Reply With Quote
will you pm me when you finally decide to explain what happened?
You are now trying to change to subject and engaging in issue-clouding nitpicking. None of your assertions, if true, would explain why some office fires could make a giant steel building collapse in a simulated controlled demolition. And what you say isn't true.Of course it is relevant. It's not like the building repaired itself in the meantime.This one I love. "The smoke was generated in the fires in buildings 5 and 6, went across the street at ground level, entered building 7 perfectly without any smoke passing the building and rising on the west side of the building where there was no skyscraper to get in its way, and finally came back out of the top of the 47-floor building after waiting to travel up the elevators and staircases and coming back out the windows.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UN7AEj4szrk
WTC 1 was 1368 feet tall, more than the length of four football fields. WTC 7 was 610 feet tall, about the length of two football fieldsYes, and you just lied about where most of the damage was -- it was in the middle.
Thanks for throwing out such bald-faced lies. This is too easy.
The fires before 3PM are not relevant. Supposedly, the fires heated and weakened the steel. So if a fire is out, the steel would begin hardening over the next two hours. The NIST scientists do not assert that the pre-3PM fires have anything to do with the collapse.
In fact, even steel buildings totally engulfed in flames from office fires, like WTC 5 and WTC 6, do not collapse. That is the root of your problem, office simply fires don't make steel buildings collapse.
In reference to the smoke from WTC 5 and WTC 6, as well as the smoke from WTC 1 and WTC 2, you should know that this thick smoke blew in giant clouds four to six blocks away from the Towers before it visibly thinned at all. WTC 7 was a block and a half away from the North Tower. These clouds of smoke traveled down city streets, including the ones next to WTC 7. The SW corner of WTC 7 was damaged and had fires. Some of the smoke in your video appears to come from that area. Of course, the SW corner has nothing to do with the collapse, and is a red herring.
I've already gone over where the fires were in WTC 7, as stated in the NIST report. The bottom line is that these fires do not explain the collapse. The collapse happened 6 1/2 years ago.
As far as damage in the middle of the south face of WTC 7, did you see where it says POSSIBLE damage. It doesn't assert there was damage for sure. That's because the eyewitnesses contradict each other or is vague and there is no visual proof. Also, damage in the middle has nothing to do with an observed implosion collapse and is another red herring.
Furthermore, here is some evidence that there wasn't much, if any, damage to the middle:
Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/
This footage here at the 6:16 mark shows that the glass in the middle of the south face of WTC 7 wasn't even broken. This footage was unknown when the NIST report was written:
WTC 7 Loose Change Final Cut
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
You quote the height of the Twin Towers. Wow. We all know they are tall. Do you know that gravity is a force which works straight down, not sideways? The only reason anything hit WTC 7 at all, was because the explosions in WTC 1 blew objects out horizontally.
You also need to explain who started the fires in WTC 7. Are you aware that 99.9% of the mass was steel, concrete, and aluminum? This doesn't burn. Did you know the core of WTC 7 doesn't have any flammable material at all?
Did you know That WTC 7 has a water sprinkler system as well. Did you know that they have fire codes in NYC? This pertains to the office contents. The codes are written to reduce the risk of fire. How exactly is a fire going to spread in a steel concrete building that has water sprinklers and fire codes?
Did you know that someone turned off the fire alarms in WTC 7 at 6:47 AM the morning of 9/11? Bet you didn't know that. Then you've got the owner who says "pull it". Sounds like arson.
Now going back to the NIST report. It tells you where the fires and damage was. The fires and damage do not explain whay WTC 7. Controlled demolition explains everything. We even have a video of it.
will you pm me when you finally decide to explain what happened?
Actually the WTC towers all still standing. They got David
Copperfield to do one his tricks in making them disappear.
This article sucks.
Do you see where column 79 is? NE corner of core. No fires or debris damage there.
It is also right where Barry Jennings and Mike Hess reported a huge explosion around 10 AM, the morning of 9/11.
Whatever idiot wrote this article is an idiot. One column out of 81 columns does not make a building collapse. If one columns fails, the rest hold it up. The horizontal beams also hold it in place.
If Superman took a giant scizzers and clipped column 79 at each of the 47 floors, what would happen to WTC 7?
