Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[marko]

Why is the how when who and how irrelevant to a controlled explosion?

It isn't, but it's one thing that they simply cannot explain in a rational, logical manner, so it's simply brushed over.

And considering their whole theory is based on it being a controlled demolition, they have very few answers to some basic questions.

[Zingari]

Why is the how when who and how irrelevant to a controlled explosion?

It's not irrelevant , it's impossible for me to answer .

I'm not trying to say who-how-why something was done , i'm trying to point out that the who-why-how version of events that we are being told, cannot be so.

The two things are quite different .

If the terrorists were to stand trial , the onus would be on the court to prove that they did it and how and why , not vice versa.

The defendants would not then need to prove who actually did, and how and why .

[Zingari]

It isn't, but it's one thing that they simply cannot explain in a rational, logical manner, so it's simply brushed over.

And considering their whole theory is based on it being a controlled demolition, they have very few answers to some basic questions.

Where did the molten steel come from ? it's very basic question too.

Or are you simply going to deny its existence ?

[marko]

Where did the molten steel come from ? it's very basic question too.

Or are you simply going to deny its existence ?

Here you go - http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Explained in a far better and thorough fashion than I ever could.

Now, how about an explanation for the how, who and why? Someone out there must have the answer.

[Zingari]

Here you go - http://www.debunking...moltensteel.htm

Explained in a far better and thorough fashion than I ever could.

Now, how about an explanation for the how, who and why? Someone out there must have the answer.

i've read that rubbish before now take a good look at this picture

go outside and build yourself a nice big bonfire and throw a heavy steel beam on it and take a photo of it when it gets to be this colour ok

[marko]

i've read that rubbish before now take a good look at this picture

go outside and build yourself a nice big bonfire and throw a heavy steel beam on it and take a photo of it when it gets to be this colour ok

Yeah, because that's an objective comparison.

Haha I just love the way you describe something that offers a reasonable explanation as "rubbish", yet treat some of the downright ludicrous gibberish spouted by the conspiracy theorists as gospel.

[Zingari]

Yeah, because that's an objective comparison.

Haha I just love the way you describe something that offers a reasonable explanation as "rubbish", yet treat some of the downright ludicrous gibberish spouted by the conspiracy theorists as gospel.

Go on please , try it , i'll make it even easier for you .

Put an old steel saucepan on a normal fire and post a picture when it gets anywhere near that colour .

It's a simple enough task

[marko]

Go on please , try it , i'll make it even easier for you .

Put an old steel saucepan on a normal fire and post a picture when it gets anywhere near that colour .

It's a simple enough task

I give up, truly!

In that case, go and build a tower out of straws, tissue paper and matchsticks, give it a good kick near the top to simulate the plane crash, douse it in petrol, light it and tell me how long it takes to collapse. Then you'll have your very own experiment for how it collapsed. Seems about as accurate as your homemade test.

[Zingari]

I give up, truly!

In that case, go and build a tower out of straws, tissue paper and matchsticks, give it a good kick near the top to simulate the plane crash, douse it in petrol, light it and tell me how long it takes to collapse. Then you'll have your very own experiment for how it collapsed. Seems about as accurate as your homemade test.

Yes because that's how he WTC's were constructed isn't it ?

I'm asking you to recreate with a very small experiment on how steel can be made to glow just with using normal fires ,

Is it really too much to expect if claiming "fires" did this sort of damage to massive steel girders that you should be able to prove how this is even remotely possible?

[Daggers]

Three words: adiabatic flame temperature

Fvcking bonfire and a saucepan?! Spastic Jesus on a fvcking unicycle!

[Zingari]

Three words: adiabatic flame temperature

Fvcking bonfire and a saucepan?! Spastic Jesus on a fvcking unicycle!

Ah that's it is it ?

Why didn't NIST just say that before ,

I'm convinced now

Cancel the film chaps you can all go home now and sleep soundly

OH I almost forgot to ask , why has adiabiatic flame temp never brought down a steel building before . you make it sound commonplace,

Why do they bother with all that nasty explosive stuff ?

why didn't it occur in this one

or this one

[Daggers]

I'm not trying to convince you.

You, like the Thatcherbitch, are not for turning.

I'm just lobbing crumbs out there for us sciencey types to chortle over.

Chortle chortle chortle. I may even rub my tum in mirth in a minute, too.

[Smudge]

Let's assume you are right and everyone on here agrees with you, now what? What will you do with that endorsement?

[Zingari]

I'm not trying to convince you.

You, like the Thatcherbitch, are not for turning.

I'm just lobbing crumbs out there for us sciencey types to chortle over.

Chortle chortle chortle. I may even rub my tum in mirth in a minute, too.

No you've got me wrong there

I'll turn very quickly when I see a practical demonstration of a steel building being demolished symmetrically at virtual free-fall without explosives , thermite rdx etc

If someone can achieve this using random fires and a random smash and bash technique i'll turn so fast you'll think i'm wonderwoman

[Zingari]

Let's assume you are right and everyone on here agrees with you, now what? What will you do with that endorsement?

