WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

PolyNewbie · April 16, 2007

Seriously Poly, you need professional help. I am not saying this to slag you, but I think you really need to consult with a mental health practisioner.

Luckily you are not in power - you would have 30 % of the population locked up. They already have the prisons built.

White Doors · April 16, 2007

Just look into it will you please?

PolyNewbie · April 16, 2007

Just look into it will you please?

A few years ago I had hyperthyroisim but it wasn't diagnosed right away. I thought I was going crazy so I went and had it checked and answered 1500 questions for three different computer based sanity checks. I'm about as sane as people can be. I'm far more sane than over 90 % of the population.

Other psycs have said this when I was younger and went in to see them over family problems.

I have had the same view of the US government sinced the 70's when I learned about the Kennedy assassination from a made for TV documentary. It made it obvious that criminals ran the country and many other examples have backed my viewpoints on this ever since. I thought 911 was an inside job after the second plane hit the towers, and was sure of it when I saw the first tower collapse. I'd never heard of Alex Jones and didn't know about the huge and growing conspiracy theorist movement online.

cybercoma · April 18, 2007

ScottSA:but trained pilots can't hit large stationary buildings using the latest in 21st century technology on a cloudless day in New York

This is more difficult than it seems according to the Pilots For 911 Truth. The impossibility comes into play with the Pentagon crash.

You must be getting really frustrated ScottSA. The truth about things is getting out, whether you like it or not. I don't know how much the Penthouse Pentagon is paying you for this but you are no good at it and they should be getting a refund.

Jesus, stop towing the '911 Truth' movement line then pointing the finger at others claiming their government puppets.

How about looking at the opinions of more pilots than the handful that are part of the 911 Idiocy movement?

cybercoma · April 18, 2007

An annonymous pilot on a news group isn't the same thing as the more experienced and numerous pilots stating their names on Pilots For 911 Truth. PilotsFor911Truth.org

The difference is that I am not taking a position and then trying to justify it. If I really thought there was some kind of conspiracy it would be in my own best interest to see it exposed. I critiqued the AA77 simulation using 35 years of practical experience and knowledge that every airline pilot has. You have no idea what my experience is so don't jump to conclusions on that score. My opinion represents that of the vast majority of pilots, not a minority as you suggest. I cannot help it if you only go to sources which support your own delusions and ignore or belittle everything that contradicts them.

I really wish PolyNewbie would read this post and just understand what Wilber is saying.

Stop trying to justify your beliefs by cherry picking data and stop jumping to conclusions on things. The pseudo-science garbage is tired.

cybercoma · April 18, 2007

Riverwind: Posters on this forum have shredded every single "scientific assertion" that you have posted yet you continue to insist that you have 'proven' something.

who... you ?

wtc7 was a controlled demolition. It has all six characteristics of controlled demolitions. There was no characteristic of this collapse that didn't make it look exactly like a conventional controlled demolition. Things like this don't happen by accident. The collapse of wtc7 proves 911 was an inside job beyond any reasonable doubt.

Controlled demolition experts disagree with you. Not to mention the logistics of wiring up an occupied building with explosives without anyone in the towers noticing. This claim is wildly illogical and you haven't shown any sort of extraordinary evidence to prove such an extraordinary claim.

The doubts about 911 being an inside job raised on this thread are consistently shown to be foolish reasons for doubt. The science is completely wrong in every case and its easily shown to be wrong.
Characteristics Of Controlled Demolition:Physics Professor

- The three buildings collapsed in their own footprints and did not topple over. This bears the characteristics of controlled demolition. The central columns were pulverized and the buildings fell in on themselves. Why would Muslim fanatics go to the lengths of wiring the largest complex of buildings in the world with explosives when a topple collapse would have caused more damage to lower Manhattan and killed more people?

Towers don't topple. The collapses started from the point where the planes hit. The towers didn't fall into their own footprint, debris was strewn all over the place, so much so that WTC7 two-blocks away was damaged up to the 20th floow on the SW side.

- Horizontal puffs of smoke or 'squibs' can be seen popping out floors as the collapse engulfs floor by floor of the buildings. Again, this is a phenomenon atypical of controlled demolition.

