|
Who What Where When Why: Official WTC 7 Destruction Makes No Sense
Forget getting into who did what - why is this aspect completely ignored? There's no back up evidence for this building collapsing because of damage or carpet fires... but there is other evidence not addressed... including evidence the government (NIST) admits but doesn't follow up on (freefall for example). |
Until #7 is adequately explained I view the entire 9/11 episode with suspicion.
. |
it has been explained ad nauseum, but those who just search out youtube videos to buffer their preconceptions will never see that.
|
Quote:
|
The time for debate has long passed.
Or to put it into GFY Speak "Time for teh debating has past long." |
Quote:
Show me. . |
Quote:
As for a the very few vocal minority of Engineers et all saying it wasn't explained, you have to dismiss the vast majority that don't agree with that position. I'm not going to argue with you about it there's no sense. Believe what you want, it really makes no difference. |
I always thought those 911truthers were crazy until I started reading up on building 7.
|
Worse than arguing about religion.
|
Quote:
:D |
google it. i'm not your bitch. plenty of debunking sites out there. of course you wont read them as the are just cia front operations.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I like your argument sir :thumbsup |
Quote:
Final Report: http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610 Goto page 45 NIST announces stage 2 as gravitational acceleration. It's couched in all this sciencespeak so they don't have to make any conclusions from the fact, but there it is. On http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f..._qa_082108.cfm NIST defines or "simplifies" gravitional acceleration as "free fall". Quote:
Most of those who are vocal in demanding at least an investigation (which was never actually conductied) were once in denial until they were presented with the facts. Quote:
:D |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Free fall can't happen during gravitational collapse - and NIST never explains why this occurred during a "normal" collapse. |
So, can i ask who knocked it down and why then?
I never get these arguments at all. |
Quote:
|
It's so obvious that it was a controlled demolition, just look at the video...
|
Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1 They've planned to do it before. |
It's 10 years later...
|
Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1 When people stop asking questions, then we're all in trouble. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is like this intelligent design anti-evolution bullshit they're pushing in US schools lately. :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
if you want to leave the cult and need to talk about it you can email me however. |
Quote:
Quote:
This is serious stuff... but you just won't consider it. Why? :D |
Quote:
|
Anothier thing: why have we never ever revised everything we knew about building design after 9/11:
;D |
google false flag terrorism
google 1993 wtc bombing Emad Salem tape google operation northwoods google New World Order |
Quote:
but to say the nist explanation is bunk & stating it was a nano-thermite controlled demo? pfft. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
basically anything i post wont be read. and if read not understood. usually just say it's government black-ops propaganda. you can use google. any of the so-called conspiracy facts have been debunked on dozens of sites and articles. you are part of an online cult. nothing i say will sway you until you decide to leave it. |
Go on Youtube search for ''WTC FLASHES''
You clearly see the demolition flashes When will you Americans wake up to the grand conspiracy illuminati must be partying 24/7 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
NIST lied, the first few times, eventually incorporating free fall, without ever explaining the fall of building 7. Why is it more or less bunk than any other dubious statements? Quote:
Post-industrial building design has been based on their same standards since the beginning, and all skyscrapers have maintained the standard - whether there were earthquakes, plane crashes, fires, etc... none have collapsed. Suddenly for the first time, this one does... and no one has investestigated why... Weird. Quote:
So you like a million conspiracy freaks believe anything you google? Nothing's been debunked. Popular Mechanics has especially been de-bunked, and with hilarity. Instead of taking the time to post all that, why didn't you just state some facts? Post some links to what you think is "true"? Anything you post will be read by me; if factual, certainly understood; absolutely not referred to anything "black ops" oriented... unless it verifiably is. Everybody I know who says they've argued all this in the past, and researched all the google debunking links, have invariably been wrong or found to be unfounded - in other words, they saw the links, headlines, and believe whatever they were proclaiming without actually reading the articles or following the facts... just going on "faith" (in the media?) in other words... Most people I know who disbelieve the 9/11 government story have at least done some actual research... :D |
Quote:
a large section in the video was about nano-thermite being the explosive compound used in wtc7 |
Did people see explosives being placed all throughout the lower levels of the building? Surely some credible witnesses would have seen something and spoken up by now? ... have any?