In all honesty , I think it will be a massive anti climax .

I'll have nothing to argue about and I'd probably end up watching eastenders and corrie

Unless we can start on the old JFK thing again

[Rincewind]

If it was that easy to prove - throw a saucepan on a bonfire -it has taken the scientific world a long time not to use that experiment to test the theory. All those thousands of pages of calculations have been a waste of time.

This reminds me of the Evolution V Creation debaTE.

wE SCIENTISTS HAVE STUDIED , RESTUDIED CALCULATED DATED EXAMPLES LOOKED THROUGH MICROSCOPES TESTED, RETESTED AND COME UP with the result THAT THE eARTH IS is over 12 billion years old.

We followers say God did it.

[Zingari]

Just a quick word on WTC 1 and 2 .

Shock and Awe can do incredible things to the mind.

We all witnessed the sight of the two aircraft smashing into the twin towers with an enormous bang and huge fireball. As shock and awe goes, it doesn’t get much more impressive.

It’s quite natural to assume that these two events led to and were totally responsible for the two collapses; it seems preposterous to think there may be other possibilities.

But hang on a minute, these buildings were designed to withstand these events and if you take a look at the buildings in between the two events it seems that they had done just that

The buildings shook and quickly settled into equilibrium. Other than the gaping holes at the upper section they looked perfectly stable. That’s because they had done what they were designed to do.

But 50 minutes later after the south tower was struck we witnessed a total symmetrical and virtual freefall collapse of this tower with huge steel beams and pulverised dust being ejected laterally. How could fires do this? How could the impact of the plane cause this?

So we are now in the situation that within 50 minutes the fires raged hot enough at the base or lower floors to cause this full collapse.

Remember all this time office workers and rescue teams were up and running down through this supposed inferno.

These buildings were hermetically sealed to prevent fires spreading between floors and the visual evidence would suggest that this was the case.

Where is the evidence of a raging inferno capable of causing wholesale collapse of these massive steel columns?

Countless reports of “huge explosions†and “sounds like rapid gunfire†going around the buildings would suggest there may indeed be more to this.

Maybe we should all try to not to let “shock and awe†preclude us from thinking the unthinkable.

[Jordan]

Just a quick word on WTC 1 and 2 .

Shock and Awe can do incredible things to the mind.

We all witnessed the sight of the two aircraft smashing into the twin towers with an enormous bang and huge fireball. As shock and awe goes, it doesn’t get much more impressive.

It’s quite natural to assume that these two events led to and were totally responsible for the two collapses; it seems preposterous to think there may be other possibilities.

But hang on a minute, these buildings were designed to withstand these events and if you take a look at the buildings in between the two events it seems that they had done just that

The buildings shook and quickly settled into equilibrium. Other than the gaping holes at the upper section they looked perfectly stable. That’s because they had done what they were designed to do.

But 50 minutes later after the south tower was struck we witnessed a total symmetrical and virtual freefall collapse of this tower with huge steel beams and pulverised dust being ejected laterally. How could fires do this? How could the impact of the plane cause this?

So we are now in the situation that within 50 minutes the fires raged hot enough at the base or lower floors to cause this full collapse.

Remember all this time office workers and rescue teams were up and running down through this supposed inferno.

These buildings were hermetically sealed to prevent fires spreading between floors and the visual evidence would suggest that this was the case.

Where is the evidence of a raging inferno capable of causing wholesale collapse of these massive steel columns?

Countless reports of “huge explosions†and “sounds like rapid gunfire†going around the buildings would suggest there may indeed be more to this.

Maybe we should all try to not to let “shock and awe†preclude us from thinking the unthinkable.

There's a remedy for "shock and awe." It's called science.

Strangely enough, it debunks conspiracy theories, too... Who'd have guessed?

[MooseBreath]

Just a quick word on WTC 1 and 2 .

Shock and Awe can do incredible things to the mind.

We all witnessed the sight of the two aircraft smashing into the twin towers with an enormous bang and huge fireball. As shock and awe goes, it doesn’t get much more impressive.

It’s quite natural to assume that these two events led to and were totally responsible for the two collapses; it seems preposterous to think there may be other possibilities.

But hang on a minute, these buildings were designed to withstand these events and if you take a look at the buildings in between the two events it seems that they had done just that

The buildings shook and quickly settled into equilibrium. Other than the gaping holes at the upper section they looked perfectly stable. That’s because they had done what they were designed to do.

But 50 minutes later after the south tower was struck we witnessed a total symmetrical and virtual freefall collapse of this tower with huge steel beams and pulverised dust being ejected laterally. How could fires do this? How could the impact of the plane cause this?

So we are now in the situation that within 50 minutes the fires raged hot enough at the base or lower floors to cause this full collapse.

Remember all this time office workers and rescue teams were up and running down through this supposed inferno.

