WTC7 collapse on Sep 11-2001

whiterebel

Diogenes wrote: »

Instead of asking questions why don't you research before making such submissions? If you'd done a modicum of research you'd have learnt that since Silverstein didn't build WTC7 your entire point is academic.

I think you'll find that Silverstein was the developer of WTC7, so you might follow your own advice rather than following someone else's information.


And yet c4 which is one of the most common explosives used in commercial demolition has a shelf live of 10 years under good conditions As well as TNT, Semtex, Det Cord, need I go on?

Did you also know that in a controlled demolition most of the work involves cutting the support columns in order to place the charges.Your point being? You've never heard of cutter charges?

Suggesting that the building was wired from the day of construction is nonsensical. Unless again you can provide me with another building who's constructors displayed this level of foresight.

And why would showing you someone else's foresight make this less nonsensical?So they know building it, that it may only last 50 or 60 years. It is nonsensical to plan for the future, and instead of doing the hard work then, it wouldn't make more sense for them to have the wiring in place first? I do hope you're not a builder or a developer.......

...

Diogenes

I think you'll find that Silverstein was the developer of WTC7, so you might follow your own advice rather than following someone else's information.

Then why haven't the people who placed the charges there all those years ago come forward?

As well as TNT, Semtex, Det Cord, need I go on?

I think you'll find that the life expectancy of those explosives is reduced when not kept in ideal conditions.

whiterebel wrote: »

Your point being? You've never heard of cutter charges?

What do you mean by cutting charges?

If they are so effective, why in ordinary demolition aren't they in common use?

And why would showing you someone else's foresight make this less nonsensical?So they know building it, that it may only last 50 or 60 years. It is nonsensical to plan for the future, and instead of doing the hard work then, it wouldn't make more sense for them to have the wiring in place first? I do hope you're not a builder or a developer.......

You're claiming that in the first time in history someone as they were building a building put in place tonnes of explosives around the building, ready to demolish it, and you're being sarcastic about my understanding of building design.

Really?

whiterebel

Tell you what, you keep mis-reading and putting stuff in that I didn't and I'll come back when you're ready. I didn't CLAIM anything, I asked a question, and as for sarcasm, I 'd refer you to the first line of your first answering post to me.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote: »

FEMA Don't seem to agree with you either,

FEMA also said they had no confidence in their analysis, which is why they recommended that a further, more in-depth study be carried out by NIST.

This study is still ongoing, but the interim report already had a hell of a lot of information showing that FEMA's analysis was almost certainly incorrect - which FEMA themselves said it was likely to be in the very report you're quoting from.

FEMA, simply put, are not qualified to analyse building failure. Thats why they comissioned the appropriate experts (NIST) to drive an analysis of the cause of collapse for WTC1, 2 and 7.

I think you'll find that Silverstein was the developer of WTC7, so you might follow your own advice rather than following someone else's information.

Silverstein was the developer. He was not, as you earlier suggested, the constructor.

WTC7 was constructed by an entirely seperate company.

whiterebel

bonkey wrote: »

FEMA also said they had no confidence in their analysis, which is why they recommended that a further, more in-depth study be carried out by NIST.

This study is still ongoing, but the interim report already had a hell of a lot of information showing that FEMA's analysis was almost certainly incorrect - which FEMA themselves said it was likely to be in the very report you're quoting from.

FEMA, simply put, are not qualified to analyse building failure. Thats why they comissioned the appropriate experts (NIST) to drive an analysis of the cause of collapse for WTC1, 2 and 7.


Silverstein was the developer. He was not, as you earlier suggested, the constructor.

WTC7 was constructed by an entirely seperate company.

Pedantics at its best?:D His company had it built presumably to their specs, designed by an Architect. I didn't think you would take it that he had his hard hat on , and trowel in his hand........

Diogenes

whiterebel wrote: »

Pedantics at its best?:D His company had it built presumably to their specs, designed by an Architect. I didn't think you would take it that he had his hard hat on , and trowel in his hand........

Pedantry?

You're claiming it's plausible that Silverstein pre wired the building decades before 2001.

Despite the fact that you've failed to provide a single example of a building designed in such a way.

Or the fact that the constructors were a completely different company from Silversteins, which would make this other company and it's employees complicit in the events of 911.

You've offered not a single shred of evidence to support your "questions" and instead muttered about things like "cutter charges" and when challenged to explain how this would work, backed away reacting in the words of a character in Miller's Crossing "Jesus Mikey I'm just speculating about a hypothesis"

I once on another thread on this forum asked someone to disprove a claim that an invisible unicorn knocked down the twin towers. This person assumed I was joking I wasn't, I was merely pointing out how difficult it is to disprove something. You're making a claim, sorry, asking a question. Instead of asking a question, make an assertion and back it up with facts, logic and science.

