How do you bring down WTC7 on short notice?

[Quad4_72]

One of the more ridiculous claims of the crazed lunatics known as twoofers is that WTC7 was brought down for safety reasons on September 11th. I have a few questions for anyone who has this insane belief.

1. How do you bring down a building via a CD that is already heavily damaged/unstable and raging with fire?

2. Does the FDNY have a secret demo team always on hand that is specifically trained to wire huge skyscrapers with explosives without anyone knowing and in a manner of hours?

3. How was the building wired so quickly?

4. What demo team is willing to rush into a burning building to secretly demolish it?

5. Bringing down a building requires months of planning and preparation:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807
CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.How in the world did a sooper sekrit demo team accomplish the demolition of such a large building in a number of hours while the building was on fire and without any planning?

[1337m4n]

6. Why would they keep it a secret if their intentions were benevolent?

[Jonnyclueless]

7. Present an example of firefighters performing a controlled demolition for safety reasons on a burning building. Or at the very least the documentation on their training procedures.

[Thunder]

lol.....i expect much silence from the conspiracy theorists.

[Quad4_72]

lol.....i expect much silence from the conspiracy theorists.

I bet they cannot answer a single question on the list.

[TexasJack]

I'm afraid the only truther willing to tackle this one is suspended.

[Mr.D]

Someone over at NWO headquarters got the "Notice to sell stock short because it's going down" message garbled into "Bring down seven on short notice."

Tragic really. So many thermoses* needlessly sacrificed in the demolition.






* That's a whole different mis-communication story for another day.

[GodisEnergy]

the whole point about 7 is that it had to be wired b4 sep11 which proves a conspiracy
Theres no way ever a building ever would ever come down like that without explosives EVER! no way its not possible .
Thermal expansion has no proof ,it has no precedent.It cannot happen because of relative expansion of steel beam to bolts.

[funk de fino]

the whole point about 7 is that it had to be wired b4 sep11 which proves a conspiracy
Theres no way ever a building ever would ever come down like that without explosives EVER! no way its not possible .
Thermal expansion has no proof ,it has no precedent.It cannot happen because of relative expansion of steel beam to bolts.

You should ask for a refund on your education.

[Stupid]

Our lesser equipped schools need to stop their vain attempt to make the students smarter....a more fruitful approach would be to keep them from becoming stupid.








=S=

[chillzero]

Please keep threads on topic, and not filled with personal attacks. Address the argument, not the arguer.

[ElMondoHummus]

Thermal expansion has no proof ,it has no precedent.It cannot happen because of relative expansion of steel beam to bolts.

:wide-eyed

You haven't studied the Cardington fire tests, have you?

[GStan]

In answer to the thread title question, you use a single charge to make column 79 fail. The resulting collapse would look identical to that which was observed on 9/11.

How in the world you could figure out that that's what you needed to do on short notice, and find someone who is both qualified and crazy enough to go into the burning building to do it is a whole other story.

[GStan]

the whole point about 7 is that it had to be wired b4 sep11 which proves a conspiracy
Theres no way ever a building ever would ever come down like that without explosives EVER! no way its not possible .
Thermal expansion has no proof ,it has no precedent.It cannot happen because of relative expansion of steel beam to bolts.

This thread is about the insane belief that WTC7 could be planned and wired for demo on 9/11, for safety reasons. Arguments and evidence for the insane belief that WTC7 was wired in advance as part of an impossibly vast conspiracy should be posted in the appropriate thread.

[Gavron]

I've asked that before....show us an example of an burning 20+ story building being brought down on short notice by controlled demolitions. They always fail to show us it has ever been done before. Its quite silly, if you ask me.

[CurtC]

In answer to the thread title question, you use a single charge to make column 79 fail. The resulting collapse would look identical to that which was observed on 9/11.

I'm not so sure - column 79 was the initiator of the collapse, but when it failed there was already lots of weakening (broken steel structures, heat-softened steel).

[Crazytimes]

the whole point about 7 is that it had to be wired b4 sep11 which proves a conspiracy


How long before 9/11 do you think it was wired ?

