The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

reply to post by wmd_2008


Oh, look at all the numbers. You really do break it all down to an exact science. Kind of good to know how heat is dissipated along steel that also acts like a heat-sink but what is even more revealing is that not every column heats exactly the same as it is relative to its position and proximity to the flames.

Funny how they all gave way at the same time otherwise that pancake wouldn't have been sudden but would have been a sag from hottest point to coldest point and yet even the coldest point would have held longer.

Sounds reasonable enough, but then the entire floor wouldn't have dropped but buckled wouldn't it?

I know you guys got all the answers so I am sure you can tell us which floor was it that actually sagged to begin with, the one underneath the fire or the ceiling above it?

If you can answer that then you must be a psychic or a mystic and yet here this pancake collapse is doing the exact same thing in "trying" to explain it.

See... here is the thing. While the investigation is focusing on cause (that could well have been done with multiple modalities) the crime is ongoing. The money was behind it all and they are making more money as we speak. Rather than stop it, all we are doing is chasing our tales and being confused by sophistication of evidence that keeps being polluted by intent to cover it all up.

Face it guys, like that magic bullet they pulled it off. They have gatekeepers to keep certain avenues of understanding from becoming mainstream and pay them more than honesty or ethics or integrity are worth to them.

Greed, plain and simple...

reply to post by anoncoholic


Those results are from the Cardington Fire Tests, I posted them to show that although some members on here think ofiice fires cant generate the heat required to weaken steel tests show they can.

The office fire demonstration was the largest British Steel compartment fire test incorporating a floor space 18m wide and up to 10m deep (135m2). It was conducted on the first floor in the North East corner and simulated a typical open plan office with real office equipment (and some wood cribs) providing a total fire load density of 46kg/m2. The area of ventilation was equal to 20% of the floor area. [197] The height of the compartment was 4.0m. In this test only the columns were protected. The unprotected beams achieved temperatures of up to 1150°C

Also as the buildings had structural damage what happened could have happened.

Nobody on either side of the fence knows EXACTLY what happened after the impacts BUT did the aircraft cause structural damage YES, could the fires have caused temperatures to weaken steel YES, could dynamic loads form the falling mass cause total collapse YES.

People on here that believe that the aircraft brought the buildings down are NOT here to support the government, I am not even from the USA we are just trying to show what they saw happen could bring down those buildings.


Think about it!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Oh I assure you I have thought about it. Much more than my graving soul can tolerate hence my being here in the first place..

I know you guys are a wealth of information and apparently the math and graphs and cause/effect is all worked out to the smallest details so in my mind and using that same critical thinking skill I don't find it beyond reason to think that the impact was pinpoint precision.

The glancing impact on the South tower was conveniently located so that debris would exit WTC2 (South tower I think) so that WTC7 was in the direct line of falling debris so it was the primary target not the South tower. That kind of precision means not only elevation speed and location of impact are calculated, but the actual floor-plan would also be a major consideration so I ask you, do you know how the floor plan of the impacted floors was laid out? Were there cubicles made of dividers or were there actual room partitions on the impact floor?

Were the flight paths also taken into consideration to ensure it hit along that trajectory or was it the first approach at the closest entry point a hijacked plane would have taken? I try to take everything into consideration when all we have are suppositions minus definitive evidence that rules everything else out.

The sophistication of events, from confusion created between air defense and NORAD controlling the response (which Cheney had usurped control over confusing chain of command) right down to having a patsy in Arab hatred of America for backing Israel is how they figured they could pull it off and the ingenuity of the plan - right down to calculating and predicting public response ( and outcry) should tell you that the think tanks worked over-time to pull it off.

Considering all the variables required to exact such a precision hit, and considering tests of heating and structural integrity/design are all factors along with speed/elevation etc, it isn't surprising to me that all these postulated causes and effects can even be determined.

It is all just too convenient to be coincidence considering all the money that was made/stolen and instead of trying to figure out how, ( there are more methods than possibly even being considered) follow the money and figure out who.

We can't prevent it from happening again by chasing our tales in circular arguments.

It is all a moot point however as they pulled it off (not without hitch) and years later are even more powerful than they ever were.

It had been written and what comes next is when the people start putting the pieces together they will unleash yet another tool to destroy and quash any opposition.

Georgia guidestones telegraphed their punch and even that was probably a psyop to get us to doubt and revolt. Bring the rule down and take over. One world government - that NWO they have been plotting against humanity for longer than we can even surmise (or guess at).