Nothing.
Controlled demolition explains everything. The first demolition charges to go off were placed next to core column # 79
clambake;
WTC 7 is just a straight forward controlled demolition, there is really not much to explain.
[it may have used military grade explosives, rather than commercial grade. The explosives may have been placed farther than usual from the perimeter as well, to hide the charges, although the explosive charges were seen by many.]
Without getting into the rest of 9/11, here is the best, most specific explanation of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers:
Gordon Ross analyses the destruction of the World Trade Center
Engineer Gordon Ross MEng. at the Indian YMCA, London on the 8th June 2007 analyses the destruction of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on September 11th 2001.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
Gordon Ross also won an award named after me, The Galileo Award!
:-)
Gordon Ross Wins Galileo Award
“Best Scientific Polemic” of the 9/11 Paradigm Shift
http://mujca.com/galileo.htm
how about this. when you decide you're tired of avoiding the question, them pm me. I'm definitely willing to listen.
avoiding what question?
So steel magically undeforms after being soften. Thanks, professor.
none of the buildings that burned were built the way WTC 7 was built nor did they have large portions of a larger office building fall into it.In fact, even steel buildings totally engulfed in flames from office fires, like WTC 5 and WTC 6, do not collapse. That is the root of your problem, office simply fires don't make steel buildings collapse.
Most of the smoke is coming out of WTC 7.In reference to the smoke from WTC 5 and WTC 6, as well as the smoke from WTC 1 and WTC 2, you should know that this thick smoke blew in giant clouds four to six blocks away from the Towers before it visibly thinned at all. WTC 7 was a block and a half away from the North Tower. These clouds of smoke traveled down city streets, including the ones next to WTC 7. The SW corner of WTC 7 was damaged and had fires. Some of the smoke in your video appears to come from that area.You are the only one who ever said anything about the SW corner in an attempt to muddy the waters and avoid saying what you really think happened on 9/11. I made no mention of the SW corner at all -- it was only you. You have enough red herrings of your own to try to lie about my having one.Of course, the SW corner has nothing to do with the collapse, and is a red herring.
Sure they can. You just like to stick to your nontheory about Bush and Cheney that you are afraid to actually post.I've already gone over where the fires were in WTC 7, as stated in the NIST report. The bottom line is that these fires do not explain the collapse. The collapse happened 6 1/2 years ago.
You want those videos too? No big deal.As far as damage in the middle of the south face of WTC 7, did you see where it says POSSIBLE damage. It doesn't assert there was damage for sure. That's because the eyewitnesses contradict each other or is vague and there is no visual proof. Also, damage in the middle has nothing to do with an observed implosion collapse and is another red herring.
There is plenty of evidence that there was damage.Furthermore, here is some evidence that there wasn't much, if any, damage to the middle:
WTC 7 Loose Change Final Cut
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
You quote the height of the Twin Towers. Wow. We all know they are tall. Do you know that gravity is a force which works straight down, not sideways? The only reason anything hit WTC 7 at all, was because the explosions in WTC 1 blew objects out horizontally.
You have got to be ing kidding me. Your assertion is that there is nothing in a 47-floor office building that could be flammable. You are an idiot.You also need to explain who started the fires in WTC 7. Are you aware that 99.9% of the mass was steel, concrete, and aluminum? This doesn't burn. Did you know the core of WTC 7 doesn't have any flammable material at all?
Did you know that the infrastructure of all of lower Manhattan was damaged on 9/11. There was no water available.Did you know That WTC 7 has a water sprinkler system as well.So paper and carpet and hydrocarbons found in offices magically don't burn because of fire codes?Did you know that they have fire codes in NYC? This pertains to the office contents. The codes are written to reduce the risk of fire. How exactly is a fire going to spread in a steel concrete building that has water sprinklers and fire codes?
so it wasn't Bush and Cheney -- it was the jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo and his insurance scam! Tell me, what do you really think happened on 9/11.Did you know that someone turned off the fire alarms in WTC 7 at 6:47 AM the morning of 9/11? Bet you didn't know that. Then you've got the owner who says "pull it". Sounds like arson.
