WTC building 7

[daws101]

Care to dig into the pile of Building 7 debris with me? I started looking for corroboration of controlled demolition in the structural remains, and found none. You are invited to follow along, and see what I did find.

The purpose of this site is to gather as much of the debris evidence of Building 7 into one place as I can, and organize it in such a way so others can see the story it tells. It tells a story much different than the one told by Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth, the source of the controlled demolition (CD) claim, and who to the best of my knowledge, has never done an analysis of the debris patterns, structural remains, or video of collapse from many angles. This site is attempting to perform that function, which in my opinion, should have already been done by any professional organization making the claim Building 7 was collapsed on purpose with controlled demolition.

I’ve tried to think in terms of what a grand jury will be shown, and I believe it will be similar to what I have assembled. I ask readers to pretend you are a grand jury member. You have been assembled to hear the claim controlled demolition brought down Building 7. I’m not here to disprove that claim, but to show you what the evidence says did happen.

In order to grasp what the debris says, it is necessary to have foundational knowledge of the building, the neighborhood, and the damage. I am presently in the process of publishing those introductory chapters, and organizing the site.

An investigative approach requires ruthless objectivity. I am doing my utmost to allow the evidence to speak, and view it with no pre-conception. The photographic and video evidence will be there for readers to critique my reading of it. If I am unsure of a structural member being discussed, or it’s original location in the building, I point it out. Otherwise, I’m careful to be sure of structural member identification. This is no different than an auto accident investigation. Examination of skid marks, damage, and debris reveal how the accident occurred. Reverse engineering of the debris from Building 7 reveals how it fell.

The site is organized by chapter, or Fact, numbered in sequence. A running list of Facts are on the right column at the top. I encourage readers to start with Fact 1 and read in order. That list does not show for some reason, when you go to a page from the top menu, such as “Home”, or “Orientation”. I provided a link back to Fact 1 at the bottom of each of those pages. Click there and the list will then show and you can select another fact to study. I also encourage readers to visit the orientation page. Basic knowledge of the building and surroundings are vital for understanding what you are looking at in the debris. Future chapters will include debris analysis in order to show how the building fell, including illustrations of the the lower perimeter wall failure, based on the evidence. I will continue publishing chapters in a logical sequence as they are ready, at least one a week.

This is not a de-bunking site. The simple fact that it is necessary to write this material though, shows that it will be impossible to not fall into the de-bunking mode. There is a growing number of youth who are being convinced those buildings were intentionally collapsed with CD, yet the structural remains do not support that claim. Addressing that claim and it’s sources is unavoidable. Primarily, this site is to present the debris evidence, and illustrate what it means.

Comments are welcome. I encourage discussion, critique, questions, etc. I welcome opposing views, and encourage referral to any debris or structural evidence I may have overlooked which says otherwise. I welcome truthers. I know you are committed to your belief, and I respect that. The structural evidence however, has been omitted from the debate. I’m filling that gap, if you will.

World Trade Center 7 Facts Bones Don t Lie Structural remains from Building 7 show no sign of controlled demolition

/THREAD

it's a good read ...

lol...it is in contradiction with the NIST report

no it's not but since you not read any of it that's the shit I'd expect you to say ..

 

[eots]

and you will go down in history as one of the great thinkers who do not know the difference between calling into doubt the gubmints version of the facts and a conspiracy. bravo!

Shadowy figures sneaking thru a burning building to plant demo charges.
The government is involved, or at least hiding that fact, and that's not a conspiracy?
Boy, you musta fell out the stupid tree and smacked your head on every branch.

Your theory is what.. expert eyewitness statements are groups liars..fema photos are fake ?..NIST is truthful when they say no molten metal or explosions were witnessed or recorded..its all a grand conspiracy to discredit NIST

fact a TINY amount of molten aluminum was found it was not near as unexpected or a earth shattering was you are trying to make it.
yes there were explosions.. but there were no explosives.
many things under normal conditions do not explode but an 8 hour long mostly uncontrolled series of fires are not normal conditions....

there is clear evidence of melted steel

false the pictures you posted are of burned steel not melted





note the differences.

Colour Temperature [°C] Temperature [°F]
Red: Just visible 525 980
Dull red 700 1300
Dull cherry red 800 1500
Full cherry red 900 1700
Clear cherry red 1000 1800
Deep orange 1100 2000
Clear orange 1200 2200
Whitish 1300 2400
Bright white 1400 2600
Dazzling white 1500 2700

 

[eots]

Care to dig into the pile of Building 7 debris with me? I started looking for corroboration of controlled demolition in the structural remains, and found none. You are invited to follow along, and see what I did find.

The purpose of this site is to gather as much of the debris evidence of Building 7 into one place as I can, and organize it in such a way so others can see the story it tells. It tells a story much different than the one told by Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth, the source of the controlled demolition (CD) claim, and who to the best of my knowledge, has never done an analysis of the debris patterns, structural remains, or video of collapse from many angles. This site is attempting to perform that function, which in my opinion, should have already been done by any professional organization making the claim Building 7 was collapsed on purpose with controlled demolition.

I’ve tried to think in terms of what a grand jury will be shown, and I believe it will be similar to what I have assembled. I ask readers to pretend you are a grand jury member. You have been assembled to hear the claim controlled demolition brought down Building 7. I’m not here to disprove that claim, but to show you what the evidence says did happen.

In order to grasp what the debris says, it is necessary to have foundational knowledge of the building, the neighborhood, and the damage. I am presently in the process of publishing those introductory chapters, and organizing the site.

