reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed
This is exactly the same response that pisses me off and why at times i just want to leave this place and let you all wither away in your own
Its this bit right here that really grinds on me.
I get that someone told you what they believe and you believe it too i get that
You see Spooky at myself (i know arrogant) are probably two of the most informed "OSers" who still bother to regularly post on this forum, there where
others, probably even better informed, but they have all seen the light i think I went on to pastures new. So for me, a individual who has been
actively studying the topic of 9/11 with a particular focus on 9/11 conspiracies i find incredibly insulting when you basically say we only believe
the OS because "someone" told me what to believe when to be quite frank. I know what i am talking about.
Additionally you also just dont quite see the irony to this point.
The whole reason that people believe 9/11 conspiracies is because someone told them, Steven Jones told them thermite was found in the dust and because
he told them he proved it, for a while it "proved" the inside job theory because "someone" (Jones) told you so. Just unfortunate that his theory
turned out to be utter rubbish.
but just for arguments sake do you think you can answer his questions or at least give us some actual evidence to rebut his claims
This is something else that is a total pain, its the way the you guys go about presenting your evidence, you point out all these little anomalies,
some can be explained, some cannot. But you fail to look at the bigger picture of the historical backdrop to 9/11 and the sum of the events that took
place that day. Rather you look at things in isolation, with no real view of the big picture and not actual solid proof beyond these anomalies and
never, ever, provide any actually proof of your claims.
Case in point.
You will claim that WTC-7 was brought down by controlled demolition because it looked like a controlled demolition, but you cannot provide any
actually proof it was a controlled demolition. Then you demand that we prove it was not a controlled demolition effectively asking us to prove a
negative as you have no proof of controlled demolition.
Its actually very annoying.
But lets just take one off the lines the above member has used (each of which requires a lengthy explanation.
NCSTAR1A p.39/130 "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."
Yes the important word is "initiating" the collapse, if you read the full report it becomes clear that a number of factors contributed to the demise
of WTC-7 including the massive damage it sustained, in the picture below is just one example.
The building did sustain significant damage caused by the debris from WTC-1, the NIST report makes this very clear but it does say that it was not
that damage which actually initiated the global collapse of the building rather NIST state that it initiated by the difference in the coefficient of
thermal expansion between steel and concrete causing the floors to crack and sag. The connections holding floor 13 to column 79 failed resulting in
the collapse of floor 13 when a girder connecting column 44 to 79 failed due to the sagging of the floor. The collapse of floor 13 caused a
progressive collapse of the floors below it on until they reached the reinforced floor 5. However this action left column 79 (one of the 3 large
support columns for the eastern portion of the building) without any lateral support causing it to buckle, the cause of the “kink” and then its
failure. The Failure of column 79 resulted in an upwards progression of collapse of the floors it was supporting which caused the collapse of the East
Penthouse. Effectively the floors beneath it had all collapsed in this section of the building. This put additional strain on the 2 remaining
supporting interior columns, 80 and 81 which under the redistributed weight coupled with the debris, effects of fire and lack of lateral support also
buckled causing the first and second transfer trusses to also fail. This redistributed the load of the building on to columns 58-7 and now the entire
weight of the building was being supported by these interior columns which were insufficient (hence the need for the transfer trusses in the first
place), and as such they also began to buckle and fail. The columns began to fail form east to west (as is evidence from the collapse of the east
penthouse) this caused a progressive collapse of the core support of the building and the entire interior of the building collapsed. Eventually the
building essentially became a hollow shell and the exterior support columns also failed and the building fell straight down. There was very little
resistance because the interior of the building had already collapsed.
So the collapse was actually initiated because floor 13 collapsed due to fires, NIST are quite open about this.
But to get back to you, and your annoying post.
correct me if i am wrong but buildings like skyscrapers are built to withstand more than just fire or designed to free-fall from a little structural
No you are not wrong but you are being totally ignorant of the events that took place with in WTC-7 that day, i would highly recommend you read
through the thread i authored on the subject that a member lined to in the first page of this thread. WTC-7 was burning for hours with out any real
attempt being made to extinguish the fires. There was a lot of stuff going on with that building that caused it to collapse. And it is a lot more
complex that "they just used explosives".
Please refrain from implying that either myself or anyone else is some how ignorant, stupid, gullible or however else you would like to phrase it in
future because you dont agree with what we have to say.
says more about you than it does about us.
edit on 24-3-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)