Do these WTC7 columns show thermite cuts?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Do these WTC7 columns show thermite cuts?
Topic Started: Aug 31 2008, 11:03 AM (1,619 Views)
guillaumedock	Aug 31 2008, 11:03 AM Post #1
Posts: 5 Group: Members Member #820 Joined: 08/31/08	I came accross some pictures of WTC7 that seem, to my non-expert eyes, to have been cut using something like thermite. Only North Carolina 911 truth seems to have spotted these (http://nc911truth.org/). What do you think? Edit: Fixed link. Edited by guillaumedock, Aug 31 2008, 02:11 PM.
Posts: 5 Group: Members Member #820 Joined: 08/31/08


ShaDow	Aug 31 2008, 11:27 AM Post #2
Posts: 104 Group: Members Member #612 Joined: 05/27/08	I too am no expert or experience but judging by the grey shade coming from the top of the beam looks like pure iron to me, product of thermite..
Posts: 104 Group: Members Member #612 Joined: 05/27/08


guillaumedock	Aug 31 2008, 12:28 PM Post #3
Posts: 5 Group: Members Member #820 Joined: 08/31/08	ShaDow Aug 31 2008, 11:27 AM I too am no expert or experience but judging by the grey shade coming from the top of the beam looks like pure iron to me, product of thermite.. In case of thermite wouldn't it rather be an aluminium oxide deposit? Do you think these cuts could reasonably be the result of debris removal work?
Posts: 5 Group: Members Member #820 Joined: 08/31/08


Tim Riches	Aug 31 2008, 01:52 PM Post #4
Posts: 349 Group: Members Member #193 Joined: 01/23/08	Should be http://nc911truth.org/ or http://nc911truth.blogspot.com/ More specifically, http://nc911truth.org/foto/wtc7.html Edited by Tim Riches, Aug 31 2008, 01:56 PM.
Posts: 349 Group: Members Member #193 Joined: 01/23/08


ShaDow	Aug 31 2008, 02:36 PM Post #5
Posts: 104 Group: Members Member #612 Joined: 05/27/08	guillaumedock Aug 31 2008, 12:28 PM ShaDow Aug 31 2008, 11:27 AM I too am no expert or experience but judging by the grey shade coming from the top of the beam looks like pure iron to me, product of thermite.. In case of thermite wouldn't it rather be an aluminium oxide deposit? Do you think these cuts could reasonably be the result of debris removal work? No Aluminium is more reactive than iron, so the oxide from the iron oxide goes to the Aluminium. Aluminium oxide is a white and powder'ish. Where as Iron is... Iron..
Posts: 104 Group: Members Member #612 Joined: 05/27/08


guillaumedock	Aug 31 2008, 05:43 PM Post #6
Posts: 5 Group: Members Member #820 Joined: 08/31/08	I've made a page summarizing some arguments here: http://gravitydidntdoit.nfshost.com/wtc7.html
Posts: 5 Group: Members Member #820 Joined: 08/31/08


Kamala	Sep 1 2008, 03:48 PM Post #7
Posts: 1 Group: Members Member #201 Joined: 01/24/08	http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.008.jpg http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.007.jpg http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.006.jpg http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.004.jpg http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.003.jpg http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.002.jpg http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.001.jpg
Posts: 1 Group: Members Member #201 Joined: 01/24/08


guillaumedock	Sep 3 2008, 03:08 AM Post #8
Posts: 5 Group: Members Member #820 Joined: 08/31/08	Kamala: Yes that's one of the sources I used. This picture, however, seems a little bit suspicious to me: http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.012.jpg The whiteish discoloration is gone, therefore the picture, if real, must have been taken after. However it is very similar (but not identical) to picture http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.009.jpg Same point of view (within a few feet I guess), same wide-angle shot. So, either: 1) The discoloration was photoshopped out (and this is very easy to do, I tried yesterday), 2) The discoloration was washed away, either deliberately or as a consequence of rain or firefighting operations. Now we need some input from physicists or chemists. Would a thermite or thermate reaction produce such a discoloration? Would it be washed away with rain or water?
Posts: 5 Group: Members Member #820 Joined: 08/31/08