These buildings were hermetically sealed to prevent fires spreading between floors and the visual evidence would suggest that this was the case.

Where is the evidence of a raging inferno capable of causing wholesale collapse of these massive steel columns?

Countless reports of “huge explosions†and “sounds like rapid gunfire†going around the buildings would suggest there may indeed be more to this.

Maybe we should all try to not to let “shock and awe†preclude us from thinking the unthinkable.

If these "massive steel columns" are so unbreakable, then how does a controlled demolition manage to make a building collapse on itself with just a few explosions?

[Reynard Bleu]

I know little about the mechianics of this, but I am told that temptetures inside a modern jet engine reach 14-1500C in flight, that tmakes for an awfully hot fire when it breaks up? As I say, I know nurthing.

[James.]

I'm still chuckling about the saucepan on a bonfire suggestion. Inspired.

[Smudge]

Just a quick word on WTC 1 and 2 .

Shock and Awe can do incredible things to the mind.

We all witnessed the sight of the two aircraft smashing into the twin towers with an enormous bang and huge fireball. As shock and awe goes, it doesn’t get much more impressive.

It’s quite natural to assume that these two events led to and were totally responsible for the two collapses; it seems preposterous to think there may be other possibilities.

But hang on a minute, these buildings were designed to withstand these events and if you take a look at the buildings in between the two events it seems that they had done just that

The buildings shook and quickly settled into equilibrium. Other than the gaping holes at the upper section they looked perfectly stable. That’s because they had done what they were designed to do.

But 50 minutes later after the south tower was struck we witnessed a total symmetrical and virtual freefall collapse of this tower with huge steel beams and pulverised dust being ejected laterally. How could fires do this? How could the impact of the plane cause this?

So we are now in the situation that within 50 minutes the fires raged hot enough at the base or lower floors to cause this full collapse.

Remember all this time office workers and rescue teams were up and running down through this supposed inferno.

These buildings were hermetically sealed to prevent fires spreading between floors and the visual evidence would suggest that this was the case.

Where is the evidence of a raging inferno capable of causing wholesale collapse of these massive steel columns?

Countless reports of “huge explosions†and “sounds like rapid gunfire†going around the buildings would suggest there may indeed be more to this.

Maybe we should all try to not to let “shock and awe†preclude us from thinking the unthinkable.

This is my view without the science but I think answers your issue here. It would not be necessary for the fire to spread to every floor for the building to collapse.

The plane hit a few floors from the top, the fire deformed the columns and beams over three or four stories and they collapsed due to the heat. The weight of the building above that dropped on to the burning area.

The columns are designed to carry a certain load at each floor, not the whole building above it. As each floor collapsed the weight got heavier and each floor was subjected to a heavier and heavier load all the way to the bottom.

[Rincewind]

They did not design the building thinking, 'Some terrorist nutter is going to fly a jumbo jet into these buildings, let's ask the banks and owners for a few more million dollars to prevent this.'

I think the answer would have been , 'Feck off you swindling barstewards.'

The top of the building (the penthouse collapsed before the rest. The videos of the 'controlled' collapse only show one side. Yo cannot see what the other side is like. The ones who set the explosives would have had to account and calculate for there being only half a building when the explosives went off.

Apart from these minor details the US Govt did it.

[Zingari]

They did not design the building thinking, 'Some terrorist nutter is going to fly a jumbo jet into these buildings, let's ask the banks and owners for a few more million dollars to prevent this.'

I think the answer would have been , 'Feck off you swindling barstewards.'

The top of the building (the penthouse collapsed before the rest. The videos of the 'controlled' collapse only show one side. Yo cannot see what the other side is like. The ones who set the explosives would have had to account and calculate for there being only half a building when the explosives went off.

Apart from these minor details the US Govt did it.

Firstly no jumbo jets were involved .

The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of fully laden 707s , 100 year storms earthquakes and hurricanes . (I don’t know how many times I‘ve told you this now)

[Zingari]

This is my view without the science but I think answers your issue here. It would not be necessary for the fire to spread to every floor for the building to collapse.

The plane hit a few floors from the top, the fire deformed the columns and beams over three or four stories and they collapsed due to the heat. The weight of the building above that dropped on to the burning area.

The columns are designed to carry a certain load at each floor, not the whole building above it. As each floor collapsed the weight got heavier and each floor was subjected to a heavier and heavier load all the way to the bottom.

The problem with this (even if it were possible) is that the collapse would need to be a series of jolts as each floor hit the next (and onto the next etc) which would slow down the rate of collapse.

Watch the collapse and it’s plainly smooth and rapid not jerky.

Also you seem to be ignoring the lateral ejections of the steel and pulverised concrete, how can the weight of laterally ejected material bear down on the structure below?

Watch the collapses, they look like bananas unpeeling, not anything like you describe

It also only takes 10 or 12 seconds,( virtual freefall) and surely a collapse as you describe would significantly reduce the rate of descent .

It‘s like the difference between a man running through a series of open doors and a series of closed doors.