WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: matadoor

I'm one of the smallest Libertarians in the country, but even I understand that when a person accepts at face value the statements of known liars, that person is not acting in a rational manner.

Could not have said it better myself.

a reply to: skyeagle409

The B-25 is much smaller, slower and did not carry the fuel capacity of a B-767. Secondly, the Empire State Building does not share identical construction techniques of the WTC buildings.

But does share construction characteristics with Pentagon - in fact both buildings have facade of cut limestone

The limestone used in both buildings was from same quarry .........

a reply to: firerescue

Ok, that is true. But we're the building designs the same? Or, was the Empire State Building hardened?

a reply to: firerescue

Ok, that is true. But were the building designs the same? Or, was the Empire State Building hardened?

No idea why that posted twice. It was an edit...

a reply to: pfishy

Hardened ????

Pentagon walls are built of brick.

Can see the brick wall here - coated with layer of stucco

sites.google.com...

Outer E Ring had facade of limestone over the brick

The 2 lowest floors had no interior wall at the D ring

"When the Pentagon was designed and built in the early 1940s," reflected Walter Lee Evey, director of the Pentagon Renovation Program Office, "there were a number of concessions made to a country at war. The original designers exercised economies in construction to lessen the impact on strategic materials needed to equip the military." The extensive use of reinforced concrete and non-reinforced masonry was one concession. Certainly the threat of any kind of terrorist attack on the building was far from the thoughts of the original designers. As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events.

This sites summarizes some of the pentagon disinfo theories and people,
although this is not the thread for it I'll post it here

www.isgp.nl...
www.isgp.nl...

a reply to: drommelsboef

This sites summarizes some of the pentagon disinfo theories and people,
although this is not the thread for it I'll post it here

Good info in those links.
The problem is that 911 has become a religion with many.
Religion morphs to new science but still remains.

It seems that even smart people like Niels Harrit fall from it. That means the disinformation succeeded.

originally posted by: matadoor

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: matadoor

I'm one of the smallest Libertarians in the country, but even I understand that when a person accepts at face value the statements of known liars, that person is not acting in a rational manner.

Could not have said it better myself.

I'm curious then, as to why you take at face value the statements of Bush & Co? The Pentagon, of Pentagon Papers notoriety?

a reply to: samkent

He tries to remove the nonsense, but is not completely someone who buys the official story.

a reply to: firerescue

Yep, Wedge One was reinforced and renovated.
They've added steel, kevlar and stuff to the initial design.

a reply to: drommelsboef

Thanks for the links. I have been warning truthers that they have been spreading disinformation and that in some cases, they are being set up and yet, they took the bait and ran off with it anyway.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Designers had assumed biggest danger would be from bomb or IED detonated outside the building

The windows were replaced by blast proof non shatter able windows

Kevlar cloth was placed behind the brick wall as anti s palling barrier to catch fragments

The Pentagon was not "armored" - it was upgraded against fragmentation from a bomb

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: matadoor

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: matadoor

I'm one of the smallest Libertarians in the country, but even I understand that when a person accepts at face value the statements of known liars, that person is not acting in a rational manner.

Could not have said it better myself.

I'm curious then, as to why you take at face value the statements of Bush & Co? The Pentagon, of Pentagon Papers notoriety?

I take absolutely nothing at face value. I do, look at processes and events from a perspective of, what is the most logical explanation for how a scenario happened?

Do I believe that some shadow organization which had to consist of literally thousands of participants, implanted Thermite devices into THREE buildings decades ago (and they chose those SPECIFIC three buildings DECADES ago for some really odd reason that no one has come up with), waiting for 2 jumbo jets to slam into them some decades into the future.

Or, did the planes slam into the buildings because of some friggin' idiot terrorists, causing massive fires and stripping the insulation off of the steel and severing the cables of a bunch of elevators) that then caused the buildings to collapse.

Monty, I take door number 2.

I'm an engineer, I find the simplest solution. Number 1 is WAY too complicated.

a reply to: matadoor

Do I believe that some shadow organization which had to consist of literally thousands of participants, implanted Thermite devices into THREE buildings decades ago (and they chose those SPECIFIC three buildings DECADES ago for some really odd reason that no one has come up with), waiting for 2 jumbo jets to slam into them some decades into the future.

Since the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 began at the impact points, I guess truthers will claim that GPS systems were placed at those locations during construction of the buildings to guide the aircraft.

Truthers claim that explosives brought down the WTC buildings, so I guess the explosives were placed inside special mufflers because I definitely did not hear demo explosions in the WTC videos as those buildings fell.

In regard to their claim the WTC buildings fell at free fall speeds, it is amazing that debris,which are falling at free fall speed, can be seen striking the ground while the collapse of the buildings is still in progress many stories above the ground.

Sometimes, I just don't know what ever comes over me to doubt the 9/11 truthers.

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: matadoor

I respect engineers, for the most part, and in jobs gone by worked closely with them. But in the end, engineers are human just like the rest of us, warts and all. So I am greatly encouraged that several thousand engineers (and architects) have found the courage to speak the truth in a time of universal deception, about an event that is a major deception in the finest of military traditions.

So my original point was about a person taking at face value the statements or claims of men known to be liars, and you said you could not have expressed it better. Thank you.

So I guess engineers are engineers, but some of them are much better at "connecting the dots" than others. Some engineers ask questions, some do not. Some believe, for example, that burning office fires on 10 floors out of 110 could cause the damage observed, some do not.

I'm no engineer, but I am curious and fairly well experienced in life. It's plain to me that the damage observed at WTC could not possibly have been caused by fairly trivial office fires. It's plain to me, as Peter Jennings and others noted, that it sure looked like controlled demolition when those towers and WTC7 came down.

So, maybe besides taking the statements of known liars like Cheney and Rumsfeld at face value, maybe an equally important skill set besides skepticism is the ability to connect the dots?

a reply to: Salander

I'm no engineer, but I am curious and fairly well experienced in life. It's plain to me that the damage observed at WTC could not possibly have been caused by fairly trivial office fires.

You are not an expert and the real experts such as structural and civil engineers, architects, firefighters, and demolition experts have spoken and have said that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. In other words, you admit that you are not an engineer, but you think that you have the knowledge to tell the real experts that they do not know what they are talking about.

You also rely on truther websites that are known for spewing disinformation and lies, and some of that disinformation was planted in order to discredit the Truth Movement and it has worked.

You also ignored the fact that the steel frame Kader factory collapsed when fire weakened their steel structures.

Kader Toy Factory fire

The building was reinforced with uninsulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed when heated by the flames.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures.

As you plainly read, fire weakened their steel structures to the point of collapse.

It's plain to me, as Peter Jennings and others noted, that it sure looked like controlled demolition when those towers and WTC7 came down.

Peter Jennings is not an expert and just because someone says it looked like a controlled demolition, doesn't mean that it was. What was missing was the sound of demo explosions and demo explosions are very loud.



And yet, there is no sound of demo explosions in any video as the WTC buildings collapsed.

Some of the best footage of 9/11 I've seen. Always remember.

www.military.com...