involved.

Quit trying to use his statements to make it sound like he wants a new investigation because he thinks there were explosives/thermite used.

You're being dishonest now.

the trusses vs columns was just a for instance..an example of alternatives...but the question he repeatedly ask and received no reply seem to be his biggest problem..and one of those questions is..if no test show the temperatures required to weaken steel...where did that heat come from ? another is to ask why the alternative theorys were not tested as promised...and those test included..hypothetical blast scenarios...clearly he feels a independent investigation is required

What temperatures did they find the steel was subjected to?

 

[Gamolon]

if no test show the temperatures required to weaken steel...where did that heat come from ?

Then why does he clearly state that HIS ALTERNATE theory is that the data garnered from the investigation and tests agree with his claim that the TRUSSES FAILED DUE TO HEAT?

Can you explain that? Did you read his paper at all? Where the trusses made of plastic or something? He saw data that supports his theory that the columns did not fail, but the trusses did.

DUE TO HEAT.

I'll ask you again since you seem to be avoiding the question. What temperatures did they find that the steel was subjected to in their tests?

 

[eots]

they simply assume the heat is there and then proceed with the test and calculations. and simulations. based on this assumption...but as he stated the reality is...the heat required was not proven to be there...

 

[eots]

He calls for a new investigation because he thinks the collapse was caused by the TRUSSES failing, not the columns as NIST states. His calling for a new investigation has nothing to do with the fact that there were explosives/thermite involved.

Quit trying to use his statements to make it sound like he wants a new investigation because he thinks there were explosives/thermite used.

You're being dishonest now.

the trusses vs columns was just a for instance..an example of alternatives...but the question he repeatedly ask and received no reply seem to be his biggest problem..and one of those questions is..if no test show the temperatures required to weaken steel...where did that heat come from ? another is to ask why the alternative theorys were not tested as promised...and those test included..hypothetical blast scenarios...clearly he feels a independent investigation is required

What temperatures did they find the steel was subjected to?

about 500f exactly what you would expect to find in a normal building fire

 

[Liability]

Why does it have to be that the steel needed to MELT for the tower to become structurally unstable and collapse? Does that fit your claims better?

Why do you ignore the fact that steel loses it's strength at much lower temperatures and does not need to MELT.

You guys are hysterical.

because no such temperatures required to melt or weaken steel were found in forensic testing ...whats so hard for you to understand about that

What temperatures were found then?

What temperatures were found to have been probably reached (and for how long) during the inferno?

At what temperature does the steel used in the construction of the towers and building 7 "weaken?"

How much weakening would be required to START a collapse at the top of the towers?

Once the collapse had started, causing all the weight to suddenly be added to each lower level, what would prevent the collapse to progress?

 

[Liability]

they simply assume the heat is there and then proceed with the test and calculations. and simulations. based on this assumption...but as he stated the reality is...the heat required was not proven to be there...

What does that even mean when you say something slippery like "the heat required was not proven to be there"?

That depends on what you mean by "proven."

What IS known and HAS been proved is that there WAS absolutely and definitively observed hard physical evidence that there WAS heat generated WELL BEYOND what was to be expected by a hydrocarbon fire within the office setting.

The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings. NIST neglected the high-temperature and fragmentation evidence presented here: it appears nowhere in their final report [15].

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf at page 10.

The structures observed in the microscopic analysis of the WTC "dust" suggest -- VERY STRONGLY -- that temperatures were reached in the inferno that WAS capable of weakening the metal at the WTC.

The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. Our results are compared with those of other laboratories.
The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf From the "Abstract" at page 1.

 

[eots]

Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings


Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”


“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[Liability]

Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings


Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”


“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

You are flatly lying, now. I just presented very concrete EVIDENCE that (for whatever reasons or by whatever mechanism known or unknown) the temperatures inside the towers HAD to have rached enormously high level.

 

[eots]

they simply assume the heat is there and then proceed with the test and calculations. and simulations. based on this assumption...but as he stated the reality is...the heat required was not proven to be there...

What does that even mean when you say something slippery like "the heat required was not proven to be there"?

That depends on what you mean by "proven."

What IS known and HAS been proved is that there WAS absolutely and definitively observed hard physical evidence that there WAS heat generated WELL BEYOND what was to be expected by a hydrocarbon fire within the office setting.

The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings. NIST neglected the high-temperature and fragmentation evidence presented here: it appears nowhere in their final report [15].

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf at page 10.

The structures observed in the microscopic analysis of the WTC "dust" suggest -- VERY STRONGLY -- that temperatures were reached in the inferno that WAS capable of weakening the metal at the WTC.

The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. Our results are compared with those of other laboratories.
The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf From the "Abstract" at page 1.

exactly the temperatures were not found in the steel samples but the dust shows signs in excessive of jet fuel or office materials...thank you...there is molten metal...yet there is no molten metal ???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwnPn_CsTk]YouTube - NIST DENIES MOLTEN METAL[/ame]

 

[Liability]

* * * *

exactly the temperatures where not found in the steel samples but the dust shows signs in excessive of jet fuel or office materials...thank you...there is molten metal...yet there is no molten metal ???

* * * *

You are talking gibberish. The frame of the aircraft almost certainly melted. Aluminum does that kind of thing. And the SCIENTIFIC evidence clearly shows that the EXTREMELY high temperatures WERE almost certainly reached -- temperatures which could WEAKEN the STEEL used in the WTC construction (especially supporting structures).

The columns did not vaporize or melt. But there was, if you'd bother to read the material I shared, this tidbit: "the FEMA report discussed the 'evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation' and called for further investigation . . . ."
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf at page 8.

In fact, the non-melting of WTC steel is emphasized by NIST – but they fail to address the presence of large numbers of iron-rich spherules in the dust published in USGS and other reports before the NIST study was published in October 2006 [16, 18].

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf at p. 9.

If you and I are unable to explain the mechanism for how those high temperatures (far above what would normally be predicted or expected) were achieved, that's a frustration. But to deny the evidence that the temperatures WERE reached is dishonest of you. And if the temperatures WERE reached (as the evidence clearly suggests they were) then we have a likely explanation for the WEAKENING of the metal -- not the melting of the metal -- in the WTC. "Melting" not required. "Melting" is a mere deflection by you. Forget "melting." Try to stay focused. Stop trying to mislead others with your spew.

If you wish to debate, you do yourself a massive disservice by being dishonest about it.

READ the entire article and look at the photographic evidence of the very particles described.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf