Why 7WTC?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Blues63, Mar 24, 2015.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,834
    Likes Received:
    369
    Trophy Points:
    83
    sorry wont gain any ground trying to engage me with typical poser single digit iq where they are so uninformed to believe a thermate cutter is the same as a pile of thermate. One simply burns the other cuts as you can see in the clip. Why would you fall for such foolishness? FFS bring it up a notch.

    - - - Updated - - -

    no correcting foolishness is not a goal post shift, it sets the record straight.
     
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    89,281
    Likes Received:
    21,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,834
    Likes Received:
    369
    Trophy Points:
    83
    WOW THAT BRILLIANT!


    Hate to (*)(*)(*)(*) in your cheerios but this is what melted steel looks like:



    [​IMG]
     
  4. Artie

    Artie New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The stairwells were blown out?

    As far as I can recall Fire fighters in and out and not a single one of them mentioned the lack of stairwells which they would have used to move from floor to floor.

    First we get thermite is an explosive.. then we get it was used to BURN thru the core columns... one flow of something offered as proof... some 49 columns over roughly 35 floors cut... but only the single flow to use as evidence.. a flow that would have had to have traveled quite a distance from the core column to the outer facade Now I hear that stairwells were blown out .. never mind the firefighters using them never mentioned this that I am aware of.
     
  5. Artie

    Artie New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You know what is really really sad.

    The govt learned the hard way about storing anything in one place back prior to the US even being a country.

    Some people worked pretty hard under threat of death to prevent the British from destroying the militia arms/ammo in Lexington and Concord but for some reason, unfathomable to me, modern politicians do not study history and are therefore doomed to repeat it.
     
  6. Artie

    Artie New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok so what of the records that were not in that one building?

    Do you think the govt keeps it's records like that in a single building?

    Well of course you do because if you didn't you wouldn't believe what you believe about WTC7 and the Towers.

    Down in the south they have a saying... bless his heart.
     
  7. Artie

    Artie New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok I looked at the first post.

    Why did he not mention the Con Ed Substation and the foundation within that was built for a 25 story building and WTC 7 was 47?

    Why did he fail to mention the loading dock inside? 3 stories I believe it was... 3 stories clear space....

    Why did he fail to mention the diesel fuel?

    How can anyone take someone seriously when they ignore such important parts of the story? Be they govt or some conspiracy theorist?

    At least he didn't drop a solid block of wood onto another solid block of wood and exclaim that that proves the buildings could not have collapsed as they did.

    Did he mention that not another steel framed building has collapsed and then fail to mention a certain building that was partially steel framed that the steel framed section did in fact collapse due to fire alone? If not why not? If I can find it on the internet he certainly can and yet some how some way he can not find all the information that I mentioned that I found on the internet?
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Three stories of clear space still had support columns.

    What does diesel fuel have to do with the speed at which the building fell?

    Please go into some more detail about the Con Ed Substation. I don't see the point you're trying to make.
     
  9. Artie

    Artie New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Clear space has support columns in it? Clearly you have no clue what "clear" space is. Imagine this... a truck drives into the loading/unloading dock, according to you he drives into a column in the driveway... do what sir? The driveway would be "clear" space.. no columns... that is why it is termed "clear" space. It would have columns surrounding it and in this case it may also have a truss system above it carrying the load to "other" parts of the foundation that the original foundation could not support. You really should look into exactly what that means and why it is of critical importance to understanding what actually happened.

    The diesel fuel may or may not have anything to do with it sir. I just find it curious that at least some of the conspiracy theorists don't seem to find it important enough to even consider... NIST decided it had very little bearing and apparently the conspiracy theorists agree with NIST... I believe it may explain why some of the fires were not fought at all and why they burned for extended periods instead of burning out. In the end it doesn't matter as they didn't fight the fires due to lack of water.. the sprinklers didn't do their job.. due to lack of water. The fuel may or may not have hastened the collapse but it did not cause it.

    The speed with which they fell has to do with the design of the building and those trusses I mentioned that the theorists didn't bother to explain to you about. It has to do with having a 47 story building built on a foundation where some portion of that foundation was designed and built for a 25 story building. Which it would appear that the conspiracy theorists didn't appear to consider important. NIST considered it but apparently didn't explain in great detail in their report which I do not exactly understand. What you see in the videos is the facade collapsing not the interior columns.. watch a video that shows the penthouse structures and you should understand that at least a portion of the interior columns failed prior to and including the penthouse structure that collapsed first..interior failures would continue on unseen on the video until the number of them became to great for the facade not to fall and then it would. The apparent free fall of the facade is of no real importance as it says nothing about why nor how the collapse happened.

    The Con Ed Substation is the reason for the truss system to carry some of the load from that part of the foundation. The failure of a portion of that truss system due to fire is why the building collapsed. The failure of the sprinkler system is the reason the fires were not contained and or extinguished.

    The conspiracy guys tell you that a steel framed sky scraper has not collapsed due to fire. They fail to mention the differences in the buildings because those differences could explain why the collapse due to fire in my opinion. The fact is that the steel framed portion of a sky scraper did collapse due to fire.. I believe it was in Spain... It doesn't count apparently because the whole building didn't collapse.. as if the concrete portion of that building is steel framed... steel reinforced concrete is not the same at all. The difference there was the building had a central core of steel reinforced concrete which didn't collapse and the steel framed portion around it did...I believe it collapsed because it either didn't have a sprinkler system or the system was not complete or it failed for some reason.. perhaps due to lack of water as in WTC 7.

    .
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,834
    Likes Received:
    369
    Trophy Points:
    83
    um, have you considered that the facade is the outer wall of the building and unless you are superman with xray vision you most likely cant see through the wall?

    yes it is normal for the walls to fall when the wall supporting structure falls. :bored:
     
  11. Artie

    Artie New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So go find a video of the WTC 7 collapse where you have a view from high enough you get a reasonably clear view of the penthouse structures. Notice how one of those structures collapses several seconds before the rest of the building. Clear evidence of the failure of the central core columns which held it up. Thus by the time you see the facade collapsing the central columns and the floors they supported have already come down. So what is it exactly that is supposed to resist the rest of the buildings collapse? Ghost columns in the invisible fire?
     
  12. Alucard

    Alucard New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it was just a coincidence regarding the Salomon Building.
     

Share This Page