WTC-7 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

reply to post by dariousg


There is some great information regarding your questions here:

wtc.nist.gov...

Enjoy!

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
My OPINION at the time (as with 99% of those interested) was that the damage from the WTC Tower played a hand in the collapse of WTC7.

Define "those interested". I count the NIST and you as who you claim to be the "99%". Those who have continually supported CD of WTC7 have not flip-flopped on the damage and the diesel as you and the NIST have. This is a huge shift and a totally new theory.

Please outline what the damage assessment looks like now compared to the original damage estimate.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Pootie]

whoops. DP

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Pootie]

Originally posted by dariousg
I don't think 'most' 'truthers' think that there was little or no damage.

The significance, placement and extent of the damage have alwasy been the question. We can all see a "gash" but many of us analyzed it and the damage, from all photographic evidence reveal facade damage, not deep, wide and high like the NIST estimate. certainly not deep enough or even in the correct position to have damaged the columns they originally blamed for the building failure.

Turns out we must have been right as the NIST has totally walked away from the falling debris damaging columns and assisting in the collapse.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Pootie]

reply to post by Pootie


Pottie...

All me to explain. Truthers thought thermate, thermite, explosives...etc.. brought down WTC7.

Those that did NOT believe that theory (the 99%) assumed that the structural damage AND the fires were the cause.

NIST's most recent findings do not support the assumptions made. They claim that it was thermal expansion and fire alone casued this.

Now, that being said. After all that has been going on in the past 24 hours. What do you think happened to WTC7?

great article from the nist. hopefully this will help a lot of the confused people to be at peace with what happened.


www.nist.gov...

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by Pootie

 

Pootie...

All me to explain. Truthers thought thermate, thermite, explosives...etc.. brought down WTC7.

Those that did NOT believe that theory (the 99%) assumed that the structural damage AND the fires were the cause.

Again I ask you for the basis of your 99% number. Have you seen a poll that I have not? Please present the factual basis for your 99% claim. AOL will help you... not scientific but:

news.aol.com...

Do you believe that fire brought down World Trade Center 7?
No 44%
Yes 43%
I'm not sure 13%

Total Votes: 95,132

Sure does not look like 99% to me. Please explain the basis for your numbers.

I ask you a second time to outline the new damage estimate to WTC 7 from falling debris and how it differs form the original as presented by the NIST.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Pootie]

I am assuming that those that did NOT beleive that WTC7 did NOT collapse from a CD ... would agree that the structural damage played a roll in it.
Understand? It is an assumption.

I have never seen a post in here on ATS stating the the WTC7 fell due to fires alone.

That was the point i was trying to make.

Geesh!

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
All me to explain. Truthers thought thermate, thermite, explosives...etc.. brought down WTC7.

Those that did NOT believe that theory (the 99%) assumed that the structural damage AND the fires were the cause.

You are contradicting yourself... HERE you say that 99% did not subscribe to a CD theory. Try again. HowardRoark was 10x the obsessive "debunker" you are. At least he was thorough.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Pootie]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Those that did NOT believe that theory (the 99%) assumed that the structural damage AND the fires were the cause.

This is a prime example of how deluded ThroatYogurt (formerly CameronFox) is. This number bears no relation to reality whatsoever, except the "reality" in Cameron's head.

Again I ask you for the basis of your 99% number.

I've had the same discussion with him before. It comes down to him having blind faith that the vast majority of people agree with him, without realizing how many people really do have doubts and/or completely disregard the media and government account. It's just how he sees his world, but you're right: all the polls we have contradict him.

Originally posted by prizim
great article from the nist. hopefully this will help a lot of the confused people to be at peace with what happened.


www.nist.gov...

Agreed. The new report offically damns the OS. I and anyone who reads it objectively can be at peace with the fact the OS is a lie.

reply to post by ANOK


Magic Bullet, magic fire, magic metal expansion, magic standdown, magic pristine passport on top of the WTC rubble, magic 911 insider trading, magic Odigo instant messages, magic Anthrax, magic Patriot Act, magic WMD's, magic "yellowcake" letters, magic tritium, magic dust cloud, magic 911 rescue worker's cancer epidemic, magic fires SEC offices, magic molten metal, magic underground fires for 3 months, magic removal of crime scene evidence, magic cell phones, magic 2 trillion missing from Pentagon 9/10, magic phone call to Giuliani to evacuate Building 7, magic heroin bumper crop, magic secret prisons, magic torture, magic DU, magic Halliburton no bid contracts, magic Iraqi genocide, magic deficits, magic dollar meltdown, magic bailout, etc. etc.

Don't tell me your a conspiracy whacko?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by ANOK

 

Anok... This is the Northside of WTC7.... where most truthers claim that there was no damage and or fires. If you watch the videos, there are MANY vehicles on the street that were damaged by fire and or debris.

Yes the photos you posted are of a building fully engulfed in flames.

Again...these are of the NORTH side of WTC where you can see a substatial amount of fire.

Really these are massive fires are they now? This is bs those fires on those floors are not massive
they look like slowly burning office fires, they are far from engulfing the building in flames, the flames
are not even coming out the windows so how can the building be fully engulfed in flames? huh?

You are delusional if you believe that fire bought that building down the idea is just so absurd.
It looks like another duh bunker fails again, and double fails by trying to twist the evidence to
support his absurd assertion that the building was fully engulfed in flames, you are a liar you FAIL.