An investigative approach requires ruthless objectivity. I am doing my utmost to allow the evidence to speak, and view it with no pre-conception. The photographic and video evidence will be there for readers to critique my reading of it. If I am unsure of a structural member being discussed, or it’s original location in the building, I point it out. Otherwise, I’m careful to be sure of structural member identification. This is no different than an auto accident investigation. Examination of skid marks, damage, and debris reveal how the accident occurred. Reverse engineering of the debris from Building 7 reveals how it fell.

The site is organized by chapter, or Fact, numbered in sequence. A running list of Facts are on the right column at the top. I encourage readers to start with Fact 1 and read in order. That list does not show for some reason, when you go to a page from the top menu, such as “Home”, or “Orientation”. I provided a link back to Fact 1 at the bottom of each of those pages. Click there and the list will then show and you can select another fact to study. I also encourage readers to visit the orientation page. Basic knowledge of the building and surroundings are vital for understanding what you are looking at in the debris. Future chapters will include debris analysis in order to show how the building fell, including illustrations of the the lower perimeter wall failure, based on the evidence. I will continue publishing chapters in a logical sequence as they are ready, at least one a week.

This is not a de-bunking site. The simple fact that it is necessary to write this material though, shows that it will be impossible to not fall into the de-bunking mode. There is a growing number of youth who are being convinced those buildings were intentionally collapsed with CD, yet the structural remains do not support that claim. Addressing that claim and it’s sources is unavoidable. Primarily, this site is to present the debris evidence, and illustrate what it means.

Comments are welcome. I encourage discussion, critique, questions, etc. I welcome opposing views, and encourage referral to any debris or structural evidence I may have overlooked which says otherwise. I welcome truthers. I know you are committed to your belief, and I respect that. The structural evidence however, has been omitted from the debate. I’m filling that gap, if you will.

World Trade Center 7 Facts Bones Don t Lie Structural remains from Building 7 show no sign of controlled demolition

/THREAD

it's a good read ...

lol...it is in contradiction with the NIST report

no it's not but since you not read any of it that's the shit I'd expect you to say ..

oh it most definitely is it cites damage

They are defending the indefensible.

When core columns fail due to over heating they look like this.



The wtc debris has not produced any yet.

But there are plenty of perfectly cut pieces.

Beautiful 3 side cut,

and we can only see 2 sides of the one in the lower right corner and upper right corner.

These people dont seem to know the difference between forensic examination of a building and a conspiracy though I am sure they want to convert it to one to dodge the necessity of producing hard evidence in support of the nonsensical fire theory.

nobody questions why they got rid of all the steel so quickly without a true investigation? it was a terrorist attack and plane crash site and they swept it under the rug asap got rid of all structural steel evidence asap. building fell at free fall speed straight down and these morons still think it was structural fire failure? lol what a bunch of cowardly dolts that can't admit they've been sold into ww3 over oil wars and haliburton profits etc.. can you imagine we let those starting the war to profit so heavily over it and we just sat and watched? wow....... american the land of the cowardly naves

the building fell VERY QUICKLY ----but not exactly "freefall"-------the fall produced a HUGE OUTPUT OF ENERGY because it overcame
LOTS AND LOTS OF FRICTION ---------you are confused -----a free fall
would not involve just high velocity it would INCLUDE acceleration. -----what it
would not include was the huge release of energy at the base even before
it hit the ground. The energy release would have simply been a big
bang on the ground. ----and signs of IMPLOSION -----no implosion-----I
watched it happen------no implosion

NIST admits free fall, a fact not in dispute

what a joke you are-------so? "NIST ADMITS FREE FALL"----impossible ----
unlike you a passed PHYSICS 101. there is no freefall even in air-----there is always friction The buildings-----after burning up for more than an hour----showing no signs of IMPLOSION -----did suddenly collapse and go down at a very high velocity shooting forth -----at the BASE, a huge wave of energy that blew
smoke and detritus all over manhattan-----that is not controlled demolition ----it is not EXPLOSIONS in the building, it is collapse under a huge overhead weight. ---remember 'weight'------it is related to mass.

lol...like how you back peddled...its impossible
oh wait NIST said it...oh ok its possible...lol

 

[irosie91]

nobody questions why they got rid of all the steel so quickly without a true investigation? it was a terrorist attack and plane crash site and they swept it under the rug asap got rid of all structural steel evidence asap. building fell at free fall speed straight down and these morons still think it was structural fire failure? lol what a bunch of cowardly dolts that can't admit they've been sold into ww3 over oil wars and haliburton profits etc.. can you imagine we let those starting the war to profit so heavily over it and we just sat and watched? wow....... american the land of the cowardly naves

the building fell VERY QUICKLY ----but not exactly "freefall"-------the fall produced a HUGE OUTPUT OF ENERGY because it overcame
LOTS AND LOTS OF FRICTION ---------you are confused -----a free fall
would not involve just high velocity it would INCLUDE acceleration. -----what it
would not include was the huge release of energy at the base even before
it hit the ground. The energy release would have simply been a big
bang on the ground. ----and signs of IMPLOSION -----no implosion-----I
watched it happen------no implosion

NIST admits free fall, a fact not in dispute

yes they did ..for 2.5 sec

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
that freefall is effect not cause and it's short duration is of no diagnostic importance.

oh----we are doing building 7?? I did not see that one

when eots posts it's almost always building 7...

