WTC 7, What Happened Here? Can Anyone Please Explain

Originally posted by Cassius666

No they have not been debunked.

Yes they have. If they held any water, then you would have had your new investigation already.

If the best 911 believers have is calling anybody insane who brings up anything against the official conspiracy theory, what does that tell you?

Only the believers of these junk papers are insane and/or uneducated.

The writers of them "might" be insane, but for the most part are charlatans, looking for their 5 minutes of fame from a group of uneducated idiots that believe them. They are snake oil salesmen.

Thats all I have seen them bring to the table

Then you either blind, do incredibly poor research, or unable to recognize valuable work.

Therefore you will continue to wallow in ignorance, despite good info freely available that disputes your beliefs and proves them to be garbage.

The only thing they seem to be able to debunk is lasers from outer space and holografic planes

Tony Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" nonsense was proven to be just that - nonsense - by other truthers and by us rational folk alike. Sucks to be you, for you just told a lie ......

then by default all other conspiracy theories are debunked too

Lie. Debunking that lunacy is proof positive that there are indeed lunatics and insane people that believe in CD'ed buildngs. And since the world is shades of grey, there is no clear line for this being sane or not, for inreality, any belief in CD'ed buildings requires SOME degree of instability.

reply to post by Cassius666

Well I know that steel resists office fires just fine. Thats why steel is being used to begin with. Those buildings are built to resist loads several times suerior to what they have to actually support, so that they can burn down to a sekeletton and not collapse. It looked and sounded like a controlled demolition to me. If it looks like a controlled demolition, but it wasnt one, what was it then?

Wrong as usual

use steel for simple reason, beacuse its lighter and cheaper than concrete

Steel must be protected from heat, which is why use fireproofing to coat it and protect underlying steel

Breach the coating and steel will begin to heat up. Heat it enough and will lose load carrying ability and
begin to bend and deform

Witness Windsor Tower fire - the upper steel section collpased from the fire

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

It was believed that the multiple floor fire, along with the simultaneous buckling of the unprotected steel perimeter columns at several floors, triggered the collapse of the floor slabs above the 17th floor. The reduced damage below the 17th floor might provide a clue.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It's the truther papers and declarations that have been debunked and/or ignored as rubbish by professionals.

Is that so? The NIST Report was easily discredited and found to be deliberately falsifying information in my thread here:

What is a 9/11 "Conspiracy Theorist"?


And while you're at it, why don't you post a list of thousands of architects, engineers, and scientists that have publicly supported the findings of the NIST Report. You know, at least an amount comparable to the names at "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth", "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice", and "Scientists for 9/11 Truth" that have came out to publicly show that the official theory is false.

There have been engineers that have done the thermite, thermate, and fire tests on steel to show that what the 9/11 Truth Movement has proposed all along has merit, and confirming that those tests with thermite/thermate damaged steel in a way that was nearly identical to the FEMA Report's metallurgical analysis.

There was a group in Australia that conducted steel experiments and couldn't come close to getting the outcome of the NIST Report, and they even contacted NIST with their findings. NIST didn't do any real, in-house testing of steel. They only used made-up computer models and calculations.



So, "Joey", you can sit there all day and use ad-hominem attacks and call people names until you're blue in the face, but nobody takes people like you seriously. If you want anyone to take you seriously on this subject, you need to grow the hell up and act like a civilized adult and present yourself in a little more professional manner. Otherwise, all you're doing is wasting forum space and bandwidth with your childish rantings.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

....then you would have had your new investigation already.

That is why you OSers are all here isn't it? You guys let this one slip every once in awhile.

You're not here to debate, you're here to try to keep popular opinion from getting to the point people start calling for a new investigation.

That is either your job, or for some odd reason you're a normal citizen afraid of a new investigation? Why would you be afraid of a new investigation? Doesn't make sense Mr. Canoli. If you're so confident that the OS is correct, a new investigation will just prove you right. But of course you already know the OS is BS don't you?

If you didn't you wouldn't keep ignoring the physics that explains the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces. Newtons laws of motion. No one can be that dense.

reply to post by ANOK

That is why you OSers are all here isn't it? You guys let this one slip every once in awhile.

Exactly. There can be so few good explanations for why they keep showing up spouting out the same tired argument that wouldn't hold water in an argument with a barnyard animal.

They know it, we know it, and they know we know it. It would be a comical charade if we weren't still killing people over this crap.

reply to post by Yankee451


Yep.

I think their goal is to simply try to get people so fed up with the discussion they stop replying.

Their goal is to shut us up through frustration.

They know that if the discussion spreads, and it is spreading, there is the chance the reinvestigation they fear will be demanded.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

The NIST Report was easily discredited and found to be deliberately falsifying information in my thread here:

SO then you are the judge about whether or not it has been discredited?

LMAO. You are a nobody and have zero ability to judge.

And while you're at it, why don't you post a list of thousands of architects, engineers, and scientists that have publicly supported the findings of the NIST Report

Yeah right.

And while I'm at it, I'll go round up the lists that have publicly stated that the earth is flat, and that Bigfoot doesn't exist, and that we really did walk on the moon......

There have been engineers that have done the thermite, thermate, and fire tests on steel to show that what the 9/11 Truth Movement has proposed all along has merit, and confirming that those tests with thermite/thermate damaged steel in a way that was nearly identical to the FEMA Report's metallurgical analysis

No, you merely believe that Cole did experiments that have validated your beliefs.

Cuz you are not able to judge..

There was a group in Australia that conducted steel experiments and couldn't come close to getting the outcome of the NIST Report,

Finally something new?

I'd love to see it.

BTW, there have been independant real life experiments that have confirmed NIST too.

Quintere did a fire/truss test that resulted in pull-in forces that were identical to NIST's models.

So, "Joey", you can sit there all day and use ad-hominem attacks and call people names until you're blue in the face, but nobody takes people like you seriously. If you want anyone to take you seriously on this subject, you need to grow the hell up and act like a civilized adult and present yourself in a little more professional manner. Otherwise, all you're doing is wasting forum space and bandwidth with your childish rantings.

Pretty wordy and ironic...

Looks like a rant to me.

Originally posted by ANOK

You're not here to debate, you're here to try to keep popular opinion from getting to the point people start calling for a new investigation.

Correct, I'm not here for a debate, cuz debating with liars is not productive.

I personally am here to give good info to perhaps prevent some lost soul from being sucked into the whirlpool of stupidity and self delusion that is the truth movement.

Or alternatively, to throw a lifeline to those honest and intelligent enough to learn - like Charlie Veitch.

That is either your job

Delusional

or for some odd reason you're a normal citizen afraid of a new investigation?

Not afraid at all. In fact, I'd love to see anew one, but just not like the lunatics here.

I'd love to see one into the intelligence failures,, and that's about it, cuz the whole "buildings were CD'ed is worse than stupid. They are insane.

you wouldn't keep ignoring the physics that explains the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces. Newtons laws of motion. No one can be that dense.

You're talking about yourself, right?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


How is Anok lying?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Correct, I'm not here for a debate, cuz debating with liars is not productive.

Yes how am I lying?

I personally am here to give good info to perhaps prevent some lost soul from being sucked into the whirlpool of stupidity and self delusion that is the truth movement.

Really? So you do that for other self delusional beliefs, or is it just the 911 event that you're concerned with?

Not afraid at all. In fact, I'd love to see anew one, but just not like the lunatics here.

Really? Remember your statement that started this little rapport?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

....then you would have had your new investigation already.

yYou're talking about yourself, right?

OK Joey prove to me you understand the laws of motion, answer this question...

1. While driving down the road, a firefly strikes the windshield of a bus and makes a quite obvious mess in front of the face of the driver. This is a clear case of Newton's third law of motion. The firefly hit the bus and the bus hits the firefly. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the firefly or the force on the bus?

It amazes me the way these so called os believers feel that they need to help people who are on the fence or unsure about the events that unfolded that day.

