Reply With Quote
And he probably went to A&M.
Bet you a dollar he drives a Tahoe too.
And he probably went to A&M.
ROFL never did i say one thing about loose change
Rawfl Rawfl Rawfl. Vince Young. Rawfl Rawfl.
Don't confuse fact with opinion. I watched your video of the WT7 fires, now watch this video of the Oklahoma City bombing. Massive structural damage, massive fire, but yet most of the building stood. Now rewatch your video again, and ask yourself, even if the front of the building was structurally compromised by impact of falling debris or fire, would WTC tower collapsed like this? 911 Eyewitness
I realize your not a structural engineer, but watch this complete video, if you can find a copy, then try and remake your original claim using scientific fact, not opinion.
Awesome...I was wondering when the voice of sanity would chime in...
It certainly didn't before you, whoot.
WTC7 and the Murrah building were constructed using completely different techniques.
The Murrah building did not burn uncontrolled as long as WTC7.
Take a look at this video.
Now imagine twelve of them sitting on the second most critical structural component of WTC7. Now throw in another ten on the ground floor for good measure.
I realize you are not a structural engineer, but you should take this into account, then try and remake your original claim using scientific fact, not opinion.
[waits for dan to say he is indeed a structural engineer]
You still haven't told me how critical structural columns in WTC7 were compromised by fascade damage or fire, but I forgive you. Now get this: the fire burnt for about 7 hours. During this seven hours, the fire never managed to reach the northern side of the building. Apparently, it was trapped in the southern side of the building. Yet this fire raged so furiously that it warped the steel in the southern side of the building to the point where the whole building collapsed. To explain this, we have been told that two floors (floors 5 and 6), on which there were no known fires, had a dividing wall that ran across the building. This is such a transparent lie, it is impossible that a reasonable person believe it. And, in any event, if the steel on only one side of the building warped, leading to collapse, then the building would have fallen like a tree and would not have collapsed in the manner of a controlled demolition.
come on now dan
have you even ordered the 7 dvd set from discoverychannel.com?
Exhibit A:
Fires on floors 10 and above, but little to no fire on lower floors.
The substation is the area I'm talking about. It was on the south side of the building where the debris from the North Tower hit. I didn't think I would have to explain something so obvious.You still haven't told me how critical structural columns in WTC7 were compromised by fascade damage or fire, but I forgive you.Sure it did. In fact, the ONLY pictures of WTC7 fires most conspiracy videos show are those on the north side. This too wide to be the west or east sides:During this seven hours, the fire never managed to reach the northern side of the building.
This is one of the narrower sides.
Either you are the worst 9/11 expert ever or you are attempting to distort the facts.
Is there a report that claims to state the location of every fire in WTC7?To explain this, we have been told that two floors (floors 5 and 6), on which there were no known fires
Could you tell me precisely which floors are on fire in this photo?
I love that one. It fell to the south, in the direction of the weakened part of the building. I guess you only choose to see videos of the collapse directly from the north.And, in any event, if the steel on only one side of the building warped, leading to collapse, then the building would have fallen like a tree and would not have collapsed in the manner of a controlled demolition.
There is actually some rare footage of:.......CHUBAKA, ELVIS, AND THE ELEPHANT MAN PLANTING HIGH YIELD EXPLOSIVES IN THE WTC!!!!
I think it was a, "napalm plasmod pulverizing pulsed projectile", designed and build by Halliburton out of the gizzards of the last existing dodo birds.....honestly, this is all true.
The other major and rather glaring difference between the buildings, is that the critical stress distribution from a tall building like WTC7 is much more demanding than the demands required by a shorter much stouter building like the Murrah building. Why? Because the center of gravity for the Murrah building was so much lower than the center of gravity for WTC7.
It's not entirely implausible to think that if we had subjected the Murrah building to a fire scenario similar to the one that ravaged WTC7 that it would still manage to remain 'standing' - despite the fires, and inspite of its own explosion-created damage.
That's just the kind of common sense argument that has no place here.
So it obliterated a underground subway sub-station, but semisograph readings of the collapse of both Towers where less than a 2 (i believe). Either way, certainly well within the level it necessary to compromise the structural integrity of the building.The substation is the area I'm talking about. It was on the south side of the building where the debris from the North Tower hit. I didn't think I would have to explain something so obvious.
No, that's my point. Unless the building collapsed as a random consequence of incredible chance, and I can't even calculate those odds, then the building should have collapsed much like a tree, but it didn't it collapsed largely in it's own footprint.Sure it did. In fact, the ONLY pictures of WTC7 fires most conspiracy videos show are those on the north side. This too wide to be the west or east sides:
Look, as I've posted before, I don't have a dog either-way in this fight, if WTC7 came down as a random act of almost impossible consequences by fire, as has been asserted by the intial FEMA report on the collapse, then lets talk about those chances and see who comes out as the 'conspiracy theorists', but don't tell me that WTC7 was completely compromised by the destruction of a underground sub-station in Towers 1 and 2, or fascade damage to the building by falling debris. That ship don't fly here.
That's assuming that you believe that fire can bring down a steel and motar building, which I don't. My real point was that the Murrah building blast compromised 1 or 2 columns on one side of the building, and predictably, half the building came down, but as even Chumpy's pics have shown, there was no fire on the North side of WTC7, so why did the whole building collapse?
You mean the same random chance by which the terrorist-attacked twin towers collapsed largely in their own footprints?
Yes, that would be a remarkable coincidence.
As I understand the physics and engineering -- and that is not an effort I've undertaken lightly -- there has never been a claim that fire was the sole cause of the collapse of any building in the WTC complex.
As I understand the engineers' autopsy, the fire within the building caused internal structures, which eased the loads carried by the steel and mortar framework of the buildings, to fail. It was the failure of those internal structures, coupled with the catostrophic damage to the load-bearing elements in the superstructures that caused the steel and mortar components of the buildings to fail, which brought about their collapses.
That makes perfect sense.
And, by the way, Chump's pictures quite clearly show fires burning on the North face of WTC 7.
That image cannot be of the South face of WTC 7, because such a view from that distance would have necessarily included views of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 debris fields, which were located to the south of WTC 7.
Frankly, I'm not sure how one can look at that picture and still claim that there were no fires on the north side of WTC 7.
Yes, yes.... but don't jump ahead of yourself though because of personal bias. The way I see it, the case for almost all conspiracy theories surrounding 911 revolve around what happened to WTC7.
wait what does the 600 page official story of 9/11, the 9/11 Commision Report say on building 7?
and even if it is the first steel building in world history to collapse from fire, even if it had "structural damage", why would in collapse in the physical manner it did?
Of course you do. Luckily for me, I'm not at all bound by your refusal to acknowledge the widely-held scientific beliefs about what happened, from an engineering standpoint, in lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001.
I bring no personal bias to this at all.
I'm not the one here with an axe to grind.
surely the government would give us an official story
surely the liberal media would give us a theory
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
