Creative Speculation
Related: About this forumBuilding 7 Conspiracy Fans - Here you go - Building 7 Explained logically....
Watch this and your questions will be answered!!! Or should be! Case closed!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)well, this is bad news for the professional building demolition industry. the NIST report will put them put out of business for good. for the first time in history, a steel high-rise is brought down by fire.
...which shows that from now, on all you need is a box of matches and a can of gasoline and voila! instant do-it yourself controlled-demolition. just like magic.
deconstruct911
(815 posts)and let the pulverization begin.
But you're right, a match is still cheaper than rigging an entire floor.
Logical
(22,457 posts)and most buildings do not have multiple fires burn for 7 solid hours with no sprinklers working and no firefighters fighting them.
Keep trying. We will keep proving you wrong!
This is easy!
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)someone better inform them quick!
I hope you don't own stock. better sell before its too late.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Maybe most engineers, unlike you, think leaving all the flammable material in a abandoned building and then setting it on fire and waiting 7 hours is not a very effective way to bring it down. But maybe you know more than they do!
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)you're forgetting the impact of the explosion.
the fuel tanker was filled with thousands of gallons of gasoline.
when it ignited the explosion was like a giant bomb going off.
the bridge is not comparable to WTC 7.
it was made of steel-reinforced concrete, not steel-framed.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Yeah right. You do know that WTC 7 was 47 stories high don't you? Not some one story office building. These fires were NOT hot enough to take the buildings down. Jet fuel needs containment to keep hot. So then we are also not to believe Barry Jennings who worked in WTC who said there were bodies in WTC7 before the towers fell, and he heard explosions in WTC7 before the towers fell.
This is easy. LOL!
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)I'm guessing that if a professional building demolition company had been brought in to destroy WTC 7, it wouldn't have settled for doing irreparable damage to Fiterman Hall in the process. 
I suppose that doesn't really rebut your argument, because you didn't really make an argument. Nice.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Fiter who? would be nice if I knew what you were talking about.
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)It certainly would be nice if you knew about Fiterman Hall before you try to lecture people about the collapse of WTC 7.
Just a thought. No need to thank me.
dougolat
(716 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:25 AM - Edit history (1)
" The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7 was Not An Inside Job" on WashingtonsBlog:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/911-at-least-this-one-aspect-was-not-an-inside-job.html
Logical
(22,457 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)
reACTIONary
(6,052 posts)...who put together the time-line models of the fires within the buildings. He showed a film of this building suddenly collapsing behind a reporter conducting an interview. Very strange, the building just starts to disappear from the top down, collapsing in on itself.
He explained the dynamics. This building was very odd-shaped and the section that started the collapse was basically held up by one central steel pillar. As the fires inside successively ignited, flared up, and and diminished over a long period of time, the sections of the pillar were successively heated and cooled. The expansion and contraction caused the pillar to warp and "walk" over its base, a concrete pad. Eventually, it slipped off the edge of the pad, and the section it was holding up, starting at the penthouse on the top, came down, caving in upon itself. This destabilized the whole structure.
Normally office fires are put out relatively quickly and don't spread around inside a building. Due to the emergency surrounding the area, there was no attempt to put out the fires in this building and they just kept burning and spreading.
T S Justly
(884 posts)Response to Logical (Original post)
Post removed
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)The building in Madrid burned for 24 hours, and only a few floors fell. This video proves nothing. The 23rd floor was reinforced, and office fires don't burn that hot. And the freeway overpass collapse is not a fair comparison. That fire had direct fuel to keep the fire hot enough to melt the steel. Office furniture, doesn't burn that hot. And there is video of firemen telling people just minutes before it fell down that it was coming down. And then you heard a big explosion, but that video is hard to find these days. I wonder why. Like the video of Pentagon employees standing shoulder to shoulder out on the Pentagon lawn picking up evidence on 9/11. And they weren't cops either. They were sent out to tamper with evidence. And we have the BBC video of reporting that WTC7 building had collapsed before it did. And of course Larry Siverstein who said they decided to "pull it" which is left out of this video that proves NOTHING.
Madrid building:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid)
sabbat hunter
(6,901 posts)do you think WTC 7 was wired for implosion?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The steel-framed components of the Windsor Tower collapsed to the ground less than 3 hours into that fire. THAT is the only valid part of your analogy. (And it tends to prove the uncontrolled/unopposed fire in WTC7 causing the collapse of the building)
What you see still standing after the Windsor Tower fire is ONLY the components of the building that are concrete pillars. Fire does damage concrete, through spalling, but it was negligible in this case. Had WTC7 been built like the Windsor Tower, it probably would have survived.
"The structure was divided into two halves by a technical floor without windows. It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing."
