Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know, the government recently admitted (according to a documentary that I just watched) that there was more then one shooter in the Kennedy Assassination. The Kennedy family had all of the evidence and released it to one man who discovered through forensics that photos had been doctored and documents tampered with by our government officials. Imagine that! Everyone who doubted the original story was labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and look, 46 years later, they were right. Hopefully it won't take people 50 years to figure out why WTC building #7 was "pulled" but I surmise that by the time we do find out the truth, it won't matter.....just like the Kennedy Assassination.
There are so many cover ups in this country, it is shameful.....still waiting on that Obama birth certificate to surface too.
I don't know how it's possible to watch the collapse of building 7 and not realize that it was a controlled demolition. It first buckled in the middle and then collapsed in on itself at free fall speed. It's just not possible for that to have happened due to any damage caused by debris. Fire would not cause that kind of collapse even if it consumed the entire building and raged for 24 hours.
For the building to come down the way it did, every single steel support structure would have had to fail at exactly the same time. That is just not possible in the absense of a controlled demolition.
Finally, the charges necessary to demolish this building would have taken quite some time to plan and implement. The plans and the placement of the explosives could not have taken place in the few hours between the collapse of the towers and the collapse of 7.
If people would just use their brains and think about this and watch 7 collapse again they could not come away with any other conclusion.
- Reel
Controlled demolition requires WEEKS (minimum) of placing and wiring the explosives. If you've ever seen documentaries about controlled demolition, looked at actual pictures, or studied the science of it, you know that there are detonation wires running EVERYWHERE.
As with the Twin Towers, it's just surprising to me that - despite the fact that there were THOUSANDS of people working in these buildings every day - NOBODY saw ANY explosives being placed.
There's a "little" problem with that controlled demolition theory.
You know, the government recently admitted (according to a documentary that I just watched) that there was more then one shooter in the Kennedy Assassination. The Kennedy family had all of the evidence and released it to one man who discovered through forensics that photos had been doctored and documents tampered with by our government officials. Imagine that! Everyone who doubted the original story was labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and look, 46 years later, they were right. Hopefully it won't take people 50 years to figure out why WTC building #7 was "pulled" but I surmise that by the time we do find out the truth, it won't matter.....just like the Kennedy Assassination.
There are so many cover ups in this country, it is shameful.....still waiting on that Obama birth certificate to surface too.
It would help if people actually understood what "pulled" means, and the context in which it was used.
When it was determined that Building #7 was structurally unsafe, the Firefighters were PULLED. Every Firefighter knows what that term means.
It would help if people actually understood what "pulled" means, and the context in which it was used.
When it was determined that Building #7 was structurally unsafe, the Firefighters were PULLED. Every Firefighter knows what that term means.
I still don't think the building had enough structural damage to bring it down like that. It took planes to bring down the other two. No one has a valid explanation so it raises questions.
Also he didn't say "pull them" he said "pull it," and there were no firefighters in that building. Does not make sense.
I still don't think the building had enough structural damage to bring it down like that. It took planes to bring down the other two. No one has a valid explanation so it raises questions.
Also he didn't say "pull them" he said "pull it," and there were no firefighters in that building. Does not make sense.
"Pull it" is a reference to the "mission" the Firefighters were on. But again, if "Pull It" was a reference to detonating the building, why did nobody see any explosives or wires? Wouldn't the Firefighters, of all people, have seen something questionable?
There comes a time when it's a little like the idiots who relentlessly insisted that Bush & Cheney wired & detonated the Twin Towers. But there remains that glaring problem: Tens of thousands of people worked in those buildings every day, and NOBODY saw ANYTHING even remotely similar to explosive devices. But still, some people insist that Bush & Cheney blew up the buildings.
Now... Regarding questions, you're absolutely right. We should be asking them, because there are a lot of unanswered ones. There's a lot of stuff about the tower coming down that doesn't make much sense.
But we should probably stop relentlessly asking the questions that have been answered.
More than just probably. But some people are in need of a little extra excitement in their lives, and what better way to arrange that than to believe in conspiracies? These things tend to die hard--and you can go back a lot further than the Kennedy assassination. You can go back to the Lincoln assassination!
Controlled demolition requires WEEKS (minimum) of placing and wiring the explosives. If you've ever seen documentaries about controlled demolition, looked at actual pictures, or studied the science of it, you know that there are detonation wires running EVERYWHERE.
