WTC lease holder admits WTC7 was intentionally demolished !

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   
How many times did those us who know, say it was a controlled demolition!?

I don't really care anymore lost count a long time ago, it's just nice to see it finally admitted. Now maybe people will begin to see...




posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   
definately not a controlled demolishion... but still, I admit: it was just too perfect to be an accident, and too perfect to be a controlled demolishion with today's technology. After all, there was no explosion at all, the building fell with the same manner as the WTC towers did.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
How many controlled demos have you witnessed? Only asking because to me, the towers fell text book.

They could not have fell more safely (if that word means anything anymore), than they did that morning. I just do not see any arguement agians't it, they were controlled "."



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Actually, in the terminology of firefighting and such... "pull it" means to remove the firefighting crews and let the building burn, make no attempt to save it. It does not mean to pull the building down.


*bangs head*

People....read what the wise SO said many many months ago.

I was born into and raised in a family of firefighters.
He is NOT making things up.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Hello, we all watched on TV, the buildings were hit with large aircrafts flying fast, filled with tons of fuel.

The impact of the aircraft damaged the buildings, but the jets fuel was the killer.

The fires started after impact raged out of control, weakened the supports for the floors above and below impact, which failed and we all saw what happened next.

A fire cheif freind of mine who I motorcycle ride with told me he attened a fire safety seminar in May. The highlight of the seminar was on newer conctruction multi level structure fires.

He pointed out to me, the next time you are in Wal-Mart or Home Depo, look at the ceilings. Look at the construction, flying girder or flying bridge with pole assembly. This is pretty much the same setup as the WTC floors were constructed, but with more steel. The seminar noted that when a fire is in a building with this type of construction, be aware of structure failure.

Fire heats the steal, the steal expands and bends from gravity and breaks away from its mounts. This is what happened at the WTC.

9/11 was a very sad day, I realize that a lot of things happened quickly that day as the world watched, but I just cannot even begin to think that a city safety inspector or engineer would allow explosives in any building for future demolition while occupied, that just does not happen!

john



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I still go with the theory that the "support brackets", I'll called them, that held each floor up to the main outer shell and the inner shell of each building melted under the extreme heat of the jet fuel and other fuels that where in the building. In turn there would have been possibly one floor that completely broke free of the supports and then would have fell onto the next floor down, causeing that floor to fall STRAIGHT down onto the next floor and so on. I cannot remember the approx. weight of each floor anymore, but I know that the building was built in such a way that each floor was only connected, and rested directly opon, at these "support brackets" points.

So if these "support brackets" fail in any way you will have the weight of one floor and a giant area weight (office supplys, all floor/wall building materials, people, god knows what else) falling approx. 14 feet onto the next floor...One can do the math in their heads and understand that maybe even a fully fire proofed and stable "support brackets" would still give way with the falling weight of the floor above it falling onto it, let alone a "support brackets" that had its fire proofing and solid physical state disturbed with by jet fuel.

I try to deny ignorance, but I dont think that there is reason to rig the buildings when they would fall down with just one air plane that was bigger that what the building was designed to withstand. My 2 cents.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
So why did it fall?

[edit on 17-7-2004 by roxdog]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Istvan
definately not a controlled demolishion... but still, I admit: it was just too perfect to be an accident, and too perfect to be a controlled demolishion with today's technology. After all, there was no explosion at all, the building fell with the same manner as the WTC towers did.

So what are you saying here? Definitely maybe?



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I agree it's pretty silly to suggest that bombs were built into WTC 30 years ago. But do this for me. Go find one of those crazy jungle gyms and tell me how long it takes to smelt the steel with kerosene, thus causing it to implode symmetrically.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by roxdog]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Now, what are we talking about? Extreme heat?! Fire with such black smoke does not heat up higher than 700 C degrees. That is really extreme, as this type of steel structure should lose its strength way over 1500 C degrees. In fact, hte second jet caused less damage to the main core than the first did, and still it was the first to fall . If anybody has seen the archived phitis of the WTC towers under construction, you should see how massive the main core was. It was well overdesigned to withstand just any bomb attack, including airplane crash.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I have seen the WTC 9 controlled demolishion videos, the fall of that building started slower than the WTC 1, 2, or 7.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by roxdog
So why did it fall?