[GStan]

I'm not so sure - column 79 was the initiator of the collapse, but when it failed there was already lots of weakening (broken steel structures, heat-softened steel).

I'm not sure why you are pointing this out. The OP is in reference to the argument that the building was brought down for safety reasons. I just assumed that the weakening would be a given, otherwise, why would it have to be brought down for safety reasons?

[ElMondoHummus]

That's irrelevant. An unsupported assumption on what happened is not proof of anything. Simply stating without proof that the building was wired prior to 9/11 doesn't make it true.

ETA: Whoops. This post was in response to the post:
the whole point about 7 is that it had to be wired b4 sep11 which proves a conspiracy
How long before 9/11 do you think it was wired ?

I realize that giving GIE rope to hang his fantasy with is a legitimate way to go, but it comes at the cost of indulging the flawed basis of that fantasy. It doesn't matter whether he thinks it was the day before 9/11, they month before, or the decade before. He has zero proof of any such prior installation.

[GStan]

duplicate deleted

[boloboffin]

My advice would be to mock its lack of right angles and inability to measure up to the towers in height.

[Jonnyclueless]

the whole point about 7 is that it had to be wired b4 sep11 which proves a conspiracy
Theres no way ever a building ever would ever come down like that without explosives EVER! no way its not possible .
Thermal expansion has no proof ,it has no precedent.It cannot happen because of relative expansion of steel beam to bolts.

It's completely possible for a building like that to collapse form fire and we have fire codes specifically for this reason. Thermal expansion is proven and does have precedence. You reasoning for it not being possible is baseless and makes no sense.

[Quad4_72]

the whole point about 7 is that it had to be wired b4 sep11 which proves a conspiracy
Theres no way ever a building ever would ever come down like that without explosives EVER! no way its not possible .
Thermal expansion has no proof ,it has no precedent.It cannot happen because of relative expansion of steel beam to bolts.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the breed of nutters who believe WTC7 was wired the day of September 11th. Since you are a different breed of nutter, your input is not necessary in this thread. Hope that clears things up.

[fuelair]

How do you bring down WTC7 on short notice?




Tactical nuke, large earthquake, lots of dynamite, termites, fly a big plane into it, put it next to a bigger building that someone flew a big plane into, wish it into the cornfield.

[ElMondoHummus]

It's completely possible for a building like that to collapse form fire and we have fire codes specifically for this reason. Thermal expansion is proven and does have precedence. You reasoning for it not being possible is baseless and makes no sense.

Jonnyclueless makes a good point. Fire codes and Spray-applied Fire Resistant Materials (SFRM) exist for a reason. One of them is specifically the deleterious effect that fires have on steel. Given that the amount of steel expansion is very well known, and given that a whole industry is built around negating the thermal effects of fire on steel, as well as multiple tests done to study such effects (again, I invoke the Cardigan test) it's simply ludicrous to assert that such an effect is unproven.

[TriskettheKid]

Q. How do you bring down WTC7 on short notice?



A. Mock the size of its genitalia.

[Russ_Dalton]

One of the more ridiculous claims of the crazed lunatics known as twoofers is that WTC7 was brought down for safety reasons on September 11th. I have a few questions for anyone who has this insane belief.

1. How do you bring down a building via a CD that is already heavily damaged/unstable and raging with fire?

2. Does the FDNY have a secret demo team always on hand that is specifically trained to wire huge skyscrapers with explosives without anyone knowing and in a manner of hours?

3. How was the building wired so quickly?

4. What demo team is willing to rush into a burning building to secretly demolish it?

5. Bringing down a building requires months of planning and preparation:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807
How in the world did a sooper sekrit demo team accomplish the demolition of such a large building in a number of hours while the building was on fire and without any planning?

Assuming WTC7 was wired, most truthers do not believe that it was rigged on 911.

[A W Smith]

the whole point about 7 is that it had to be wired b4 sep11 which proves a conspiracy
Theres no way ever a building ever would ever come down like that without explosives EVER! no way its not possible .
Thermal expansion has no proof ,it has no precedent.It cannot happen because of relative expansion of steel beam to bolts.


thats not the scenario of your boy Danny Jowenko, And if they were to use the thermate moving torches rube Goldberg setup prepared in advance. The mechanism would be obvious to the casual office worker.

