WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition

[Terral]

Greetings to All:

All of the evidence points directly to insider terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11. WTC-7 was designed and built using Compartmentalization of all supporting columns and beams separated by solid concrete slabs horizontally and curtain walls vertically. A building fire has never destroyed a steel-framed skyscraper in US history before or after 9/11 and WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 were owned by Larry “Pull It” Silverstein. Many fail to realize the World Trade Center Towers had never been in private hands prior to the summer of 2001, when Mr. Silverstein received possession from the New York Port Authority.

Cooperative Research Website: (http://cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=larry_silverstein)

This is the only time the WTC has ever changed hands since it was opened in 1973 . . . It was previously controlled by the New York Port Authority, a bi-state government agency . . . Larry Silverstein, the president of Silverstein Properties, only uses $14 million of his own money for the deal. His partners put up a further $111 million, and banks provide $563 million in loans . . . . The Port Authority had carried only $1.5 billion in insurance coverage on all its buildings, including the WTC, but Silverstein’s lenders insist on more, eventually demanding $3.55 billion in cover . . . After 9/11, Larry Silverstein will claim the attacks on the World Trade Center constituted two separate events, thereby entitling him to a double payout totaling over $7 billion.


Watch the WTC-7 Collapse Video (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) again:

Use your curser to hold the round scrollbar and move WTC-7 up and down repeatedly. The roof section and the center of the building collapse first, then the two sides plummet at ‘free fall’ velocity like any successful controlled demolition. Before looking at the details of how WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization of all the steel supports, we need to take a look at the massive building itself.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/WTC7Steel.jpg

All of the WTC-7 steel columns, beams, girders and bar joists were bolted down and welded together into a single unit creating literally thousands of connections that must be severed to cause the catastrophic failure seen from the aftermath of the attack.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg

The melting point of WTC-7 structural steel is 1535 degrees Celsius or 2795 degrees Fahrenheit (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/text/index_pre050712.html). The first problem with the ‘Fire Caused The Collapse’ Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe) , or about one third the required temperature to melt structural steel. The second problem is that building fires typically burn for only 20 minutes in any given area, because the fuel is depleted and the fire moves in the direction of a fresh fuel source. The third problem is that steel is an excellent conductor of heat and any steel-framed network would disperse the heat much more quickly than any building fire could raise the temperature to anywhere near ‘steel-softening’ temperatures. Another problem is that all supporting columns were coated with 3-hour ‘spray-on’ fireproofing insulation, which is nine times more protection needed for the typical building fire; even if the required 2800 degree temperatures were reached.

911Research Website: (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm)

The website above is perhaps the best on the internet for discovering the truth about the WTC-7 collapse. Moving down the page, Figure 5-3 shows the massive steel network and how certain areas (floors 1-7, 22-24) received extra support.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-3.jpg

This information is very important, because remember WTC-7 collapsed in one single smooth motion, which means extra attention was paid to placing charges to sever these thicker and stronger steel supports. Try to imagine the amount of energy required to break all of these connections simultaneously and you begin to see the ‘building fire theory’ is certainly a hoax. Below you come to Figure 5.3.3 and descriptions of how WTC-7 was built in many separate ‘compartments’ eliminating ‘fire’ as even a remote possibility for causing this collapse.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/WTC7Insulation.jpg

Even if two or five or ten fires were started, the fuel source within those particular compartments would be consumed LONG before the fireproofing safety countermeasures were compromised; and the fire had no way to pass through solid concrete slabs or curtain walls to invade the neighboring compartments. This does not even account for the fully functional sprinkler system that had to be turned off for these fires to spread any distance at all. Here is a four minute video to help gain a better perspective on how to weigh the evidence in this case:

Four Minute WTC-7 Collapse Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=475401188440074396)

“Fire has never destroyed a steel building,” but three steel buildings owned by Larry Silverstein were ‘Pulled’ on 9/11. “Pull it” is controlled demolition lingo for wiring the building up and pulling it down. Mr. Silverstein was obviously lying about speaking to the New York Fire Chief, as the firemen only entered the scene on 9/11 after the Twin Towers attacks. This Fire Chief had no access to Controlled Demolition charges when he arrived at WTC-7 for “Pulling” down the 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that could possibly be placed in a single day. Here we have a few small fires burning on a few floors, but the Fire Chief cannot figure any way to extinguish them. Since the firemen had no time to set all the required charges to “Pull” WTC-7 down in just a few hours, as if firemen even have controlled demolition crews, then Mr. Silverstein just pointed the finger at himself about having prior knowledge of these 9/11 attacks. Now compare our images of WTC-7 and these “Pull It” videos:

Paris Building (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6633218138868662267)

Office Building (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2421326324041129616)

Landmark Tower Implosion (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5360235832416833797)

Many buildings have been demolished using controlled demolition looking exactly like WTC-7 on 9/11, but again, no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire in the history of this planet. Twenty-first century demolition techniques include the use of Thermite Shaped Charges (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm) found all over WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7.

Shaped Charges And The World Trade Center Collapses (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html)

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/thermite.jpg

The damage from a thermite shaped charge is exactly what you see above the fireman’s confused head. Note the size of the massive column and the molten iron residue that flowed inside and outside the column.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cut3.jpg

Thermite burns at a very high 2500 degrees Centigrade or 4532 degrees Fahrenheit, which represents the kind of temperature required to sever these massive red-iron columns. As a trained demolition supervisor tearing down buildings for many years, I know of nobody using 45-degree angle cuts to remove any red-iron part of any conventional demolition job. This particular column has molten iron residue, which is a ‘Controlled Demolition’ Signature, as any torch cut would blow the molten iron off the column entirely away from the worker. There is no cut from any torch that would leave molten iron residue on the inside and outside of 'all' the sides of a column this way. The idea that any demolition worker would make a 45-degree cut is ridiculous, because of the danger to other workers and the waste of fuel.

Another problem with the Official ‘Fire’ Cover Story is these 45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts appear everywhere . . .

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7_3.jpg

. . . even in locations where demolition crew workers could not possibly reach. The common practice is to remove steel debris in an orderly ‘pick and remove’ manner, which eliminates the possibility of needlessly shifting weight and putting workers in danger. We play this dangerous game like a child plays ‘Pickup Sticks,’ (http://www.polandbymail.com/get_item_435992.htm) as any skilled demolition foreman can look at the pile and tell you which debris to remove first. None of the demolition workers in the picture above climbed up any ladder forty or fifty feet in the air to make that 45-degree angel cut, because that was part of the original ‘Controlled Demolition’ of WTC-7. Note the clean 90-degree cuts labeled “Severed Column End” scattered throughout the debris pile. However, also note these steel members are buried under the debris of the walls collapsing upon them ‘during’ the controlled demolition process. These cuts could not have been made by this demolition crew, because they still have mountains of debris to remove before even thinking about cutting any structural steel; which would only serve to shift weight in this very dangerous situation. The very best work on these WTC controlled demolition attacks is presented by Dr. Steven E. Jones (Brigham Young University) here:

Liberty Post Website: (http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=126128)

WTC-7 was definitely (100 percent certainty) brought down using Controlled Demolition techniques also found in WTC-1 and WTC-2. This evidence explains why we have reports on hundreds of ‘explosions’ taking place throughout the day.

Bamm, Bamm, Bamm; then Three Big Explosions . . . (http://youtube.com/watch?v=OkWTXz7tcn8)

And yet, the ‘keyword sanitized’ 911Commission Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf) only uses the term ‘explosion’ six times outside the notation references for ‘all’ these 9/11 cases and never uses the term ‘explosions’ (plural) even once. Guess what? The bogus Arlington County After-Action Report (http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Fire/edu/about/docs/after_report.pdf) uses the term ‘explosion’ six times in 215 pages ‘and’ also never uses the term ‘explosions’ even one time the very same way, even though we can hear multiple explosions taking place in this single News Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WefPzgxvfS4).

9/11 was definitely and inside-job and many LIARS are helping the real terrorists get away with murdering thousands of our innocent fellow Americans . . .

GL,

Terral

[bynmdsue]

Wow,You have really opened my eyes.Thank you.

[Dave Rogers]

The roof section and the center of the building collapse first, then the two sides plummet at ‘free fall’ velocity like any successful controlled demolition.

[...]

This information is very important, because remember WTC-7 collapsed in one single smooth motion, which means extra attention was paid to placing charges to sever these thicker and stronger steel supports.

Someone needs to make his mind up.

Dave

[bje]

:popcorn1

[defaultdotxbe]

WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 were owned by Larry “Pull It” Silverstein.
wrong, only 7 was owned by silverstein, 1-6 were leased

[X]

I'm not even going to bother trying to refute him. History suggestsit'll just invite more long, rambling, facuallty incoreect copy-pasted posts (anyone know where he's getting this junk from?).

The woo is too strong in this one.

[Minadin]

WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 were owned by Larry “Pull It” Silverstein.


He owned 7, leased 1 & 2.


The first problem with the ‘Fire Caused The Collapse’ Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe) , or about one third the required temperature to melt structural steel.


At 1000 degrees F, standard structural steel loses about 1/2 the strength it has at room temperature. I'm sure you've heard that steel doesn't have to melt to fail before, why are you using this old tripe?


The second problem is that building fires typically burn for only 20 minutes in any given area, because the fuel is depleted and the fire moves in the direction of a fresh fuel source.


Typically, perhaps. Though that does cause me to wonder why we're required to put 1, 2, and sometimes even 3 hour rated fire protection around the structure in buildings. In any case, I think you'll find that the conditions at WTC7 weren't exactly typical. There was a diesel tank for an electrical generator that was fuelling the fires.



I don't have time to point out every other mistake in the above post right now. However, just about everything you have written above is demonstrably wrong in just about every way.

[DGM]

At 1000 degrees F, standard structural steel loses about 1/2 the strength it has at room temperature. I'm sure you've heard that steel doesn't have to melt to fail before, why are you using this old tripe?

Atention.

He posts the same thing on other sites too. It's SPAM if you ask me.

[twinstead]

I like that addition of columns obviously cut by workmen after the collapse used as evidence of CD; it's always a nice touch.

[Redtail]

Greetings to All:

All of the evidence points directly to insider terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11. WTC-7 was designed and built using Compartmentalization of all supporting columns and beams separated by solid concrete slabs horizontally and curtain walls vertically. A building fire has never destroyed a steel-framed skyscraper in US history before

Well there's yer problem.

[Loss Leader]

Wrong. Try again.

[Walter Ego]

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html


Though in this case we can perhaps drop the 'mono' prefix...

[SDC]

I like that addition of columns obviously cut by workmen after the collapse used as evidence of CD; it's always a nice touch.

I think that someone predicted Terral would use this picture. I don't recall who. In any case, that person should dial 1-800-GIVEMEMYMILLIONDOLLARS right about now.

[HawksFan]

I think I actually lost I.Q. points reading that OP.

[Myriad]

Hi Terral,

I've decided to respond specifically to the one claim you've made that has not already been repeatedly demonstrated to be false here.

The damage from a thermite shaped charge is exactly what you see above the fireman’s confused head.


What evidence do you have that the firefighter in the picture is confused? He appears to me to be focusing on the task at hand. Is it because his head is turned and his left hand is near his chin? That appears to be because he is speaking into some kind of communications device, most likely a radio or cell phone. Note that whatever the piece of equipment in his left hand is, it's tied off to this helmet (with what looks like the same kind of tie line as his flashlight is) so that if he needs to quickly free his hands it won't be lost. That suggests that whatever it is, it is (like his flashlight) important to his work or to his safety or both.

So, can you explain why it's reasonable, based on the evidence in the photo or other evidence you might have to offer, to conclude that the firefighter is confused? Or can I reasonably conclude instead that either you are projecting your own confusion about this issue onto a stranger in a photo, and/or it somehow suited your political agenda to make a patronizing belittling comment about a firefighter without regard for whether it was actually true?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[ckent2]

Yes, there's too many mistakes in his post to reply to all at once. I'll hit a couple of points though.

“Fire has never destroyed a steel building,”

We all know that isn't true. A large furniture store (steel framed) near my home collapsed after a fire of about an hour and half, killing nine firefighters.
It's not a skyscraper, but since it's supports wouldn't have to hold as much weight as a skyscraper, it should've held up better. But due to the sheer number of flammable items in the furniture store, it had a tremendous amount of fuel to burn.

“Pull it” is controlled demolition lingo for wiring the building up and pulling it down.

We all know that isn't true either.

Mr. Silverstein was obviously lying about speaking to the New York Fire Chief, as the firemen only entered the scene on 9/11 after the Twin Towers attacks.

Was the fire chief also lying when he said he spoke with Silverstein?

[twinstead]

Blowing smoke suited to ones political agenda without regard for whether it was actually true?

Come on. Truthers don't do that...

[Dave Rogers]

Oh yeah, Terral, one other thing.

What exactly is a "Thermite Shaped Charge"?

Dave

[Good Lt]

Quoteth Terral:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cut3.jpg
- -
Um, Terral.

Look up "oxyacetylene torch." Then look up "slag." Debunked.

Thanks in advance.

[Terral]

Hi Minadin:

Terral Original >> The first problem with the ‘Fire Caused The Collapse’ Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit , or about one third the required temperature to melt structural steel.

Minadin Reply >> At 1000 degrees F, standard structural steel loses about 1/2 the strength it has at room temperature. I'm sure you've heard that steel doesn't have to melt to fail before, why are you using this old tripe?


Why are you posting two sentences of ‘talk, talk, talk’ instead of making a case for Building Fires taking down WTC-7 on 9/11? :0) Your statement above is based upon Minadin’s own errant misstatements of the facts about heat energy and steel contained within a steel-framed network. Heat energy is constantly moving from the hot to cold areas of the network and never remains stationary for any ‘softening’ to even begin. So, your steel columns and beams are softening (heh) from 1000 degree temperatures, but what is the temperature of the adjacent steel columns and beams from your ridiculously small WTC-7 building fires? The fact is that the temperatures are reduced in direct proportion to the distance from the burning fire and the combustible fuel source. The entire WTC-7 steel frame network will heat up and spread the heat out evenly throughout the many series of connections, before even one component begins to soften and reduce load bearing capacity.

Terral Orginal >> The second problem is that building fires typically burn for only 20 minutes in any given area, because the fuel is depleted and the fire moves in the direction of a fresh fuel source.

Minadin’s Reply >> Typically, perhaps. Though that does cause me to wonder why we're required to put 1, 2, and sometimes even 3 hour rated fire protection around the structure in buildings. In any case, I think you'll find that the conditions at WTC7 weren't exactly typical. There was a diesel tank for an electrical generator that was fuelling the fires.


Your diesel tank lingo is more meaningless drivel, because hydrocarbon fires do not possess sufficient energy to even begin melting steel columns and beams from the WTC-7 steel framed network. The science of why building fires cannot possibly cause structural steel to soften or melt is here (http://www.takeourworldback.com/smokinggun.htm). Even if you had a million gallons of diesel fuel ‘and’ a delivery system (which you do not), then melting structural red-iron steel is still very much an impossibility. How are you going to deliver insufficient diesel fuel energy to ‘all’ the steel columns, beams, girders and bar-joists throughout the entire WTC-7 steel-framed network to cause ‘all’ those connections to be ‘severed’ at the very same time ‘and’ create a Controlled Demolition-like collapse? :0) Where is your precedent for diesel fuel fires causing the collapse of any steel-framed skyscraper in the history of this planet? How did falling debris from WTC-1 over 300 feet away penetrate WTC-7 to ignite diesel fuel in the storage tanks in the first place? :0) Never mind, because you have no support for your theory either way . . . and we both know it . . .

GL,

Terral

[ElMondoHummus]

To keep with normal habit of addressing lurkers and new folks, I'll address this to you all:

I'm not going to do a normal point-by-point rebuttal of this. Just go to 9/11 Myths, Debunking 9/11, and the sticky links at the top of this subforum for the rebuttals to "free (http://911myths.com/html/freefall.html) fall (http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm)", the "small (or no) fires (http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html)" canard (http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm), the "steel buildings have never collapsed due to fire (http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm)", thermite (http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm) claims (http://911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html), and supposed testimony of explosions (http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm). Hate to say it, but Terral is just listing very old, recycled claims; most conspiracy fantasists have discarded a great many of them, or at least don't try to argue them with the same "evidence" that Terral is using (for example, that angled-cut image where he lables sections having "thermite residue". No such residue was ever found, and plus, that image is a famous one debunked many times over, including here in this forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2975280#post2975280) (as well as here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80138), and in other places (use the search function)).

Just rely on the standby sources that everyone else here does:

The Sticky links, especially but not limited to the Gravy links, detailed rebuttals to many of the myths that are out there
9/11 Myths (http://911myths.com/index.html)
Debunking 9/11 (http://www.debunking911.com/index.html)
For claims made in the movie Loose Change, there's the Loose Change Guide (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html), as well as the Internet Detectives debunk (http://emptv.com/research/loose-change) of the movie's claims.You'll see that the conspiracy claims are unsupported, no matter how much extraneous, irrelevant argument Terral provides.

[Blender Head]

Reading the OP was like watching Britney Spears at a hair salon.

[JimBenArm]

So much stupidity.
So little time.

Please stop, Terral. You know nothing, and it shows.

[cisco]

One of the most willfully ignorant posts I've ever seen. A real affront to honesty everywhere.

The OP knows this stuff isn't true.

[Minadin]

This is absurd. You've literally not posted one correct thought whatsoever. And, you clearly don't know anything at all about structures or fire engineering. If I can point out glaring, obvious, and basic errors in your entire line of reasoning and you're just going to gloss over them as though I didn't, what motivation should I have to continue this exchange?

[Terral]

Hi DGM:

DGM >> Atention. He posts the same thing on other sites too. It's SPAM if you ask me.


Posting my WTC-7 thesis paper on other Boards does NOT give these JREF writers and readers the opportunity to offer their advocating or opposing arguments on THIS JREF Board and on THIS Conspiracy Forum. What’s the matter? Is there such a thing as TOO MUCH 911Truth for DGM? :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU) No sir. SPAM is reposting my work in other JREF rooms, or even pasting my WTC-7 OP Presentation on other JREF Conspiracy threads; which anyone can verify is NOT happening on this Board. Many of you simply have no WTC-7 thesis paper from which to draft your rebuttals and counterproposals to my Opening Post presentation. Your idea of ‘debunking’ (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)) is pasting three pathetic sentences to my threads, which only works to prove you have no case at all.

GL,

Terral

[twinstead]

The OP knows this stuff isn't true.

That is why it is so sad. Terral is fully aware that upon close examination most, if not all, of what he posted can be shown to be crap, yet he posts it anyway.

The old famous throw a bunch of mud against the wall and see if any of it sticks technique. Gotta love the oldies but goodies.

[Myriad]

Why did you say the firefighter in the photo has a confused head?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[SDC]

That is why it is so sad. Terral is fully aware that upon close examination most, if not all, of what he posted can be shown to be crap, yet he posts it anyway.

The old famous throw a bunch of mud against the wall and see if any of it sticks technique. Gotta love the oldies but goodies.

Are you sure he knows it's all wrong? I get the feeling of a true believer.

[DGM]

Hi DGM:




Posting my WTC-7 thesis paper on other Boards does NOT give these JREF writers and readers the opportunity to offer their advocating or opposing arguments on THIS JREF Board and on THIS Conspiracy Forum. What’s the matter? Is there such a thing as TOO MUCH 911Truth for DGM? :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU) No sir. SPAM is reposting my work in other JREF rooms, or even pasting my WTC-7 OP Presentation on other JREF Conspiracy threads; which anyone can verify is NOT happening on this Board. Many of you simply have no WTC-7 thesis paper from which to draft your rebuttals and counterproposals to my Opening Post presentation. Your idea of ‘debunking’ (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)) is pasting three pathetic sentences to my threads, which only works to prove you have no case at all.

GL,

Terral
Your right about one thing. I've had about enough 9/11 truth. It would be a different story if it was connected with reality.

Why do you ignore real people?

[defaultdotxbe]

Your diesel tank lingo is more meaningless drivel, because hydrocarbon fires do not possess sufficient energy to even begin melting steel columns and beams from the WTC-7 steel framed network.

GL,

Terral
your blanket statement that "hydrocarbons" cant burn that hot is wrong for several reasons

1: hydrocarbons can and do burn hot enough to melt steel, most cutting torches use a hydrocarbon fuel

2: there is no set maximum temperature at which something can burn, depending on how fast the heat can dissipate and how hot the materials are at the start of the reaction it can easily get hot enough to melt steel

3: it doesnt matter anyway, steel melting is a strawman invented by the truth movement

[twinstead]

Fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. Now there's a blast from the past.

[BenBurch]

Oh. My. Dog. Not this tired, insane crap again!?

Did you know that Silverstein LOST MONEY when the WTC-7 fell down? A lot of money. The insurance he had did not even begin to cover it. Doesn't sound like something a "Greedy Joooo" would want, eh, Terral? Your anti-Semitism is pathetic and disgusting.

[SDC]

Oh. My. Dog. Not this tired, insane crap again!?

Did you know that Silverstein LOST MONEY when the WTC-7 fell down? A lot of money. The insurance he had did not even begin to cover it. Doesn't sound like something a "Greedy Joooo" would want, eh, Terral? Your anti-Semitism is pathetic and disgusting.

Well, I had a revelation a few years ago -- in all places, in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor, at a cookout for folk dancers -- a bunch of granola eating sandal wearing crunchy lefties if ever there was one.

At which a prominent member of the Ann Arbor folk dance community (English country dancing, American contras and squares) referred to a building fire as "Jew insurance." I could've decked him, but I couldn't get good enough footing, what with the sandals, and the granola underfoot.

This stuff is deeply rooted in the culture. With sickos, it comes to the surface.

[Blender Head]

your blanket statement that "hydrocarbons" cant burn that hot is wrong for several reasons

1: hydrocarbons can and do burn hot enough to melt steel, most cutting torches use a hydrocarbon fuel

2: there is no set maximum temperature at which something can burn, depending on how fast the heat can dissipate and how hot the materials are at the start of the reaction it can easily get hot enough to melt steel

3: it doesnt matter anyway, steel melting is a strawman invented by the truth movement

This non-Truther website states the steel melted:

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm

[DGM]

Terral:
Are you ready to call those iron workers in your pictures liars or fools? If so let me know and I'll introduce you to them.

[pomeroo]

Hi DGM:




Posting my WTC-7 thesis paper on other Boards does NOT give these JREF writers and readers the opportunity to offer their advocating or opposing arguments on THIS JREF Board and on THIS Conspiracy Forum. What’s the matter? Is there such a thing as TOO MUCH 911Truth for DGM? :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU) No sir. SPAM is reposting my work in other JREF rooms, or even pasting my WTC-7 OP Presentation on other JREF Conspiracy threads; which anyone can verify is NOT happening on this Board. Many of you simply have no WTC-7 thesis paper from which to draft your rebuttals and counterproposals to my Opening Post presentation. Your idea of ‘debunking’ (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)) is pasting three pathetic sentences to my threads, which only works to prove you have no case at all.

GL,

Terral


You are one of the last conspiracy liars to cling to the thoroughly--and I mean thoroughly--debunked falsehood about the meaning of the phrase "pull it." There isn't a demolition company anywhere that recognizes this fantasist fabrication as industry slang for "blow up the building." Don't you get tired of being corrected?

Why can't your evil movement produce someone who can argue the fantasist case against Mark and Arthur Scheuerman on 'Hardfire'?

[Terral]

Hi Dave:

Dave >> Oh yeah, Terral, one other thing. What exactly is a "Thermite Shaped Charge"?


Thermite Shaped Charges (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html) (picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cutter_opposite.jpg)) are an illegal brand of ‘cutter charges’ utilized to sever steel connections, by introducing a carefully prepared amount of “iron oxide and aluminum powder” (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) with the end products being “aluminum oxide and molten iron.” The inside-job bad guys used sulfur in conjunction with Thermite to accelerate the destructive effect on the steel columns, girders and beams, which transformed regular Thermite into “Thermate.” Thermate is then combined with a malleable medium for placement all over the steel-framed network using 45-degree and 90-degree ‘shaped-charges’ to move the steel supports in any of the four directions (like this (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_anglecut.jpg)). The 45-degree charges (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/shapedcharges.jpg) ‘walk’ column lines in any direction (like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cut3.jpg)), while the 90-degree charges simply ‘cut’ the connection square (“Severed Column End” (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7_3.jpg)). These 45-degree cuts cannot possibly be part of any natural building fire collapse, as you can see these are CUTS and not the result of ‘melting’ anything. Even the 90-degree cuts MUST be part of the demolition process, as they have nothing to do with any melting of any structural steel components. The only way to transform an overbuilt WTC-7 47 story skyscraper into this little pile (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg) in just a few hours is by Controlled Demolition. Period!

