Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
9-11 WTC 7 Tower collapse..
Comments
-
That video posted above is excellent, well worth watching.
It is the same as all those Loose Change, lizards are controlling the world videos on youtube, same music and voice over. This is a much better one, more realistic and more entertaining:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07
"metal is stronger than ice" lolNot doubting in my mind the fact that all three buildings collapsed as a result of controlled demolitions.
Your mind is easily made up when a few videos on youtube and propaganda "truther" websites convinces you. Facts and evidence are not need there obviously.
Here is an example of a video of similar propaganda methods (even has an exploding building in it for you :P) I take it you will believe everything in it too even though it's obviously one sided and a lie.
0 -
-
-
-
Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »you're such a sheep meglome
I know... my whole way of keeping dreams and reality separated, I hate myself sometimes.
0 -
-
FrostyJack wrote: »It is the same as all those Loose Change, lizards are controlling the world videos on youtube, same music and voice over. This is a much better one, more realistic and more entertaining:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07
"metal is stronger than ice" lol
Your mind is easily made up when a few videos on youtube and propaganda "truther" websites convinces you. Facts and evidence are not need there obviously.
Here is an example of a video of similar propaganda methods (even has an exploding building in it for you :P) I take it you will believe everything in it too even though it's obviously one sided and a lie.
What have lizards got to do with anything?
You mind is easily made up when you take for fact the rubbish presented to the general public through main stream media.
The video is said was excellent makes much more sense than the supposed argument that fire alone caused the collapse of any of the towers.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Mahatma coat wrote: »I know the photos you are referring to here, and they do not show what you claim.
so please provide your conclusive evidence
How can I show conclusive evidence, but I can show the building was indeed badly damaged. Read some sense... http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Indeed, so does that mean it couldn't. Keeping in mind the unique design of this buliding.
Nope. Doesn't mean its impossible, just strange if it was the case. This can't be replicated in a controlled setting, and as admitted by the official investigation, collapse due to fire only has a small chance of probability. Anyway.. just pointing out, anomolies like this are why people question it.As point 1... it's never happened before so who's says it couldn't and given the unique design of this building it's more likely to happen than with many other buildings.
Again, not saying it's impossible, but, if you think that hundreds of steel beams and joints will all fail symetrically and uniformly due to heat, then I'd say you're quite the conspiracy theorist
Do you think they could get a steel structure to collapse uniformly due to fire if they tried??Again this building had some very unique features such as the large electrical substation it sat over so there mightn't be any need for such code changes. And if there are code changes it mightn't effect many buildings in practice.
If the steel beams and joints failed due to the heat we are being told caused them to fail, then so too would the steel beams of other structures under current building codes, regardless of whats under them, that has no effect on their resistance to heat.Link?
Sure.. This is the uncut interview with Barry Jennings, the last man in wtc7. I recommend you watch the whole thing, pay close attention to his timeline of events too. http://www.infowars.com/?p=3233Would steel from a collapsed building normally all be kept?
Evidence from the biggest crime scene in American history? Yes. Yes it would.
Answers to why and how the only steel structure in history fell due to fire? Yes.
Ask yourself.. what kind of total MORON would order it all to be destroyed??It's never happened before so they couldn't figure it out. But it seems the damage to the building was worse than was thought at the time so it makes fire a likely culprit.
Damage worse than they thought at the time?? Well.. no. Thats not true. People knew well in advance that the building was coming down. No one could use heat to bring down a building in such a uniform manner if they tried, if they could, they'd probably be using it in the demolition industry.
I do appreciate it. It does seem to me though, that there's too many holes in that story.Just my 2c worth.
First steel building to fall due to fire.
The incredibly unlikely odds of all joints failing at precisely the same time despite the fire being uneven.
Falls uniformly into its own footprint.
That sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me.0 -
-
-
-
Nope. Doesn't mean its impossible, just strange if it was the case. This can't be replicated in a controlled setting, and as admitted by the official investigation, collapse due to fire only has a small chance of probability. Anyway.. just pointing out, anomolies like this are why people question it.
