WTC-7 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

They saw the explosions, they heard the exsposions, some of them where in the explosions.

what more do you need?

One day your blinders will come off and you will see the Truth.

al-qaida planted them.

reply to post by cashlink


Please post the witness statements that SAW the explosions. (or a link to them)

Am I asking for too much?

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


according to jprophet there are explosion videos all over youtube.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by cashlink

 

Please post the witness statements that SAW the explosions. (or a link to them)

Am I asking for too much?

I already did, you did not READ my link that I posted to you earlier!

You have faild numerous times to Prove your point!
We can play this game all night if you want.

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

They saw the explosions, they heard the exsposions, some of them where in the explosions.

what more do you need?

One day your blinders will come off and you will see the Truth.

al-qaida planted them.

Hey if you believe that, the tooth fairy may have planted them.
The Fact is this, We know the building Were blown to bits.
It has Never been proven who did it, not even al-qaida
That is a Fact!

Originally posted by cashlink


No problem you can start here.
patriotsquestion911.com...
plenty of wittness here heard EXPLOSIVES.

Again... look at what you posted... "HEARD". I did not ask for THOSE witnesses.

Anyway... I went to your website. I read the first few witness statements. ( I have seen them so many times before)

They didn't see any explosions.

I will ask you one more time and please post the "100's" that you claim you have.

Originally posted by cashlink

The Fact is this, We know the building Were blown to bits.

according to NIST and 99% of distinguished structural engineers you are wrong.

and not only that but there is NO actual evidence of a controlled demolition.

there is evidence that supports 79 caused a local failure which led to a global failure after the penthouses took out the main supports.

and nobody can debunk that, as explained here:
www.structuremag.org...

to demo a building of this size properly would take a month with a team of men that tears down drywall, cuts supports with large saws, drill the supports, places the explosives and wire them. yet there is no evidence of this. somehow they tore the drywall down on all of the floors and put it back up before anyone noticed?

and notice how none of the firefighters that can be seen by WTC7 on video saying it's going to collapse have come forward to say it was a demolition. the only people that have come forward and say they "heard explosions" are people that we have no proof if they were even there.


[edit on 2-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

reply to post by fastfingersfunk



Ya right! the pent house wasnt even damage or on fire but it imploded in on it self.
Befor the building even exploded!

reply to post by cashlink


Cash....

Any luck with those witnesses yet?


Oh... the article fastfing linked you too... was PUBLISHED in a respectable well known engineering magazine. Any of your truthers do that yet?

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by fastfingersfunk

 

Ya right! the pent house wasnt even damage or on fire but it imploded in on it self.
Befor the building even exploded!

and how does that equate to a controlled demolition to you?

because according to the engineers in the link i gave you, the west penthouse was held up by support 79 which runs to the bottom. when support 79 collapsed the penthouse (which it held up) came down. after you tell me how the penthouse coming down first equates to a CD, then debunk this.

reply to post by fastfingersfunk

You are Wrong! 120+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals!

490+ Engineers and Architects!

210+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members all say you are WRONG!


130+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials! patriotsquestion911.com...

Say You are WRONG !

Now I rest my case.

reply to post by fastfingersfunk

Ya I read about 79 you are really goingt to base your theory on that LOL.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt



Oh... the article fastfing linked you too... was PUBLISHED in a respectable well known engineering magazine. Any of your truthers do that yet?

and structure magazine is a joint publication run by National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, Council of American Structural Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute. the three largest (and basically the only) leading structure associations.

reply to post by cashlink


lmao, the first person on that list is clark, and he has never said 9/11 was an inside job. that website is a farce just by looking at it. 490+ what? people who have said something about 9/11? it's not 490+ people that think 9/11 was an inside job. back to the drawing board.

and not one of the persons on there that thinks it was an inside job, has any proof of it.



[edit on 2-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

[edit on 2-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
490+ Engineers and Architects!

Lets do one at a time... that way you may actually respond.

490 Engineers and Architects.

Hmmm...

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) membership is 141,000.
www.asce.org...

American Institute of Architects membership is 83,500+.
www.aia.org...

Ok...lets do the math.

141,000 +
83,500 =

224,500.

Your claim (I assume from Richard Gage's website) is 490.

So let see... that comes out to:

0.21%

Who is wrong???

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
and no accomplished SE has been able to prove that the local collapse of support 79 would not drop the penthouse and ultimately cause a global collapse.

Please name all the SEs who have had access to the structural documentation. Thanks.

Cause all I'm aware of is the NIST.

Originally posted by Griff

Please name all the SEs who have had access to the structural documentation. Thanks.

Cause all I'm aware of is the NIST.

what structural documentation are you talking about?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) membership is 141,000.
www.asce.org...

Nope. 140,999 because you can't count me.

BTW, have you asked the other 140,999 what they believe?

Who is wrong???

Who knows? Since NIST's report can't and will not be able to be peer reviewed and/or reproduced until they disclose all their data.

[edit on 7/2/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
what structural documentation are you talking about?

For the layman out there. "Blueprints" and specifications.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
what structural documentation are you talking about?

For the layman out there. "Blueprints" and specifications.

just making sure, because i thought then you would have a point. if you are meaning blueprints then you really don't have a point because there are diagrams (not official blueprints) all over the internet and none of them have been shown by any SE to be wrong. there are also many pictures of unfinished floors indicating where the support beams are. are you debating the structure in WTC7 as NIST and FEMA show in their diagrams? since you say you are an SE, go ahead. and how do you know that only NIST is in possession of them (or in possession of them at all)? it appears FEMA was as well, so that's not "only NIST".

with pictures like these you can get a feel for the floor plan and support placements and match them up with diagrams. like i said, feel free to debate them. i have yet to see anyone disagree with the layout.

52nd floor




and i would love to hear your theory on how WTC7 fell since you say you are an SE.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

[edit on 2-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]