GL,

Terral

[Good Lt]

Hi Dave:
Thermite Shaped Charges (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html) (picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cutter_opposite.jpg)) are an illegal brand of ‘cutter charges’ utilized to sever steel connections, by introducing a carefully prepared amount of “iron oxide and aluminum powder” (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) with the end products being “aluminum oxide and molten iron.” The inside-job bad guys used sulfur in conjunction with Thermite to accelerate the destructive effect on the steel columns, girders and beams, which transformed regular Thermite into “Thermate.” Thermate is then combined with a malleable medium for placement all over the steel-framed network using 45-degree and 90-degree ‘shaped-charges’ to move the steel supports in any of the four directions (like this (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_anglecut.jpg)). The 45-degree charges (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/shapedcharges.jpg) ‘walk’ column lines in any direction (like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cut3.jpg)), while the 90-degree charges simply ‘cut’ the connection square (“Severed Column End” (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7_3.jpg)). These 45-degree cuts cannot possibly be part of any natural building fire collapse, as you can see these are CUTS and not the result of ‘melting’ anything. Even the 90-degree cuts MUST be part of the demolition process, as they have nothing to do with any melting of any structural steel components. The only way to transform an overbuilt WTC-7 47 story skyscraper into this little pile (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg) in just a few hours is by Controlled Demolition. Period!

GL,

Terral

So did you look up what an "oxyacetylene torch" does, and the definition of the word "slag" in the context of cutting metal with said torches yet?

Period!

LOL

This expression is usually reserved for instances in which one says something profound or definitive.

You've done no such thing.

[bje]

Posting my WTC-7 thesis paper..... Many of you simply have no WTC-7 thesis paper...

GL,

Terral


Unfortunately, Terral, you must support your "thesis" when its contents and claims are challenged. As we see, you never have and evade every challenge to your claims and thesis.

Like your silly Pentagon claims which we nailed you on.

We don't have to debunk your "thesis". You have to support it. And you can't.

You flunk.

[~enigma~]

Another uncontrolled yet controlled demolition that fell into it's own footprint. Of course footprint must mean accross the street. Cute how our resident woo uses a picture of the debris pile with the NORTH WALL lying on top of the pile and he/she/it still expects us to believe that it was a symmetrical collapse. Terral, I hope you understand that if I saw you on the street and you asked me if I knew what time it was, I would look at my watch and say yes....then I'd keep walking.

[DGM]

Hi DGM:

Posting my WTC-7 thesis paper on other Boards does NOT give these JREF writers and readers the opportunity to offer their advocating or opposing arguments on THIS JREF Board and on THIS Conspiracy Forum.

I've read this several times and I still can't figure out what the hell he's talking about. Is he telling me I(we) don't have the right to criticize his paper? Am I reading this wrong?


ETA Brain fade I just got it. The words "on other boards" escaped me.

[NDBoston]

Terral:

Can you explain to me how the building I worked in for three years including 9/11 was wired for controlled demolition without myself or any of my fellow employees at Salomon noticing it?

Keep in mind that three floors had coverage 24/7/365 (trading floors). Many others had people working early to late. I averaged 75 hours a week when I was there. Salomon had floors 27-44 and portions of the floors below that.

Was this done at night time? How did they handle when someone came on the floor? How did they handle security?

[~enigma~]

Terral:

Can you explain to me how the building I worked in for three years including 9/11 was wired for controlled demolition without myself or any of my fellow employees at Salomon noticing it?

Keep in mind that three floors had coverage 24/7/365 (trading floors). Many others had people working early to late. I averaged 75 hours a week when I was there. Salomon had floors 27-44 and portions of the floors below that.

Was this done at night time? How did they handle when someone came on the floor? How did they handle security?
Before ANYONE gets too involved maybe it would be best to know that the supposed "largest" truther board (9/11 truth group on myspace) really didn't accept this bs well and if I recall correctly, the woo that introduced it was systematically dismantled and then banned. BTW, that group shut down a few days ago.

[defaultdotxbe]

This non-Truther website states the steel melted:

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
i dont see it in there, what page is it on?

however regardless of origin the statement is still a strawman, the steel did not melt


Hi Dave:

Thermite Shaped Charges (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html) (picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cutter_opposite.jpg)) are an illegal brand of ‘cutter charges’ utilized to sever steel connections, by introducing a carefully prepared amount of “iron oxide and aluminum powder” (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) with the end products being “aluminum oxide and molten iron.” The inside-job bad guys used sulfur in conjunction with Thermite to accelerate the destructive effect on the steel columns, girders and beams, which transformed regular Thermite into “Thermate.” Thermate is then combined with a malleable medium for placement all over the steel-framed network using 45-degree and 90-degree ‘shaped-charges’ to move the steel supports in any of the four directions (like this (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_anglecut.jpg)). The 45-degree charges (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/shapedcharges.jpg) ‘walk’ column lines in any direction (like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cut3.jpg)), while the 90-degree charges simply ‘cut’ the connection square (“Severed Column End” (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7_3.jpg)). These 45-degree cuts cannot possibly be part of any natural building fire collapse, as you can see these are CUTS and not the result of ‘melting’ anything. Even the 90-degree cuts MUST be part of the demolition process, as they have nothing to do with any melting of any structural steel components. The only way to transform an overbuilt WTC-7 47 story skyscraper into this little pile (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg) in just a few hours is by Controlled Demolition. Period!

GL,

Terral
could you please tell me how thermite could be made to cut horizontally across a column? perhaps provide a real picture of such a device, or at least evidence of existance not coming from a truther website?

[Dave Rogers]

This non-Truther website states the steel melted:

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm

It doesn't state anything of the sort. It states that the Twin Tower collapses were caused by a combination of the initial damage and thermal weakening of the surviving structure. I searched all nine pages and found not one single occurrence of the word "melt".

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Terral:

Can you explain to me how the building I worked in for three years including 9/11 was wired for controlled demolition without myself or any of my fellow employees at Salomon noticing it?


Mind if I answer for him?

Terral can't explain that, but he can post all sorts of BS written from the perspective of people who had no personal involvement or physical presence at the WTC at all and try to get people to believe that his list of long debunked anomalies somehow add up to something, while he ignores or "misinterprets" (I'm being charitable here) such obvious issues as witness testimony and physical evidence.

It's futile to get a truther to admit that his/her list of anomalies and misinterpretations of phenomena are trumped by witness experience and other physical data; they'll either ignore your statements, or try to prove the experiences you had are somehow not what you think they are. But don't take my post as discouragement; on the contrary, keep putting that question up front. It helps to see that these crazy explanations have to pass the test of convincing those who were actually there.

[rcronk]

Terral,

I think you will get much better results if you do all of the following things:

1. Go do some research at www.911myths.com (http://www.911myths.com) and www.debunking911.com (http://www.debunking911.com).

2. Take everything out of your original post that has already been debunked and explained.

3. Take one item from whatever is left from your original post that you don't feel is debunked and start a thread about that one item here so that you and others can have a focused discussion of that one item to determine whether that one item has alternative explanations or not.

4. Don't respond only to the cherry picked responses you can easily dismiss while ignoring the responses that debunk parts of your theory.

I know that if you try it this way, you will have a much more effective time here. You are currently doing the opposite of the four items above and you can see the fruits of that labor already. Go ahead and try something new - it might actually work.

[DGM]

i dont see it in there, what page is it on?

however regardless of origin the statement is still a strawman, the steel did not melt



could you please tell me how thermite could be made to cut horizontally across a column? perhaps provide a real picture of such a device, or at least evidence of existance not coming from a truther website?
Every time I see this all I can think of is the "truthburn" fiasco. They had all the time in the world and they still couldn't pull it off. Funny "truthers" don't talk about this much.

[Dave Rogers]

Thermite Shaped Charges (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html) (picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cutter_opposite.jpg)) are an illegal brand of ‘cutter charges’ utilized to sever steel connections, by introducing a carefully prepared amount of “iron oxide and aluminum powder” (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) with the end products being “aluminum oxide and molten iron.”

You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about here, have you? Linear shaped charges are explosive charges that use the shaped charge effect to direct the blast of the explosion so as to cut through a steel member. Thermite, as it isn't an explosive, doesn't create a shaped charge effect, as there is no blast to direct. The same is true of thermate. If thermite (or thermate) were fixed against the columns in the same shape and mounting as a shaped charge, whatever the shape, the only result would be for the thermite / thermate to burn through the support medium holding it on to the column, and for the molten iron and aluminium oxide to flow away. There is not, and cannot be, such a thing as a thermite shaped charge. It's a self-contradictory term.

Dave

[HeyLeroy]

Why are you posting two sentences of ‘talk, talk, talk’ instead of making a case for Building Fires taking down WTC-7 on 9/11? :0) Your statement above is based upon Minadin’s own errant misstatements of the facts about heat energy and steel contained within a steel-framed network. Heat energy is constantly moving from the hot to cold areas of the network and never remains stationary for any ‘softening’ to even begin. So, your steel columns and beams are softening (heh) from 1000 degree temperatures, but what is the temperature of the adjacent steel columns and beams from your ridiculously small WTC-7 building fires? The fact is that the temperatures are reduced in direct proportion to the distance from the burning fire and the combustible fuel source. The entire WTC-7 steel frame network will heat up and spread the heat out evenly throughout the many series of connections, before even one component begins to soften and reduce load bearing capacity.


GL,

Terral

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The softening of steel by heating is permanent.

Annealing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_%28metallurgy%29)

I work with steel every day.

[16.5]

Dave Rogers:

"If thermite (or thermate) were fixed against the columns in the same shape and mounting as a shaped charge, whatever the shape, the only result would be for the thermite / thermate to burn through the support medium holding it on to the column, and for the molten iron and aluminium oxide to flow away."

Not if the non-existent therm*te support was MAGIC

The same MAGIC that Terral once used to prove that the Pentagon was five feet tall.

[GlennB]

Over on the old LCF board, Terral was corrected time and time again about the temperatures routinely achieved in typical building fires. He was provided with many quotes and links from expert fire-investigation sites that proved his numbers wrong. He stuck to the one site that supported his idea (as I recall it was a site advertising fire safes, and one that obviously hadn't done much research).

He also would not budge on his perception of the "necessity" for the temperatures to be sufficient to melt steel, even when provided with studies and graphs and all that showed the weakening effect of temperature on structural steel.

Terral is incorrigible. Address his points for the sake of the waverers, newbies and fence-sitters by all means, but you waste your breath trying to talk to Terral himself.

eta: yep he's still using the SchwabCorp fire safe website for his evidence.

Apart from being incorrigible (which we're all capable of from time to time) I do believe he's slightly mad. Nobody could put this much effort into such totally unsupportable gibberish - over such a long period of time - unless they are a bit off their rockers.

[Dave Rogers]

Terral is incorrigible. Address his points for the sake of the waverers, newbies and fence-sitters by all means, but you waste your breath trying to talk to Terral himself.

That's how I keep my patience. I remember I'm addressing people who think Terral's IQ has as many digits as theirs, and helping them to understand that this is not the case.

Dave

[Terral]

Hi BJE:

BJE >> Unfortunately, Terral, you must support your "thesis" when its contents and claims are challenged. As we see, you never have and evade every challenge to your claims and thesis.


Your idea of a ‘challenge’ (heh) is posting three sentences of nonsense to my threads. Get a case and please try again.

BJE >> Like your silly Pentagon claims which we nailed you on. We don't have to debunk your "thesis". You have to support it. And you can't. You flunk.


Really? Posts like yours only make me laugh out loud (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU). You guys read my OP and paste three stupid sentences about “claims are challenged” and think that means something. If I ever see a real ‘challenge’ to my OP presentation, then I will be the very first to begin drafting defending arguments. Until then the laughter (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) from these meager offerings is about to bust my side wide open.

GL,

Terral

[pomeroo]

Hi BJE:




Your idea of a ‘challenge’ (heh) is posting three sentences of nonsense to my threads. Get a case and please try again.




Really? Posts like yours only make me laugh out loud (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU). You guys read my OP and paste three stupid sentences about “claims are challenged” and think that means something. If I ever see a real ‘challenge’ to my OP presentation, then I will be the very first to begin drafting defending arguments. Until then the laughter (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) from these meager offerings is about to bust my side wide open.

GL,

Terral


Obviously you are a seriously disturbed individual. Why must you compound your illness by lying about the meaning of the phrase "pull it"?

[BirdyBuddy]

Never mind, because you have no support for your theory either way . . . and we both know it . . .

Seems you have no support for your theory either... and we ALL (including you) know it...

[stateofgrace]

9/11 was definitely and inside-job and many LIARS are helping the real terrorists get away with murdering thousands of our innocent fellow Americans . . .

Terral

You mean "liars" like this ?

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

[Terral]

Hi NDBoston:

Boston >> Can you explain to me how the building I worked in for three years including 9/11 was wired for controlled demolition without myself or any of my fellow employees at Salomon noticing it?


Yes. Can you explain to me how the building you worked in for three years including 9/11 collapsed due to building fires in just a few hours? We are talking about the Controlled Demolition Theory versus the Building Fires Theory, unless you have a third hypothesis. I received my first General Contractor License in the mid 1980’s and my father is a General Contractor and together we have demolished more buildings that perhaps everyone else here combined. I know WTC-7 contained a myriad of solid red-iron steel connections that had to be ‘severed’ using ‘cutter charges’ having NOTHING to do with any building fires. The symmetrical collapse is a Controlled Demolition Signature, just like all the 45-degree cuts found all over the place in the remaining stub columns and debris. The fact that the Loyal Bushie inside-job bad guys DUPED you and your buddies changes NOTHING about the evidence in this case. No natural phenomena has the stored energy potential to ‘sever’ ALL of the steel columns, girders, beams and bar-joists in the WTC-7 steel-framed network to cause the catastrophic symmetrical collapse of the entire structure in just a few hours.

Many of your ‘Fire Myths’ are debunked here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c) with descriptions of ‘shaped charges.’

PS. We have a Mark Roberts Lover over at the Loose Change Board talking a bunch of junk on this thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/75087/1/#new). He says "Marky" (heh) posts here at the JREF Board. Do any of you know his user name? Supposedly he is a worthy debating opponent on these 9/11 Topics and I would very much like the opportunity to see if he is worth his salt. Thanks in advance,

GL,

Terral

[BenBurch]

You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about here, have you? Linear shaped charges are explosive charges that use the shaped charge effect to direct the blast of the explosion so as to cut through a steel member. Thermite, as it isn't an explosive, doesn't create a shaped charge effect, as there is no blast to direct. The same is true of thermate. If thermite (or thermate) were fixed against the columns in the same shape and mounting as a shaped charge, whatever the shape, the only result would be for the thermite / thermate to burn through the support medium holding it on to the column, and for the molten iron and aluminium oxide to flow away. There is not, and cannot be, such a thing as a thermite shaped charge. It's a self-contradictory term.

Dave

Just so! It would dribble off and start a fire.

[scotth]

Oh yeah, Terral, one other thing.

What exactly is a "Thermite Shaped Charge"?

Dave

Something completely non-existant that he made up (as you suspected).

Terral, a clue:

Thermite is not an explosive and is not formed into charges of any kind.
That photo with 'thermite residue'..... It isn't. There is no way you could that nice clean horizontal cut off with thermite. Thermite would run all down the size of the column, it would not give that horizontal cut at all. That was done with some kind of cutting torch (probably long after the collapse was over).

(btw, this kid has used both thermite and shaped charges... and I'm calling you clueless)

[Calcas]

PS. We have a Mark Roberts Lover over at the Loose Change Board talking a bunch of junk on this thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/75087/1/#new). He says "Marky" (heh) posts here at the JREF Board. Do any of you know his user name? Supposedly he is a worthy debating opponent on these 9/11 Topics and I would very much like the opportunity to see if he is worth his salt. Thanks in advance,

GL,

Terral

You're joking right?

Here's a link for you. Check out the link in his siggy and come back in a few days if you still have any questions.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82689

[aggle-rithm]

Hi NDBoston:




Yes. Can you explain to me how the building you worked in for three years including 9/11 collapsed due to building fires in just a few hours? We are talking about the Controlled Demolition Theory versus the Building Fires Theory, unless you have a third hypothesis. I received my first General Contractor License in the mid 1980’s and my father is a General Contractor and together we have demolished more buildings that perhaps everyone else here combined. I know WTC-7 contained a myriad of solid red-iron steel connections that had to be ‘severed’ using ‘cutter charges’ having NOTHING to do with any building fires. The symmetrical collapse is a Controlled Demolition Signature, just like all the 45-degree cuts found all over the place in the remaining stub columns and debris. The fact that the Loyal Bushie inside-job bad guys DUPED you and your buddies changes NOTHING about the evidence in this case. No natural phenomena has the stored energy potential to ‘sever’ ALL of the steel columns, girders, beams and bar-joists in the WTC-7 steel-framed network to cause the catastrophic symmetrical collapse of the entire structure in just a few hours.

Many of your ‘Fire Myths’ are debunked here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c) with descriptions of ‘shaped charges.’

PS. We have a Mark Roberts Lover over at the Loose Change Board talking a bunch of junk on this thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/75087/1/#new). He says "Marky" (heh) posts here at the JREF Board. Do any of you know his user name? Supposedly he is a worthy debating opponent on these 9/11 Topics and I would very much like the opportunity to see if he is worth his salt. Thanks in advance,

GL,

Terral

Terral,

How long do you think this writer's strike will continue? I miss my TV shows.

[ElMondoHummus]

Hi NDBoston:




Yes. Can you explain to me how the building you worked in for three years including 9/11 collapsed due to building fires in just a few hours? We are talking about the Controlled Demolition Theory versus the Building Fires Theory, unless you have a third hypothesis. I received my first General Contractor License in the mid 1980’s and my father is a General Contractor and together we have demolished more buildings that perhaps everyone else here combined. I know WTC-7 contained a myriad of solid red-iron steel connections that had to be ‘severed’ using ‘cutter charges’ having NOTHING to do with any building fires. The symmetrical collapse is a Controlled Demolition Signature, just like all the 45-degree cuts found all over the place in the remaining stub columns and debris. The fact that the Loyal Bushie inside-job bad guys DUPED you and your buddies changes NOTHING about the evidence in this case. No natural phenomena has the stored energy potential to ‘sever’ ALL of the steel columns, girders, beams and bar-joists in the WTC-7 steel-framed network to cause the catastrophic symmetrical collapse of the entire structure in just a few hours.

Many of your ‘Fire Myths’ are debunked here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c) with descriptions of ‘shaped charges.’

PS. We have a Mark Roberts Lover over at the Loose Change Board talking a bunch of junk on this thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/75087/1/#new). He says "Marky" (heh) posts here at the JREF Board. Do any of you know his user name? Supposedly he is a worthy debating opponent on these 9/11 Topics and I would very much like the opportunity to see if he is worth his salt. Thanks in advance,

GL,

Terral


See, ND? I told you he'd do this.

ETA: Note how he also dodged your question. He still can't explain how you all didn't notice anything.

[Myriad]

Terral, I'm still interested in the one claim you made in the OP that is not already long refuted by easily available sources of information.

What is the basis of your claim that the firefighter in the picture you posted in your OP has a confused head?

What do you think he is confused about, and how do you know?

You might feel this is a minor point among your earth-shattering red-pill claims. (I don't feel that way myself. Fires and buildings don't mind if you misrepresent, belittle, and patronize them, but people do). But if you can't offer a rationale to support even such a minor claim, why should anyone pay any attention to your major ones?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[cisco]

the supposed "largest" truther board (9/11 truth group on myspace) . . . shut down a few days ago.

Details?

[~enigma~]

Details?
Details? They shut down. Didn't I say that?? Oh...you want the woo answer. The mod was kidnapped and severely beaten by the NWO and the members of the group were all tracked down by IP and are being systematically eliminated :)

Viva la NWO :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1325747a75ebdea102.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10582)

[defaultdotxbe]

Hi NDBoston:

Boston >> Can you explain to me how the building I worked in for three years including 9/11 was wired for controlled demolition without myself or any of my fellow employees at Salomon noticing it?Yes. <snipped non-explanation>

GL,

Terral
then please do so

[bje]

Hi BJE:

Your idea of a ‘challenge’ (heh) is posting three sentences of nonsense to my threads. Get a case and please try again.

Let's see:

Hey, Terral,

Let's play stump the band.

Just what was the wreckage that the 1,000+ people saw and/or removed from the Pentagon? What were their statements about the wreckage?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3398438&postcount=31Yes, inconvenient questions for Terral - required questions for real investigators.

Really? Posts like yours only make me laugh out loud (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU).
GL, Terral
And WHAT a nervous laugh it is, Terral! Just imagine all those witnesses you're SO afraid to quote:

These are just some of the people who would have to know of AA77's existence as a flight on 9/11/2001, a few hundred easily.

Add that to the testimony of the 1,000+ people who saw and/or removed the wreckage and you've got a lot of sources.

Don't run away, again, Terral. Tell us what all of these people saw and know.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3401617&postcount=413


Terral, are you going to answer the questions or would you prefer to tell us how it feels to live in the dustbin of history with debunked, washed-up Pentagon no-planers, Dick Eastman, Gerard Holmgren, Craig Ranke, Jim Fetzer, and RedIbis, to name just a few?

[DGM]

Hi NDBoston:




Yes. Can you explain to me how the building you worked in for three years including 9/11 collapsed due to building fires in just a few hours? We are talking about the Controlled Demolition Theory versus the Building Fires Theory, unless you have a third hypothesis. I received my first General Contractor License in the mid 1980’s and my father is a General Contractor and together we have demolished more buildings that perhaps everyone else here combined. I know WTC-7 contained a myriad of solid red-iron steel connections that had to be ‘severed’ using ‘cutter charges’ having NOTHING to do with any building fires. The symmetrical collapse is a Controlled Demolition Signature, just like all the 45-degree cuts found all over the place in the remaining stub columns and debris. The fact that the Loyal Bushie inside-job bad guys DUPED you and your buddies changes NOTHING about the evidence in this case. No natural phenomena has the stored energy potential to ‘sever’ ALL of the steel columns, girders, beams and bar-joists in the WTC-7 steel-framed network to cause the catastrophic symmetrical collapse of the entire structure in just a few hours.

Many of your ‘Fire Myths’ are debunked here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c) with descriptions of ‘shaped charges.’

PS. We have a Mark Roberts Lover over at the Loose Change Board talking a bunch of junk on this thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/75087/1/#new). He says "Marky" (heh) posts here at the JREF Board. Do any of you know his user name? Supposedly he is a worthy debating opponent on these 9/11 Topics and I would very much like the opportunity to see if he is worth his salt. Thanks in advance,

GL,

Terral
I'm a general contractor.

Please stop lying. I wish I could forward your posts to your licensing board, they would love it.

I know WTC-7 contained a myriad of solid red-iron steel connections

Care to explain what this means? Be careful now engineers are listening.

[twinstead]

then please do so

It appears that since he has decided that it was impossible for the building to fall the way many experts say it did, it doesn't matter how 'They' managed to wire the building--they just must have been able to pull it off in secret, period.

This is such a common tactic, a kind of woo woo circuit breaker logic that makes it impossible to 'win' a debate with them, at least in their minds. To me it sits at the core of many truther's cognitive problems.

It's useless bothering with minor details like how the charges were set surreptitiously; they just were.

[MIKILLINI]

Where is your precedent for diesel fuel fires causing the collapse of any steel-framed skyscraper in the history of this planet? How did falling debris from WTC-1 over 300 feet away penetrate WTC-7 to ignite diesel fuel in the storage tanks in the first place? :0) Never mind, because you have no support for your theory either way . . . and we both know it . . .

<Snip>

Terral

Terral, you make claim one of the firefighters in the photo looks confused....You ought to look at that photo again....Tell Me what you see above and in between those firefighters; Do you see another person there?

How many electrical transformers were in building 7? Silicon oil-filled transformers have a tendency to be volatile when they are exposed to extreme heat generated by fire. The fuel oil and diesel fuel within the building contribute to feeding the fire.

Go ahead and browse through this FEMA report, Terral. Look at some of the pictures and you will see debris ejected beyond WTC 7.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

If you decide to ignore this, let Me put it this way: Because you have no support for your theory . . . and we both know it . . .

[Terral]

Hi Enigma:

Enigma >> Before ANYONE gets too involved maybe it would be best to know that the supposed "largest" truther board (9/11 truth group on myspace) really didn't accept this bs well and if I recall correctly, the woo that introduced it was systematically dismantled and then banned. BTW, that group shut down a few days ago.


Yep. This looks like the best “Building Fires Took Down WTC-7” post I have seen anywhere on this thread. I suppose posting 3 sentences about “the supposed 'largest' truther board” proves as much as anything from anyone on your side of this debate. Where is the case for a few building fires taking down WTC-7 in just a few hours? Oh. None of you have even thought to make a case for anything. :0) You really believe that setting a few fires to run away will produce this (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) result (picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg)). :0) And, you also think that arguing semantics over our use of ‘shaped charge’ terms is going to prove that Senor Bushie’s Building Fires took down WTC-7? :0) All I see here is chit-chat with some whining and complaining (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/tantrumwithpans.jpg) mixed in for good measure. You confuse fruitless activity with actually accomplishing something . . .