oh---the one that was completely evacuated and really did not have
much impact on anyone------so no one paid attention. I got it------
my impression at the time was that they just "let it go"---whilst scraping
the victims off the sidewalk and dealing with the utterly messed up city---
shrouded in GLOP and------crowded with screaming relatives and traffic
jams and------for me------guess what------a lady in labor on a subway platform. ---
everything was messed up and we are supposed to ponder an empty building that
burned itself out?. For the record----there were other damaged buildings---
they don't count. A nearby historic church got its roof blown off and was extensively damaged------no one cared----there was no one in it at the time -----
the backyard cemetery survived

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

SO TRUE-----THEM TROOOFERS have PROVEN their case again.
(special for Penelope------note----DA WORD 'JOO' has three letters
too. ))

Sex has three letters too. I suppose the con·spir·a·cist's terror of three letter words can reasonably be construed to show....

not going there

the FREUDIAN THREE "theory" is not relevant here...keep it to yourself----always-----and in privacy

My CIA handlers won't allow that

who are you trying to fool, the cia does have entry standards and they far exceed your single digit academic level.

yeah Dante is not one of them.

Dante if he was one of them would go around trolling all the time defending the lies of our corrupt school system and our government institutions that Reagan was a great president.

He doesnt make up lies like agents do when they are cornered,he just runs off like he just did.thats what all brainwashed sheep like they do,instead of trolling and lying like they do here all the time everyday,they run off and dissapear knowing they are licked.

the PC forum where they protect the shills there,has got them everywhere at that site trolling everyday constantly as you well know.

please, could you two dolts keep Dante out of your circle jerks?

 

[irosie91]

Care to dig into the pile of Building 7 debris with me? I started looking for corroboration of controlled demolition in the structural remains, and found none. You are invited to follow along, and see what I did find.

The purpose of this site is to gather as much of the debris evidence of Building 7 into one place as I can, and organize it in such a way so others can see the story it tells. It tells a story much different than the one told by Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth, the source of the controlled demolition (CD) claim, and who to the best of my knowledge, has never done an analysis of the debris patterns, structural remains, or video of collapse from many angles. This site is attempting to perform that function, which in my opinion, should have already been done by any professional organization making the claim Building 7 was collapsed on purpose with controlled demolition.

I’ve tried to think in terms of what a grand jury will be shown, and I believe it will be similar to what I have assembled. I ask readers to pretend you are a grand jury member. You have been assembled to hear the claim controlled demolition brought down Building 7. I’m not here to disprove that claim, but to show you what the evidence says did happen.

In order to grasp what the debris says, it is necessary to have foundational knowledge of the building, the neighborhood, and the damage. I am presently in the process of publishing those introductory chapters, and organizing the site.

An investigative approach requires ruthless objectivity. I am doing my utmost to allow the evidence to speak, and view it with no pre-conception. The photographic and video evidence will be there for readers to critique my reading of it. If I am unsure of a structural member being discussed, or it’s original location in the building, I point it out. Otherwise, I’m careful to be sure of structural member identification. This is no different than an auto accident investigation. Examination of skid marks, damage, and debris reveal how the accident occurred. Reverse engineering of the debris from Building 7 reveals how it fell.

The site is organized by chapter, or Fact, numbered in sequence. A running list of Facts are on the right column at the top. I encourage readers to start with Fact 1 and read in order. That list does not show for some reason, when you go to a page from the top menu, such as “Home”, or “Orientation”. I provided a link back to Fact 1 at the bottom of each of those pages. Click there and the list will then show and you can select another fact to study. I also encourage readers to visit the orientation page. Basic knowledge of the building and surroundings are vital for understanding what you are looking at in the debris. Future chapters will include debris analysis in order to show how the building fell, including illustrations of the the lower perimeter wall failure, based on the evidence. I will continue publishing chapters in a logical sequence as they are ready, at least one a week.

This is not a de-bunking site. The simple fact that it is necessary to write this material though, shows that it will be impossible to not fall into the de-bunking mode. There is a growing number of youth who are being convinced those buildings were intentionally collapsed with CD, yet the structural remains do not support that claim. Addressing that claim and it’s sources is unavoidable. Primarily, this site is to present the debris evidence, and illustrate what it means.

Comments are welcome. I encourage discussion, critique, questions, etc. I welcome opposing views, and encourage referral to any debris or structural evidence I may have overlooked which says otherwise. I welcome truthers. I know you are committed to your belief, and I respect that. The structural evidence however, has been omitted from the debate. I’m filling that gap, if you will.

World Trade Center 7 Facts Bones Don t Lie Structural remains from Building 7 show no sign of controlled demolition

/THREAD

it's a good read ...

lol...it is in contradiction with the NIST report

no it's not but since you not read any of it that's the shit I'd expect you to say ..

oh it most definitely is it cites damage

They are defending the indefensible.

When core columns fail due to over heating they look like this.



The wtc debris has not produced any yet.

But there are plenty of perfectly cut pieces.

Beautiful 3 side cut,

and we can only see 2 sides of the one in the lower right corner and upper right corner.

