Neutral, if you review the video, you will notice no "puffs" until after the roof top structure begins to fall into the building. Which leads to increased pressure within the building. I have seen many controlled demolitions and I don't recall seeing any in which explosives were still detonating while the building was falling. With the exceptions of the demolition of the stadium in Cincinatti which was designed to simulate a dominoe effect, whch cannot be compared, and demolitions designed to take down buildings in stages. But of course, I haven't seen them all.

Tilly, are you really an actor?

Hello John

You said:
"Tilly,
I'm dissatisfied, not disgruntled. Do you understand the difference?"

Ah, thank you for clearing that up, I think I can see the difference...


Disgruntled- in a state of sulky dissatisfaction
Dissatisfied- in a state of sulky dissatisfaction

Now, if you will just clear up the Wanker Questions...

Hello John

You said:
"Tilly, do you understand the term "critical skill deferment", or am I confusing you again?"

John, almost everything you say confuses me.
Look, I have to confess, I can NOT see the difference between Disgruntled and Dissatisfied
Does that mean I have OldTimers Disease?

Hello John
No need to apologise.
Your inability to internalize my dictionary definition was completely expected

Now, about those Wanker questions...

branw

Yes the top of the building apears to move first, sinking in the middle, and yes, this would raise the pressure. But your idea that this causes the puffs seems to stretch the imagination a little as it requires that the pressure rise is first felt about 6 floors down from the top and works its way up. How can that be explained? Also the amount of pressure rise from the sagging of the roof, when distributed over the large volume of 6 floors, would not be very great.

Neutral,

You are misunderstanding what you are seeing. The first frame that shows any sign of "puffs" includes two side by side spots about 15 floors down. The very next frame shows seven more in the next 6 floors above that. The following frame shows several more all within the range specified. Finally, several frames later you see the few closest to the top. The first blackness you see is not puffs, it is the absence of a window due to it's shattering. It is only later that you see debris that has been blown out of the hole. The combination of possible weakness due to fire, increased pressure, and obvious structural instability caused the windows to fail. This created an easy exit for a lot of air and it took with it some debris. This debris could not be smoke. It is a mixture of some kind of dust with the heavier particles falling out immediately and the lighter ones not far behind. By the end of the video, the haze you described is already falling very fast. As for the pressure being felt many floors down first.... The pressure would have been felt first in any area without a restricted path to the concentration of pressure. For example, a closed door would be a restriction and would delay the effects of the increased pressure. As you know, in the event of a fire, you are to close all doors if possible to slow the spread of the fire. Some buildings are equipped to close many doors automatically. My dorm building back in college was equipped in this manner. The doors had the closer attached to the top, like you would see at most places of business. They had an electro-magnetic door stop. When opened all the way, a metal plate at the bottom of the door would come in contact with the magnet. In the event of a fire alarm, the electro-magnet would release, closing the door. It is impossible to know which doors were closed and which doors were compromised by fire. Like any thing in physics, pressure will follow the path of least resistance.

My turn for a question...

Why has no one found any traces of explosives? If the "puffs" were indeed caused by explosives, they would have brought with them explosive residue, and it would be all over the place.

To paraphrase, "Here's a bunch of rambling nonsense - now let's talk about something else."

Tell him to disable his 'skip' function for a few minutes and go back and read the previous link already provided

Destroying the evidence

Then suggest he get back on topic.

From Terry Syd's Revised Dictionary, Fool's Edition:

Pull: To demolish a building in a controlled way using undetectable explosives.

Physics: A bunch of rambling nonsense.

Talk about whatever you want Terry. Neutral and I are having a logical, rational debate. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

branw,
Re,
Indeed they have been bombing you for 30 years, that is why when they get a nuke they know exactly where they can send it

Which 'they' are you refering to ? Surely not the Irish ? We are finally getting over that particular problem.

By the way, we have just decided to retain our nuclear capability. Best to keep our big stick.

Question. If N0 7 building was brought down by compression wave from the other two, wouldn't the walls have been blown off first ? Also wouldn't there have been similar damage to other buildings in the area ?

Mike Pecarero, the engineer, lived in Long Island. Why doesn't someone phone him up and ask what happened ?
regards
dva

DVA,
Following the context of the discussion, you will realize that the "they" in question describes any terrorist or terrorist group operating beyond the shroud of a recognized government. Notwithstanding that they may receive "under the table" support from some governments. I do not recall mentioning the Irish specifically though I do not exclude them. I implied that some other group would learn from the experience of others and look for a target which is easy to hit.
Moving on....


I beleive the stated theory was that the compression wave caused some structural damage and broke gas mains causing fire. As for similar damage to other buildings... There was considerable damage to many buildings in the area. Apparently building 7 was the only one that sustained an uncontrollable fire.

Excellent idea about Mike Pecarero though, let us know what he tells you. What does a phone call from Yorks cost? I'm sure we'll chip in.

Anybody got a link to this here "compression wave theory" about WT 7?

branw,
No, you are correct. You didn't mention Irland directly. I think a lot of the confusion going on here is down to the way you are interpreting the replies to your comments. Let me demonstrate what I mean.

I asked you 'who is going to nuke us, Meaning the UK, in responce to your comment

'When the terrorists start looking for softer targets because America is kicking their a$$,
they will find you...

I then pointed out that we had had 30 years of terrorist attack already. Meaning the on-going unrest in Northern Ireland that often spilled over into the UK mainland.

You replied with

Have they been nuking you for 30 years? I beleive that is what I was talking about. Indeed they have been bombing you for 30 years, that is why when they get a nuke they know exactly where they can send it. Do you care? Maybe when your country is a radioactive wasteland you will find America a little more useful

This to me reads that you are asking me if the IRA have been 'nuking' us for thirty years.

Clearly not. And if you don't rule out Ireland as carrying out a possible future nuclear attack on the UK mainland then I really don't see where you are getting your world view from. You do seem to have a fixation on people getting attacked with nuclear weapons. Strange from someone who lives in the only country to have even carried out such an attack on another nation. Or maybe not so strange.
Tell me, you don't have to if you consider it an invasion of privacy, have you ever travelled outside the USA ? If so, how did you view the countries you visited ? surely not all as potential enemies.
Thanks for the apology concerning your remark about my eyesight. I wasn't offended and took the remark as simply you trying to get over your point
regards
dva

p.s I would give that engineer a call but I don't have the first idea on how to get his phone number from over here. The cost would be negligable, but thanks for the offer of recompence.

Tilly,

'The US administration has not admitted complicity so it must not have been involved'

do you remember the Cash Landrum affair ? Texas, about 25 years ago.
same result.
regards
dva

There are now two theories being proposed for the destruction of WTC 7, the Compression Wave theory and the Fire/Compressed Air theory.

There was another building, WTC 6, which stood between the twin towers and WTC 7. It sustained considerable damage from flying debris. It was demolished by the authorities. I'm not sure what day that was done but it was not on the day of the plane strike. WTC 7 was therefore protected by WTC 6 and must have received much less damage than WTC 7 from debris or any possible pressure wave. So why would WTC 7 have fallen before WTC 6? Clearly this does not make sense.

That leaves the Fire/compressed air theory. I have been unable to find any images of WTC 7 showing a substantial fire. Two small fires may be seen in some images about thirty floors down. Let us say for arguments sake that these fires were hot enough to weaken the core. The first thing that would happen is that the building as a whole above the fire would subside. But that is not what we see. The video I linked to above shows that something has happened already when the video starts, as there is turbulent dust above the roof and the structure on top of the building starts to collapse. Then we see the roof sag. Remember that at this point according to the fire theory there are over thirty floors intact between the damaged area and the roof. How can the structure on top of the roof collapse first immediately followed by the roof itself?

There is another video which starts a little earlier and shows a white flash at the end of the structure on the roof at the beginning of the collapse. How would a fire thirty floors below produce that?

Now for the compressed air portion of this theory. The roof is seen to sag which must compress the air below it. The first of the puffs which are seen coming from the side of the building appears 6 floors down. The explanation given for this is that fire doors must have been closed on the first 5 floors so that the compressed air finally ejected material from the 6th floor. The problem with this theory is that it requires that there were people or machanisms which opened the fire doors on the floors above in sequence upward from the sixth floor, as puffs are seen coming out one after another upwards. It seems this explanation is getting so complex as to be highly improbable.

Regarding the question of looking for residue from explosives in the area, this won't tell much as building 6 was demolished with explosives.

Dva, I think you are right about the confusion. In the short amount of time I have been posting in this thread, I have received numerous personal attacks and sarcastic replies to my posts. It is hard to judge a persons tone from this type of communication. I think I have been on guard and maybe unfairly mistook the intention of some of your posts. I did not mean Ireland would attack UK with nuclear weapons. I was and still am referring to any terrorist described above in an earlier post, no matter where they are. There are people everywhere, including Ireland, who are crazy enough to do anything. No one in America ever thought something like the Oklahoma City bombing could have happened. America suffered a terrorist attack from an American. There are Americans here who would detonate a nuclear bomb here if only they could. It is from this knowledge that I presume that there are those in Ireland who would do the same to the UK. Keep in mind that I never said Ireland, only individual terrorists and terrorist organizations. I do not think I have a fixation on the matter. I have not gone back to review all of my posts but I think I probably mentioned it once and only again in response to questions from others on the subject. If one were to only look at my posts, it may seem that way. I will say however that it is only a matter of time before one of those missing russian nukes shows up, the bad way. And people will say, "Why didn't we do anything to prevent this?"

Yes, I have been outside my country, but only to Canada. I find them very much like us. I also once worked for a Japanese owned company and I found the same. Since we are clearing everything up here, I recall naming only a few countries that are without a doubt either potential or immediate enemies to the US. ie Syria, Iran. I certainly do not consider most countries enemies.

The OKC bombing was a psy-op in which 168 people died, including the children in the daycare center. The building was brought down with internal charges, two of which failed to detonate and were recovered.

The explosives team in that op was so incompetent that not only did all the internal charges fail to trigger, but the acoustic/pressure fuze in the van failed to trigger with the main blast and had to be command detonated - it went off 4.2 seconds later. There is heaps of information on this, should anyone have an actual interest in determining WHO THE ENEMY IS in this terror war. Here is a link to get such people started -

OKC Bombing

General Partin's report is especially good.

I don't know why a person would be so scared of "suiciding terrorists". Going back to the 19 FBI endorsed suicide terrorists of 9-11, 7 of them failed in their mission - the're still alive! Yes, that's right, more than a third of these alleged suicide fanatics couldn't complete their mission.

kamakazi veteran's get medals

Neutral, you show much more patience than me, congratulations.

Neutral,

Re:
"There was another building, WTC 6, which stood between the twin towers and WTC 7. It sustained considerable damage from flying debris. It was demolished by the authorities. I'm not sure what day that was done but it was not on the day of the plane strike. WTC 7 was therefore protected by WTC 6 and must have received much less damage than WTC 7 from debris or any possible pressure wave. So why would WTC 7 have fallen before WTC 6? Clearly this does not make sense."

The only way it would not make sense is if all other things were equal. Example: Tower 2 was hit after tower 1 yet it fell first. Buildings 6 and 7 were not identical, they were not hit by the same debris from the same trajectories. Building 6 was an eight story building while 7 was a 47 story building. Building 6 only blocked about 17% of building 7. That leaves 83% of building 7 unprotected. Building 6 did not block much at all considering that there were 39 stories of building 7 sticking up above it. In addition, building 6 being considerably shorter had immensely less weight to support and was thus able to stand. For these reasons, I cannot consider the "blocking" theory valid.



Re:
"That leaves the Fire/compressed air theory. I have been unable to find any images of WTC 7 showing a substantial fire. Two small fires may be seen in some images about thirty floors down. Let us say for arguments sake that these fires were hot enough to weaken the core. The first thing that would happen is that the building as a whole above the fire would subside. But that is not what we see. The video I linked to above shows that something has happened already when the video starts, as there is turbulent dust above the roof and the structure on top of the building starts to collapse. Then we see the roof sag. Remember that at this point according to the fire theory there are over thirty floors intact between the damaged area and the roof. How can the structure on top of the roof collapse first immediately followed by the roof itself?"

Surely you are not implying that just because you cannot see it that it does not exist. You are looking at offices on the other side of those windows. Most doors are likely closed. There may be no fire in a lot of the window offices. But what about 15 or 30 feet in, on the other side of the wall? You cannot conclude that because it is not in your line of sight, it does not exist.

"The first thing that would happen is that the building as a whole above the fire would subside."
Do you have a credible source for this statement or are you saying that this is what you would expect? I would not expect that at all unless all of the supports failed at the same time. The only way that would happen is with a controlled demolition. Instead, I would expect to see the portion of the building directly above the first-to-fail support begin to collapse first with the rest of the building following being unable to support the extra load. I must correct you, according to the fire theory, there is much more fire than what you can see from the outside. The 30 floors above the visible fire may or may not have had fire damage.



Re:
"Now for the compressed air portion of this theory. The roof is seen to sag which must compress the air below it. The first of the puffs which are seen coming from the side of the building appears 6 floors down. The explanation given for this is that fire doors must have been closed on the first 5 floors so that the compressed air finally ejected material from the 6th floor. The problem with this theory is that it requires that there were people or machanisms which opened the fire doors on the floors above in sequence upward from the sixth floor, as puffs are seen coming out one after another upwards. It seems this explanation is getting so complex as to be highly improbable. "

My mistake, I had not noticed the "puffs" on the right side of the building. I thought we were just talking about the side facing us.
Item: They do not appear until after that portion of the building has already started moving downward.
Item: They have completely disappeared by the time they reach the level of the building that is blocking our view.
Item: Nothing is ever discharged from these dark spots.

Based on the three items above, it must have been a visual anomolie having to do with the sun and perhaps the shadows of recessed windows. Other than that, I don't know what else it could be. If it were from explosives, there would have been a discharge of debris.



Re:
"Regarding the question of looking for residue from explosives in the area, this won't tell much as building 6 was demolished with explosives."

Excellent observation, I will cede you that. However, there would be concentration patterns of explosives residue centered around both buildings.

I have not seen the other video you refer to but as with everything, there are probably many possible explanations.


Terry, one conspiracy at a time. I have seen the surveilence video that actually shows the truck exploding and the intact building right behind it. No 4 second delay. But that is another debate. Why do you have so little patience with me? I am just trying to understand your point of view. I am just asking you to prove it to me. Much of the evidence given to support your view doesn't make sense to me. I am simply explaining why. Beleive it or not, I am a pretty smart guy. You all have an opportunity to change my mind. But you have to do it with logic and proof. If you are right, the truth will prevail. You are welcome to participate but I ask that we all stop with the personal attacks. It serves no purpose and only confuses the issue. As for my "skip" function... I do not have time to read every website linked to. If you would like to quote a website in your post, you can be sure it will be taken into account. And if I have time, I'll click the link.

I am not scared of being attacked by terrorists. I seriously doubt they would have any reason to attack the area I live in. I do however feel compassion for my fellow man and I continue to seek the greater good. Or the lesser of two evils depending on whether you are an optimist or pecimist.