As with the Twin Towers, it's just surprising to me that - despite the fact that there were THOUSANDS of people working in these buildings every day - NOBODY saw ANY explosives being placed.
There's a "little" problem with that controlled demolition theory.
I have read your posts enough to know you don't speak with out having good information.---so you just might consider looking at the reports of the "Special security" operations, that were going on in all of the buildings, for weeks, prior to 9/11. There are several reports that seem to support each other. Lots of reports of the buildings being cleared while work was being done. and all security turned off in the process. --Now I'm not saying that's what happened, but when I read and hear all that, I have to listen. I guess they could have gotten together and made up the reports, but i don't know.
If people would just use their brains and think about this and watch 7 collapse again they could not come away with any other conclusion.
People used to think the sun revolved around the earth, too. All the evidence was right there - it rose in the east and set in the west, every single day. How could they come away with any other conclusion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsMtnsOnTheMind
I still don't think the building had enough structural damage to bring it down like that.
And your structural engineering degree is from what university?
People used to think the sun revolved around the earth, too. All the evidence was right there - it rose in the east and set in the west, every single day. How could they come away with any other conclusion?
And your structural engineering degree is from what university?
so just be clear, what is your theory on what happened that day. You have expressed a couple of things you think didn't happen---so what did happen. I would like to know, as I'm sure others would also. I have no other information other than the little I have found and posted so far.
It was spun, not explained. As you are trying to say those small fires melted the main support structures. Ever try to melt steel? I have worked with steel all my life, and no little fire is going to melt it. If that were possible,then every hotel fire, would melt the steel, and cause the building to collapse. Those were the only ones that has ever happened to, anywhere. And there have been lots of building fires. Don't believe everything they feed you. think for your self.
Ok, I actually know the science of steel very well. Know I don't know the details of the whole thing as I was really sick of hearing about 9/11 events after about the first week but I CAN tell you a little about steel.
First off, think of a blacksmith for example. The blacksmith heats the steel to a certian temperature so that he can make the steel flexible enough to move when he is pounding on it. Hot enough, for those who don't know, but I am sure you do with your full life of experience, is when the temperature when steel becomes non-magnetic. He then shapes it into whatever he is making it and quenches it in water or oil to reharden the steel to it's stongest hardness ability. The steel in this state, if it is something that is suppose to hold weight or is a knife, ax, ect, is actually too brittle to do so and can break or snap surprisingly easy. If the smith leaves the metal in the fire too long, it gets too hot and destroy the metal. With proper airflow, this can happen very quickly.
I bring up blacksmith cause I'm thinking about your small fire theory here. It can and does happen in very small fires. Just heating the metal can make it weak enough to buckle. Even if there were a fire for example and cold water was sprayed onto those support beams, if they were hot enough and then were quickly cooled down, it is possible that they became brittle and could easily snap under the weight of the building. That is one possible scenario.
The beams before being put into place were required to be flexible enough to handle a certain amount of flexing...which blacksmiths pull back the hardness of the metal through heating it to a lower temperature for a period of time called annealing. SO you have annealed support beams that could very easily have been put into a position were they could have been reheated, cooled into a brittle state, and then snapped. This is another possibility, though unlikely.
You could also heat it up so hot that it burns it. I have seen metals heated too hot and know that it doesn't really mean it melts but rather disinigrates. If a support beam had too much disinigration or was completely burnt through one area of the support system, it could collapse. BUT then again, it is highly unlikely.
Why are those last two unlikely? I'm talking tough strong metal like everyone here is talking about; it is called high carbon steel. Remember I said that metal has to flex enough when supporting buildings? Well instead of all the heating and annealing, taking a risk that you end up with a metal that could have a variety of hardnesses throughout it's one piece, they just use mild steel. As it cools by air or even quenching in water, if can only get as hard as the amount of carbon in the steel. That is why blacksmith's use coal; because it adds carbon to the steel and makes their steel harder, stronger. Mild steel IS more likely to melt like lava (as some might envision it) than high carbon steel because it has less carbon and could happen in a small fire, as big as fits into a blacksmith's forge, especially if there were enough air flow to get it heating up very quickly.
Last edited by flik_becky; 11-15-2009 at 10:21 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