Whiterebel if you're "just asking questions" you should appreciate people pointing out the flaws in your assertion instead of getting defensive.

meglome

I'm sorry guys but the idea that the buildings were pre-wired with explosives is utter total nonsense. If an accidental electrical discharge set them off potentially thousands of people could be killed. No company would do such a thing and on a large construction site it would be impossible to hide.

whiterebel

Diogenes wrote: »

Pedantry?

You're claiming it's plausible that Silverstein pre wired the building decades before 2001.

Despite the fact that you've failed to provide a single example of a building designed in such a way.

Or the fact that the constructors were a completely different company from Silversteins, which would make this other company and it's employees complicit in the events of 911.

You've offered not a single shred of evidence to support your "questions" and instead muttered about things like "cutter charges" and when challenged to explain how this would work, backed away reacting in the words of a character in Miller's Crossing "Jesus Mikey I'm just speculating about a hypothesis"

I once on another thread on this forum asked someone to disprove a claim that an invisible unicorn knocked down the twin towers. This person assumed I was joking I wasn't, I was merely pointing out how difficult it is to disprove something. You're making a claim, sorry, asking a question. Instead of asking a question, make an assertion and back it up with facts, logic and science.

Whiterebel if you're "just asking questions" you should appreciate people pointing out the flaws in your assertion instead of getting defensive.

And to finish with you my friend, you should have a look at the difference between making assertions and asking a question. I asked a question, you tried to make it like I state it as fact. And to continue the pedantic line, who had the building built? Did Hadrian build the Wall? Did the Pharaohs build the Pyramids? No, they had them built. Are they constructors? Then again, tried to give a lesson in demolition, using incorrect terminology, as well as using one explosive as a guideline for short lifespans of all others.

You haven't pointed out one "flaw" in anything I have "asked", you're turning it all to make it the way you want. And you call me defensive.

Over and out.

meglome

whiterebel wrote: »

Pedantics at its best?:D His company had it built presumably to their specs, designed by an Architect. I didn't think you would take it that he had his hard hat on , and trowel in his hand........

Are you serious? jesus. I wonder if he wasn't a Jew would this same crap be circulating.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote: »

And to finish with you my friend, you should have a look at the difference between making assertions and asking a question. I asked a question, you tried to make it like I state it as fact. And to continue the pedantic line, who had the building built? Did Hadrian build the Wall? Did the Pharaohs build the Pyramids? No, they had them built.

And, in the case of the pyramids, they had the builders subsequently killed in order to prevent them talking about what they did. In Hadrian's case, there was nothing to hide.

You haven't pointed out one "flaw" in anything I have "asked", you're turning it all to make it the way you want.

I believe the point Diogenes is making is that both science and law would agree that the onus on proof is on you, if you ever wish to suggest that explosives were built in, rather than on someone to disprove it based on your wondering if it might have been possible.

If you're still just asking questions, rather than suggesting that it might have been done that way, then you should consider the lack of seismic event. Cutter charges and demolition charges would all typically generate seismic waves. There were none found, on any seismic record (including those of the multiple demolition sites throughout New York who had them there to measure their own seismic 'footprint'. Also consider that in a "conventional" controlled demolition, they remove all windows, so that the blast-wave doesn't send glass flying.

There was no blast. Ergo, there were no explosives causing the effects one would expect to see in Controlled Demolition.

So still not feasible.

whiterebel

meglome wrote: »

Are you serious? jesus. I wonder if he wasn't a Jew would this same crap be circulating.

Jesus, how did you make that jump? I'll have the other flute accusing me of making it an anti-semitic issue now.

whiterebel

bonkey wrote: »

And, in the case of the pyramids, they had the builders subsequently killed in order to prevent them talking about what they did. In Hadrian's case, there was nothing to hide.



I believe the point Diogenes is making is that both science and law would agree that the onus on proof is on you, if you ever wish to suggest that explosives were built in, rather than on someone to disprove it based on your wondering if it might have been possible.

If you're still just asking questions, rather than suggesting that it might have been done that way, then you should consider the lack of seismic event. Cutter charges and demolition charges would all typically generate seismic waves. There were none found, on any seismic record (including those of the multiple demolition sites throughout New York who had them there to measure their own seismic 'footprint'. Also consider that in a "conventional" controlled demolition, they remove all windows, so that the blast-wave doesn't send glass flying.

There was no blast. Ergo, there were no explosives causing the effects one would expect to see in Controlled Demolition.

So still not feasible.

At least you come back with some sense, even though you might not be right, Bonkey.:) I asked about it being wired, I didn't specify with charges laid or not, but ready to go in an emergency. Makes sense to me, but obviously not to you. If there was a fire, or something like the 93 attack on the WTC, and the building was unstable, it would make sense to me to be able to bring it down in a controlled manner. That is all. I'll give up on the pedantics about who "built" and who "Had it built"

bonkey

whiterebel wrote: »

I asked about it being wired, I didn't specify with charges laid or not, but ready to go in an emergency. Makes sense to me, but obviously not to you.

