Building 7 WTC

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

as an excuse to sell his sole to anger

The role of fishmongers in the london riots should be discussed in a different thread.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreece 190]

I know I've been preety hot lately, but you're just gonna have to wait your turn to get your hands on me...

...don't worry, I'll throw you a bone soon enough.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

as an excuse to sell his sole to anger

The role of fishmongers in the london riots should be discussed in a different thread.

damnit! I could've swore I edited that!

No wonder I didn't know wtf you were talking about!

That's BS....I edited that. I must've not hit "make changes."

that's twice i've been grammar nazied by those borish english fucks!

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

I know I've been preety hot lately, but you're just gonna have to wait your turn to get your hands on me...

...don't worry, I'll throw you a bone soon enough.

Kinky

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

I know I've been preety hot lately, but you're just gonna have to wait your turn to get your hands on me...

...don't worry, I'll throw you a bone soon enough.

Kinky

He wishes...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

I know I've been preety hot lately, but you're just gonna have to wait your turn to get your hands on me...

...don't worry, I'll throw you a bone soon enough.

Kinky

Damnit dude...why did you have to queer this place out?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAkfHShATKY

Edit...
Isn't is amazing how history repeats itself?

It's all the same shit...

Solomon was right..."there is nothing new under the sun..."

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Skyrad 0]

Look whos talking ducky,

I can't view he video in the UK, don't know why.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Coreece 190]

Rock the Casbah by the clash...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[shropshire 0]

Quote

.......that's twice (i) I've been grammar nazied by those borish (e) English fucks!

+2

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

there has been a run on tin foil this week as many "I hate America" people appear to be preparing to remember the 10 year anniversary of 9/11 with new tin foil hats.

I think you can question the events of Sept 11th without being a 'I hate America' person. Indeed some very patriotic Americans question the events.
The attitude of 'you're either with us or against us' has a lot to answer for in the last ten years.

I fully agree.

Questioning the things our government says is fine.

But the theories proposed (controlled demolition, nanothermite, all that) are beyond ridiculous. They don't stand up to any real examination.

Popular Science magazine did an article on this (they wondered if ther was anything to the "Alternative Theories" becasue they were so widespread and pervasive).

They couldn't find any validitiy to them.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[agentsmith413 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are a lot of unanswered questions but do you really honestly doubt that two airliners hit the towers?

Not at all.

I believe an airliner hit each of the twin towers.

I don;t believe that jet fuel burned hot enough and more importantly in a symetrical enough pattern as to simultaneously melt 47 steel columns resulting in a perfectly straight down freefall .., (wait for it) ..twice in one day.

Fire is chaotic and random.

The buildings each fell in an orderly and structured collapse.

This video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo&feature=related

Clearly shows the top of the building collapsing on to the floors below at the point where the aircraft hit the building. If the heat (you can see the fires burning clearly and the massive amount of smoke being generated by it.) didn't weaken the structure then what did? Are you suggesting that the pilot flew in to exactly the correct floor where explosives had been placed? (Have you ever seen the inside of a building that is about to be dropped?) If so then why did the explosives not catch fire?
This video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIZp6aOibiM
Clearly shows the tower collapsing from the top downwards with the outer walls pealing away like a banana, which is exactly what you don't see in a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions are implosions not explosions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM&feature=related

I found this video which explains WTC 7 collapse quite elegantly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawrAdoccDk

Excellent videos. Also what people don't seem to notice is that during a controlled demolition you hear a series of explosions before the collapse. Listen to EVERY video of the towers collapsing and in none of them do you hear a series of explosions like you would in a controlled demolition.

Why is that? Does the government have some super secret silent explosives? Is everyone in new york deaf? Do video camera microphones not pick up explosions? Come on people. Take off your tin foil hats and step out of your fantasy world and step back into reality.

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, all used up, and loudly proclaiming: Wow, what a ride!

[futuredivot 0]

Nothing falls 'straight' down. The towers didn't. You are not going to acknowledge that you are starting with an incorrect statement so you will never come to the correct conclusion.
and..referencing the Asst. Chief in your later statement. i never went into a structure i didn't think i was going to save-I wasn't always right either. It's tough to judge the extent of the involvement from a limited reference point. you are wrong-you won't admit it so this is useless

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[DanJohnson 0]

***Excellent videos. Also what people don't seem to notice is that during a controlled demolition you hear a series of explosions before the collapse. Listen to EVERY video of the towers collapsing and in none of them do you hear a series of explosions like you would in a controlled demolition.

Why is that? Does the government have some super secret silent explosives? Is everyone in new york deaf? Do video camera microphones not pick up explosions? Come on people. Take off your tin foil hats and step out of your fantasy world and step back into reality.

[DanJohnson 0]

Quote

Quote

No just watch again at the 16 second mark.
looK at the left of the screen.

***Don't assume the reason I'm telling you you're wrong is because I don't know what part of the video you're referring to. I'm telling you you're wrong because you don't know what you're talking about and you're just making shit up.

Quote

Oh , so i should believe you instead of what my lying eyes witness in the video? I'm making up the girder flying off and accelerating horizontally in the video but you know to which part of the video I'm refering? The part where the steel member accelerates horizontally across the sky right?
You must be right . The video is surely wrong.

The video and I stand corrected.

It could only have been A-rabs with boxcutters!

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[DanJohnson 0]

***I don't know the answers to the questions I asked you. I most certainly don't know what things you don't agree with in the "don't add up" category.

I asked the questions because some have asserted that it fell at freefall/near freefall acceleration. I say that it is critical to be more specific - to say how fast it did accelerate, and how fast it should have. Without that, then to say it fell too fast shows ignorance. So, have it if you can.

Quote

How fast *should* the buildings have collapsed seems to be your question.