It's hardly a phenomenon to see debris and glass blowing out of the windows of the building as it was collapsing.

- Molten metal found in the basement of the WTC suggests that the commonly used explosive thermite may be responsible for the collapse. Jones said that buildings not destroyed by explosives would have insufficient directed energy to produce the large quantities of melted melted that was discovered. The molten steel was found five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site’s hot spots.

It has been shown in this thread that there is no proof that it was steel and how there's a possibility that it could've been other metals or a combination of materials. The evidence is clearly inconclusive and suggesting that thermite was used in demolition is just nonsense. Any demolition expert will tell you that thermite is not used in controlled demolitions.

- It requires temperatures of at least 5,000 fahrenheit to melt steel. Diesel jet fuel does not reach these temperatures and the fires in the buildings were short lived. Firefighter tape recordings prove that only small pockets of fire were still burning in the buildings seconds before their collapse.

Steel doesn't need to MELT for structural failure. With some of the supports severely damaged from the impact of the jets (and the debris in WTC7's case) the fire only needed to be enough to weaken the integrity of the supports.

- Building 7 was not hit by a plane and yet it collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which is .6 seconds quicker than it would take an object dropped from the roof of the building to hit the floor. This violates fundamental laws of physics, unless the building was brought down by explosives.

The bottom 20 floors were gouged out of the building and once the fires weakened the supports, there was only one direction for the building to fall. Of course, that is unless you think buildings topple.

- Buildings that collapse without the aid of explosives produce large piles of in-tact concrete and do not turn to dust as they are falling, as was witnessed on 9/11.

More assumptions. Everything above the impact point of the jets collapsed intact and destroyed the lower parts of the buildings as they fell. Not to mention there were large pieces of in-tact concrete that had to be hauled away during the cleanup. You can clearly see pieces of structure still intact at ground zero, pieces that they want to leave and make monuments from.

cybercoma · April 18, 2007

wtc7 collapse had all the characteristics of a controlled demolition and had no characteristics that did not show controlled demolition except that there were a few small fires and comparatively small structural damage.

You cannot prove that the fires were small. Looking at all the photos there is a substantial amount of smoke pouring out of the building, not to mention the bottom 20 floors gouged out. In fact, it was so badly damaged that they had to pull the emergency crews from the building because hours before the collapse they thought it would fall due to the extensive damage.

wendy · April 18, 2007

Scholars debate 9/11 findings

JOHN GLEESON

Edmonton Sun

Wednesday April 18, 2007

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/04...055871-sun.html

ScottSA · April 18, 2007

Will no one rid us of this meddlesome thread?

PolyNewbie · April 18, 2007

cybercoma: I really wish PolyNewbie would read this post and just understand what Wilber is saying.

I really wish you guys would look at the evidence. I would answer the above post by cybercoma but it has so little to do with the evidence, why bother ?

Melted pools of steel have been reported by eyewitnesses, there are pictures that show melted metal and 100+ other pieces of evidence, but its a waste of time looking at this because the government that steals trillions of dollars from tax payers, lets the banks enslave its own citizens, lies about WMD's all the time, starts illegal wars & tortures people would never kill 3000 of its own citizens to make money from a war where its aditted that 600,000 people have been killed already.

Governments never go corrupt and turn on their own citizens, that is crazy. Just because it happens all the time in history they would never do that to us.

Movies like 911Mysteries & Terrorstorm are not from the corporate mainstream media and they go against government therefore they can't be true.

cybercoma · April 18, 2007

cybercoma: I really wish PolyNewbie would read this post and just understand what Wilber is saying.

I really wish you guys would look at the evidence. I would answer the above post by cybercoma but it has so little to do with the evidence, why bother ?

Melted pools of steel have been reported by eyewitnesses, there are pictures that show melted metal and 100+ other pieces of evidence, but its a waste of time looking at this because the government that steals trillions of dollars from tax payers, lets the banks enslave its own citizens, lies about WMD's all the time, starts illegal wars & tortures people would never kill 3000 of its own citizens to make money from a war where its aditted that 600,000 people have been killed already.

Governments never go corrupt and turn on their own citizens, that is crazy. Just because it happens all the time in history they would never do that to us.

Movies like 911Mysteries & Terrorstorm are not from the corporate mainstream media and they go against government therefore they can't be true.

And what exactly does any of this have to do with the 9/11 attacks?

The only thing you've mentioned is eyewitnesses seeing molten pools of metal. Did they test the metal? Was it analyzed to see what type out of all the different varieties of metal they could be? You've given no evidence whatsoever of anything.

Now you're ranting about how corrupt the government is, which just goes to show you're trying to justify your own opinion rather than actually examine what's right in front of your face.

You think the government really needed to strap WTC 7 with explosives to justify its war on terror? Wasn't the attacks on towers 1 and 2 enough?

How about the list of terror attacks on American targets that I listed earlier in the thread? If they wanted to justify a war, wasn't that justification enough?

Hell, the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq and they sure as hell didn't need to use 9/11 to justify that (although the allusions helped). All they had to do was bitch and moan that Saddam was a threat because he refuses to cooperate with weapons inspectors. Saddam didn't co-operate by showing the inspectors where the weapons are because Hussein didn't have any.

That was their excuse, with their carefully crafted satellite images and sound files.

War justified.

And not a single person was killed for that.

What is the United States doing in Afghanistan now? Afterall, that's what was justified by the terror attacks. The US is doing sweet f all. Canadian soldiers are dying over there in an effort to bring security to a nation that is on the brink of succumbing to radicals again.

We must be over there for the oil contracts, right?

Christ, you're dense.

ScottSA · April 19, 2007

cybercoma: I really wish PolyNewbie would read this post and just understand what Wilber is saying.

I really wish you guys would look at the evidence. I would answer the above post by cybercoma but it has so little to do with the evidence, why bother ?

Melted pools of steel have been reported by eyewitnesses, there are pictures that show melted metal and 100+ other pieces of evidence, but its a waste of time looking at this because the government that steals trillions of dollars from tax payers, lets the banks enslave its own citizens, lies about WMD's all the time, starts illegal wars & tortures people would never kill 3000 of its own citizens to make money from a war where its aditted that 600,000 people have been killed already.

Governments never go corrupt and turn on their own citizens, that is crazy. Just because it happens all the time in history they would never do that to us.

Movies like 911Mysteries & Terrorstorm are not from the corporate mainstream media and they go against government therefore they can't be true.

And what exactly does any of this have to do with the 9/11 attacks?

The only thing you've mentioned is eyewitnesses seeing molten pools of metal. Did they test the metal? Was it analyzed to see what type out of all the different varieties of metal they could be? You've given no evidence whatsoever of anything.

Now you're ranting about how corrupt the government is, which just goes to show you're trying to justify your own opinion rather than actually examine what's right in front of your face.

You think the government really needed to strap WTC 7 with explosives to justify its war on terror? Wasn't the attacks on towers 1 and 2 enough?

How about the list of terror attacks on American targets that I listed earlier in the thread? If they wanted to justify a war, wasn't that justification enough?

Hell, the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq and they sure as hell didn't need to use 9/11 to justify that (although the allusions helped). All they had to do was bitch and moan that Saddam was a threat because he refuses to cooperate with weapons inspectors. Saddam didn't co-operate by showing the inspectors where the weapons are because Hussein didn't have any.

That was their excuse, with their carefully crafted satellite images and sound files.

War justified.

And not a single person was killed for that.

What is the United States doing in Afghanistan now? Afterall, that's what was justified by the terror attacks. The US is doing sweet f all. Canadian soldiers are dying over there in an effort to bring security to a nation that is on the brink of succumbing to radicals again.

We must be over there for the oil contracts, right?

Christ, you're dense.

Good post. Now watch Polly switch gears and throw something entirely unrelated at you and try to suck you into another go round.

PolyNewbie · April 19, 2007

Cybercoma: And what exactly does any of this have to do with the 9/11 attacks?

It shows that your world view is unrealistic. It may get you to question how many times you can be lied to before your trust is no longer automatic.