albury	Sep 3 2008, 05:47 AM Post #9
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08	guillaumedock Aug 31 2008, 11:03 AM I came accross some pictures of WTC7 that seem, to my non-expert eyes, to have been cut using something like thermite. Only North Carolina 911 truth seems to have spotted these (http://nc911truth.org/). What do you think? Edit: Fixed link. I don't know how you can draw that conclusion from looking at those photos, but I think that if thermite had cut core columns at that level, the collapses would have initiated at the bottoms of the towers, not 1000 or 1200' in the air, the lower floors of the core wouldn't have remained standing for 10-20 seconds after the collapses were over, and there would have been a ceramic-lined form around it to make the massive amounts of thermite or other incendiary necessary to sever a column that size burn sideways, since otherwise it would just have fallen off when ignited. I also think that if thermite or explosives had been used in the WTC, that fact would quickly have become very obvious to the ironworkers and other cleanup personnel at Ground Zero, none of whom reported seeing any such evidence. Wouldn't they have been in a much better position to notice it than you are, or were ~40,000 more people all "in on it," too?
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08


Miragememories	Sep 3 2008, 06:49 AM Post #10
Posts: 740 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	albury "...and there would have been a ceramic-lined form around it to make the massive amounts of thermite or other incendiary necessary to sever a column that size burn sideways, since otherwise it would just have fallen off when ignited. I also think that if thermite or explosives had been used in the WTC, that fact would quickly have become very obvious to the ironworkers and other cleanup personnel at Ground Zero, none of whom reported seeing any such evidence." During the massive high speed collapse, I would expect the brittle ceramic to be easily pulverized and rendered as inconspicuous dust. NIST had no problem accepting the "truly unbelievable" virtually complete removal of sprayed on fireproofing to the WTC Twin Towers floors, when impacted by aircraft. Whether ironworkers and cleanup personnel would take note of thermite-related details, that at the time, would appear to be irrelevant in a world accepting the Official Story, seems highly doubtful. They couldn't ignore the inexplicable (to the Official Story), molten metal and the long lasting fire though. MM
Posts: 740 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


albury	Sep 3 2008, 08:20 AM Post #11
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08	Miragememories Sep 3 2008, 06:49 AM albury "...and there would have been a ceramic-lined form around it to make the massive amounts of thermite or other incendiary necessary to sever a column that size burn sideways, since otherwise it would just have fallen off when ignited. I also think that if thermite or explosives had been used in the WTC, that fact would quickly have become very obvious to the ironworkers and other cleanup personnel at Ground Zero, none of whom reported seeing any such evidence." During the massive high speed collapse, I would expect the brittle ceramic to be easily pulverized and rendered as inconspicuous dust. NIST had no problem accepting the "truly unbelievable" virtually complete removal of sprayed on fireproofing to the WTC Twin Towers floors, when impacted by aircraft. Whether ironworkers and cleanup personnel would take note of thermite-related details, that at the time, would appear to be irrelevant in a world accepting the Official Story, seems highly doubtful. They couldn't ignore the inexplicable (to the Official Story), molten metal and the long lasting fire though. MM What would you have expected to have concealed, in a populated work area of a nearly fully-occupied office building, the ceramic-lined forms around numerous basement columns between the time the "thermite" was planted and when it was ignited? And why is it "truly unbelievable" that 250,000# planes going 440-540 mph would knock off SFRM that you could scrape off steel with your bare hands? It didn't have to be "virtually complete removal" to leave lightweight bar joists vulnerable to temperatures of 1100 F, and there is photographic documentation taken through windows by NYPD personnel in helicopters that some joists sagged at least 4' prior to collapse, and more irrefutable evidence of inward bowing of perimeter columns opposite the impact areas of more than 4'. Molten metal isn't molten steel, nor would either one of them or long-lasting fires in the debris be any indication of the use of incendiaries, which burn very hot for a brief period of time but also cool rapidly, and under conditions with no other fuel source would easily have been at ambient temperature within a day or two at the most. And those photos are of heavy basement-level columns, and since the collapses started at least 1000' higher, and the lowest levels were the last to go, what exactly do you think the purpose of this "thermite" was, and why on earth do you think ironworkers would have missed major steel members burned off by something besides their own acetylene torches? Again, were they "in on it," too, or just blind and stupid?
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08


