Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 … 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next

Topic: NIST says WTC building # 7 collapse caused by fire.
Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Mon 04/23/12 11:39 AM
Yes people on the bottom could hear internal collapses. That is different than an explosion. WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 04/23/12 01:59 PM
Yes people on the bottom could hear internal collapses. That is different than an explosion. WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top. Why on earth would people have heard explosions before the planes hit? Also people heard explosions in WTC7 in the morning. The 'theory' of a pancake collapse 'from the top' can't really be proven any more than any other theory. They just happen to like it because they don't like the explosion theory. That would point to 'inside job.'

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 04/23/12 02:49 PM
Yes people on the bottom could hear internal collapses. That is different than an explosion. WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top. Why on earth would people have heard explosions before the planes hit? Also people heard explosions in WTC7 in the morning. The 'theory' of a pancake collapse 'from the top' can't really be proven any more than any other theory. They just happen to like it because they don't like the explosion theory. That would point to 'inside job.' yea, explosions at the bottom caused the top to start falling first... maybe you should check your facts a little better. seems like you are getting further and further out there...

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Mon 04/23/12 02:51 PM
It was not demolished "from the top down." Even the NIST report acknowledges that. I guess you didn't even read that. I have repeated several times why there was textbook reasons to investigate for and suspect explosives and you guys continue to just ignore my posts and the evidence. Also, you are assuming certain types of explosives would have to have been used, and that they had to be installed a certain way and that had to be very loud-- as if this was your normal run of the mill controlled demolition. It was not. This attack was pulled off not by Muslim fanatics but by a very high tech organization of world terrorists who could have access to technology you would not suspect. Explosions were heard and felt on the bottom lower floors by witnesses BEFORE THE PLANES HIT THE TOWER -- and they were reported. Testimony was just completely ignored. That is not a proper investigation. That is cover-up. Just because the planes hit the towers at the higher floors does not mean that is what caused the collapse. (That was more like a distraction.) Another good reason for investigating and looking for explosives other than the fact that the manual requires it, is that the first attack on the towers used explosives. (It's called M.O.) But as I said, they didn't even look. They didn't examine the real evidence, they came to their conclusions via computer simulation. That is not scientific and that can easily be compromise according to what kind information they program into it. They admitted that they did not even know much about the building being up to code. Anyway it is clear that none of the so-called scientists want to challenge the status quo even though the Bush administration has compromised the whole scientific community. If this is not corrected, scientists will have no clout whatsoever in the future and no one will listen to them when they are under the control of the administration. It would have been much easier to use another truck bomb than some elaborate multifaceted plan that could easily gone wrong. A truck bomb could have lowered the total number of conspirators and you could have used demolition charges at the base and the parking garage to bring down the building.. As far as the towers are concerned the collapse sequence initiated at the impact points and the buildings collapsed from the top down.. The debris that fell off the top of the buildings hit the ground well before the floors were finished collapsing. NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSED FROM THE BOTTOM..

Mirage4279 Joined Sat 09/04/10 Posts: 2466	Mon 04/23/12 03:14 PM
Hey Leigh long time no see...t6hat was quite a post...good lord Imploding buildings is complex! Good to see you! how is the building demolishing business going?

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Mon 04/23/12 03:19 PM
Yes people on the bottom could hear internal collapses. That is different than an explosion. WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top. Why on earth would people have heard explosions before the planes hit? Also people heard explosions in WTC7 in the morning. The 'theory' of a pancake collapse 'from the top' can't really be proven any more than any other theory. They just happen to like it because they don't like the explosion theory. That would point to 'inside job.' What do you mean you cant prove a collapse from the top? Look at the videos it obviously collapsed at the point of impact.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 04/23/12 03:28 PM
Yes people on the bottom could hear internal collapses. That is different than an explosion. WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top. Why on earth would people have heard explosions before the planes hit? Also people heard explosions in WTC7 in the morning. The 'theory' of a pancake collapse 'from the top' can't really be proven any more than any other theory. They just happen to like it because they don't like the explosion theory. That would point to 'inside job.' What do you mean you cant prove a collapse from the top? Look at the videos it obviously collapsed at the point of impact. that doesn't fit in with her evidence, so it is ignored...

Optomistic69 Joined Mon 10/10/11 Posts: 5173	Mon 04/23/12 04:13 PM Edited by Optomistic69 on Mon 04/23/12 04:38 PM
Jeannie I think you have demolished the second responders argument. They are reduced to personal attacks which shows you are getting to them.

Leigh2154 Joined Sun 10/02/11 Posts: 16479	Mon 04/23/12 04:28 PM
Hey Leigh long time no see...t6hat was quite a post...good lord Imploding buildings is complex! Good to see you! how is the building demolishing business going? On and on and on and on and....................

