WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[Godboy]

and if your going to spout the official lie you should at least know what it is NIST rejected the pancake theory after truthers showed its flaws and invented the thermal expansion theory

That's not the official lie, that's my lie. I don't know what the official lie is anyway.

Too many people involved and affected by 9/11 to have the truth suppressed. Bubba couldn't keep his affairs secret and that was just between those two, why would 9/11 conspiracy secret be any better kept?

Because it isn't a conspiracy that's why.

oh the secrets cant be kept fallacy..yet those involved in the investigation say..secrets were kept..the truth not told..and if your belief is correct..where is bin laden..how has that secret been kept ??

You are comparing a man hiding in a cave, to covering up the biggest conspiracy of all time that would have involved thousands of people to keep it secret? Being crazy AND stupid must have dramatic impacts on your personal life.

 

[eots]

well apparently according to you the man in the cave orcastrated one of the biggest conspiracy's in history..and pulled it off without a hitch and runs a huge network called al qaeda..but no one has given up his plans or his location in all these years...so you are of the opinion that the man in the cave and his cohorts are more effective than u.s intelligence and air defence and he and his network can keep secrets the CIA is incapable of keeping...intresting

 

[SdivaD]

one small problem a careful reading of the NIST report shows the temperatures required to weaken steel were not found in forensic testing of the metal and materials from the wtc

Well, that rules out superthermite and molten steel, eh?

 

[Gamolon]

Hi Gam:

Really Terral?

Yes. For real.

Why is there slag on one side of each plate of the column? On the left side of the column, there is no slag on the outside which means the torch put the slag on the INSIDE where we can't see it.

No. There is no 'slag' in the above photograph (look again)! You are looking at thermate 'froth' residue

No way. You are telling me that by YOUR visual analysis, you see a difference between the "slag" or "thermate froth"?! You're full of crap. There's no way the "slag" or "froth" look any different from this picture

To this picture

They are even the same color. Not to mention the jagged cut pattern of a torch in each photo. This crap is coming from the same person who fabricated all kinds of descriptions and comments concerning a certain "45 degree cut column" when it was in fact just a column that was leaning. How did you come up with all that garbage based on a WRONG INTERPRETATION? You based your crap on ASSUMPTIONS for that particular picture.

Oh yeah.

Same jagged edges seen in the cut. The jagged edges even go in the same direction as the torch "flame" is cutting.

where 75% is on the 'outside' and 25% is on the inside of the massive red-iron column.

You have x-ray vision? How can you see the sides opposite the camera view? It's easy. Being a "demolition supervisor", I figured you would figure it out. I guess I have to explain it to you. The torch cuts were made from OUTSIDE the column on the top, left, and right sides which is why the "slag is on the INSIDE of the column. The torch cut was then made on the INSIDE, blowing out, which is why you see "slag" on the OUTSIDE face of the bottom of that column.

You are arguing for a man standing 'above' the massive column to then make a 45-degree angle cut in a 'downward' direction along the 'length' of the massive support; which NEVER happened.

You mean they guy with the torch couldn't have moved AROUND the column to make the cuts on each side? Do you mean to tell me "Demolition Supervisor" that you make your people stand in one spot to make cuts?! And as far as your claim to be a "Demolition Supervisor", which you think adds credence to your claims, here's something for you. I've worked onsite doing damage assessment for large explosions at chemical plants. IMC/Angus in LA for one and Shell Oil in Belpre OH for another. I've done construction supervision for many steel mill projects including blast furnaces, oxygen line construction and pipeline cleaning with pigs. I did design work on the Tooele, Utah facility used for the destruction of chemical weapons. I designed piping modules for Anhueser Busch plants. I've been told stories by steel mill workers about how a Kress carrier driver, transporting a ladle full of molten metal, had it spill around him. The tires and part of the carrier melted. the driver was witnessed trying to escape the spill by running THROUGH the molten metal only to be incinerated down to nothing as he ran. I've seen/heard some crazy shit in my time. Your explanations hold no water with me. Quit trying to throw your "Demolition Supervisor" weight around as support to the fact that you THINK you know what you're talking about.

No Demo Supervisor on earth would allow such a dangerous cut to be made on any large member, BEFORE all of the scattered debris is removed from the area. We are looking at FIREMEN in the picture and not Demolition Workers . . .

