The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

Originally posted by waypastvne

What do you predict will happen when the water thaws.

What do you predict will happen?

How about you go ahead and do that, then we will not have to speculate eh?

What do you make of the video?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by waypastvne

What do you predict will happen when the water thaws.

What do you predict will happen?

How about you go ahead and do that, then we will not have to speculate eh?

What do you make of the video?

If you are so sure of yourself you should be able to make a prediction.

I know what will happen. I want to know what you think will happen.

Originally posted by flashtrum

Originally posted by Firewater

This vid should cover everything.

Debunked. And....Debunked. And, oh yeah DEBUNKED.

PEOPLE - by "pull-it" the dude means to stop engaging the fire and trying to save the building. Too much loss of life - pull the firefighters out. (Oh what an EVIL MAN!!)

So which is it truth-pack - "We needed to protect the firefighters so it intentionally did burn" or "We pulled the trigger on detonation?"

Wow in the face of facts over rumor.....it's like I said - people who think we never went to the moon will never be convinced. I guess what fascinates me is how people refuse to accept what is really fact vs. very poorly thought-out fiction.

The fire fighting effort had stopped at 11:00 am . There were no firefighters in that building . Explain why the construction ( demolition ) men dressed in construction gear came out of the WTC 7 and announced that it was coming down in a few minutes . Firemen do not dress that way and could never make that determination about when it was coming down . A demolition team could . Still building 5 and 6 were closer and under the debris of the Towers and still did not fall even though they burned completely burned out .

reply to post by Varemia


Actually Varem the statement about being the same is a completely false and misleading statement...For not just one reason but several.....

1 the buildings were not the same...WHY?

Because they were struck at different points and if you look at the plans...the 96th floor was different than the 80th floor.

2. different offices had different materials in them which means different reactions on the fires.

3. the towers were struck in different positions...therefore damage had affect different parts of the structures.

4. the fires being fuel by not all the same materials in each...means fire burned differently....depending on oxygen levels...amount of fuel that may have penetrated into the structures.

5. the fires would have spread differently in the buildings....therefore not creating the same results.

6. the leans were different once collapse initiation progressed....the axial rotation in one tower ceased and then continued straight down through the structure...the north tower progressed straight down through the structure from the start.

7.where the p[lane struck the south tower...only four floors below where the mechanical floors on 76th....so transfer of energy would have been different than the transfer of energy in the north tower.

the whole situation was different for both towers.,...the only thing that was the same was both towers were built similarly....that is all.

so if that was what you meant the same....then that is not very much was it.

Originally posted by ANOK
To me it just demonstrates that the idea of trusses sagging from heat creating a catenary force on the columns is an extremely far-fetched hypothesis. It happening on the same day in two buildings is just ridiculous.

The truss seats were so damn weak and were such a design flaw that it caused the collapses.... but on the other hand they were strong enough to pull in the sides of the building when the trusses sagged.

It's the new laws of physics according to OS'ers.... and there is only one 24-hour period in the history of the planet where they were applicable.

There is no dance they won't invent to go with their absurd and preposterous tune.

reply to post by jhn7537

jhn7537 Actually most of the Bush administration is up on war crimes charges by the War Crimes Tribunal a real world organization. This has prevented them from travelling outside of the US to many different countries including Canada, England and even Switzerland. So yes you can go around and start arresting them.

Interesting how 3000+ documents from the original investigation were omitted for ''Safety of the public'' considering 3000 had already died, I dont understand!

Unless it was all terrorists, who had somehow planted the bombs in the buildings,. or that the government had the charges already in place, in many financially centralised buildings, in case they needed to be removed due to terrorist attacks / sensitive data falling into wrong hands / as a contingency plan for god knows what.

reply to post by pigsy2400

Beams don't have to be cut to fail . There is a Thermate that is painted on that does not expand with explosive forces . It will flare up and burn at 5400 degrees and melt or weaken the the beam to a point of failure .

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ANOK
To me it just demonstrates that the idea of trusses sagging from heat creating a catenary force on the columns is an extremely far-fetched hypothesis. It happening on the same day in two buildings is just ridiculous.

Remember that it happened to two buildings of the same design under near equivalent circumstances. Seems less unlikely when you look at it realistically instead of from a "everything is impossible, truth blah blah" perspective.

But fire is never the same lol. Fire is not going to create the exact same damage.

And no I am not looking at it as everything is impossible, what a weak claim. Stereotyping to simply ignore what I'm presenting. I bet you didn't even watch the vid?

Can you demonstrate how it's possible for lightweight trusses sagging from heat to pull in columns much more massive than themselves, and not break the connections first?

Can you demonstrate the opposite? Once you try to do what you're asking me to do, you'll see why you never get answers.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

The truss seats were so damn weak and were such a design flaw that it caused the collapses

Nope. They were as strong as they needed to be in an intact structure. They weren't however, strong enough to stop a descending mass with lots of momentum (and hence, had enough kinetix energy to "use up" some of that destroying them) a,d so they were unable to halt the collapse.

but on the other hand they were strong enough to pull in the sides of the building when the trusses sagged.

Sadly, only troothers are idiotic enough to make the claim that this is the entirety of what caused the ext columns to be pulled in.

This means, of course, that you have no idea what the NIST report has detailed as the cause.

Therefore, you are argueing a strawman, a logical fallacy.

Originally posted by SimonPeter

Beams don't have to be cut to fail . There is a Thermate that is painted on that does not expand with explosive forces . It will flare up and burn at 5400 degrees and melt or weaken the the beam to a point of failure .

Let's say this is true. (it isn't)

How thick would this fantasy substance need to be in order to cause this?

And, do you have any evidence of this, or is it just whimsical musing?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

troothers

Small friendly warning, Unfortunately we are not allowed to make up our own spellings for the word Truther at ATS you can be banned for this. Truther has to be spelled Truther.

Thems the rules.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by SimonPeter

Beams don't have to be cut to fail . There is a Thermate that is painted on that does not expand with explosive forces . It will flare up and burn at 5400 degrees and melt or weaken the the beam to a point of failure .

Let's say this is true. (it isn't)

How thick would this fantasy substance need to be in order to cause this?

And, do you have any evidence of this, or is it just whimsical musing?


Yes there is a Thermate paint . It is a mixture of thermite and a demonstration can be viewed on youtube . This is called Super Thermite Liquid Paint . There is a demonstration at www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs25Jj8-As

Originally posted by SimonPeter

Yes there is a Thermate paint . It is a mixture of thermite and a demonstration can be viewed on youtube . This is called Super Thermite Liquid Paint . There is a demonstration at www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs25Jj8-As

I gave you this already.

I asked you how thick this paint would have to be?

You must also provide maths to back your claim.

Go....

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


I don't have to do a thing . I'm not going to argue the point . I have been in heavy construction all my life . I have seen a lot of steel structure and fire sprinkler systems . As far as how thick . I doubt it would take much . The point is that they would know . and there would not be a big explosion . Also in the basements there was flowing metal per the reports from the Fire rescue people digging through the massive debris a week later .Explain that ?
You like to debate all around the real problem without addressing it . As far as doing the math you do it and calculate what possibly happened , what was the results and who would have been behind it .

Originally posted by SimonPeter
This is called Super Thermite Liquid Paint . There is a demonstration at www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs25Jj8-As

This is the part Jessy Ventura edited out of that Super Thermite Liquid Paint .video

Originally posted by SimonPeter

I don't have to do a thing

Translation: you won't cuz then it would reveal the folly in your claim.

I doubt it would take much

Lie.

You have no idea cuz you don't want to know just how foolish your claim is.

and there would not be a big explosion .

So then you at least deny that there were explosions consistent with cutter charges?

Good for you if you do...

Also in the basements there was flowing metal per the reports from the Fire rescue people digging through the massive debris a week later .Explain that ?

If you are referring to the firemen saying that steel was running down the channels... they were under WTC 6. Not 1 or 2. 7 didn't have a basement cuz it was built over an electrical substation.

You like to debate all around the real problem without addressing it

Wrong.

I asked you a question that I knew you wouldn't answer cuz it would expose your folly. You did just as I expected.

As far as doing the math you do it and calculate what possibly happened

No thermite happened. therefore, I won't be doing anything of the sort.

and who would have been behind it .

19 crazy #ers were behind it...

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by intrptr

 

The video of the building falling was all that was needed by the men that designed them . I'll put my faith in architects and structural engineers that have the plaques on their office walls stating their proficiency in the matter .
For all that I know you could be the Pizza delivery man !

What about the architects and engineers that did papers which support 9/11? What about the thousands of architects and engineers who don't find anything suspicious? I guess you just think the rest are in on it, lying, or stupid. Funny how you can just pick and choose who to believe.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Varemia

 

I don't know of any .

I know of a few. Try HERE.

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


Nothing like a smart mouth kid to know it all . I suspect you have debunked Agenda 21 and the FEMA camps as well and you voted for OBAMA . Or do you work for them ? You still believe that the Fed Reserve is a US government banking institution .

reply to post by SimonPeter


Good answer. Perhaps you can also taunt him by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "ner ner ner, I'm not listening".