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Mon 04/23/12 04:34 PM
Yes people on the bottom could hear internal collapses. That is different than an explosion. WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top. Why on earth would people have heard explosions before the planes hit? Also people heard explosions in WTC7 in the morning. The 'theory' of a pancake collapse 'from the top' can't really be proven any more than any other theory. They just happen to like it because they don't like the explosion theory. That would point to 'inside job.' What do you mean you cant prove a collapse from the top? Look at the videos it obviously collapsed at the point of impact. that doesn't fit in with her evidence, so it is ignored... She has ignored pages of facts on this thread. What is really, really funny is the the head of the Albany truther chapter, in his letter of resignation from the whole truther movement, described most of her "proofs" as BS. He, like everyone else who took the time to check the "facts", realized the whole thing was a scam to make money for a few. If we only knew an investigator!

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 04/23/12 04:54 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 04/23/12 05:21 PM
Primarily I am addressing the NIST report on WTC7 which, when closely examined, will serve to unravel the entire 9/11 cover-up and cause. When the NIST report on WTC 7, uses the word "probable collapse sequence" I don't regard that as confidence of "proof." When they say that Global collapse occurred when the entire building "above the buckled region moved down as a single unit," I take that to mean that the buckled region was some distance lower than the top. For those who have actually read the NIST report on WTC7: The idea that thermal expansion of steel floor beams led to catastrophic damage, which NIST calls the basic element in its theory, contains far too many problems to be even remotely plausible. NIST's claims that steel beams reached temperatures of 600 degrees C (1,100 F) and even higher, is based on exaggerations about the amount of combustible material available on the floors and also about the temperatures and durations of the fires. The claims about steel temperatures are also based on false assertions, such as the assertion that raging fires were burning on the 12th floor at a time when, in fact, the fires on this floor had burned out. NIST's claims about the temperatures of steel beams also seem to ignore the implications of the thermal conductivity of steel and of NIST's own estimate that fires could last in any given area for only about 20 minutes. NIST's theory of WTC7's collapse depends on its claims about steel temperatures, this theory is discredited by the fact that these claims are based on gross exaggerations and even outright falsehoods. NIST has emphasized that the thermal expansion of steel beams, which (allegedly) initiated the collapse, "occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C (750 F)" But even raising the temperature of huge, insulated, interconnected pieces of steel close to 400 degrees C would have required extraordinary fires. And yet NIST's theory REQUIRES beams to have reached much higher temperatures. NIST seeks to downplay this fact by portraying thermal expansion, which can occur before steel reaches 400 C, as more important that thermal weakening and sagging, which require much higher temperatures. NIST's theory is shown to be unworthy of credence simply because it requires unrealistic steel temperatures.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 04/23/12 04:59 PM
Yes people on the bottom could hear internal collapses. That is different than an explosion. WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top. Why on earth would people have heard explosions before the planes hit? Also people heard explosions in WTC7 in the morning. The 'theory' of a pancake collapse 'from the top' can't really be proven any more than any other theory. They just happen to like it because they don't like the explosion theory. That would point to 'inside job.' What do you mean you cant prove a collapse from the top? Look at the videos it obviously collapsed at the point of impact. that doesn't fit in with her evidence, so it is ignored... She has ignored pages of facts on this thread. What is really, really funny is the the head of the Albany truther chapter, in his letter of resignation from the whole truther movement, described most of her "proofs" as BS. He, like everyone else who took the time to check the "facts", realized the whole thing was a scam to make money for a few. If we only knew an investigator! Neither you or me know under what circumstances the head of the Abany truther chapter resigned. I am not the least bit familiar with them or him and he and them have nothing to do with what I am posting here that everyone continues to ignore in order to attack the messenger. But that is pretty much all you guys ever do.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 04/23/12 05:52 PM
Yes people on the bottom could hear internal collapses. That is different than an explosion. WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top. Why on earth would people have heard explosions before the planes hit? Also people heard explosions in WTC7 in the morning. The 'theory' of a pancake collapse 'from the top' can't really be proven any more than any other theory. They just happen to like it because they don't like the explosion theory. That would point to 'inside job.' What do you mean you cant prove a collapse from the top? Look at the videos it obviously collapsed at the point of impact. that doesn't fit in with her evidence, so it is ignored... She has ignored pages of facts on this thread. What is really, really funny is the the head of the Albany truther chapter, in his letter of resignation from the whole truther movement, described most of her "proofs" as BS. He, like everyone else who took the time to check the "facts", realized the whole thing was a scam to make money for a few. If we only knew an investigator! Neither you or me know under what circumstances the head of the Abany truther chapter resigned. I am not the least bit familiar with them or him and he and them have nothing to do with what I am posting here that everyone continues to ignore in order to attack the messenger. But that is pretty much all you guys ever do. who is attacking who? your saying your the only ones that know the truth, and if we don't believe you, we're stupid. but then you say we don't wanna discuss this, because yall already think we are stupid for not agreeing with you in the first place. we have all shown you ample evidence that 9-11 was not the grand conspiracy yall say it is, but i don't have a problem with you believing in what you want. but since you never want to discuss the evidence we put in here, whats the point of continuing?

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 04/23/12 06:21 PM
Primarily I am addressing the NIST report on WTC7 which, when closely examined, will serve to unravel the entire 9/11 cover-up and cause. When the NIST report on WTC 7, uses the word "probable collapse sequence" I don't regard that as confidence of "proof." When they say that Global collapse occurred when the entire building "above the buckled region moved down as a single unit," I take that to mean that the buckled region was some distance lower than the top. For those who have actually read the NIST report on WTC7: The idea that thermal expansion of steel floor beams led to catastrophic damage, which NIST calls the basic element in its theory, contains far too many problems to be even remotely plausible. NIST's claims that steel beams reached temperatures of 600 degrees C (1,100 F) and even higher, is based on exaggerations about the amount of combustible material available on the floors and also about the temperatures and durations of the fires. The claims about steel temperatures are also based on false assertions, such as the assertion that raging fires were burning on the 12th floor at a time when, in fact, the fires on this floor had burned out. NIST's claims about the temperatures of steel beams also seem to ignore the implications of the thermal conductivity of steel and of NIST's own estimate that fires could last in any given area for only about 20 minutes. NIST's theory of WTC7's collapse depends on its claims about steel temperatures, this theory is discredited by the fact that these claims are based on gross exaggerations and even outright falsehoods. NIST has emphasized that the thermal expansion of steel beams, which (allegedly) initiated the collapse, "occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C (750 F)" But even raising the temperature of huge, insulated, interconnected pieces of steel close to 400 degrees C would have required extraordinary fires. And yet NIST's theory REQUIRES beams to have reached much higher temperatures. NIST seeks to downplay this fact by portraying thermal expansion, which can occur before steel reaches 400 C, as more important that thermal weakening and sagging, which require much higher temperatures. NIST's theory is shown to be unworthy of credence simply because it requires unrealistic steel temperatures. Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows: 1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse. 2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7. 3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. 4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them. For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed. Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. Regards, Dan Nigro Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

Mirage4279 Joined Sat 09/04/10 Posts: 2466	Mon 04/23/12 06:40 PM
Hey Leigh long time no see...t6hat was quite a post...good lord Imploding buildings is complex! Good to see you! how is the building demolishing business going? On and on and on and on and.................... Erecting them would be much much better for you

Leigh2154 Joined Sun 10/02/11 Posts: 16479	Mon 04/23/12 07:05 PM
Hey Leigh long time no see...t6hat was quite a post...good lord Imploding buildings is complex! Good to see you! how is the building demolishing business going? On and on and on and on and.................... Erecting them would be much much better for you True....

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 04/23/12 07:17 PM
Yes people on the bottom could hear internal collapses. That is different than an explosion. WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top. Why on earth would people have heard explosions before the planes hit? Also people heard explosions in WTC7 in the morning. The 'theory' of a pancake collapse 'from the top' can't really be proven any more than any other theory. They just happen to like it because they don't like the explosion theory. That would point to 'inside job.' What do you mean you cant prove a collapse from the top? Look at the videos it obviously collapsed at the point of impact. that doesn't fit in with her evidence, so it is ignored... She has ignored pages of facts on this thread. What is really, really funny is the the head of the Albany truther chapter, in his letter of resignation from the whole truther movement, described most of her "proofs" as BS. He, like everyone else who took the time to check the "facts", realized the whole thing was a scam to make money for a few. If we only knew an investigator! Neither you or me know under what circumstances the head of the Abany truther chapter resigned. I am not the least bit familiar with them or him and he and them have nothing to do with what I am posting here that everyone continues to ignore in order to attack the messenger. But that is pretty much all you guys ever do. who is attacking who? your saying your the only ones that know the truth, and if we don't believe you, we're stupid. but then you say we don't wanna discuss this, because yall already think we are stupid for not agreeing with you in the first place. we have all shown you ample evidence that 9-11 was not the grand conspiracy yall say it is, but i don't have a problem with you believing in what you want. but since you never want to discuss the evidence we put in here, whats the point of continuing? I haven't seen any of your evidence. All I've seen is a link to a website that has dozens of pages of sarcastic remarks and links to many other things. This is a huge topic and you have to narrow it down a bit, which is what I have tried to do in focusing on the NIST report on WTC7 and some of the reasons I think it is unscientific and fabricated. You guys only want to attack me personally, and you never actually discuss the points I have posted in your own words.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 04/23/12 07:49 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 04/23/12 07:51 PM
Chazster who is attacking who? your saying your the only ones that know the truth, and if we don't believe you, we're stupid. but then you say we don't wanna discuss this, because yall already think we are stupid for not agreeing with you in the first place. we have all shown you ample evidence that 9-11 was not the grand conspiracy yall say it is, but i don't have a problem with you believing in what you want. but since you never want to discuss the evidence we put in here, whats the point of continuing? Chaster: I am only one person. I don't think you are stupid. I have never ever said such a thing. I have not said that I am or "we are" the "only ones that know the truth. I am not "Yall." What you are doing is generalizing and clumping me in with every other "conspiracy theorist" or "truther" on the Internet. I post specific points that I believe are good points and all I get back is attitude and a defensive posture from people who are doing nothing more than defending their position because they have already made up their minds that they believe there is no "cover-up" and that the Twin towers were destroyed by radical Muslim terrorists who could barely fly a plane. It is clear that you have been successfully convinced that this is the case and you have no intention of even listening to any alternative theory or possibility. Your ears and minds are closed. Fine by me. But don't tell me that I am attacking you because that is all in your mind.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 04/23/12 07:53 PM
Yes people on the bottom could hear internal collapses. That is different than an explosion. WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top. Why on earth would people have heard explosions before the planes hit? Also people heard explosions in WTC7 in the morning. The 'theory' of a pancake collapse 'from the top' can't really be proven any more than any other theory. They just happen to like it because they don't like the explosion theory. That would point to 'inside job.' What do you mean you cant prove a collapse from the top? Look at the videos it obviously collapsed at the point of impact. that doesn't fit in with her evidence, so it is ignored... She has ignored pages of facts on this thread. What is really, really funny is the the head of the Albany truther chapter, in his letter of resignation from the whole truther movement, described most of her "proofs" as BS. He, like everyone else who took the time to check the "facts", realized the whole thing was a scam to make money for a few. If we only knew an investigator! Neither you or me know under what circumstances the head of the Abany truther chapter resigned. I am not the least bit familiar with them or him and he and them have nothing to do with what I am posting here that everyone continues to ignore in order to attack the messenger. But that is pretty much all you guys ever do. who is attacking who? your saying your the only ones that know the truth, and if we don't believe you, we're stupid. but then you say we don't wanna discuss this, because yall already think we are stupid for not agreeing with you in the first place. we have all shown you ample evidence that 9-11 was not the grand conspiracy yall say it is, but i don't have a problem with you believing in what you want. but since you never want to discuss the evidence we put in here, whats the point of continuing? I haven't seen any of your evidence. All I've seen is a link to a website that has dozens of pages of sarcastic remarks and links to many other things. This is a huge topic and you have to narrow it down a bit, which is what I have tried to do in focusing on the NIST report on WTC7 and some of the reasons I think it is unscientific and fabricated. You guys only want to attack me personally, and you never actually discuss the points I have posted in your own words. lol..my point is summed up there...

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Mon 04/23/12 08:57 PM
Yes people on the bottom could hear internal collapses. That is different than an explosion. WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top. Why on earth would people have heard explosions before the planes hit? Also people heard explosions in WTC7 in the morning. The 'theory' of a pancake collapse 'from the top' can't really be proven any more than any other theory. They just happen to like it because they don't like the explosion theory. That would point to 'inside job.' What do you mean you cant prove a collapse from the top? Look at the videos it obviously collapsed at the point of impact. that doesn't fit in with her evidence, so it is ignored... She has ignored pages of facts on this thread. What is really, really funny is the the head of the Albany truther chapter, in his letter of resignation from the whole truther movement, described most of her "proofs" as BS. He, like everyone else who took the time to check the "facts", realized the whole thing was a scam to make money for a few. If we only knew an investigator! Neither you or me know under what circumstances the head of the Abany truther chapter resigned. I am not the least bit familiar with them or him and he and them have nothing to do with what I am posting here that everyone continues to ignore in order to attack the messenger. But that is pretty much all you guys ever do. No, you just don't understand any of the posts. The Albany guy was head of the truther chapter and he explained quite clearly why he resigned. He discussed many of your false statements and explained the type of logic you use in great detail. He was very clear that once someone looks at the facts, your theories and lies are just BS. He described much of what you are trying to sell here. To explain your theories, you would need to understand the math ... but you don't know any math by your own admission. You would also need to understand the physics ... but you don't understand that either. In fact, you don't even know what the word "mechanics" means in context cause if you did you might get some idea why the use of explosives was instantly ruled out. But you don't understand ...... so you make up crazy stuff. The "stuff" you make up is what we address. Your motivations for doing it are your own.