The buildings were designed to withstand an airliner crash and resulting fires.
The buildings shouldn't collapse if those were the only factors so any speed of fall is way too fast.

Now if you add explosives to the equation and knock out the structural support I would agree that they fell at the exact speed one would expect.

• Quote

[DanJohnson 0]

If your argument were sound, then there would be no reason for the fireproofing (heat resistant/insulating) material to be covering the steel of such buildings. The grill analogy shows there is no need for it, right?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If your argument were sound, then there would be no reason for the fireproofing (heat resistant/insulating) material to be covering the steel of such buildings. The grill analogy shows there is no need for it, right?

Listen Sherlock , here is a clue.
Steel doesn't catch fire .
Fireproofing of steel is meant to keep it from transfering high temperature to adjacent combustible materials.

You FAIL !

[DanJohnson 0]

Quote

[You're right. The reason for the thermal protection system on the Space Shuttle was to keep the astronauts comfortable. Heat buildup had nothing to do with the failure of the Columbia upon reentry.

Quote

Different scenario.
First the steel of the Columbia didn't "catch fire" . Steel is fire proof.

The steel of the Columbia did fail from heat on reentry.

I don't know if you understand the concept of a bellows or how there may be a wee bit of difference between a static enviroment and one involving motion.

I'll give it to you straight again: hot steel is weaker than cold steel. That's why steel is forged and formed with heat. When a passenger jet hits a building at 600 knots, it crashes through and severs structural columns, thus weaking the structure. Add fire to the columns that are still there, and those colums are also weakened to where they cannot support the load.

You are right.
Hot steel is weaker than cold steel however the steel in the towers was rated to maintain sufficient strength to support the structure even considering the temperatures which could have possibly been generated by the fires of 9-11 .

As far as the aircraft (aluminum) impacting the structural steel columns.., have you ever played Rock , Paper ,Scissors?

[DanJohnson 0]

Popular Science magazine did an article on this (they wondered if ther was anything to the "Alternative Theories" becasue they were so widespread and pervasive).

They couldn't find any validitiy to them.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]As far as the aircraft (aluminum) impacting the structural steel columns.., have you ever played Rock , Paper ,Scissors?

[DanJohnson 0]

.*** I recall the second tower to fall had the top leaning.

Quote

As most eyewitnesses You recall wrong but you're not as far off as the President at the time who says he saw the first strike on tv before he entered the classroom (or maybe he did! Although images of that strike weren't available to the media until many,many hours later).

The South tower was hit second but collapsed first .
It was the one where the top leaned over and then fell straight down(a modern miracle).

The North tower collapsed second and was an almost perfect vertical collapse .The spire is the plumb bob.


For future reference keep this in mind ; The Titanic was built by professionals.
Amateurs built the ark.

• Quote

[agentsmith413 0]

Quote

***Excellent videos. Also what people don't seem to notice is that during a controlled demolition you hear a series of explosions before the collapse. Listen to EVERY video of the towers collapsing and in none of them do you hear a series of explosions like you would in a controlled demolition.

Why is that? Does the government have some super secret silent explosives? Is everyone in new york deaf? Do video camera microphones not pick up explosions? Come on people. Take off your tin foil hats and step out of your fantasy world and step back into reality.

Like this?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y57qHmViTOg

Watch at about 2;20 into the video and see if that sounds about right.

[DanJohnson 0]

Quote

[Reply]As far as the aircraft (aluminum) impacting the structural steel columns.., have you ever played Rock , Paper ,Scissors?

***Yes. Just like 2 pounds of styrofoam. No way it could penetrate the carbon carbon leading edge of the shuttle. It's too soft.

Quote

LOL! You are funny! It doesn't matter whether or not styrofoam penetrated the carbon leading edge.
The leading edge being directly exposed to the friction at speed is what led to the failure ,IMO.

Fact , not my opinion is that the 47 structural reinforced steel columns core of the World Trade Center Towers #1 and #2 were all designed to withstand the impact of an airliner.

Rock, paper, scissors my freind!

Sure Billy Bob can punch a hole in the sheetrock like a bad ass but when he miscalculates and hits the stud he gets a broken hand!
Rock, Paper, Scissors,

Bonus points !
Any mathemetician /geometry types out there .
When you hear 47 what comes to mind?

• Quote

[DanJohnson 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Excellent videos. Also what people don't seem to notice is that during a controlled demolition you hear a series of explosions before the collapse. Listen to EVERY video of the towers collapsing and in none of them do you hear a series of explosions like you would in a controlled demolition.

Why is that? Does the government have some super secret silent explosives? Is everyone in new york deaf? Do video camera microphones not pick up explosions? Come on people. Take off your tin foil hats and step out of your fantasy world and step back into reality.

Like this?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y57qHmViTOg

Watch at about 2;20 into the video and see if that sounds about right.

One explosion isn't evidence of a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions are a series of explosions and usually in a particular order if i'm not mistaken. That explosion at the point you showed could've been anything. So show me something a little more conclusive and MAYBE i'll see your point of view.

As for the witnesses of the explosions, a vast majority of the phone calls and testimonies could've been at any time. For all i know those people could've been explaining the plane crashing in to the building as the explosion they heard. We have no conclusive evidence that tells us when most of these people heard the explosions. Yes there were people who did "hear an explosion" but in a state of panic, an explosion could've been anything. Anything from something collapsing, to something actually exploding. None of this is even close to conclusive evidence to what you are saying.

[jclalor 12]

Could you please reply to this question?

"Can you please explain to me why these same thousands of people, who pulled off the biggest conspiracy in the history of man, could not manage to plant a single WMD in Iraq? Or to a lesser degree, pull off the Valerie Plame outing?"