These people dont seem to know the difference between forensic examination of a building and a conspiracy though I am sure they want to convert it to one to dodge the necessity of producing hard evidence in support of the nonsensical fire theory.

nobody questions why they got rid of all the steel so quickly without a true investigation? it was a terrorist attack and plane crash site and they swept it under the rug asap got rid of all structural steel evidence asap. building fell at free fall speed straight down and these morons still think it was structural fire failure? lol what a bunch of cowardly dolts that can't admit they've been sold into ww3 over oil wars and haliburton profits etc.. can you imagine we let those starting the war to profit so heavily over it and we just sat and watched? wow....... american the land of the cowardly naves

the building fell VERY QUICKLY ----but not exactly "freefall"-------the fall produced a HUGE OUTPUT OF ENERGY because it overcame
LOTS AND LOTS OF FRICTION ---------you are confused -----a free fall
would not involve just high velocity it would INCLUDE acceleration. -----what it
would not include was the huge release of energy at the base even before
it hit the ground. The energy release would have simply been a big
bang on the ground. ----and signs of IMPLOSION -----no implosion-----I
watched it happen------no implosion

NIST admits free fall, a fact not in dispute

what a joke you are-------so? "NIST ADMITS FREE FALL"----impossible ----
unlike you a passed PHYSICS 101. there is no freefall even in air-----there is always friction The buildings-----after burning up for more than an hour----showing no signs of IMPLOSION -----did suddenly collapse and go down at a very high velocity shooting forth -----at the BASE, a huge wave of energy that blew
smoke and detritus all over manhattan-----that is not controlled demolition ----it is not EXPLOSIONS in the building, it is collapse under a huge overhead weight. ---remember 'weight'------it is related to mass.

lol...like how you back peddled...its impossible
oh wait NIST said it...oh ok its possible...lol

wrong again-----I explained the HIGH VELOCITY OF THE FALL----and why it is not precisely "FREE FALL"------the velocity simply comes close to free fall----
(without the acceleration issue which you ignore)

 

[daws101]

Shadowy figures sneaking thru a burning building to plant demo charges.
The government is involved, or at least hiding that fact, and that's not a conspiracy?
Boy, you musta fell out the stupid tree and smacked your head on every branch.

Your theory is what.. expert eyewitness statements are groups liars..fema photos are fake ?..NIST is truthful when they say no molten metal or explosions were witnessed or recorded..its all a grand conspiracy to discredit NIST

fact a TINY amount of molten aluminum was found it was not near as unexpected or a earth shattering was you are trying to make it.
yes there were explosions.. but there were no explosives.
many things under normal conditions do not explode but an 8 hour long mostly uncontrolled series of fires are not normal conditions....

there is clear evidence of melted steel

false the pictures you posted are of burned steel not melted





note the differences.

Colour Temperature [°C] Temperature [°F]
Red: Just visible 525 980
Dull red 700 1300
Dull cherry red 800 1500
Full cherry red 900 1700
Clear cherry red 1000 1800
Deep orange 1100 2000
Clear orange 1200 2200
Whitish 1300 2400
Bright white 1400 2600
Dazzling white 1500 2700

Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
At what temperature does steel burn?


2,000 degree's F* is more like it. And "Burning" Breaks down the Carbon to Carbon bonds causing the material to become brittle. "Burning" is referenced to be a prolonged exposure to high heat with out tempering.
like I said no melted steel lot's of burned steel though.

 

[eots]

Care to dig into the pile of Building 7 debris with me? I started looking for corroboration of controlled demolition in the structural remains, and found none. You are invited to follow along, and see what I did find.

The purpose of this site is to gather as much of the debris evidence of Building 7 into one place as I can, and organize it in such a way so others can see the story it tells. It tells a story much different than the one told by Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth, the source of the controlled demolition (CD) claim, and who to the best of my knowledge, has never done an analysis of the debris patterns, structural remains, or video of collapse from many angles. This site is attempting to perform that function, which in my opinion, should have already been done by any professional organization making the claim Building 7 was collapsed on purpose with controlled demolition.

I’ve tried to think in terms of what a grand jury will be shown, and I believe it will be similar to what I have assembled. I ask readers to pretend you are a grand jury member. You have been assembled to hear the claim controlled demolition brought down Building 7. I’m not here to disprove that claim, but to show you what the evidence says did happen.

In order to grasp what the debris says, it is necessary to have foundational knowledge of the building, the neighborhood, and the damage. I am presently in the process of publishing those introductory chapters, and organizing the site.

An investigative approach requires ruthless objectivity. I am doing my utmost to allow the evidence to speak, and view it with no pre-conception. The photographic and video evidence will be there for readers to critique my reading of it. If I am unsure of a structural member being discussed, or it’s original location in the building, I point it out. Otherwise, I’m careful to be sure of structural member identification. This is no different than an auto accident investigation. Examination of skid marks, damage, and debris reveal how the accident occurred. Reverse engineering of the debris from Building 7 reveals how it fell.

The site is organized by chapter, or Fact, numbered in sequence. A running list of Facts are on the right column at the top. I encourage readers to start with Fact 1 and read in order. That list does not show for some reason, when you go to a page from the top menu, such as “Home”, or “Orientation”. I provided a link back to Fact 1 at the bottom of each of those pages. Click there and the list will then show and you can select another fact to study. I also encourage readers to visit the orientation page. Basic knowledge of the building and surroundings are vital for understanding what you are looking at in the debris. Future chapters will include debris analysis in order to show how the building fell, including illustrations of the the lower perimeter wall failure, based on the evidence. I will continue publishing chapters in a logical sequence as they are ready, at least one a week.

This is not a de-bunking site. The simple fact that it is necessary to write this material though, shows that it will be impossible to not fall into the de-bunking mode. There is a growing number of youth who are being convinced those buildings were intentionally collapsed with CD, yet the structural remains do not support that claim. Addressing that claim and it’s sources is unavoidable. Primarily, this site is to present the debris evidence, and illustrate what it means.

Comments are welcome. I encourage discussion, critique, questions, etc. I welcome opposing views, and encourage referral to any debris or structural evidence I may have overlooked which says otherwise. I welcome truthers. I know you are committed to your belief, and I respect that. The structural evidence however, has been omitted from the debate. I’m filling that gap, if you will.