skunkrider	Sep 3 2008, 09:45 AM Post #12
Posts: 326 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08	A plane crashing into a building and somebody using his bare hands are two completely uncomparable events. While the plane crash involves massive undirected force, bare hands use pinpoint accurate (in comparison) movement to accomplish something. Albury, albury and there is photographic documentation taken through windows by NYPD personnel in helicopters that some joists sagged at least 4' prior to collapse, and more irrefutable evidence of inward bowing of perimeter columns opposite the impact areas of more than 4' you wanna evaluate on this? albury Molten metal isn't molten steel. Wrong. It isn't necessarily molten steel. Pancaking does not account for the disappearance and instant disassembly of the steel core. Apart from that, I have some years of experience with Photoshop (not suggesting any professional expertise on my side here), but I can say this for sure: It's far easier to delete/get rid of disturbances or features than it is to add them. Then again, I'm seeing the world through my sad conspiracy-glasses.
Posts: 326 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08


Miragememories	Sep 3 2008, 09:48 AM Post #13
Posts: 740 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	albury "What would you have expected to have concealed, in a populated work area of a nearly fully-occupied office building, the ceramic-lined forms around numerous basement columns between the time the "thermite" was planted and when it was ignited? And why is it "truly unbelievable" that 250,000# planes going 440-540 mph would knock off SFRM that you could scrape off steel with your bare hands? It didn't have to be "virtually complete removal" to leave lightweight bar joists vulnerable to temperatures of 1100 F, and there is photographic documentation taken through windows by NYPD personnel in helicopters that some joists sagged at least 4' prior to collapse, and more irrefutable evidence of inward bowing of perimeter columns opposite the impact areas of more than 4'. Molten metal isn't molten steel, nor would either one of them or long-lasting fires in the debris be any indication of the use of incendiaries, which burn very hot for a brief period of time but also cool rapidly, and under conditions with no other fuel source would easily have been at ambient temperature within a day or two at the most. And those photos are of heavy basement-level columns, and since the collapses started at least 1000' higher, and the lowest levels were the last to go, what exactly do you think the purpose of this "thermite" was, and why on earth do you think ironworkers would have missed major steel members burned off by something besides their own acetylene torches? Again, were they "in on it," too, or just blind and stupid?" With enough funding, expertise, and planning, concealment where it was required, would not be as challenging as you seem to think. In NIST's final WTC7 Report, they claim the observed collapse required the failure of one column, #79. I never said the molten metal was molten steel, but when it exists for such a long period of time, and the so-called experts can't be bothered to explain it, or they dismiss it as unsupported, a thinking person has to ask why. Your "collapses started at least 1000' higher" is confusing when you fail to provide any useful context. We are primarily discussing WTC7 in this thread. My reference to the WTC Twin Towers was with respect to the ease that NIST suggested the spray on fireproofing must have been completely removed by aircraft impact, combined with a lot of assuming on their part. Others, who apply the stuff for a living, have posted here indicating how difficult it is to remove fully cured spray on fireproofing. Ceramics, which I was comparing this to, can be molded in any shape and pulverize easily when impacted by hard objects. The ironworkers, had no reason to examine the steel looking for alternatives to the Official Story. Given the existence of extreme collapse impact damage, molten metal, extreme heat, and long lasting fires, they wouldn't be expected to pay special notice to surviving steel ends that didn't already have the residue ground off of them. After the column failure was induced, the collapsing building would have easily destroyed much of the residue evidence. The "blind and stupid" are those like yourself, who fear the truth and wrap themselves in the protective cocoon which NIST has so conveniently provided. MM
Posts: 740 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


albury	Sep 3 2008, 02:42 PM Post #14
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08	"Myself" prefers to look at facts and evidence, rather than live in the protective cocoon of unfounded twoofer nonsense, and the "blind and stupid" are those like "yourself" who dismiss the work of at least 230 scientists and engineers, most likely without even looking at any of it. As I said before, the SFRM did not have to be completely removed, but the impact of the planes certainly took off enough of it to make the bar joists supporting the floors and attached to the thin-walled perimeter columns very vulnerable to normal office fire temperatures. If you'd read FEMA's Building Performance Study, Ch 2, or NIST's NCSTAR1, you'd know that the bottom chords of the floor trusses were only 2-1/2" X 2-1/2" X 1/4" structural angles, and the diagonals were only 1.09" diameter steel rods, and all of it heated up and weakened very quickly. And if you've studied the towers' collapses at all, you'd know that sagging joists and bowed perimeter columns aren't NIST hypotheticals, they're well-documented facts, complete with photos and transcripts from NYPD personnel in helicopters. As for the ironworkers and other cleanup personnel, they would not have had to "examine the steel" or "pay special notice" to anything. Evidence of a controlled demolition, whether by shaped charges or incendiaries like thermite, would have been obvious to anyone there, and it would be easy to spot in pictures. There simply wasn't any, which is why "researchers" like Steven Jones show photos of steel cut with acetylene torches and lie about them to those blind and stupid enough to believe them.
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08


Miragememories	Sep 3 2008, 03:49 PM Post #15
Posts: 740 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	albury "Myself" prefers to look at facts and evidence, rather than live in the protective cocoon of unfounded twoofer nonsense, and the "blind and stupid" are those like "yourself" who dismiss the work of at least 230 scientists and engineers, most likely without even looking at any of it. As I said before, the SFRM did not have to be completely removed, but the impact of the planes certainly took off enough of it to make the bar joists supporting the floors and attached to the thin-walled perimeter columns very vulnerable to normal office fire temperatures. If you'd read FEMA's Building Performance Study, Ch 2, or NIST's NCSTAR1, you'd know that the bottom chords of the floor trusses were only 2-1/2" X 2-1/2" X 1/4" structural angles, and the diagonals were only 1.09" diameter steel rods, and all of it heated up and weakened very quickly. And if you've studied the towers' collapses at all, you'd know that sagging joists and bowed perimeter columns aren't NIST hypotheticals, they're well-documented facts, complete with photos and transcripts from NYPD personnel in helicopters. As for the ironworkers and other cleanup personnel, they would not have had to "examine the steel" or "pay special notice" to anything. Evidence of a controlled demolition, whether by shaped charges or incendiaries like thermite, would have been obvious to anyone there, and it would be easy to spot in pictures. There simply wasn't any, which is why "researchers" like Steven Jones show photos of steel cut with acetylene torches and lie about them to those blind and stupid enough to believe them." Is your expression "unfounded twoofer nonsense" meant to show your closed mind? MM
Posts: 740 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


albury	Sep 3 2008, 06:06 PM Post #16
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08	Is your expression "unfounded twoofer nonsense" meant to show your closed mind? Is your question meant to avoid discussing any of the other comments I made in the last post? Despite your gratuitous slur, "myself" is not "blind and stupid," NCSTAR1 clearly explains why the towers collapsed, NCSTAR 1A does likewise for building 7, and there is not one shred of evidence that any WTC building was brought down by explosives or incendiaries.
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08


DoYouEverWonder	Sep 3 2008, 06:16 PM Post #17
Posts: 428 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08	albury Sep 3 2008, 06:06 PM Is your expression "unfounded twoofer nonsense" meant to show your closed mind? Is your question meant to avoid discussing any of the other comments I made in the last post? Despite your gratuitous slur, "myself" is not "blind and stupid," NCSTAR1 clearly explains why the towers collapsed, NCSTAR 1A does likewise for building 7, and there is not one shred of evidence that any WTC building was brought down by explosives or incendiaries. Would you like to show us the evidence to back up your claims? I'd like you to site specific sections of these reports and show us the physical proof.
Posts: 428 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08


JFK	Sep 3 2008, 06:27 PM Post #18
Posts: 4,112 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	albury Sep 3 2008, 06:06 PM Is your expression "unfounded twoofer nonsense" meant to show your closed mind? Is your question meant to avoid discussing any of the other comments I made in the last post? Despite your gratuitous slur, "myself" is not "blind and stupid," NCSTAR1 clearly explains why the towers collapsed, NCSTAR 1A does likewise for building 7, and there is not one shred of evidence that any WTC building was brought down by explosives or incendiaries. So you are another who is sweeping Barry Jennings under the carpet, eh ?
Posts: 4,112 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


albury	Sep 3 2008, 08:10 PM Post #19
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08	Sweeping Barry Jennings under the carpet? I'm sure he heard loud noises, but if it was "pitch black" where he was in Building 7, how does he know that both towers were still standing? And why is he the only one telling this story of serious damage to 7 prior to the collapse of the North Tower? Why were he and only one other occupant still in the building if the rest of it had just been hastily evacuated? If cutter charges were being detonated, why weren't they heard miles away, and why did the building stand until 5:20 PM and then decide to fall, accompanied by no explosions at all? Assuming that he was inside when he says he was, that's well over seven hours from the time of the explosions until the collapse. Why did the FDNY look at the building early in the afternoon and declare it unsafe to be near, establish a collapse zone around it and then set up a transit to monitor its movement from a safe distance away? And why did no one at Ground Zero during the nearly eight-month cleanup period report evidence of a controlled demolition in the debris? Do you think experienced union ironworkers would mistake multiple columns severed by cutter charges for acetylene torch cuts, and that everyone at GZ managed to miss all of the det cord, caps, blast tubes, etc? I think Barry Jennings is either honestly mistaken about the timeline, or is doing what Willie Rodriguez did, which is to concoct a yarn to try to achieve notoriety and make a few bucks off 9/11. And since I don't believe for one minute that explosions went off in the North Tower BEFORE AA 11 hit it, I would definitely sweep him under the carpet. That's an absolute absurdity that's corroborated by no one even one floor above where he was, and charges powerful enough to have severed those columns would have deafened everyone at that level, or most likely killed them. Jeezus, some of the steel was 7" thick down there, and a 500,000 ton building falling on it would damage it, but I wouldn't want to be within a few miles of explosives that would damage it. The 1993 bomb was the equivalent of a half ton of high explosives, and it didn't cut one column.
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08


albury	Sep 3 2008, 08:22 PM Post #20
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08	DoYouEverWonder Sep 3 2008, 06:16 PM albury Sep 3 2008, 06:06 PM Is your expression "unfounded twoofer nonsense" meant to show your closed mind? Is your question meant to avoid discussing any of the other comments I made in the last post? Despite your gratuitous slur, "myself" is not "blind and stupid," NCSTAR1 clearly explains why the towers collapsed, NCSTAR 1A does likewise for building 7, and there is not one shred of evidence that any WTC building was brought down by explosives or incendiaries. Would you like to show us the evidence to back up your claims? I'd like you to site specific sections of these reports and show us the physical proof. Which claims? Why don't you read both NIST reports first? Here are the URLs: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf Here's the one for the FEMA Building Performance Study, which gives the dimensions of the bar joists in the towers: http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm My claims for them are in that report as well as in NCSTAR1. If you're as interested in evidence as you claim to be, that would be a good start.
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08


JFK	Sep 3 2008, 08:57 PM Post #21
Posts: 4,112 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	albury Sep 3 2008, 08:10 PM Sweeping Barry Jennings under the carpet? I'm sure he heard loud noises, but if it was "pitch black" where he was in Building 7, how does he know that both towers were still standing? And why is he the only one telling this story of serious damage to 7 prior to the collapse of the North Tower? Why were he and only one other occupant still in the building if the rest of it had just been hastily evacuated? If cutter charges were being detonated, why weren't they heard miles away, and why did the building stand until 5:20 PM and then decide to fall, accompanied by no explosions at all? Assuming that he was inside when he says he was, that's well over seven hours from the time of the explosions until the collapse. Why did the FDNY look at the building early in the afternoon and declare it unsafe to be near, establish a collapse zone around it and then set up a transit to monitor its movement from a safe distance away? And why did no one at Ground Zero during the nearly eight-month cleanup period report evidence of a controlled demolition in the debris? Do you think experienced union ironworkers would mistake multiple columns severed by cutter charges for acetylene torch cuts, and that everyone at GZ managed to miss all of the det cord, caps, blast tubes, etc? I think Barry Jennings is either honestly mistaken about the timeline, or is doing what Willie Rodriguez did, which is to concoct a yarn to try to achieve notoriety and make a few bucks off 9/11. And since I don't believe for one minute that explosions went off in the North Tower BEFORE AA 11 hit it, I would definitely sweep him under the carpet. That's an absolute absurdity that's corroborated by no one even one floor above where he was, and charges powerful enough to have severed those columns would have deafened everyone at that level, or most likely killed them. Jeezus, some of the steel was 7" thick down there, and a 500,000 ton building falling on it would damage it, but I wouldn't want to be within a few miles of explosives that would damage it. The 1993 bomb was the equivalent of a half ton of high explosives, and it didn't cut one column. Yes you are. You obviously did not watch the interview as Barry Jennings explains rather well how he knew. You are now overlooking Hess. Because he never got the evacuation order. I didn't say anything about cutter charges, That is why there needs to be an independant investigation. Perhaps some of your cutter charges malfunctioned leaving the building unstable. It is easy to miss something you were not told to look for because someone already told you what had happened. Who said anything about conventional charges ? Oh, so now you are going to defile a hero which has met with the President ? Re:bold and large - Would you like to see pictures ? - Nevermind, I see you are a skeptic and that is where you will post from here on out... should you decide to stay.
Posts: 4,112 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


DoYouEverWonder	Sep 3 2008, 10:03 PM Post #22
Posts: 428 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08	albury Sep 3 2008, 08:22 PM DoYouEverWonder Sep 3 2008, 06:16 PM albury Sep 3 2008, 06:06 PM Is your expression "unfounded twoofer nonsense" meant to show your closed mind? Is your question meant to avoid discussing any of the other comments I made in the last post? Despite your gratuitous slur, "myself" is not "blind and stupid," NCSTAR1 clearly explains why the towers collapsed, NCSTAR 1A does likewise for building 7, and there is not one shred of evidence that any WTC building was brought down by explosives or incendiaries. Would you like to show us the evidence to back up your claims? I'd like you to site specific sections of these reports and show us the physical proof. Which claims? Why don't you read both NIST reports first? Here are the URLs: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf Here's the one for the FEMA Building Performance Study, which gives the dimensions of the bar joists in the towers: http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm My claims for them are in that report as well as in NCSTAR1. If you're as interested in evidence as you claim to be, that would be a good start. I already have and they aren't worth the pieces of paper they're printed on. A bunch of faith based crap and faulty computer simulations, in lieu of actually doing a real investigation. If you have some specific point or arguments to back up your statements, I would be happy to discuss the evidence, but since there is little solid evidence for anything in these so called reports, it makes it hard to have discussion.
Posts: 428 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08


