FredElliot

Here's one for the conspiracy theory beleivers...

Why do it?

So it can be blamed on Afghanistan, a country with huge oil reserves?

Just one problem.

danneth

was from the poll's they did in the new york times and CNN

danneth

war was one of the reasons imo, and they didn't need any oil to make money

RobL

im done arguing,youre a load of gullable mongs tbh
youll be telling us we didnt land on the moon next

danneth

awesome response, and usually the one you get from people with no idea but love to spout there mouths about something they really dont know about

RobL

i know plenty but theres no getting through to some folks so its a waste of time
regarding wtc7,do you have any photos of the south side? heres some statements from firefighters who were actually at the scene

Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

danneth

Your missing the point, ive showed you the picture of the damage of the south side its far from massive as you described, as for the fires as its been said many times there has been other fires far worse in skyscrapers which were on a bigger scale and burned for longer and there was no hint of the building falling

the people you quoted are they in the fire service? or structual engineers or architects or demo experts??

RobL

youre missing the point you clown
firefighters who were on the scene reported massive damage to that building,they even said the whole building was making a creaking noise they feared it was going to collapse at the time
why is this so hard to believe ?

danneth

In this case, why is it so hard for you to believe barry jennings when he said that it was explosions he heard

Now your in abit of a pickle


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lESol88wOi0

hth

Lambchop

iTrader: (1)

Danneth i used to think you were a sensible kinda chap...now i'm not so sure

danneth

Pardeep

LOL guessing the whole 'Real American' thing is just a cover up. Hogan is Al-Queda

RobL

he probably did hear explosions,considering there was a number of generators siuated on the bottom floors of that building

Fiddy

"i am a real afghanistanian, fight for the rights of every afghan...."

2wd

Cant belive all this...I have not seen all the vid's and statements on the tube but a lot of them .. and I've seen not one thing that can prove o´r for that matter make me belive that "it was an inside job" .... all those saying that a misile hit here and there .. and before explotions ... where are the proof ??? seen alot of those claiming that but nothing show on the vid's .... except for things who would happen when ... lets say a plane hit a building ??? ... and as with the "moon landing" it's not possible to cover that big an event up without anyone telling ... not a chance ... !

danneth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

1 min 10 secs, generator you say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xca6o38ZNY

4 min 30 secs...

Rsmat

iTrader: (2)

never been chop...

RobL

you need get a grip,and stop posting this nonsense for me ive seen it all before

the explosions could be a number of things in a building of that size going up in flames
i can remember not too long ago round here a factory went up in flames in the early hours,the gas bottles exploding woke my parents up who live approx 2 miles away
is it not possible there was gas bottles in the building? or would a generator going up make a similar explosion? i dunno tbh but its more believable than george w rigging the place with semtex

Pardeep

FPMSL

Glenn_

iTrader: (1)

Just cause some people believe in some things other people dont believe in, it doesn mean to say they are nutters or bad people. Some people believe in ghost some dont. Some people think vauxhall's are shite. Other people love them. It would be a boring world if we were all the same.

danneth

The fact that NIST said in there report there was no evidence of explosions either via witness reports or video when i think you will agree there cleary is? You do know the NIST report says the collapse of building 7 had nothing to do with diesel fires from the generators or the damage caused by building 1 and 2 dont you?

The main witness who was in the building has already told you of the explosions which happened in an office free of explosives

maybe you can give me some better answers to change my mind?

* how did wtc7 crush 40,000 tons of steel on the way down making it just about free fall?
* how do 4 ton steel sections get projected out of the buildings sideways and end up in buildings 600feet away?
* If it was a column that had been damaged either due to fire or damage then why did the building not toppel over? why did it go straight down into its own footprint?
* why didn't buildings 3, 4, 5, 6 collapse which were ALOT more damaged then 7
* wheres the evidence of the raging inferno that was meant to be happening?
* why was molten metal present?
* why was thermite and nano thermite found at the site?

