Demolition Expert On Building 7

[liverpool]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q&eurl=

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

[Sigma_Orionis]

He did not say how would it take to prepare that building for that, he even attempted to say that it was prepared while the building was on fire :rolleyes:

Preparing a building for controlled demolition in a building designated for that takes several weeks, doing so while the building was operating normally would be a LOT LOT harder, the logistics to do so WITHOUT BEING NOTICED would be extremely hard, and they were stupid enough to make it look like controlled demolition? VERY HARD TO BELIEVE.

[Lurker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q&eurl=

"This is professional work, without any doubt."
Yeah... give his men a week or two and they could have done a fine job.

[Xanthro]

It's obvious the expert has no real information on the building, not knowing when it fell or where it was located, hence, he is not in command of all the facts.

Shown one side of the building falling, he makes the assumption that it's a controlled demolition. He doesn't know that corner of the building has been destroyed by falling debries, or that the building had been on fire for hours.

Give him all the background of the building then let's see his answer.

This is a favored ploy of the conspiracy theory people, present partial evidence to get a reply. They never want entire sets of data to be used, because it destroys their case.

[Laguna]

Yeah... give his men a week or two and they could have done a fine job.
Make that a month or two...
Without someone to notice it even more, if it would have been possible at all.

[Dragon Star]

:doh:

I have honestly lost any faith that the 9/11 BS will ever...ever end.

What do we have, 20+ threads about this crap already? :rolleyes:

[BigDon]

I really, really want to start clubbing people like baby harp seals. They blithfully spout this crap like they don't see the insult. The very next person who shows up here with more "proof" is going to get me banned for sure!

(I can't seem to stay out of this section though. Its like trying to resist glancing through the National Inquirer while waiting in the check out line at the supermarket.)

[Dragon Star]

rofl!

[Laguna]

I really, really want to start clubbing people like baby harp seals. They blithfully spout this crap like they don't see the insult. The very next person who shows up here with more "proof" is going to get me banned for sure!
In that case you should stay away from this brand new stuff http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46888
;-)

[BigDon]

Sorry Liverpool, there are a number of good sites that explain building 7's distruction. With photos taken from the side that was extensively damaged.

[BigDon]

Can a moderator just lock you out of a single section? I think I might need that. Alright, I'm going to go look.

[Dragon Star]

Can a moderator just lock you out of a single section?

Nope.

[Lurker]

Sorry Liverpool, there are a number of good sites that explain building 7's distruction. With photos taken from the side that was extensively damaged.
Ah hav said on otha threds!! Facts will naut heid th truth, gentlemen!! :eh:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yeah, wow. That's just... weak.

1) The guy wasn't even aware of WTC7's collapse prior to this interview.
2) He was only shown an unspecified number of videos of the collapse (looked like only 2, maybe 3, to me).
3) FEMA's preliminary report was mentioned, so this interview took place after May 2002. That's all we know about a possible timeframe...
4) He isn't told about the structural damage (http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/09/wtc-7-was-severely-damaged-on-south.html).
5) He's only told about the fires in the building at the end of the video, at which point he expresses serious doubt about his own conclusion. How could 30-40 men possibly rig the building in 7 hours when there's fire all over? And his "that's strange" comments didn't seem to be questioning the existence of the fire. He was mulling over this new information he had just received.

He either wasn't given all the information available at the time, or some of the information itself wasn't available at the time. Whoever conducted that interview steered him, intentionally or otherwise, toward his conclusion. You can't blame him.

The 9/11 "Truth" movement seems to be stuck in late-2001/early-2002...

[jt-3d]

I agree this guy did not really have enough information to form an informed opinion and so, he shouldn't have. He can only see less than half the building for crying out loud. I guess he felt the need to answer because of the camera. The other guy probably acted like a news reporter. Plus how many other people did they ask that said it wasn't or said that they could not say for sure before they found one that gave the answer they wanted? More CT shenanagins.

[GDwarf]

Nope.
Yes, actually, they can. At least, on another vB forum that I moderate they can. That forum might be running a mod that allows the admins to do that, though.

Edit: Well, not lock out, it's essentially a ban from that sub-forum, you no longer see it's there until the ban times out/is lifted.

[Dragon Star]

Yes, actually, they can. At least, on another vB forum that I moderate they can. That forum might be running a mod that allows the admins to do that, though.

Edit: Well, not lock out, it's essentially a ban from that sub-forum, you no longer see it's there until the ban times out/is lifted.

Not here, because we went through this when we were talking about giving members mod privileges by separating out a forum section to disposal of SPAM, remember? Problem was they couldn't prevent us from seeing the rest of the private forum.

[fezzic]

I have now watched the video and it is apparent to me that, while the expert might have had a mind fart with respect to the events of September 11 and the WTC complex, the fall of WTC 7 more closely resembles [though I would not claim that it was one] what I might expect of a controlled demolition of a building than WTC 1 and 2. The House report on WTC 7 theorized that the collapse was initiated when one or more load transfer trusses supporting the upper 40 odd floors failed. This would result in load shifts that probably overloaded the lower structure and as load-bearing structures began to fail that threw more load onto fewer and fewer load-bearing structures until the whole thing came down.

The House report also showed that a kink developed in WTC 7 just prior to the collapse that cuts across two major load transfer trusses in the eastern part of the building. One of the trusses in question was also the support for some or all of the east mechanical penthouse which fell into the building as the collapse started.

The load transfer trusses transferred the load of the upper floors to the building core structure at about floor 5-7. The question left in the House report was what caused the trusses to fail. It was theorized that damage to WTC 7 cut fuel lines and that emergency fuel pumps kept going and so fed the fires. A prolonged fire in the wrong place could have affected the trusses in question. But they had no answers.

I would think that it could be reasonble to say that the collapse of WTC 7 more closely resembled a controlled demolition (at least the few videos I have seen of CDs) in the building motion, at least superficially, than the crunch, crunch, pancaking of WTC 1 and 2.

I would think the expert could be forgiven for mistaking WTC 7 collapse as a CD.

[PhantomWolf]

I would think the expert could be forgiven for mistaking WTC 7 collapse as a CD.

Quite right, it does look similar, but that;s because both are similar things. In a CD the supports are cut near the bottom and the building comes down. With WTC 7, the supports failed near the bottom and the building came down. It's the little things, the kink, the Mechanical penthouses falling into the building first, that differentate it, but often those are cut from the CT movies anyway. Without any knowledge of the fires or damage, then you have a solid healthy building collapsing in what appears to be a controlled fashion, the conclusion is perfectly acceptable. However add in the appropriate damage suffered from the WTC 1 collapse, the huge, diesel feed, uncontrolled fires, and the witness reports of the instablitily of the buildings and suddenly you have a very different story.

[PhantomWolf]

This a picture of collapse of WTC 1 (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/4/44/Wtc7_collapse_damage.jpg) I haven't seen before. You can see the debris steaming down into Building 7, and actually make out the material which is being bounced off of the side of the building. Anyone that doubts WTC 7 was struck by debris, really needs to see this image.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This a picture of collapse of WTC 1 (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/4/44/Wtc7_collapse_damage.jpg) I haven't seen before. You can see the debris steaming down into Building 7, and actually make out the material which is being bounced off of the side of the building. Anyone that doubts WTC 7 was struck by debris, really needs to see this image.
Very nice. Well... you know...

That ridge in the debris cloud is in about the right position to have caused the damage seen in both this image (http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.h5.jpg) and this image (http://www.debunking911.com/wt7top.jpg).

[Gillianren]

You know, I have no idea which of those buildings is WTC 7. Is this a major failing on my part?

[Davidlpf]

Another week another 9/11 thread.

[fezzic]

Obviously only an optical illusion that the falling debris from WTC 1 actually hit WTC 7. :)

WTC 7 is that (to me) slightly reddish tinged building a little below and slightly to the right of the collapsing WTC 1. You can see the reflection of a lower squarish white building on its north face.

[Gillianren]

WTC 7 is that (to me) slightly reddish tinged building a little below and slightly to the right of the collapsing WTC 1. You can see the reflection of a lower squarish white building on its north face.

Oh, the one with lots of debris obviously hitting it?

[bonkey]

That'd be the one.

Unfortunately, I can already forsee the need to explain why that's not a parabolic arc we see where the debris is landing on WTC7's roof and why this picture doesn't support the notion that debris was explosivly launched upwards from WTC1 to subsequently rain down on 7.

[MG1962A]

I think the biggest question I have. What does a CD of a 47 story building look like. And what does an accidental collapse.

Everyone seems to be jumping to CD conclusions withot any frame of reference.

[Jim]

Well, here are some videos of the controlled demolition of a 33 story building, and a description of how they did it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5360235832416833797

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6209867556562706196

http://www.acppubs.com/article/CA6325450.html

[jrkeller]

I think the biggest question I have. What does a CD of a 47 story building look like. And what does an accidental collapse.

Everyone seems to be jumping to CD conclusions withot any frame of reference.

According to the guiness book of records, the tallest building destroyed by demolition was the Hudson building (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=53136) in Detroit at 439 ft. I couldn't find a video of the destruction, but I did find some sequential pictures (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807).

WTC7 was 570 ft tall, so it might not be a good comparison.

[Jim]

Uh, you might try the "Click here to watch the video" link.

In both the Landmark Tower and Hudson Building videos, note the multiple explosions that take place before anything starts to fall; you can hear and see them.

[Thomas(believer)]

[conspiricy believer hat]
It is obvious why the demolition expert acts as if he is surprised. That is because he is part of a big conspiricy inside the demolition world.
If 911 "proved" something, then it is that it doen't matter what you do with a big building, it comes straight down anyhow.:)

[PhantomWolf]

I couldn't find a video of the destruction, but I did find some sequential pictures.

heh, the first thing I noticed way that there were obvious explosives used all the way up the building, producing HUGE dust puffs all over the face of the building, and resulting in the various parts collaspes onto each other. The WTC 7 building didn't have any of those, and the "squibs" they point too are way too small compared to the ones in those pictures.

[jt-3d]

Oh of course, if they ever looked at a real controlled demolition, they'd forget the whole CD conspiracy, which makes this one of the more laughable theories. It also makes me think they can't believe thier own theories.

[PhantomWolf]

Oh of course, if they ever looked at a real controlled demolition, they'd forget the whole CD conspiracy

Considering that their main case seems to be "It looked like a Controlled Demolition"........