It doesn't make sense to me because controlled explosive-based demolition is not just a case of setting some charges in the right place and then exploding them.

Rather, it relies on hige amounts of preparation to strip the building of anything which could become an explosion-launched missile (e.g. windows, furniture), as well as removing as many non-essential supports as possible, weakening key supports, etc.

Some of this, granted, is done to minimise the amount of explosives used, so one could hypothesise that not doing this could be offset by using more explosives. This, however, causes a problem in that explosives have an easily detectable signature in the form of the explosion that they cause. There is no solid evidence of a blast-wave - airborne or ground-based. Using more explosives should make this signature even more obvious. Why no broken windows? Why no seismic signature?

There is also the problem that the rapid collapse time ignores the signs of collapse which began quite some time earlier (14 seconds earlier, if memory serves) with the collapse of the East Penthouse. These early signs of collapse are entirely inconsistent with almost everything about the idea of controlled demolition.

So we have a problem in that even if it were feasible to pre-wire a building for demolition, and even if the eplosives were somehow brought in and wired up with no-one noticing....it still doesn't look like controlled demolition because of the collapse of the East Penthouse and the kinking of the building before the short timeframe that is used to claim similarity with a CD. It also misses the shock-wave signature of explosives.

So it doesn't look like CD at all. It might look like some form of CD we've never seen or heard of before...but if it does, then we lose all capability to claim that "it looks just like" and need other evidence to support the idea.

If there was a fire, or something like the 93 attack on the WTC, and the building was unstable, it would make sense to me to be able to bring it down in a controlled manner. That is all.

Unstable...that would mean it was in danger of collapse, right?

Diogenes

whiterebel wrote: »

And to finish with you my friend, you should have a look at the difference between making assertions and asking a question. I asked a question, you tried to make it like I state it as fact.

No I didn't I just pointed out the flaws in your assertion, and then you got offensive.

And to continue the pedantic line, who had the building built? Did Hadrian build the Wall? Did the Pharaohs build the Pyramids? No, they had them built. Are they constructors?

Just to go back to this point, you've not provided any evidence that pre wiring a building during construction is common practice, or indeed has ever been anywhere. Furthermore you've not brought up anyone who was involved in the construction who can recall this prewiring

Then again, tried to give a lesson in demolition, using incorrect terminology,

I'm sorry which one of us used the term "cutting charges"?

Don't suppose you can give me any more information about them.

as well as using one explosive as a guideline for short lifespans of all others.

C4 shaped charges are one of the main tools used by demolition crews, my point is perfectly valid.

You haven't pointed out one "flaw" in anything I have "asked", you're turning it all to make it the way you want. And you call me defensive.

Actually I have pointed out several, and bonkey has as well, in his usual polite and logical manner. I'm not in the slightest bit defensive, if you could provide anything to back up your assertion I'd welcome it.

Over and out.

Roger and Wilco.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote: »

"When asked how many years he thought Semtex would remain effective, Pulicar replied, “Sixty, 70, 80...150, maybe 200 years, maybe more. No one knows.”

Ivo Varga, Explosia’s senior technologist, agrees"

I missed this first time round.....

Would you care to comment on the rest of the article which you quoted from? Particularly teh bit immediately before the piece you quoted, which says:

“Think of a car tire,” Pulicar says. “Put it in a field for twenty years. What do you think happens to it?” Maybe it’s a bit brittle, maybe a bit weather-worn, but it’s still a tire. And stored correctly, not in a field exposed to the elements, it will still hold air two decades down the line. A car tire is made from rubber, polymers, curatives, anti-degradents and carbon black. Semtex is made from variations of those same things, only with explosive instead of carbon.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be very comfortable trying to configure a precision-requiring set of timed explosions with the explosive equivalent of a "brittle, weather-worn tire".

If all I wanted to do was blow the building up....sure. But carefully timing the sequence of detonation, ensuring that the charges deliver the right energy to the right spots....I'd want something a bit more reliable.

meglome

whiterebel wrote: »

Jesus, how did you make that jump? I'll have the other flute accusing me of making it an anti-semitic issue now.

That wasn't directed at you directly sorry. It was a general point about the fact he's a Jew means he must be part of the NWO. If he wasn't a Jew there wouldn't be half the conspiracy. He's a businessman who's highly unlikely to put himself out of pocket which the collapses did.

Mahatma coat

meglome wrote: »

That wasn't directed at you directly sorry. It was a general point about the fact he's a Jew means he must be part of the NWO. If he wasn't a Jew there wouldn't be half the conspiracy. He's a businessman who's highly unlikely to put himself out of pocket which the collapses did.

Lad, how about we don't go down that road at all.