GL,

Terral

[Miragememories]

It appears that since he has decided that it was impossible for the building to fall the way many experts say it did, it doesn't matter how 'They' managed to wire the building--they just must have been able to pull it off in secret, period.

This is such a common tactic, a kind of woo woo circuit breaker logic that makes it impossible to 'win' a debate with them, at least in their minds. To me it sits at the core of many truther's cognitive problems.

It's useless bothering with minor details like how the charges were set surreptitiously; they just were.

Given that both FEMA and NIST, each representing a large group of supposedly well qualified engineers, have not been able publish a determination for why WTC7 collapsed, I'd argue there is no such thing as "many experts" saying anything definitive at this time.

MM

[phunk]

Hi Dave:




Thermite Shaped Charges (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html) (picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cutter_opposite.jpg)) are an illegal brand of ‘cutter charges’ utilized to sever steel connections,


That picture is not a thermite charge, it is a high explosive charge. If you made a shaped charge like that with thermite, it would simply fall of the side of the column when you lit it.


ETA: my bad, didn't read page 2 and see that several people had already commented on this. :)

PS. When are you going to patent your shaped thermite cutting charges Terral? You could make millions!

[DGM]

Given that both FEMA and NIST, each representing a large group of supposedly well qualified engineers, have not been able publish a determination for why WTC7 collapsed, I'd argue there is no such thing as "many experts" saying anything definitive at this time.

MM
So MM do you support Terral's assessments as representative of your "truth" movement?

[twinstead]

Given that both FEMA and NIST, each representing a large group of supposedly well qualified engineers, have not been able publish a determination for why WTC7 collapsed, I'd argue there is no such thing as "many experts" saying anything definitive at this time.


A point taken.

But, all these undecided experts, yet Terral (and you?) are absolutely convinced it was CD. I wonder how many of these undecided experts are convinced, or even leaning toward, CD as well?

Regardless, what is your opinion of my characterization of Terral's debate tactics?

[cisco]

Details? They shut down. Didn't I say that?? Oh...you want the woo answer.

No, I wanted to know if you knew the details.

I was wondering if they changed their minds, realized they were full of poop, got bored, decided something else was more interesting, etc.

Or, if someone shut them down, but then I would've thought you'd have said "they were shut down," not "they shut down."

[Mince]

WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition




Wow, Terral, you've proven WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Good work man. Now, before you can take your evidence to appropriate authorities (which I know you're dying to do), you have to prove who orchestrated the controlled demolition. I mean, how do you know Al Queda didn't rig WTC7 for demolition; and you need names to get subpoenas, warrants and indictments.

Back to the drawing board!


Also, in order for the government to use the story that WTC7 collapsed because debris from one of the other collapsing WTC buildings hit WTC7 and started uncontrollable fires, they'd need debris from one of the other collapsing WTC buildings to hit WTC7 and start uncontrollable fires. Makes sense, right? Was is divine serendipity, then, that debris from one of the other collapsing WTC buildings hit WTC7, starting uncontrollable fires, or did the government perhaps remote control debris into WTC7 and throw a match in after the debris hit? You're going to have to explain this to the judge, so you'd better be prepared.

[HeyLeroy]

Terral:

Care to correct your error? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3401919&postcount=51)

[defaultdotxbe]

It appears that since he has decided that it was impossible for the building to fall the way many experts say it did, it doesn't matter how 'They' managed to wire the building--they just must have been able to pull it off in secret, period.

This is such a common tactic, a kind of woo woo circuit breaker logic that makes it impossible to 'win' a debate with them, at least in their minds. To me it sits at the core of many truther's cognitive problems.

It's useless bothering with minor details like how the charges were set surreptitiously; they just were.
yeah, its a 1-2 punch of logical fallacies i find very common among pseudoscience proponents (9/11 CTs, moon hoax, creation, etc)

argument from incredulity+false dichotomy, usually amounting to "it couldnt have happened your way, so it must have been my way"

[firecoins]

Terreal:


All of the evidence points directly to insider terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11.

The terrorsists were inside the plane.

The demoilition was controlled from the cockpits. Its an excellent name for the control room of an airplane. Cockpit

I hate when reality gets in the way of a conspiracy theory. How did the buildings get wired to explode? I don't know but they were!!!

[realitybites]

Terral. Why are you wasting your time here bickering with these people when this ground-breaking and conclusive proof should be taken to the proper authorities?

Good God man! The NWO is slaughtering millions upon millions every second and you're posting what essentially boils down to our last chance at human freedom on an internet forum?!?!?!?

Why do you hate humanity so, Terral?

.... Why?

[BenBurch]

I'd like one of the truthers to demonstrate to me that WTC7 had enough stiffness to topple over.

[Mince]

Oh yeah, and another thing...actually two more.


Why was the controlled demolition so quiet, both visually and audibly? No flashes or bangs which are predominant in any other controlled demolition I've ever seen. Thanks.


Also, why do you think the inside jobbers waited 8 hours (8 hours!!) to destroy building 7, when they knew that millions of people would likely be watching, instead of destroying WTC7 clandestinely in the significant dust cloud of the collapse of either WTC 1 or 2? The dust clears, WTC 7 is down, nobody sees it fall, there is WTC 2 debris embedded in WTC 7, the public buys the story, no problems.

[BenBurch]

Oh yeah, and another thing...actually two more.


Why was the controlled demolition so quiet, both visually and audibly? No flashes or bangs which are predominant in any other controlled demolition I've ever seen. Thanks.


Hush-a-boom brand silent explosives!

Also, why do you think the inside jobbers waited 8 hours (8 hours!!) to destroy building 7 when they knew that millions of people would likely be watching instead of destroying WTC7 clandestinely in the significant dust cloud of the collapse of either WTC 1 or 2? The dust clears, WTC 7 is down, nobody sees it fall, there is WTC 2 debris embedded in WTC 7, the public buys the story, no problems.

See, not only are the inside jobbers the most intelligent and devious enemies the USA has ever faces, but also the most inept and incompetent.

Easy!

:D

[Myriad]

Terral, what is the basis of your claim that the firefighter in the picture you posted in your OP has a confused head?

What do you think he is confused about, and how do you know?

You might feel this is a minor point among your earth-shattering red-pill claims. (I don't feel that way myself. Fires and buildings don't mind if you misrepresent, belittle, and patronize them, but people do). But you did take the trouble to mention it, so you should be able to offer a rationale to support it. I'm not asking for proof, or even for strong evidence. Just your reasoning for how you came to the conclusion that the firefighter in the picture was confused. If you cannot provide any rationale for even your minor claims, why should anyone pay any attention to your major ones?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[twinstead]

Also, why do you think the inside jobbers waited 8 hours (8 hours!!) to destroy building 7 when they knew that millions of people would likely be watching instead of destroying WTC7 clandestinely in the significant dust cloud of the collapse of either WTC 1 or 2? The dust clears, WTC 7 is down, nobody sees it fall, there is WTC 2 debris embedded in WTC 7, the public buys the story, no problems.

Well, that certainly would have been the way to do it. But, like Terral says, he is CONVINCED it was a CD so all this idle speculation is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter why, it doesn't matter who else agrees or disagrees, the collapse was CD and that's all there is to the matter.

We've lost, gentlemen. All I can do now is drink more beer.

[Terral]

Hi Myriad:

Myriad >> Terral, what is the basis of your claim that the firefighter in the picture you posted in your OP has a confused head? What do you think he is confused about, and how do you know?


I exchanged some emails with Christopher Bollyn (http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm) about this WTC case and he referred to the famous picture (http://www.rense.com/general70/pic87932.jpg) as the one of “The Confused Fireman.” Since then the nickname just kind of stuck for me. Anyone experienced in this field knows that massive column (over his head) was NOT cut using any cutting torch. You guys can believe anything you wish.

GL,

Terral

[DGM]

Hi Myriad:




I exchanged some emails with Christopher Bollyn (http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm) about this WTC case and he referred to the famous picture (http://www.rense.com/general70/pic87932.jpg) as the one of “The Confused Fireman.” Since then the nickname just kind of stuck for me. Anyone experienced in this field knows that massive column (over his head) was NOT cut using any cutting torch. You guys can believe anything you wish.

GL,

Terral
Terral:
Your in the business. Why don't you demonstrate one of these thermite cuts on a large column like that. 'Truthburn' couldn't do it. Would make a hell of a youtube video. Easy common stuff right?

[Stellafane]

That is why it is so sad. Terral is fully aware that upon close examination most, if not all, of what he posted can be shown to be crap, yet he posts it anyway.

The old famous throw a bunch of mud against the wall and see if any of it sticks technique. Gotta love the oldies but goodies.

For truthers, it will always be September 12, 2001.

[Mince]

You guys can believe anything you wish.


Thanks Terral. I appreciate you allowing me to believe anything I wish.

[Terral]

Hi Mince:

Mince >> Oh yeah, and another thing...actually two more. Why was the controlled demolition so quiet, both visually and audibly? No flashes or bangs which are predominant in any other controlled demolition I've ever seen. Thanks.


What makes you believe there were no explosions (http://youtube.com/watch?v=OkWTXz7tcn8) taking place all morning long (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2Z7NyzDkEtY) in connection with these three Controlled Demolitions (http://www.ae911truth.org/)? WTC-7 is the “Smoking Gun” (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2o2Be8RtvO4) for many people, but perhaps Mince could not hear the explosions from his house? :0)

Mince >> Also, why do you think the inside jobbers waited 8 hours (8 hours!!) to destroy building 7, when they knew that millions of people would likely be watching, instead of destroying WTC7 clandestinely in the significant dust cloud of the collapse of either WTC 1 or 2? The dust clears, WTC 7 is down, nobody sees it fall, there is WTC 2 debris embedded in WTC 7, the public buys the story, no problems.


You are asking for my opinion? Another Jetliner (like Flight 93 (http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=34)) was supposed to hit WTC-7, but the inside-job bad guys said, “The Americans are so stupid, we will just “Pull it” (http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100) and they will believe anything we tell them . . .”. Obviously their ploy worked on many of you (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif), but not on everyone. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

[Mince]

...but perhaps Mince could not hear the explosions from his house?


Regarding WTC7, I could not hear the explosions anywhere, at any time from any place. There is no record of pre-collapse explosions and flashes that is the earmark of any controlled demolition I've ever seen.





You are asking for my opinion?


Yes. And you failed to answer the question. I'll repost it.

Why do you think the inside jobbers waited 8 hours (8 hours!!) to destroy building 7, when they knew that millions of people would likely be watching, instead of destroying WTC7 clandestinely in the significant dust cloud of the collapse of either WTC 1 or 2? The dust clears, WTC 7 is down, nobody sees it fall, there is WTC 2 debris embedded in WTC 7, the public buys the story, no problems.

[DavidJames]

Terral. Why are you wasting your time here bickering with these people when this ground-breaking and conclusive proof should be taken to the proper authorities?

Good God man! The NWO is slaughtering millions upon millions every second and you're posting what essentially boils down to our last chance at human freedom on an internet forum?!?!?!?

Why do you hate humanity so, Terral?

.... Why?That's one my beefs with these guys, but honestly, I really liked the way you put so I'm going to quote it and if you don't mind, requote it in the future.

Well Terral....

[Mince]

Hi Terral;


There has never been a controlled demolition without flashes and bangs before or after 9/11. Yet on 9/11 there were three controlled demolitions without flashes and bangs. You can't suspend the laws of flashes and bangs.

What gives?

[twinstead]

You are asking for my opinion? Another Jetliner (like Flight 93 (http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=34)) was supposed to hit WTC-7, but the inside-job bad guys said, “The Americans are so stupid, we will just “Pull it” (http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100) and they will believe anything we tell them . . .”. Obviously their ploy worked on many of you (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif), but not on everyone. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)


Of course. A plan so bold, so diabolically clever, so brilliant in its execution that it fooled just about everybody, even experts, except a few intrepid googlevestigators.

Curses! And we would have got a way with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids and your dog!

[Mince]

That's one my beefs with these guys, but honestly, I really liked the way you put so I'm going to quote it and if you don't mind, requote it in the future.

Well Terral....


And ask him why he gives money (via taxes) to a criminal government that is killing and enslaving its citizens. Terral is aiding and abetting mass murderers. Once the truther revolutionaries have overthrown the NWO, Terral will have to answer for his crimes.

What say you, Terral? Why are you funding murderers?

[Blender Head]

It doesn't state anything of the sort. It states that the Twin Tower collapses were caused by a combination of the initial damage and thermal weakening of the surviving structure. I searched all nine pages and found not one single occurrence of the word "melt".

Dave

Bah, it was this link provided on Gravy's site my apologies:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/wtc_science_010919.html

In analyzing the disaster, most engineers and architects assume that the top floors gave way when fire melted the steel structures that support the towers

[nicepants]

Anyone experienced in this field knows that massive column (over his head) was NOT cut using any cutting torch.
No True Scotsman?

Which field are you referring to?

[SDC]

Field of incoherent and malicious blathering on web sites. That field.

[GlennB]

.....
Anyone experienced in this field knows that massive column (over his head) was NOT cut using any cutting torch. You guys can believe anything you wish.
....


"over his head" - or otherwise - would depend on the position of the camera in relation to the column and the guy. It could well be below his head in reality. We don't know, but Terral once more displays his ignorance of angles, perspective and the rest, vis-a-vis photography.

His infamous "sundial" calculations (on the old LCF forum), related to Pentagon photos from 9/11, would allow for the possibility of the sun being directly overhead (up 90°) in a non-tropical part of the world.

The man is a buffoon of the very highest order.

[Miragememories]

A point taken.

But, all these undecided experts, yet Terral (and you?) are absolutely convinced it was CD. I wonder how many of these undecided experts are convinced, or even leaning toward, CD as well?

Regardless, what is your opinion of my characterization of Terral's debate tactics?

Would that not require me to comment on a member rather than a member's posts?

I've promised the moderators to make every effort to behave according to the rules.

Yesterday with the Super Bowl on, I was less than sober and people seem to have had a field day reporting me for the slightest bit of intemperance.

I'm happy the Giants won though!

MM

[tsig]

Greetings to All:

All of the evidence points directly to insider terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11. WTC-7 was designed and built using Compartmentalization of all supporting columns and beams separated by solid concrete slabs horizontally and curtain walls vertically. A building fire has never destroyed a steel-framed skyscraper in US history before or after 9/11 and WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 were owned by Larry “Pull It” Silverstein. Many fail to realize the World Trade Center Towers had never been in private hands prior to the summer of 2001, when Mr. Silverstein received possession from the New York Port Authority.

Cooperative Research Website: (http://cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=larry_silverstein)




Watch the WTC-7 Collapse Video (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) again:

Use your curser to hold the round scrollbar and move WTC-7 up and down repeatedly. The roof section and the center of the building collapse first, then the two sides plummet at ‘free fall’ velocity like any successful controlled demolition. Before looking at the details of how WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization of all the steel supports, we need to take a look at the massive building itself.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/WTC7Steel.jpg

All of the WTC-7 steel columns, beams, girders and bar joists were bolted down and welded together into a single unit creating literally thousands of connections that must be severed to cause the catastrophic failure seen from the aftermath of the attack.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg

The melting point of WTC-7 structural steel is 1535 degrees Celsius or 2795 degrees Fahrenheit (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/text/index_pre050712.html). The first problem with the ‘Fire Caused The Collapse’ Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe) , or about one third the required temperature to melt structural steel. The second problem is that building fires typically burn for only 20 minutes in any given area, because the fuel is depleted and the fire moves in the direction of a fresh fuel source. The third problem is that steel is an excellent conductor of heat and any steel-framed network would disperse the heat much more quickly than any building fire could raise the temperature to anywhere near ‘steel-softening’ temperatures. Another problem is that all supporting columns were coated with 3-hour ‘spray-on’ fireproofing insulation, which is nine times more protection needed for the typical building fire; even if the required 2800 degree temperatures were reached.

911Research Website: (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm)

The website above is perhaps the best on the internet for discovering the truth about the WTC-7 collapse. Moving down the page, Figure 5-3 shows the massive steel network and how certain areas (floors 1-7, 22-24) received extra support.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-3.jpg

This information is very important, because remember WTC-7 collapsed in one single smooth motion, which means extra attention was paid to placing charges to sever these thicker and stronger steel supports. Try to imagine the amount of energy required to break all of these connections simultaneously and you begin to see the ‘building fire theory’ is certainly a hoax. Below you come to Figure 5.3.3 and descriptions of how WTC-7 was built in many separate ‘compartments’ eliminating ‘fire’ as even a remote possibility for causing this collapse.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/WTC7Insulation.jpg

Even if two or five or ten fires were started, the fuel source within those particular compartments would be consumed LONG before the fireproofing safety countermeasures were compromised; and the fire had no way to pass through solid concrete slabs or curtain walls to invade the neighboring compartments. This does not even account for the fully functional sprinkler system that had to be turned off for these fires to spread any distance at all. Here is a four minute video to help gain a better perspective on how to weigh the evidence in this case:

Four Minute WTC-7 Collapse Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=475401188440074396)

“Fire has never destroyed a steel building,” but three steel buildings owned by Larry Silverstein were ‘Pulled’ on 9/11. “Pull it” is controlled demolition lingo for wiring the building up and pulling it down. Mr. Silverstein was obviously lying about speaking to the New York Fire Chief, as the firemen only entered the scene on 9/11 after the Twin Towers attacks. This Fire Chief had no access to Controlled Demolition charges when he arrived at WTC-7 for “Pulling” down the 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that could possibly be placed in a single day. Here we have a few small fires burning on a few floors, but the Fire Chief cannot figure any way to extinguish them. Since the firemen had no time to set all the required charges to “Pull” WTC-7 down in just a few hours, as if firemen even have controlled demolition crews, then Mr. Silverstein just pointed the finger at himself about having prior knowledge of these 9/11 attacks. Now compare our images of WTC-7 and these “Pull It” videos:

Paris Building (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6633218138868662267)

Office Building (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2421326324041129616)

Landmark Tower Implosion (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5360235832416833797)

Many buildings have been demolished using controlled demolition looking exactly like WTC-7 on 9/11, but again, no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire in the history of this planet. Twenty-first century demolition techniques include the use of Thermite Shaped Charges (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm) found all over WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7.

Shaped Charges And The World Trade Center Collapses (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html)

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/thermite.jpg

The damage from a thermite shaped charge is exactly what you see above the fireman’s confused head. Note the size of the massive column and the molten iron residue that flowed inside and outside the column.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cut3.jpg

Thermite burns at a very high 2500 degrees Centigrade or 4532 degrees Fahrenheit, which represents the kind of temperature required to sever these massive red-iron columns. As a trained demolition supervisor tearing down buildings for many years, I know of nobody using 45-degree angle cuts to remove any red-iron part of any conventional demolition job. This particular column has molten iron residue, which is a ‘Controlled Demolition’ Signature, as any torch cut would blow the molten iron off the column entirely away from the worker. There is no cut from any torch that would leave molten iron residue on the inside and outside of 'all' the sides of a column this way. The idea that any demolition worker would make a 45-degree cut is ridiculous, because of the danger to other workers and the waste of fuel.

Another problem with the Official ‘Fire’ Cover Story is these 45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts appear everywhere . . .

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7_3.jpg

. . . even in locations where demolition crew workers could not possibly reach. The common practice is to remove steel debris in an orderly ‘pick and remove’ manner, which eliminates the possibility of needlessly shifting weight and putting workers in danger. We play this dangerous game like a child plays ‘Pickup Sticks,’ (http://www.polandbymail.com/get_item_435992.htm) as any skilled demolition foreman can look at the pile and tell you which debris to remove first. None of the demolition workers in the picture above climbed up any ladder forty or fifty feet in the air to make that 45-degree angel cut, because that was part of the original ‘Controlled Demolition’ of WTC-7. Note the clean 90-degree cuts labeled “Severed Column End” scattered throughout the debris pile. However, also note these steel members are buried under the debris of the walls collapsing upon them ‘during’ the controlled demolition process. These cuts could not have been made by this demolition crew, because they still have mountains of debris to remove before even thinking about cutting any structural steel; which would only serve to shift weight in this very dangerous situation. The very best work on these WTC controlled demolition attacks is presented by Dr. Steven E. Jones (Brigham Young University) here:

Liberty Post Website: (http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=126128)

WTC-7 was definitely (100 percent certainty) brought down using Controlled Demolition techniques also found in WTC-1 and WTC-2. This evidence explains why we have reports on hundreds of ‘explosions’ taking place throughout the day.

Bamm, Bamm, Bamm; then Three Big Explosions . . . (http://youtube.com/watch?v=OkWTXz7tcn8)

And yet, the ‘keyword sanitized’ 911Commission Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf) only uses the term ‘explosion’ six times outside the notation references for ‘all’ these 9/11 cases and never uses the term ‘explosions’ (plural) even once. Guess what? The bogus Arlington County After-Action Report (http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Fire/edu/about/docs/after_report.pdf) uses the term ‘explosion’ six times in 215 pages ‘and’ also never uses the term ‘explosions’ even one time the very same way, even though we can hear multiple explosions taking place in this single News Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WefPzgxvfS4).

9/11 was definitely and inside-job and many LIARS are helping the real terrorists get away with murdering thousands of our innocent fellow Americans . . .

GL,

Terral

What you are calling thermite residue most of us call slag.
It happens when you cut steel with a oxy-acetylene torch.

[peteweaver]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1549047a79105b109c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10589)

Terral, oxy acetylene torches not thermite did the cuts.

[Miragememories]

So MM do you support Terral's assessments as representative of your "truth" movement?

I've never liked how some members here take the approach that 'one label fits all' when referring to members and outsiders who associate with 9/11 Truth Movement.

I respect Terral's right to state his views and wish him luck in doing so successfully.

Regarding his assessments, I can't say as I'm up to date on his views.

MM

[defaultdotxbe]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1549047a79105b109c.jpg

Terral, oxy acetylene torches not thermite did the cuts.
impossible, acetylene is a hydrocarbon and we all know hydrocarbon cant burn hot enough to hurt steel

[Terral]

Hi NicePants:

Anyone experienced in this field knows that massive column (over his head) was NOT cut using any cutting torch.

Nice >> No True Scotsman?Which field are you referring to?


Please forgive, but if you are not paying much attention, then nothing I say will make one lick of sense. Go back and read the post from where you took the quote to find this ( http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm) Christopher Bollyn article with the famous picture (http://www.rense.com/general70/pic87932.jpg) of the confused fireman. Then go down and reread his commentary, because I know you read every word the first time. :0)

Christopher Bollyn >> There is substantial evidence that thermite was used to cut the central support columns, which caused the towers to fall.

Evidence can be seen on photographs of the columns from the rubble of the World Trade Center.

In this photo, for example, the column directly above the fireman's helmet shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite.

Experts who have viewed this photograph say that this column was not cut with a torch.


To which Nicepants asks, “Which field are you referring to?” My statement agrees with Mr. Bollyn’s final assertion 100 percent that anyone experienced (the experts) in this (demolition) field knows damn good and well that no cutting torch on God’s green earth made that 45-degree angle cut. Why?

1. The debris in the area must be cleared, before the segmenting of larger steel members can even begin!

2. 45-degree angle cuts are dangerous and never used in typical demolition of massive steel members of this or any size. Fancy 45-degree cuts might look pretty, but they take much longer to make and waste precious fuel in the process.

3. Slag from a cutting torch solidifies instantly upon contacting the air and cannot possibly froth up and boil over into the inside ‘and’ outside of the column this way. That molten metal deposit was produced from a chemical reaction that exceed the minimum melting temperature (2800 degrees) of red-iron BY FAR, which finds 75 percent of the molten metal falling down the ‘outside’ of the column and 25 percent on the ‘inside.’ The reason is that the charges were placed on the ‘outside’ of this column and on this 45-degree angle to allow movement of the upper section back in our direction ‘during’ the Controlled Demolition process.

4. The fact that you have rows and rows of 45-degree angle cuts (like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc_anglecut.jpg)) means the CD supervisor was moving entire column lines in one particular direction. You see a pattern of severed pedestals leaning in the direction of the ‘high point’ of the 45 degree angle in all the pictures, because the massive upper section ‘slid’ downward with all the building weight from above; and all the stub columns were pushed in the exact opposite direction.

5. If all of these 45-degree angle cuts were made by the steel workers in the months after 9/11, then they should exhibit a random pattern of cuts leaning in all four directions. However, careful examination of the evidence reveals a clear Demolition Signature for WTC-7. You can take that to the bank!

6. That is the reason all the WTC steel was removed (http://911review.com/coverup/groundzero.html) from the scene, before any real investigation could even take place.

