Bazant Misconduct website is launched[W:111]

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

So, the narrator. Ok.

Oh, believe me, I would love to hear what NIST has to say about the elevator car in the lobby. I'm sure it would be hilarious.

Have you actually read the parts in the NIST report that says that the south face damage wasn't that severe?

One pair of interviews was done in 2004, and one pair was done in 2007/2008.

Given that Barry Jennings is dead, reading more about how he described his experience on 9/11 would be interesting. So would Michael Hess, who appeared to have changed his story after Barry died and the BBC was doing their hitpiece.

There was already a discussion of the bulge. Tony gave rational reasons why it didn't indicate structural uncertainty, Mark F made his over-exaggerated thoughts on the bulge, and then Tony was criticized for not playing along with the worst-case-scenario because there was no evidence for the bulge besides a few witnesses.

If you refuse to think there's something odd about someone claiming that a building will collapse at "5 or 6 PM" and it collapses at 5:22 PM, then I have nothing more to say to you about the issue.

The BBC link says it was at 12:30, but neither the link nor the TV program provides evidence that it was at 12:30. What's the difference? Rotanz is speaking in hindsight on a program designed to discredit conspiracy theories. The BBC show didn't go in to the foreknowledge issue very much. Time constraints or something else?

Fledermaus, look at a diagram of how the elevators were situated in WTC 7. Rubble hitting the south side of the building could not do that. Hundreds of cannonballs hitting the south side of the building could not do that.

I bolded the hyperbole, nonsense, moving goalposts, denial, hand-waving and general nonsense.

How about admitting it.

You are trolling now.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

I bolded the hyperbole, nonsense, moving goalposts, denial, hand-waving and general nonsense.

How about admitting it.

You are trolling now.

If this is your way of copping out of the evidence, try reassessing which side you're arguing for. That comment could apply to a lot of people here, including you.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

The official material on the subject state that the rubble itself ignited the fires... on ten separate floors, even though "there was no evidence of floor-to-floor spread of fires". If you have any good reasons to think it could have been something electrical or gas related, tell me.

If there's a building that has fire on several floors, and there's no way the fires could have spread to different floors, then that is a possible sign of arson. The NFPA 921 has a lot of discussion of floor-by-floor fire spread for this reason.

Funny, I just re read the wtc7 report. You are playing a game as others have pointed out. The cause of the fires most likely was the debris damaging the building. In damaging the building is it not possible electrical shorts / sparks were created.

I have read investigation reports on forest fire causes dealing with vehicle accidents. The reports have stated the forest fire was caused by a vehicle crash. To satisfy you one would need to state that the vehicle hit a boulder. The impact crushed the front end, ruptured the fuel line, fuel flowed down onto the catalytic converter, which was hot enough to ignite the gasoline on the converter, those flames then ignited gas on the ground, which started the pine needles under the vehicle to burn , which spread out to other nearby fuels., which spread unchecked burning the forest. Therefore the conclusion is ignited gas started the fire.

In the case of WTC7, NIST was correct. The rubble was the primary causal agent in the fires starting. Much like in the above example the car crash was the primary causal agent.

You once again do not understand the use and implementation of NFPA guidelines. It is clear you have not done any investigation type report writing.

and one again, you failed to answer a question asked of you.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Funny, I just re read the wtc7 report. You are playing a game as others have pointed out. The cause of the fires most likely was the debris damaging the building. In damaging the building is it not possible electrical shorts / sparks were created.

Electrical shorts? Well, that's not what the WTC 7 report says. It says it was caused by burning debris. Do you have good reasons to think differently? Also, "sparks"? Really?

I have read investigation reports on forest fire causes dealing with vehicle accidents. The reports have stated the forest fire was caused by a vehicle crash. To satisfy you one would need to state that the vehicle hit a boulder. The impact crushed the front end, ruptured the fuel line, fuel flowed down onto the catalytic converter, which was hot enough to ignite the gasoline on the converter, those flames then ignited gas on the ground, which started the pine needles under the vehicle to burn , which spread out to other nearby fuels., which spread unchecked burning the forest. Therefore the conclusion is ignited gas started the fire.

In the case of WTC7, NIST was correct. The rubble was the primary causal agent in the fires starting. Much like in the above example the car crash was the primary causal agent.

Your analogies to car crashes and forest fires have been duly noted.

You once again do not understand the use and implementation of NFPA guidelines. It is clear you have not done any investigation type report writing.

and one again, you failed to answer a question asked of you.

When I cite the NFPA 921, it's when they list characteristics of the deliberate setting of fires and other deliberate destruction.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Electrical shorts? Well, that's not what the WTC 7 report says. It says it was caused by burning debris. Do you have good reasons to think differently? Also, "sparks"? Really?



Your analogies to car crashes and forest fires have been duly noted.



When I cite the NFPA 921, it's when they list characteristics of the deliberate setting of fires and other deliberate destruction.

Duly noted. You do not understand what your reading.

Tell us why NIST is wrong regarding the cause of the fires, instead of us explain it to you. Failure to provide a specific answer to the means you really don't know what your talking about.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

If this is your way of copping out of the evidence, try reassessing which side you're arguing for. That comment could apply to a lot of people here, including you.

It is my way of saying you are no longer making sense nor are you even trying to. Hand-wave any harder and you may take flight. And your insistence in intentionally using words that do not apply is tiresome. As is you intentional ignorance on many matters.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

It is my way of saying you are no longer making sense nor are you even trying to. Hand-wave any harder and you may take flight. And your insistence in intentionally using words that do not apply is tiresome. As is you intentional ignorance on many matters.

I disagree. You are the incoherent one.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Duly noted. You do not understand what your reading.

Tell us why NIST is wrong regarding the cause of the fires, instead of us explain it to you. Failure to provide a specific answer to the means you really don't know what your talking about.

I gave my reasons earlier. The lack of consideration of the video evidence showing rubble hitting the building, the failure to consider the dust which would have caked the interior of the building, and the fact that you have to multiply these unlikelihoods times ten, for each floor that was on fire. Oh, and there's no photographic evidence for fires until more than 1 1/2 hours after the collapse of the North Tower, as admitted by NIST.

I recommend The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False by David Ray Griffin. It's probably the least nuttiest book he's ever written, and page 182 of the PDF talks about the photographic evidence for fires under "Where, When and How did the Fires Start?".


http://www.krusch.com/books/911/Mysterious_Collapse_World_Trade_Center_7.pdf

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

I disagree. You are the incoherent one.

Have you taken flight yet?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

I gave my reasons earlier. The lack of consideration of the video evidence showing rubble hitting the building, the failure to consider the dust which would have caked the interior of the building, and the fact that you have to multiply these unlikelihoods times ten, for each floor that was on fire. Oh, and there's no photographic evidence for fires until more than 1 1/2 hours after the collapse of the North Tower, as admitted by NIST.

I recommend The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False by David Ray Griffin. It's probably the least nuttiest book he's ever written, and page 182 of the PDF talks about the photographic evidence for fires under "Where, When and How did the Fires Start?".


http://www.krusch.com/books/911/Mysterious_Collapse_World_Trade_Center_7.pdf

Magic Micah dust that prevents fire... Except it doesn't.

And David Ray Griffin?

You have GOT to be kidding.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Magic Micah dust that prevents fire... Except it doesn't.

It kind of does. What's in the WTC dust? pulverized concrete, gypsum wallboard, sheetrock, gypsum fireproofing material, etc.

Better than pouring a bucket of sand over a campfire.

EDIT:

And David Ray Griffin?

You have GOT to be kidding.

If you can refute anything that book says, I'll all ears.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

It kind of does. What's in the WTC dust? pulverized concrete, gypsum wallboard, sheetrock, gypsum fireproofing material, etc.

Better than pouring a bucket of sand over a campfire.

And yet it did nothing to stop fires in and around the WTC .

You do know fires were widespread in the WTC complex... Right?

EDIT:

If you can refute anything that book says, I'll all ears.

David Ray Griffin...

One simple point... He invokes Danny Jowenko. Someone overseas that was given a video of the last moments of WTC7, without soundtrack, and was not told of the known instability in the building or how long it burned without any attempt to fight the fires...

And yet he does not add that Danny Jowenko was adamant that the towers WERE NOT CD.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

And yet it did nothing to stop fires in and around the WTC .

You do know fires were widespread in the WTC complex... Right?

Do you have scientific literature that explains how the other fires were started? What's the source of exactly how the fires in WTC 5 and 6 were started? The cars?

There's the possibility of thermitic materials from the Twin Towers starting fires, but if you agree on that you wouldn't be here.

I brought up the fireball explosion from the South Tower that Ron DiFrancesco experienced, you gave weak reasons why that was perfectly normal.

You know, CBS Journalist Carol Marin remembered seeing a fireball explosion from the North Tower exactly like Ron: Lessons in investigative journalism: Carol Marin at TEDxMidwest - YouTube

David Ray Griffin...

One simple point... He invokes Danny Jowenko. Someone overseas that was given a video of the last moments of WTC7, without soundtrack, and was not told of the known instability in the building or how long it burned without any attempt to fight the fires...

Nope. There's a follow-up to that one interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtbRd6gzFWk

And yet he does not add that Danny Jowenko was adamant that the towers WERE NOT CD.

So you think there's a chance that WTC 7 could've been rigged in a few hours while it was burning, neat. Maybe it's just a little more of that cognitive dissonance I mentioned?

 

[mike2810]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

I gave my reasons earlier. The lack of consideration of the video evidence showing rubble hitting the building, the failure to consider the dust which would have caked the interior of the building, and the fact that you have to multiply these unlikelihoods times ten, for each floor that was on fire. Oh, and there's no photographic evidence for fires until more than 1 1/2 hours after the collapse of the North Tower, as admitted by NIST.

I recommend The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False by David Ray Griffin. It's probably the least nuttiest book he's ever written, and page 182 of the PDF talks about the photographic evidence for fires under "Where, When and How did the Fires Start?".


http://www.krusch.com/books/911/Mysterious_Collapse_World_Trade_Center_7.pdf

Read his book (was in the free book swap section of the library). At last you are showing your true colors and sources.
DRG is one heck of a "what if" writer. imo, He would have been better off to stay with theology.

Noted in the book of the use of Harriet and Jones of nanothermite fame. DRG is entitled to his opinion and that all the book is. Much like Prager and the mini neutron bomb (which Jones does not agree with). So what we have is you using sources in which the "experts" can't even agree.

Photo/vid evidence shows there were fires. Photo evidence shows the fires burned for many hours. Guess your " consider the dust which would have caked the interior of the building"
is just an opinion of no merit.,

You forgot to mention the gaping hole in the building that would have improved air flow for the fires, thereby improve odds of increased fire behavior.

You seem to reject sources that are much more creditable than DRG, Harriet or Jones. Sorry, I use different sources from those trying to make a buck out of 9/11.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

And yet it did nothing to stop fires in and around the WTC .

You do know fires were widespread in the WTC complex... Right?

Do you have scientific literature that explains how the other fires were started? What's the source of exactly how the fires in WTC 5 and 6 were started? The cars? [/QUOTE]

Oh, look... The question was "You do know fires were widespread in the WTC complex... Right?"

So rither than admit fires were for all practical purposes everywhere you start asking for documentation you will ignore.

There's the possibility of thermitic materials from the Twin Towers starting fires, but if you agree on that you wouldn't be here.

Now the thermite ignorance.... You can't be serious

You must have zero knowledge how thermite works to even propose that.

I brought up the fireball explosion from the South Tower that Ron DiFrancesco experienced, you gave weak reasons why that was perfectly normal.

You know, CBS Journalist Carol Marin remembered seeing a fireball explosion from the North Tower exactly like Ron:

You mean the injuries suffered AFTER the collapse began?

Nope. There's a follow-up to that one interview:

And he said the towers were not CD.....

And the followup interview... Did they discuss everything I noted above? No.

So you think there's a chance that WTC 7 could've been rigged in a few hours while it was burning, neat.

About zero chance... You really have no clue what goes into a CD... Do you?

Yours is, as noted, a Hollywood/comic book understanding of explosives...

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Read his book (was in the free book swap section of the library). At last you are showing your true colors and sources.
DRG is one heck of a "what if" writer. imo, He would have been better off to stay with theology.

Noted in the book of the use of Harriet and Jones of nanothermite fame. DRG is entitled to his opinion and that all the book is. Much like Prager and the mini neutron bomb (which Jones does not agree with). So what we have is you using sources in which the "experts" can't even agree.

Photo/vid evidence shows there were fires. Photo evidence shows the fires burned for many hours. Guess your " consider the dust which would have caked the interior of the building"
is just an opinion of no merit.,

You forgot to mention the gaping hole in the building that would have improved air flow for the fires, thereby improve odds of increased fire behavior.

You seem to reject sources that are much more creditable than DRG, Harriet or Jones. Sorry, I use different sources from those trying to make a buck out of 9/11.

Incoherence.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Oh, look... The question was "You do know fires were widespread in the WTC complex... Right?"

So rither than admit fires were for all practical purposes everywhere you start asking for documentation you will ignore.

WTC 7 was the only building outside of the Twin Tower's footprint to have fires. Other buildings had Twin Tower rubble damage, you know.

Now the thermite ignorance.... You can't be serious

You must have zero knowledge how thermite works to even propose that.

I could've sworn it produces extreme heat.

You mean the injuries suffered AFTER the collapse began?

Yeah, so what? Have a coherent theory for how it could've happened the way it did?

And he said the towers were not CD.....



About zero chance... You really have no clue what goes into a CD... Do you?

Danny Jowenko thought that that's how it might've been done. He didn't want to have to say that the Twin Towers were controlled demolitions by default.

Yours is, as noted, a Hollywood/comic book understanding of explosives...

What's Hollywood/comic book? I showed you to be utterly wrong when you said that explosives used for controlled demolition don't produce fireballs.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

WTC 7 was the only building outside of the Twin Tower's footprint to have fires. Other buildings had Twin Tower rubble damage, you know.

Fires widespread and you refuse to acknowledge it.

I could've sworn it gives off extreme heat.

And if that is all you know you have practically zero knowledge.

Yeah, so what? Have a coherent theory for how it could've happened the way it did?

Mark explained, You ignored.

And he said the towers were not CD.....

And he is correct.

Danny Jowenko thought that that's how it might've been done.

And he is wrong... CLUE: FIRE AND EXPLOSIVES DO NOT MIX.

He didn't want to have to say that the Twin Towers were controlled demolitions by default.

WTF are you talking about?

What's Hollywood/comic book?

Your understanding of explosives and thermite... Blast is not fireball. Explosions made in Hollywood have fuel added to make the explosions more photogenic so plenty of Americans believe hand grenades and the such result in fireballs. They don't. And thermite works better when it is packed and not falling through the air....

Simple ignorance.

I showed you to be utterly wrong when you said that explosives used for controlled demolition don't produce fireballs.

You still confuse blast with fireball... Like I said. Hollywood understanding.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fires widespread and you refuse to acknowledge it.

I acknowledge it, and WTC 7's fires are a more peculiar case.

And if that is all you know you have practically zero knowledge.

I also know it leaves a residue of iron microspheres, which is the case with the WTC, and can melt steel, which seems to most likely be the case with the WTC.

"18.4.5 - Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials."

It is a known fact that iron microspheres can be produced from thermite, and there is no proof that it can come from anything else. Especially how independent scientists showed how some of them have XEDS readouts that look exactly like the XEDS readouts of acknowledge thermite spheres. Therefore, finding this residue warrants an investigation into foul play in the WTC destruction.

"22.2.4.1 - Exotic accelerants have been hypothesized as having been used to start or accelerate some rapidly growing fires and were referred to in these particular instances as high temperature accelerants (HTA). Indicators of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete."

Credible witnesses say molten steel was there, temperatures high enough to create other molten metals have been acknowledged, and Dr. Steven Jones has tested two samples of iron-based material that was stated to come from ground zero. So, more reasons to do that investigation.

Source: NFPA 921

Mark explained, You ignored.

Did you ignore my responses to Mark F?

And he is wrong... CLUE: FIRE AND EXPLOSIVES DO NOT MIX.

It has been discussed a million times over how fires and airplane impacts would not have disturbed hypothetical demolition devices.

WTF are you talking about?

If WTC 7 was a demolition, the Twin Towers pretty much had to be, too.

Your understanding of explosives and thermite... Blast is not fireball. Explosions made in Hollywood have fuel added to make the explosions more photogenic so plenty of Americans believe hand grenades and the such result in fireballs. They don't. And thermite works better when it is packed and not falling through the air....

Incoherence and simple refusal to acknowledge that explosives used for demolition do produce fireballs.

You still confuse blast with fireball... Like I said. Hollywood understanding.

I'm guessing you didn't watch the video of the J. L. Hudson Department Store. That demolition shares another similarity with the Twin Towers: some of the squibs appear to be "flowing" out rather than suddenly shooting out.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

I acknowledge it, and WTC 7's fires are a more peculiar case.





I also know it leaves a residue of iron microspheres, which is the case with the WTC, and can melt steel, which seems to most likely be the case with the WTC.

"18.4.5 - Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials."

It is a known fact that iron microspheres can be produced from thermite, and there is no proof that it can come from anything else. Especially how independent scientists showed how some of them have XEDS readouts that look exactly like the XEDS readouts of acknowledge thermite spheres. Therefore, finding this residue warrants an investigation into foul play in the WTC destruction.

"22.2.4.1 - Exotic accelerants have been hypothesized as having been used to start or accelerate some rapidly growing fires and were referred to in these particular instances as high temperature accelerants (HTA). Indicators of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete."

Credible witnesses say molten steel was there, temperatures high enough to create other molten metals have been acknowledged, and Dr. Steven Jones has tested two samples of iron-based material that was stated to come from ground zero. So, more reasons to do that investigation.

Source: NFPA 921



Did you ignore my responses to Mark F?



It has been discussed a million times over how fires and airplane impacts would not have disturbed hypothetical demolition devices.





If WTC 7 was a demolition, the Twin Towers pretty much had to be, too.

Incoherence and simple refusal to acknowledge that explosives used for demolition do produce fireballs.





I'm guessing you didn't watch the video of the J. L. Hudson Department Store. That demolition shares another similarity with the Twin Towers: some of the squibs appear to be "flowing" out rather than suddenly shooting out.

You like to use the term incoherence when more accurately you mean you don't want to address the statement.

Quoting from the NFPA does not mean you understand anything about explosives.

And now the molten steel nonsense?

You are Pinballing at this point. A heaping helping of whack-a-mole nonsense. Now there is molten steel, but there were explosions..,

One ridiculous thing after another.

Jowenko said NO CD at the towers.

And "squibs"?

You have got to be kidding.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

You like to use the term incoherence when more accurately you mean you don't want to address the statement.

I use it when I see internet vomit that is a combination of off-topic and wrong on too many ways to address, if it has not already been addressed a million times before.

Quoting from the NFPA does not mean you understand anything about explosives.

If I don't understand anything about them, then it's a good idea to cite material written by people who do, no?

And now the molten steel nonsense?

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl said he saw molten steel. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. If there's a single drop of molten steel, exotic accelerants should be suspected.

Jowenko said NO CD at the towers.

Probably because a demolition of the Twin Towers was designed to kill people and destroy things, the opposite of commercial demolitions. Jowenko's job was to make sure that didn't happen.

And "squibs"?

You have got to be kidding.

What do you think shot out of the corner of the North Tower?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg

What do you think shot out of the corner of the South Tower?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETntmSrT7g8&feature=youtu.be

Seems a little strange that air pressure would choose to explode out of the corners of the buildings rather than the hundreds of windows available in the general vicinity. Not that air pressure explains the ones shooting out of the windows, either. Also what seems very strange is that giant piece of steel sticking up in the air that chose to fall down exactly when that North Tower corner explosion happened.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

If you bothered to read my entire thread and listen closely, It is obvious that DiFrancesco experienced the explosion while the upper portion of WTC 2 was beginning to lean over. It took several seconds after that for rubble to fall to the ground.

"Mr. DiFrancesco was bowled over by the explosion as he reached some stairs. Something slammed into the back of his head. The last thing he remembers is the sound of his own voice: "Help me, help me!""" -Last One Out Alive by Andrew Duffy

Sounds to me like a little something something shot out of the ground floor.

What? WHAT? This was when WTC 2 was just beginning to collapse.

Great, an explosion of debris forced out by the collapse hit him on the head. There were no explosives.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

I use it when I see internet vomit that is a combination of off-topic and wrong on too many ways to address, if it has not already been addressed a million times before.

If I don't understand anything about them, then it's a good idea to cite material written by people who do, no?

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl said he saw molten steel. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. If there's a single drop of molten steel, exotic accelerants should be suspected.


Probably because a demolition of the Twin Towers was designed to kill people and destroy things, the opposite of commercial demolitions. Jowenko's job was to make sure that didn't happen.

What do you think shot out of the corner of the North Tower?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg

What do you think shot out of the corner of the South Tower?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETntmSrT7g8&feature=youtu.be

Seems a little strange that air pressure would choose to explode out of the corners of the buildings rather than the hundreds of windows available in the general vicinity. Not that air pressure explains the ones shooting out of the windows, either. Also what seems very strange is that giant piece of steel sticking up in the air that chose to fall down exactly when that North Tower corner explosion happened.

Quoting from the NFPA does not mean you understand anything about explosives. Period. I could C&P from a Farsi copy of the Koran and not understand a single word.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl has been very clear his statements have been twisted by the "Truth" movement. Very clear.

Jowenko said NO CD at the towers. You are making **** up about his intent.

And the use of the word "squibs" shows the depths of your ignorance. No "squibs" are used in CD outside of "Truther" sites.

You might want to look the word up.

 

[gamolon]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

I'll use an analogy here to show why you are asking for more information than is available, but that with what we do know collapse due to fire can be ruled out and controlled demolition can be determined as the cause.

Imagine there were was an experiment to go from point A to point B with three different routes of exactly the same 100 mile length. The object of the experiment was not to be at point B first, but to average 50 miles per hour between A and B with the idea being that the one closest to a 2 hour time was the winner. When it was all said and done the teams were all around the 2 hour mark.

What we can't know from the information available is
- exactly what form of transportation was taken
- which of the three routes were taken
- whether the teams moved fast and stopped or used an average speed the whole time

What we can know from the information available is
- that powered vehicles had to be used, as walking, running, or biking would not allow for a 50 mph average

All we can know from the information available from the video of the collapse of WTC 7 is that the symmetric free fall absolutely rules out fire as a cause and the only means of causing a symmetric free fall is controlled demolition.

Interesting.

I can rule out your claim of CD also.

1. No explosions for 8 floors worth of 24 core columns were recorded either by sound or sight.
2. The roofline did not immediately start in free fall which negates your "all columns were cut simultaneously baloney. If it were true, free fall would have ensued immediately.
3. The core columns being the only things cut and then descending downward like you say would have pulled the perimeter walls inward. That didn't happen according to you. Take a look at demolition and see how when one part of an attached structure is demoed first, it pulls the remaining structure inwards AND down. How do you explain that Tony?

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Quoting from the NFPA does not mean you understand anything about explosives. Period. I could C&P from a Farsi copy of the Koran and not understand a single word.

I'm no expert, but I know how to read. Apparently, you don't know anything either because of your use the phrase "Holloywood/comic book explosions"

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl has been very clear his statements have been twisted by the "Truth" movement. Very clear.

Can you show me where he retracted his words? "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center"

Jowenko said NO CD at the towers. You are making **** up about his intent.

Guess what? He said WTC 7 was. I heard you the first time.

And the use of the word "squibs" shows the depths of your ignorance. No "squibs" are used in CD outside of "Truther" sites.

You might want to look the word up.

Squib - A type of fireworks slang for an electric match (see definition of electric match above). True squibs are actually blasting caps (initiators) used in the explosive industry to set off high explosives. This term crept into fireworks jargon by individuals that did not understand the differences between an electric match and a blasting cap. True squibs are not used for fireworks.

Buy Fireworks Online

Well, it looks like it has also been used as a phrase to describe any explosion of debris within the WTC destruction. So what? Can YOU explain why you can see the explosions coming out of the corner of the building?