World Trade Center 7 Facts Bones Don t Lie Structural remains from Building 7 show no sign of controlled demolition

When I first noticed this dark vertical line on the south face of WTC7, like most observers, I dismissed it as a shadow, or other building feature. Veiled in smoke, and because of it’s even shape, it was easy to overlook. Further study several years later revealed it to be a fatal breach, largely responsible for building failure.


did this guy even read the NIST report ?..lol what a joke..come on daws even you know this statement is false and in contradiction with NIST

 

[daws101]

Care to dig into the pile of Building 7 debris with me? I started looking for corroboration of controlled demolition in the structural remains, and found none. You are invited to follow along, and see what I did find.

The purpose of this site is to gather as much of the debris evidence of Building 7 into one place as I can, and organize it in such a way so others can see the story it tells. It tells a story much different than the one told by Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth, the source of the controlled demolition (CD) claim, and who to the best of my knowledge, has never done an analysis of the debris patterns, structural remains, or video of collapse from many angles. This site is attempting to perform that function, which in my opinion, should have already been done by any professional organization making the claim Building 7 was collapsed on purpose with controlled demolition.

I’ve tried to think in terms of what a grand jury will be shown, and I believe it will be similar to what I have assembled. I ask readers to pretend you are a grand jury member. You have been assembled to hear the claim controlled demolition brought down Building 7. I’m not here to disprove that claim, but to show you what the evidence says did happen.

In order to grasp what the debris says, it is necessary to have foundational knowledge of the building, the neighborhood, and the damage. I am presently in the process of publishing those introductory chapters, and organizing the site.

An investigative approach requires ruthless objectivity. I am doing my utmost to allow the evidence to speak, and view it with no pre-conception. The photographic and video evidence will be there for readers to critique my reading of it. If I am unsure of a structural member being discussed, or it’s original location in the building, I point it out. Otherwise, I’m careful to be sure of structural member identification. This is no different than an auto accident investigation. Examination of skid marks, damage, and debris reveal how the accident occurred. Reverse engineering of the debris from Building 7 reveals how it fell.

The site is organized by chapter, or Fact, numbered in sequence. A running list of Facts are on the right column at the top. I encourage readers to start with Fact 1 and read in order. That list does not show for some reason, when you go to a page from the top menu, such as “Home”, or “Orientation”. I provided a link back to Fact 1 at the bottom of each of those pages. Click there and the list will then show and you can select another fact to study. I also encourage readers to visit the orientation page. Basic knowledge of the building and surroundings are vital for understanding what you are looking at in the debris. Future chapters will include debris analysis in order to show how the building fell, including illustrations of the the lower perimeter wall failure, based on the evidence. I will continue publishing chapters in a logical sequence as they are ready, at least one a week.

This is not a de-bunking site. The simple fact that it is necessary to write this material though, shows that it will be impossible to not fall into the de-bunking mode. There is a growing number of youth who are being convinced those buildings were intentionally collapsed with CD, yet the structural remains do not support that claim. Addressing that claim and it’s sources is unavoidable. Primarily, this site is to present the debris evidence, and illustrate what it means.

Comments are welcome. I encourage discussion, critique, questions, etc. I welcome opposing views, and encourage referral to any debris or structural evidence I may have overlooked which says otherwise. I welcome truthers. I know you are committed to your belief, and I respect that. The structural evidence however, has been omitted from the debate. I’m filling that gap, if you will.

World Trade Center 7 Facts Bones Don t Lie Structural remains from Building 7 show no sign of controlled demolition

/THREAD

it's a good read ...

lol...it is in contradiction with the NIST report

no it's not but since you not read any of it that's the shit I'd expect you to say ..

oh it most definitely is it cites damage

They are defending the indefensible.

When core columns fail due to over heating they look like this.



The wtc debris has not produced any yet.

But there are plenty of perfectly cut pieces.

Beautiful 3 side cut,

and we can only see 2 sides of the one in the lower right corner and upper right corner.

These people dont seem to know the difference between forensic examination of a building and a conspiracy though I am sure they want to convert it to one to dodge the necessity of producing hard evidence in support of the nonsensical fire theory.

nobody questions why they got rid of all the steel so quickly without a true investigation? it was a terrorist attack and plane crash site and they swept it under the rug asap got rid of all structural steel evidence asap. building fell at free fall speed straight down and these morons still think it was structural fire failure? lol what a bunch of cowardly dolts that can't admit they've been sold into ww3 over oil wars and haliburton profits etc.. can you imagine we let those starting the war to profit so heavily over it and we just sat and watched? wow....... american the land of the cowardly naves

the building fell VERY QUICKLY ----but not exactly "freefall"-------the fall produced a HUGE OUTPUT OF ENERGY because it overcame
LOTS AND LOTS OF FRICTION ---------you are confused -----a free fall
would not involve just high velocity it would INCLUDE acceleration. -----what it
would not include was the huge release of energy at the base even before
it hit the ground. The energy release would have simply been a big
bang on the ground. ----and signs of IMPLOSION -----no implosion-----I
watched it happen------no implosion

NIST admits free fall, a fact not in dispute

what a joke you are-------so? "NIST ADMITS FREE FALL"----impossible ----
unlike you a passed PHYSICS 101. there is no freefall even in air-----there is always friction The buildings-----after burning up for more than an hour----showing no signs of IMPLOSION -----did suddenly collapse and go down at a very high velocity shooting forth -----at the BASE, a huge wave of energy that blew
smoke and detritus all over manhattan-----that is not controlled demolition ----it is not EXPLOSIONS in the building, it is collapse under a huge overhead weight. ---remember 'weight'------it is related to mass.

lol...like how you back peddled...its impossible
oh wait NIST said it...oh ok its possible...lol

way to intentionally miss the point...