Are the guidestones a prediction or a cause that serves the affect?

Originally posted by anoncoholic
follow the money and figure out who.

If you follow the crazy, it will lead you back to a bunch of religious wackos.

9/11 was an act of religion not greed.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by anoncoholic
follow the money and figure out who.

If you follow the crazy, it will lead you back to a bunch of religious wackos.

9/11 was an act of religion not greed.

No, 911 was taking advantage of Religion. Greed was the motive. Money is the smoking gun that left a clear trail that the guilty do not want followed and hired gatekeepers to keep that path closed so the lies can keep on perpetuating.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
Greed was the motive.

No, if you look back through history you will find religion is more powerful than greed.

There was a time when the earth was ruled by religion.....It was called the Dark Ages.

reply to post by waypastvne


This isn't about ancient history nor religion, this is about your attempt to derail and bury this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

sorry, not fooled in the least. Care to talk about the issue now instead of trying to sidetrack it with off topic meanderings?

I know you guys are running out of excuses but lets stick to 911 instead

reply to post by wmd_2008


The Topic was Building 7 . There was no airplane impact and little debris impact . All of the fire proofing was intact and there were no raging fires that covered the entire floor area on any floor.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
Care to talk about the issue now instead of trying to sidetrack it with off topic meanderings?

The issue is your Witch Hunt has no evidence to back it up.

End of story.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by anoncoholic
follow the money and figure out who.

If you follow the crazy, it will lead you back to a bunch of religious wackos.

9/11 was an act of religion not greed.

Yeah, purely religion. These people so devoted to Islam that they were seen doing drugs and going to strip clubs days before the event. Trying to change the subject much?

www.historycommons.org...

A number of the 9/11 hijackers apparently drink alcohol heavily in bars, sleep with prostitutes, and watch strip shows in the US in the months and especially the days leading up to 9/11.
In late February 2001, hijacker Ziad Jarrah frequents a strip club in Jacksonville, Florida (see February 25-March 4, 2001).
In July 2001, hijackers Hamza Alghamdi and Marwan Alshehhi make two purchases of “pornographic video and sex toys” from a Florida store (see July 4-27, 2001).
Some hijackers, including possibly Satam Al Suqami and Waleed and Wail Alshehri, sleep with prostitutes in the days before 9/11 (see September 7-11, 2001).
On September 10, three hijacker associates spend $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks in the Pink Pony, a Daytona Beach, Florida, strip club. While the hijackers have left Florida by this time, Mohamed Atta is reported to have visited the same strip club, and these men appear to have foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks (see September 10, 2001). [BOSTON HERALD, 10/10/2001]
Alshehhi and Atta are seen entering the Hollywood, Florida, sports bar Shuckums already drunk. They proceed to drink even more hard alcohol there (see September 7, 2001).
Atta and Alshehhi are seen at Sunrise 251, a bar in Palm Beach, Florida. They spend $1,000 in 45 minutes on Krug and Perrier-Jouet champagne. Atta is with a tall busty brunette in her late twenties; Alshehhi is with a shortish blonde. Both women are known locally as regular companions of high-rollers. [DAILY MAIL, 9/16/2001]
A stripper at the Olympic Garden Topless Cabaret in Las Vegas, Nevada, will later recall Alshehhi being “cheap,” paying only $20 for a lap dance. [COX NEWS SERVICE, 10/16/2001]
Several hijackers reportedly patronize the Nardone’s Go-Go Bar in Elizabeth, New Jersey. They are even seen there on the weekend before 9/11. [BOSTON HERALD, 10/10/2001; WALL STREET JOURNAL, 10/16/2001]
Majed Moqed visits a porn shop on three occasions and rents a porn video. The mayor of Paterson, New Jersey, will later say of the six hijackers who stay there, “Nobody ever saw them at mosques, but they liked the go-go clubs.” [NEWSDAY, 9/23/2001; NEWSWEEK, 10/15/2001]
Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar often frequent Cheetah’s, a nude bar in San Diego. [LOS ANGELES TIMES, 9/1/2002]
Alshehhi is possibly seen in the Cheetah nightclub in Pompado Beach, Florida, on July 1, 2001. Six dancers who work there will later claim to have seen him. [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 10/2001, PP. 173 ]
Hamza Alghamdi watches a porn video on either the afternoon of September 9 or on September 10. [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 10/2001, PP. 272 ; WALL STREET JOURNAL, 10/16/2001]
Temple University, Philadelphia, professor Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub will later comment: “It is incomprehensible that a person could drink and go to a strip bar one night, then kill themselves the next day in the name of Islam.… People who would kill themselves for their faith would come from very strict Islamic ideology. Something here does not add up.” [SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL, 9/16/2001]
Entity Tags: Hamza Alghamdi, Khalid Almihdhar, Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub, Marwan Alshehhi, Majed Moqed, Mohamed Atta, Wail Alshehri, Waleed Alshehri, Satam Al Suqami, Nawaf Alhazmi, Ziad Jarrah
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

They sound totally devoted to their religion. They sure did it for Allah.

reply to post by homervb


"These people".

