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

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


tell you what. just to be a good sport, i will save that link and its the first thing i will go over when i get back online. you sit here and be right or wrong and arrogant all the same. im going outside. until then, you can start with all the missing points from the supposed solid debunking on page one. now i have said it twice and you ignored it. there are 40 things stated and random few are left ignored. address those. and i will look at this paper but from what i got from you so far, i unfortunately do feel prebiased since each request for info so far has only gotten me argumentative claptrap with no substance. but whatever. george bush is awesome, 9/11 all makes perfect sense according to MSM and the official report even though both contradict each other over and over. you win.

Originally posted by re22666
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

tell you what. just to be a good sport, i will save that link and its the first thing i will go over when i get back online. you sit here and be right

you win.

All better.

Thanks for playing newbie

reply to post by ANOK


An excellent post sir! Starred!


@TY: Yes, there are fires, but they're NOT severe enough to cause GLOBAL COLLAPSE.

The building falls so squarely in on itself as to be unbelievable.

I suggest you hunt out the BBC documentary shown last weekend called "The Conspiracy File: 9/11 - The Third Tower". It's available on BBC iPlayer, but might be restricted to UK only. In there are architects who nicely summize the collapse of WTC7:

If the WTC7 collapse was due only to fire as alleged, then the building codes of thousands of high rise buildings around the world are completely wrong, and we should be seriously concerned about the safety of just about every high-rise building in existence.

(Not an exact quote, but you get the idea).

There is also an interview with someone who is considered the only witness to the minutes before the WTC7 collapse. His testimony is ripped to shreds when he is caught lying.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


mirage although i respect your opinion, thats all it is.

there was a report published that states otherwise. (see page 1 of this thread)

Our resident engineer Griff called it "interesting"

However...it too its a theory. A very probable one.

I like many others are eagerly awaiting the release of the NIST report. Maybe we will have some answers then? Maybe not. I will say one thing up front... if it does not mention bombs...most truthers will not agree with it.

One thing that is widely known is that NIST never even considered explosives, and never looked for them or considered them as a method of failure. They're quite open about this in their documentation. I think they call them "assumptions".

You only need to look at the reports for WTC1 and WTC2 (that don't even cover the actual collapses properly) to see what the WTC7 report will look like.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

 

mirage although i respect your opinion, thats all it is.

there was a report published that states otherwise. (see page 1 of this thread)

Our resident engineer Griff called it "interesting"

However...it too its a theory. A very probable one.

I like many others are eagerly awaiting the release of the NIST report. Maybe we will have some answers then? Maybe not. I will say one thing up front... if it does not mention bombs...most truthers will not agree with it.

that is funny. it seems to me that if the story was as the gov't stated and is as simple as people like you claim to see...then why would we have to wait for any report? it is obvious why 7 fell right? you seem to think you know why it fell just fine so what would you need a report for? especially one that does not examine the steel it will inevitable say failed due to fire...again.

So back to the fires, lets take a quick look.

1. NIST claims the fires weren't hot enough to melt the steel.
2. NIST claims that the fires were weak enough to bend the steel and initiate a global collapse.
3. There was molten metal pouring from the WTC2.
4. NIST concluded it could have been molten aluminum mixed with organinc compounds.

a. Experiments have been done that conclude molten aluminum does not glow orange when mixed with organic compounds.
b. No experiments have been done that conclude aluminum glows orange under any circumstances when it is flowing.
c. no molten metal was seen pouring from WTC7, and no known elements were found exclusively in the WTC7 fires.

I can therefore conclude that the fires in WTC7 were not hotter than the fires in WTC1 & 2. I can also conclude that there was some event in WTC2 that occured that is being overlooked by the ivestigation.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by re22666
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

tell you what. just to be a good sport, i will save that link and its the first thing i will go over when i get back online. you sit here and be right

you win.

All better.

Thanks for playing newbie

and you are good at taking things out of context! bravo! way to make it look like i actually conceded an argument to you. if you need to edit to make yourself feel better about things here then fine. just more evidence to back up why you have no say in any argument whatesoever. you cannot read, cannot quote, and apparently cannot comprehend.

oh throatyogurt when are you going to stand up to your question instead of running off to new threads whenever cornered. come back we miss you on several of the ones you got stumped and ran from.

reply to post by re22666


Did you happen to read the published paper on the collapse of WTC-7? you said you would.

Thank you

:TY:

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by re22666

 

Did you happen to read the published paper on the collapse of WTC-7? you said you would.

Thank you

:TY:

yep
and
didnt answer my questions.
first of all, it is a hypothesis and a rather empty one. what does that prove?
secondly, the last pile of crap i remember reading was that the original designers and buildets of WTC7 could have never imagined it would have to withstand such forces.
i thought your premise was that massive fires brought the building down.
are you proposing the the buiders and designers of a building that tall, that would also store that much diesel fuel, might never suffer massive fires??? they never could have ever forseen that?
seriously?
and again, what good is some hypothesis as proof. that is no better than anything anyone on the other side of the argument has but people like you keep asking for proof. well your story is the one that is hard to believe, the one that stinks from every angle, and the one our government is trying so hard to get us to buy. the burden of proof lies therein.

[edit on 7/24/2008 by re22666]

reply to post by re22666


Never said it was proof.

