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.
apparently china's building standards are way better then America's. this building burnt over night and...... in the morning it was still there.. go figure...
Here's where I'm coming from. I know way too many people who were present when that building went down and who worked on that pile and at Fresh Kills for the nine months following and who reviewed those NIST reports when they were circulated. What something looks like on a video does not trump hard facts. There was never any evidence of explosives found in the debris. Design changes have been made because of what was learned from the collapses of the buildings and the collapse sequences were widely discussed in the ensuing years at industry conferences and seminars. I've worked with engineers for 30+ years. I'll go with their logic, their first-hand knowledge, and their science.
Total nonsense. NIST never even checked for evidence of explosives in the debris, and admit so due to "lack of audio evidence of explosions". Of course, that was also the claim made regarding the Towers and no explosions. Nevertheless, the following video (start at 9:35) shows the preposterous nature of that claim, with report after report of explosions and secondary devices from fire fighters and police, and audio of a very loud explosion:
But indeed there was evidence of some incendiary action found at Building 7 in the form of inexplicable melting of the steel that cannot be explained by fires:
"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."
Who found this strange evidence? The quack Richard Gage? No. FEMA found this, and the above quoted text can be found in Appendix C of FEMA's "World Trade Center Building Performance Study".
The unknown source of the sulfur residue is only a mystery if you don't explore thermate usage. Thermate is a form of thermite with added sulfur which amplifies the incindiary reaction in cutting through steel. And, in ALL of the samples of dust around ground zero, un-ignited fragments of thermite material were found, as well as iron spheres which form as a result of thermite reactions.
Of course, we also have the molten pools of iron in the basements of all three buildings which could not have been the result of fires. Building fires simply cannot generate the heat necessary to melt steel, but molten iron is the product generated by thermite reaction cutting steel.
Moving on .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
How can you ask how building 7 fell and not flesh out the discussion by stating your reasons why you believe NCSTAR1A, the collapse report put out by NIST on Building 7 is not true? What is your expertise that allows you to determine that what is contained in in NSTAR1A is false? (Note: If this sentence tempts you to post links about Richard Gage and his crackerjack AE911 kids, resist. Although, the one where he demonstrates the collapse of the towers using cardboard boxes does amuse me somewhat.)
One of the things that strikes me as rather odd is the fact that the city cut off the water main which in turn prevented the sprinkler systems from doing their job .... and I believe this is included in the report, along with the astounding revelation that the building might not have collapsed due to fires had that action not been taken. But it really should have gotten a lot more attention .... you know .... like maybe ... WTF? A building is on fire and you cut off the water supply that feeds the fire suppression systems? NOBODY talks about this little gem .... but I digress ...
Funny that you'd urge everyone to ignore Gage ... as if he's a lone wolf nut ... he's not .... Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth comprise over 1,600 Architects and Engineers as members denouncing the official account of the WTC collapses .... hardly a small fringe of wacky conspiracy theorists, as you'd like to paint them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
You are surely aware that NCSTAR1A was reviewed in the engineering community while in draft form before it was released as final. Why do you think all those engineers are of such low integrity that they would cover up to protect the government?
The Government always gets what it pays for, and yes, there are just a hand full of individuals involved in the dissemination of information and reports coming out of NIST-FEMA and the infamous "Popular Mechanics". The facts are, that group of 1,600 Architects and Engineers that you want to ignore HAVE REVIEWED NIST's and FEMA's analysis, and their conclusion is that there are holes large enough to "fly a plane through".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
So again, other than "I watched a video on the Internet", why don't you state your reasons for disputing the technical findings of the collapse of Building 7?
If those reasons are, "Well, NIST is an agency of the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Commerce is part of the United States government, and we all know the government is one big evil entity that can do anything they want without anyone ever finding out except people who watch a lot of YouTube videos but don't read", please don't bother to answer this question.
Most people, and that may include you (but I have a nagging suspicion that it doesn't ) have no idea that the Department of Commerce is a CIA front. I know this to be an absolute fact, first hand. And NIST, FEMA and Popular Mechanics have lied so much regarding 911, none of them have an ounce of credibility at this point ... of course, they never did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
Oh, and please be aware that I worked in the WTC for 20 years, was in the building that day, and that I know a number of people--building operations, engineers, and firefighters, who were present when 7 went down and who participated in the decision to abandon efforts to save it.