Again, not saying it's impossible, but, if you think that hundreds of steel beams and joints will all fail symetrically and uniformly due to heat, then I'd say you're quite the conspiracy theorist
Do you think they could get a steel structure to collapse uniformly due to fire if they tried??
If the steel beams and joints failed due to the heat we are being told caused them to fail, then so too would the steel beams of other structures under current building codes, regardless of whats under them, that has no effect on their resistance to heat.
If, as is believed now, there was more damage done to the base of the building due to the twin towers collapse than was at first thought. Given that there was especially long spans above the electrical substation it's very easy to believe how this building could have collapsed. If enough of the long spans failed due to the heat, the core columns don't have enough structure to stop them bending with the weight of the buliding. One a failure starts, given the damage to the base of the building it's quite likely to pull the whole structure with it as it's all bolted together. So it's not just heat, it's damage from twin towers collapse, specific design elements of this building and fire. I'm no engineer but it sounds very plausible imho.Sure.. This is the uncut interview with Barry Jennings, the last man in wtc7. I recommend you watch the whole thing, pay close attention to his timeline of events too. http://www.infowars.com/?p=3233
Funnily he was heading to the command centre in the building so doesn't this make him one of the conspirators? He says he heard explosions but we have no way whatsoever to know what these actually were. There was so much going on at the time. I've seen him interviewed since and he says he never actually saw any bodies he was told to close his eyes so he wouldn't see what he assumed to be bodies.Ask yourself.. what kind of total MORON would order it all to be destroyed??
Well how much material as a percentage was kept from the entire site, I would guess it's fairly low. Anyone? Maybe there was nothing more to be learned from this material, maybe it was a lot of reasons.Damage worse than they thought at the time?? Well.. no. Thats not true. People knew well in advance that the building was coming down. No one could use heat to bring down a building in such a uniform manner if they tried, if they could, they'd probably be using it in the demolition industry.
The damage to the base of the building was worse than they thought at the time. The building didn't actually fall in a uniform manner which you can see for yourself by looking at the pictures of the rubble pile. It's only the CT's that are saying the building fell from fire alone.I do appreciate it. It does seem to me though, that there's too many holes in that story.
First steel building to fall due to fire.
The incredibly unlikely odds of all joints failing at precisely the same time despite the fire being uneven.
Falls uniformly into its own footprint.
That sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me.
1. You could drive a bus through the holes in the conspiracy theories. When they start inventing new technologies, resorting to threatening the people who disagree with them, running hate campaigns against these same people, wait seven years and still no actual smoking gun just lots of muck throwing... they've lost most of the argument.
2. There has to be a first for everything. But only the CT's are saying it failed from just fire.
3. Joints don't need to fail at the same time. Just enough of them to cause a cascade effect through the building.
4. It didn't fall into it's footprint, simply not true.
For me it was a massively confused day, if there were no conflicting reports it would be extremely suspicious. We're expected to believe the American government is capable of running a massive conspiracy which seven years later no one has spilt the beans on, one which involved mass murder of their own people. Governments by their very nature are bureaucratic and inept but somehow in this instance they managed to pull off a huge near prefect conspiracy, please. It's Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".0 -
Advertisement
-
Continuing from this morning's post..
I agree. Indeed, I'll go further - If you think that this is what happened, you're living in cloud-cuckoo-land.Again, not saying it's impossible, but, if you think that hundreds of steel beams and joints will all fail symetrically and uniformly due to heat, then I'd say you're quite the conspiracy theorist
It is worth noting at this point, however, that none of the official findings to date - neither the FEMA report nor the NIST interim report - have suggested that this is what happened.
Maybe, but its not relevant because - again - the official accounting doesn't claim that this is what happened.Do you think they could get a steel structure to collapse uniformly due to fire if they tried??
Before I respond to this...could you explain exactly what you think happened to the steel. I'm not asking for a one-liner "it was shipped to China". I want you to clarify your understanding of how it got from the scene of the collapse to China, and explain exactly where along that process that something was done wrong.Evidence from the biggest crime scene in American history? Yes. Yes it would.
Answers to why and how the only steel structure in history fell due to fire? Yes.
Ask yourself.. what kind of total MORON would order it all to be destroyed??
Just in case you think I'm being unreasonable...I'll start you off with some of hte easier details...
The area was declared a rescue site for over 3 weeks. In a rescue site, criminal investigations take second place. Always have, always should. You do not allow additional people to die for fear of disturbing evidence.
After this, the rescue operations had already contaminated any crime scene...as indeed had the collapse itself.
The notion that the material be left in place (which I assume you're not making) would be quite literally insane. In any comparable event, the material is moved to a location where it can be properly sorted and dealt with.
The steel was moved from Ground Zero. It was moved in trucks, who's movements were tracked via GPS to make sure that there was nothing untoward about the transit of materials.
In excess of 100 investigators were then responsible for going through the steel to see what they could find. It was during this process that NIST had a completely free hand to obtain what samples they felt were useful and necessary. NIST have not once suggested that they were denied sufficient access the the material, nor that they did not recover what could be meaningfully used.
When all investigators from all involved areas were satisfied that they had garnered what evidence they could, the material was then released for disposal.
No criminal investigation in history involving building-collapses has ever gone to such detail, nor has ever retained the full building debris indefinitely.
So please...tell me where they went wrong, and fill in the detail that I'm missing in the above, given that you assert that it was unreasonable.
Of the 1.4 billion dollars of damage done to the Verizon building, a large amount of that was caused by the collapse of WTC 7. I think you are over-stating how cleanly the building collapsed.No one could use heat to bring down a building in such a uniform manner if they tried, if they could, they'd probably be using it in the demolition industry.
Wrong. Its not. You can find other examples with even the minimum amount of effort and the use of google.com.I do appreciate it. It does seem to me though, that there's too many holes in that story.
First steel building to fall due to fire.
In fairness, this is also something that the 911 Comission Report claims, and is one of the things that it gets wrong as well.
None of the three buildings which collapsed that day were the first steel-supported building to collapse due to fire.
This is true for two reasons:
1) Steel-supported buildings have previously collapsed due to fire.
2) None of the three steel-supported buildings which collapsed at Ground Zero that day did collapse "due to fire". All three collapsed due to a combination of significant structural damage and fire.
I'd also suggest you have a look at this. There's an interesting 7-point challenge in there, which I'll take the liberty of copying here:1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
If you can't match that example, then whatever you're looking at doesn't compare to what the closest things we have to an official explanation for WTC 7 is - the NIST interim report. Note that its not just a fire...and its a very specific type of steel-frame construction. Unlike man, not all buildings are created equal.
(Aside : if you read the page, you'll also find references to what you claim don't exist - steel-supported buildings which collapsed due to fire, prior to September 11, 2001).
The "joints" didn't fail at precisely the same time. Watch the collapse again. Watch the penthouse sink into the building. Watch the "kink" appear. Watch the building sag around the kink. These are all indications that there was a "first significant point of failure", which then caused the rest of the supports to be quickly-and-progressively overloaded.The incredibly unlikely odds of all joints failing at precisely the same time despite the fire being uneven.
No, it doesn't. As I mentioned above...read up on the damage it caused to the Verizon building. Look at various shots before the rescue operation bulldozed through the streets.Falls uniformly into its own footprint.
This is a persistent fiction. WTC 7 no more collapsed "into its own footprint" than WTC 1 or 2 did.
I agree. It does. Unfortunately, it involves making claims which aren't true, and criticising explanations which aren't those offered from the official investigations. When one dispenses with such details as accuracy and fact, its easy to make something sound like a conspiracy theory.That sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1GAfpwnd7E
Advertisement