[Dave Rogers]

In answer to the thread title question, you use a single charge to make column 79 fail. The resulting collapse would look identical to that which was observed on 9/11.

But wouldn't, of course, sound identical, or even remotely similar.

Dave

[Homeland Insurgency]

How do you bring down WTC7 on short notice?

Building content fire? That is what you believe no?

[GStan]

But wouldn't, of course, sound identical, or even remotely similar.

Dave

Oh Dave Dave Dave. Unfortunate consumer of NWO Koolaid. Have you not been at this long enough to realize that it doesn't matter what it sounds like, only what it looks like? Its been seven years. Try to keep up. ;)

[Dave Rogers]

Oh Dave Dave Dave. Unfortunate consumer of NWO Koolaid. Have you not been at this long enough to realize that it doesn't matter what it sounds like, only what it looks like?

Typical neo-con disinfo. If something sounds like an explosion but doesn't look like one, then it doesn't matter what it looks like, only what it sounds like.

Dave

[Quad4_72]

Building content fire? That is what you believe no?

Well done homeland (almost). Building fire and damage are indeed how you bring down a large building on short notice.

[Seymour Butz]

[QUOTE=GStan;4178499]In answer to the thread title question, you use a single charge to make column 79 fail. The resulting collapse would look identical to that which was observed on 9/11.

QUOTE]

Actually, i wonder of this is true.

Assuming that you took out 1 column, wouldn't it transfer loads to other columns?

I'm assuming that the belt truss in 7 worked in a similar way to the hat trusses in the towers.

[GlennB]

Thermal expansion has no proof ,it has no precedent.It cannot happen because of relative expansion of steel beam to bolts.

So expansion joints are not necessary in concrete, railway lines, flyover bridges and the rest? Wow. The world's engineers should have heard about this "has no proof" affair before and saved a lot of effort and expense.

Funnily enough I once chatted with a fire technician about this kind of thing ... he said one of the biggest dangers in the "mill fires" in Britain was the expansion of the steel girders. This caused the walls to push out and precipitate collapse. I suppose he was just wrong then?

[ElMondoHummus]

I know we're beating this point into the ground, but:
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/bsi/87-5_e.html


A final aspect to consider when using steel in construction is its significant coefficient of linear expansion under thermal loads. At temperatures of up to 1000 ° C, it is given as: 14

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/images/bsi/alpha.gif = (0.004T + 12) x 10 -6

where http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/images/bsi/alpha.gif = coefficient of thermal expansion, in degrees Celsius -1,
T = temperature in degrees Celsius.

If the structural member is axially restrained against displacement (as a column is), the expansion due to heat will be translated into thermal stresses that will increase the overall stress level in the member and cause an earlier collapse. Without axial restraint, a steel member will expand and could set up eccentric loading of adjacent structural members by displacing one of their ends (for example, a beam displacing the top of a column or of a load bearing masonry wall), as illustrated in Figure 6.


14Lie, T.T., T.D. Lin, D.E. Allen and M.S. Abrams, 1984. Fire resistance of reinforced concrete columns, Division of Building Research, National Research Council of Canada, Technical Paper No. 1167, Ottawa, NRCC 23065, 32 p.


The point here is that there is nothing hypothetical or unproven about the issue of thermal expansion in a fire. It is in fact a well documented phenomenon that architects and engineers are supposed to take into account when designing and constructing buildings.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Well done homeland (almost). Building fire and damage are indeed how you bring down a large building on short notice.

Yeah right. 45 buildings seriously damaged by two planes. How many missiles would be needed to do the same damage?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E3DF1E3CF931A25751C0A9649C8B 63

[dtugg]

Yeah right. 45 buildings seriously damaged by two planes. How many missiles would be needed to do the same damage?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E3DF1E3CF931A25751C0A9649C8B 63

There were only two buildings seriously damaged by the planes. The other 43 were damaged by two of the largest buildings in the world collapsing causing structural damage and fires. Of course you knew this. So it begs the question, are you intentionally being a fraud?