WTC 7 did not have the concrete core that you see standing in the aftermath of the Windsor Tower fire. But look carefully at the aftermath. You might notice the shape of the building is quite different from the pre-fire photos. That is because the sections of the building that WERE steel-framed construction, are gone. They failed and collapsed to the ground. If you watch the news footage of the fire, you can see those components collapsing at about the 3 hour mark. Why some of those components failed faster can be explained in differences in construction method, the amount of load the metal was required to bear (Windsor only had some sections of some floors in steel-frame, smaller building only 29 stories, etc.) or fuel sources available inside, different fireproof ratings on furnishings and materials present, etc.
Basically, your analogy tends to prove WTC7 collapsed as a direct result of the un-fought fire.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)How do they explain cars burnt out on a street like an explosion? Larry Silverstein saying "pull it"? Larry Silverstein getting 7 Billion of insurance money on a 16 million dollar investment.
2.3 Trillion unaccounted for at the Pentagon on 09/10/01. Doesn't anybody even think that money and power were the motive? Bush and his cronies made good money over this. And what about the stock dealings the week before? Or was that some lie too? Or lack of defense by the Pentagon. How can a passenger plane hit a military building 40 minutes after the second impact on the towers? Is that logical? Is that what we pay for? It that believable?
Here's a video I found last week that shows more ground coverage around WTC 7. Oh and note that the cars lack debris on top of them from free falling buildings.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Whom did Larry Silverstein instruct to "pull it"?
zappaman
(20,618 posts) jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Let's assume he meant "secretly demolish the building and then collect insurance".
These guys never seem to want to talk about the actual context in which they base this particular piece of nonsense - i.e. a discussion he had with FDNY officials.
If we accept the premise as true, the way this shakes out is that Silverstein instructed to the FDNY to do it, the firefighters somehow were prepared to do so in a burning building on short notice, AND they kept their mouths shut about their own complicity in an incident which claimed many of their own lives.
Response to Logical (Original post)
Post removed
Ruby the Liberal
(26,322 posts)Do you not count yourself among us?
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)And it chooses DU as the venue for this momentous occasion, in the Creative Speculation forum no less!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I feel honored and will be stopping by here more often. This will be enlightening.
Nasty Gash
(8 posts)Some few of us are among you now. It has not always been so.
hlthe2b
(106,571 posts)So are you of the "man coexisted with dinosaurs put there by God a mere few thousands of years ago-- creationist" persuasion? Since you say we've only been around 12-14,000 years, I'm quite fascinated to see where you go with this. 
But, far be it from me not to welcome a guest--including a guest from ---wherever?
Kali
(55,829 posts)that came much later than the biology
Nasty Gash
(8 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 7, 2012, 05:48 AM - Edit history (2)
I said "civilization" not "humans". Civilization usually refers to sedentarization or establishment of permanent habitations, cities or city-states by your anthropologists. This is the point at which widespread cooperation must begin to be learnt.
We observed sedentarization occurring approximately 12 to 14 centuries ago on Earth.
I am a little confused. You first said human civilization began 12,000 to 14,000 years ago on Earth. Then that sedentarization began 12 to 14 centuries ago. 12 to 14 centuries seems closer to 1,200 to 1,400 years.
Or did you mean millennia rather than centuries?
Observant reader magical thyme detected an error in this writing and kindly informed me of same. Kindly know that "centuries" should read "millennia". Thank you for the correction reader magical thyme and thank you for your interest. I am not permitted to send you a personal writing for the rules of this forum forbid such by new members. Kindly accept this impersonal thank you.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I am a little confused. You first said human civilization began 12,000 to 14,000 years ago on Earth. Then that sedentarization began 12 to 14 centuries ago. 12 to 14 centuries seems closer to 1,200 to 1,400 years.
Or did you mean millennia rather than centuries?
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)How should we address you?
Nasty Gash
(8 posts)We have not names in the Human sense. Our individual identities have more to do with our location in 4-space, but that is an inadequate attempt to describe it in Human terms. It might be helpful for Humans to think of our individual identies as "addresses" In 4-space.
Please use the label "Nasty Gash" if you wish, for me. Others have chosen their own labels.
Thank you for asking.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)Do you have a solution for that going faster than the speed of light problem?
Nasty Gash
(8 posts)You enquire about superlightspeed travel. As Humans presently perceive the concept, yes, we are able to "move" from one "location" to another in 3-space at superlightspeed (again, as Humans conceive the terms). However, Dr. A. Einstein was correct. I trust you have some knowledge of his conclusion that superlightspeed is not possible. It will require perhaps another 2 centuries for Humans to discard their current 3-space thoughtmode and to acquire the 4-space thoughtmode required fully to comprehend the matter.
