WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition

[Terral]

Greetings to All:

All of the evidence points directly to insider terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11. WTC-7 was designed and built using Compartmentalization of all supporting columns and beams separated by solid concrete slabs horizontally and curtain walls vertically. A building fire has never destroyed a steel-framed skyscraper in US history before or after 9/11 and WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 were owned by Larry “Pull It” Silverstein. Many fail to realize the World Trade Center Towers had never been in private hands prior to the summer of 2001, when Mr. Silverstein received possession from the New York Port Authority.

Cooperative Research Website:

Quote:

This is the only time the WTC has ever changed hands since it was opened in 1973 . . . It was previously controlled by the New York Port Authority, a bi-state government agency . . . Larry Silverstein, the president of Silverstein Properties, only uses $14 million of his own money for the deal. His partners put up a further $111 million, and banks provide $563 million in loans . . . . The Port Authority had carried only $1.5 billion in insurance coverage on all its buildings, including the WTC, but Silverstein’s lenders insist on more, eventually demanding $3.55 billion in cover . . . After 9/11, Larry Silverstein will claim the attacks on the World Trade Center constituted two separate events, thereby entitling him to a double payout totaling over $7 billion.

Watch the WTC-7 Collapse Video again:

Use your curser to hold the round scrollbar and move WTC-7 up and down repeatedly. The roof section and the center of the building collapse first, then the two sides plummet at ‘free fall’ velocity like any successful controlled demolition. Before looking at the details of how WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization of all the steel supports, we need to take a look at the massive building itself.



All of the WTC-7 steel columns, beams, girders and bar joists were bolted down and welded together into a single unit creating literally thousands of connections that must be severed to cause the catastrophic failure seen from the aftermath of the attack.



The melting point of WTC-7 structural steel is 1535 degrees Celsius or 2795 degrees Fahrenheit. The first problem with the ‘Fire Caused The Collapse’ Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit , or about one third the required temperature to melt structural steel. The second problem is that building fires typically burn for only 20 minutes in any given area, because the fuel is depleted and the fire moves in the direction of a fresh fuel source. The third problem is that steel is an excellent conductor of heat and any steel-framed network would disperse the heat much more quickly than any building fire could raise the temperature to anywhere near ‘steel-softening’ temperatures. Another problem is that all supporting columns were coated with 3-hour ‘spray-on’ fireproofing insulation, which is nine times more protection needed for the typical building fire; even if the required 2800 degree temperatures were reached.

911Research Website:

The website above is perhaps the best on the internet for discovering the truth about the WTC-7 collapse. Moving down the page, Figure 5-3 shows the massive steel network and how certain areas (floors 1-7, 22-24) received extra support.



This information is very important, because remember WTC-7 collapsed in one single smooth motion, which means extra attention was paid to placing charges to sever these thicker and stronger steel supports. Try to imagine the amount of energy required to break all of these connections simultaneously and you begin to see the ‘building fire theory’ is certainly a hoax. Below you come to Figure 5.3.3 and descriptions of how WTC-7 was built in many separate ‘compartments’ eliminating ‘fire’ as even a remote possibility for causing this collapse.



Even if two or five or ten fires were started, the fuel source within those particular compartments would be consumed LONG before the fireproofing safety countermeasures were compromised; and the fire had no way to pass through solid concrete slabs or curtain walls to invade the neighboring compartments. This does not even account for the fully functional sprinkler system that had to be turned off for these fires to spread any distance at all. Here is a four minute video to help gain a better perspective on how to weigh the evidence in this case:

Four Minute WTC-7 Collapse Video

“Fire has never destroyed a steel building,” but three steel buildings owned by Larry Silverstein were ‘Pulled’ on 9/11. “Pull it” is controlled demolition lingo for wiring the building up and pulling it down. Mr. Silverstein was obviously lying about speaking to the New York Fire Chief, as the firemen only entered the scene on 9/11 after the Twin Towers attacks. This Fire Chief had no access to Controlled Demolition charges when he arrived at WTC-7 for “Pulling” down the 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that could possibly be placed in a single day. Here we have a few small fires burning on a few floors, but the Fire Chief cannot figure any way to extinguish them. Since the firemen had no time to set all the required charges to “Pull” WTC-7 down in just a few hours, as if firemen even have controlled demolition crews, then Mr. Silverstein just pointed the finger at himself about having prior knowledge of these 9/11 attacks. Now compare our images of WTC-7 and these “Pull It” videos:

Paris Building

Office Building

Landmark Tower Implosion

Many buildings have been demolished using controlled demolition looking exactly like WTC-7 on 9/11, but again, no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire in the history of this planet. Twenty-first century demolition techniques include the use of Thermite Shaped Charges found all over WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7.

Shaped Charges And The World Trade Center Collapses



The damage from a thermite shaped charge is exactly what you see above the fireman’s confused head. Note the size of the massive column and the molten iron residue that flowed inside and outside the column.



Thermite burns at a very high 2500 degrees Centigrade or 4532 degrees Fahrenheit, which represents the kind of temperature required to sever these massive red-iron columns. As a trained demolition supervisor tearing down buildings for many years, I know of nobody using 45-degree angle cuts to remove any red-iron part of any conventional demolition job. This particular column has molten iron residue, which is a ‘Controlled Demolition’ Signature, as any torch cut would blow the molten iron off the column entirely away from the worker. There is no cut from any torch that would leave molten iron residue on the inside and outside of 'all' the sides of a column this way. The idea that any demolition worker would make a 45-degree cut is ridiculous, because of the danger to other workers and the waste of fuel.

Another problem with the Official ‘Fire’ Cover Story is these 45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts appear everywhere . . .



. . . even in locations where demolition crew workers could not possibly reach. The common practice is to remove steel debris in an orderly ‘pick and remove’ manner, which eliminates the possibility of needlessly shifting weight and putting workers in danger. We play this dangerous game like a child plays ‘Pickup Sticks,’ as any skilled demolition foreman can look at the pile and tell you which debris to remove first. None of the demolition workers in the picture above climbed up any ladder forty or fifty feet in the air to make that 45-degree angel cut, because that was part of the original ‘Controlled Demolition’ of WTC-7. Note the clean 90-degree cuts labeled “Severed Column End” scattered throughout the debris pile. However, also note these steel members are buried under the debris of the walls collapsing upon them ‘during’ the controlled demolition process. These cuts could not have been made by this demolition crew, because they still have mountains of debris to remove before even thinking about cutting any structural steel; which would only serve to shift weight in this very dangerous situation. The very best work on these WTC controlled demolition attacks is presented by Dr. Steven E. Jones (Brigham Young University) here:

Liberty Post Website:

WTC-7 was definitely (100 percent certainty) brought down using Controlled Demolition techniques also found in WTC-1 and WTC-2. This evidence explains why we have reports on hundreds of ‘explosions’ taking place throughout the day.

Bamm, Bamm, Bamm; then Three Big Explosions . . .

And yet, the ‘keyword sanitized’ 911Commission Report only uses the term ‘explosion’ six times outside the notation references for ‘all’ these 9/11 cases and never uses the term ‘explosions’ (plural) even once. Guess what? The bogus Arlington County After-Action Report uses the term ‘explosion’ six times in 215 pages ‘and’ also never uses the term ‘explosions’ even one time the very same way, even though we can hear multiple explosions taking place in this single News Video.

9/11 was definitely and inside-job and many LIARS are helping the real terrorists get away with murdering thousands of our innocent fellow Americans . . .

GL,

Terral

[bynmdsue]

Wow,You have really opened my eyes.Thank you.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Terral

The roof section and the center of the building collapse first, then the two sides plummet at ‘free fall’ velocity like any successful controlled demolition.

[...]

This information is very important, because remember WTC-7 collapsed in one single smooth motion, which means extra attention was paid to placing charges to sever these thicker and stronger steel supports.

Someone needs to make his mind up.

Dave

[bje]

[defaultdotxbe]

Quote:

WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 were owned by Larry “Pull It” Silverstein.

wrong, only 7 was owned by silverstein, 1-6 were leased

[X]

I'm not even going to bother trying to refute him. History suggestsit'll just invite more long, rambling, facuallty incoreect copy-pasted posts (anyone know where he's getting this junk from?).

The woo is too strong in this one.

[Minadin]

Quote:

WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 were owned by Larry “Pull It” Silverstein.

He owned 7, leased 1 & 2.

Quote:

The first problem with the ‘Fire Caused The Collapse’ Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit , or about one third the required temperature to melt structural steel.

At 1000 degrees F, standard structural steel loses about 1/2 the strength it has at room temperature. I'm sure you've heard that steel doesn't have to melt to fail before, why are you using this old tripe?

Quote:

The second problem is that building fires typically burn for only 20 minutes in any given area, because the fuel is depleted and the fire moves in the direction of a fresh fuel source.

Typically, perhaps. Though that does cause me to wonder why we're required to put 1, 2, and sometimes even 3 hour rated fire protection around the structure in buildings. In any case, I think you'll find that the conditions at WTC7 weren't exactly typical. There was a diesel tank for an electrical generator that was fuelling the fires.



I don't have time to point out every other mistake in the above post right now. However, just about everything you have written above is demonstrably wrong in just about every way.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Minadin

At 1000 degrees F, standard structural steel loses about 1/2 the strength it has at room temperature. I'm sure you've heard that steel doesn't have to melt to fail before, why are you using this old tripe?

Atention.

He posts the same thing on other sites too. It's SPAM if you ask me.

[twinstead]

I like that addition of columns obviously cut by workmen after the collapse used as evidence of CD; it's always a nice touch.

[332nd]

Originally Posted by Terral

Greetings to All:

All of the evidence points directly to insider terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11. WTC-7 was designed and built using Compartmentalization of all supporting columns and beams separated by solid concrete slabs horizontally and curtain walls vertically. A building fire has never destroyed a steel-framed skyscraper in US history before

Well there's yer problem.

[Loss Leader]

Wrong. Try again.

[Walter Ego]

Quote:

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

Though in this case we can perhaps drop the 'mono' prefix...

[SDC]

Originally Posted by twinstead

I like that addition of columns obviously cut by workmen after the collapse used as evidence of CD; it's always a nice touch.

I think that someone predicted Terral would use this picture. I don't recall who. In any case, that person should dial 1-800-GIVEMEMYMILLIONDOLLARS right about now.

[HawksFan]

I think I actually lost I.Q. points reading that OP.

[Myriad]

Hi Terral,

I've decided to respond specifically to the one claim you've made that has not already been repeatedly demonstrated to be false here.

Originally Posted by Terral

The damage from a thermite shaped charge is exactly what you see above the fireman’s confused head.

What evidence do you have that the firefighter in the picture is confused? He appears to me to be focusing on the task at hand. Is it because his head is turned and his left hand is near his chin? That appears to be because he is speaking into some kind of communications device, most likely a radio or cell phone. Note that whatever the piece of equipment in his left hand is, it's tied off to this helmet (with what looks like the same kind of tie line as his flashlight is) so that if he needs to quickly free his hands it won't be lost. That suggests that whatever it is, it is (like his flashlight) important to his work or to his safety or both.

So, can you explain why it's reasonable, based on the evidence in the photo or other evidence you might have to offer, to conclude that the firefighter is confused? Or can I reasonably conclude instead that either you are projecting your own confusion about this issue onto a stranger in a photo, and/or it somehow suited your political agenda to make a patronizing belittling comment about a firefighter without regard for whether it was actually true?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[ckent2]

Yes, there's too many mistakes in his post to reply to all at once. I'll hit a couple of points though.

Quote:

“Fire has never destroyed a steel building,”

We all know that isn't true. A large furniture store (steel framed) near my home collapsed after a fire of about an hour and half, killing nine firefighters.
It's not a skyscraper, but since it's supports wouldn't have to hold as much weight as a skyscraper, it should've held up better. But due to the sheer number of flammable items in the furniture store, it had a tremendous amount of fuel to burn.

Quote:

“Pull it” is controlled demolition lingo for wiring the building up and pulling it down.

We all know that isn't true either.

Quote:

Mr. Silverstein was obviously lying about speaking to the New York Fire Chief, as the firemen only entered the scene on 9/11 after the Twin Towers attacks.

Was the fire chief also lying when he said he spoke with Silverstein?

[twinstead]

Blowing smoke suited to ones political agenda without regard for whether it was actually true?

Come on. Truthers don't do that...

[Dave Rogers]

Oh yeah, Terral, one other thing.

What exactly is a "Thermite Shaped Charge"?

Dave

[Good Lt]

Quoteth Terral:


- -
Um, Terral.

Look up "oxyacetylene torch." Then look up "slag." Debunked.

Thanks in advance.

[Terral]

Hi Minadin:

Quote:

Terral Original >> The first problem with the ‘Fire Caused The Collapse’ Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit , or about one third the required temperature to melt structural steel.

Minadin Reply >> At 1000 degrees F, standard structural steel loses about 1/2 the strength it has at room temperature. I'm sure you've heard that steel doesn't have to melt to fail before, why are you using this old tripe?

Why are you posting two sentences of ‘talk, talk, talk’ instead of making a case for Building Fires taking down WTC-7 on 9/11? :0) Your statement above is based upon Minadin’s own errant misstatements of the facts about heat energy and steel contained within a steel-framed network. Heat energy is constantly moving from the hot to cold areas of the network and never remains stationary for any ‘softening’ to even begin. So, your steel columns and beams are softening (heh) from 1000 degree temperatures, but what is the temperature of the adjacent steel columns and beams from your ridiculously small WTC-7 building fires? The fact is that the temperatures are reduced in direct proportion to the distance from the burning fire and the combustible fuel source. The entire WTC-7 steel frame network will heat up and spread the heat out evenly throughout the many series of connections, before even one component begins to soften and reduce load bearing capacity.

Quote:

Terral Orginal >> The second problem is that building fires typically burn for only 20 minutes in any given area, because the fuel is depleted and the fire moves in the direction of a fresh fuel source.

Minadin’s Reply >> Typically, perhaps. Though that does cause me to wonder why we're required to put 1, 2, and sometimes even 3 hour rated fire protection around the structure in buildings. In any case, I think you'll find that the conditions at WTC7 weren't exactly typical. There was a diesel tank for an electrical generator that was fuelling the fires.

Your diesel tank lingo is more meaningless drivel, because hydrocarbon fires do not possess sufficient energy to even begin melting steel columns and beams from the WTC-7 steel framed network. The science of why building fires cannot possibly cause structural steel to soften or melt is here. Even if you had a million gallons of diesel fuel ‘and’ a delivery system (which you do not), then melting structural red-iron steel is still very much an impossibility. How are you going to deliver insufficient diesel fuel energy to ‘all’ the steel columns, beams, girders and bar-joists throughout the entire WTC-7 steel-framed network to cause ‘all’ those connections to be ‘severed’ at the very same time ‘and’ create a Controlled Demolition-like collapse? :0) Where is your precedent for diesel fuel fires causing the collapse of any steel-framed skyscraper in the history of this planet? How did falling debris from WTC-1 over 300 feet away penetrate WTC-7 to ignite diesel fuel in the storage tanks in the first place? :0) Never mind, because you have no support for your theory either way . . . and we both know it . . .

GL,

Terral

[ElMondoHummus]

To keep with normal habit of addressing lurkers and new folks, I'll address this to you all:

I'm not going to do a normal point-by-point rebuttal of this. Just go to 9/11 Myths, Debunking 9/11, and the sticky links at the top of this subforum for the rebuttals to "free fall", the "small (or no) fires" canard, the "steel buildings have never collapsed due to fire", thermite claims, and supposed testimony of explosions. Hate to say it, but Terral is just listing very old, recycled claims; most conspiracy fantasists have discarded a great many of them, or at least don't try to argue them with the same "evidence" that Terral is using (for example, that angled-cut image where he lables sections having "thermite residue". No such residue was ever found, and plus, that image is a famous one debunked many times over, including here in this forum (as well as here, and in other places (use the search function)).

Just rely on the standby sources that everyone else here does:

• The Sticky links, especially but not limited to the Gravy links, detailed rebuttals to many of the myths that are out there
• 9/11 Myths
• Debunking 9/11
• For claims made in the movie Loose Change, there's the Loose Change Guide, as well as the Internet Detectives debunk of the movie's claims.

You'll see that the conspiracy claims are unsupported, no matter how much extraneous, irrelevant argument Terral provides.

[Blender Head]

Reading the OP was like watching Britney Spears at a hair salon.

[JimBenArm]

So much stupidity.
So little time.

Please stop, Terral. You know nothing, and it shows.

[cisco]

One of the most willfully ignorant posts I've ever seen. A real affront to honesty everywhere.

The OP knows this stuff isn't true.

[Minadin]

This is absurd. You've literally not posted one correct thought whatsoever. And, you clearly don't know anything at all about structures or fire engineering. If I can point out glaring, obvious, and basic errors in your entire line of reasoning and you're just going to gloss over them as though I didn't, what motivation should I have to continue this exchange?

[Terral]

Hi DGM:

Quote:

DGM >> Atention. He posts the same thing on other sites too. It's SPAM if you ask me.

Posting my WTC-7 thesis paper on other Boards does NOT give these JREF writers and readers the opportunity to offer their advocating or opposing arguments on THIS JREF Board and on THIS Conspiracy Forum. What’s the matter? Is there such a thing as TOO MUCH 911Truth for DGM? :0) No sir. SPAM is reposting my work in other JREF rooms, or even pasting my WTC-7 OP Presentation on other JREF Conspiracy threads; which anyone can verify is NOT happening on this Board. Many of you simply have no WTC-7 thesis paper from which to draft your rebuttals and counterproposals to my Opening Post presentation. Your idea of ‘debunking’ (heh) is pasting three pathetic sentences to my threads, which only works to prove you have no case at all.

GL,

Terral

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by cisco

The OP knows this stuff isn't true.

That is why it is so sad. Terral is fully aware that upon close examination most, if not all, of what he posted can be shown to be crap, yet he posts it anyway.

The old famous throw a bunch of mud against the wall and see if any of it sticks technique. Gotta love the oldies but goodies.

[Myriad]

Why did you say the firefighter in the photo has a confused head?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[SDC]

Originally Posted by twinstead

That is why it is so sad. Terral is fully aware that upon close examination most, if not all, of what he posted can be shown to be crap, yet he posts it anyway.

The old famous throw a bunch of mud against the wall and see if any of it sticks technique. Gotta love the oldies but goodies.

Are you sure he knows it's all wrong? I get the feeling of a true believer.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi DGM:




Posting my WTC-7 thesis paper on other Boards does NOT give these JREF writers and readers the opportunity to offer their advocating or opposing arguments on THIS JREF Board and on THIS Conspiracy Forum. What’s the matter? Is there such a thing as TOO MUCH 911Truth for DGM? :0) No sir. SPAM is reposting my work in other JREF rooms, or even pasting my WTC-7 OP Presentation on other JREF Conspiracy threads; which anyone can verify is NOT happening on this Board. Many of you simply have no WTC-7 thesis paper from which to draft your rebuttals and counterproposals to my Opening Post presentation. Your idea of ‘debunking’ (heh) is pasting three pathetic sentences to my threads, which only works to prove you have no case at all.

GL,

Terral

Your right about one thing. I've had about enough 9/11 truth. It would be a different story if it was connected with reality.

Why do you ignore real people?

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by Terral

Your diesel tank lingo is more meaningless drivel, because hydrocarbon fires do not possess sufficient energy to even begin melting steel columns and beams from the WTC-7 steel framed network.

GL,

Terral

your blanket statement that "hydrocarbons" cant burn that hot is wrong for several reasons

1: hydrocarbons can and do burn hot enough to melt steel, most cutting torches use a hydrocarbon fuel

2: there is no set maximum temperature at which something can burn, depending on how fast the heat can dissipate and how hot the materials are at the start of the reaction it can easily get hot enough to melt steel

3: it doesnt matter anyway, steel melting is a strawman invented by the truth movement

[twinstead]

Fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. Now there's a blast from the past.

[BenBurch]

Oh. My. Dog. Not this tired, insane crap again!?

Did you know that Silverstein LOST MONEY when the WTC-7 fell down? A lot of money. The insurance he had did not even begin to cover it. Doesn't sound like something a "Greedy Joooo" would want, eh, Terral? Your anti-Semitism is pathetic and disgusting.

[SDC]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Oh. My. Dog. Not this tired, insane crap again!?

Did you know that Silverstein LOST MONEY when the WTC-7 fell down? A lot of money. The insurance he had did not even begin to cover it. Doesn't sound like something a "Greedy Joooo" would want, eh, Terral? Your anti-Semitism is pathetic and disgusting.

Well, I had a revelation a few years ago -- in all places, in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor, at a cookout for folk dancers -- a bunch of granola eating sandal wearing crunchy lefties if ever there was one.

At which a prominent member of the Ann Arbor folk dance community (English country dancing, American contras and squares) referred to a building fire as "Jew insurance." I could've decked him, but I couldn't get good enough footing, what with the sandals, and the granola underfoot.

This stuff is deeply rooted in the culture. With sickos, it comes to the surface.

[Blender Head]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

your blanket statement that "hydrocarbons" cant burn that hot is wrong for several reasons

1: hydrocarbons can and do burn hot enough to melt steel, most cutting torches use a hydrocarbon fuel

2: there is no set maximum temperature at which something can burn, depending on how fast the heat can dissipate and how hot the materials are at the start of the reaction it can easily get hot enough to melt steel

3: it doesnt matter anyway, steel melting is a strawman invented by the truth movement

This non-Truther website states the steel melted:

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wt...clifton/p1.htm

[DGM]

Terral:
Are you ready to call those iron workers in your pictures liars or fools? If so let me know and I'll introduce you to them.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi DGM:




Posting my WTC-7 thesis paper on other Boards does NOT give these JREF writers and readers the opportunity to offer their advocating or opposing arguments on THIS JREF Board and on THIS Conspiracy Forum. What’s the matter? Is there such a thing as TOO MUCH 911Truth for DGM? :0) No sir. SPAM is reposting my work in other JREF rooms, or even pasting my WTC-7 OP Presentation on other JREF Conspiracy threads; which anyone can verify is NOT happening on this Board. Many of you simply have no WTC-7 thesis paper from which to draft your rebuttals and counterproposals to my Opening Post presentation. Your idea of ‘debunking’ (heh) is pasting three pathetic sentences to my threads, which only works to prove you have no case at all.

GL,

Terral

You are one of the last conspiracy liars to cling to the thoroughly--and I mean thoroughly--debunked falsehood about the meaning of the phrase "pull it." There isn't a demolition company anywhere that recognizes this fantasist fabrication as industry slang for "blow up the building." Don't you get tired of being corrected?

Why can't your evil movement produce someone who can argue the fantasist case against Mark and Arthur Scheuerman on 'Hardfire'?

[Terral]

Hi Dave:

Quote:

Dave >> Oh yeah, Terral, one other thing. What exactly is a "Thermite Shaped Charge"?

Thermite Shaped Charges (picture) are an illegal brand of ‘cutter charges’ utilized to sever steel connections, by introducing a carefully prepared amount of “iron oxide and aluminum powder” with the end products being “aluminum oxide and molten iron.” The inside-job bad guys used sulfur in conjunction with Thermite to accelerate the destructive effect on the steel columns, girders and beams, which transformed regular Thermite into “Thermate.” Thermate is then combined with a malleable medium for placement all over the steel-framed network using 45-degree and 90-degree ‘shaped-charges’ to move the steel supports in any of the four directions (like this). The 45-degree charges ‘walk’ column lines in any direction (like this), while the 90-degree charges simply ‘cut’ the connection square (“Severed Column End”). These 45-degree cuts cannot possibly be part of any natural building fire collapse, as you can see these are CUTS and not the result of ‘melting’ anything. Even the 90-degree cuts MUST be part of the demolition process, as they have nothing to do with any melting of any structural steel components. The only way to transform an overbuilt WTC-7 47 story skyscraper into this little pile in just a few hours is by Controlled Demolition. Period!

GL,

Terral

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi Dave:
Thermite Shaped Charges (picture) are an illegal brand of ‘cutter charges’ utilized to sever steel connections, by introducing a carefully prepared amount of “iron oxide and aluminum powder” with the end products being “aluminum oxide and molten iron.” The inside-job bad guys used sulfur in conjunction with Thermite to accelerate the destructive effect on the steel columns, girders and beams, which transformed regular Thermite into “Thermate.” Thermate is then combined with a malleable medium for placement all over the steel-framed network using 45-degree and 90-degree ‘shaped-charges’ to move the steel supports in any of the four directions (like this). The 45-degree charges ‘walk’ column lines in any direction (like this), while the 90-degree charges simply ‘cut’ the connection square (“Severed Column End”). These 45-degree cuts cannot possibly be part of any natural building fire collapse, as you can see these are CUTS and not the result of ‘melting’ anything. Even the 90-degree cuts MUST be part of the demolition process, as they have nothing to do with any melting of any structural steel components. The only way to transform an overbuilt WTC-7 47 story skyscraper into this little pile in just a few hours is by Controlled Demolition. Period!

GL,

Terral

So did you look up what an "oxyacetylene torch" does, and the definition of the word "slag" in the context of cutting metal with said torches yet?

Originally Posted by Terral

Period!

LOL

This expression is usually reserved for instances in which one says something profound or definitive.

You've done no such thing.

[bje]

Originally Posted by Terral

Posting my WTC-7 thesis paper..... Many of you simply have no WTC-7 thesis paper...

GL,

Terral

Unfortunately, Terral, you must support your "thesis" when its contents and claims are challenged. As we see, you never have and evade every challenge to your claims and thesis.

Like your silly Pentagon claims which we nailed you on.

We don't have to debunk your "thesis". You have to support it. And you can't.

You flunk.