More bullshit. I've been on site for damage assessment after a few explosions and they DO make diagonal cuts. I even posted a video where a guy POINTS to the columns his guys cut and THEY had diagional cuts in them. You're either lying or not very experienced with debris cleanup after a catastrophic explosion. Tell me something. When someone torch cuts a column during disaster cleanup, do they support the upper end of the column with anything so it doesn't topple over and crush someone while the cuts are being made?

No. The inside of the column has 25% of the thermate 'froth,' because the charges were obviously set on the 'outside' of the column.

So it's charges eh? The kind that go BOOM and make a nice clean cut? I watched a video of a thermite cutting charge. I saw no "slag" or "froth" produced from a thermite cutting charge. I've seen "slag" or "froth" produced from regular thermite slowly burning/melting through steel, but not from a thermite cutting charge.

There is NO SLAG on any of these columns!

As I've shown in the pictures above the "slag" or "froth" match in BOTH pictures. you just can;t handle it.

No. You have introduced some "Building Fires Did It" Propaganda about torches and slag and NONSENSE in order to divert attention away from the Controlled Demolition Signatures that are EVERYWHERE.

Sorry Terral. I found a big mistake in your INTERPRETATIONS before and I'm doing it again. There is another alternative explanation to the "slag" and/or "froth" on the columns and that's from torches. Your visual analysis is on the same level as Christophera's I'm sorry to say.

The Thermate Charges were set like typical CD charges (pic). Some charges are set at 90 degrees (horizontal), while others are set to cut at 45 degree angles and 'walk' the column line in one of the four directions (short video).

Bullshit. You have NO proof whatsoever. Pure speculation. Again, you're making shit up to fit the pictures. As I've said before, I already proved you wrong on your "45 degree cut column horsecrap". It's the same with this visual interpretation.

Gam does NOT even begin to know the differences between thermate shape charge cuts (froth residue) and typical torch cuts (slag residue). I 'do' (#3) know the difference . . .

Sorry. Wrong again.

3. If thermite MELTS the steel, why are there jagged edges going 45 degrees through the steel plates that comprised the columns? These jagged edges are indicative of torch cuts.

No. We are talking about literally thousands of thermate shape charge cuts being made during the Controlled Demolition Process where massive loads are shifting in desired directions. You should expect to have problems with the execution of a small percentage of charges for one of many reasons. Remember that your job is to prove that 'building fires' took down WTC-7 and 'then' talk to me about how demo workers made cuts in the aftermath of the collapse. The problem is that you must prove that 'all' the WTC-7 supporting members were compromised at the SAME TIME, which is very much impossible in any skyscraper built using 'Compartmentalization' (link and see OP again) of all supporting steel supports.

You failed to answer the question. Why are there "jagged edges" at a 45 degree angle showing in your photo when a thermite cutting charge blows STRAIGHT through? Are you suggesting that they set the charges to cut 45 degrees across the width of the plates that comprised the columns to make those 45 degree jagged edges??!?!?!?

4. How much thermite would be required to burn through 4" thick steel plate and how long would it take?

How much thermate is needed to burn supporting members has NOTHING to do with making the Controlled Demolition Case! These massive steel supported can NEVER be burned down using hydrocarbon-based building fires in a billion years! The question is about whether these WTC Skyscrapers were brought down using Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org), OR from building fires and/or falling building debris. In other words: How do 'you' transform this . . .

. . . into this . . .

Oh yes it does. You have described a theory and you need to come up with plausible steps to make it happen. Just like you think you are finding errors and contradictions in the official story, your "official story" is subject to the same scrutiny. What's the matter Terral? Can't make your theory work? Wow. Just like Christophera. How much thermite would it take to cut through a 4" steel plate? This directly affects how BIG the charges would have to be, how much noise they would have made, how that were installed without anyone seeing them, etc. Answer the question. Why are you and your theory not subject to the same tough questions? You say you want people to debate you, yet when I do, you redirect me to defend the official story instead of you answering the tough questions about your own theory.

. . . 'and' without damaging the adjacent building faces???!!! Go ahead and tell us 'how' all of these thousands of massive steel supports were 'severed' using anything other than Controlled Demolition!

GL,

Terral

Tell you what. You show me some closeups, not some distant, fuzzy, grainy photos of these "SEVERED" columns where we can actually see the ends. You are confusing everyone at best with your visual analysis. You claim "thermite" in this photo.

I fail to see the "signature froth" on the end of the columns you claim have been severed? Why is that? Do you have any better photos of the debris before clennup was started that clearly show "froth". I bet you don't.

