Just wanted to share this Vid. 911/truth

Hey Guys,

I searched for this being posted before, couldnt find any so here goes.

There was a new video posted on youtube a few weeks ago from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, this time they talk about WTC7.

I think that this and also loose change are one of the best ways to wake up your friends, family, lovers, etc..to the reality that is upon us. Just show them these 2 vids.

--GS

Jeez.....if "fire" can do such a nice job at bringing buildings down why go to the time consuming method of demolitions? Save time and money, throw a match in the garbage and wait!

Originally posted by Vardoger
Jeez.....if "fire" can do such a nice job at bringing buildings down why go to the time consuming method of demolitions? Save time and money, throw a match in the garbage and wait!

There's more than a few demolition contractors that would love to do that same exact thing. Its just the local authorities kind of frown on setting buildings on fire and letting them burn to the ground - they have this bad habit of inadvertently "expanding" the demoltion project. Its a real nice way of getting rid of all that nasty demolition debris that the contractor has to pay to remove. Much better to watch go up and away in smoke for free than pay people to handle, load, transport and dispose.

Originally posted by GeminiSky
Hey Guys,

I searched for this being posted before, couldnt find any so here goes.

There was a new video posted on youtube a few weeks ago from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, this time they talk about WTC7.

I think that this and also loose change are one of the best ways to wake up your friends, family, lovers, etc..to the reality that is upon us. Just show them these 2 vids.

--GS

I won't be able to watch this until I get home, but without seeing it, let me make an educated guess- I will wager this video is following their previous pattern of completely ignoring all the facts that show what they want to believe is wrong, like how wreckage from the north tower fell on WTC 7, destroying the fire prevention system and causing fires to burn out of control. I'll wager they'll also continue to ignore the facts that firefighters saw the fires causing three story tall bulging in the structure, or of eyewitnesses saying the lobby looked like "King Kong came through and destroyed it", or that the building collapsed from the inside out in a manner that no controlled demolitions can possibly accomplish. They'll simply say "it looked like a controlled demolition" like they've been falsely repeating since day one.

Do I win my bet?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


no

reply to post by GoodOlDave[/url]


Yes, you win. You will never collect from people who claim "fire" brought down the towers.

When will this garbage end? 10 years now. Still nothing to support all these way-out theories.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I won't be able to watch this until I get home, but without seeing it, let me make an educated guess- I will wager this video is following their previous pattern of completely ignoring all the facts that show what they want to believe is wrong, like how wreckage from the north tower fell on WTC 7, destroying the fire prevention system and causing fires to burn out of control. I'll wager they'll also continue to ignore the facts that firefighters saw the fires causing three story tall bulging in the structure, or of eyewitnesses saying the lobby looked like "King Kong came through and destroyed it", or that the building collapsed from the inside out in a manner that no controlled demolitions can possibly accomplish. They'll simply say "it looked like a controlled demolition" like they've been falsely repeating since day one.

Do I win my bet?

I just watched the video. They literally completely ignored the damage to the building by WTC 1. They overplayed peoples' reactions and went on to talk about nano-thermite.

I think what upset me the most about the video was how they treated WTC 7 as if it were a perfectly constructed steel building. It was built on top of a Consolidated Edison power plant! That isn't a building "built to last." That's a building built out of convenience and effort to preserve a historic building from the past.

It was a lot of rhetoric and music, and a couple intelligent sounding architects who think they know everything better than everybody else. Even though it is convincing on the surface, if you look into its facts, it really doesn't offer much and it felt very embellished.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Vardoger
Jeez.....if "fire" can do such a nice job at bringing buildings down why go to the time consuming method of demolitions? Save time and money, throw a match in the garbage and wait!

There's more than a few demolition contractors that would love to do that same exact thing. Its just the local authorities kind of frown on setting buildings on fire and letting them burn to the ground - they have this bad habit of inadvertently "expanding" the demoltion project. Its a real nice way of getting rid of all that nasty demolition debris that the contractor has to pay to remove. Much better to watch go up and away in smoke for free than pay people to handle, load, transport and dispose.

seriously?

I have never heard such garbage. Provide evidence of other steel structured buildings catching alight and collapsing into their own footprint.

I have searched but can't find any. This is complete 9/11 Madness!!!