 

[eots]

/THREAD

it's a good read ...

lol...it is in contradiction with the NIST report

no it's not but since you not read any of it that's the shit I'd expect you to say ..

oh it most definitely is it cites damage

nobody questions why they got rid of all the steel so quickly without a true investigation? it was a terrorist attack and plane crash site and they swept it under the rug asap got rid of all structural steel evidence asap. building fell at free fall speed straight down and these morons still think it was structural fire failure? lol what a bunch of cowardly dolts that can't admit they've been sold into ww3 over oil wars and haliburton profits etc.. can you imagine we let those starting the war to profit so heavily over it and we just sat and watched? wow....... american the land of the cowardly naves

the building fell VERY QUICKLY ----but not exactly "freefall"-------the fall produced a HUGE OUTPUT OF ENERGY because it overcame
LOTS AND LOTS OF FRICTION ---------you are confused -----a free fall
would not involve just high velocity it would INCLUDE acceleration. -----what it
would not include was the huge release of energy at the base even before
it hit the ground. The energy release would have simply been a big
bang on the ground. ----and signs of IMPLOSION -----no implosion-----I
watched it happen------no implosion

NIST admits free fall, a fact not in dispute

what a joke you are-------so? "NIST ADMITS FREE FALL"----impossible ----
unlike you a passed PHYSICS 101. there is no freefall even in air-----there is always friction The buildings-----after burning up for more than an hour----showing no signs of IMPLOSION -----did suddenly collapse and go down at a very high velocity shooting forth -----at the BASE, a huge wave of energy that blew
smoke and detritus all over manhattan-----that is not controlled demolition ----it is not EXPLOSIONS in the building, it is collapse under a huge overhead weight. ---remember 'weight'------it is related to mass.

lol...like how you back peddled...its impossible
oh wait NIST said it...oh ok its possible...lol

wrong again-----I explained the HIGH VELOCITY OF THE FALL----and why it is not precisely "FREE FALL"------the velocity simply comes close to free fall----
(without the acceleration issue which you ignore)

it clearly says acceleration in the NIST report dummie

 

[irosie91]

Your theory is what.. expert eyewitness statements are groups liars..fema photos are fake ?..NIST is truthful when they say no molten metal or explosions were witnessed or recorded..its all a grand conspiracy to discredit NIST

fact a TINY amount of molten aluminum was found it was not near as unexpected or a earth shattering was you are trying to make it.
yes there were explosions.. but there were no explosives.
many things under normal conditions do not explode but an 8 hour long mostly uncontrolled series of fires are not normal conditions....

there is clear evidence of melted steel

false the pictures you posted are of burned steel not melted





note the differences.

Colour Temperature [°C] Temperature [°F]
Red: Just visible 525 980
Dull red 700 1300
Dull cherry red 800 1500
Full cherry red 900 1700
Clear cherry red 1000 1800
Deep orange 1100 2000
Clear orange 1200 2200
Whitish 1300 2400
Bright white 1400 2600
Dazzling white 1500 2700

Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
At what temperature does steel burn?


2,000 degree's F* is more like it. And "Burning" Breaks down the Carbon to Carbon bonds causing the material to become brittle. "Burning" is referenced to be a prolonged exposure to high heat with out tempering.
like I said no melted steel lot's of burned steel though.

gee----an egg cooks at a much lower temperature. I did not know that steel can
"burn"--------breaking up the carbon bonds is not COMBUSTION-------
it is just-----adding energy until the bonds cannot HOLD UP-----connected-----they get too wiggled

 

[irosie91]

it's a good read ...

lol...it is in contradiction with the NIST report

no it's not but since you not read any of it that's the shit I'd expect you to say ..

oh it most definitely is it cites damage

the building fell VERY QUICKLY ----but not exactly "freefall"-------the fall produced a HUGE OUTPUT OF ENERGY because it overcame
LOTS AND LOTS OF FRICTION ---------you are confused -----a free fall
would not involve just high velocity it would INCLUDE acceleration. -----what it
would not include was the huge release of energy at the base even before
it hit the ground. The energy release would have simply been a big
bang on the ground. ----and signs of IMPLOSION -----no implosion-----I
watched it happen------no implosion

NIST admits free fall, a fact not in dispute

what a joke you are-------so? "NIST ADMITS FREE FALL"----impossible ----
unlike you a passed PHYSICS 101. there is no freefall even in air-----there is always friction The buildings-----after burning up for more than an hour----showing no signs of IMPLOSION -----did suddenly collapse and go down at a very high velocity shooting forth -----at the BASE, a huge wave of energy that blew
smoke and detritus all over manhattan-----that is not controlled demolition ----it is not EXPLOSIONS in the building, it is collapse under a huge overhead weight. ---remember 'weight'------it is related to mass.

lol...like how you back peddled...its impossible
oh wait NIST said it...oh ok its possible...lol

wrong again-----I explained the HIGH VELOCITY OF THE FALL----and why it is not precisely "FREE FALL"------the velocity simply comes close to free fall----
(without the acceleration issue which you ignore)

it clearly says acceleration in the NIST report dummie

it says that the acceleration is = to G ???? not it doesn't

 

[daws101]

Care to dig into the pile of Building 7 debris with me? I started looking for corroboration of controlled demolition in the structural remains, and found none. You are invited to follow along, and see what I did find.

The purpose of this site is to gather as much of the debris evidence of Building 7 into one place as I can, and organize it in such a way so others can see the story it tells. It tells a story much different than the one told by Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth, the source of the controlled demolition (CD) claim, and who to the best of my knowledge, has never done an analysis of the debris patterns, structural remains, or video of collapse from many angles. This site is attempting to perform that function, which in my opinion, should have already been done by any professional organization making the claim Building 7 was collapsed on purpose with controlled demolition.

I’ve tried to think in terms of what a grand jury will be shown, and I believe it will be similar to what I have assembled. I ask readers to pretend you are a grand jury member. You have been assembled to hear the claim controlled demolition brought down Building 7. I’m not here to disprove that claim, but to show you what the evidence says did happen.

In order to grasp what the debris says, it is necessary to have foundational knowledge of the building, the neighborhood, and the damage. I am presently in the process of publishing those introductory chapters, and organizing the site.

An investigative approach requires ruthless objectivity. I am doing my utmost to allow the evidence to speak, and view it with no pre-conception. The photographic and video evidence will be there for readers to critique my reading of it. If I am unsure of a structural member being discussed, or it’s original location in the building, I point it out. Otherwise, I’m careful to be sure of structural member identification. This is no different than an auto accident investigation. Examination of skid marks, damage, and debris reveal how the accident occurred. Reverse engineering of the debris from Building 7 reveals how it fell.

The site is organized by chapter, or Fact, numbered in sequence. A running list of Facts are on the right column at the top. I encourage readers to start with Fact 1 and read in order. That list does not show for some reason, when you go to a page from the top menu, such as “Home”, or “Orientation”. I provided a link back to Fact 1 at the bottom of each of those pages. Click there and the list will then show and you can select another fact to study. I also encourage readers to visit the orientation page. Basic knowledge of the building and surroundings are vital for understanding what you are looking at in the debris. Future chapters will include debris analysis in order to show how the building fell, including illustrations of the the lower perimeter wall failure, based on the evidence. I will continue publishing chapters in a logical sequence as they are ready, at least one a week.

This is not a de-bunking site. The simple fact that it is necessary to write this material though, shows that it will be impossible to not fall into the de-bunking mode. There is a growing number of youth who are being convinced those buildings were intentionally collapsed with CD, yet the structural remains do not support that claim. Addressing that claim and it’s sources is unavoidable. Primarily, this site is to present the debris evidence, and illustrate what it means.

Comments are welcome. I encourage discussion, critique, questions, etc. I welcome opposing views, and encourage referral to any debris or structural evidence I may have overlooked which says otherwise. I welcome truthers. I know you are committed to your belief, and I respect that. The structural evidence however, has been omitted from the debate. I’m filling that gap, if you will.

World Trade Center 7 Facts Bones Don t Lie Structural remains from Building 7 show no sign of controlled demolition

When I first noticed this dark vertical line on the south face of WTC7, like most observers, I dismissed it as a shadow, or other building feature. Veiled in smoke, and because of it’s even shape, it was easy to overlook. Further study several years later revealed it to be a fatal breach, largely responsible for building failure.


did this guy even read the NIST report ?..lol what a joke..come on daws even you know this statement is false and in contradiction with NIST

no I don't you just want it to be because it contradicts your cd bullshit.
lacking any real evidence to bolster your bullshit you try and fail to amplify nist's mistakes ...
talk about a straw man.

 

[daws101]

it's a good read ...

lol...it is in contradiction with the NIST report

no it's not but since you not read any of it that's the shit I'd expect you to say ..

oh it most definitely is it cites damage

the building fell VERY QUICKLY ----but not exactly "freefall"-------the fall produced a HUGE OUTPUT OF ENERGY because it overcame
LOTS AND LOTS OF FRICTION ---------you are confused -----a free fall
would not involve just high velocity it would INCLUDE acceleration. -----what it
would not include was the huge release of energy at the base even before
it hit the ground. The energy release would have simply been a big
bang on the ground. ----and signs of IMPLOSION -----no implosion-----I
watched it happen------no implosion

NIST admits free fall, a fact not in dispute

what a joke you are-------so? "NIST ADMITS FREE FALL"----impossible ----
unlike you a passed PHYSICS 101. there is no freefall even in air-----there is always friction The buildings-----after burning up for more than an hour----showing no signs of IMPLOSION -----did suddenly collapse and go down at a very high velocity shooting forth -----at the BASE, a huge wave of energy that blew
smoke and detritus all over manhattan-----that is not controlled demolition ----it is not EXPLOSIONS in the building, it is collapse under a huge overhead weight. ---remember 'weight'------it is related to mass.

lol...like how you back peddled...its impossible
oh wait NIST said it...oh ok its possible...lol

wrong again-----I explained the HIGH VELOCITY OF THE FALL----and why it is not precisely "FREE FALL"------the velocity simply comes close to free fall----
(without the acceleration issue which you ignore)

it clearly says acceleration in the NIST report dummie

for2.5 sec not long enough to have any significance..
it a dead end argument. why the fuck do you keep using it.

