The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

Originally posted by Gyrocopter

haha i almost pissed myself from laughter reading your post,

Of course you did.

You do not have any knowledge, therefore, to hear these facts are a shock to you.

It is understandable. son.

Once you wise up, you will learn something.

reply to post by rival

Yeah...I just friended you.

Not sure if I believe in ghosts though...but I do believe in honesty.

My biggest problem with the OS is in building seven...and that resides in my gut...moreso than in all
the curious evidence

Thanks for the nod. I wouldn't friend me. I can't keep my mouth shut. One day...

(thnx though)

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous



facts? what facts?

you just wrote fractions./ hahaha i love how i wrote short sentence and you still had to edit it in your quote


you suck!

I recently watched a movie called "Eagle Eye", and the government in the movie was creating a new form of explosive which could be contained within necklaces etc... It could explode a huge radius, and was used for assassinations etc.. While I am not saying this is proof of anything, its well known that they contain half truths within many Hollywood movies, and I have seen numerous hints towards 9/11 in old movies, and new alike. I find I will see lots of movies that have pictures of the towers falling in the background on T.V.'s etc...

Here is an example of foreshadowing, but its not the best example.




Something the OP missed, about 20 minutes before building 7 collapsed, the BBC announced it had collapsed.




NIST ended up having to update their hypothesis for the collapse sequence, when they were proven wrong by some one from AE911truth. They updated their fall times from not including any free fall, to including 2.25 seconds of free fall, which is seemingly impossible unless the structure had its supports all removed as the OP stated. If one looks carefully into NIST's report, they actually end up debunking themselves, here is an example.

"Due to the effectivness of SFRM, the highest column temperature in WTC 7 only researched an estimated 300 degree's celcius, or 570 degree's Fahrenheit, and only on the east side of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600 degrees celcius 1100 degree's Fahrenheit."

Now, lets look what they say about the probability of these fires causing the collapse.

"NIST calculations (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 4) showed that even if the etnire column had been immersed in a 1400 degree's celcius/ 2550 degree's Fahrenhiet flame, it would have taken 6 hours to heat the column to the point of singificant loss of stregnth, and stiffness."

So, according to NIST themselves, the fire was neither hot enough to cause the metal to buckle, nor was it even enough to cause the metal to significantly weaken. This is straight from the horses mouth, and it doesn't get much easier then using their own public statements against them.


NIST WTC study

Read this PDF in depth, its full of good data to be used against NIST.

Certainly makes me laugh when my best source for debunking the NIST lie, is NIST's own work....

Originally posted by Gyrocopter

facts? what facts?

Like these ones, which you aparently didn't know. Of course you can bring evidence to refute them if you wish...... But we know that ain't gonna happen. right kid?

1-No SFRM needs to be destroyed for the steel to be heated. SFRM is nothing more than insulation.
2-You're questioning that this can happen, not making a statement, so the logical presumption is that you don't believe that can happen. Therefore:
3-the connections that NIST detailed as being broken by thermal expansion were bolted. So not tons of steel. A few pounds.
4-no, they buckled. Nothing was destroyed.
5-Only 3 columns
6-No, it twisted in 2 different directions during the collapse, and fell onto the roof of Fitterman Hall. Not symmetrical.
7-onnly the heated areas are effected, not the entire building.
8-No, the science can be verified.
9-it's in the NIST. Since you don't know this:

you just wrote fractions

Liar.

hahaha i love how i wrote short sentence and you still had to edit it in your quote

yes. to refute your many errors.

you suck!

A true sign that you have lost the argument.

Thanks for playing kid. Don't forget your consolation prize on the way out...

Originally posted by Iwinder

I could not give a flying fart about how bad Mark Humphrey's life is right now or was then.
The simple reason is that he is a paid actor and is responsible for many people not going to the execution room, while at the same time has no regard for the thousands that died that day.

This is the problem with Witch Hunts, they are usually lead by stupid people.

Mark Humphrey's is not the man in the Harley guy video. Mark Humphrey is an actor who was in california on the day of 911... no where near New York. Truthers accused Mark of being the Harley guy for no other reason than.... they thought he looked like the Harley guy. He was harassed by Truthers like you for years.

Now pay close attention. I'm going to repeat it one more time. Just to be sure.