 

[Gamolon]

one small problem a careful reading of the NIST report shows the temperatures required to weaken steel were not found in forensic testing of the metal and materials from the wtc

And there was no forensic evidence of explosives or thermite either yet you CHOOSE to believe that.

Why?

 

[Bern80]

Go ahead and tell us 'how' all of these thousands of massive steel supports were 'severed' using anything other than Controlled Demolition!

The plane, hijacked by Muslims, slammed into the building igniting the tons of fuel on board. The fuel weakens the steel beams which causes the entire top of the building to fall to the floor below. That floor cannot take the stress of all the floors above falling on it so it collapses too. And just like an accordion the entire building goes down: Directly Down. The only "control" were the Muslim pilots who flew the jet on it's suicide mission. Remember Osama bin Laden taking credit for it? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's not a US Government employee.

You honestly didn't see this before? Well I hope I've opened your eyes to the simple truth.

and if your going to spout the official lie you should at least know what it is NIST rejected the pancake theory after truthers showed its flaws and invented the thermal expansion theory

What is a lie about what he said? It isn't that we all buy into some story. It's that by pretty much every observable measure, that's what happened. You STILL are the one who doesn't get it, eots. Your theory of what happned can not exist in a vacuum.

The government orchestrating a controlled demolition does not explain why bin Laden took credit.

It does not explain how they were able to orchestrate planes crashing into a building below where the 'detonation' would have had to take place.

Hell it doesn't even explain why planes crashed into the building in the first place. If you believe our government was capable of rigging a building for demoliton without being detected, why not a group of terrorists?

 

[Godboy]

well apparently according to you the man in the cave orcastrated one of the biggest conspiracy's in history..and pulled it off without a hitch and runs a huge network called al qaeda..but no one has given up his plans or his location in all these years...so you are of the opinion that the man in the cave and his cohorts are more effective than u.s intelligence and air defence and he and his network can keep secrets the CIA is incapable of keeping...intresting

Thats not actually what happened. Bin Laden didnt come up with the plan, nor did he involve himself with every detail of carrying it out. Bin Laden financed the operation, but thats about it really.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the primary man responsible for the planning. As i recall, it was actually his nephews idea, but it was just a pipe dream they both had since like 1992ish. Word got out that Bin Laden was taking interveiws with would-be terrorists to determine who he would finance. UBL liked the plane crashing plan, so he agreed to finance it. By this time, KSMs nephew was arrested for other terrorist attacks, which happened a few years before 9/11, so he never got to be part of the planning.

 

[Gamolon]

one small problem a careful reading of the NIST report shows the temperatures required to weaken steel were not found in forensic testing of the metal and materials from the wtc

Forensic huh?

Since you seem to be a supporter of controlled demolition, please provide me with a couple of sources pertaining to the forensic evidence that supports a controlled demolition. If you cannot supply me with any, I would like you to please explain why you ONLY scrutinize the official story and all of it's studies and request "forensic evidence", but never once scrutinize or request "forensic evidence" for the conspiracy theories.

Have you ever debated or scrutinized any of the conspiracy theories here on this board like you do the official story? If so, please point me to the particular thread and except my apology.

Otherwise, I'll just view you as another government hating lemming who only chooses to argue against the things that go against your beliefs and are not truly interested in the truth at all. If you were interested in the truth, you'd scrutinize BOTH sides to weed out the crap and use the same set of standards you use to find the supposed faults in the official story when looking into any conspiracy theory.

So far you've only done that with the official story as far as I can see.

Ball's in your court.

 

[Gamolon]

The problem is that you must prove that 'all' the WTC-7 supporting members were compromised at the SAME TIME, which is very much impossible in any skyscraper built using 'Compartmentalization' (link and see OP again) of all supporting steel supports.

Another false statement Terral? This is getting tiresome. Please explain why I need to prove "supporting members were compromised AT THE SAME TIME" when this video CLEARLY shows that the "supporting members" were NOT compromised at the same time.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w]YouTube - 9/11: WTC 7 east penthouse collapse[/ame]

Can you explain how you came up with "compromised at the same time" from the video above? I see the entire mechanical penthouse on the left ollapse into the building itself. Then the center part of the roof, followed by the rest of the building.

Please explain how this shows ALL the members being compromised at the same time. This should be good. I can even see the facing of the building react to the penthouse falling INSIDE. Do you see the windows shattering and the face of the building bulge slightly as it fell inside? Or are you just being intentionally blind?

 

[Terral]

Hi Gam:

No way. You are telling me that by YOUR visual analysis, you see a difference between the "slag" or "thermate froth"?! You're full of crap. There's no way the "slag" or "froth" look any different from this picture.

Yes. There is a difference between thermate froth and torch slag 'and' yes Gam is full of crap for even trying to push this "cutting torch did it" thesis cuckoo. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is your empty hypothesis on how an overbuilt 47-story skyscraper collapsed into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]CD Collapse, OR Collapse From Fire???[/ame]

Let's examine the evidence again in this picture:

Look at the 'Severed Column End' segments that are scattered throughout the debris pile. These column sections were obviously 'cut' BEFORE they fell to become part of the debris pile having NOTHING to do with any demo workers. These columns were CUT during the Controlled Demolition Process to THEN have debris fall on top of them during the collapse. I KNOW FOR A FACT that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition by all of these Controlled Demolition Signatures, but you have no explanation for HOW all of these massive steel connections were 'cut' before the skyscraper collapsed in the first place. The idea that thousands of these cuts were made by demo workers 'after' the collapse IS STUPID beyond our collective abilities to fathom. Your silly notion is that a Demo Supervisor ordered his men to climb a ladder and make 45-degree angle cuts . . .

. . . FOR WHAT REASON????? No sir. That massive box columns was 'cut' using a thermate shape charge 'during the CD process' and AFTER the column line above was deliberately compromised. The massive columns above this one were also 'cut' at 45-degree angles in opposite directions, so that this column sliding off the lower pedestal broke the back of the entire 47-story column line. The inner columns are taken out first to allow the center of the skyscraper to collapse first. Then the outer columns are 'cut' to allow all outer walls to collapse in this 'Controlled Demolition.'

Here is how STUPID you look for even offering up a this 'cutting torch made these 45-degree cuts' NONSENSE. (Click on the picture) Follow the massive column down and you will find a base plate that includes bolts and nuts on top of a concrete pad (another pic). You are making an argument for wasting a huge amount of cutting torch fuel and valuable demo worker time to make a fancy 45-degree angle cut on a box column with 4-inch sold steel sides, when the column pad bolts only needed to be loosened to hoist the entire column from this location.

Look at the pictures again and tell me where the 47 concrete slabs went???? :0)

The very first thing you need to do is come up with an explanation for what 'cut' thousands of WTC-7 structural steel connections AT THE SAME TIME to allow a CD-like Collapse. THEN start barking about demo workers cutting the collapsed steel members. Otherwise, your entire argument is from a guy that is definitely full of crap confused . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[Gamolon]

Hi Gam:

No way. You are telling me that by YOUR visual analysis, you see a difference between the "slag" or "thermate froth"?! You're full of crap. There's no way the "slag" or "froth" look any different from this picture.

Yes. There is a difference between thermate froth and torch slag 'and' yes Gam is full of crap for even trying to push this "cutting torch did it" thesis cuckoo.

Bullshit. You look at the two pictures. The one I posted and the one you posted and tell me the differences. There are none.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is your empty hypothesis on how an overbuilt 47-story skyscraper collapsed into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds IN THE FIRST PLACE.

CD Collapse, OR Collapse From Fire???

That's a bogus video because you cut out the collapse of the mechanical penthouse into the building itself. Why are you ignoring this? Because it fits your views better? 6.6 seconds is bullshit. It was LONGER than that because the collapse STARTED with the collapse of the penthouse. How sad you are trying to mislead people.

Let's examine the evidence again in this picture:

Look at the 'Severed Column End' segments that are scattered throughout the debris pile. These column sections were obviously 'cut' BEFORE they fell to become part of the debris pile having NOTHING to do with any demo workers. These columns were CUT during the Controlled Demolition Process to THEN have debris fall on top of them during the collapse. I KNOW FOR A FACT that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition by all of these Controlled Demolition Signatures, but you have no explanation for HOW all of these massive steel connections were 'cut' before the skyscraper collapsed in the first place. The idea that thousands of these cuts were made by demo workers 'after' the collapse IS STUPID beyond our collective abilities to fathom. Your silly notion is that a Demo Supervisor ordered his men to climb a ladder and make 45-degree angle cuts . . .

. . . FOR WHAT REASON????? No sir. That massive box columns was 'cut' using a thermate shape charge 'during the CD process' and AFTER the column line above was deliberately compromised. The massive columns above this one were also 'cut' at 45-degree angles in opposite directions, so that this column sliding off the lower pedestal broke the back of the entire 47-story column line. The inner columns are taken out first to allow the center of the skyscraper to collapse first. Then the outer columns are 'cut' to allow all outer walls to collapse in this 'Controlled Demolition.'

Here is how STUPID you look for even offering up a this 'cutting torch made these 45-degree cuts' NONSENSE. (Click on the picture) Follow the massive column down and you will find a base plate that includes bolts and nuts on top of a concrete pad (another pic). You are making an argument for wasting a huge amount of cutting torch fuel and valuable demo worker time to make a fancy 45-degree angle cut on a box column with 4-inch sold steel sides, when the column pad bolts only needed to be loosened to hoist the entire column from this location.

Look at the pictures again and tell me where the 47 concrete slabs went???? :0)

The very first thing you need to do is come up with an explanation for what 'cut' thousands of WTC-7 structural steel connections AT THE SAME TIME to allow a CD-like Collapse. THEN start barking about demo workers cutting the collapsed steel members. Otherwise, your entire argument is from a guy that is definitely full of crap confused . . .

GL,

Terral

Here's why you're wrong. Again. Look at this photo I marked up.

As the text in the picture asks, how in the hell did a shape charge, placed parallel to the face of the plate make 45 degree angle jagged cuts (shown with the red lines on the photo) THROUGH the plate?

YOU'RE FULL OF CRAP!

 

[Gamolon]

Terral, can you also tell me why the cut pattern from this torch photo, circled in red...

...matches the cut pattern circled in red in this photo?

Do you see the jagged edges of the actual cuts in each photo? Funny how they match right? Same jagged edges...

 

[eots]

one small problem a careful reading of the NIST report shows the temperatures required to weaken steel were not found in forensic testing of the metal and materials from the wtc

Well, that rules out superthermite and molten steel, eh?

no not at all..those temperatures would of been in very selective and precise areas only so only testing the exact area of the cuts would show these temperatures or within the molten metal that was without question present..the rest of the steel would show the temperatures of the burning material and fuel which were not sufficient to weaken steel

 

[Logique]

Eots has the results of such testing, yes?

 

[eots]

yes


Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


"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 "

James Quintiere, Ph.D

former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

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

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM]YouTube - Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11[/ame]

 

[candycorn]

Eots has the results of such testing, yes?

I think he was the subject of a lot of tests...mental exams, metal drugs, all failed.

 

[eots]

Eots has the results of such testing, yes?

I think he was the subject of a lot of tests...mental exams, metal drugs, all failed.

but that's only because you are a douchebag that can not address the fact of molten metal and deceptions of NIST

 

[Bern80]

Eots has the results of such testing, yes?

I think he was the subject of a lot of tests...mental exams, metal drugs, all failed.

but that's only because you are a douchebag that can not address the fact of molten metal and deceptions of NIST

The problem is eots you keep contradicting yourself on the whole molten steel thing. You keep citing Mr. Quintiere as saying there was not sufficient heat to weaken the steel (let alone melt it) while at the same time claiming super thermite was used which was what caused the molten steel found at the sight.

And again not to mention the many, many other variables that you so conveniently ignore that would be required to make your theory true. It's very revealing concerning your mentality that you're like a dog on a bone when it comes to inventing evidence of controlled demolition while at the same time choose to remain completely obtuse about finding evidence about how it would have to get there in the first place.

You see, eots the truth of the agenda of the likes of you and terrel is revealed through the manner in which you choose to attempt to tackle the problem. No objective problem solver would do what you are doing. Trying so hard to prove a CD and leave how it possibly got planted in the first place as an afterthought. The simplest wat to rule out whether an explosive of any type was used to bring down the towers would be to establish whether it was even possible to get them in place to do in the first place. You won't even broach this subject, resorting to your lamest of excuses 'subpoena power'. What a fucking joke. It's like you don't even want to know.

 

[Gamolon]

yes


Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


"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 "

James Quintiere, Ph.D

former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

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

Then please explain Mr. Quintiere's quote from the paper he wrote that says this:

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation.

So he believes that all the testing and evidence point to TEMPERATURES affecting the STEEL FLOOR TRUSSES to a point that they FAILED.

What? Were the trusses made of plastic?

The problem with you is you are trying to use Mr. Quintiere's quotes as evidence that HE believes that there was a controlled demolition and we need a new investigation. That is TOTALLY wrong. He believes that the failure due to TEMPERATURES falls on the floor trusses and NOT on the columns.

So your man Quintiere, in his own paper, says there is enough to show that TEMPERATURES affected the STEEL trusses to a point of failure.

You're just plain wrong now. Your own WITNESS agrees with us.