Baloney ... it wouldn't surprise me if you've never even been to New York City. One thing is certain though, you just promote the propaganda, and you seem way to intelligent to actually buy this BS you throw out there yourself.
The facts are not a twitch of a muscle was wasted attempting to "Save" Building 7 ... not one. And that's been admitted. The focus was on the Towers and no fire fighting efforts were active at Building 7, except to shut of it's water, which I don't consider to be a reasonable effort in fighting fires and saving buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
The cute little thing you troofers always do with Building 7 is just sorta forget to mention that its probable collapse was determined hours before it actually fell. If you were really paying attention that day, you would remember the cameras trained on it for hours and the newscasters constantly telling us it was going to collapse. Now don't you think that if the government had wired the Salomon Brothers building to collapse and if they had all this control over the media that you so badly want to believe they have, that they would have prevented the complete coverage of collapse of the building in the first place and just maybe mentioned it in print afterwards?
(And this last paragraph should set in motion the predictable truther who will post the video of the BBC erroneously announcing the collapse before it happened but who will refrain from posting the video of the BBC subsequently discussing that announcement.)
You are shameless but not very subtle. The fact that the BBC reported the collapse of the building while it was still standing is just anecdotal to the overall points of evidence for controlled demolition .... and your effort to circumvent that argument might exude some semblance of legitimacy if you were to avoid openly bringing attention to the effort so directly
But, to the target audience of your performance here .... well, I understand how you might feel the need to highlight the subtle points.
But really .... you can't win this, and you're just wasting your time. People that see what's happening aren't going to buy a bit of what you're trying so hard to sell, because you can't prove a lie anymore than we can un-know what we know or un-see what we see. You just can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. But don't worry ... the clueless will remain clueless right to the end I'm afraid ... so that being your only real audience, there just is no real need for you to keep singing these phony lullabies .... there is little chance that anything will wake up the sleepers at this point.
And Happy New Year to you too .... my favorite propagandist ! My advice for the New Year would be for you to abandon the "Dark Side", and join the good folks who seek the troof.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 01-05-2012 at 12:56 AM..
Lemme make myself perfectly clear about one thing from the getgo.
I am NOT "a troofer" nor "a Truther" per the radical, GW-hating bunch! So, now that we got that out of the way, let me finish making myself perfectly clear.
I trust my eyes more than I trust anyone or anything. That third building looked identical to a planned implosion. I read news claims that it went down in result to the fire and damage that happened to the buildings that I, with my own eyes also saw hit by planes.
Also, I never said that I think "the govt." wired that building. Some rogue nut that also is part of our govt. may have done so and it not be "authorized by" our govt. which would mean it was not done "by" our govt.
Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see.
The closer you look ... and I mean really examine all of the data AND the video ..... with particular scrutiny regarding those things that almost everyone accepts at face value ... the more likely you are going to discover that even the things you see and believe is undoubtedly real, is anything but.
Baffles me how some think it was a controlled demolition with explosives.
Baffles me how people believe a steel structure building can fall down in one swift swoop in a matter of seconds into its own footprint and it NOT be from controlled demolition explosives.
Just last week in NJ, there was a fire at a warehouse that burned for 3 days. This entire building was engulfed in flames for 3 entire days and did not collapse. Are we to believe that building 7 collapsed from just a few isolated fires throughout the building?
A car crash at 100 does more than twice the damage as a crash of 50. A high-speed wreck at a NASCAR can leave fragments. Now imagine 500mph.
A plane is not designed to survive an impact. Even the jet engines are light relative to the power they produce. The combination of light aluminum, jet fuel, and high speeds results in fragments.
Simple. Not as fun as a good conspiracy theory, but simple physics.
Baffles me how people believe a steel structure building can fall down in one swift swoop in a matter of seconds into its own footprint and it NOT be from controlled demolition explosives.
Just last week in NJ, there was a fire at a warehouse that burned for 3 days. This entire building was engulfed in flames for 3 entire days and did not collapse. Are we to believe that building 7 collapsed from just a few isolated fires throughout the building?