guillaumedock	Sep 4 2008, 12:24 PM Post #23
Posts: 5 Group: Members Member #820 Joined: 08/31/08	albury Sep 3 2008, 05:47 AM I don't know how you can draw that conclusion from looking at those photos, but I think that if thermite had cut core columns at that level, the collapses would have initiated at the bottoms of the towers, not 1000 or 1200' in the air, the lower floors of the core wouldn't have remained standing for 10-20 seconds after the collapses were over, That is another question, and also your conclusion doesn't follow. It all depends on timing. Yes, there exist fast-acting aluminothermic compounds allowing a precise control of timing. Quote: and there would have been a ceramic-lined form around it to make the massive amounts of thermite or other incendiary necessary to sever a column that size burn sideways, since otherwise it would just have fallen off when ignited. How do you know there was no charge-shaper in place? Presumably these things fall off after action, especially if it was a thermate-based fast-acting charge. Quote: I also think that if thermite or explosives had been used in the WTC, that fact would quickly have become very obvious to the ironworkers and other cleanup personnel at Ground Zero, none of whom reported seeing any such evidence. We have multiple reports of molten steel and corroborating physical evidence (thermograms and pictures). Quote: Wouldn't they have been in a much better position to notice it than you are, or were ~40,000 more people all "in on it," too? Fact is they have. Also, the whole area was cordoned off and was off-limits to the public. Photography was strictly controlled. While we have thousands of WTC 1 and 2 pictures (including FEMA ones), I know only of one or two dozen WTC 7 pictures, and most of these have been mentioned in this page. Why isn't there a single picture of WTC7 in Meyerowitz's book "Aftermath"? Anyway, the question is : do these pictures show steel beams cut at high-temperatures? If yes, when were these cut? And using which methods? Are they consistent with debris removal work? Are they consistent with cutter charges (explosive, thermite or thermate)? Edited by guillaumedock, Sep 4 2008, 12:26 PM.
Posts: 5 Group: Members Member #820 Joined: 08/31/08


skunkrider	Sep 5 2008, 04:19 AM Post #24
Posts: 326 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08	albury Sep 3 2008, 08:22 PM DoYouEverWonder Sep 3 2008, 06:16 PM albury Sep 3 2008, 06:06 PM Is your expression "unfounded twoofer nonsense" meant to show your closed mind? Is your question meant to avoid discussing any of the other comments I made in the last post? Despite your gratuitous slur, "myself" is not "blind and stupid," NCSTAR1 clearly explains why the towers collapsed, NCSTAR 1A does likewise for building 7, and there is not one shred of evidence that any WTC building was brought down by explosives or incendiaries. Would you like to show us the evidence to back up your claims? I'd like you to site specific sections of these reports and show us the physical proof. Which claims? Why don't you read both NIST reports first? Here are the URLs: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf Here's the one for the FEMA Building Performance Study, which gives the dimensions of the bar joists in the towers: http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm My claims for them are in that report as well as in NCSTAR1. If you're as interested in evidence as you claim to be, that would be a good start. albury, I asked you to evaluate on your claim that... albury ...there is photographic documentation taken through windows by NYPD personnel in helicopters that some joists sagged at least 4' prior to collapse, and more irrefutable evidence of inward bowing of perimeter columns opposite the impact areas of more than 4' Instead of doing so, you do not address me, but rather ask us to research vaguely for ourselves the NIST report. That's like a person promising me the proof for God's existence was in the Bible, and all I'd have to do is read. It's not that easy, you know. Science doesn't work like that. Also, Science is not a democratic process, declaring the winner by the most supporters. Eh-Eh. Your argument that Barry Jennings could not have known his circumstances and the binary condition of the South Tower (collapsed/intact) because the lights were off around him is quickly refuted. How? Well, if you had watched the interview in its full length and had actually paid attention, you would have noticed that Barry tried to get out of WTC7, had smashed a window and was talking to firemen who were trying to get him out of there. The rescue attempt failed twice, each time a tower collapsed the area would become unwalkable for the firemen, who would then reassemble as soon as the worst dust and smoke was gone.
Posts: 326 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08


JFK	Sep 5 2008, 06:08 AM Post #25
Posts: 4,112 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	If you want to talk with Albury, please move you conversations to the Skeptics forum as he is no longer allowed to post here.
Posts: 4,112 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2