Here's an image of a few of the remaining major columns in WTC 7 after it's implosion.

It was provided to me by a fellow LC member Kamala.




A look at the broken tops reveals slag, obvious melting and heat blackening.

This does not look like the expected clean fracturing OCTists (Official Conspiracy Theory believers) lead us to expect, as part of their claim that WTC 7 collapsed strictly due to gravity from some early debris damage followed by upper floor fires.

Again, is it any wonder that NIST has once more postponed their long awaited WTC 7 Collapse Report until the end of this year?

MM

i´m sorry. there is no evidence that this foto is from WTC-7.

Where was the nearest brick wall to WTC7 ?

Well if you doubt the photo I suggest you contact Kamala.

I have absolutely no reason to doubt his integrity.

This photo was one on several that were clearly part of the WTC 7 debris.

I didn't want to waste bandwidth posting the whole collection he passed onto me.

MM

Is that a Pink Floyd joke?

I believe the photo was taken from the south east corner.

MM

The wall is Verizon building. The Verizon building is on the West side of the WTC 7 site. The east side of the Verizon building sustained damage in the collapse of WTC 7. Therefore, we are looking south in this picture. Quite a few pics of a very similar nature were around on the old LC forum among other places, so I doubt this is a new one.

Indeed. So how would "cut" core columns make their way across the street to lean against the Verizon building?

What you're seeing in MM's photo is the result of cleaning up something like this:



with cutting torches.

But, apparently, it's all Kamala's fault. :rolleyes:

You are correct. I saved these from the old forum from an individual there.

MJ

Well I meant the image was a new one to me, and since the old forums threads are no longer accessible (as far as I know), it can be considered 'old-new'.

The point isn't whether the image is new, so much as what it reveals. No doubt this was discussed in the old LC forum but since those threads are well buried, it's worth a fresh look.

This is the image I posted;


I believe it was photographed on Sept.15, 2001. My point of reference is the two large WTC 7 columns that are still rising from the foundation and surrounded by debris. There is no reason to believe that they have been "worked on" by those removing debris.

I'm not seeing or talking about "... "cut" core columns...across the street to leaning against the Verizon building"

You are working too hard at playing the JREF goon gwb 233, getting tired of analyzing the contents of Dylan's trashcan?


MM

There was a street between WTC7 and the Verizon building, in order for this core column to be pictured from the verizon building it would have to have moved across the street.

Regardless the damage is interesting but not consistent with thermite, thermite forms molten iron which would drip downwards and solidify. We see no evidence of this in the photographs and instead see a localised area of damage. I agree with gwb in this case, it's most likely the result of a cutting torch.

No surprises in your typical pro Official Conspiracy Theory response.

We know thermite forms molten iron e^n.



At the ends of those two standing partial columns from WTC 7, I see what appears to be residue of molten iron which has dripped a few inches and hardened. The "clumps" of apparent molten iron are quite large and more substantial than what I would expect from a focused cutting torch. It's odd that the cuts were not made lower on the columns where they could be more easily accessed.

Quite probably there was far more molten iron, but in the collapse I imagine much of it was scrubbed off by falling debris.

Of course you agree with gwb as he is just another hiree from JREF whose come over to help you promote the Official Conspiracy Theory.


MM

Cut the paranoia please, and explain how the "columns that are still rising from the foundation" (of WTC7) managed to stroll 50yds through vast stacks of debris and find themselves up against the damaged brick wall of the Verizon building.

The framework section was leaning up against the Vorizon building while the fires were still burning.

Good question. How did the steel structure cross the street? Only with some very powerful explosives would be my guess.

It's probably part of the exterior framework

Well, no.

Thermite/ate isn't an explosive.
Linear CD cutting charges are only designed to cut, not blow vast lumps of metal sideways through piles of debris.

The braced framing that ended up against the Verizon building just fell there. The "cuts" visible on it were part of the cleanup operation.

Nope? No replies?

OK - that's settled then

No, it's not. Until you become an administrator, you don't dictate the forum rules. And what kind of tone is that supposed to be? You have absolutely no authority to say some debate is over, so stop trying to behave as the lord and master on not a forum that's not yours.

Thermite AND explosives were used because heavy structural steel beams were tossed in every direction for over a hundred yards into neighboring buildings. Thermite can be also used to soften and weaken structural steel at critical areas.
http://maxphoton.com/2007/05/22/how-thermi...on-of-wtc2.aspx
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index....WS_Photo_id=495
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index....WS_Photo_id=129

Skull & Bones members and elitists from Yale seem to always think they have the right to set the rules and do as they please. After all the ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS, doesn't it?

So, you claim WTC7 didn't collapse into its own footprint? That's interesting, because most 9/11 Truthers use the fact that it did as evidence for CD. Maybe you could sort this out with the rest of the gang, and report back?

The explosives used to achieve CD are linear directional charges, designed to cut. They don't fling massive steel sections long distances as this would be really dangerous and a very bad thing. Also wasteful.

Hello all first time poster blah blah blah.

How come in all of the CD arguements people tend to argue it based upon what a normal CD should look like? Would it not make sense that those behind the CD wouldn't give a damn if the building came down perfectly? They just killed 3000 people, who cares if they damage some other buildings and kill a few more during the collapse? In fact, I would think/assume/believe that they would *not* want it to be a "perfect" CD as that would weigh more towards it being a CD.

I'd want pieces flying out 100s of yards. I'd want the building to fall outside of it's footprint and do more damage. I dunno, just something about the whole "fell into it's own footprint" arguement when in fact they didn't really do that.

For the record, still a CD on all three buildings in my non-expert opinion.

The framework section fell there but no one made all those cuts while the fires were still burning.

Why Bother?

They were focused on the Trade Towers and recovery.

Most of it collapsed into it's own footprint.

So, according to 9/11 CT believers, re WTC7 -

1. In its footprint = CD
2. Mostly in its footprint = CD
3. All over the shop = CD

And you wonder why skeptics have trouble with your "theories" ?

You have trouble, because you don't really understand what you read/don't care to understand it. The fact that the WTC 7 had collapsed at virtually freefall speed, with the rubble stacking up at around two floors should be enough for any person with critical thinking ability to reconsider the official account.

Then illuminate me. Help me understand.

Which of the above scenarios best describes the fall of WTC7?
1,2 or 3?

While you're at it , could you describe the procedures required to CD a steel-framed building?

Judging from the pictures, the 2nd scenario describes best what happened.

The most important thing to do is to place demolition charges in the correct places and ensure they detonate when they are supposed to. The places that are most likely to be rigged with explosives are columns that hold the building up. If you want to know all about Controlled Demolition, then I suggest you go to a university to study it, or buy a book for proffessionals.

I like how the Jrefers present this stuff, thinking they've somehow outsmarted the truthers. "Aha! But you claimed it fell in it's own footprint! Case closed, this one peice flew 50m straight out!". The shame of our country rule by a bunch of lawyers, mbas, marketers and other half-wits - the English majors that failed calculus: "no prob dude, I've got a plan!"

Duoh. If these pinheads stopped to think, they'd wonder how those pieces of steel and whatnot flew out. What kind of force it would take. But noooo. But then that's just it. They don't stop to think. And don't want to think.

[I think this shows the folks who grew up in the multiple choice world vs. real thinking essay style -stand up and defend your point. Multiple choice==multiple guess, true false, are to deceive you, I was always told, forget by whom...]

I calculated this, it was easily provided by collapse rather than explosives, there is no plausible method for an explosive charge to impart enough energy into a steel beam. I can't give you a link as I can't search my own posts :(

Too bad. Until then you have no real argument.

Give me masses, distances and heights and I will tell you how much KE roughly (negating air resistance) it would require. While I do that, you can go find a plausible method for explosives to expend the same energy into a beam.

The last thing we need is more of your amateur calculations posing as expert analysis e^n.

MM

the cuts visible wouldn't be part of the cleanup for two reasons:

1. Why would someone cut a beam with a torch and not remove the debris surrounding it first? They'd rightly need good access to the beam.

2. Why would someone cut a beam at any point other than the lowest point?


Additionally, OCTers are expecting us to accept a couple flawed assumptions if that were true.

1. That there were beams in the initial rubble which extended much higher than the beam in this picture, and were cut.

2. That JREFers do not instantly jump on the most unsupported claims, such as "That isnt' a picture of the WTC 7 rubble" LOL Owned.

3. That the mere fact that this rubble could have "walked" (a demolition term) across the street and found itself against the Verizon building, is nothing more than slightly interesting.


Still another tactic you debunkers are using is the "It's not thermate, cuz this and that" argument.

Look. None of us has access to this steal, fortunately for your fantasy world, so we cannot decide for certain what cut the beams. If one poster says "Thermate" and you disagree, simply state that you do not think it is thermate. Do not incinuate that, because thermate does not explode, that it did not cut the beams.

Some skeptics like e^n have claimed that no sounds typical of a controlled demolition were apparent at WTC7 just prior to collapse. If that were true, then thermate might be the cause, as it would not make a lound pop or bang.

Regardless, several witnesses do claim to have heard popping sounds and bangs at WTC7 just prior to collapse. There are at least two firefighters who said this. I can look up the exact quotes in a couple hours if you insist on having them shown here.



If you ask me, the most likely scenario is that some thermite was used to weaken the cores of these buildings, and some explosives were used to initiate collapse once the cores were weakened.

Have you managed to show any of them to be wrong?

So, aiming to clear up that braced framing leaning up against the Verizon building, you'd start cutting at the bottom ??

Brave man !

Obviously yes. Is it beyond imagination that beams are secured before they are cut?
Also, you didn't respond to the first question.

So you attach a crane cable to the top of those 1000's of tons, then start cutting from the bottom?
Madness.
That's not how they did it at all, with good reason. Clipping it away in tidy and predictable units * from the top * is how such salvage operations work.

But, perhaps you're mad and should never be allowed near an oxy torch by a collapsed building?

Well mister gwb_322 government shill, I was referring to the towers when I mentioned Thermite AND explosives and heavy structural steel beams tossed into neighboring buildings. It seems only demolition charges were used on WTC 7 to shear the supporting columns at exactly the same instance and initiate a near perfect collapse into its own footprint. I have not heard of any heavy structural steel beams hurled from WTC 7 into neighboring buildings. Since this was a US Military demolition operation, and Shock & Awe was the objective, I guess wasteful and dangerous were not some of the concerns. Since massive steel sections were flung from the towers for hundreds of feet and since they were too heavy for the wind to fling, what else besides explosives would fling them?
:lol: :rolleyes: WTC7 Almost a perfect demolition
__
;) B) Slow motion of pre-planned demolition of WTC 7 <_< Penthouse kink leads off demolition of WTC 7 and BBC spills the beans 30 minutes early :lol: :lol: :lol:

BBC WAS HALF AN HOUR TOO EARLY REPORTING ON WTC7 COLLAPSE WTC still standing over her left shoulder
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...earch&plindex=0
Large photo: WTC 7 sitting mostly inside footprint in upper right of photo
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/image...oto-cropped.jpg

I never said that.

No, true, you simply said you would start cutting from the bottom.

I added the crane support idea to help you out with your plan, although in practice it would just leave masses of steel swinging and falling in uncontrolled fashion below a cable.

It's really much better to clear fallen debris from the top, as I'm sure you'll agree.