Heres a thought for you, how about you let other people read what ever information they like and let them decide what they want to believe. They dont need people like you telling them

WTC 7 was clobbered and burned for hours. Firefighters anticipated it's demise :-

www.youtube.com...

What's the mystery ?

reply to post by Alfie1


Why would firefighters have anticipated its demise? No steel skyscraper had collapsed from fire prior to 911, or after.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Why would firefighters have anticipated its demise? No steel skyscraper had collapsed from fire prior to 911, or after.

Perhaps because the building was creaking and leaning and the firefighter on my clip considered the "structural integrity" had gone. Of course, that was the general belief because a collapse zone was organized.

Originally posted by Alfie1

WTC 7 was clobbered and burned for hours. Firefighters anticipated it's demise :-

www.youtube.com...

What's the mystery ?

This has been explained, when they said it 'might collapse', they could not have meant it was going to collapse asymmetrically into its own footprint, because they had no precedence for such a claim. You are taking that statement and expanded it to mean something it could have done in its original context. The only way that statement could have matched the outcome was if they knew it was going to be a controlled demo, and I am not going to go as far as to make that claim.

A building can burn for years, it would not cause it to land in its own footprint.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Alfie1

WTC 7 was clobbered and burned for hours. Firefighters anticipated it's demise :-

www.youtube.com...

What's the mystery ?

This has been explained, when they said it 'might collapse', they could not have meant it was going to collapse asymmetrically into its own footprint, because they had no precedence for such a claim. You are taking that statement and expanded it to mean something it could have done in its original context. The only way that statement could have matched the outcome was if they knew it was going to be a controlled demo, and I am not going to go as far as to make that claim.

A building can burn for years, it would not cause it to land in its own footprint.

What building burned for years ?

Did WTC 7 fall in its own footprint ? Really Really ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
What building burned for years ?

LOL learn to read buddy.

Did WTC 7 fall in its own footprint ? Really Really ?

Yes really....





There is only one way the outer walls can be ON TOP of the rest of the collapsed building.

Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

(don't be afraid to click it's not a 'truther' site)

A natural collapse can not mimic a controlled 'implosion demolition'. A type of demolition designed to cause the center of the building to drop first (penthouse kink) in a very carefully timed sequence, leaving a space for the walls to fall inwards (normally a path of most resistance). That can not happen naturally.

reply to post by ANOK

That can not happen naturally.

Exactly what was "natural" about the building burning for hours? What do you mean by natural?

Controlled demolition causes the total or partial collapse of a building by weaking or removing certain fracture critical elements in a structure. Its the removal of those elements from the loading design that causes the collapse, not the means of the removal.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Alfie1
What building burned for years ?

LOL learn to read buddy.

Did WTC 7 fall in its own footprint ? Really Really ?

Yes really....

There is only one way the outer walls can be ON TOP of the rest of the collapsed building.

Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

(don't be afraid to click it's not a 'truther' site)

A natural collapse can not mimic a controlled 'implosion demolition'. A type of demolition designed to cause the center of the building to drop first (penthouse kink) in a very carefully timed sequence, leaving a space for the walls to fall inwards (normally a path of most resistance). That can not happen naturally.

Right, so getting back to the truth for a moment ; the building didn';t burn for years and it didn't collapse in it's own footprint. It hit other adjacent builbings in it's collapse. Would that be accurate ?

reply to post by Yankee451


Of course no other buildings were hit by jet airkiners at 500 mph either (WTC 1, 2)

Or had a 110 story building fall on it (WTC 7) then burn for hours either

Also deoends on design of the building too, older buildings tend to be be robust, being built with masonary
exteriors and with steelwork encased in concrete or brick vs sheetrock/spray on materisls

Check out 90 West St - it suffered similar damage to WTC 7 and burned for 2 days - yet suffered little
structural damage. This was do the type and materials used in construction

Same thing with Verizon - heavy masonary shell kept out the burning debris outside preventing the building
from catching fire

www.fema.gov...