Ummmmm because a passenger jet was flown into it. Are you serious?

Edit: after seeing your mood roxdog, I am not the least bit suprised that it is dificult for you to understand.

[edit on 7-16-2004 by nyarlathotep]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyarlathotep

Originally posted by roxdog
So why did it fall?


Ummmmm because a passenger jet was flown into it. Are you serious?

Edit: after seeing your mood roxdog, I am not the least bit suprised that it is dificult for you to understand.

[edit on 7-16-2004 by nyarlathotep]

A passanger plane hit WTC 7? Man, where have I been. And that doesn't answer the question.

[edit on 16-7-2004 by roxdog]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by roxdog

Originally posted by nyarlathotep

Originally posted by roxdog
So why did it fall?


Ummmmm because a passenger jet was flown into it. Are you serious?

Edit: after seeing your mood roxdog, I am not the least bit suprised that it is dificult for you to understand.

[edit on 7-16-2004 by nyarlathotep]

A passanger plane hit WTC 7? Man, where have I been. And that doesn't answer the question.

[edit on 16-7-2004 by roxdog]


Edit: I liked how you changed your mood from dazed as always to dazed not dumb. Dazed from what? Dope?

Woops, you are right, sorry. To answer your question it was flying beems from the towers that damaged the tower as well as diesel fuel intended to run emergency generators that was stored there that continued to burn that weakened the structure. In fact there was over 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel in a number of tanks stored at tower #7.

[edit on 7-16-2004 by nyarlathotep]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Perhaps, it really hit that building... maybe two!



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Official story, eh, What a bull! The US government is lieing just as much as the USSR did in those days. Really pity for such a great nation...



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Agreed. So a steel structure just collapses symmetrically after it catches fire?Hum, I'm no scientist but that sounds pretty weak. On par with "pull it" means get the firefighters out so we can watch it...oh, I mean, It MIGHT fall, you know, uhhhh, because, uhhh, come on, stop asking questions.
You guys should be on the commission.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Roxdog, what do you think happened then? Do you honestly think that the tower was rigged with hundreds of explosives? You have seen rigged building explosions right? The explosions are detonated at different times at different spots on a tower to make it implode. Are you saying that is what happened?

Edit: I found this gif of the 7's collapse. Where was the explosion from a detoantion? You can't see the bottom of the tower, but if it was there, the building would not have fallen the way it did from a controlled detonation in the basement.



[edit on 7-16-2004 by nyarlathotep]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by roxdog
Agreed. So a steel structure just collapses symmetrically after it catches fire?Hum, I'm no scientist but that sounds pretty weak.


Well, when one floor gives way (due to the heat weakening the structure) and then it turns into a domino effect...that is exactly what happens.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by roxdog
Agreed. So a steel structure just collapses symmetrically after it catches fire?Hum, I'm no scientist but that sounds pretty weak. On par with "pull it" means get the firefighters out so we can watch it...oh, I mean, It MIGHT fall, you know, uhhhh, because, uhhh, come on, stop asking questions.
You guys should be on the commission.


You know, that attitude doesn't help one bit. Why don't we assume that some of us know a little bit more about some things than others of us. Then let's go ahead and assume that you are one of the some of us that know less about this issue. I'll state right now, based on some of your comments, that I am one of us who knows more about this issue.


So a steel structure just collapses symmetrically after it catches fire?


Yeah, exactly. The first structural member to fall will cause an increase in the load of the subsequent load-bearing members which are under the same strength-decreasing heat...they fall and then you have a floor fall. The first floor to give way doesn't necessarily (in fact, it won't) fall symmetrically, but the minute it gives way and impacts the floor below it, you have a symmectrical domino effect.

I'm sorry physics won't let you hang on to this, but that's just the way the building crumbles.

[edit on 7-16-2004 by Valhall]





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join