Mark Humphrey Is Not The Harley Guy


The funny thing is that Truthers were not sharp enough to figure who the Harley guy really was... even though he told us his name... and who he worked for... in the video.

So the next time you decide to pick up your pitchfork and point it at someone, remember this.

You are not smart enough to wield such a complicated weapon.

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


Well you say building 7 could self destruct in the air and fall practically within it's foot print. Well then I was wondering why it has never happened before with fully engulfed structures and why 760 skeptical Architects and Engineers signed a petition for a fact finding mission into the collapse . Building 5 and 6 had the Tower collapse on it and was burned leaving only blackened steel structure and both had to be cut down . Building 7 did not have anything like a fully involved fire . Old

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


wow you are so delusional its amazing. or you're just a troll. I almost feel sorry for you. still never addressed anything i wrote.

pretending is fun though

Originally posted by SimonPeter

Well then I was wondering why it has never happened before with fully engulfed structures

Cuz all these other structures didn't have the features that NIST identified as contributing factors to the collapse:

1- assymetrical floor framing
2- long span (appx 54' between columns) floor beams
3- connections that were not designed with thermal expansion effects in mind
....

and why 760 skeptical Architects and Engineers signed a petition for a fact finding mission into the collapse

Cuz they're stupid suckers.

. Building 5 and 6 had the Tower collapse on it and was burned leaving only blackened steel structure and both had to be cut down . Building 7 did not have anything like a fully involved fire . Old

Originally posted by Gyrocopter

still never addressed anything i wrote.

So then I broke up your posts into smaller bits, you complain about how I chopped it up for my responses, and then claim I didn't respond...

You're lying, and everyone can see it.

I also notice that you have zero rebuttals to the facts I supplied to you, correcting your errors.

Everyone can see that too.

Leave the field kid, let the adults discuss adult matters.

reply to post by waypastvne


Those that use TRUTHER and BIRTHERS to deg-gradate someone who doesn't buy the BS that is shoveled to them by the wonderful people called politicians are ignorant . You might not know as much as you think . Most likely you don't keep up with world news and have little interest in such . You probably use Snopes to get your information . You might as well call George Soros from what I here he funds it . Fact Check what a joke their Obama COLB was .

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


Are you a structural engineer ?

Originally posted by SimonPeter

Are you a structural engineer ?

Nope.

The strenth of my arguments do not rely on any appeal to authority, but rather on theri veracity.

Do you have a point or rebuttal to make?

Originally posted by Just Chris

You know what I mean...

There's no reason why anything like this should ever have been broadcast...unless they was a conspiracy behind it, which in this case they most certainly is!

edit on 21-6-2012 by Just Chris because: (no reason given)

You don't think it more likely that they took the Reuters report - which mistakenly said that the building had collapsed, because of the establishment of the collapse zone and the word of firefighters who had been saying it would come down since midday - and ran with it?

Personally that seems more plausible than "they were given a script by the conspirators and told to read it out". Why would the conspirators give a foreign news agency a script, thus involving dozens more people? Why wouldn't they just let them report it as it happened? There's no advantage in giving them a pre-prepared document because they would presumably report the events anyway!

What is not in doubt is your assertion that there are "no other reasons" why this could have happened. That's nonsense, sorry.

Originally posted by Lord Jules

oh I'm real sure Jeff Skilling was the top dog of enron, not Kenny boy Lay who had a close relationship to Bush. That is what the investigations most likely showed before they got controlled demolitioned. You disagree? I would like to see you "put to rest" the Enron/WTC 7 claim. Eagerly waiting. (popcorn popping).

Lay would have gone to jail as well, he just happened to die.

Obviously you'll think that's suspicious, with no evidence whatsoever. That's the CT mindset. But the fact remains that the Enron investigation did not in any way collapse with the building.

I hear and I see a ton of talk about the how and why of 7 and it's demise. I see the fires with my own eyes. I know that this building burned all day. The fire fighters that survived were by this time exhausted. As the fire consumed further and further around the side, you can see the kind of "blast furnace" flames and heat blowing out the windows. Jump to 2:20.

