5 Reasons Why I Think WTC7 Was A Controlled Demolition

Discussion in '9/11' started by Nathan-D, Oct 19, 2018.

  1. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Here are some of my reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition.

    1) Let’s start with the obvious. Clearly, it looks like a controlled demolition. See the side-by-side comparison below.



    According to NIST WTC7 collapses at freefall acceleration for 2.25 seconds (equating to about 8 floors). See NIST’s ‘Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation’. Initially in their 2008 draft-report NIST denied that WTC7 collapsed at freefall acceleration. That is, until they were corrected by the observations of David Chandler, a high-school physics teacher. Shyam Sunder of NIST said that “freefall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building. Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”

    Free-fall acceleration is acceleration of an object acted on only by force of gravity alone. WTC7 had 25 cores columns and 58 perimeter columns. This implies, that something, must have removed all the columns, instantaneously, within a split second of one another to allow the building to collapse through itself at freefall acceleration without encountering any resistance from the mass below. Basically the building is collasping ahead of the collapse-wave.

    It’s hard to imagine that fire could have performed such a feat. Fire causes slow and gradual structural-deformation over a long period of time (see video below), not instantaneous destruction. NIST argue that the inside of the building collapsed first, and then the facade followed, although paradoxically, their computer model shows about 2/3’s of the core columns still intact during the freefall-phase. Not only that, but visually the ‘collapse’ of WTC7 looks nothing like the collapse in NIST’s model. In the models the outside of the building caves inwards, which seemingly, is not apparent in the actual ‘collapse’.



    2) There was foreknowledge of the ‘collapse’. The BBC reported the ‘collapse’ of WTC7 about 20 minutes before it actually ‘collapsed’. It’s important to understand that I’m not implying that the BBC were in on a conspiracy to deceive the public. There is a little something known as compartmentalisation.



    3) NIST has avoided FOIA-requests so that their models can be independently verified on the basis that it would “jeopardize public safety”. See here. If WTC7 did collapse from fire, as NIST say, then we need to know how. Apparently though, we’re all just meant to accept NIST’s models are correct on faith. This makes me think that NIST probably have something to hide (i.e. their models are pseudoscientific rubbish). This is not open-science in anyone’s book. NIST’s models have not been subject to any formal process of public scrutiny and people are generally obliged to accept them (if they do) on sheer blind trust! This is fundamentally unscientific. Apart from NIST’s computer models, they don’t offer any evidence to support their contention of a fire-induced collapse.

    4) Upon investigating WTC7’s steel FEMA found evidence of ‘rapid oxidation’ – ‘unexplained sulfidation’ and ‘intergranular melting’ that is consistent with the use of thermate, a high-powered incendiary used for cutting steel. There are different variants, such as nano-thermite, which is more powerful and explosive than regular thermate. NIST did not follow up on these findings. Source. On a side-note, NIST also say that the collapse would have happened even if there was no damage from falling derby. They state: “Even without the structural damage, WTC7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated”. In other words, according to NIST, it ‘collapsed’ exclusively from fire.

    5) NIST have denied the existence of molten steel (again, see the video below) despite countless eye-witness testimonies, tons of physical evidence and photographic documentation. Molten steel is a by-product of thermite and implies very, very high temperatures far in excess of 1,000C. The melting point of steel is 1,370C, which is well-beyond the temperatures that the office fires in WTC7 could have achieved. See these 'hotspots' continuing well-after the collapse indicative of thermite. These intense hotspots far below the rubble (which would be oxygen-starved) continuing well-after the collapse is characteristic of thermite/thermate which contains its own oxygen supply.

     
    Eleuthera and Bob0627 like this.
  2. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,605
    Likes Received:
    3,453
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The late UBL demolished the two WTC's.

    He admitted it.

    He laughed about it.

    He was executed by the USN with U.S. Army transport for it.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,162
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And what evidence can you provide that any of the above is true?

    None of your posts have anything to do with this topic and are a violation of the rules of this forum.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2018
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,162
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Add the following reasons:

    6) There were multiple corroborating eyewitness claims of seeing, hearing, feeling and being injured by explosions.

    7) There were 3 known claims that WTC7 would have to brought down or is being brought down.

    8 ) The only known way a building can be completely destroyed just like a controlled demolition is a controlled demolition. If fire alone could fully destroy a steel framed structure just like a controlled demolition there would never be any need for expensive controlled demolitions.

    9) No building has ever been completely destroyed in a matter of seconds due to planes, damage, fire or any combination plus gravity prior to or following 9/11 and there have been numerous real world examples (besides the Mandarin Hotel) of infernos fully engulfing buildings without a resulting total collapse. Earthquakes have not fully destroyed steel framed structures in a matter of seconds, neither have failed controlled demolitions. And there is even an example of a steel framed structure hit multiple times by missiles (the Usce Tower in Belgrade) and subsequent fire that did not collapse. The North Tower experienced a severe fire in 1975 over 8 floors and did not collapse nor was the North Tower ever in danger of a collapse.

    10) The Cardington and Broadgate experiments have shown that a steel framed structure cannot be fully destroyed (or even collapse) due to deliberately loaded and exaggerated fire.

    11) No experiment or computer model has ever shown that fire alone can fully destroy a steel framed structure in seconds.

    12) When no hypothesis can successfully prove a natural gravitational collapse (the least likely cause), the only remaining option is an unnatural collapse (the most likely cause).

    Having said all that, no matter how many reasons there are, only a legitimate forensic investigation (one that was never conducted) can actually prove a controlled demolition with nearly 100% certainty.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2018
  5. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    8,828
    Likes Received:
    4,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Theres audio recording of the demolition team setting up WTC7.

    I was under the impression that its controlled demolition wasn't in question...

    The building was demo'd because of the high probability that the fires engulfing it would collapse it into adjacent buildings, possibly causing them to collapse as well.

    The big question is not whether it was demo'd or why, but how?

    Ostencibly, the proper demolition of multi-story steel/concrete structures is a painstaking, time intensive process required careful planning and extensive engineering... yet WTC7 was demo'd in roughly an hour while it was on fire.

    Either its not nearly as difficult to demo a building into its footprint as we're told, or some really ballsy team of badasses got really lucky.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,800
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This guy makes sense.

    Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org
     
    Bob0627 and Eleuthera like this.
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,565
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I love a wacky post like this. It demonstrates how ignorant John Q. Public is about the events of 11 September. It shows that 17 years later, many are so oblivious and gullible that they still don't realize they've been duped.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,162
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have a link to it?

    The official NIST report denies it was a controlled demolition and well over 3,000 architects and engineers agree it was a controlled demolition. That would qualify that the controlled demolition of WTC7 is a major question.

    On what do you base your claim?

    There are literally hundreds of questions about WTC7, it's difficult to choose which question might be the "big question". For me the "big questions" are, was WTC7 control demolished and IF WTC7 was control demolished, who planned it, why and what about the twin towers and what other cans of worms does that open up? These questions rise to the top for me.

    It seems to me you're presuming there's any possibility that the planning and rigging for controlled demolition of WTC7 (a 47 story building) can be done within an hour or hours while the building was on fire. I don't believe any expert on demolitions would agree with you that it's possible. But if you can, please post a link to anything that might support or lend credibility to this presumption. If it's not possible and it was control demolished then the planning had to be done prior to 9/11.
     
  9. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    valid questions Bob ... you're actually showing some objectivity here ...
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,162
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks Shiner, unfortunately I can't say the same for you. For me I need evidence and credibility no matter what the theory is. Once an entity is shown to lie and obfuscate (e.g. the Bush administration, the 9/11 Commission and NIST), it's nearly impossible for me to swallow anything they spew as valid and/or truthful. Mistakes are one thing and are expected within reason, obvious lies and coverups are another.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  11. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    8,828
    Likes Received:
    4,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That option requires suspension of the least amount of disbelief :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2018
    Eleuthera likes this.
  12. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    Messages:
    887
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    The Democrats blew up the WTC.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,162
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The sentence (including the word "if" that you failed to highlight) is true and absolute as it stands regardless of anyone's belief, there is no alternative to it. You can't have it both ways.

    According to Tom Sullivan and implied by Danny Jowenko (2 experts on the subject), it is NOT possible to plan and rig the controlled demolition of a 47 story steel framed building in a short amount of time, never mind one that is on fire. Furthermore, it had to be 100% successful given the time constraint and the fact that it was on fire as there are many examples of failed controlled demolitions when there are no constraints at all. Therefore that option stands as the least believable and most likely not believable at all.

    So IF WTC7 was control demolished, the planning and rigging HAD to be accomplished prior to 9/11. IF WTC7 was not control demolished, then incontrovertible and indisputable proof must be supplied by an official legitimate investigative source that an alternative NATURAL gravitational total collapse in a matter of seconds at free fall and near free fall was caused strictly by fire as officially claimed. This does not exist.

    I notice you failed to provide any link I asked for or any basis for your claims. Do you even have any or are these strictly YOUR opinion and there doesn't exist any audio recording of a demolition team setting up WTC7?
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,162
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're in wrong section. The above belongs in the Humor & Satire section or the Other Off-Topic Chat section.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  15. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    8,828
    Likes Received:
    4,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its hard to find and Im lazy.

    FTR im generally agreeing with you- controlled demolition is more likely than the official narrative, and indicative of a conspiratorial plot.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,162
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok but I never heard of such a recording and I've done quite a bit of 9/11 research over the last 14 years. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist but I'm pretty sure many 9/11 researchers would be all over it if it did exist. I also don't claim I've come across everything, I still uncover something I've never seen or heard before on occasion. Tony Szamboti claimed he heard an interview with Larry Silverstein on a radio program affiliated with the History Channel where Silverstein claimed they did CD WTC7 for safety reasons and several 9/11 researchers tried to get a copy of the program but spokesmen from the History Channel claimed they would not release it without a subpoena. So far no one has produced a copy of that recorded interview.

    Unfortunately the circumstantial evidence and the science overwhelmingly points to that. In a court case, many have been found guilty with much less circumstantial evidence.
     
  17. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    so Tony is the only person to have heard this shocking discovery??? ... I don't suppose you have a link? ...
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,162
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He's the only one I know of who claims to have heard the interview

    I posted the link to the audio interview with Tony where he made that claim. That's all I have. Here's the thread on that subject.

    http://911blogger.com/news/2014-12-02/tony-szamboti-nists-911-sins-omission
     

Share This Page