Originally posted by Varemia
They literally completely ignored the damage to the building by WTC 1.

Some of the words that come out of your keyboard are just shocking, ill-researched, and ill-logical.

First and foremost, the damage to WTC 7 was minimal. Here's about the clearest image you can get of the south side of WTC 7:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bf9a4c7ba108.jpg[/atsimg]

As you can see, most of the damage is cosmetic and you can make out the hole in the middle. That hole in the middle is the broken facade between two steel columns.

The damage to WTC 7 is also very similar to the damage of a bank across the street of one of the towers:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/af761a70e21b.jpg[/atsimg]

Same thing nearly happened to that bank building. Mostly cosmetic damage, hole down the middle, also later caught fire. No collapse.


Now from NIST:

"while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."

NIST Report, NCSTAR 1A, pp. xxxii

That's why they didn't mention the damage in the video. The damage had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7. The collapse, according to NIST, was solely, and completely due to regular, normal office fires. Period.

Originally posted by Varemia
That isn't a building "built to last."

WTC 7 was a building within a building. In other words a double building. They removed three floors, they put in alot more steel to replace what they took out. You can read more about WTC 7 construction in my thread here:

WTC 7 - The Salomon Solution: A Building Within a Building

Originally posted by Varemia
and a couple intelligent sounding architects who think they know everything better than everybody else.

Yet you'd rather say that NIST's engineers know everything better than everybody else, is that correct?

Thank you for your opinion.

Originally posted by Varemia
if you look into its facts, it really doesn't offer much

They present many facts. You've presented none to counter. All I keep reading is attack this, attack that. "They don't know what they're talking about, they're in it for the money.", etc. etc. Either counter the evidence or stop typing.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


That bank had to be deconstructed because it was in danger of collapse. It ended up catching fire during deconstruction and nearly killed a bunch of firefighters.

www.brantfordexpositor.ca...

I've been looking for more skyscrapers that have even been on fire, and really, there just aren't enough skyscrapers that have caught fire. The ones that have, had a very different design than any of the buildings which collapsed on 9/11, and many of the ones that have, had partial collapse.

Example from Madrid:
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.usatoday.com...

Honestly, show me a larger sample size for burning skyscrapers. I can't find any. The FACT is that WTC 7 really was damaged by impact damage. I like how you are willing to ignore the firefighter testimonies, but whatever. WTC1 and 2 were hit by planes.

NONE of the other examples of burning skyscrapers I was able to find on Google were hit by anything, so how come some of them partially collapsed? I thought fire couldn't do anything to a skyscraper.

Anyway, that's about all I have to say on the matter.



EDIT: Also, one last note. NIST said that the damage wasn't what caused/contributed to the collapse, but they also did simulations on the damage's effect on the collapse. What they found was that the damage allowed for the building to collapse straight down. Had the building been undamaged, the collapse would have been far less symmetrical.

Fact remains buildings dont fall straight down at almost free fall speed due to a few fires...

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Fact remains buildings dont usually fall straight down at almost free fall speed due to a few fires...

Fixed that for you. (added usually, just to be clear)

You can't have a universal if you don't even have a big enough sample size for buildings that have caught fire in the past with similar specifications.

reply to post by Varemia


Fire CAN do something to a building. In fact, you said it yourself, they can cause partial collapse do to the immediately heated steal buckling (not disintegrating/exploding) . But for an entire free fall implosion you need explosives......

Originally posted by Varemia
WTC1 and 2 were hit by planes.

Both of which were also minimally damaged. The reason for their collapse? Fire as well.

Originally posted by Varemia
so how come some of them partially collapsed?

Partial collapse is always possible and can be expected. Total and complete collapse of a steel-structured highrise from fire? Next to impossible.

Originally posted by Varemia
I thought fire couldn't do anything to a skyscraper.

With this statement, you are either deliberately twisting my (and others') words, or you have very poor memory.

What was stated, and has always been stated is that steel-structured highrises have never collapsed totally and completely due to fire.

Originally posted by Varemia
What they found was that the damage allowed for the building to collapse straight down. Had the building been undamaged, the collapse would have been far less symmetrical.

That is such an out-right lie, I cannot begin to comprehend how you can even fathom the accuracy and truthfulness of that statement. It must've been "opposite day" over at NIST because the above quote is the exact opposite of what would happen in real life.

The damage was all the way on one side (south side) of the building. Any type of building collapse falls towards the damaged and less-structurally sound side of the building.

If the collapse were a genuine fire-induced collapse, the building would've fallen over to the south, which was the side that was allegedly structurally damaged.

And besides that, fire can't take out all steel columns across the whole entire building simultaneously to cause it to fall straight down and at free-fall speeds.

Same old garbage from the mouths at A&E. When will they ever submit a paper for peer review. Instead of approaching the scientific community, they post You Tube videos.

Why is it a code requirement to insulate steel?

Well...

In 1997 the large Sound Theatre in Pennsylvania collapsed...steel.

In 1967, the very large steel-framed McCormick Center in Chicago collapsed in 30 minutes

1n 1997 -Three four-story-high steel framed buildings at the Kadel Toy Factory in Singapore collapsed.

The Mumbai High North Oil Platform, constructed of steel and seven stories high, completely collapsed after burning for two hours.

Interstate 580 overpass near San Francisco, supported only by steel beams, collapsed due to the heat of a gasoline fire after nineteen minutes.

June 2007 Sofa SuperStore Charleston SC.- Collapsed due to a fire.

WTC 5 had a partial collapse of four floors on 911.

No, they are not skyscrapers. But, these examples prove that steel FAILS!

Now, when will Box Boy Gage and his "engineering professionals" submit their claims into a respectable scientific journal?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Some of the words that come out of your keyboard are just shocking, ill-researched, and ill-logical.

First and foremost, the damage to WTC 7 was minimal. Here's about the clearest image you can get of the south side of WTC 7:

I am quoting Barry Jennings, a man who was physically there in WTC 7, who said that the lobby of WTC 7 looked as if "King Kong came by and destroyed it". As he was there and you weren't I'm necessarily going to accept his word that the collapse caused significant damage to the building over your armchair estimate.

I am also quoting deputy fire chief Peter Hayden, another man who was physically there, who saw with his own eyes that the out of control fires burning in WTC 7 were causing structural deformation in the building to the point where he and everyone in the vicinity knew the building was going to fall. As he was there and you weren't, I'm likewise necessarily going to accept his eyewitness account over what your conspiracy websites are telling you.

...or do you think Barry Jennings and Peter Hayden are"secret gov't disinformation agents" too?

reply to post by Six Sigma


Again, yes steel fails,wood fails, brick fails, every material will fail. The physics surrounding their failure is what is at debate. No one is debating the fact that steel fails. The fact that these building fell at free fall speed (which is imposable unless every floor underneath the top floor is "removed" prior to the top floor coming into contact with said floor) and into their own footprint, due to fire, is under debate.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Partial collapse is always possible and can be expected. Total and complete collapse of a steel-structured highrise from fire? Next to impossible.

Engineers seem to disagree with you:

Robert Berhinig, 1967: “steel frame buildings can collapse as a result of… fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel.”

Originally posted by Vardoger


Again, yes steel fails,wood fails, brick fails, every material will fail. The physics surrounding their failure is what is at debate. No one is debating the fact that steel fails. The fact that these building fell at free fall speed (which is imposable unless every floor underneath the top floor is "removed" prior to the top floor coming into contact with said floor) and into their own footprint, due to fire, is under debate.

NO, they didn't. It's 2011 Vard.... You are stating 2006 debunked CT's.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That is such an out-right lie, I cannot begin to comprehend how you can even fathom the accuracy and truthfulness of that statement. It must've been "opposite day" over at NIST because the above quote is the exact opposite of what would happen in real life.

The damage was all the way on one side (south side) of the building. Any type of building collapse falls towards the damaged and less-structurally sound side of the building.

If the collapse were a genuine fire-induced collapse, the building would've fallen over to the south, which was the side that was allegedly structurally damaged.

And besides that, fire can't take out all steel columns across the whole entire building simultaneously to cause it to fall straight down and at free-fall speeds.

Here. I found a youtube video with the simulations:

www.youtube.com...

You can ignore the annotations by the uploader, but you can clearly see the two separate simulations. One without damage (first) and one with damage figured in (second). Notice the buckling in the second sim, which would have been about 8 stories or so, allowing the 8 stories of freefall that so many people here take issue with.

Please, let me know what you think.