From 2:20 to about 2:35 we see a floor on fire, working its way from office to office from left to right. At 2:35 it jumps ahead to now the fire is burning fiercely in several offices. Wind whipped jets of nearly white hot flame shooting out. At 2:56 to 3:13 the fires rage. At 3:13. jumps ahead in time again to window falling out at 3:25. Now another office will flash over and continue the burn around the building. Only one floor is visibly burning.

The last time jump occurs at 3:33. Now two floors have been compromised and the flames around the windows show how high the heat has become.It is like a bed of coals inside, This is when the effects of the steady wind fed flames are doing their work to weaken the supports. This building has been burning for hours at this point. Just like WTC 1&2, the structure has become compromised. Collapse is inevitable...

"Pull your men back" (pull it). I can see what senior firefighters saw at this point. The fuel fed fires from the diesel tanks are just to stubborn. The crackling sounds of internal weight shifting and giving way...its coming down, time to get out. "What do you want to do?"
"Pull it".

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Romekje

None of these buildings are built of steel reinforced concrete, they do have 1 resemblance to the WTC collapses though, they were rigged for doing so.

Can you please explain what reinforced concrete was used in the construction of the towers?

You are kidding, right?

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


Those stupid Architectural Engineers cared enough to show proficiency in their chosen field by attending classes on the subject for years and pass exams and pursue careers in that field of en-devour . So lets let them make the call .
Then there is the evidence of the situation as it unfolded and testimonies and video where by the real story came out . The problem with the whole thing is that people as a rule aren't stupid . They are Ignorant by choice of many things and no one is excluded from that . No one wants to feel that they were duped and I myself said that there was no conspiracy until I saw as many people did WTC 7 fall . We have all seen demolitions and we have all seen pools of red hot and some molten metal within the basements of those structures a week after the collapse . Thermate was discovered in the dust around the area .How did that get there?
I don't suppose that you ever looked up to see where permits for DEMOLATION of the WTC was applied for twice by the owners - the NY Port Authority . Asbestos and operating cost as well as vacancy rate was the reason . The WTC was an asbestos liability that would cost 200,000,000 to abate and 15 billion to dismantle and was denied a permit because of the obvious asbestos dust that would be expelled from the demolition as the article stated. I did although I don't know where it was now . You should also look at the details of the lease by Larry Silverstien . The gun is smoking here !

reply to post by intrptr


All day? It was under 6 hours....

"NIST calculations (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 4) showed that even if the entire column had been immersed in a 1400 degree's celcius/ 2550 degree's Fahrenhiet flame, it would have taken 6 hours to heat the column to the point of singificant loss of stregnth, and stiffness."

The temperature never even got hot enough to cause a global collapse... NIST's own work clearly shows that the idea of fire causing the buildings to collapse is both unfounded, and a totally misinformed hypothesis.


"Due to the effectiveness of SFRM, the highest column temperature in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degree's Celsius, or 570 degree's Fahrenheit, and only on the east side of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600 degrees celcius 1100 degree's Fahrenheit."

Sad how people seemingly ignore BOLDED posts

Please explain to me how fires that never reached over 600 degree's, and never burned at these temperatures for more then 5 hours (probably much shorter), caused a global collapse in a building that housed some of the most important office complexes in New York. It housed the U.S. secret service, the CIA, the Securities & Exchange Commission, and the Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt offices. To quote an interesting point on the structure of these offices "One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds."......

So a bomb/bullet proof office building, with the ability to withstand hurricane force winds, and some of the most important office complexes in all of New York City, and you are telling me some office fires that never exceeded 600 Celsius brought down these towers??? I would love for you to walk me through this one, hopefully you do better then NIST.

reply to post by 007Polytoks

Like I said. Those fires are a lot hotter internally than 600 degrees. What, did you measure that with a thermometer? And when you say "buildings on fire" you have to add the impact damage 1), and 2) fuel fed fires in all three. Only six hours. You keep quoting how NIST in caps and bold is your source of information but you twist it a little.

Did you know that until this century wood was used in blast furnaces to melt steel? Is that in that report? So how is that? Because it is the wind drawn into the holes in the building and raced across the flames that produces the increase in temperature. Steady rise for (six hours). More than enough time to weaken steel.

You should do some study of your own before becoming an expert in metallurgy. These are wood, coal, and coke fed.


Puddling Furnaces