No, they weren't. Please don't just make stuff up because you heard a story that sounded like it once. There were reports that one or two of the hijackers had carried out these activities, but they're less reliable than most of the reports that day and there is nothing in the Koran that prohibits this in Jihad.

Stop being so ignorant and willing to jump to conclusions. Think about it from your perspective. If these were 'sinister secret agent' types, why would they do things not in keeping with hijackers?

Oh wait that's right, you have no explanation whatsoever and only brought this up to try and muddy the waters. Good job.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SimonPeter

 

For starters, I see a ton of bricks and concrete. I see no 47 stories. No ConEd substation at the base. No large transfer trusses that stretched over the ConEd substation. Do I need to go on?

The carpets are different too.

Argumentum absurdum much GenRadek?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by anoncoholic
follow the money and figure out who.

If you follow the crazy, it will lead you back to a bunch of religious wackos.

9/11 was an act of religion not greed.

So are you really after witch-hunting Muslims?

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by homervb

 

"These people".

No, they weren't. Please don't just make stuff up because you heard a story that sounded like it once. There were reports that one or two of the hijackers had carried out these activities, but they're less reliable than most of the reports that day and there is nothing in the Koran that prohibits this in Jihad.

Stop being so ignorant and willing to jump to conclusions. Think about it from your perspective. If these were 'sinister secret agent' types, why would they do things not in keeping with hijackers?

Oh wait that's right, you have no explanation whatsoever and only brought this up to try and muddy the waters. Good job.

Are you serious? Less than reliable? Okay, because you think they're less than reliable my point is void? Rightttt, someone has a huge ego. And let me guess, you're the same guy who says "truthers" are so illogical? Sorry my dude, just because you think these stories linked to media outlets are "unreliable" doesn't mean d*ck to me.

And for the record bro, I've worked with several Islam-devoted people and they could not stress it enough that these kinds of activities are what keeps them from getting to their heaven. I'm not trying to muddy the water, I think the dude who brought religion up into this thread is the one trying to muddy the water. My point was to show that these guys weren't as devoted to their religion as depicted. And because you get to pick and chose what news stories are reliable & not reliable really just makes me laugh. Another OSer starting an argument because they "think" something is unreliable. Shut up bro seriously, I love how this on going battle of OSers saying truthers just decide what evidence is good for their own argument but honestly it's working both ways right now.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by anoncoholic
Care to talk about the issue now instead of trying to sidetrack it with off topic meanderings?

The issue is your Witch Hunt has no evidence to back it up.

End of story.

Actually the story continues right here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

yet you BS'rs would rather not go near the truth and would rather try to derail it at every crossing and like a train wreck about to happen you guys always go off track.

View the evidence, think about your soul. But above all, STAY on topic or prove yourselves all liars and deceivers and call it a witch hunt if you prefer, I am calling you out on your obvious attempt to hijack all 911 threads.

you guys are such losers, can't face truth, can't stand up to scrutiny, can't find a backbone

your credibility sucks so it is understandable you can't talk about the evidence. None of you can because your lies keep evolving to fit the scenario

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SimonPeter

 

For starters, I see a ton of bricks and concrete. I see no 47 stories. No ConEd substation at the base. No large transfer trusses that stretched over the ConEd substation. Do I need to go on?

The carpets are different too.

Argumentum absurdum much GenRadek?

Ah so you too believe the building in the video Simon posted is built the same way WTC7 is?

Originally posted by homervb
Are you serious? Less than reliable? Okay, because you think they're less than reliable my point is void?

Because your point is based on assuming disparate and sporadic reports in the first few days following 911 are true, then yes, your point is void.

Rightttt, someone has a huge ego. And let me guess, you're the same guy who says "truthers" are so illogical? Sorry my dude, just because you think these stories linked to media outlets are "unreliable" doesn't mean d*ck to me.

I'm aware it doesn't, because you think it supports your point. Of course, the second the news outlets say something that doesn't support your point, you think they're part of the conspiracy. This is absolutely textbook behaviour from someone without a coherent hypothesis.

And for the record bro, I've worked with several Islam-devoted people and they could not stress it enough that these kinds of activities are what keeps them from getting to their heaven. I'm not trying to muddy the water,

That's exactly what you are trying to do. "How can they be muslims if they do this?"

The fact is that even if they did carry out some of these acts, look up "the law of necessity". Several scholars (I'm not sure actually if it's directly in the Koran) claim that these acts are permissable in Jihad.

I think the dude who brought religion up into this thread is the one trying to muddy the water. My point was to show that these guys weren't as devoted to their religion as depicted. And because you get to pick and chose what news stories are reliable & not reliable really just makes me laugh. Another OSer starting an argument because they "think" something is unreliable. Shut up bro seriously,

Listen "bro", do you really think that if this was a planned conspiracy, they would have the ostensibly muslim conspirators openly violating the faith beforehand? Is this the sort of logic you've used to come to this conclusion?

Why would they? It makes literally no sense at all. If this was part of a conspiracy then surely they would not be seen at all beforehand, the government would want to spread the idea that they were incredibly stealthy and careful. They would certainly not go out getting drunk and getting into arguments.

Of course, as soon as you reach this stage of logical thought you just abandon it and decide 'oh well they probably did it anyway'. It's irrational.

I love how this on going battle of OSers saying truthers just decide what evidence is good for their own argument but honestly it's working both ways right now.

edit on 5-7-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)

Nope, you showed how your own argument is based on incredulity and doesn't logically connect to the idea of an 'inside job'. All you've shown is that it's even less likely that they were part of any inside job conspiracy as it would be ludicrous for them to behave in such a manner.

Congratulations.

reply to post by exponent

That's exactly what you are trying to do. "How can they be muslims if they do this?"

The fact is that even if they did carry out some of these acts, look up "the law of necessity". Several scholars (I'm not sure actually if it's directly in the Koran) claim that these acts are permissable in Jihad.

So you are a conspiracy theorist too? Did you pull that factoid out from where the sun never shines.

Acts of indiscriminate violence is forbidden in Islam. Jihad means to "struggle" and resisting an oppressor is different to going to a foreign land to commit an atrocity; it is strictly forbidden.

Those alleged 9/11 terrorists could have been dupes and they could have been killed before 911 and their passports planted.

The problem is that the US lies, it deploys shills and disinformationalists, it conducts false flag atrocities so can not be sure what the secret state of the US does.

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady
So you are a conspiracy theorist too? Did you pull that factoid out from where the sun never shines.

Acts of indiscriminate violence is forbidden in Islam. Jihad means to "struggle" and resisting an oppressor is different to going to a foreign land to commit an atrocity; it is strictly forbidden.

You find it shocking that religious fanatics don't interpret their sacred texts consistently with the rest of their religion? I don't find that shocking at all.

Those alleged 9/11 terrorists could have been dupes and they could have been killed before 911 and their passports planted.

And their DNA?

The problem is that the US lies, it deploys shills and disinformationalists, it conducts false flag atrocities so can not be sure what the secret state of the US does.

Blah blah "I don't want to believe it, so I won't believe it". The US has done some horrible things, but it's entirely illogical to assume that because they've done horrible things in the past, no proof need be presented to assume every horrible thing is their fault.

The fact is that there's no coherent counter explanation for the behaviour of these people, if they were duped then they weren't muslims so why would they have made suicide videos? If they were part of a conspiracy then why would they carry out actions that make people doubt their motivations?

The only coherent explanations are that the reports are inaccurate (which has been shown in a number of cases) or they felt that it was permissible to do these things (which has been shown through a number of sources).

Can you come up with a coherent explanation that doesn't match either of these two?

I'm sure everyone knows the BBC video that reported the WTC7 had collapsed 20 mins before it did collapse.

But not only did the BBC report it collaping before it did, so did Fox News:

Fox News 5 reports WTC 7 collapse before it happens


Add to that the dude they call harley guy, (real name Mark Walsh) who worked for Fox News, and allowed a camera crew to film the WTC7 collapse from his apartment, and you have a few incidences of WTC7 collapse foreknowledge. www.youtube.com...

On top of that, WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition, coming down nice and evenly. All because some of it was just on fire?

All these things are quite suspicious.

What do people make of the fact Fox News also reported WTC7 collapsing before it actually did?