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 can't make that statement because the full scope of the amount of damage to that building is unknown because where the bulk of it occurred was always obscured by smoke. What is known is there was damage to the top center of that building and significant damage to one corner.
I'm not an engineer but I'm going to take a wild guess that 30 floors 40 or 50 feet deep of missing building on a corner is pretty serious. Especially when you don;t know what is around the corner.....
911 was the result of terrorists flying jets into buildings.
You can argue that it was allowed to happen (which I don't believe), but the idea the buildings were brought down via our government is insanity.
I could not agree more. It amazes me that some people want to find some hidden agenda and story behind everything that happens. The 9/11 tragedy is very cut and dry, no mystery there at all.
Wait until you find out how many Trillions of dollars came up missing from the Pentagon, just days prior. Records housed in Building 7.
oh please not the missing trillions again
the 2.3 trillion missing has been debunked...the 2.3 trillion missing bull...been debunked thousands of times
did you even READ the about the ''issue''
in the ACCOUNTING for FY 96, 97, 98, 99 of the DOD BUDGET there was RECIEPTS missing and 2.3 trillion was not DOCUMENTED were EXACTLY it was spent
there NEVER was 2.3 t of ACTUAL money missing
fact..2.3 trillion was UNACCOUNTED FOR from the CLINTON ADMIN..
fact they found (accounted for every penny)
oh please you are not going to bring that garbage up again
the money was NEVER missing, just unaccounted in balancing the book during the CLINTON admin...had ZERO to do with Rummy
Read the 1999 DoD audit report. $2.3 TRILLION unaccounted for under the CLINTON admin.
yes it was all accounted for
Quote:
Zakheim Seeks To Corral, Reconcile 'Lost' Spending
By Gerry J. Gilmore American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2002 -- As part of military transformation efforts, DoD Comptroller Dov S. Zakheim and his posse of accountants are riding the Pentagon's financial paper trail, seeking to corral billions of dollars in so-called "lost" expenditures.
For years, DoD and congressional officials have sought to reconcile defense financial documents to determine where billions in expenditures have gone. That money didn't fall down a hole, but is simply waiting to be accounted for, Zakheim said in a Feb. 14 interview with the American Forces Information Service. Complicating matters, he said, is that DoD has 674 different computerized accounting, logistics and personnel systems.
Most of the 674 systems "don't talk to one another unless somebody 'translates,'" he remarked. This situation, he added, makes it hard to reconcile financial data.
Billions of dollars of DoD taxpayer-provided money haven't disappeared, Zakheim said. "Missing" expenditures are often reconciled a bit later in the same way people balance their checkbooks every month. The bank closes out a month and sends its bank statement, he said. In the meanwhile, people write more checks, and so they have to reconcile their checkbook register and the statement.
DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department's "lost" expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop.
"We're getting it down and we are redesigning our systems so we'll go down from 600-odd systems to maybe 50," he explained.
"That way, we will give people not so much more money, but a comfort factor, to be sure that every last taxpayer penny is accounted for," he concluded
From an old article in the Daily Mail in 2017? This is the rest? Is it published yet? Sorry--I don't download reports from the internet. Can the OP explain how the study overcame all the flaws with its credibility?
"...The Claim Being Debunked Here..."
In a Sept 8 2017 article shared by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the Daily Mail says:
"new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire...This week a team of experts said that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7...
This week, eminent Alaska University engineers dismissed [the NIST] explanation. Dr J. Leroy Hulsey, Chair of the university’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, said: ‘Fire did not and could not have caused the failure of this building.’.."
The following 20-minute video is part of a five-hour documentary, "The New Pearl Harbor", which was a debunking of the official story and the Popular Mechanics explanation. Every segment is devastating, imo, to the official story, but as we are mostly just talking about Building 7 on this thread, here it is:
Rebuttals welcome! (I am not an engineer, but it does seem convincing to this unscientifically-minded person.)
P.S. This is not some kind of "batsh*t crazy" film from some amateur in a basement. The film has received an 9.0 (out of 10) rating from IMDb. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3828916/
Last edited by katharsis; 09-05-2019 at 12:19 PM..
Gee, how much money did they spend to come to that conclusion?
No, the collapse wasn't caused directly by fire. The collapse was caused by having a 747 ram into the side of it. That is not what you would call a "normal" situation. I'm sure the codes have changed now, but at the time buildings were not made to withstand that kind of impact.
You know, it really is difficult to argue with someone who does not even know the basics. A 747 did NOT ram into Building 7. No one says that except for people who (to say it again) don't even know the basic facts.
This study was looking at WTC Building #7, which was never hit by a plane, but fell at free fall neatly into it's own footprint. Video of the collapse is here:
/QUOTE]
your statement is not true
bldg7 was hit by a falling tower
bldg7 did NOT fall at freefall speed (close but not quite there)
and it did not fall within its own footprint...infact its falling damaged other buildings...
and quit spamming the boards with youtube
Caused $1.4 billion in damages to a Verizon building and destroyed a city college building.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinions, but you shouldn't write falsehoods. Even the NIST said that it was not hit by a falling tower, but it was hit with debris. From the link below:
QUOTE (my italics):
"What caused the fires in WTC 7?
"Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control."
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.
Especially when you don;t know what is around the corner.....