We are gratified by your interest in us. We are especially gratified by your inquisitive nature. Would that all Humans would be so. However, the matter I introduced in my initial writing is of far greater import. You Humans must attend to that lest your civilization fail and never learn the answers which you seek.
zappaman
(20,618 posts)1. How long have you been visiting the Earth?
2. Will you ever reveal yourself to the entire planet?
3. Are you friendly or hostile?
4. Are you able to pick up our television signals? If so, are you a STAR TREK fan or a STAR WARS fan?
Nasty Gash
(8 posts)1. How long have you been visiting the Earth?
It is difficult to express in Human terms. It is similar to asking "what time is a lightyear?". Perhaps it would help to know that we witnessed the first asteroids bringing "life" to your planet.
2. Will you ever reveal yourself to the entire planet?
Already we have.
3. Are you friendly or hostile?
Do you not believe my initial writing? We have nothing but goodwill toward all species.
4. Are you able to pick up our television signals? If so, are you a STAR TREK fan or a STAR WARS fan?
Your broadcasts in general do not interest us for they are designed to indoctrinate and they encourage avarice and the coveting of petty material goods.
Your interest is gratifying. However, it is urgent that the message of my initial writing be attended to.
Amaril
(1,267 posts).......do all of you look like Keanu Reeves?
Nasty Gash
(8 posts)Keanu Reeves is not one of us. He is a Human actor. Do not be deceived. Human movies usually are produced for propaganda and indoctrination purposes and sometimes for entertainment, not to depict reality. We all have different external visages just as your species has.
Thank you for your interest.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)as long as you don't eat us.
to DU, Nasty Gash
snooper2
(30,151 posts)As we still have billions of humans on our planet who believe in mythical gods, can you explain the evolution of your societies?
I mean, you didn't just "pop" into being right? The planet or moon you are from had it's own evolution within it's solar system. Live maybe began in the seas like earth, or maybe pools of methane or where the lava flows melted the frozen crust creating the first pools of liquid water.
So again since you just didn't "pop" into being except for gracing our presence here, explain the mystical in your society from it's earliest stages and what it took to get over it. Once your kind evolved to a point where you coud question why you are here, why the ground shakes, why flash storms happen how did pre-mature versions of you deal with it?
sylvi
(813 posts)Please say no. I have a bet going with someone.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)I don't think it addresses the many issues that have been raised by serious 9/11 skeptics.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/
William Seger
(11,072 posts)... and the issues raised in that article have been addressed many times. For example, the main claim is that the 2.25 seconds of WTC7 free-fall is not explained by the NIST theory. Yes, it is, and the explanation is much better than their "scientific" controlled demolition theory.
1444tx
(3 posts)This is really obvious, and I know it's been "debunked" among the uber intellectuals, but you Tube "Larry Silverstein Pull it". It's well known among demolition teams what that term means but I know, I know- unless MSM said so it's not true. Or, one could just put the implosion of a building featured on KXAS Channel 5 news (or any implosion) a week ago next to Building 7 and see the glaring similarities.
(sarcasm on)
It's truly impossible that a government wouldn't allow that horrible event to happen especially considering that the defense industry has profited IMMENSELY since 9/11/01 and boy howdy those neo cons sure did predict it with PNAC, now didn't they? Oh and my gawrsh, how did they know to place put options on said aircraft in the days and weeks prior to 9/11. And don't worry, Operation Northwoods wasn't a plan that didn't involve remote aircraft not being shot down to blame on our enemies; but oh it's my tinfoil hat that's on too tightly.....RIGHT
(sarcasm off)
Seriously, the people "in charge" KNOW how mentally WEAK the general populace IS and THAT is why your government is being sold off, jobs are being shipped out and they have *US* fighting about wedge issues. You think they are going to CORRECT what they USE to DIVIDE US?
Lol wake the f**k up
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)that's made-up "truther" B/S. In the video, he clearly meant that they should pull the firefighters back from the building, since the fires couldn't be fought and WTC7 appeared to be in danger of collapsing.
It's ridiculous to think that Larry Silverstein would admit to imploding WTC7 on a TV program.
If you showed the implosion of a building next to the WTC7 collapse with the sound turned on, you'd notice one big difference right off: from a distance, WTC7 fell in silence.
reACTIONary
(6,052 posts)As I remember it, there is a reporter doing an interview with someone and the building is in the background. As they talk, starting at the top with the penthouse, the building just starts to disappear into itself.
The really strange thing is that it is just not very dramatic. And the interview just goes on, with out the two noticing what is happening at all.
Frank_Norris_Lives
(114 posts)....is not in the demolition industry, is he? To pull (down) a building is however common vernacular.
http:// www. google.com/search?q=%22pull+down+a+building%22
So, it's not B.S.
It's ridiculous to think that Mr. Silverstein would purposefully admit to imploding WTC7 on a TV program. As they say, there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.