Not to say it didn't happen, because there some are some plausible reasons for the government to blowup the building to better conceal what it contained; as a cover to sneak out sensitive materials. But often the simplest explanation is the correct one ... many people put more faith into modern construction than they should - buildings in recent times are built with the strictest economy leading to minimal structural tolerances compared to older ones... Back in the old days (prior to the mid 20th century; ie. Empire State Building), due to lack of time to calculate every possible load distribution along with far more reliance on empirical knowledge, buildings tended to be over-engineered (though not always, but often more than not) - among the best examples are many railroad structures, that with minimal maintenance, are still in use, and in excellent shape, 100+ years later. I don't recall whether #7 was box construction or tube construction ... if it was tube, that alone explains much of the reason it fell. However, if it was box construction, then it would be highly helpful to know the number of columns and their thicknesses, and type, of the steel used, plus the types of connections used, in making a determination whether fire and damage from flying debris alone brought it down or if there was something more involved. Ron |
Quote:
I did say that importance evidence was ignored (nano-thermite included I guess) and that free fall was a basic fact denied and finally admitted by NIST. :) |
Quote:
|
i have researched it inside and out from day one and wanted to believe. i found the evidence of a conspiracy very lacking.
basically the whole world view is a bricolage of half-truths, misunderstood facts, distorted facts, misreported facts, bias, disinformation, and outright lies generally pushed by people who stand to cash in from it, are ex-cops, military, cia or fbi or just have a history of mental issues. some are just very slow individuals. not really worth ones time in the end. Quote:
|
much physics involved in explaining the effects of flying airplanes full of jet fuel into towers at 500mph. i won't claim to understand it all, so i am all for investigating and such. wtc7 was close enough to be impacted by the collapseS in ways we will never know.
whether or not wtc7 free fell for a few seconds at first is pretty much a non-issue for me until there's a lot more to justify the import of that *smoking gun* but nano-thermite? no. i do understand enough re: that compound to conclude for myself it was not used. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Quote:
|
This image is interesting.
Notice how the only properties destroyed are those owned by the WTC. The position of WTC 7 and its damage compared to every other building on the perimeter sure is odd. http://i52.tinypic.com/2z7338y.jpg This photo of the Bankers Trust Building (the closest building to WTC falling debris) illustrates the worse case scenario damage along the perimeter. It appears as though 80% of the offices could have been used the next day. http://i51.tinypic.com/avlhz5.jpg Now go back and look at the top photo. Should WTC 7, with it's large buffer zone between WTC 1 and itself, have been damaged to the point of total collapse? Why didn't the Bankers Trust Building suffer devastating damage since it was right across the street? Quote:
|
Why does this have to be explained?
Two very large jet planes full of jet fuel crashed into the two towers. WTC was by flaming debris and the building caught fire. Within hours both of the two towers fell, dropping millions of tons of concrete, steel, and debris at the foot of WTC7. So at this point we have a large building with an out of control fire, no water water pressure to put the fire out, and two very tall towers that feel at the foot of the building.... And you have to ask why the building fell? Really? |
Quote:
Quote:
Why did WTC7 fall and not this other building? Gee, I wonder why. Why don't you question why the buildings next to WTC7 didn't fall? All of the buildings suffered various degrees of damage that day, some more than others. Quote:
|
Quote:
WTC7 falling in to its own footprint all on its own due to the 9/11 attacks requires the same level of faith/belief as Jesus being the son of god. And of course in your post to Matt26oz you fall back on the typical smarmy response of 'gee i wonder why'. Yeah, so do a lot of other people which is why a proper investigation should have been done. And if you think that a proper investigation was done then, this right here is what we call the successful indoctrination into the cult/religion of America. God bless you, sir. |
This isn't exactly a bunch of idiots questioning the issue
|
Quote:
Quote:
(I've also read "Debunking 9/11" and even "Debunking debunking 9/11". ) In fact, there was an investigation into WTC7 - multiple investigations: Quote:
So don't imply there wasn't an investigation into why WTC7 fell - there was. |
Rochard I like you because you are naive. I think you just want to believe that the US government isn't evil and that there is no such thing as conspiracies and I'm afraid one day the truth is going to ruin your innocence. I want to be your friend so I can live in your fantasy world with you because quite honestly, it sounds a lot better than the truth.
|
it's not either or. you can not trust the government and also not believe every crackpot theory that pollutes the internet. don't be a knee jerk simpleton.
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc