WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Bending spoons with awesome comparisons, side is hurting again

Well, let's remember truther claims that buildings cannot collapse straight down without explosives. It is apparent to them that they were unaware that the remaining structure of WTC 6 was pulled down by cables.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Are we talking about a steel beam from the core? And in case we are, what are the odds for such a piece to make it's way through the exterior/ debris into an adjacent building? Care to elaborate?

Ask the laws of physics what happened because in 1993, a huge bomb left the steel columns of WTC 1 standing within its huge crater.

Explain to us why the steel structure of WTC 1 remained standing within that bomb crater in 1993. Even demolition explosives do not throw steel beams hundreds of feet laterally.

a reply to: skyeagle409

And of course, we have wreckage of United 175.

That was just as incompetent as it was ignorant.

originally posted by: randyvs


That was just as incompetent as it was ignorant.

Have you ever once provided proof of any of your accusations ?

I've never seen you do it.

Can you produce proof that we have no wreckage from UA 175 or that the wreckage is fake.

a reply to: randyvs

Remains of United 175 on WTC 5

sites.google.com...

More pictures of aircraft debris at WTC

sites.google.com...

a reply to: waypastvne

Why do I even bother when the opposition can't even keep
the context clearly in mind?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: waypastvne

Why do I even bother when the opposition can't even keep
the context clearly in mind?

I'm able to keep this photo in mind. You claimed it was photoshopped but offered no proof. This photo disproves your claim that fire can't weaken steel. Until you prove it's photoshopped it stands as evidence against your ridicules claim.



Side question, do you assemble steel frame buildings or do you install windows which is it ?

a reply to: randyvs

That was just as incompetent as it was ignorant.

Let's remember, you are the person who asked where's the airplane, so I posted photos of the aircraft wreckage. It is amazing that is no secret that United 175 slammed into WTC 2, so what did you think happened to the aircraft?

a reply to: skyeagle409

I can't see why earthquakes should be relevant at all.
That example you brought up didn't collapse into it's footprint, did it?


a reply to: waypastvne

Could be manipulated, of course. A citation without source and context is just a citation without source and context. That example of picturesque evidence was never a good one, with regards to core columns, in the first place. Yes. Käptn Obvious already knows, that office fires can weaken steel.

And yes, Nist was unable to dislodge fireproofing from steel with the shotgun-test. Fun-fact, but please - go ahead!

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: randyvs

No fires,...

No fires?! What does this video depict?

no airplanes...

No airplanes?! What do these photos depict?

Photo 1: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 2: American 77
Wreckage

Photo 3: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 4: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 5: United 93 Wreckage

Photo 6: United 93 Wreckage

Photo 7: United 93 Wreckage

Photo 8: American 11 Wreckage

Photo 8: American 11 Wreckage

Photo 9: American 11 Life-Vest

Plane wreckage found in New York alley is from 9/11 jet, Boeing confirms

A rusted piece of landing gear discovered wedged between a mosque and an apartment building in New York has been confirmed by Boeing as coming from the type of jet used in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.

www.theguardian.com...

Now, you know what happened to the 9/11 aircraft.

and not in it's own footprint, of course.

Proof of No WTC Free Fall

When the magnitude and duration of the quake are considered, the performance as a whole of the one million structures in the city was very good.

911research.wtc7.net...

Amazing that the steel frame building collapse without explosives while concrete buildings remained standing.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I can't see why earthquakes should be relevant at all. That example you brought up didn't collapse into it's footprint, did it?

That steel frame building in Mexico City collapsed straight down without the aid of explosives, a fact that truthers denied could not have occurred without explosives, but as you can plainly see, that photo proves them wrong.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
And yes, Nist was unable to dislodge fireproofing from steel with the shotgun-test. Fun-fact, but please - go ahead!

NIST was unable to dislodge SFRM that was applied to ASTM standards. A standard that did not exist during the construction of the WTC.

Both WTC 1 & 2 were quite notorious, in the biz, for their deficiencies, specifically in regards to SFRM.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Ha ha, the only thing that video proves would get me
banned for calling attention to the obvious.
Lets remember that I choose when to answer you and
when to engage. Every post you claim as evidence of anything
at all. Is the equivalent of asking a murderer to go and find
a cop!

a reply to: peck420

Frankly? The fun-fact was that Nist had some issues proving their claims, as in "explosions dislocated fireproofing" for ex.. Thanks for clarification anyway!

originally posted by: PublicOpinion


And yes, Nist was unable to dislodge fireproofing from steel with the shotgun-test. Fun-fact, but please - go ahead!

Did you ever notice the layer of fire proofing laying on the ground after the impact but before the collapse.

9:08 in this video.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Just a little reminder: we were talking about your example from Mexiko. You know... the one that neither collapsed into it's own footprint nor had anything else to do with our topic.

But thanks for spamming anyway.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Want to know something even more frustrating? They did add more fireproofing after the 75 fire and the 93 bombing (all affected floors in WTC 1 and 3 affected floors in WTC2), but they only removed (down to the steel) the SFRM that contained asbestos (to approx the 38th floor in both buildings and the interior of the high speed elevator shafts).

If they had performed a full abatement and reapplication to the entire building, they could have very well withstood the fires.

a reply to: waypastvne

We've already talked about that in the other thread, but again: kinda strange, innit?

... that's a hell lot of fireproofing in the dust. As if all that asbestos was blown out en masse. Here is the thing: if it was ripped from the steel cores during the impact... why should it still be found abundantly after the buildings collapsed, which effectively brought big chunks of concrete on top of it? Correct, another sign for more explosions during collapse.

a reply to: peck420

I beg to differ. Office-fires causing 3 perfect demo-jobs, you know... that's a bit of a whacky conspiracy-theory. No evidence for fire-weakened steel in that nisty report and not a tiny shred of fireproofing dislodged, we better give 'em bigger guns then? That theory is a nice defacto bummer, let's face it!



And spon on with the frustrating part! At least there wouldn't be a lot of hazardous asbestos left in the dust, what a shame.

a reply to: randyvs

Ha ha, the only thing that video proves would get me
banned for calling attention to the obvious.

If you knew the WTC 7 video was a hoax, why did you post it?