Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-24-2009, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,511 posts, read 33,328,605 times
Reputation: 7624

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apples&Oranges View Post
NIST= Not Interested In Seeking Truth

See this for details: http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...and_Nano-1.pdf
YOU: Denying and not accepting the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2009, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,511 posts, read 33,328,605 times
Reputation: 7624
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT View Post
Since you and nickel seem to think that there are 'credible and accurate answers as to how tower 7' collapsed' why don't you tell me what they are?
Pay attention. I already did that. See post #500.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Northern California
481 posts, read 806,972 times
Reputation: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
No plane touched tower 7 but it had long-burning fires and damage caused by debris from the North Tower's collapse.

There was much more damage to tower 7 than the FEMA report indicated. About one-third of the south face had physical damage.

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) discovered previously undocumented damgage to tower 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. The south face was obscured by smoke, making it difficult to make direct observations of damage from photos or videos.

Large fires were burning in WTC 5 and 6, as well as in WTC 7.

This according to the NIST's June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the WTC disaster.

As for the collapse, the entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
This is just your opinion. Without links.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,861 posts, read 24,125,811 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
No plane touched tower 7 but it had long-burning fires and damage caused by debris from the North Tower's collapse.

There was much more damage to tower 7 than the FEMA report indicated. About one-third of the south face had physical damage.

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) discovered previously undocumented damgage to tower 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. The south face was obscured by smoke, making it difficult to make direct observations of damage from photos or videos.

Large fires were burning in WTC 5 and 6, as well as in WTC 7.

This according to the NIST's June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the WTC disaster.

As for the collapse, the entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apples&Oranges View Post
This is just your opinion. Without links.
Uh... The NIST Progress Report is not his opinion.

I guess your version of Google only works for crackpot websites, so I did you a favor and got you the link you were apparently unable to find:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf

Page 17.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Northern California
481 posts, read 806,972 times
Reputation: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
Uh... The NIST Progress Report is not his opinion.

I guess your version of Google only works for crackpot websites, so I did you a favor and got you the link you were apparently unable to find:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf

Page 17.
I saw this, but without the proof of pictures, I simply do not believe it.

It is interesting that you think over 700 engineers and architects are crackpots. It reveals who you are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
1,065 posts, read 1,756,982 times
Reputation: 476
Absolutely amazing to see people actually admit they believe this idiotic crap to other people. Do you truthers really not realize how foolish you look to everyone else???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 03:22 PM
 
1,238 posts, read 1,414,773 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT View Post
Obnviously you don't know anything. You keep pointing to other 'sources' and that 'nothing of importance has been shown to be wrong'

So tell me, how did building 7 collapse?

You say that 'Popular Mechanics didn't use their own knowledge' to explain what happened. Obviously you didn't listen to the interview. They said that they were shown classified photos of building 7, that were denied to be seen by the general public.
What does me telling you why building 7 collapsed have to do with anything? This is just another ignorant argument by truthers that once again has nothing to do with the Bush administration. I'm not going to explain this to you just so you can ignore it and write off my sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apples&Oranges View Post
They won't be able to, because there is nothing to point to except the obvious answer - controlled demolition brought down all THREE buildings.
Prove it. Show any evidence of controlled demolition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apples&Oranges View Post
This is just your opinion. Without links.
He explained it perfectly to you, get over the fact that you have absolutely no facts to back up your accusations and in order to believe what you believe, you have to throw logic and reason to the wind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Northern California
481 posts, read 806,972 times
Reputation: 245
In order to believe a perfect stranger, I need credible links. And photographs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,861 posts, read 24,125,811 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apples&Oranges View Post
I saw this, but without the proof of pictures, I simply do not believe it.
Simple minds...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,861 posts, read 24,125,811 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apples&Oranges View Post
In order to believe a perfect stranger, I need credible links. And photographs.
Really? So you've seen photographic evidence of everything you've ever believed?

Really???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:42 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top