Cybercoma:The only thing you've mentioned is eyewitnesses seeing molten pools of metal. Did they test the metal? Was it analyzed to see what type out of all the different varieties of metal they could be? You've given no evidence whatsoever of anything.

There is piles of evidence showing high temperatures at the scene. If I showed you proof that very high temperatures were involved in the collapse would it make any difference. ?

The movie 911 Mysteries: Part 1 Demolition shows lots of evidence of very high temperatures. You have to watch the movie to see the evidence.

cybercoma:You think the government really needed to strap WTC 7 with explosives to justify its war on terror? Wasn't the attacks on towers 1 and 2 enough?

wtc7 & The section of the Pentagon had to be destroyed because these are the places where the info was being held for the World Com, missing 2.3 trillion dollars, etc were so now the investigations into these can be stopped as well. The section of the pentagon that was hit had all the investigators for the missing money killed except one who was heavily promoted to shut up. See Seven Hours In September for details. The destruction of wtc1 & wtc2 were the symbolism necessary to mobilize for war - Oklahoma was not enough to get the public to usher in the police state so something bigger was needed.

cybercoma:What is the United States doing in Afghanistan now? Afterall, that's what was justified by the terror attacks. The US is doing sweet f all. Canadian soldiers are dying over there in an effort to bring security to a nation that is on the brink of succumbing to radicals again.
We must be over there for the oil contracts, right?

USA is over there to take over so they can put a pipeline acroos the country linking Europe to Iran and control the natural gas that Europe desperately needs and to restore the Opium trade that it needs to finance black ops. You can look at the Opium statistics on the UN site and see that the Taliban almost completely destroyed the Opium crops just before we invaded and that Opium trade has been restored to normal. Do I need to explain to you that the British Empire was built on the Opium trade ? (British East India Company - didn't really just sell tea.

As far as strapping wtc7 and the others with bombs, you may say unlikely but lots of intelligence experts dissagree with you. look up "911 Patriots" to gets lists of generals, majors, ex FBI heads, ex CIA heads, senators, engineers, ex defense ministers, etc that think this was possible. Annonymous experts on the internet seen to think 10,000 people would have to be in on it.

cybercoma:Hell, the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq and they sure as hell didn't need to use 9/11 ...

Funny that so many Americans though Saddam was working with AlQuaeda and Usama back then. That was why America had to go to war - we don't want the "...mushroom cloud..." Rice & the WMD Twins.

PolyNewbie · April 19, 2007

ScottSA, speaking of avoidance you haven't yet explained the advantages associated with giving private bankiners billions of dollars in tax money for interest while they provide nothing in return. You sort of avoided that in the other thread.

cybercoma · April 19, 2007

Your hypothesis cannot prove your hypothesis.

And your logic is asinine at best. There are better ways to "off" investigators, than fly airliners into buildings

two blocks away from their offices.

That is of course unless you believe that it's more likely the government wired WTC7 for destruction amidst people working in the buildings without them realizing it and blowing the whistle. Of course, this all had to happen amidst the chaos of towers 1 and 2 being hit because they needed to make it look like an accident.

Or, like anyone who isn't a complete nut has said, towers 1 and 2 were hit by airliners that were hijacked by terrorists. Those towers collapsed from the point of impact, with the portions of the towers above the impact collapsing into the towers causing them to crumble. Massive amounts of debris was thrown in all directions for blocks, causing damage to several buildings even blocks away. The most severely damaged building being WTC7, which was gouged out about 20 floors on one side. The damage started several fires, not surprising since there are so many combustible materials and sources for ignition in an office building. So, the combination of impact damage and the fires in the building caused the structure to collapse. It was obvious how extensive the damage was to everyone on the scene, since they chose to pull all emergency personnel from the building since it was too dangerous.

The second situation actually has evidence, your first situation is supported only by your idea that the US government is corrupt. Corruption doesn't prove how controlled demolition was possible and it certainly doesn't disprove the fact that WTC7 sustained heavy damage from the first two towers, which caused it to collapse.

You are talking out of your ass in order to push an agenda and for 30 pages have refused to back up your claims with any credible evidence whatsoever, simply because there is none. Your theories are intellectually bankrupt and it has been proven time and time again on hundreds of website by thousands of credible sources.

PolyNewbie · April 19, 2007

cybercoma:You are talking out of your ass in order to push an agenda and for 30 pages have refused to back up your claims with any credible evidence

My threads are nothing but evidence, most of which is right in front of you but you and others keep repeating the above mantra in hopes that people will believe it.

The most simple minded explanation for events is not usually the most correct because it fails to explain the evidence. There is piles of evidence of very high temps during the wtc collapses which means your official version falls to pieces - never mind the fact that such orderly and expedient collapses are only possible through controlled demolitions. Anyone can see that wtc1 & wtc2 didn't collapse as a result of structural failure - it was a continuous explosion that rolled down the height of the building ina very controlled manner distributing debris symetrically about its footprint.

Topaz · April 19, 2007

Here you can hear rescue workers tell everyone to get away from WTC 7 because it is about to blow up.

Here you can hear Larry Silverstein admits that WTC 7 was "pulled", the industrial term for demolished.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

note:

VERY few people in the world can do this type of controlled demolition plus it takes weeks to prepare in advance, LOL!

Great site for WTC 7 here:

http://www.911exposed.org/WTC1.htm

More sites exposing 9/11:

http://www.911scholars.org/

http://www.infowars.com/index.html

http://www.911blogger.com/

http://prisonplanet.com/

911 was most definitely an inside job. Pass these videos around to as many people as you know. People need to know what really happened and stop this murderous regime.

One website that can back up its claims is www.Tomflocco.com

PolyNewbie · April 19, 2007

Of all the sites, the very best is Jim Hoffmans sites www.911Research.net & wtc7.net. It gets accolades from the structural engineers, physicists, other engineers as well as other serious investigators (coincidences, defence stand down, PNAC, globalism) of 911. It is the reference site of the 911 truth movement.

If has easy to follow slide shows that explain basic science and what the NIST & FEMA report say. The site makes things clear to even the most unscientific people.

Riverwind · April 19, 2007

If has easy to follow slide shows that explain basic science and what the NIST & FEMA report say. The site makes things clear to even the most unscientific people.

For the record, many of Hoffman's claims are simply false. It is clear he either did not read the NIST report or he is deliberately misrepresenting it because he is desperate to push his pet theory. Nothing on his site should be treated as reliable.

PolyNewbie · April 19, 2007

Riverwind:For the record, many of Hoffman's claims are simply false.

For the record, here are some Riverwind scientific statements:

(1)"The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems."

(2)"Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses."

(3)"Consider a table with four legs that is supporting a 1000kg mass. Assume the following:

1) The gravitation constant is 10 (i.e. 1000kg requires a 10000N force to keep it stable)

2) Each leg can support 4000N - if the force exceeds this it will collapse.

3) Each leg is attached to the ground and the table top is rigid.

In a normal situation each leg will have a 2500N force acting on it - well within its capabilities with room to spare.

Assume a catastrophic event occurs that exposes the legs to fire that gradually weakens two of the legs. Assume the fire does not act on each leg equally. Eventually, one leg weakens to the point where it cannot support the 2500N force and collapses.

At this point the weight will shift instantaneously to the other 3 legs because the structure is rigid and attached to the ground. This means that each leg will now have 3333N of force acting on it. Still within the tolerances of the undamaged legs which means the structure should remain standing."

(4)"Heat is nothing more than energy. When something burns it releases energy. The amount of heat generated by something burning depends on the substance being burned, however, once the heat is created it has to go somewhere. If this heat is trapped for some reason then this energy can accumulate in a location and theoretically cause the temperature to rise higher than the temperature of the flame."

(5)"Quantum mechanics is the theoretical underpinning for all matter"

For the record, I wouldn't trust anything Riverwind says about science.

For the record, what kind of engineer are you Riverwind ?

Riverwind · April 19, 2007

Riverwind:For the record, many of Hoffman's claims are simply false.
For the record, here are some Riverwind scientific statements:

For the record. Polly claims over and over again that those statements are wrong yet he has not produced one single argument that backs up his claim.

Anyone who wants to see how Hoffman deliberately misrepresents the information in the NIST report should look here

PolyNewbie · April 20, 2007

For the record. Polly claims over and over again that those statements are wrong yet he has not produced one single argument that backs up his claim.

I've shown how silly each one is. It should be obvious, but here I go again

(1) & (2) Thermodynamics applies to all science including biological. All scientific processes or systems must obey the laws of thermodynamics. If a scientific explanation requires that a system break a law of thermodynamics then that explanation has to be incorrect.

(3) This force analysis is wrong and if anyone wants clarification I will provide it.

(4) An object cannot get hotter than the flame applied because heat flows from the hotter source to the cooler source. A flame cannot heat surroundings to be hotter than the flame.

(5) Quantum mechanics falls apart for objects bigger than atoms. Thats why unified theory exists - to unify seeming contradictory thjeories of relativity and quantum mechanics. This contradiction in theory is the reason for unified theory.

cybercoma · April 20, 2007

cybercoma:You are talking out of your ass in order to push an agenda and for 30 pages have refused to back up your claims with any credible evidence

My threads are nothing but evidence, most of which is right in front of you but you and others keep repeating the above mantra in hopes that people will believe it.

The most simple minded explanation for events is not usually the most correct because it fails to explain the evidence. There is piles of evidence of very high temps during the wtc collapses which means your official version falls to pieces - never mind the fact that such orderly and expedient collapses are only possible through controlled demolitions. Anyone can see that wtc1 & wtc2 didn't collapse as a result of structural failure - it was a continuous explosion that rolled down the height of the building ina very controlled manner distributing debris symetrically about its footprint.

Why am I bothering?

The high temperatures were from the fires burning in the building, being fuelled not only from diesel generators, but all the other combustible materials and chemicals you'd normally find in an office.

The vast majority of scientists, demolition experts and structural engineers disagree with your unfounded assertion that the buildings collapsed in a controlled manner. Debris did not fall into the footprint of the building, debris flew everywhere and the damage done to WTC 7 on the south side is evidence enough of that. If that wasn't enough evidence look at all the other buildings that were damaged from the collapse of towers 1 and 2.

Another thing that disputes your idiotic claim of controlled demolition is the fact that buildings are destroyed from the base, which allows the force of gravity to assist in destroying the structure. The WTC towers clearly collapsed from the impact site down, as you just stated.

Your piles of evidence is nothing more than bs.

Riverwind · April 20, 2007

(1) & (2) Thermodynamics applies to all science including biological. All scientific processes or systems must obey the laws of thermodynamics. If a scientific explanation requires that a system break a law of thermodynamics then that explanation has to be incorrect.

First law of thermodynamics, about the conservation of energy
The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to the system and the work done on the system.

Second law of thermodynamics, about entropy

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

The WTC towers were not a closed system which means thermodynamics is not a suitable analysis tool.

(3) This force analysis is wrong and if anyone wants clarification I will provide it.

Go for it.

(4) An object cannot get hotter than the flame applied because heat flows from the hotter source to the cooler source. A flame cannot heat surroundings to be hotter than the flame.

Your statement only applies to an open system where the heat has somewhere to go. What would happen once the surrounding material reached the temperature of the flame? Would that heat energy simply disappear?

(5) Quantum mechanics falls apart for objects bigger than atoms.

All matter is composed of particles that can be described by quantum mechanics but quantum mechanics useless for anything larger than that. Thermodynamics is useful for analyzing many things but useless for analyzing building collapses.

In any case, you ad hominum attacks simply demonstrate how weak you own arguments are

PolyNewbie · April 20, 2007

Go for it.

I know you don't get it but if anyone else doesn't get it then I will explain it.

Systems have been obeying the laws of thermodynamics since before a closed system was ever considered.

If you need to then consider the system closed around the the standing building surface before the collapse.

I think Riverwind is a psychological warfare officer. One way of conducting psyc warfare is just to keep saying stupid things to frustrate your opponent. Clearly you are very concerned about anyone questioning the official version of 911 and think everyone should just believe George Bush & Philip Zelikow.