The reason you do not have tons of Demolition Experts speaking out against the Official Cover Story nonsense is because they want to stay in business. :0) If I was still a licensed Contractor in the field, then I would not be having this conversation with you right now. However, my children and their children are at risk of becoming the victims of the next 911-like attack (in Oakland, California), so here we are all dressed up in some NicePants (http://judey.dasmirnov.net/PC090047.JPG) with someplace to go. :0)

BTW, the CIT Chat-Monkeys (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/CIT_LightPole_TV.jpg) are on the run over at the LC Board (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/forum/45288/). I was sorry to see you got caught up in their nonsense. They have their hands full and do not now whether the mess themselves or go blind. :0)

GL,

Terral

[peteweaver]

Hi Myriad:




I exchanged some emails with Christopher Bollyn (http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm) about this WTC case and he referred to the famous picture (http://www.rense.com/general70/pic87932.jpg) as the one of “The Confused Fireman.” Since then the nickname just kind of stuck for me. Anyone experienced in this field knows that massive column (over his head) was NOT cut using any cutting torch. You guys can believe anything you wish.

GL,

Terral

Don't be daft Terral, I've used oxy acetylene cutting torches, the flame can reduce steel to molten slag in seconds.

And they used Oxy Acetylene torches in the clean up.

Thermite on the other hand is a violent uncontrolled fireball, which burns downwards following gravity, it cannot produce neat cuts.

[A W Smith]

Greetings to All:

All of the evidence points directly to insider terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11.
Terral

Removed offensive smiley.

[peteweaver]

More pics of oxy acetylene at work at ground zero:

image 1 (http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-3.jpg)

image 2 (http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-4.jpg)

image 3 (http://www.infowhores.co.uk/images/cuttingtorches/cut.jpg)

See, not thermite, but cutting torches.

[X]

Why are you posting two sentences of ‘talk, talk, talk’ instead of making a case for Building Fires taking down WTC-7 on 9/11? :0) Your statement above is based upon Minadin’s own errant misstatements of the facts about heat energy and steel contained within a steel-framed network. Heat energy is constantly moving from the hot to cold areas of the network and never remains stationary for any ‘softening’ to even begin. So, your steel columns and beams are softening (heh) from 1000 degree temperatures, but what is the temperature of the adjacent steel columns and beams from your ridiculously small WTC-7 building fires? The fact is that the temperatures are reduced in direct proportion to the distance from the burning fire and the combustible fuel source. The entire WTC-7 steel frame network will heat up and spread the heat out evenly throughout the many series of connections, before even one component begins to soften and reduce load bearing capacity.
Terral

Terral:you're understanding of thermodynamics is unbelievably primitive.
If I were to demonstrate such a poor understanding of heat transfer in my university (especially at this stage of my education), I am quite certain several professors would (rightly) demand that I not receive my degree, since I would plainly be unqualified to practice engineering.
To put it another way: heat does not magically flow throughout a substance at a constant temperature over the whole volume and through all connections.
Plainly, you have no experience with a welding torch, a cutting torch, or even a cooking range or a shiskabob on a barbeque.
And for the record: before beginning my engineering education, and for my first couple summers during, I worked in a metal fabrication shop. Mostly doing general labour, but I also operated the CNC plasma cutter. In addition, working on my Lincoln has required much use of oxy-acetylene torches.
So don't try to tell me that I don't know what I'm speaking about.
Oh, and this link should give you an introductory understanding of conduction (http://www.vtaide.com/png/heat2.htm). Just roll your mouse over the pictre of conduction and read. the important thing to notice is that one end of the rod is hotter than the other!
Were this not the case, my motorcycle engine would not need to have fins to help cool it down.

Or just follow HeyLeroy's link, copied here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_%28metallurgy%29), for just one example.



<snip>
I received my first General Contractor License in the mid 1980’s
<snip>

Really? Who are you licensed through? I'm sure they'd love to know how smart their licensees are. Maybe you'd even get a raise.


PS. We have a Mark Roberts Lover over at the Loose Change Board talking a bunch of junk on this thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/75087/1/#new). He says "Marky" (heh) posts here at the JREF Board. Do any of you know his user name? Supposedly he is a worthy debating opponent on these 9/11 Topics and I would very much like the opportunity to see if he is worth his salt. Thanks in advance.

You want to debate? That's rich. You do realize that in a debate, you would be expected to answer criticisms, right? And you'd have to be able to demonstrate support. Neither of which I have ever seen you do.

I can't speak for Mark, but were I in his position, you would not even be worth the time to say "no" to.

You have repeatedly demonstrated a complete ignorance of a multitude of scientific principals, and simultaneously shown a total unwillingness to consider any viewpoint that does not already align with your fanciful notions.
I bet you actually think you're winning in this thread, don't you?



Anyone experienced in this field knows that massive column (over his head) was NOT cut using any cutting torch. You guys can believe anything you wish.

As I mentioned, I have experience in metal work. The surface pattern of the cut and the slag deposits make it fairly obvious that the beam was cut be a torch. I cannot say for certain if it was oxy-acetylene or plasma without a better picture, but since oxy-acetylene torches are more portable (no power requirements), that would be a more logical assumption.

I would sincerely love to know what experience you can bring up to demonstrate otherwise.

For the record:
this was cut with a plasma cutter (http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/1000_action_2.jpg)
this was cut with an oxy-acetylene torch (http://us1.webpublications.com.au/static/images/articles/i26/2605_4lo.jpg)
A comparison (http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2007/05/23/528529/PlasmaComparison.jpg)

This site also has some very nice depictions, but I'll bet you're not going to read it. (http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm)

[MIKILLINI]

Terral is choosing to ignore evidence...Wow, what a surprise!
So just to requote myself...

Terral, you make claim one of the firefighters in the photo looks confused....You ought to look at that photo again....Tell Me what you see above and in between those firefighters; Do you see another person there?

[tsig]

Hi NDBoston:




Yes. Can you explain to me how the building you worked in for three years including 9/11 collapsed due to building fires in just a few hours? We are talking about the Controlled Demolition Theory versus the Building Fires Theory, unless you have a third hypothesis. I received my first General Contractor License in the mid 1980’s and my father is a General Contractor and together we have demolished more buildings that perhaps everyone else here combined. I know WTC-7 contained a myriad of solid red-iron steel connections that had to be ‘severed’ using ‘cutter charges’ having NOTHING to do with any building fires. The symmetrical collapse is a Controlled Demolition Signature, just like all the 45-degree cuts found all over the place in the remaining stub columns and debris. The fact that the Loyal Bushie inside-job bad guys DUPED you and your buddies changes NOTHING about the evidence in this case. No natural phenomena has the stored energy potential to ‘sever’ ALL of the steel columns, girders, beams and bar-joists in the WTC-7 steel-framed network to cause the catastrophic symmetrical collapse of the entire structure in just a few hours.

Many of your ‘Fire Myths’ are debunked here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c) with descriptions of ‘shaped charges.’

PS. We have a Mark Roberts Lover over at the Loose Change Board talking a bunch of junk on this thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/75087/1/#new). He says "Marky" (heh) posts here at the JREF Board. Do any of you know his user name? Supposedly he is a worthy debating opponent on these 9/11 Topics and I would very much like the opportunity to see if he is worth his salt. Thanks in advance,

GL,

Terral

[Edited]

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[Pardalis]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/091.gif

[tsig]

Hi Enigma:




Yep. This looks like the best “Building Fires Took Down WTC-7” post I have seen anywhere on this thread. I suppose posting 3 sentences about “the supposed 'largest' truther board” proves as much as anything from anyone on your side of this debate. Where is the case for a few building fires taking down WTC-7 in just a few hours? Oh. None of you have even thought to make a case for anything. :0) You really believe that setting a few fires to run away will produce this (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) result (picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg)). :0) And, you also think that arguing semantics over our use of ‘shaped charge’ terms is going to prove that Senor Bushie’s Building Fires took down WTC-7? :0) All I see here is chit-chat with some whining and complaining (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/tantrumwithpans.jpg) mixed in for good measure. You confuse fruitless activity with actually accomplishing something . . .

GL,

Terral

You confuse fruitless activity with mindless masturbation.

As LibraryLady said - attack the argument, and not the arguer.

[Drakar2007]

PS. We have a Mark Roberts Lover over at the Loose Change Board talking a bunch of junk on this thread. He says "Marky" (heh) posts here at the JREF Board. Do any of you know his user name? Supposedly he is a worthy debating opponent on these 9/11 Topics and I would very much like the opportunity to see if he is worth his salt.

Why do you bother asking for a "worthy" debate opponent in this thread? I've only just browsed every entry up to this point, and when someone posts a reply totally destroying every point you make, you simply ignore it and cherrypick some short quip from someone else's reply and act dismissive of it... No real debate from you, though?

[tsig]

I'd like one of the truthers to demonstrate to me that WTC7 had enough stiffness to topple over.

Only if they were tumescent.

[tsig]

Hi NicePants:




Please forgive, but if you are not paying much attention, then nothing I say will make one lick of sense. Go back and read the post from where you took the quote to find this ( http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm) Christopher Bollyn article with the famous picture (http://www.rense.com/general70/pic87932.jpg) of the confused fireman. Then go down and reread his commentary, because I know you read every word the first time. :0)




To which Nicepants asks, “Which field are you referring to?” My statement agrees with Mr. Bollyn’s final assertion 100 percent that anyone experienced (the experts) in this (demolition) field knows damn good and well that no cutting torch on God’s green earth made that 45-degree angle cut. Why?

1. The debris in the area must be cleared, before the segmenting of larger steel members can even begin!

2. 45-degree angle cuts are dangerous and never used in typical demolition of massive steel members of this or any size. Fancy 45-degree cuts might look pretty, but they take much longer to make and waste precious fuel in the process.

3. Slag from a cutting torch solidifies instantly upon contacting the air and cannot possibly froth up and boil over into the inside ‘and’ outside of the column this way. That molten metal deposit was produced from a chemical reaction that exceed the minimum melting temperature (2800 degrees) of red-iron BY FAR, which finds 75 percent of the molten metal falling down the ‘outside’ of the column and 25 percent on the ‘inside.’ The reason is that the charges were placed on the ‘outside’ of this column and on this 45-degree angle to allow movement of the upper section back in our direction ‘during’ the Controlled Demolition process.

4. The fact that you have rows and rows of 45-degree angle cuts (like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc_anglecut.jpg)) means the CD supervisor was moving entire column lines in one particular direction. You see a pattern of severed pedestals leaning in the direction of the ‘high point’ of the 45 degree angle in all the pictures, because the massive upper section ‘slid’ downward with all the building weight from above; and all the stub columns were pushed in the exact opposite direction.

5. If all of these 45-degree angle cuts were made by the steel workers in the months after 9/11, then they should exhibit a random pattern of cuts leaning in all four directions. However, careful examination of the evidence reveals a clear Demolition Signature for WTC-7. You can take that to the bank!

6. That is the reason all the WTC steel was removed (http://911review.com/coverup/groundzero.html) from the scene, before any real investigation could even take place.

The reason you do not have tons of Demolition Experts speaking out against the Official Cover Story nonsense is because they want to stay in business. :0) If I was still a licensed Contractor in the field, then I would not be having this conversation with you right now. However, my children and their children are at risk of becoming the victims of the next 911-like attack (in Oakland, California), so here we are all dressed up in some NicePants (http://judey.dasmirnov.net/PC090047.JPG) with someplace to go. :0)

BTW, the CIT Chat-Monkeys (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/CIT_LightPole_TV.jpg) are on the run over at the LC Board (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/forum/45288/). I was sorry to see you got caught up in their nonsense. They have their hands full and do not now whether the mess themselves or go blind. :0)

GL,

Terral

Well I'm telling you it was cut with a torch. Get off your butt and get in the real world.

We'll be waiting.

[stateofgrace]

What you are calling thermite residue most of us call slag.
It happens when you cut steel with a oxy-acetylene torch.

My understanding is that thermite residue is white as oppose to the black slag pictured.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1189 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2175641&postcount=1189)

But, hey why let small details get in the way.

[Alt+F4]

The fact that the Loyal Bushie inside-job bad guys...

Names please. Oh, that's right...you don't have any.

[JimBenArm]

I'm pretty loyal. I voted for Bush exactly zero times, though. I do work inside, pretty much, but not entirely. And I'm a very nice guy, except to idiot twoofers.
So, I guess I'm a Loyal Non-Bushie Sorta-Inside-Job Nice-guy-except-to-idiot-twoofers.

I can live with that.

[nicepants]

To which Nicepants asks, “Which field are you referring to?” My statement agrees with Mr. Bollyn’s final assertion 100 percent that anyone experienced (the experts) in this (demolition) field knows damn good and well that no cutting torch on God’s green earth made that 45-degree angle cut. Why?

So Mr. Bollyn is the expert? How many others have you consulted?

1. The debris in the area must be cleared, before the segmenting of larger steel members can even begin!

Before I address your other points, what is your source for same?

The reason you do not have tons of Demolition Experts speaking out against the Official Cover Story nonsense is because they want to stay in business.

What would the experts have to fear? Exposing the truth would mean instant notoriety, and wouldn't exactly be a small news story. How would that put them out of business?

Are you suggesting that there are "tons of Demolition Experts" who agree with the thermite theory but are keeping quiet for this (or some other) reason?

BTW, the CIT Chat-Monkeys (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/CIT_LightPole_TV.jpg) are on the run over at the LC Board (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/forum/45288/). I was sorry to see you got caught up in their nonsense.

It happens. They either know they are wrong or they are the most dense people on the planet. You actually received that PM by accident :P

[Unsecured Coins]

If you're taking Bollyn's word for it, it's official - God does not live here anymore.

[~enigma~]

No, I wanted to know if you knew the details.

I was wondering if they changed their minds, realized they were full of poop, got bored, decided something else was more interesting, etc.

Or, if someone shut them down, but then I would've thought you'd have said "they were shut down," not "they shut down."
The mod HX (Hank Xavier) decided to shut down. Why? I have no idea but it sounds good to say he was threatened by the NWO.

[liverleef]

Terral, I'm really impressed with the research you have performed. Your copying and pasting abilities are top notch. The fact that you used such reputable websites as sources really adds a touch of class to it.

[leftysergeant]

Oy! The stupid! It BURNS!

Where to start?

How about with the columns? That they were cut off above the leve lof the fire fighter's heads in the famous photo, they were not neccessarily cut off above what was ground-level when the photo was taken. Look at the background. You will notice that there are other columns in the background that have not been cut. They are surrounded with rubble. Thus, it is very reasonbable to assume that the columns may have been cut as the rubble pile was reduced to the level at which the columns were cut, and that further removal operations reduced the level of the rubble to that same height. Let us now go to that Nazi slimebag What Really Happened site to which Terral linked. Notice that there are columns in the second picture from the bottom which are, indeed, cut off at about the level of the rubble. So far, I am supporting my position on how much of the column was above ground level when the cut was made, right?

Now, can I defend my position that those columns were cut by a cutting torch? See for yourself. In that picture on the WRH site, you will notice that behind the angle-cut columns there are two gas cylinders with regulators in place. The top of the cylinder on the left is painted yellow and that on the right is painted green. It was my understanding, both when I was a fire fighter, and when I was doing day labor in construction, that yellow gas cylinders usually contain acetylene and green ones oxygen. Now, what do you suppose cylinders of acetylene and oxygen would be doing there? It seems to me perfectly logical that someone was using them to power a cutting torch to cut up standing steel columns for removal.

Now, let's look again at the slag on the first column that Terral focuses on. It looks to me like most of the torch cuts that I have seen on large upright steel items.

It does not look to me the least bit like any thermite cut I have ever made on a standing steel surface. The edges are too uniform and there is no residue of alumina on the steel, nor is there any rust to suggest that rain or fire-extinguishing streams of water had removed such a residue. Having looked at the un-cropped version of this same photograph, I am also aware that on the other end of the column lying horizontally above the head of the fire fighter on the left, there is a man wearing a hard hat and tan Carrhart-type over-alls. Various other bits of his kit suggest to me that this person is not a fire fighter but a WELDER. Gee! What would HE be doing THERE?

Seriously, Terral, you have given me reason to doubt your intelligence, education and honesty. I have serious doubts that you are being truthful with us when you claim to be a general contractor or to have worked in demolitions. Your credibility at this point is on about a par with that of Torin Howling Wolf (or whatever that fool's real name is.)

You should know that the charges that are shown on the WRH site are HE, not thermite. and that the illustrated piece of rail which has been cut with a shaped charge in no way resembles the cuts on the columns. NO SLAG.

That you even admit corresponding with Chris Bollyn, a know sociopath and criminal fugitive with an anti-human aggenda also brings your integrity into question.

Do not, therefore, be surprised that we tend to so readily dismiss so much of what you claim, or that we shall continue to do so until you come forward with some actual substantiable evidence.

BTW, I will be glad to share with persons whose int3egrity I do not question how to make a shaped thermite charge that can be held in place with duct tape an coat hanger wire, but, for obvious reasons, I do not wish to post it here. I would rather that certain persons here NOT know how to make something potentially useful as an anti-armor grenade.

[Sizzler]

Aren't any of the photos dated?

[leftysergeant]

You can tell by the context, if you have an IQ in the triple digits, that the photos of the cut columns were taken after some debris had been removed. What else do you need to know?

[tsig]

Aren't any of the photos dated?

Go pick up a torch feel the power that comes with hitting the oxygen and watching steel burn in front of your eyes.

[tsig]

Aren't any of the photos dated?

No didn't have enough lipstick so no one called.

[Miragememories]

My understanding is that thermite residue is white as oppose to the black slag pictured.


Not necessarily so.

http://infowars.net/pictures/Nov06/171106thermite.jpg

http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/11.1/r-and-d/artrip/ArtripImg4.jpg

MM

[funk de fino]

Not necessarily so.

http://infowars.net/pictures/Nov06/171106thermite.jpg

http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/11.1/r-and-d/artrip/ArtripImg4.jpg

MM

That top ones a nice straight angle cut eh?

[DGM]

You know that angle cut picture proves one thing. The "truth" movement has no interest in finding out the truth. Have they interviewed all of the iron workers to get statements saying they didn't cut like that? No. Did they ask them if it was like that when they got there? No. Did they make any effort to talk to that firefighter? No. Did they investigate this at all? No. The extent of your investigation is looking at a picture. This doesn't strike you as odd?

Why are you so willing to believe what your told about this without any investigation at all? Why don't you question the motives of the people that promote this?

[Miragememories]

That top ones a nice straight angle cut eh?

http://infowars.net/pictures/Nov06/171106thermite.jpg

And this was is?

http://www.lancecrane.com/images/Working/aftertheweld.jpg

MM

[beachnut]

http://infowars.net/pictures/Nov06/171106thermite.jpg

And this was is?

MM
You show an actual cut made during clean up as woo woo stuff? Good job.

Why do you show clean up cuts, and a weld where the steel was used to make rail? This means the rail did not melt away, it was made bigger and one rail. More steel was made; you show a cut on steel after 9/11, and how thermite fails to cut a railroad tie, and you have debunked yourself and 9/11 truth in one short post. Self debunking 9/11 truth. Got some more smoking gun to debunk 9/11 truth with.

[SDC]

How are those pictures showing "white" slag or residue? I see silver, red, black, shades of gray perhaps fading into white...

And in any case, MM, are you an expert, or at least experienced in the interpretation of such evidence? And what is the provenance of the pictures -- have they been "adjusted" to make a particular point? Note that I'm not accusing you of that -- perhaps you got the pictures from some site or work that had an instructional purpose and therefore adjusted the contrast. I'm saying you need to provide the source (provenance).

The eye is a liar. Even for 20-20, even without color blindness, which by the way is endemic in the male half of the population. The only men who we can be pretty sure cannot be afflicted with color blindness, I've been told, are pilots. Wouldn't be allowed. (I asked. I almost couldn't pass a drivers' test.)

[peteweaver]

Note that this:
http://infowars.net/pictures/Nov06/171106thermite.jpg

Is HORIZONTAL. Not vertical. Its not hard to get thermite to burn down something.
To get it to burn across a load bearing vertical steel column, making a NEAT cut the way an oxy acetylene torch can make NEAT CUTS, would be incredibly difficult.

Whereas its childs play with oxy acetylene.

[twinstead]

Note that this:
http://infowars.net/pictures/Nov06/171106thermite.jpg

Is HORIZONTAL. Not vertical. Its not hard to get thermite to burn down something.
To get it to burn across a load bearing vertical steel column, making a NEAT cut the way an oxy acetylene torch can make NEAT CUTS, would be incredibly difficult.

Whereas its childs play with oxy acetylene.

We're talking about the NWO here. They eat 'incredibly difficult' for lunch. ;)

[phunk]

1. The debris in the area must be cleared, before the segmenting of larger steel members can even begin!

Nonsense. That large steel column is being held up by the rest of the debris, if you start to clear around it you risk it falling unpredictably.

[1337m4n]

Ohhhoh, this is going to be fun.

A building fire has never destroyed a steel-framed skyscraper in US history before or after 9/11

You know what else has never destroyed a steel-framed skyscraper in US history before or after 9/11? Thermite. Oh wait, you claim that thermite destroyed the building. Non-unique.

Your argument is also a wonderful example of circular logic. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98976)


and WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 were owned by Larry “Pull It” Silverstein. Many fail to realize the World Trade Center Towers had never been in private hands prior to the summer of 2001, when Mr. Silverstein received possession from the New York Port Authority.

Cooperative Research Website: (http://cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=larry_silverstein)


Are you making a formal accusation against Mr. Silverstein? If so, I'd like to hear his means, motive, and opportunity for taking down WTC7, as well as hard evidence that he did it, and how he managed to get away with it.




The roof section and the center of the building collapse first, then the two sides plummet at ‘free fall’ velocity

I'm calling BS on this one. Can you show me the calculations that prove "free fall velocity"? Or is a wild guess based on a heavily obscured Youtube video clipped at the beginning the only proof you need?

like any successful controlled demolition.

Okay as long as you are promoting the "free-fall" fantasy, you accept that there would have to be explosives on EVERY FLOOR, otherwise free-fall makes no more sense under your theory than it would under mine.


All of the WTC-7 steel columns, beams, girders and bar joists were bolted down and welded together into a single unit creating literally thousands of connections that must be severed to cause the catastrophic failure seen from the aftermath of the attack.

And there is your problem. Under your theory, explosives would have to be placed on every one of these. Without being detected or heard and felt from miles away.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103289

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103789

So far the evidence you are missing is:
--Sounds of successive explosives
--Blast effects
--Explanation of how such a massive quantity of explosives got into the building undetected.


The melting point of WTC-7 structural steel is 1535 degrees Celsius or 2795 degrees Fahrenheit (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/text/index_pre050712.html). The first problem with the ‘Fire Caused The Collapse’ Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe) , or about one third the required temperature to melt structural steel.

Ah, the typical "fire can't melt steel" nonsense.

Not counting all the fuel stored in WTC7, do you think that blacksmiths actually MELT the metal that they work with? Or do they just heat it to a point where its real soft and they can pound it into different shapes?

http://www.shetlandtourism.com/images/blacksmith.jpg

The second problem is that building fires typically burn for only 20 minutes in any given area, because the fuel is depleted and the fire moves in the direction of a fresh fuel source.

The WTC7 was on fire for hours. Try again.

The third problem is that steel is an excellent conductor of heat and any steel-framed network would disperse the heat much more quickly than any building fire could raise the temperature to anywhere near ‘steel-softening’ temperatures.

This just demonstrates an awful understanding of physics. You expect the heat to spread uniformly across the entire building? It takes time to transfer from place to place, and as the heat is moving, NEW heat is continually being added by the fire that's still there. Furthermore, it's not as if the entire building is one single continuous chunk of steel.

Another problem is that all supporting columns were coated with 3-hour ‘spray-on’ fireproofing insulation, which is nine times more protection needed for the typical building fire; even if the required 2800 degree temperatures were reached.

Yes, the 3-hour spray-on fireproofing for a fire that lasted much longer than 3 hours that was utterly torn apart by the massive amounts of debris hitting the building and which would contradict your third point above by preventing heat transfer between different beams if it somehow remained functional.


This information is very important, because remember WTC-7 collapsed in one single smooth motion, which means extra attention was paid to placing charges to sever these thicker and stronger steel supports. Try to imagine the amount of energy required to break all of these connections simultaneously and you begin to see the ‘building fire theory’ is certainly a hoax.

Try to imagine the amount of energy required to break all of these connections simultaneously and you begin to ask, "Where is the sound of repeated explosions audible for miles away? Where is the blast wave that shatters the glass of buildings blocks away, registers a 3.0 on the Richter scale and is not only heard but FELT by ALL of the onlookers?" Oh that's right, there isn't. You contradict yourself by saying it was some kind of covert controlled demolition but then this incredibly MASSIVE amount of energy would be needed to destroy the building, which means huge shape charges which would have an effect like this. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103789)

Your fallacy is in your belief that all of the columns had to fail "simultaneously", did you not see the way the building collapsed? The building collapsed inwards, suggesting that some columns buckled before others, PLUS you are forgetting the Penthouses, which CLEARLY collapsed before the rest of the building, thus proving this "columns failed simultaneously" nonsense is just that.

Even if two or five or ten fires were started, the fuel source within those particular compartments would be consumed LONG before the fireproofing safety countermeasures were compromised; and the fire had no way to pass through solid concrete slabs or curtain walls to invade the neighboring compartments. This does not even account for the fully functional sprinkler system that had to be turned off for these fires to spread any distance at all.

Oops! You seem to have forgotten that the WTC7 was RAVAGED BY SEVERAL TONS OF FALLING CONCRETE AND STEEL. You also seem to have forgotten the fuel stored in the building.


“Fire has never destroyed a steel building,”

Stupid.

but three steel buildings owned by Larry Silverstein were ‘Pulled’ on 9/11.

You are making a formal accusation against Mr. Silverstein, please provide your evidence of his involvement.

“Pull it” is controlled demolition lingo for wiring the building up and pulling it down.

Dude. Seriously. (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf) "Pull it"? That is the weakest argument the Truth Movement has ever come up with.

Mr. Silverstein was obviously lying about speaking to the New York Fire Chief, as the firemen only entered the scene on 9/11 after the Twin Towers attacks. This Fire Chief had no access to Controlled Demolition charges when he arrived at WTC-7 for “Pulling” down the 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that could possibly be placed in a single day. Here we have a few small fires burning on a few floors, but the Fire Chief cannot figure any way to extinguish them. Since the firemen had no time to set all the required charges to “Pull” WTC-7 down in just a few hours, as if firemen even have controlled demolition crews, then Mr. Silverstein just pointed the finger at himself about having prior knowledge of these 9/11 attacks.

Do you honestly believe any of this? Have you even SEEN the whole quote in context? Silverstein does not just say "Pull it!" What he says is,

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Please explain why he would mention "terrible loss of life" if he were talking about demolition. Please also explain away these problems with your theory:

Problem #1, Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they’d be using slang demolition terms?

Problem #2, Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.

Problem #3, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.

Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?

Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?

Problem #6, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud?

Problem #7, and why would Silverstein admit this on television?

You also forget who else you are implicating by using "pull it" as evidence: the FDNY. Silverstein was talking to the FDNY Cheif Nigro. If "they made that decision to pull", and Silverstein was NOT referring to the much more logical explanation of ceasing the firefighting operation, there's only one possibility: the FDNY was in on it.

Let's hear your formal accusation against the men and women who risked their lives to pull people out of the rubble of the buildings, Terral. I don't see how you can possibly reconcile "'Pull-it' is evidence" without having the FDNY in on it. You are a sick man, accusing heroes of murder.

More "pull it" debunking:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT0WjGyZW1M

Now compare our images of WTC-7 and these “Pull It” videos:

Paris Building (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6633218138868662267)

Office Building (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2421326324041129616)

Landmark Tower Implosion (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5360235832416833797)

Did you even your own videos?

Take the third one, for instance. Did you notice the

"Bane bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang KABOOOOOM BANG BANG BANG BANG"

Where was that on 9/11?

Many buildings have been demolished using controlled demolition looking exactly like WTC-7 on 9/11, but again, no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire in the history of this planet. Twenty-first century demolition techniques include the use of Thermite Shaped Charges (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm)

Really? Demolition companies use thermite to destroy buildings?

I would REALLY love to hear confirmation of that from a source other than PrisonPlanet (which regularly posts proven lies and is thus not a reliable source).


The damage from a thermite shaped charge is exactly what you see above the fireman’s confused head.

Can you point to other examples of "thermite shaped charges" being used to destroy steel, for comparison?

What is a "thermite shaped charge", anyway? Could you please explain for us what a "thermite shaped charge" is and precisely how it works? Because I've googled "Thermite Shape Charge" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22thermite+shape+charge) and all I get is Truther nonsense.

You know what I think? I think there's no such thing as a "thermite shape charge". I think you just made it up. Care to prove me wrong?


As a trained demolition supervisor tearing down buildings for many years

Screens of your transcripts or I am calling BS. It's not that I don't trust you, it's just...actually, wait, it IS that I don't trust you. Pics, please, or it never happened.

I know of nobody using 45-degree angle cuts to remove any red-iron part of any conventional demolition job. This particular column has molten iron residue, which is a ‘Controlled Demolition’ Signature, as any torch cut would blow the molten iron off the column entirely away from the worker. There is no cut from any torch that would leave molten iron residue on the inside and outside of 'all' the sides of a column this way. The idea that any demolition worker would make a 45-degree cut is ridiculous, because of the danger to other workers and the waste of fuel.

A failure is you. (http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm)

I think I'll talk to REAL demolition experts about this.

Oh, also, what's YOUR explanation of these "mysterious" 45-degree angle cuts? All you've said is that "there's no way the workers would've done it" (without really explaining why at all", but you haven't presented an alternative that works. Do these fantasy "thermite shape charges" of yours magically deal 45-degree angle cuts to EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF STEEL that they sever?

Another problem with the Official ‘Fire’ Cover Story is these 45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts appear everywhere . . .

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7_3.jpg

Right, next time you want to show me something, try a photo that doesn't suck, so I can actually SEE the thing you're pointing at. I don't see any "45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts" "everywhere". I see ONE piece of steel that's too far away for me to be able to tell anything about it.

. . . even in locations where demolition crew workers could not possibly reach. The common practice is to remove steel debris in an orderly ‘pick and remove’ manner, which eliminates the possibility of needlessly shifting weight and putting workers in danger. We play this dangerous game like a child plays ‘Pickup Sticks,’ (http://www.polandbymail.com/get_item_435992.htm) as any skilled demolition foreman can look at the pile and tell you which debris to remove first. None of the demolition workers in the picture above climbed up any ladder forty or fifty feet in the air to make that 45-degree angel cut, because that was part of the original ‘Controlled Demolition’ of WTC-7. Note the clean 90-degree cuts labeled “Severed Column End” scattered throughout the debris pile. However, also note these steel members are buried under the debris of the walls collapsing upon them ‘during’ the controlled demolition process. These cuts could not have been made by this demolition crew, because they still have mountains of debris to remove before even thinking about cutting any structural steel; which would only serve to shift weight in this very dangerous situation. The very best work on these WTC controlled demolition attacks is presented by Dr. Steven E. Jones (Brigham Young University) here:

more nonsense based on fantasies I've already dealt with.

WTC-7 was definitely (100 percent certainty) brought down using Controlled Demolition techniques also found in WTC-1 and WTC-2. This evidence explains why we have reports on hundreds of ‘explosions’ taking place throughout the day.

stupid debunked nonsense I'm not even going to go into, (http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm) learn the definition of a "simile", compare the sparse explosions to the ordered sequence of dozens of blasts in the Landmark Tower demolition, etc.

Bamm, Bamm, Bamm; then Three Big Explosions . . . (http://youtube.com/watch?v=OkWTXz7tcn8)

More deception and lies, for all I know the part you quote might not even be about 9/11 since there is no eyewitness on screen when it is said, just a black screen. All of these quotes are taken out of context, just like a Truther, take things out of context to support your fantasy.

And yet, the ‘keyword sanitized’ 911Commission Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf) only uses the term ‘explosion’ six times outside the notation references for ‘all’ these 9/11 cases and never uses the term ‘explosions’ (plural) even once. Guess what? The bogus Arlington County After-Action Report (http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Fire/edu/about/docs/after_report.pdf) uses the term ‘explosion’ six times in 215 pages ‘and’ also never uses the term ‘explosions’ even one time the very same way, even though we can hear multiple explosions taking place in this single News Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WefPzgxvfS4).

Where did this junk video about the Pentagon come from? I thought the subject was WTC7. Way to derail your own thread. You do the Truth Movement proud!

9/11 was definitely and inside-job and many LIARS are helping the real terrorists get away with murdering thousands of our innocent fellow Americans [/QUOTE]

The liars are the people mining quotes and making up falsehoods to promote their anti-Bush agenda. There is nothing wrong with hating Bush, but that does not give you any excuse for making up lies about 9/11 and blaming the heroes of the FDNY for covering up murder, "Hey I hate Bush! let's lie and blame the fire department for murder on 9/11" You are sick, spreading lies and filth just for your political agenda. You do not care about the truth because if you did you would have an open mind and not cherrypick evidence and quotes. Explain to me the motive for bringing down WTC7. Explain to me how they managed to wire the building with tens of thousands of pounds of "thermite shape charges" without being noticed. Explain to me what a "thermite shape charge" even is. Explain to me why there was no pattern of blasts audible for miles away, the only reports of anyone hearing any explosions are a handful of cherrypicked quotes of people hearing ONE OR TWO explosion-LIKE sounds which could be anything. In a REAL controlled demolition, there would be a rapid succession of MANY explosions, EVERYONE would hear AND feel it for MILES away, and there would be no mistaking it for anything else.

You have no evidence. You cannot show evidence of explosives in the rubble because there was none, proving no explosives. So instead you use things like "pull it" and blame the FDNY. Next time you blame people for covering up murder, have some evidence and have a motive.

Good luck spreading your lies Terral, you're doing everyone proud.

[leftysergeant]

That irregular-edged column was probably cut with a torch while lying horizontal, with what is the upper surface in the photo on the bottom when it was in situ. I would suspect that it was in a location which was difficult to reach,

The slag appears to have been blown out from inside the box, which is obviously inconsistant with there having been thermite on the outside.

(DOWN, MAX!)

[Terral]

Hi Calcus with Red Dawn and Mark Roberts (Gravy) mentioned:

Terral Original >> PS. We have a Mark Roberts Lover over at the Loose Change Board talking a bunch of junk on this thread. He says "Marky" (heh) posts here at the JREF Board. Do any of you know his user name? Supposedly he is a worthy debating opponent on these 9/11 Topics and I would very much like the opportunity to see if he is worth his salt. Thanks in advance,

Calcus’ Reply >> You're joking right? Here's a link for you. Check out the link in his siggy and come back in a few days if you still have any questions.


Well my Mark Roberts investigation led to just one Pentagon thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70311) where he was asked to explain himself, but the debate was quickly shuttled over to the garbage can here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105532) where Gravy’s (Mark’s) name was promptly removed from the equation. Apparently only Terral is supposed to answer questions around here . . . Anyway, one of our Loose Change members posted a link to Mark’s Pentagon commentary (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary) for this Loose Change Thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/76819/1/), so Calcus, Mark or anyone here can begin drafting defending arguments for that Official Cover Story position.

Many thanks to Red Dawn, Calcus and others for helping me track down Mark Roberts (Gravy), so perhaps we can have a meaningful debate on these 911Truth Topics beginning with the Pentagon case. My apologies for bringing this up on the WTC-7 thread, but this is the place where Calcus began helping me solve this mystery and my Pentagon thread is part of Page 2 history anyway. :0) I will begin addressing your WTC-7 concerns shortly, just as soon as time permits. Thank you (http://community.scholastic.com/attachments/scholastic/snapshot35/84/2/Thank%20You.jpg) for your patience and kind consideration.

GL,

Terral

[1337m4n]

I will begin addressing your WTC-7 concerns shortly, just as soon as time permits.

You can start by proving that the concept of a "thermite shape charge" is anything more than a figment of your imagination.

If the weapons you think was used to bring down the towers does not actually exist in real life, I'd say that's a pretty big ding against your theory.

[beachnut]

Terral has avoided posting one fact to support his delusional efforts. How can he post lies so effortlessly?

[aggle-rithm]

Terral has avoided posting one fact to support his delusional efforts. How can he post lies so effortlessly?

It helps that his posts, bizzarely, seem to be responding to posts in a completely different thread on a completely different forum. They only SEEM to synch up, but it's clear that what he is describing as "debate" is not what is occuring here.

[aggle-rithm]

Ohhhoh, this is going to be fun.




I'm glad you're still getting some enjoyment from it. I'm burned out. For me, it stopped being fun a year ago.

These troofers are so practiced at generating a smoke screen in their own heads, it's pointless to try to get through to them -- there's nothing to get through to.

[Terral]

Hi Lefty:

Lefty >> Oy! The stupid! It BURNS!

Where to start?

How about with the columns? That they were cut off above the leve lof the fire fighter's heads in the famous photo, they were not neccessarily cut off above what was ground-level when the photo was taken.


No sir. Start by quoting anything you find errant in the Opening Post and support your opposing views with third-party resources like you see in my work. Otherwise Lefty is grandstanding and proving nothing at all.

GL,

Terral

[leftysergeant]

Hi Lefty:




No sir. Start by quoting anything you find errant in the Opening Post and support your opposing views with third-party resources like you see in my work. Otherwise Lefty is grandstanding and proving nothing at all.

GL,

TerralI pointed out to you that your own ecvidence, on that sleazebag WRH site shows that the columns were being cut off at ground level. I even pointed othe cylinders for the cutting torch. what else do you need?

[Dave_46]

<snip>

Yes, the 3-hour spray-on fireproofing for a fire that lasted much longer than 3 hours that was utterly torn apart by the massive amounts of debris hitting the building and which would contradict your third point above by preventing heat transfer between different beams if it somehow remained functional.
<snip>


A point that I think I have made before, but it bears repeating.

The nominal duration of the protection is that which it would give to a sample steel member in a standard test. My experience is with the British Standard test, but I believe that the American test is similar. The fire protection (not fireproofing please) for a nominal three hour rating has protected a steel member in a test for that period. This is usaully measured by whether the steel reaches a critical temperature, which I can't remember exactly, but I think it is about 500 deg C. (I haven't done any of this type of testing for at least sixteen years now.) This is in a standard test, with standard test conditions (temperature/time regime).

If the conditions in a real fire are more severe than the test, then the steel will fail earlier. If the conditions are less severe, then the steel will fail later.

It should be noted that the reason for having this test is to enable fire protection manufacturers to test their product against standard conditions for marketing purposes. (e.g. My system provides protection for x hours)

1337m4n, I'm not criticising your post, just giving a bit of background information, so that people can understand what the time mentioned for fire protection actually means.

Dave

[Terral]

Hi Alt+F4:

Alt >> Names please. Oh, that's right...you don't have any.


Do not have any? :0) Start with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove and their henchman Dick Cheney who orchestrated the 9/11 wargame military exercises (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm), Rudy Giuliani (http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/062904longdebunked.htm) the key player in implementing Tripod2 (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html), Larry “Pull it” (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027) Silverstein (you now him already), NORAD and the Joint-chiefs (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm), John Ashcroft and the Justice Department (part of Tripod2 in NYC) and the FBI (http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm) who continues placing roadblocks in the way of any real 9/11 investigation. The list is a mile long, so just much do you really want to know? :0)

This is a good chapter from Michael Ruppert’s Book “Crossing The Rubicon” (http://www.911weknow.com/images/stories/documents/rubicon19.pdf) that will open many eyes. :0)

GL,

Terral

[DGM]

Hi Alt+F4:




Do not have any? :0) Start with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove and their henchman Dick Cheney who orchestrated the 9/11 wargame military exercises (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm), Rudy Giuliani (http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/062904longdebunked.htm) the key player in implementing Tripod2 (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html), Larry “Pull it” (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027) Silverstein (you now him already), NORAD and the Joint-chiefs (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm), John Ashcroft and the Justice Department (part of Tripod2 in NYC) and the FBI (http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm) who continues placing roadblocks in the way of any real 9/11 investigation. The list is a mile long, so just much do you really want to know? :0)

This is a good chapter from Michael Ruppert’s Book “Crossing The Rubicon” (http://www.911weknow.com/images/stories/documents/rubicon19.pdf) that will open many eyes. :0)

GL,

Terral
Terral:
Why don't you start by explaining why the "truth" movement can't duplicate your "thermite" cut the way you said it was done but I can with my cutting torch?

[Drudgewire]

All of the evidence points directly to insider terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11.
Wow, didn't even take a 2nd sentence to figure out there's no reason to ever click on this thread again. Gotta be some kind of record.

So... um... congrats?

[twinstead]

Do not have any? :0) Start with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove and their henchman Dick Cheney who orchestrated the 9/11 wargame military exercises (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm), Rudy Giuliani (http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/062904longdebunked.htm) the key player in implementing Tripod2 (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html), Larry “Pull it” (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027) Silverstein (you now him already), NORAD and the Joint-chiefs (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm), John Ashcroft and the Justice Department (part of Tripod2 in NYC) and the FBI (http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm) who continues placing roadblocks in the way of any real 9/11 investigation. The list is a mile long, so just much do you really want to know? :0)

This is a good chapter from Michael Ruppert’s Book “Crossing The Rubicon” (http://www.911weknow.com/images/stories/documents/rubicon19.pdf) that will open many eyes. :0)


Oh, more stuff that you accept without question because it supports your world view. And WE'RE the sheep? LOL

Oh, by the way, not to attempt to tie you down to answering any specific questions (I know you HATE that. It's all about the links to stuff that you think will 'open many eyes'), but did I miss your take on the DNA evidence? Do you think it's faked?

[16.5]

Terral sez:

"Many thanks to Red Dawn, Calcus and others for helping me track down Mark Roberts (Gravy), so perhaps we can have a meaningful debate on these 911Truth Topics beginning with the Pentagon case."

This whole Terral "I don't know who Gravy is" has been puzzling me. If you go to Terral's very first post on this site, you will see that it is addressed to Gravy and posted in the GravySites sticky. Yet now he hasn't a clue who he is? Well, one never has accused a Twoofer of not being disengenious.

Anyhow: We all continue to await your design for a structure that allows for thermite to angle cut a vertical I beam.

[leftysergeant]

Anyhow: We all continue to await your design for a structure that allows for thermite to angle cut a vertical I beam.

It can be done, but it would involve tearing out a lot of drywall to access the beams, miles of mechanical linkages and chemical initiators, and it would have produced a blinding light that would have made a jock-0-lantern of the impacted areas.

And it would leave a hard white crust of alumina and chalk on everything within several feet of each charge.

[dudalb]

Hi Alt+F4:




Do not have any? :0) Start with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove and their henchman Dick Cheney who orchestrated the 9/11 wargame military exercises (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm), Rudy Giuliani (http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/062904longdebunked.htm) the key player in implementing Tripod2 (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html), Larry “Pull it” (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027) Silverstein (you now him already), NORAD and the Joint-chiefs (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm), John Ashcroft and the Justice Department (part of Tripod2 in NYC) and the FBI (http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm) who continues placing roadblocks in the way of any real 9/11 investigation. The list is a mile long, so just much do you really want to know? :0)

This is a good chapter from Michael Ruppert’s Book “Crossing The Rubicon” (http://www.911weknow.com/images/stories/documents/rubicon19.pdf) that will open many eyes. :0)

GL,

Terral

Michael Ruppert,one of the biggest economic crackpots on the planet. That is a great source.
He is so out there that most "Peak Oil" advocates have disowned him.

[DGM]

What's with the :0) after every sentence? Does this mean something?

[JimBenArm]

What's with the :0) after every sentence? Does this mean something?
I think it represents his nose after running into inconvenient facts again. And again. And yet again.

[WildCat]

:words:
Are you ever going to expain what the hell a "thermite shaped charge" is?

[Drs_Res]

Are you ever going to expain what the hell a "thermite shaped charge" is?

I think that it is a charge in the shape of a thermite? :confused:

[MIKILLINI]

No didn't have enough lipstick so no one called.

:dl:

[MIKILLINI]

No sir. Start by quoting anything you find errant in the Opening Post and support your opposing views with third-party resources like you see in my work.
GL,

Terral

Thats been done Terral. Since you choose to ignore real evidence, it's hopeless for you to grasp the significance of real evidence.

[beachnut]

Hi Alt+F4:




Do not have any? :0) Start with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove and their henchman Dick Cheney who orchestrated the 9/11 wargame military exercises (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm), Rudy Giuliani (http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/062904longdebunked.htm) the key player in implementing Tripod2 (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html), Larry “Pull it” (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027) Silverstein (you now him already), NORAD and the Joint-chiefs (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm), John Ashcroft and the Justice Department (part of Tripod2 in NYC) and the FBI (http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm) who continues placing roadblocks in the way of any real 9/11 investigation. The list is a mile long, so just much do you really want to know? :0)

This is a good chapter from Michael Ruppert’s Book “Crossing The Rubicon” (http://www.911weknow.com/images/stories/documents/rubicon19.pdf) that will open many eyes. :0)

GL,

Terral
Not one thing supported by evidence in all your posts. How can you get every single thing wrong?
This is a joke right? Are you posting lies to be funny? Spamming people with false junk is not funny, it is stupid.

[ElMondoHummus]

Start by quoting anything you find errant in the Opening Post and support your opposing views with third-party resources like you see in my work.

Everyone already has. You ignored them. You are the one who has not properly cited or sourced his responses.

By the way, you figure out curvillinear distortion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3027115#post3027115) yet? The concept you forgot to apply to your analysis of the Pentagon "official" video? Your "missile" analysis was shown to be incorrect, and you haven't even tried to defend it. I take it that means you concede the argument.

On top of that, your counters to our photos and other evidence of a 757 at the Pentagon were not merely insufficient, they failed to address the points we made. Points we made with "third-party resources". Do you concede those arguments as well, or will you try to actually address what we have provided? Note: Simply saying the info is fake is insufficient. You must establish with evidence that it is.

You game?

[Ravenwood]

Here is how a shaped charge works:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge.htm
Care to explain how the Thermite fits into that description? You really have no idea how a shaped charge works do you?

[patchbunny]

I think that it is a charge in the shape of a thermite? :confused:

Maybe it's a typo, and it was actually a termite shaped charge?

[MIKILLINI]

I think that it is a charge in the shape of a thermite? :confused:

Maybe he meant it was a thermite you get into shape and order it to charge.
:p

[X]

I realized something today, as I sat bored between classes.

Terral has claimed, in this very thread:

1) Steel cannot be weakened or melted by heat untill the whole entire piece of steel has been heated, because the heat transfers instantaneously to all pats of the steel.

2) The steel beams were cut by thermite charges.


The two points listed above are mutually contadictory.

If, as Terral claims, the steel of the building could not be weakened by fire because of the instananeousness of the heat distribution, then how would the heat of a thermite charge be able to cut the beam, unless you had enough thermite to heat the entire building? I'm sure somebody would have noticed that much thermite being placed.


Honestly, I'm a bit dissapointed in myself that I didn't cotton on to this earlier. I should have caught it. I mean, I'm studying engineering and all. I am shamed.

Oh, and Terral:
Are you going to respond to my point, or, like all other non-compliant evidence you're faced with, will you ignore it?

[1337m4n]

1337m4n, I'm not criticising your post, just giving a bit of background information, so that people can understand what the time mentioned for fire protection actually means.

Dave

It's a weakness of mine. When an opponent is irritating me, I get too caught up in trying to refute what they say to check my research. I should be thanking you for keeping me in check.

[leftysergeant]

As, appparently, the only person here who has made a shaped thermite chargeI see no way that they could have been deployed effectively in the towers. A cast charge the size of an 8-ounce coffee cup will penetrate six inches of steel. So let's say a bar about two inches by four inches by however wide the structural element is is applied directly to the surface of the steel.

Problems arise already. How do you access the columns to apply them all the way around? You have to remove a lot of drywall. Somebody has got to notice this and get suspicious. No one has.

Obviously, whatever brought the towers down happened to both the cores and the perimeter columns.

Charges on the perimeter columns would have been visible from the outside when they were ignited.

The only way I know to set off cast thermite is with a mechanical linkage or chemical igniter charge built into the charge.

Like that would be accessible in the middle of a major fire. The chemicals used in the chemical ignitor would cook off randomly in a moving office fire.

Now, unless you want to postulate a band of suicide demolitionists, at least forty of them per floor, I just don't see how they could be set off.

This is, of course all rather silly, since the argument is that the collapse would be self-limiting. That means that we are back to square one unless you rig all floors.

You ain't going to find that many maniacs willing to die for the goals of PNAC.

[Terral]

Hi Liver:

Liver >> Terral, I'm really impressed with the research you have performed. Your copying and pasting abilities are top notch. The fact that you used such reputable websites as sources really adds a touch of class to it.


If anyone here has a case for how Building Fires took down the 47-story WTC-7 skyscraper in just a few hours, then this is your big chance to show us the Light. Show us how a few building fires can cause the ‘symmetrical’ collapse of a steel-framed skyscraper within a very small amount of time. You are saying that Controlled Demolition specialists need not waste months planning, wiring and setting off explosives, when all they really have to do is set a few building fires and run away. :0) I am afraid that MANY of you simply do not realize how ridiculous the Official Bushie Cover Story has been from the very beginning. The fact that you can buy that stupidity says more about the gullibility of the American Public than anything else . . .

GL,

Terral

[Terral]

Hi Tsig:

Tsig >> Go pick up a torch feel the power that comes with hitting the oxygen and watching steel burn in front of your eyes.


However, build a fire using office furniture and try to melt massive red-iron structural columns with 3-hour spray-on insulation. :0) Just want kind of Jetliner hit WTC-7? Oh. No Jetliner at all. How does Tsig explain the fact that all the massive red-iron column, girder, beam and bar-joist connections were ‘severed’ to create this little debris pile (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg)? :0) Before the Controlled Demolition charges were detonated, then we had 47 stories of massive continuous steel beams (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg) running the entire length of the building. However, just after the CD process was complete ALL of those connections ‘and’ ALL the horizontal girder/beam connections were CUT to allow the entire structure to collapse straight down into its own footprint. Did we see the same result with any of the other buildings in direct proximity to WTC-7? No! Do you know why? I do. :0) They were not owned by Larry “Pull It” (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027&q=Larry+Silverstein+pull+it&total=126&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) Silverstein . . .

GL,

Terral

[Par]

Still lying then, Terral.

[aggle-rithm]

Hi Tsig:




However, build a fire using office furniture and try to melt massive red-iron structural columns with 3-hour spray-on insulation. :0) Just want kind of Jetliner hit WTC-7? Oh. No Jetliner at all. How does Tsig explain the fact that all the massive red-iron column, girder, beam and bar-joist connections were ‘severed’ to create this little debris pile (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg)? :0) Before the Controlled Demolition charges were detonated, then we had 47 stories of massive continuous steel beams (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg) running the entire length of the building. However, just after the CD process was complete ALL of those connections ‘and’ ALL the horizontal girder/beam connections were CUT to allow the entire structure to collapse straight down into its own footprint. Did we see the same result with any of the other buildings in direct proximity to WTC-7? No! Do you know why? I do. :0) They were not owned by Larry “Pull It” (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027&q=Larry+Silverstein+pull+it&total=126&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) Silverstein . . .

GL,

Terral

Edited to remove incorrect content:

Tsig:


Oh.

[X]

Lying, and calling all valid points "nonsesne".

Terral: Just because your arguments can be refuted in a snence or two does not invalidate the refutations. It does, however, reflect very poorly on the quality of your arguments. You might want to think about that,

[chillzero]

Hi Liver:




If anyone here has a case for how Building Fires took down the 47-story WTC-7 skyscraper in just a few hours, then this is your big chance to show us the Light. Show us how a few building fires can cause the ‘symmetrical’ collapse of a steel-framed skyscraper within a very small amount of time. You are saying that Controlled Demolition specialists need not waste months planning, wiring and setting off explosives, when all they really have to do is set a few building fires and run away. :0) I am afraid that MANY of you simply do not realize how ridiculous the Official Bushie Cover Story has been from the very beginning. The fact that you can buy that stupidity says more about the gullibility of the American Public than anything else . . .

GL,

Terral

1 - Quote function ... down there on the bottom right of every post. Please use it.

2 - Not everyone on the board is american.

3 - I think the fact that so much debris caused so much damage to surrounding buildings would deter anyone from your proposed actions of setting fires and runnign away. The point of controlled demolitions is to prevent damage to anything other than the subject to be demolished.

[Terral]

Hi DGM:

DGM >> You know that angle cut picture proves one thing. The "truth" movement has no interest in finding out the truth. Have they interviewed all of the iron workers to get statements saying they didn't cut like that? No.


We do not require the testimony of one WTC iron worker to know this result (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) is IMPOSSIBLE using building fires, so stop being foolish. You are talking about the catastrophic failure of a myriad of MASSIVE 2800-degree red-iron steel supports (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/hassan3.jpg) (and I mean MASSIVE (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/hassan2.jpg)) at the VERY SAME TIME, when the damage from any building fire would affect building components only in direct proximity to those fires ‘and’ a renewable fuel source. You are talking about interviewing iron workers, when you are supposed to be presenting a case for how building fires can even possibly take down a massive steel-framed skyscraper by severing ‘all’ of the structural supports in the ENTIRE steel-framed network at the VERY SAME TIME.

DGM >> Did they ask them if it was like that when they got there? No. Did they make any effort to talk to that firefighter? No. Did they investigate this at all? No. The extent of your investigation is looking at a picture. This doesn't strike you as odd?


Not at all. Many crimes are solved by careful examination of the EVIDENCE, when the FACTS do not even begin to match the data of the Original Cover Story. 45-degree angle cuts (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cutter_opposite.jpg) are Controlled Demolition Signatures (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/shapedcharges.jpg) where CD Supervisors move column lines in specific directions throughout the Building Implosion Process. This means you have a clear ‘PATTERN’ of entire column lines being moved in one direction, while the remaining pedestal columns stubs (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc_anglecut.jpg) are pushed in the opposite direction. Where was all of this steel warehoused, so we could carry out a real investigation? :0) Oh, Rudi ‘The Culprit’ Giuliani (http://www.rense.com/general18/giulianibegin.htm) made sure all of that evidence was destroyed in one way or the other (NY Times article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E0DA1531F936A15751C1A9679C8B 63)). Therefore, we are forced to use pictures of the accounts, or let the real inside-job bad guys get away with murdering innocent Americans on 9/11.

DGM >> Why are you so willing to believe what your told about this without any investigation at all? Why don't you question the motives of the people that promote this?


Just listen to yourself! You want everyone to believe Senor Bushie, Karl “The Biggest Liar In The World” Rove, Dick “The Henchman” Cheney and Larry “Pull It” Silverstein when a ‘real’ WTC Investigation is made impossible by the destruction of evidence by these same inside-job bad guys! When a 47-story overbuilt skyscrapers does this from building fires (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) in just a few hours, then you should be the very first person to begin asking questions about the Official Bushie/DoD/FBI Cover Story! The Controlled Demolition Explanation (http://www.ae911truth.org/) is the ONLY ONE that answers ‘all’ the WTC Collapse questions without creating a single contradiction in any of the EVIDENCE.

GL,

Terral

[Terral]

Hi 1337:

1337 >> You know what else has never destroyed a steel-framed skyscraper in US history before or after 9/11? Thermite. Oh wait, you claim that thermite destroyed the building. Non-unique.

Your argument is also a wonderful example of circular logic.


Your 'Building Fires Took Down WTC-7 In Just A Few Hours' explanation is a wonderful example of “Never Happened.” (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) First of all, you have NO SIGN of building fires on any floor in this picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg) of WTC-7 collapsing at freefall speed. Secondly, we have the telltale “kink” (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-23.jpg) in the roofline just moments later showing the ‘middle’ of the structure is falling faster than the two sides; which is typical of the CD process. Thirdly, we have the little debris pile (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg) that is common to what? Building fires? No. Controlled Demolition Implosions. Why is 1337 trying to extract Loyal Bushie conclusions from what is obviously a typical CD building implosion? :0)

Do us all a big fat favor and show us your ‘precedent’ for a real steel-framed skyscraper collapsing Demolition-style from a few building fires in just a few hours. GL trying to say something that sounds remotely intelligent . . .

GL again (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU), because you need it,

Terral

[DGM]

Hi DGM:




We do not require the testimony of one WTC iron worker to know

Because you don't want to know the truth. The iron workers can tell you about the site( they were there) but that's not important? Three of my friends were there doing those cuts. But you simply don't care.

Have fun with your fantasies.

[twinstead]

Fantasies is right. Like I said: one big argument from incredulity.

[twinstead]

Just listen to yourself! You want everyone to believe Senor Bushie, Karl “The Biggest Liar In The World” Rove, Dick “The Henchman” Cheney and Larry “Pull It” Silverstein when a ‘real’ WTC Investigation is made impossible by the destruction of evidence by these same inside-job bad guys!

Yup. All we believe about 911 was told to us by the Bush Administration. Sure thing bud. LOL

Just listen to yourself. You want everyone to believe people like you who rant and rave and spew spittle about things they know nothing about. Yea, that's going to happen.

And of course all the evidence just MUST have been destroyed. Because we all know absence of evidence MUST mean it was destroyed. God forbid it just DIDN'T EXIST in the first place.

So. How about that DNA evidence at the Pentagon?

[Terral]

Hi 1337:

1337 >> Please explain why he would mention "terrible loss of life" if he were talking about demolition. Please also explain away these problems with your theory:


You are asking me to tell you WHY (Have you gone BONKERS (http://www.recordcitybones.com/bonkers3.jpg)?) Larry Silverstein used particular language? :0) Your “Building Fire” excuse for the WTC-7 Collapse is making you delusional . . . I cannot help it if ‘your’ Building Fires Did It explanation makes no sense at all, but that is ‘your’ problem. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

1337 >> Problem #1, Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they’d be using slang demolition terms?


Larry Silverstein was taking back and forth with the Controlled Demolition Supervisor from the Israeli Spy Ring (http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/towers_5.htm) (they warned these people (http://www.nocturne.org/~terry/wtc_4000_Israeli.html)) for the six weeks prior to the WTC-7 Collapse (we were warned by Israeli Intelligence (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F09%2F16%2Fwcia16.x ml)). His famous “Pull It” conversation (http://www.jameswickstrom.com/news_links/wtc7pulled.htm) has nothing to do with any Fire Chief. The Israeli Spy Ring CD specialist (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html) had been saying, “. . . when we Pull It . . .” in previous conversations for this to become Mr. Silverstein’s defining “Freudian Slip.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip) Subconsciously Mr. Pull It Silverstein is the murderer of innocent Americans who very much wants to get caught, but Loyal Bushie FBI/DoD Inside Job Counterintelligence Operatives (with your JREF assistance) work every day to hide ‘the’ 911Truth.

1337 >> Problem #2, Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.


Only if Silverstein is talking to the CD Supervisor making the final preparations to “Pull it.” The Fire Chief had no means nor the time to even begin wiring WTC-7 for demolition, when he showed up on 9/11. All of that was done in the previous six-week period from the moment he took possession of the Twin Towers.

1337 >> Problem #3, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.


Yes, but 9/11 is about MUCH more than stealing money from We The People through insurance scams . . .

1337 >> Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?


The FDNY and NYPD are 9/11 VICTIMS without prior knowledge of these attacks.

1337 >> Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?


Never in this situation, but the man responsible for the Controlled Demolition (Silverstein) was talking to the CD Supervisor and not any Fire Chief when making his “Pull It” recommendations. Anyone willing to murder innocent Americans on 9/11 is also willing to lie about the principals of phone conversations . . .

1337 >> Problem #6, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud?


They raised rates to cover their losses and any restitution would be refunded back to We The People minus their legal fees. In short, the insurance companies have already made a killing on the 9/11 attacks, so they have no vested interest in bringing anyone to justice.

1337 >> Problem #7, and why would Silverstein admit this on television?


His admission of guilt was completely by accident, just like when Rudy Giuliani tipped his hand over the FEMA/Pier 29 Fiasco (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm) committed on September 10, 2001. FEMA showed up on Sept. 10 to set up emergency operations on the 23rd floor of WTC-7 in Giuliani’s newly renovated Command Bunker. (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_911_timeline_060899comma ndcenter)

Prison Planet Article: (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm)

2) BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: Alex Jones first reported on this back in May when Rudolph Giuliani let the details of it slip in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. FEMA arrived in New York on September 10th to set up a command post located at Pier 29 under the auspices of a 'biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12. This explains why Tom Kenney of FEMA's National Urban Search and Rescue Team, told Dan Rather of CBS News (http://www.prisonplanet.com/fema_clip.mp3) that FEMA had arrived in New York on the night of September 10th. This was originally dismissed as a slip of the tongue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip). Giuliani was to use this post as a command post on 9/11 after he evacuated WTC Building 7. As we reported back in January (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html), Giuliani knew when to leave WTC 7 because he got advanced warning that the Trade Towers were about to collapse. "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News. How did Giuliani know the towers were about to collapse when no steel building in history had previously collapsed from fire damage?


These ‘slips’ happen when guilty parties engaged in a myriad of LIES get their wires crossed and tip their hands completely by accident. Then people like you come behind to give their “Building Fires Did It” nonsense the air of believability, when all three WTC skyscrapers were taken down by Controlled Demolition (http://www.ae911truth.org/) all along.

GL,

Terral

[ElMondoHummus]

:words:



I'm doing this less for Terral, who does not comprehend (perhaps intentionally?) that he doesn't even understand or correctly present the basic facts about the WTC collapse. I do this more for lurkers here to demonstrate his distortions. Note that much of this is only referenced obliquely when it's referenced at all because it's considered basic knowledge amongst many of the participants here. Therefore much of what follows doesn't get explicit mention in this thread because it has been presented before to other conspiracy theorists (which also demonstrates how far behind Terral's arguments are; the following arguments are old):



... Show us how a few building fires can cause the ‘symmetrical’ collapse...


He implies the fires were small and/or limited i.e. "a few building fires". On the contrary, these fires covered multiple acres and were severe:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc) (Note: Microsoft Word document)


Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable.



Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block.



The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent.




... and so on. Read the linked document for more testimony; I'm only quoting a small sample here.

On top of that, Terral is completely ignoring the structural damage from the Twin Towers falling on it:


The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.

(Note: In retrospect, it's probable that the damage described was from the South tower (WTC 2), not the North one (WTC 1). Things were confused that day. I'll let others more familiar with WTC 7 correct this statement if I'm wrong.)


[Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.



So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good...

... Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post...


So consider this: The basic premises Terral sets out are incorrect. He doesn't properly describe the extent of the fires, which were large and covered multiple floors, and he completely leaves out any mention of damage to Tower 7 from falling debris, damage which was severe. When you take all that into consideration, you realize that the building wasn't just on fire in a few places but otherwise structurally sound, it was heavily damaged and had huge fires on top of that.

In short, WTC 7 was very badly damaged. That should put the remainder of the argument into perspective.



... cause the ‘symmetrical’ collapse of a steel-framed skyscraper within a very small amount of time...


First of all, go to Google and review debris maps. A good portion of WTC 7 lay across Vessey Street. Plus, portions of the north face ended up on top of the debris piles. How is that symmetric?


You are saying that Controlled Demolition specialists need not waste months planning, wiring and setting off explosives, when all they really have to do is set a few building fires and run away.


Does this really need a response? First of all, how would "Controlled Demolition specialists" install the explosives in the buildings without anyone noticing? Go to the search functions and look up the user "NDBoston" in this forum. He worked in the towers. He never saw anything remotely approaching demolitions preparations.

Second, you don't set "a few" building fires. You drop impossibly large sections of a 110 storey skyscraper (WTC 2) on top of the building first, causing severe damage, then you set multiple floors on fire all at once. Across those floors, from one end of the building to another. Then, you let it burn for several hours (WTC 2 collapsed at 9:59am; at that time, debris from that collapse impacted WTC 7. Tower 7, in turn, collapsed after 5pm, thus it burned for several hours, as testimony shows firefighters reporting huge fires as early as 11am). You combine huge debris impact damage with large, multifloor fires. That's how you replicate the conditions at WTC 7 that day.

So let's all get one thing straight: Terral is misrepresenting the damage to WTC 7. I don't know whether it's due to genuine ignorance of what actually happened to that building on that day, or if it's simply selective presentation of evidence and deliberate hiding of contradictory information, but the point is, the picture he builds of WTC 7 does not reflect reality.


I am afraid that MANY of you simply do not realize how ridiculous the Official Bushie Cover Story has been from the very beginning. The fact that you can buy that stupidity says more about the gullibility of the American Public than anything else . . .


Now, how do you want to evaluate his arguments in the light of all that's been presented above? Is his information truly reputable, given that he's distorted basic, acknowledged, verifiable facts? You decide.

[ElMondoHummus]

Larry Silverstein was taking back and forth with the Controlled Demolition Supervisor from the Israeli Spy Ring (http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/towers_5.htm)...

... The Israeli Spy Ring CD specialist (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html) had been saying, “. . . when we Pull It . . .”

...Only if Silverstein is talking to the CD Supervisor making the final preparations to “Pull it.”...


Notice the continued distortions. Click those links, if you're able to stomache the pages. Note that none of what he mentions appears at either link. Silverstein is not mentioned at all in those links. One discusses incredulity at the supposed presence of Israeli explosives experts being in the US, and doesn't link their presence to the WTC at all. The other simply mentions a warning to an Israeli telecom's staff.

Yet, you'd think that those links support his fantasy that Silverstein actually talked to Israeli explosives experts. Those links show no such thing.

Use this, too, to evaluate how reputable his arguments are. He has zero evidence that Silverstein did any of the acts he's accusing him of.

I think the point has been sufficiently demonstrated. Add all this to Terral's inability to comprehend curvilinear distortion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3027115#post3027115) and the difference between left and right banks when photoshopping examples (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg) (I'm being charitable here; I admit, you can also argue that he's trying to use that photo as evidence, not merely as an example), as well as his attempts to tell firefighters what they were doing wrong (just do a search here and at the Loose Change forum), and we can see that his comprehension of reality is rather tenuous. Use all that to evaluate the veracity of his stance.

[Terral]

Hi DGM:

DGM >> Terral: Why don't you start by explaining why the "truth" movement can't duplicate your "thermite" cut the way you said it was done but I can with my cutting torch?


Termite applications are described here (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf) and here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm) and here (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html) where linear shaped charges are demonstrated in videos. The question is about whether Controlled Demolition took down WTC-7 OR Building Fires!!! Are you BLIND? Look again at this picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7_3.jpg) where WTC-7 has collapsed upon itself ‘and’ we see SEVERED red-iron steel components scattered throughout the debris pile! You are saying that an iron worker climbed up 40 to 50 feet into the air to make a 45-degree angle cut (heh (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)), when all of this debris is still littering the area. You are saying that these 90-degree “Column End” cuts were made by an iron worker (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)) BEFORE they could fall down ‘and’ all the other debris fall on top of them. :0) No sir. ALL of these red-iron cuts were made DURING the Controlled Demolition Process, as evidenced by the fact that all these steel columns are positioned randomly throughout the debris pile itself. Building fires DO NOT ‘sever’ 2800-degree steel members at 90-degrees or 45-degrees or any degree. :0)

I do not want to know IF you can reproduce these cuts with your cutting torch, but IF you can reproduce this debris pile AND the severed red-iron components using building fires! Can you? No. End of story . . .

GL,

Terral

[twinstead]

Now, how do you want to evaluate his arguments in the light of all that's been presented above? Is his information truly reputable, given that he's distorted basic, acknowledged, verifiable facts? You decide.

I think this debate should rest on this. Terral obviously is so set in his ways that any hint that somebody may dare to challenge his conclusions are met with blind venom and lame hand waving. Terral is right. He knows, even more than most experts do, that WTC7 and WTC1 and WTC2 were controlled demolition. He doesn't care how. He doesn't care why. Any evidence to the contrary must be planted by the 'Bushie' Administration in the light of his supreme rightness.

So, let's just have this and other threads he has participated in simply stand for all to see.

Lurkers, you decide.

[Terral]

Hi Drugewire

Drudge >> Wow, didn't even take a 2nd sentence to figure out there's no reason to ever click on this thread again. Gotta be some kind of record. So... um... congrats?


Never be discouraged (http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/90518/2/istockphoto_90518_discouraged_woman.jpg), Drudge, because none of these JRED ‘debunkers’ (heh) have any more of a “Building Fires Did It” Case than you. Congratulations to you all for confusing your Terral-bashing with actually making a case for anything. Your three-sentence reply has as much substance as anything from those on your side of this WTC-7 Controlled Demolition/Building Fire Debate. You all deserve a big round of applause (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/applause.gif) (their hands never get tired – heh) for accomplishing absolutely nothing (http://www.balettie.com/albums/NTC/Absolutely_nothing.jpg) at all. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

[twinstead]

Termite applications are described here (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf) and here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm) and here (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html) where linear shaped charges are demonstrated in videos.


So was the building brought down by explosives or thermite, Terral? That one video is a shaped EXPLOSIVE charge, yet the Jones paper suggests it was thermite.

And if it was explosives (when you make up your mind) it wouldn't have been ONE 'boom' that we heard that day. What exactly do you think a series of those shaped explosive cutting charges (and not that piece of steel--or was it even steel?--in the video but a large load-bearing steel column). How many do you think would have been there to fell a building that size? 2? 3? 20? 100? 1000? How did they get there? What would they sound like going off in sequence?

Why didn't we hear the boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom that we should have, and ALL CDs of large buildings I've ever heard had, in the WTC collapse.

You see, every statement you make brings up twice that many questions.

[twinstead]

Never be discouraged (http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/90518/2/istockphoto_90518_discouraged_woman.jpg), Drudge, because none of these JRED ‘debunkers’ (heh) have any more of a “Building Fires Did It” Case than you. Congratulations to you all for confusing your Terral-bashing with actually making a case for anything. Your three-sentence reply has as much substance as anything from those on your side of this WTC-7 Controlled Demolition/Building Fire Debate. You all deserve a big round of applause (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/applause.gif) (their hands never get tired – heh) for accomplishing absolutely nothing (http://www.balettie.com/albums/NTC/Absolutely_nothing.jpg) at all. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)


Well, you don't have the advantage of being able to look at your posts from the perspective of somebody who actually knows what he is talking about, so you of course can't find the humor in it.

But it's there.

[DGM]

Hi DGM:




Termite applications are described here (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf) and here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm) and here (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html) where linear shaped charges are demonstrated in videos. The question is about whether Controlled Demolition took down WTC-7 OR Building Fires!!! Are you BLIND? Look again at this picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7_3.jpg) where WTC-7 has collapsed upon itself ‘and’ we see SEVERED red-iron steel components scattered throughout the debris pile! You are saying that an iron worker climbed up 40 to 50 feet into the air to make a 45-degree angle cut (heh (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)), when all of this debris is still littering the area. You are saying that these 90-degree “Column End” cuts were made by an iron worker (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)) BEFORE they could fall down ‘and’ all the other debris fall on top of them. :0) No sir. ALL of these red-iron cuts were made DURING the Controlled Demolition Process, as evidenced by the fact that all these steel columns are positioned randomly throughout the debris pile itself. Building fires DO NOT ‘sever’ 2800-degree steel members at 90-degrees or 45-degrees or any degree. :0)

I do not want to know IF you can reproduce these cuts with your cutting torch, but IF you can reproduce this debris pile AND the severed red-iron components using building fires! Can you? No. End of story . . .

GL,

Terral
Why do you show shaped charges and then talk about thermite? If you can't reproduce the cut with thermite it never happened.

Yes I can take a building down with fire if you would like to supply the building (and the permits necessary). Can you make that thermite cut?

PS Why do you keep calling the structural steel "red iron"?

[Terral]

Hi WildCat:

WildCat >> Are you ever going to expain what the hell a "thermite shaped charge" is?


Shaped charges are explained here (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html) where you can see that any of 1000 different explosive types can be utilized. Thermate as an ‘explosive’ is described by Dr. Steven Jones here.

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf)

Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level thermite analog containing sulfur developed by the military (see link (http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744&HL=ON)). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is allowed in the discussion. Note that other oxidizers (like KMnO4) and metals (like titanium and silicon) are commonly used in thermite analogs.

Finally, sulfidation was observed in structural steel samples found from both WTC7 and one of the WTC Towers, as reported in Appendix C in the FEMA report. It is quite possible that more than one type of cutter-charge was involved on 9/11, e.g., HMX, RDX and thermate in some combination. While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic. The evidence for the use of some variant of thermite such as sulfur-containing thermate in the destruction of the WTC Towers and building 7 is sufficiently compelling to warrant serious investigation.


I understand perfectly that Thermate is NOT a typically used compound in cutter charges or even explosives for use in Controlled Demolition. The reason is that the basic ingredients of Thermate are NOT traceable back to the original manufacturers, which is the reason the inside-job bad guys prepared their own private stash of Thermate for use in these WTC Controlled Demolitions in the first place. These thermite-based shaped charges need not EXPLODE at all, but they are simply high-temperature ‘cutter charges’ designed to ‘cut through structural steel’ (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) columns and beams like a hot knife through butter.

Where did all the sulfur-rich molten iron pools originate, according to your “Building Fires Did It” explanation? :0) Look at the Molten Iron Pool evidence (http://www.nasathermalimages.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D) in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c) again.

GL,

Terral

[DGM]

Hi WildCat:




Shaped charges are explained here (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html) where you can see that any of 1000 different explosive types can be utilized. Thermate as an ‘explosive’ is described by Dr. Steven Jones here.

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf)




I understand perfectly that Thermate is NOT a typically used compound in cutter charges or even explosives for use in Controlled Demolition. The reason is that the basic ingredients of Thermate are NOT traceable back to the original manufacturers, which is the reason the inside-job bad guys prepared their own private stash of Thermate for use in these WTC Controlled Demolitions in the first place. These thermite-based shaped charges need not EXPLODE at all, but they are simply high-temperature ‘cutter charges’ designed to ‘cut through structural steel’ (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) columns and beams like a hot knife through butter.

Where did all the sulfur-rich molten iron pools originate, according to your “Building Fires Did It” explanation? :0) Look at the Molten Iron Pool evidence (http://www.nasathermalimages.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D) in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c) again.

GL,

Terral
Thermite is a incendiary not an explosive. Look it up in something other than a woo site if you dare.

[chillzero]

I hate being ignored.

[Dave Rogers]

Hi Chillzero:

Chillzero>> I hate being ignored.


Why, did you say something?

Dave

[Alferd_Packer]

None of the demolition workers in the picture above climbed up any ladder forty or fifty feet in the air to make that 45-degree angel cut,

Emphasis added.


You are saying that an iron worker climbed up 40 to 50 feet into the air to make a 45-degree angle cut

Pete pointed out your folly with the following:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1549047a79105b109c.jpg



And if that wasn’t enough for you. . .

http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg

And as an added bonus, not the fact that the workers are making a 45 degree cut.

Quit trolling the board with your nonsense.

[Terral]

Hi X:

X >> I realized something today, as I sat bored between classes. Terral has claimed, in this very thread:

1) Steel cannot be weakened or melted by heat untill the whole entire piece of steel has been heated, because the heat transfers instantaneously to all pats of the steel.

2) The steel beams were cut by thermite charges.

The two points listed above are mutually contradictory.


No sir. First of all, you are characterizing my statements and not quoting me in context to anything. Secondly, ‘building fires’ have insufficient energy to weaken or melt WTC-7 structural red-iron columns. The steel-framed network itself carries the energy away from the fuel source more quickly than any proximal steel can be melted. However, all the WTC-7 steel beams and columns could very well be ‘severed’ using a combination of thermite, sulfur-enriched thermate and conventional explosive charges deliberately fixed to achieve that outcome. YOU are arguing for BUILDING FIRES taking down a steel-framed skyscraper in about 6.6 seconds by the severing of ‘all’ steel supports simultaneously, when I am telling you for certain that is very much IMPOSSIBLE. The ONLY way a steel-framed skyscraper of this kind can possibly collapse into its own footprint in just a few seconds is by Controlled Demolition. Period. Have you seen images of building collapsing into a neat little pile from Controlled Demolition? Yes! I have you three examples in the Opening Post. Now YOU are supposed to be proving why this collapse (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) cannot possibly be just another typical Controlled Demolition.

X >> If, as Terral claims, the steel of the building could not be weakened by fire because of the instananeousness of the heat distribution, then how would the heat of a thermite charge be able to cut the beam, unless you had enough thermite to heat the entire building? I'm sure somebody would have noticed that much thermite being placed.


The thermite charges and all the other charges were attached to the vital locations spread all over the steel-framed network, according to my OP explanation. The point you are making is that building fires COULD NOT possibly transfer sufficient heat to ALL the WTC-7 steel members to cause the catastrophic failure of ALL these steel members simultaneously. Buildings like this come down into a little pile every year, but the charges were set to that predetermined outcome.

X >> Honestly, I'm a bit dissapointed in myself that I didn't cotton on to this earlier. I should have caught it. I mean, I'm studying engineering and all. I am shamed.


You are the victim of faulty thinking brought on by the mischaracterization of my WTC-7 explanations. In fact, your comments help make my CD case, even if you fail to realize that today.

X >> Oh, and Terral: Are you going to respond to my point, or, like all other non-compliant evidence you're faced with, will you ignore it?


Far more than half of the posts on this thread contain three sentences of nonsense. Your post received this reply, because you appear to be sincere in your search for the 911Truth. Also, this is my fourth of fifth Board on the list, so others receive a thoughtful reply long before I ever show up here to the debunker site. If you were really in search of the 911Truth, then this really does not seem the right place IMHO. This is where 911Truther’s come to be grilled by debunkers (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) like you.

GL,

Terral

[Terral]

Hi DGM:

DGM >> Thermite is a incendiary not an explosive. Look it up in something other than a woo site if you dare.


This is the kind of two-sentence drivel that leads MANY astray and right into the jaws of Loyal Bushie LIES.

Jack Hamblin Portland Independent Media Center Article (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml)

BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples, Building Collapses an Inside Job

Author: Jacob Hamblin

Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur causes the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.


Jack Hamblin’s article shows the same “Confused Fireman” (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/thermite.jpg) Picture from Christopher Bollyn’s paper (http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm) that you have already seen described on this thread. Thermite is only the base compound used to begin the Sulfur-enriching Thermate-building process where a long line of incendiary/explosive charges are designed, built and placed part of a predetermined plan. The biggest culprit in identifying the CD signatures is NOT all of the sulfur-rich molten metal pools (http://www.nasathermalimages.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D) . The biggest finger pointing to a definite WTC Controlled Demolition is the ‘symmetrical collapse’ (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html) itself, when the blueprints show extra steel supports in many WTC locations. That means someone with CD skills was required to set charges with the ‘right amount’ of incendiary/explosive components to allow a very much unsymmetrical skyscraper (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-3.jpg) to fall down symmetrically. That is just one reason why the Architects and Engineers at AE911Truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org/) are calling for a new investigation.

GL,

Terral

[DGM]

Hi DGM:




This is the kind of two-sentence drivel that leads MANY astray and right into the jaws of Loyal Bushie LIES.

Jack Hamblin Portland Independent Media Center Article (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml)




Jack Hamblin’s article shows the same “Confused Fireman” (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/thermite.jpg) Picture from Christopher Bollyn’s paper (http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm) that you have already seen described on this thread. Thermite is only the base compound used to begin the Sulfur-enriching Thermate-building process where a long line of incendiary/explosive charges are designed, built and placed part of a predetermined plan. The biggest culprit in identifying the CD signatures is NOT all of the sulfur-rich molten metal pools (http://www.nasathermalimages.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D) . The biggest finger pointing to a definite WTC Controlled Demolition is the ‘symmetrical collapse’ (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html) itself, when the blueprints show extra steel supports in many WTC locations. That means someone with CD skills was required to set charges with the ‘right amount’ of incendiary/explosive components to allow a very much unsymmetrical skyscraper (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-3.jpg) to fall down symmetrically. That is just one reason why the Architects and Engineers at AE911Truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org/) are calling for a new investigation.

GL,

Terral
This is a joke right. Where did you address my simple statement? Thermite/ thermite is an incendiary. Show me the references by demolition companies that say they use it in controlled demolition. They don't and never have (probably never will do to the unpredictable nature of the reaction).

Why do you lie like you do? Do you think people don't notice?

Note; Using Steven Jones as a source to support his own theory is bad form.

[CurtC]

Secondly, ‘building fires’ have insufficient energy to weaken or melt WTC-7 structural red-iron columns.

Please stop saying that fires have insufficient energy for anything - you're just showing your ignorance of physics. A fire has as much energy as the amount of fuel used. You want ten times as much energy? Just use ten times as much fuel.

[beachnut]

Shaped charges are explained here (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html) where you can see that any of 1000 different explosive types can be utilized. Thermate as an ‘explosive’ is described by Dr. Steven Jones here.
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf)
GL, Terral
Super dumb post Terral. The site you cite shows cuts made after 9/11. BUSTED Is that your web site, it is a very dumb web site. Not one thing right.

So far all the web sites you cite debunk your ideas. You must not be very good at making up stuff, it is all pure lies.

Jones made all his stuff up. If you post Jones' stuff, you are pre BUSTED.

[Terral]

Hi ElMondo:

ElMondo >> He implies the fires were small and/or limited i.e. "a few building fires". On the contrary, these fires covered multiple acres and were severe:


Terral does not require so many words to show ElMondo here is full of it. This picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg) from this website (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm) shows WTC-7 in full freefall mode ‘and’ we see no sign of FIRE (heh) anywhere. The typical Loyal Bushie Inside-Job response is, “But the fire was on the other side of the building.” Then my reply is, “Thank you for helping make my point, because WTC-7 fell ‘symmetrically’ (http://www.wtc7.net/verticalcollapse.html) and your fire side should have fallen first.” :0)

ElMondo >> On top of that, Terral is completely ignoring the structural damage from the Twin Towers falling on it:


WTC-7 is 350 feet away from WTC-1 that fell earlier that morning and we already saw pictures of WTC-7 collapsing with NO SIGNS of fire at all. Now you want to say that falling WTC-1 debris caused the WTC-7 collapse? :0) Just what kind of DEBRIS is going to knock down an overbuilt 47-story cotton picking skyscraper from 350 feet away? Oh, the 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3320063.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=86F19F6C94FCC84F80381553BD8DFACBA55A1E4F32AD3138 ) devised the perfect plan . . . and knocked down WTC-7 by using WTC-1 debris. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

BTW, the :0) smiley faces are added, because most everything from the other side of this debate simply cracks a 911Truther up . . .

GL,

Terral

[ElMondoHummus]

Hi ElMondo:




Terral does not require so many words to show ElMondo here is full of it. This picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg) from this website (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm) shows WTC-7 in full freefall mode ‘and’ we see no sign of FIRE (heh) anywhere. The typical Loyal Bushie Inside-Job response is, “But the fire was on the other side of the building.” Then my reply is, “Thank you for helping make my point, because WTC-7 fell ‘symmetrically’ (http://www.wtc7.net/verticalcollapse.html) and your fire side should have fallen first.” :0)




WTC-7 is 350 feet away from WTC-1 that fell earlier that morning and we already saw pictures of WTC-7 collapsing with NO SIGNS of fire at all. Now you want to say that falling WTC-1 debris caused the WTC-7 collapse? :0) Just what kind of DEBRIS is going to knock down an overbuilt 47-story cotton picking skyscraper from 350 feet away? Oh, the 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3320063.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=86F19F6C94FCC84F80381553BD8DFACBA55A1E4F32AD3138 ) devised the perfect plan . . . and knocked down WTC-7 by using WTC-1 debris. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

BTW, the :0) smiley faces are added, because most everything from the other side of this debate simply cracks a 911Truther up . . .

GL,

Terral


Failed attempt to rebut. I am quoting firefighter testimony (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc). You are providing zero evidence to refute the facts I present. The building debris not only landed on WTC 7, but also damaged other buildings, such as 30 West Broadway and the Verizon building. Merely pointing out that they're 350 feet away means nothing. Keep in mind that debris was found even two blocks away from WTC 7. That's well over 350 feet away. None of what he says negates the firefighter testimony.

No, the fire wasn't merely "on the other side of the building". Again, everyone, read the linked paper. Terral provides nothing to refute eyewitness testimony from firefighters who were onscene. One single photo from one single angle is insufficient rebuttal. Look at the photos posted here:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

... and reread the firefighter testimony linked above.

It is an established fact that the fires were massive and widespread, and that the building was heavily damaged from falling debris. Terral's arguments do not refute those facts. He merely links poorly supported arguments from other pages. I am providing eyewitness evidence from firefighters. If Terral is to be successful in his arguments, he must provide proof that the firefighters were wrong. Without that, his thesis is refuted. What little argument he's provided against the fires and building damage do not stand up to examination of the facts. What little support he's provided does not stand up in the light of acknowledged evidence.

[propheteer]

I couldn't bare to read the whole thing past page two but I did want to clear something up just in case it wasn't mentioned.....

On the subject of shaped charges..... A "shaped charge" doesn't really have anything to do with the angle, placement or even the overall shape of an explosive so much. Its a method used to focus energy into a point rather than just blowing out in an even way in all directions like a brick of explosive or a stick of dynamite would.

In short, think of a tube packed with explosives from end to end. Then shove a large cone in the end to make a hollow cone shaped void in the explosive on one end. If you place that explosive cone shape void side down on a metal surface, when you detonate the explosive it will bore a hole straight through the metal if conditions are right. We used to practice boring holes in old tank treads with half blocks of C4. You can make a relatively clean 1 inch hole no prob.

Now take the same concept and make a long shaped charge for cutting. The simplest way is to use plastic type explosive since it molds like clay and fill a metal U shaped rail type fence post like used on wire fencing along freeways. You then create a V shaped notch in the charge along the whole length, place the charge V side down and there you have a very simple steel beam cutting "shaped charge" that will cut a line rather than bore a hole.

[tsig]

Hi Tsig:




However, build a fire using office furniture and try to melt massive red-iron structural columns with 3-hour spray-on insulation. :0) Just want kind of Jetliner hit WTC-7? Oh. No Jetliner at all. How does Tsig explain the fact that all the massive red-iron column, girder, beam and bar-joist connections were ‘severed’ to create this little debris pile (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg)? :0) Before the Controlled Demolition charges were detonated, then we had 47 stories of massive continuous steel beams (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg) running the entire length of the building. However, just after the CD process was complete ALL of those connections ‘and’ ALL the horizontal girder/beam connections were CUT to allow the entire structure to collapse straight down into its own footprint. Did we see the same result with any of the other buildings in direct proximity to WTC-7? No! Do you know why? I do. :0) They were not owned by Larry “Pull It” (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027&q=Larry+Silverstein+pull+it&total=126&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) Silverstein . . .

GL,

Terral

Gravity, all buildings are in constant conflict with gravity. It's not buildings falling that should have us amazed. It's that they do not fall.

[HawksFan]

I couldn't bare to read the whole thing past page two but I did want to clear something up just in case it wasn't mentioned.....

On the subject of shaped charges..... A "shaped charge" doesn't really have anything to do with the angle, placement or even the overall shape of an explosive so much. Its a method used to focus energy into a point rather than just blowing out in an even way in all directions like a brick of explosive or a stick of dynamite would.

In short, think of a tube packed with explosives from end to end. Then shove a large cone in the end to make a hollow cone shaped void in the explosive on one end. If you place that explosive cone shape void side down on a metal surface, when you detonate the explosive it will bore a hole straight through the metal if conditions are right. We used to practice boring holes in old tank treads with half blocks of C4. You can make a relatively clean 1 inch hole no prob.

Now take the same concept and make a long shaped charge for cutting. The simplest way is to use plastic type explosive since it molds like clay and fill a metal U shaped rail type fence post like used on wire fencing along freeways. You then create a V shaped notch in the charge along the whole length, place the charge V side down and there you have a very simple steel beam cutting "shaped charge" that will cut a line rather than bore a hole.

What?!? You mean the things Bill Murray was making in Caddyshack weren't shaped charges??? :D

Welcome to the forums, propheteer. Cool info on the shape charges. Learned something today.

[tsig]

Hi DGM:




We do not require the testimony of one WTC iron worker to know this result (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) is IMPOSSIBLE using building fires, so stop being foolish. You are talking about the catastrophic failure of a myriad of MASSIVE 2800-degree red-iron steel supports (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/hassan3.jpg) (and I mean MASSIVE (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/hassan2.jpg)) at the VERY SAME TIME, when the damage from any building fire would affect building components only in direct proximity to those fires ‘and’ a renewable fuel source. You are talking about interviewing iron workers, when you are supposed to be presenting a case for how building fires can even possibly take down a massive steel-framed skyscraper by severing ‘all’ of the structural supports in the ENTIRE steel-framed network at the VERY SAME TIME.




Not at all. Many crimes are solved by careful examination of the EVIDENCE, when the FACTS do not even begin to match the data of the Original Cover Story. 45-degree angle cuts (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cutter_opposite.jpg) are Controlled Demolition Signatures (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/shapedcharges.jpg) where CD Supervisors move column lines in specific directions throughout the Building Implosion Process. This means you have a clear ‘PATTERN’ of entire column lines being moved in one direction, while the remaining pedestal columns stubs (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc_anglecut.jpg) are pushed in the opposite direction. Where was all of this steel warehoused, so we could carry out a real investigation? :0) Oh, Rudi ‘The Culprit’ Giuliani (http://www.rense.com/general18/giulianibegin.htm) made sure all of that evidence was destroyed in one way or the other (NY Times article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E0DA1531F936A15751C1A9679C8B 63)). Therefore, we are forced to use pictures of the accounts, or let the real inside-job bad guys get away with murdering innocent Americans on 9/11.




Just listen to yourself! You want everyone to believe Senor Bushie, Karl “The Biggest Liar In The World” Rove, Dick “The Henchman” Cheney and Larry “Pull It” Silverstein when a ‘real’ WTC Investigation is made impossible by the destruction of evidence by these same inside-job bad guys! When a 47-story overbuilt skyscrapers does this from building fires (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) in just a few hours, then you should be the very first person to begin asking questions about the Official Bushie/DoD/FBI Cover Story! The Controlled Demolition Explanation (http://www.ae911truth.org/) is the ONLY ONE that answers ‘all’ the WTC Collapse questions without creating a single contradiction in any of the EVIDENCE.

GL,

Terral

I think we all know who's pulling what and why.

Just had to throw that overbuilt in there

[DGM]

47 stories of massive continuous steel beams running the entire length of the building.

I'd love to know what this sentence means.:confused:

[chillzero]

Hi Chillzero:



Why, did you say something?

Dave

:(

yes

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3407263#post3407263

[leftysergeant]

this website (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm) shows WTC-7 in full freefall mode ‘and’ we see no sign of FIRE (heh) anywhere. The typical Loyal Bushie Inside-Job response is, “But the fire was on the other side of the building.” Then my reply is, “Thank you for helping make my point, because WTC-7 fell ‘symmetrically’ (http://www.wtc7.net/verticalcollapse.html) and your fire side should have fallen first.” :0)

Go look at the pictures again. The south face of the building does look far more distorted as it collapses. The north wall wound up on top of the pile. That aint symetrical a bit.

WTC-7 is 350 feet away from WTC-1 that fell earlier that morning and we already saw pictures of WTC-7 collapsing with NO SIGNS of fire at all.

No signs of fire? Did you see the smoke pouring out of the windows of the south side on several floors as it fell? And don't you dare try to tell me those were squibs flowing out and then flowing upward.

[DGM]

Lefty:
I can't figure out why you would bother asking him to look at something again. Did you see his picture of the 'painted up A3'? Terral clearly does not see things the way everyone else does.

[pomeroo]

Hi ElMondo:




Terral does not require so many words to show ElMondo here is full of it. This picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg) from this website (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm) shows WTC-7 in full freefall mode ‘and’ we see no sign of FIRE (heh) anywhere. The typical Loyal Bushie Inside-Job response is, “But the fire was on the other side of the building.” Then my reply is, “Thank you for helping make my point, because WTC-7 fell ‘symmetrically’ (http://www.wtc7.net/verticalcollapse.html) and your fire side should have fallen first.” :0)




WTC-7 is 350 feet away from WTC-1 that fell earlier that morning and we already saw pictures of WTC-7 collapsing with NO SIGNS of fire at all. Now you want to say that falling WTC-1 debris caused the WTC-7 collapse? :0) Just what kind of DEBRIS is going to knock down an overbuilt 47-story cotton picking skyscraper from 350 feet away? Oh, the 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3320063.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=86F19F6C94FCC84F80381553BD8DFACBA55A1E4F32AD3138 ) devised the perfect plan . . . and knocked down WTC-7 by using WTC-1 debris. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

BTW, the :0) smiley faces are added, because most everything from the other side of this debate simply cracks a 911Truther up . . .

GL,

Terral


Terral, the BBC is doing a show on WTC 7. They intend to use part of a 'Hardfire' debate, but I have a problem. I've lined up Mark Roberts and Arthur Scheuerman, retired FDNY battalion chief, for the rationalist side. I can't seem to find a conspiracy liar willing to try peddling his snake oil to a worldwide audience. Isn't it strange that the champions of "truth" are so terrified of a couple of rationalists that they won't even dare to show their faces? What do you suppose is going on? How can you spread your poison if you have no guts?

[pomeroo]

Hi DGM:




We do not require the testimony of one WTC iron worker to know this result (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) is IMPOSSIBLE using building fires, so stop being foolish. You are talking about the catastrophic failure of a myriad of MASSIVE 2800-degree red-iron steel supports (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/hassan3.jpg) (and I mean MASSIVE (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/hassan2.jpg)) at the VERY SAME TIME, when the damage from any building fire would affect building components only in direct proximity to those fires ‘and’ a renewable fuel source. You are talking about interviewing iron workers, when you are supposed to be presenting a case for how building fires can even possibly take down a massive steel-framed skyscraper by severing ‘all’ of the structural supports in the ENTIRE steel-framed network at the VERY SAME TIME.




Not at all. Many crimes are solved by careful examination of the EVIDENCE, when the FACTS do not even begin to match the data of the Original Cover Story. 45-degree angle cuts (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cutter_opposite.jpg) are Controlled Demolition Signatures (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/shapedcharges.jpg) where CD Supervisors move column lines in specific directions throughout the Building Implosion Process. This means you have a clear ‘PATTERN’ of entire column lines being moved in one direction, while the remaining pedestal columns stubs (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc_anglecut.jpg) are pushed in the opposite direction. Where was all of this steel warehoused, so we could carry out a real investigation? :0) Oh, Rudi ‘The Culprit’ Giuliani (http://www.rense.com/general18/giulianibegin.htm) made sure all of that evidence was destroyed in one way or the other (NY Times article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E0DA1531F936A15751C1A9679C8B 63)). Therefore, we are forced to use pictures of the accounts, or let the real inside-job bad guys get away with murdering innocent Americans on 9/11.




Just listen to yourself! You want everyone to believe Senor Bushie, Karl “The Biggest Liar In The World” Rove, Dick “The Henchman” Cheney and Larry “Pull It” Silverstein when a ‘real’ WTC Investigation is made impossible by the destruction of evidence by these same inside-job bad guys! When a 47-story overbuilt skyscrapers does this from building fires (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) in just a few hours, then you should be the very first person to begin asking questions about the Official Bushie/DoD/FBI Cover Story! The Controlled Demolition Explanation (http://www.ae911truth.org/) is the ONLY ONE that answers ‘all’ the WTC Collapse questions without creating a single contradiction in any of the EVIDENCE.

GL,

Terral


You were caught lying about Larry Silverstein. "Pull it" does not mean "blow up the building." Why do you continue to lie?

[X]

Terral, I'm not going to bother replying to points that have been rebutted before. As that covers every single point you've raised, I'll just discuss your interpretation of what I am attempting to do and what I am supposed to do.


YOU are arguing for BUILDING FIRES taking down a steel-framed skyscraper in about 6.6 seconds by the severing of ‘all’ steel supports simultaneously, when I am telling you for certain that is very much IMPOSSIBLE.
No, I'm not arguing that the fires "severed" all the steel "simultaneously". All it had to do was weaken a few supports to the piont where they could not sustain the load on them. Once they give way, more will give way. To use an exceedingly crude analogy, think of a house of cards, and pull one or more away.


Now YOU are supposed to be proving why this collapse (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) cannot possibly be just another typical Controlled Demolition.
The burden of proof is most definately not on me, so don't tell me I need to prove your fantasy wrong. I'm just pointing out areas that highlight your complete lack of understanding of thermodynamics.


You are the victim of faulty thinking brought on by the mischaracterization of my WTC-7 explanations. In fact, your comments help make my CD case, even if you fail to realize that today.
I view WTC as an inevitable collapse due to my understanding of the initial situation and my comprehension of certain elemens of basic physics. I would love to know how my thinking is "faulty" and my comments "help" you. Unless you are insinuating that I am a bad engineer?


Far more than half of the posts on this thread contain three sentences of nonsense. Your post received this reply, because you appear to be sincere in your search for the 911Truth.
Just because they rebutt your points in three sentences does not make their points invalide, and by extension does not validate yours. If you don't like how easily your "evidence" is shown to be incorrect, perhaps you sohuld look at your evidence. This is the main point of my prior post (before the mutually-contradictory post).


This is where 911Truther’s come to be grilled by debunkers (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) like you.
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be offended by that or not. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[cloudshipsrule]

6.6 seconds? He saw the wrong video!

[twinstead]

This is where 911 truthers come to be grilled by debunkers? Yea. you know why, Terral? They come here to hone their tactics.

It is an art to keep a debate alive when ones position is untenable, and all the accomplished truthers have it down to a tea. It does no good to preach to the choir at some conspiracy forum like LC. You have to learn how to defend your fantasies against people who actually have knowledge and experience in the relevant fields and learn how to deflect intelligent, rational counter arguments before you can effectively convince all the well-meaning but ignorant people you focus on.

Right?

[Alferd_Packer]

Terral, are you going to admit that your argument about workers on ladders was just silly, or will you continue to ignore it when you silliness is exposed.


However, build a fire using office furniture and try to melt massive red-iron structural columns with 3-hour spray-on insulation.

1,) There you go again, using the truther untruth word, "melt."

2,) What the heck is red-iron?

3,) The fires in WTC 7 burned for 7 hours before the building collapse.

[Dave Rogers]

Terral, are you going to admit that your argument about workers on ladders was just silly, or will you continue to ignore it when you silliness is exposed.

I'm calling (b).

Dave

[peteweaver]

Hydrocarbon office fires can get extremely hot.

And look here Terral:

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7-fire.jpg

And here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

Smoke and Fire.

The smoke was at its most intense at the south of the building, where it had suffered severe damage, and there was a lot more air available from outside.

You can't expect the north face to behave as the south face did, because the north face didn't get hit by debris from WTC 1 as it split apart.

[ferd burfle]

The third problem is that steel is an excellent conductor of heat and any steel-framed network would disperse the heat much more quickly than any building fire could raise the temperature to anywhere near ‘steel-softening’ temperatures.

[X] has already refuted this in terms of the thermodynamics, but let me just add that Terral's ignorance on this point is glaring. Steel is a crappy conductor of heat. I work for a company that makes all manner of thermal management products i.e. heat sinks, and not once in the company's 30+ year history have they made the part of the heat sink that carries the heat out of any kind of steel.

I don't have a citation but I recall other twoofers making the same statement about steel so I suspect that Terral is merely parroting the nonsense of others, as he has done in many of his other allegations.

Ferd

[Terral]

Hi CurtC:

CurtC >> Please stop saying that fires have insufficient energy for anything - you're just showing your ignorance of physics. A fire has as much energy as the amount of fuel used. You want ten times as much energy? Just use ten times as much fuel.


No sir. Nice haircut BTW. :0) The fact is that CurtC just pointed the finger at himself and his own ignorance of hydrocarbon and structural steel physics, which just happens to be the first topic presented here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c). Throwing a million gallons of kerosene onto a fire is not going to melt one pound of 2800-degree steel from any steel-framed network, because the ‘maximum’ temperature of an uncontrolled hydrocarbon fuel fire is FAR lower than the temperatures required to melt structural steel. That is the very reason they build skyscrapers and such out of 2800-degree structural steel. :0) Your second problem for this WTC-7 case is that nothing crashed into the building for any serious amount of petroleum-based fuel to even become part of the equation.

The ‘diesel tanks’ argument is one of the most absurd reaches the Official Cover Story Con-artists attempt to pull out of their bag of tricks, as if falling WTC-1 debris from 350 feet away is going to penetrate WTC-7 walls and find its way to these tanks AND penetrate the tanks AND ignite the diesel fuel. We have WTC-6 (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7iso.gif) standing near the footprint of WTC-1, but that building did not collapse into its own footprint demolition-style. The buildings adjacent to WTC-7 (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg) also did not collapse or even suffer the kind of exterior damage you are inflicting on WTC-7.

The “Building Fires Did It” theory is the most ridiculous ‘answer’ to this WTC-7 case than anyone here can imagine, OR begin to try and defend. Science and Math were always two of my favorite ‘straight-A’ subjections. So please forgive if your attempts to criticize my intelligence falls on deaf ears . . .

GL,

Terral

[DGM]

Terral:
Why do the fire proof steel buildings?

I actually want you to keep posting. Lurkers are abandoning the 911 "truth" movement with every one of your deluded posts.

Oh BTW your "thesis" does not even come close to proving anything (either one). Keep up your fine work, your what your "movement" calls disinfo (do you work for Bush?).

[ElMondoHummus]

The fact is that CurtC just pointed the finger at himself and his own ignorance of hydrocarbon and structural steel physics, which just happens to be the first topic presented here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c). Throwing a million gallons of kerosene onto a fire is not going to melt one pound of 2800-degree steel from any steel-framed network, because the ‘maximum’ temperature of an uncontrolled hydrocarbon fuel fire is FAR lower than the temperatures required to melt structural steel. That is the very reason they build skyscrapers and such out of 2800-degree structural steel.


Why does the steel have to melt to explain the collapse?

[Terral]

Hi Fred with X mentioned:

Fred >> [X] has already refuted this in terms of the thermodynamics, but let me just add that Terral's ignorance on this point is glaring. Steel is a crappy conductor of heat. I work for a company that makes all manner of thermal management products i.e. heat sinks, and not once in the company's 30+ year history have they made the part of the heat sink that carries the heat out of any kind of steel.


Before presenting my case: How many here agree with Fred that steel is a ‘crappy’ conductor of heat? Anyone? :0) My thinking is that Fred is standing completely alone in his ‘crappy’ statement and his assertions of Terral’s ignorance. What in the world is going on here when steel (the best conductor of heat) is transformed into a crappy conductor of heat? This information can be taken from anywhere, but I will use the encyclopedia:

Online Encyclopedia: (http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0030243.html)

Flow of heat energy (see energy transfer) through a material without the movement of any part of the material itself (compare conduction, electrical). Heat energy is present in all materials in the form of the kinetic energy of their constituent vibrating particles, and may be conducted from one particle to the next in the form of this vibration.

Different materials conduct heat at different rates. This rate is called the thermal conductivity. A good conductor of heat, such as steel, will have a high thermal conductivity and a poor conductor of heat, such as air, will have a low thermal conductivity. In general, non-metals, such as wood or glass, are poor conductors of heat.


Now, I can bore you to tears with technical data, or you can listen to another building professional trained specifically in this area here.

AdvancedEnergy.Org (http://www.advancedenergy.org/buildings/knowledge_library/construction_process/the_deal_with_steel.html)
Arnie Katz >> . . . Other attractive features of steel framing include the fact that it doesn't burn; it is inert (doesn't give off terpenes which some wood species do and which some people are allergic to); and it is not attractive to insects.

So what's the catch? The biggest problem is the energy issue. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. It's such a good conductor, in fact, that if you replace wood framing with steel framing it reduces the insulation value of the wall by as much as 40-50%. According to ASHRAE (the national Engineering Society), a 2x6 wall, with wood studs spaced every 24", with R-19 insulation between the studs, has an R-value of R-16 (for studs and cavities, excluding sheathing, etc.). If you replace the wood with steel, the R-value goes down to R-8.6, a reduction of 46%.


Now, if we go back to my original statement that my distinguished debating adversary is attempting to ‘debunk’ (heh), then we find:

Terral Original (my highlights) >> The third problem is that steel is an excellent conductor of heat and any steel-framed network would disperse the heat much more quickly than any building fire could raise the temperature to anywhere near ‘steel-softening’ temperatures.


This expert says, “Steel is an excellent conductor of heat.” I say, “Steel is an excellent conductor of heat,” but somehow I am ignorant and these bozo’s saying “steel is a crappy conductor of heat” really and truly believe in their heart of hearts that they are proving ‘my’ ignorance. :0) Now ‘some’ of you understand why we see so many old fashioned smiley faces :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU) appear in my posts, because I swear one of these guys is going to make me lose a rib laughing so hard . . . (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)

But, guess what? In X’s and Fred’s universe, steel is still a crappy (nice scientific term) conductor of heat no matter what anyone says. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

[Lennart Hyland]

Terral: How come you keep ignoring important questions?

[1337m4n]

So can we say that it has been established that Terral doesn't even know what a "thermite shaped charge" is or how one is supposed to work?

Here. Enlighten yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_charge#The_explosive

For optimum penetration, a high explosive having a high detonation velocity and pressure is normally chosen. The most common explosive used in high performance anti-armour warheads is HMX (octogen), though it is never used on its own, as it would be too sensitive. It is normally compounded with a few percent of some type of plastic binder, such as in the plastic bonded explosive (PBX) LX-14, or with another less-sensitive explosive, such as TNT, with which it forms Octol. Other common explosives are RDX-based compositions, again either as PBXs or mixtures with TNT (to form Composition B and the Cyclotols) or wax (Cyclonites). Some explosives incorporate powdered aluminium to increase their blast and detonation temperature, but this addition generally results in decreased performance of the shaped charge. There has been research into using the very-high-performance but sensitive explosive CL-20 in shaped-charge warheads, but, at present, due to its sensitivity, this has been in the form of the PBX composite LX-19 (CL-20 and Estane binder).

Now it's up to you to tell us how you could make this work with thermite.

As has been said, thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. It'd be like trying to use napalm to bring down the Towers.

[Redtail]

Hi Fred with X mentioned:




Before presenting my case: How many here agree with Fred that steel is a ‘crappy’ conductor of heat? Anyone? :0) My thinking is that Fred is standing completely alone in his ‘crappy’ statement and his assertions of Terral’s ignorance. What in the world is going on here when steel (the best conductor of heat) is transformed into a crappy conductor of heat? This information can be taken from anywhere, but I will use the encyclopedia:

Online Encyclopedia: (http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0030243.html)




Now, I can bore you to tears with technical data, or you can listen to another building professional trained specifically in this area here.

AdvancedEnergy.Org (http://www.advancedenergy.org/buildings/knowledge_library/construction_process/the_deal_with_steel.html)



Now, if we go back to my original statement that my distinguished debating adversary is attempting to ‘debunk’ (heh), then we find:




This expert says, “Steel is an excellent conductor of heat.” I say, “Steel is an excellent conductor of heat,” but somehow I am ignorant and these bozo’s saying “steel is a crappy conductor of heat” really and truly believe in their heart of hearts that they are proving ‘my’ ignorance. :0) Now ‘some’ of you understand why we see so many old fashioned smiley faces :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU) appear in my posts, because I swear one of these guys is going to make me lose a rib laughing so hard . . . (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)

But, guess what? In X’s and Fred’s universe, steel is still a crappy (nice scientific term) conductor of heat no matter what anyone says. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

Silver, copper, gold, aluminum, and bronze are are all better conductors of heat. Do you have the stats that show the conductivity of steel would be enough to stop the collapse?

[Alferd_Packer]

Throwing a million gallons of kerosene onto a fire is not going to melt one pound of 2800-degree steel from any steel-framed network, because the ‘maximum’ temperature of an uncontrolled hydrocarbon fuel fire is FAR lower than the temperatures required to melt structural steel.

It sounds like you do not understand the difference between heat and temperature.


That is the very reason they build skyscrapers and such out of 2800-degree structural steel.

http://pics.livejournal.com/gutbloom/pic/0000z4fk

Then why do they bother to apply fireproofing material to the steel if it is so resistant to the heat of a typical building fire?

As a related question, if an applied fireproofing is only rated for 3 hours, what happens on the fourth hour?

[Alferd_Packer]

Before presenting my case: How many here agree with Fred that steel is a ‘crappy’ conductor of heat?

I do.

If iron and steel is such a good conductor of heat, then I would be burning the seasoning off my favorite cast iron pan every time I use it.

[DGM]

I do.

If iron and steel is such a good conductor of heat, then I would be burning the seasoning off my favorite cast iron pan every time I use it.
Count me and every fire fighter in. Ask a fire fighter which building type, wood or steel would the rather enter and it will be wood hands down.

Any bets Terral has no idea why?

[Pardalis]

h0BWwncJRrA

[CurtC]

The fact is that CurtC just pointed the finger at himself and his own ignorance of hydrocarbon and structural steel physics, which just happens to be the first topic presented here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c). Throwing a million gallons of kerosene onto a fire is not going to melt one pound of 2800-degree steel from any steel-framed network,

Thanks for making my point. Instead of investigating to find out if just maybe your understanding of physics is incorrect, you go on to accuse me of getting it wrong, while then showing exactly the way you misunderstand basic physics. My point was that energy is a different thing from temperature. In the same way that distance is a separate idea from time. Twice as much fuel yeilds twice as much energy. Please stop saying that hydrocarbon fires don't have the energy to melt steel - that makes no sense.




Before presenting my case: How many here agree with Fred that steel is a ‘crappy’ conductor of heat? Anyone?
Well, let's look at the data and then I'll tell you whether I agree. Hmmm,

Silver: 406 W/mK
Copper: 385
Gold: 314
Aluminum: 205
Steel: 50.2

Yep, I'll agree - steel is a crappy conductor of heat.

[DGM]

I love how Terral says steel is an excellent conductor of heat then to prove it he compares it to wood. Yup, I got to say it is better then wood. The mental gymnastics some people will go through to support their fantasies.

[ferd burfle]

Well, let's look at the data and then I'll tell you whether I agree. Hmmm,

Silver: 406 W/mK
Copper: 385
Gold: 314
Aluminum: 205
Steel: 50.2

Yep, I'll agree - steel is a crappy conductor of heat.


Thanks, Curt, I should have offered some numbers to back my assertion.

Ferd

[MIKILLINI]

Terral, so far you have shown yourself to be a crappy conductor of facts.

[ferd burfle]

Hi Fred with X mentioned:


But, guess what? In X’s and Fred’s universe, steel is still a crappy (nice scientific term) conductor of heat no matter what anyone says. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

Terral, the handle is ferd, not Fred, thanks very much. And in terms of dissipating the heat of the fires, steel simply doesn't have the thermal conductivity. You're asserting that it does, so please show the thermal analysis that shows the steel distributing the heat of the fires throughout the rest of the steel structure. I say you won't even try, because if you did, the results would prove another one of your "points" wrong.

Ferd

[ElMondoHummus]

The fact is that CurtC just pointed the finger at himself and his own ignorance of hydrocarbon and structural steel physics, which just happens to be the first topic presented here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c). Throwing a million gallons of kerosene onto a fire is not going to melt one pound of 2800-degree steel from any steel-framed network, because the ‘maximum’ temperature of an uncontrolled hydrocarbon fuel fire is FAR lower than the temperatures required to melt structural steel. That is the very reason they build skyscrapers and such out of 2800-degree structural steel.


Why does the steel have to melt to explain the collapse?

Ok, since Terral seeks to avoid the issue, I might as well get the answer out for posterity. That way, bystanders will understand the truth:

Steel does not have to melt to explain the collapse. It never did. Once again, Terral misrepresents the conditions of the day in order to make his arguments. Fires in the building weakened - not melted, weakened - the steel structural members. No one ever said they melted. No one besides Terral here claims that melting steel caused the collapses. When the fires reached around 1000 degrees C - the temp NIST reports as the maximum "upper layer air temperatures" (fire experts and engineers can educate me in a later post as to why that's phrased that way) - the steel supports had only around 10% of their normal strength.

You'll notice nearly all his other claims are handwaving about temperature (oh, for the record, a burning fire gives off a certain amount of joules, and the temperature that is reached depends on many factors, including the heat's ability to escape. There was more than enough fuel in terms of office contents to create a very long, very big, very hot fire. Ask Lefty Sargent, NYCEMT86, Hamradioguy, or any of the other firefighters in this forum). His verbiage is just a repeat of how high a temperature it takes to melt steel, and that's all it is. That doesn't apply to the collapses, since it didn't take steel melting for that to occur.



... one of the most absurd reaches the Official Cover Story Con-artists attempt to pull out of their bag of tricks, as if falling WTC-1 debris from 350 feet away is going to penetrate WTC-7 walls and find its way to these tanks AND penetrate the tanks AND ignite the diesel fuel. We have WTC-6 (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7iso.gif) standing near the footprint of WTC-1, but that building did not collapse into its own footprint demolition-style. The buildings adjacent to WTC-7 (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg) also did not collapse or even suffer the kind of exterior damage you are inflicting on WTC-7.


Very wordy argument from incredulity. Notice that in the graphic Terral links, WTC 6 was labeled "heavily damaged", and in fact, as noted in another debris map (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/damage.map.html), was considered in danger of collapse. He merely ridicules the 350 foot figure without considering that this knowledge is from surveys and documented (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf). Consider the fact that the Verizon Building actually received damaged from WTC 2 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf) debris, and that's an even bigger distance (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/damage.map.html).

When you read Terral try to ridicule impact debris damage in WTC 7 from the main towers collapses, understand that it was also a 47 story building on its own, that the towers themselves were over 1300 ft tall, and debris from that height could easily reach the south face of WTC 7 (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm; scroll down to debris field map). Understand that the American Express building, Bankers Trust, and 90 West buildings all also were hit by debris, and all also were roughly equivalent distances from one or the other tower as WTC 7 was (overhead image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/World_Trade_Center_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg)).

Did the diesel fuel have any impact on the fires? Unknown. Evidence argues against it; according to the journal Professional Safety, May 2002, in the article "SH&E at Ground Zero":


72,000 gallons of diesel fuel were stored in a tank (on basement level 7) for the WTC complex backup generator/power systems. Final status: The tank was eventually located and inspected. Although slightly damaged, no leaks were found. The fuel was removed.


Some of that was discussed in this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101137&page=2), and apparently NIST doesn't think the diesel contributed all that much to the fires either. So assuming that the fuel recovered was for the generators in WTC 7, we can ignore whatever effect it might have had and concentrate on the fires fueled by the office contents alone. But that's all a side trip; Terral's main point of incredulity was over the distance and that supposedly miraculous chain of "penetrate WTC-7 walls and find its way to these tanks AND penetrate the tanks AND ignite the diesel fuel" red herring. That this chain of events is probable once you establish that debris can reach that far - and again, 1,300+ foot tall building - is irrelevant in the light of the fuel recovery. The overall point here is that main tower debris hitting WTC 7 is an established and documented fact, regardless of Terral's attempts at incredulous yet unsupported arguments to the contrary.

[X]

But, guess what? In X’s and Fred’s universe, steel is still a crappy (nice scientific term) conductor of heat no matter what anyone says. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

1) All I did was show that it is entirely possible to heat a section of steel substantially without having to heat the whole thing. If you apply adiabatic (ideal) insulation along the whole length, leaving only the end exposed, you will get heat transfer that is purely conductive along the full length of the steel. Thus, you will get a constant heat flux (q"). But heat flux depends on having a temperature differential. The end being heated is therefore hotter than an point an arbitrary distance away from it. And if the steel is not adiabatically insulated, you will get radiative and convective heat transfer, reducing heat flux (q") as you get further away from the source. This is the principle by which things called "fins" work. You now, the ones you see on air-cooled engines, like motorcycles and old airplanes.
Your claim shows an ignorance of thermodynamics that would be appalling in any field that uses thermal science.

2) I never claimed "crappy conductor of heat", bu I will comment on it: Steel is a mixture of iron and carbon (and sometimes traces of other useful elements). As such, it is a metal. As a metal, it will naturally have a pretty darn good electrical and thermal conductivity. As far as metals go, however, (and what Fred and Curt were referring to), it's pretty lousy.
Curt already posted a comparison, but here's a longer one.
http://www.engineersedge.com/properties_of_metals.htm
Follow the link. Find steel. Compare it to other metals. It's at the lower end of the spectrum.

[1337m4n]

Thanks for making my point. Instead of investigating to find out if just maybe your understanding of physics is incorrect, you go on to accuse me of getting it wrong, while then showing exactly the way you misunderstand basic physics. My point was that energy is a different thing from temperature. In the same way that distance is a separate idea from time. Twice as much fuel yeilds twice as much energy. Please stop saying that hydrocarbon fires don't have the energy to melt steel - that makes no sense.





Well, let's look at the data and then I'll tell you whether I agree. Hmmm,

Silver: 406 W/mK
Copper: 385
Gold: 314
Aluminum: 205
Steel: 50.2

Yep, I'll agree - steel is a crappy conductor of heat.

Now if the WTC had been
made of diamond, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_properties_of_diamond#Thermal_properties) on the other hand...

[Atonement]

I happen to be one of the lurkers a few people have mentioned they're trying to convince as opposed to the thread starter. I've watched Loose Change and Zeitgeist and a few others out of curiosity. I don't take stuff like that at face value, but at the same time I never took the time (out of laziness/didn't know where to start) to actually research 9/11 enough to draw my own educated conclusions. I just wanted to throw down some thanks to everyone here who has taken the time and worked hard. It's been very informative.

[X]

I happen to be one of the lurkers a few people have mentioned they're trying to convince as opposed to the thread starter. I've watched Loose Change and Zeitgeist and a few others out of curiosity. I don't take stuff like that at face value, but at the same time I never took the time (out of laziness/didn't know where to start) to actually research 9/11 enough to draw my own educated conclusions. I just wanted to throw down some thanks to everyone here who has taken the time and worked hard. It's been very informative.


I'm sure a great many people are suddenly thrilled to find out it has not all been for nothing.

Thany you, Atonement, for being honest. To yourself, and everyone else.

[ElMondoHummus]

I happen to be one of the lurkers a few people have mentioned they're trying to convince as opposed to the thread starter. I've watched Loose Change and Zeitgeist and a few others out of curiosity. I don't take stuff like that at face value, but at the same time I never took the time (out of laziness/didn't know where to start) to actually research 9/11 enough to draw my own educated conclusions. I just wanted to throw down some thanks to everyone here who has taken the time and worked hard. It's been very informative.

;3413365']I'm sure a great many people are suddenly thrilled to find out it has not all been for nothing.

Thany you, Atonement, for being honest. To yourself, and everyone else.


Ditto. Thank you. Much appreciated.

[Alferd_Packer]

.

Did the diesel fuel have any impact on the fires? Unknown. Evidence argues against it; according to the journal Professional Safety, May 2002, in the article "SH&E at Ground Zero":

“72,000 gallons of diesel fuel were stored in a tank (on basement level 7) for the WTC complex backup generator/power systems. Final status: The tank was eventually located and inspected. Although slightly damaged, no leaks were found. The fuel was removed.”



Actually there are a number of errors in that above quote. There was more than one tank, most of them were underground except for a 3,000 gallon tank on the first floor and the various day tanks associated with the generator sets. The total volume of all the storage tanks was 43,000 gallons, not 72,000 gallons. And no, not all of the fuel was recovered and accounted for. Significantly the 12,000 in the two Solomon Brothers tanks was missing. The tanks were damaged by the collapse, but there was no indication that the fuel spilled into the backfill around the tanks. This indicates that the tanks were emptied prior to the collapse. This is particularly worrisome as this particular system did not have day tanks staged with the generator sets on the 5th floor, instead it utilized pressurized fuel piping to deliver the fuel supply from the USTs up to the generators.

This fuel piping traversed the south side of the 5th floor and was in the general area of structural damage reported for the building. Physical damage to that piping could very well have resulted in the release of fuel into the building interior.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf

[ElMondoHummus]

Actually there are a number of errors in that above quote. There was more than one tank, most of them were underground except for a 3,000 gallon tank on the first floor and the various day tanks associated with the generator sets. The total volume of all the storage tanks was 43,000 gallons, not 72,000 gallons. And no, not all of the fuel was recovered and accounted for. Significantly the 12,000 in the two Solomon Brothers tanks was missing. The tanks were damaged by the collapse, but there was no indication that the fuel spilled into the backfill around the tanks. This indicates that the tanks were emptied prior to the collapse. This is particularly worrisome as this particular system did not have day tanks staged with the generator sets on the 5th floor, instead it utilized pressurized fuel piping to deliver the fuel supply from the USTs up to the generators.

This fuel piping traversed the south side of the 5th floor and was in the general area of structural damage reported for the building. Physical damage to that piping could very well have resulted in the release of fuel into the building interior.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf

Huh... That may indeed be correct. I don't know which account is definitive, but the NIST report is dated later than the Professional Safety article (2006 as opposed to 2002), so that probably does override the article I posted.

All right. Thank you Alferd. That's good info to know. Maybe I'll try to convince myself to write either the authors of those articles, or Bechtel themselves and get that clarified. Maybe... we'll see...

[ElMondoHummus]

While we're at it, I have to mea culpa a mistake I just caught:


The building debris not only landed on WTC 7, but also damaged other buildings, such as 30 West Broadway and the Verizon building.


I said that in reference to debris from the main towers. Actually, according to the FEMA "403" (http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1728) documents (titled "World Trade Center Building Performance Study"; specifically, Chapter 7) 30 West Broadway was damaged by WTC 7, not main towers debris. So I was wrong about that point. Consider that point now corrected.

Althought the Verizon building was indeed hit by main tower debris. In fact, that same document says WTC 1, 2, and 7 all damaged it. Should've been able to figure out on my own that 7 hit it, given the close proximity (WTC 7 and Verizon are next door neighbors (http://www.lookingglassnews.org/articles/aug06/biz2.jpeg) (another map here (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/damage.map.html))), but I didn't know both main towers sent debris into it. On a day full of bad luck, that stands out a bit.

[Reheat]

The charade is over, Timothy Osmond has just posted a video on p4t that provides PWOOF that there was foreknowledge of WTC 7 pending demolition.....

The video footage speaks for itself. Fox-5 anchor Tracey Neale says that a 47-story building had collapsed in downtown Manhattan which is an obvious reference to WTC-7 because it too was a 47-story building in downtown Manhattan. Then just seconds after Neale reports on the building collapse, they witness WTC-7 collapse at free fall speed in their own video footage.

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=6533

Inappropriate image removed.

[DGM]

The charade is over, Timothy Osmond has just posted a video on p4t that provides PWOOF that there was foreknowledge of WT 7 pending demolition.....



http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=6533

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840747ac7ed3c5abd.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10655)
We've really been duped. Did you notice in that same video the towers collapsed AFTER WTC7 and then WTC 7 collapsed AGAIN.:eek:

Terral; Quick, add this to your "thesis".

[Reheat]

We've really been duped. Did you notice in that same video the towers collapsed AFTER WTC7 and then WTC 7 collapsed AGAIN.:eek:

Twice in ONE DAY! That make 4 times steel buildings collapsed for the first time in history.:rolleyes: