Originally posted by basilisk
Hey wise guy, if 9/11 was an inside job pulled off by criminal masterminds within the Bush administration who rigged the buildings with explosives weeks in advance... why exactly did WTC 7 fall many hours after the twin towers? I've never heard any Truther provide a coherent explanation that fits with the rest of their paranoid science-hating world-view.
WTC building 7 was not damaged severely as noted by NIST (in their final report). They could not report this because everyone knows it simply did not happen. NIST concluded that the building came down due to fires but this has never once happened in the history of steel framed buildings.
Most of the fuel if not all of it was recovered from the tanks. In order for the debris to get to the supply fuel pipe alone in WTC building 7 it would have had to,
1. Break through 3 perimeter columns.
2. Break through 5 steel and concrete floors including at least 1 floor support beam per floor.
3. Knock 2 elevators out of their shafts then through a wall and into the hallway.
4. Take out a core column and then finally break through a concrete masonry wall and a 6" steel and concrete floor.
^^
I did not even include that the debris first had to pass right through WTC 6 (yes the whole building) and across the street before even reaching WTC building 7. All in all about 300 feet more or less. Don't believe me? Read the NIST report and check every last detail I just typed up.
Does this sound a little ing far fetched to you? It should and that's what the official story and the bogus reports want you to believe. No explaining what so ever that the debris would have had to perform nothing short of a miracle to start these massive fires that supposedly caused WTC building 7 to crumble.
Below is not the type of fire that causes buildings to fall symmetrically in almost free fall speed. In fact the whole building could have been engulfed in flames and it would have never fell the way it did.
The investigation needs to be revisited and done properly by looking at all possible avenues, especially explosives (aka controlled demolition) which the NIST and FEMA refused to do (coincidentally).
In truth a rigged building can be "pulled" at any given time which would explain why WTC building 7 came down much later in the day compared to WTC 1 and 2.
Lastly it is science or lack there of that leads millions of people to believe that 9/11 was a cover up. Experts from around the world agree.
Danny Jowenko Controlled Demolitions Expert
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by shagnew13
Ok if the Steel Columns didn't Melt from whatever it is that brought them down, and there was no physical damage done to the structure from the falling debris from 1 & 2 (which has been reported). And there have been Structures that have burnt alot longer then 7 actually did that haven't come down.
And especially since it was built to withstand major damage such as bombs, hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disaters, and I am assuming that if it was built to withstand all of those, then I would be correct in assuming that it could withstand fires, seeing as how it held the offices of CIA, DOD, and the NYC's Office of Emergency Management among alot of others.
Then how exactly did it come down??
Can you explain that?
First, who cares what was in the building. I don't care if Delta Force had an office inside, what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. Secondly, building 7 suffered extensive damage to its core structure, and anything that is said otherwise, is simply utterly misinformed.
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
As a matter of just looking at how close building 7 was to 1 and 2, you'll see that the building was fatally damaged. Any other explanation that doesn't accept that fact is devoid of logic and reason, plain and simple.
IL Duce
buildings that are designed for certain things always work and NEVER have flaws.
/sarcasm
you conspiracy theorists are the type of people that made it easy for me to rule with an iron fist!
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by thesauce23
honestly guys, you guys are smarter than this. what the do you get out of correcting each other on matters that have absolutely no significance in your life except knowledge/memory of an event. most likely none of you or people you know were remotely involved in this event so why bicker and argue over it? really??? I'm not trying to advocate peace or anything but just looking at what do you get out of calling each other an idiot or cretin or whatever on that really doesn't afflict you? will it change your life significantly? or will it just be another waste of time/effort on your part and you move on?
on a brighter note:
its friday/end rant:eyes:
That's why people like you stay out of political topics. Don't worry about why we argue over it. You're more than welcome to discuss pointless bull somewhere though...;)
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by IL Duce
buildings that are designed for certain things always work and NEVER have flaws.
/sarcasm
you conspiracy theorists are the type of people that made it easy for me to rule with an iron fist!
You were put into power by the world Jewish banking cabal, weren't you? -_-
IL Duce
naw...irish spring hired me.
shagnew13
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
First, who cares what was in the building. I don't care if Delta Force had an office inside, what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. Secondly, building 7 suffered extensive damage to its core structure, and anything that is said otherwise, is simply utterly misinformed.
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
As a matter of just looking at how close building 7 was to 1 and 2, you'll see that the building was fatally damaged. Any other explanation that doesn't accept that fact is devoid of logic and reason, plain and simple.
Well the South Side of the building looks pretty much intact to me, according to your picture there, especially the roof and everything on it
culorut
LOL, lies, lies and more lies.
Why anyone believes anything these criminals say is beyond me, let alone defend their bull ing stories on what happened on 9/11 as well.
basilisk
quote:
Originally posted by culorut Most of the fuel if not all of it was recovered from the tanks. In order for the debris to get to the supply fuel pipe alone in WTC building 7 it would have had to,
1. Break through 3 perimeter columns.
2. Break through 5 steel and concrete floors including at least 1 floor support beam per floor.
3. Knock 2 elevators out of their shafts then through a wall and into the hallway.
4. Take out a core column and then finally break through a concrete masonry wall and a 6" steel and concrete floor.
Oh, another engineering expert!
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
In truth a rigged building can be "pulled" at any given time which would explain why WTC building 7 came down much later in the day compared to WTC 1 and 2.
A lot of smoke instead of simply answering WHY the building was "pulled" hours later... why demolish WTC 7 hours after the twin towers? What is the purpose?
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Lastly it is science or lack there of that leads millions of people to believe that 9/11 was a cover up. Experts from around the world agree.
You can say this all you like but it doesn't make it true. The consensus (as defined by majority agreement) is that controlled demolition did not occur. None of those AE911truth garbage changes that fact. You can have thousands of people who disagree with NIST and still not break the consensus of millions of engineers who are satisfied with the established conclusions. End story.
What boggles my mind is that the 9/11 deception movement is full of quacks and charlatans with zero engineering background badgering the out of people about topics they don't know anything about... when, ultimately, it doesn't have a lot of bearing on whether 9/11 was a cover-up or "inside job" or not! Bush and company could have masterminded the entire thing with airplanes just as it seems and it could still be a massive conspiracy... plainly, no controlled demolition needs to have taken place on 9/11 to support fringe theories about the sociopolitical situation surrounding the event. And, given that controlled demolition is demonstrably implausible, all this fixation does is harm the cause of the 9/11 troofer movement.
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by basilisk
Prove what I posted wrong, huffing and puffing is not doing you any good.
IL Duce
you are asking people to prove things, yet nothing you have posted achieves what you ask of others.
hypocrisy is awesome.
what is your field and your educational background for fun?
i know you will avoid this question...it is rhetorical.;)
culorut
Newly acquired footage through the Freedom of Information Act on WTC building 7.
^^
That's one good looking structurally intact building to me. Those little fires caused it to blow up?
