yup ... indeed ..

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere


If I had to guess I would go with the one that burned uncontrolled for many hours, without firefighter attempting to fight the fire. The one that had no working sprinklers. The one that was predicted by the firefighters to collapse because of clear signs of instability.

Or was I supposed to go with the simplistic "don't see big flame on biased picture, therefore big huge conspiracy"?

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere


As always, when conspiracy theorists show images of WTC 7 they avoid showing the south side which had a huge hole in it from falling debris and was belching smoke from top to bottom :-

www.youtube.com...

Have you ever looked at the NIST report for WTC7, it is amazing that a failure on one side of the building can cause a perfect uniform free fall, if that doesn't raise eyebrows nothing will.

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by SpearMint

 

You mean besides the interview where the guy that owned the WTC complex said he made the call to "Pull it"
The insurance policy covering acts of terrorism he took out a month or so before the attacks.

I can't post links from my phone, but it's not hard to find this info.

You mean the fire commander on scene that made the decision to pull the firefighting operations? Before you make an accusation please be informed of the facts. Also insurance payouts did not cover the expenses even remotely of clean up, reconstruction and the losses in property taxes on the site.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by zerozero00

 

I don't understand, do you not see a problem with what happened to WTC7 on 9/11?

Nope.
Just because others claim 'it looks like other cds' doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. Why would you blindly accept them based on 7 seconds of YT video or the few stills available on the web?

We've all seen a warehouse store with a flat roof catch fire. The roof always caves in. Well the roof becomes the next floor in WTC7. So after many hours of fire . . .

But to claim it was some grand conspiracy without showing any verifiable proof of how the mechanics worked is silly. Where is this verifiable proof? Would you want to be taken to court based on the level of proof that has been presented the past 12 years?

Where in my post did I say CD was used?....I didn't!

You say why would I blindly believe it was CD based on yt vids?....I don't!

The proof is there for all to see, physics speak louder than you or any bureaucratic puppet with an agenda to meet

My reason for not believing the OS regarding WTC7 is based on logic and science and not Youtube videos, I'll say it again, PHYSICS!

Defying physics (OS) or something else(Truth seeker) .....No option for me.....Something Else for sure!

What and how??...I have no idea, but why would I?....I never did it!

Why did the firefighters think it would collapse? why do they still remain unsurprised that it did? Are they in on the conspiracy?

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Why did the firefighters think it would collapse? why do they still remain unsurprised that it did? Are they in on the conspiracy?

Didn't Jason Bermas say they were in on it ? He had people like this guy in mind I suppose :-

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by zerozero00

My reason for not believing the OS regarding WTC7 is based on logic and science and not Youtube videos, I'll say it again, PHYSICS!

But you have shown no physics other than incredulity.
But you have shown no science other than incredulity.

This 'gut' feeling you have is misplaced.
This term 'at free fall speed' is bandied about to easily. A more accurate term would be 'almost free fall speed'.
How fast do the verinage demos fall? Almost free fall speed. What does that tell you? Once the main support is removed the rest goes quickly.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by zerozero00

 

My reason for not believing the OS regarding WTC7 is based on logic and science and not Youtube videos, I'll say it again, PHYSICS!

But you have shown no physics other than incredulity.
But you have shown no science other than incredulity.

This 'gut' feeling you have is misplaced.
This term 'at free fall speed' is bandied about to easily. A more accurate term would be 'almost free fall speed'.
How fast do the verinage demos fall? Almost free fall speed. What does that tell you? Once the main support is removed the rest goes quickly.

You are entitled to see life through whatever glasses you want, I will see life as an ever evolving cycle of science, not to be argued with but to be studied and respected as this is the way of the universe....no exceptions!

I think its you who shows incredulity not I
for I respect science

Anyway, back to your post
"Freefall speed" or "Almost freefall speed" is a complete sidetrack trick, Its not relevant at all really to the collapse as either one totally defies physics, neither should of happened...but one of them did!

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere


Not only did it collapse, it collapsed into it's own footprint at freefall speed. How's that for an adder?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

If I had to guess I would go with the one that burned uncontrolled for many hours, without firefighter attempting to fight the fire. The one that had no working sprinklers. The one that was predicted by the firefighters to collapse because of clear signs of instability.

Or was I supposed to go with the simplistic "don't see big flame on biased picture, therefore big huge conspiracy"?

edit on 9-4-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

You forgot to mention that it emploded into it's own footprint at freefall speed. Must be the mushrooms.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Have you ever looked at the NIST report for WTC7, it is amazing that a failure on one side of the building can cause a perfect uniform free fall, if that doesn't raise eyebrows nothing will.

Exactly!

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

As always, when conspiracy theorists show images of WTC 7 they avoid showing the south side which had a huge hole in it from falling debris and was belching smoke from top to bottom :-

www.youtube.com...

So, what you are saying is; the building was gone on one side and didn't tip in any one direction over another?

Originally posted by zerozero00

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by zerozero00

 

My reason for not believing the OS regarding WTC7 is based on logic and science and not Youtube videos, I'll say it again, PHYSICS!

As an engineer, I agree that this is the most true statement so far.

Originally posted by Turkenstein
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

Not only did it collapse, it collapsed into it's own footprint at freefall speed. How's that for an adder?

It didn't collapse at freefall speed :-

www.youtube.com...

Nor did it fall in its own footprint. It damaged adjacent buildings.

At 11 years plus it is really far too late to keep posting this old long debunked stuff.

Originally posted by samkent
"Building 7 is the smoking gun" We see it posted here time after time.

Perhaps if the OS non believers could come up with one single unified theory that covers all the 'unexplained anomalies' they always bring up, then and only then the world may start to consider this as a conspiracy.

To bad the OS's single unified theory is LUCK. Boy it would be nice to hang my hat on that.

My favorite line from NIST: "Although we can't explain why the buildings fell the way they did, we can state certainly that once collapse initiation took place, global collapse became inevitable..." Think about that for a while you pushers of the LUCK theory. Then ask me again to explain all the "unexplained anomalies"...

Must be Kool Aid time again.

reply to post by GenRadek


So.. according to official deniers of said conspiracy, totally unfought fires brought the building down or was a major cause, but the incredibly inexplicably larger fires in the other buildings WERE fought ??

You know , the fires that had firefighters and sprinklers systems ? Battling heroicly yet the fires were so much larger but that makes them weaker I guess, since at least an attempt was made.

Nice leap of logic..

What is even more amusing is, the constant claims of a fire "Out of Control" !!! OMG !!!
NOT fought by firefighters !!!

And yet these same firefighters who did not fight the fires were "pulled" by Larry Silverstein ??

Comical to say the least, I think it proves quite nicely that Larry meant what he said, we knocked that sucka down !

reply to post by Alfie1


It fell exactly how a controlled demolition "Footprint" would have been, considering the distance to the other buildings, put the tarps designed to direct the small bits that caused minor damage adjacently and no problem.

Really not sure what your argument is, if I dump a shovel of dirt straight down about as much debris will splash around too.

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere


Not only that, but WTC 7 managed to fall in it's own footprint at free fall speeds. That means every critical core column holding the building up would have to be destroyed at the exact same time. Can small office fires do this? Can small office fires literally destroy every single critical core column at once?

Of course they can!

reply to post by ParasuvO

You know , the fires that had firefighters and sprinklers systems ? Battling heroicly yet the fires were so much larger but that makes them weaker I guess, since at least an attempt was made.

To my knowlege the fire crews never got to the point of putting water on the fires in the first building.
They were still hauling equipment up 80 some stories when the second building (hit) fell. Then it was get the hell out of dodge.
So no fires were actually fought.