First Responses - A race to the scene, and then Chaos., page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 06:39 PM by samkent

reply to post by comprehension

How was the damage inside the towers calculated? Where did they get their figures?

What does that have to do with the photo being staged?

It's a classic conspiracy mantra. If you can't prove your point select another topic. Never admit you can't prove your point.

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 10:43 PM by DIDtm

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by DIDtm

One thing the conspiracy clowns leave off is fact the WTC 7 was smashed by debris from collapse of WTC 1
which left a 20 story gash in the south/southwest facades of WTC 7, the collapse also smashed the
water mains in the area and damaged the internal plumbing for the sprinklers/standpipes - no water
for FDNY to fight the fires.

As for the NIST report - Did you ACTUALLY READ IT ? Or like the rest of the truther clown posse simply
denounce it because does not fit their pre conceived conspiracy fantasy

DID you actually read it yet? We have had this same discussion over a year ago, and you are still making the same bogus claims.
You obviously STILL believe what the NIST report says, yet you argue against what it claims.

NIST specifically states (although I am paraphrasing) that the damage the WTC7 took from falling debris has little to no bearing on the eventual collapse of the tower. That the fires within the tower were so out of control, the collapse of the building would have occurred regardless.

THE ONLY TIME IN HISTORY.

Debating this with the 6 or 7 of you is pointless. You all claim that 'truthers' dont even know what they believe, yet you people argue against the very report you so passionately defend.

reply posted on 3-1-2012 @ 06:54 AM by hooper

reply to post by comprehension

I ask again, how do they come up with their estimates regarding what occurred inside the towers?

And I'll tell you again - get an education and read the report. Really, you're never going to understand the type failure analysis applied in this kind of complex situation by simply asking one question over and over again. No one said you were "stupid". Stupid doesn't apply.

reply posted on 3-1-2012 @ 07:27 AM by thedman

reply to post by DIDtm

That the fires within the tower were so out of control, the collapse of the building would have occurred regardless.

So what started all the fires? According to NIST were fires on multiple floors

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon. The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41

During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon

Why was there no water to fight the fires? Could it be that collapse of WTC 1 destroyed all the mains ?

Have here what is called cause and effect - WTC 1 doesn't collapse on WTC 7 then no fires, doesn't cut the
water mains then FDNY has water to fight the fires

reply posted on 3-1-2012 @ 09:14 AM by DIDtm

reply to post by thedman

So again.
It states the building would have fell due to fire, and not the damage.

Regardless of what started the fires....the building would have fell DUE TO FIRE!

What is so difficult about understanding this?
I mean I know why you can't, do you?

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^