Yes, because the 3-story warehouse in Elizabeth is SO comparable to a 47-story high-rise with columns severed by debris.
And uh, the "isolated fires" twist is pretty much played out. You should just lose that story.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 01-05-2012 at 07:34 AM..
A car crash at 100 does more than twice the damage as a crash of 50. A high-speed wreck at a NASCAR can leave fragments. Now imagine 500mph.
A plane is not designed to survive an impact. Even the jet engines are light relative to the power they produce. The combination of light aluminum, jet fuel, and high speeds results in fragments.
Simple. Not as fun as a good conspiracy theory, but simple physics.
Yet the govt wants us to believe that Mohammed Atta's passport made it thru the impact, explosions, fire, and finally down to the street and found amidst the rubble unscathed? You'd have to be one hell of a naive human being to believe that!
Yes, because the 3-story warehouse in Elizabeth is SO comparable to a 47-story high-rise with columns severed by debris.
And uh, the "isolated fires" twist is pretty much played out. You should just lose that story.
That's not my story. That's the reports coming from our own govt and FEMA.
The idea that diesel fuel stored in Building 7 is to blame for the collapse was promoted by The New York Times in late 2001 and by FEMA's 2002 Building Performance Study. This idea is also untenable. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second
Why is it when the twoofers talk about bld7, people never:
1. Admit that the building got BADLY damaged when the towers fell:
a) the entire front fascia was sheared off
b) a 12-16 story gash(hole) in the corner(main supports)(Proves the FACT that there was MASSIVE structural damage)
2. Admit that there was an entire ConED substation(electric plant) below the building. (this article PROVES the substation and the new one rebuilt in May04,, It also gives a good description of the transformers)
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation - GOVERNOR PATAKI JOINS CON EDISON TO MARK OPENING OF ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION AT 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER
3. Admit that the building had 20 or more back up generators (4 on the 23rd floor, 3 on the 7th floor, 14 on the 5th floor, 1 on the 8th floor w/fuel tank, 4 on the 46th floor, 1 on the 9th floor)(Proves the FACT of many things that could have BLOWN up within the building supporting the statements of "heard explosions")
4. Admit that the building had 22 main Transformers(which can explode if heated(full of oil))(some of them 2 stories tall) and 2 dry transformers (10 1st floor, 12 5th floor, 2 7th floor)(proves the FACT of more things that could have blown up)
5. Admit that the Fuel source for those generators was stored in the building and equaled 18 tankers (18,000 gallons on the 2nd floor, and 48,000 in the lower level, 300 gallons on the 23rd floor, 300 gallons on the 5th floor, 100 gallons on the 9th floor, 300 gallons on the 7th floor)(proves the FACT of a major fuel source, along with all the office furnature)
6. Admit the there was LP gas lines running throughout the building
7. Admit that the Penthouse fell FIRST
8. Admit that the building did NOT fall symmetrically it collapsed from the center(the north wall even covered the debris
9. Admit that it did NOT fall with in its footprint, it covered "barkley street" and caused SIGNIFICANT DAMAGED(fell onto) another building (30 west broadway) and the Verizon building( just some logic here cant be in its "own footprint if it went OUTSIDE of its footprint)(ABSOLUTELY proves that it was not a PERFECT symmetrical fall)
10. Admit that the FIREMEN, said the fire could not be CONTROLLED
A) I will give just two,,,,"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors." –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
b). The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
11. Admit that there was a problem with the water supply(NO WATER)
12 the only mention "3 buildings" but not the other 10 buildings were destroyed that day in NYC
13. Admit that to wire a building.:
.......a) would take months.
.......b) beams would HAVE to be cut ,making the building NOT safe to go into for months prior to the collapse(proves that there is not way the building could have been imploded since monday sept 10 was a WORK DAY)
.......c) explosives don't like fire and heat
........d) that the term "pull" is NOT used in Explosive demos
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.
) have no idea that the Department of Commerce is a CIA front. I know this to be an absolute fact, first hand. And NIST, FEMA and Popular Mechanics have lied so much regarding 911, none of them have an ounce of credibility at this point ... of course, they never did.