Your opinion on the hypothesis is your opinion. Your right to have one.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by re22666

 

Never said it was proof.

Your opinion on the hypothesis is your opinion. Your right to have one.

then why direct me to read it when i asked for proof.
i ask for proof
you tell me to read this crap
i do and say its not proof
you tell me you never said it was
hmmmm

now i see why you believe what you do.

once again the nist comedians entertain as well as cover up the truth....by the way,what caused the fires in the first place? was it the explosions in the two main towers?
and didnt good old larry tell us they decided to pull the building?
and does he get another 3.5 billion for this "terrorist attack"?
THIS DECISION MUST FORCE AN INSURANCE PAYMENT,RIGHT?
i think nist should be given a comedy series on fox. yeah, that would be the right place for it.

PASS THE VASOLINE AND THE NITROUS-NIST HAS MADE ANOTHER DECISION IN THE FACE OF PHYSICS...
the only ironic thing about this whole thing,from start to finish, is that their children will pay with their souls someday too.

WHERE DOES IT END?

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


ACTUALLY ,YOUR ARGUEMENT IS FLAWED. first off how does the building know the intent of the plane that crashes into it?
second, you cant fly a 757 that fast,that low,let alone maneuver it without ripping it apart from g force. or dont you believe the manufacturer?

of course there was the witness that heard, right before the first crash, building 1 screamed to building 2, "look out for the terrorists!"
and didnt nist say that if these were regular accidents,the towers would have stayed up? maybe i'm just misremembering
(ironical humor now switched off)

oh ,and by the way ...keep on believing your government,they would never lie to you . they are a friendly bunch who just want to help you.

and please dont forget that the towers were on their third warning about the asbestos in the building,and that they were absolute money eaters. they were under occupied and in bad repair. but good old larry silverstein turned his $14,000,000 investment into $7.5 BILLION,NOW,DIDNT HE?
so who profited from the buildings coming down?.
and like i said..cha-ching! the anty probably goes up with this decision.

and,i was just wondering. why would the city pick this building,being so feeble,for the city emergency bunker? wasnt it supposed to be reenforced?
why were there so many government agencies put in harms way?
what genius put the diesel fuel in there with out taking precautions?
and why is it that thre are only 3 steel buildings in the world that have fallen due to fire? (1,2 and 7) please dont forget that when these were built,US steel was the finest steel in the world.
why is the empire state building still standing,when it was hit by a wwII bomber? doesnt aviation fuel burn hotter than jp5?

my proof is what i deem reasonable,and what i see. i dont need any report by people who stand to keep their own asses covered. i saw a building that came down in demolition fashion,and then was told by the owner that they decided to "pull" the building.
now to finish it off,i'll let the owner tell you they demolished it. here's the link.

LARRY TELLS ALL

WHY DONT YOU CALL LARRY AND TELL HIM HE MADE A MISTEAK,I,AH ,I MEAN ,MISTAKE
IF THATS NOT GOOD ENOUGH,WATCH THIS ONE. YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR EVERYTHIMNG ELSE,WHAT ABOUT THESE?

LARRY DOESN'T TELL ALL
[edit on 22-8-2008 by Spectre0o0]

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Spectre0o0]

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Spectre0o0]

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Spectre0o0]

reply to post by ThroatYogurt
I have to agree with akon here, those are not massive fires by any stretch of the imagination, I just cant see isolated fires on a few floors bringing down a 47 story building.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I am not saying that fire ALONE caused the collapse.

Well... the NIST is now saying this and you are defending their new report. So, do you want to retract this comment? Did an office fire cause the collapse of WTC7?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
... I do think with the amount of damage reported, the subsequent fires, and the unique design of the building combined caused the collapse.

Not the damage, not the "unique" design according to the new NIST report... Care to flip-flop on your stance here?

reply to post by Pootie


Look at what I write on almost ALL my WTC7 posts. I clearly state that I am awaiting the report from NIST.

My OPINION at the time (as with 99% of those interested) was that the damage from the WTC Tower played a hand in the collapse of WTC7.

Do I think the office fires caused the collapse. Yes.

Do you still think bombs were planted?







[edit on 22-8-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by ANOK

 

Anok... This is the Northside of WTC7.... where most truthers claim that there was no damage and or fires. If you watch the videos, there are MANY vehicles on the street that were damaged by fire and or debris.

Yes the photos you posted are of a building fully engulfed in flames.

Again...these are of the NORTH side of WTC where you can see a substatial amount of fire.

I don't think 'most' 'truthers' think that there was little or no damage. At least this 'truther' doesn't think that. The big question I have is this. If all of that damage there caused the fires and caused the collapse then why didn't half or just a part of the building fall down towards the north side? Or, better yet, fall in sections as the "FIRE" consumed the building floor by floore.

You see, it makes ZERO sense. Yet the 'debunkers' / 'skeptics' can't seem to get this one very legitimate and valid thought into their heads. The same goes for the towers. Sorry, but all of that 'UNDAMAGED' support simply does NOT give way all at once in a nice symmetrical collapse. The weakest portion would give first and so on and so on. That is unless a 'first time ever' event would take place and cause the collapse as NIST would have you and everyone else believe.

Sorry, I have seen these video's and photos many times. I have tried to approach this with an open mind void of emotion. And everything I have seen points to some sort of external control away from the fires.