Nah, the working hypothesis is that fire alone did the damage to a critical column which led to the collapse. Their investigation into CD is complete and there has been no indication that hypothesis was borne out. Nice try though.Now going back to the NIST report. It tells you where the fires and damage was. The fires and damage do not explain whay WTC 7. Controlled demolition explains everything. We even have a video of it.
Tell me, what engineering school you went to and what physical evidence you have examined and what computer models you have used to come to your conclusions.
I can find the CVs of the authors as well as many other published works from them. I can't find anything about your fake PhD other than non peer-reviewed 9/11 articles.
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
I will be quoted in Dr. David Ray Griffin's next book '9/11 Contradictions' coming out next month.
Guess you'll have to buy the book....
[QUOTE=ChumpDumper]
So steel magically undeforms after being soften. Thanks, professor.
QUOTE]
Office fires don't deform steel you dolt. WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane. Nothing else you yap about matters.
dude, there's a video of WTC 7 coming down in a controlled demolition. What else do you need?
griffin? did you say david ray griffin? that SOB owes me money!
I'm sorry, I don't discuss 9/11 with idiots until the WTC 7 issue is resolved.
Let me get this straight; WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition because the office fires magically went into the building and blew out the exact same columns that a controlled demolition company would blow out if they were contracted to do a controlled demolition?
Did I hear you right?
WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1
buy his book. if sales are up, he may be able to pay you back!
ok, ok. i'm with ya. wtc7 was a controlled demolision. now, what happened on 9/11?
It was an inside job.
I don't have time to write it out, but here is a close approximation:
Attack Scenario 404 *
How the Attack Might Have Been Engineered
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/a...enario404.html
Hey Chump;
Who turned off the fire alarms in WTC 7 at 6:47 AM on the morning of 9/11?
"6:47 a.m. September 11, 2001: WTC Building 7 Alarm Not Operating According to later reports, the alarm system in WTC 7 is placed on “TEST” status for a period due to last eight hours. This ordinarily happens during maintenance or other testing, and any alarms received from the building are generally ignored. [National Ins ute of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp. 28 ]"
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...a647alarmnoton
Explain to me how this is not evidence of an inside job? Was not the person who turned off the alarms INSIDE the building? Don't you need a security clearance to do this?
Let's see, someone turns off the fire alarms at 6:47, and a fire breaks out at 10:30. Hmmm??
I'd like to see anyone that owns a building anywhere in the world turn off the fire alarms, then watch the building fall down a few hours later, then go on national TV and say "Pull it", and not be investigated for arson.
PULL IT!!
WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
Here's another one for ya, Chumper....
Barry Jennings and Mike Hess were inside WTC 7 at 9 AM on the morning of 9/11. They reported a huge explosion. Here is some of their testimony:
What really happened at WTC 7? Barry Jennings
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
Guess where they were?
They were in the EAST stairwell. Know where that is? Right in between the 76th and 79th columns.
That's right, near the 79th column, the same column your idiotic psuedo-science professor says "failed" from an office fire.
Well, there aren't office fires in the core, there are no offices there. But there was an explosion.
Out that in your pipe and smoke it!!
Not done yet.
This eyewitness says there was a COUNTDOWN just before WTC 7 collapsed:
The Elephant In The Room:Kevin McPadden, 9/11-1st Responder
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
Eyewitness testimony is evidence.
Here's another eyewitness; Craig Bartmer.
He was also near WTC 7 when it fell:
9/11 First Responder - Interview with Craig Bartmer p2/3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=8
Listen and weep!
And please stop defending mass murder!!!
But, not always reliable...particularly in such chaotic cir stances. Why the would they countdown?
Are you sane?
The testimony is reliable when it has a video of a controlled demolition to go with it.
Get your together.
The video proves the controlled demolition, and the countdown witness reinforces it.
New Video!
FOX-5 Reports 9/11/01: WTC-7 Collapsed Before Actual Event
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
BBC - WTC 7 - Prior Knowledge
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
911: CNN Foreknowledge of WTC 7 Demolition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=4
So lets get this straight.
FOX, the BBC, and CNN, all knew WTC 7 would fall.
Yet 6 1/2 years later, the NIST scientists have no idea why the observed damage and fires would cause it to fall.
Controlled demolition, boys and girls. Someone told 'em!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