Now i know im a little crazy along with all these architects etc, so if you can give me the answers it will put my mind at ease and i can also forward them on

danneth

Lambchop

iTrader: (1)

lol

RobL

i did start writing a long reply but deleted it after realising i really cant be arsed with you no more theres no point knocking if theres nobody in as they say
im sure the truth will all be revealed soon after all the hard evidence available on the net
and with the amount of people needed to be involved in such an operation its only a matter of time till someone cant live with the guilt no more and blows the whistle

rabmc

Sorry but I agree with danneth on this one! this is the first ive heard of this theory tbh of explosions, but did always wonder why the went straight down!! hmmmm

danneth

the mk1 kid

I can't think of any structure on this earth, be it natural or man-made, that could sustain damage to one side/corner/end/face and then fall straight down.

Doubters, please point me in the direction of ANYTHING (the more related the better of course) that could be heavily weakened on one side yet still refuse to topple/fall over...?

Tom

Fiddy

Exactamundo. there is a list of things, about 10 iirc, that point to controlled demolition, and the WTC fulfills all of them lol. fire is sporadic, it follows no know path, it just burns, to get a building, to fall within pretty much its own footprint, takes very careful planning, the under structure of the building has to be removed, and has to be timed, in sequence, perfectly. unless the fire, was a living, breathing, very intelligent, structural designer, demolition expert, and architect, and did all of those things its self ?

IF, it was a case of the floor trusses giving way, it would have slowed down, and eventually stopped, by the structure of the building, and floor trusses, that had no damage, doing there job, also, the weakened part of the building, would have fell over a bigger surface area, than just the buildings in close proximity.

also, the steel in the WTC had been certified to withstand up to 3000 degrees before it would bend/fail, the fire's in the world trade centre could NOT, have burned to even half of that, but the thermite, they found in the wreckage of ALL three buildings, some burnt, some unburnt, and some partially burnt, can burn to 4500 degrees, which would indicate, why, the steel gave way.

planes, fly into buildings, fires start, building falls, is not very scientific, in fact, there is no science involved what so ever.

steel that wouldn't give way until 3000 degrees, didn't receive half that temperature from the fires heating it, but the thermite found in the wreckage, that burns at 4500 degrees, is a scientific reason, and conclusion, as to why, the steel did give way.


basically, your opinion is based on one of two things, either you believe the government, and officials, or you believe science.


men lie, women lie, numbers dont.

RobL

show me a picture of the damaged southside of wtc7 after the towers fell,you wont be able to because there isnt any.the only people who saw how badly damaged that building was were the emergency workers who feared it would come down

show me another instance of buildings the size and height of these towers being hit at 500+mph by a passenger airline and taking so much damage at such a height,its easy to say this or that shouldnt happen when we have nothing any where near the scale of this event to compare it to

the nist filed their report a couple years after 9/11,the theorists have been changing their tune every week sincelook at some of the laughable theorys we`ve had over the years
did you see 9/11 conspiricies on nat geo last night? was interesting what they had to say about theorists at the end that the mind often leans towards the fairytale because its often more appealing or exciting than the thruth

FredElliot

Have a read of this. It deals with the "melting steel" stories, whilst also demonstrating how the collapse occured.

There is more to this than simple melting points of steel.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html

the mk1 kid

Hi Rob,

I cant show you pictures - as you point out there aren't any, and for all i know that side of the building could have been completely mullered - in fact i expect it was pretty badly damaged.

I am far from hell-bent on believing it was an 'inside job', but i am very interested in engineering (hence my degree in it), and from an engineers eyes i cannot see how it is possible WT7 fell straight down, and at near-as-dammit free-fall speed.

Nothing i can fathom explains why a building that was heavily damaged on one side could fall down straight into its footprint, nothing. Absolutely nothing - it should of fallen over.

Re free-fall speed. There was plenty of steel in this building, no jet fuel (that’s 'magic stuff' in some people eyes), but some diesel, and your normal office gear - none of which is capable of melting the steel - thus you have a heavily damage building (on one side) but complete integrity on the opposite side - surely it doesn't take too much intelligence to reach the conclusion the building should have fallen to one side, or perhaps more likely, remained standing, and whatever the outcome, it could/should never have fallen at free-fall speed - think of all the resistance, all the beams etc. I mean we know steel bends slowly under intense heat, so with this in mind the building would not suddenly lose its shape, but appear to almost 'melt' before the weakest point gave up causing it to 'go over' in that direction.

Tom

RobL

maybe the steel didnt melt but was heated or damaged enough from the falling towers to weaken or buckle it? would explain why the fireman on the scene heard the building creaking
is it hard to believe the heavily weakened southside went down taking the rest with it? i know there is one video if you search for it that shows the south west corner of that building coming down a good 2 seconds before the rest follows

the mk1 kid

Hi Rob,

In my eyes, yes. I don’t see how it is at all possible for the structural steel beams on the undamaged side to not offer such support that would cause the building to go over sideways - it doesn't make any sense to me and goes against everything that is equal and opposite reaction forces.

I can't prove Thermite was found everywhere on the site, or prove the molten steel shown on videos flowing out of the building was cased by cutter charges (it certainly wasn't a hot enough fire to melt steel in the true sense), or give other reasons as to why pools of molten steel was still glowing 3 or 4 weeks after the last fire was put out at ground zero, BUT when i watch the video's with my own eyes i do look at them and really question what happened:

All 3, erm 'collapses' look so perfectly like demolitions its untrue, and when several things seem a bit fishy i ask questions.

The video of the WTC7 collapse that’s side-by-side with a known demolition says a thousand words, but to sum up: no jet fuel, no plane, random organic fire and heavy damage on one side - now what are the odds this building mimics a perfect demolition of a comparable one - mimics it so well if you didn't know what the WTC7 looked like you would not be able to tell them apart?!


Tom

the mk1 kid

Double post.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Its scarey some of you people actually get to vote for our goverment.
Although I guess you'll be voting for elvis anyway so it doesnt really matter.

Bunch of whacko fucktards.

FredElliot

Perhaps it was not the exterior sides of the building offering the most support, but its interlinking with the central support beams.

The buildings also sustained damage through the majority of their structure, and not just one side.

As for the witnesses and conspracists on TV, heres a thought....

American with no hope what so ever of being even remotely famous, makes up story to get their face all over tv...

Shocker.

the mk1 kid

Chip, was that aimed at me?

As said already, I am an engineer, and regardless of who, why, and all the implications, every video i've seen of the collapses makes me question 9/11 - thats irrespective of any beliefs, whether Elvis is the king, you or anyone else giving a hoot - just me, as a professional engineer...

Tom

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Not specifically at you mate no, at least you are attempting to look at it from a scientific viewpoint, although I believe you are making an error that no scientist ever should and are making lots of assumptions, you dont have anywhere near enough evidence to perform any form of calculations so are being purely speculative, so I find it amusing you keep mentioning being an engineer as if its relevant to this discussion when I dont beleive you have enough information at hand to make use of any engineering knowlege you may have.

Anyway, as per most sensible people I try and avoid much in the way of discussions on the lunatics big three:
Religion
Elvis still being alive
9/11 being the CIA at work

As Ive learnt over the years that these are "you cant educate pork" type subjects and there isnt any point in trying, as there is simply not sufficient evidence to ever draw a totally final conclusion on any of them to be enough to convince people who WANT to believe a particular side of the story and so need evidence far beyond anything that will ever be available to convince them otherwise, so no point trying.

Fiddy

For someone as intelligent as you chip, i find it hard to believe you dont have an open mind, and look at both sides of the story. its hard to rule out the possibility that MAYBE, given all the evidence, that it could have been an inside job. they say there is no crime, without evidence, this case, there is a LOT of evidence.

as for whacko fucktards, architects, police officers, firemen, government employed officials, scientists, people, from each category, have there doubts, and agree its not as it seems, and as a collective group, i wouldnt call them fucktards, or whacko, infact, you need to be super intelligent to do some of those jobs

the mk1 kid

Fair enough Chip.

Mentioning engineering was an attempt to put across the fact i wasn't interseted too much in the results of the 'scientific evidence' which could have been made up (for all i know) on the tube home after work one night, but what was known (and not contested) about the buildings design/structure, and i certainly dont have any numbers worth putting into the casio.

Being 100% honest Chip (please), do you not think it even a little strange all three buildings came down straight, and at near free-fall speed after sustaining very different (in the case of towers vs WTC7) damage to localised spots?

Tom