 

[daws101]

lol...it is in contradiction with the NIST report

no it's not but since you not read any of it that's the shit I'd expect you to say ..

oh it most definitely is it cites damage

NIST admits free fall, a fact not in dispute

what a joke you are-------so? "NIST ADMITS FREE FALL"----impossible ----
unlike you a passed PHYSICS 101. there is no freefall even in air-----there is always friction The buildings-----after burning up for more than an hour----showing no signs of IMPLOSION -----did suddenly collapse and go down at a very high velocity shooting forth -----at the BASE, a huge wave of energy that blew
smoke and detritus all over manhattan-----that is not controlled demolition ----it is not EXPLOSIONS in the building, it is collapse under a huge overhead weight. ---remember 'weight'------it is related to mass.

lol...like how you back peddled...its impossible
oh wait NIST said it...oh ok its possible...lol

wrong again-----I explained the HIGH VELOCITY OF THE FALL----and why it is not precisely "FREE FALL"------the velocity simply comes close to free fall----
(without the acceleration issue which you ignore)

it clearly says acceleration in the NIST report dummie

it says that the acceleration is = to G ???? not it doesn't

from the report
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

 

[eots]

lol...it is in contradiction with the NIST report

no it's not but since you not read any of it that's the shit I'd expect you to say ..

oh it most definitely is it cites damage

NIST admits free fall, a fact not in dispute

what a joke you are-------so? "NIST ADMITS FREE FALL"----impossible ----
unlike you a passed PHYSICS 101. there is no freefall even in air-----there is always friction The buildings-----after burning up for more than an hour----showing no signs of IMPLOSION -----did suddenly collapse and go down at a very high velocity shooting forth -----at the BASE, a huge wave of energy that blew
smoke and detritus all over manhattan-----that is not controlled demolition ----it is not EXPLOSIONS in the building, it is collapse under a huge overhead weight. ---remember 'weight'------it is related to mass.

lol...like how you back peddled...its impossible
oh wait NIST said it...oh ok its possible...lol

wrong again-----I explained the HIGH VELOCITY OF THE FALL----and why it is not precisely "FREE FALL"------the velocity simply comes close to free fall----
(without the acceleration issue which you ignore)

it clearly says acceleration in the NIST report dummie

it says that the acceleration is = to G ???? not it doesn't

• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

 

[daws101]

 

[eots]

lol...it is in contradiction with the NIST report

no it's not but since you not read any of it that's the shit I'd expect you to say ..

oh it most definitely is it cites damage

NIST admits free fall, a fact not in dispute

what a joke you are-------so? "NIST ADMITS FREE FALL"----impossible ----
unlike you a passed PHYSICS 101. there is no freefall even in air-----there is always friction The buildings-----after burning up for more than an hour----showing no signs of IMPLOSION -----did suddenly collapse and go down at a very high velocity shooting forth -----at the BASE, a huge wave of energy that blew
smoke and detritus all over manhattan-----that is not controlled demolition ----it is not EXPLOSIONS in the building, it is collapse under a huge overhead weight. ---remember 'weight'------it is related to mass.

lol...like how you back peddled...its impossible
oh wait NIST said it...oh ok its possible...lol

wrong again-----I explained the HIGH VELOCITY OF THE FALL----and why it is not precisely "FREE FALL"------the velocity simply comes close to free fall----
(without the acceleration issue which you ignore)

it clearly says acceleration in the NIST report dummie

for2.5 sec not long enough to have any significance..
it a dead end argument. why the fuck do you keep using it.

10 floors min of free fall...not significant...lol

 

[daws101]

no it's not but since you not read any of it that's the shit I'd expect you to say ..

oh it most definitely is it cites damage

what a joke you are-------so? "NIST ADMITS FREE FALL"----impossible ----
unlike you a passed PHYSICS 101. there is no freefall even in air-----there is always friction The buildings-----after burning up for more than an hour----showing no signs of IMPLOSION -----did suddenly collapse and go down at a very high velocity shooting forth -----at the BASE, a huge wave of energy that blew
smoke and detritus all over manhattan-----that is not controlled demolition ----it is not EXPLOSIONS in the building, it is collapse under a huge overhead weight. ---remember 'weight'------it is related to mass.

lol...like how you back peddled...its impossible
oh wait NIST said it...oh ok its possible...lol

wrong again-----I explained the HIGH VELOCITY OF THE FALL----and why it is not precisely "FREE FALL"------the velocity simply comes close to free fall----
(without the acceleration issue which you ignore)

it clearly says acceleration in the NIST report dummie

it says that the acceleration is = to G ???? not it doesn't

• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

2.5 sec to be accurate not diagnostically viable..

 

[daws101]

no it's not but since you not read any of it that's the shit I'd expect you to say ..

oh it most definitely is it cites damage

what a joke you are-------so? "NIST ADMITS FREE FALL"----impossible ----
unlike you a passed PHYSICS 101. there is no freefall even in air-----there is always friction The buildings-----after burning up for more than an hour----showing no signs of IMPLOSION -----did suddenly collapse and go down at a very high velocity shooting forth -----at the BASE, a huge wave of energy that blew
smoke and detritus all over manhattan-----that is not controlled demolition ----it is not EXPLOSIONS in the building, it is collapse under a huge overhead weight. ---remember 'weight'------it is related to mass.

lol...like how you back peddled...its impossible
oh wait NIST said it...oh ok its possible...lol

wrong again-----I explained the HIGH VELOCITY OF THE FALL----and why it is not precisely "FREE FALL"------the velocity simply comes close to free fall----
(without the acceleration issue which you ignore)

it clearly says acceleration in the NIST report dummie

for2.5 sec not long enough to have any significance..
it a dead end argument. why the fuck do you keep using it.

10 floors min of free fall...not significant...lol

it's not because it's effect, not cause. you have not evidence linking it to a cd or any other nefarious nonsense.
it doesn't matter.