[Homeland Insurgency]

There were only two buildings seriously damaged by the planes. The other 43 were damaged by two of the largest buildings in the world collapsing causing structural damage and fires. Of course you knew this. So it begs the question, are you intentionally being a fraud?

Good. So if you were fighter pilot on a mission from a enemy country before 9/11 to seriously damage 45 buildings in lower Manhattan how many missiles would you need?

It begs the question. Are you delusional or just gullible?

[ElMondoHummus]

Irrelevant. Only two towers were targets. The rest of the buildings were damaged by the main towers collapse. Hypotheticals about enemy pilots and missiles are simply fantasy-centered delusions detracting from the thread's topic, which is the ridiculousness of WTC 7 demolitions hypotheses.

[dtugg]

Good. So if you were fighter pilot on a mission from a enemy country before 9/11 to seriously damage 45 buildings in lower Manhattan how many missiles would you need?

It begs the question. Are you delusional or just gullible?

Roughly enough to cause the damage and fires that 767s did on 9/11. You do the math.

[beachnut]

Roughly enough to cause the damage and fires that 767s did on 9/11. You do the math.
Notice HI did not present math, physics or anything rational to go with his stupid statement.

A rational person would, can could take the time to do some energy comparisons. I doubt a single fighter could carry anything big enough, save a nuke, to do the damage the terrorist did with 2000 pounds of TNT impact energy and 315 tons of TNT times two heat energy carried in the fuel. Sad, more people do not strive for knowledge and basic understanding of physics. Einstein would be shocked on the dirt dumb attitude of 9/11 truth.

[Corsair 115]

I doubt a single fighter could carry anything big enough, save a nuke, to do the damage the terrorist did with 2000 pounds of TNT impact energy and 315 tons of TNT times two heat energy carried in the fuel.What if the buildings were hit by an F-15 going at, say, Mach 2? What it lacks in fuel compared to a jetliner it can make up for in speed to some extent.

[dtugg]

Can fighters carry cruise missiles? A couple of those for each tower might be enough to make them collapse.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yeah right. 45 buildings seriously damaged by two planes. How many missiles would be needed to do the same damage?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E3DF1E3CF931A25751C0A9649C8B 63

Maybe 100 or so? 200 perhaps?

[autumn1971]

Yeah right. 45 buildings seriously damaged by two planes. How many missiles would be needed to do the same damage?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E3DF1E3CF931A25751C0A9649C8B 63

Well, if your aim is good, I suspect that just one missle could damage hundreds of buildings if it causes the largest office building in the world to collapse on them.

[Quad4_72]

Yeah right. 45 buildings seriously damaged by two planes. How many missiles would be needed to do the same damage?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E3DF1E3CF931A25751C0A9649C8B 63

If you don't mind HI, I would like to stay on the topic of WTC7 being wired the day of the attacks as some twoofers claim. If you believe this claim, please provide some proof to back it up. If not, your delusions are not needed here.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Two airplanes

http://www.mipt.vcu.edu/img/wtc-photo.jpg

Three missiles

http://home.hiwaay.net/~craigg/g4c/usce-victor.jpg

You do the math.

[Grizzly Bear]

Two airplanes

http://www.mipt.vcu.edu/img/wtc-photo.jpg

Three missiles

http://home.hiwaay.net/~craigg/g4c/usce-victor.jpg

You do the math.

I sometimes wonder if you ever look at the difference between your analogies... Let's see if you notice any differences without me telling you ;)

[twinstead]

Come on HI. PLEASE try to act like you know what you are talking about instead of spouting ideologically-biased nonsense and false analogies.

I would hope you are smarter than that, but I might be wrong.

[Quad4_72]

Two airplanes

http://www.mipt.vcu.edu/img/wtc-photo.jpg

Three missiles

http://home.hiwaay.net/~craigg/g4c/usce-victor.jpg (http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ecraigg/g4c/usce-victor.jpg)

You do the math.

Again, that has nothing to do with the OP. Get on topic, or don't post in here.

[Trojan]

How long before 9/11 do you think it was wired ?

I would also like to know how and who ... :rolleyes: