Balzac Vitry demolition - Verinage technique

This is another example of a large building demolished without explosives, using the hydraulic 'verinage' technique.

Note the collapse floors are weakened, but not the rest of the structure.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• controlled demolition
• 9/11
• inside job
• richard gage
• david chandler
• freefall
• NWO
• verinage
• nanothermite

[AlienEntity1]

@OneAmatoryScam There were no grounds for FDNY to think that accelerants were used! The fires burned as normal office fires over many hours, without firefighting.

The failure modes of the steel were: thermal expansion and shear. None of the recovered steel, upon inspection, was melted - some of it was bent, but not melted.

There were a couple of examples of eutectic erosion of the steel, which is a sulphidation process, not linked with thermitics.

[AlienEntity1]

@OneAmatoryScam I've saved you the trouble, here it is: '19.2.4* Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers (see NFPA 430, Code for the Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers) may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.'

Again, there were no grounds (continued)

[AlienEntity1]

@OneAmatoryScam What you're doing is basically ignoring what the purpose of the NFPA guideline is for - it is there to give guidance in fire investigations, and as such must be applied competently.

I challenge you, yes you, to address FDNY directly, in writing, and ask them why they made the decision NOT to test the WTC building debris for thermite. Get their answer and roll with it. You might learn something about the process.

[AlienEntity1]

@OneAmatoryScam Look, you're completely missing the elephant in the room - that is, what caused the fires in the WTC buildings. There is no mystery, and any honest person should be able to agree to this; hence I don't think you're very honest, frankly.

Here's the thing: The flaming debris from the towers started massive fires in SEVERAL buildings, including WTC 4, 5 and 6!! RU suggesting that FDNY should've tested all those buildings for thermite???? Really?? That's insane...

[AlienEntity1]

@OneAmatoryScam Scam, there is simply NO empirical evidence of molten steel. Nada.

A youtube video is not going to get you there. You need a lab which can test the samples and give you a proper analysis.

That is not what you're presenting, so the burden of proof is not being met. Your evidence, in other words, simply does not support your arguments.

Hmmm, I didn't know Eric Lawyer was an expert in the investigation. What part did he play in it? He was on the team?

[OneAmatoryScam]

@AlienEntity1 BTW, if you were secure in your position, you wouldn't have felt the need to include some sort of ad hominem attack in every single post you've made in this entire exchange. I challenge you to abandon these completely from this point forward.

If your argument is sound, you can win attacking the argument alone and not the arguer.

[OneAmatoryScam]

@AlienEntity1 I'll get to work giving you the specific sections of the fire code, though I would think with your constant instance that we defer to the experts on these matters that Lawyer's testimony would suffice.

As far as evidence of melted steel, a video recording that you, I, or any visitor of page can view for him or herself is worlds better than any third-party testimony, so there's nothing better I can give you there. If you have a problem with the video evidence, please explain it.

[AlienEntity1]

@OneAmatoryScam btw, your previous false statement - that demolitions experts were not consulted - is still false, and you still have not accepted that it is false.

RU always so stubbornly wrong in life? I hope not, life must be very tough for you otherwise.

[AlienEntity1]

@OneAmatoryScam I love your circular reasoning. No evidence, just circular arguments and an ignorance of NFPA 921 and the facts.

Sheesh! You couldn't possibly make a less competent argument. What a joke.

[AlienEntity1]

@OneAmatoryScam I challenge you to find:

a) the portion of the fire code pertaining to melted steel

b) empirical evidence (ie metallurgical tests by trained experts) of melted steel at the WTC.

Knock yourself out. Bring your evidence.