Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7? Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event. In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7? NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely. Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used. It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day. Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7. Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions. An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion? The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm. the laws of probabilities would favor the pane crash and structural damage as the cause, why? evidence...
You post alot, but you make no credible claims. Personal incredulity is not proof....no matter how much you (*)(*)(*)(*) and moan.
Your "rebuttal" is weak, the fact is that it is a function of probability the events of 9/11/2001 are very much improbable when you get down to examining what is alleged to have happened. total of 3 buildings completely destroyed, an alleged airliner crash at the PENTAGON with only tiny bits of wreckage outside of the building, really? this is NOT personal incredulity this is about the SCIENCE of probabilities. I ask again, for anyone who may have missed it the first time, why should you expect to see the same result as obtained by careful engineering and execution of a Controlled Demolition, as having been the result of chaotic fires & damage from an alleged aircraft crash ( & note WTC7 was not even alleged to have been hit by an airliner ) WHATS UP WITH THAT?
I'll tell you again since you seem to keep missing it: the result was not the same as a controlled demolition.
You are misquoting me, don't do that. The damaged buildings around WTC7 (for one thing) make it different from CD.
So it could not possibly be CD because there were damaged buildings around the WTC complex, and this negates the feature of complete destruction of WTC 1,2 & 7 .... (?)
The one key feature of CD is the complete destruction of the building, The towers & 7 were completely destroyed and indeed in the case of the towers, the destruction was more complete than would be expected of a "normal" CD in that first responders commented on not seeing any artifacts ( such as doorknobs ) in the rubble, its as if everything had been subjected to huge grinder and it reduced almost everything to small bits of rubble. From what is known about how actual CD events ( the ones that attempt to conserve the amount of explosive use ... ) the stuff at the very top of the building is the least busted up because it is dropping with all of the other material under it, witness a pickup truck placed on the roof of a building to be brought down by CD and when the dust cleared the truck was at least recognizable as a truck and not busted up into small bits. Think about this, there was a transmitting antenna on top of WTC1, and to serve that antenna, there would indeed have to be a transmitter, have you ever seen a commercial broadcast transmitter? some serious hardware there and yet nobody has commented on spotting a significant recognizable bit of the transmitter to be seen in the rubble. Whats up with that?
Do you research anything before you ask questions? Part of the antenna is on display at the 9/11 museum in Washington. http://m.shutterstock.com/images/11378287
I know about the antenna however, what happened to the transmitter? some magician pointed his wand and poof, its gone..... what?
So what?...what difference does this have to do with your position??? "Im pretty sure there was a jet black Cadillac in the North Tower Parking garage...but if they can't produce a photo of that....the events of 9/11 were a hoax!" This is the nature of your claim....and it's completely absurd...its a red herring claim. Come up with something better or drop off.
The transmitter fell over a thousand feet with TONS of rubble from the tower.....no doubt it was pulverized with most things in the building
But whats really funny is, they want a photo...but they disregard EVERY photo or video that supports the null hypothesis. Irony.
The point being, that since a pickup truck on the roof of a building to be demolished made the trip down from some distance ( 25 stories ) and was seen to be a recognizable truck at the bottom of its trip, why then should one not expect to see ( and not a complete intact transmitter obviously ) however some recognizable remnant of said transmitter that could find its way to a museum display.? The destruction of the tower(s) was so complete that first responders told reporters that you don't see even mundane artifacts like doorknobs in the rubble its all been through a giant grinder. I don't know about anybody else here but this is grossly unnatural, there had to have been a planned, engineered demolition of the tower(s). The stuff near the top of the building would not have had the entire building falling on top of it, it would have had much less than that and for that reason would stand a greater chance of being in some sort of recognizable condition, damaged yes, but recognizable.
There is a difference between falling 110 stories at total free fall and doing it at something less than free fall, BTW: the fact that the towers fell as fast as they did is also a tell-tale of CD. I'm thinking that even if a test were conducted, using a 19" rack of some old surplus electronic gear and somebody took it up in and airplane to be dropped from the same altitude as the WTC tower, and check what was the result, you would not find totally pulverized stuff, you would see a very badly damaged rack, but still recognizable as the original equipment.
Note the Lockerbe crash, there was an aircraft falling out of the sky from a much greater distance than the towers, and recognizable aircraft bits were seen on the ground not pulverized bits but recognizable sections of the airliner.
Do you need pages of math to know that if you drive your car into a tree, you will damage your car? This is NOT a subject for pages of math, this is a subject for common sense, do you deny that the lockerbe crash had recognizable parts of the aircraft on the ground after being bombed and falling from 30,000 ft? this is the important bit to get, we don't need pages of math to know what we know, look at the events of 9/11/2001 and think about the probabilities, do things happen "just like that" without any help from people engineering the event?
