100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: NIST says WTC building # 7 collapse caused by fire. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert." Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible.  )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... huh... and you don't?... i think people on both sides should be more open to ideas from the other. but, some of the things truthers come up with are just weird... and funny too. I would listen to any credible scientist who had real world evidence and could explain in layman's terms how WTC7 collapsed from a fire alone. So far all the evidence has been mathematical equations and computer simulations programmed with various different information and fabrications until they could discover how it "might be possible" for the building to have collapsed totally with no explosives involved. I don't know of any building that has ever collapsed like that suddenly and totally from a fire, let alone a steel framed one. I watched a two story lumber company building made of dry wood burn all night (it got very hot too) and it did not collapse until all the wood frames were reduced to cinders. The combustibles in WTC7 were not even near what they were in that lumber company wood building. Common sense. Who do they think they are kidding anyway? I am shocked and disappointed that any scientist would buy into that extremely unlikely hypothesis that you call the "official story" of WTC7. what i don't understand is why you are so fixated on WTC 7. about a 6 block radius was completely destroyed, and all you want to talk about is WTC 7? was the owner not getting paid unless that building was destroyed too? even if they did "pull" it, like you like to say so much, what does it matter? nobody was inside, the owner was getting paid anyway, and 2000 people lost their lives when the other 2 collapsed. do you need this to be a conspiracy? is your life going to be any different if you found out they did collapse WTC 7 on purpose? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention, if by the slim possibility that what they say is true, I am extremely shocked and disappointed that in this modern and scientific age the giant high rise buildings we live and work in are so poorly made that a small fire or a single plane can totally and completely demolish them in one afternoon. What does that say for today's structural engineers, architects and scientists? Not much. that would be the 60's and 70's structural engineers, architects and scientists, before any computers.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would listen to any credible scientist who had real world evidence and could explain in layman's terms how WTC7 collapsed from a fire alone. So far all the evidence has been mathematical equations and computer simulations programmed with various different information and fabrications until they could discover how it "might be possible" for the building to have collapsed totally with no explosives involved. I don't know of any building that has ever collapsed like that suddenly and totally from a fire, let alone a steel framed one. I watched a two story lumber company building made of dry wood burn all night (it got very hot too) and it did not collapse until all the wood frames were reduced to cinders. The combustibles in WTC7 were not even near what they were in that lumber company wood building. Common sense. Who do they think they are kidding anyway? I am shocked and disappointed that any scientist would buy into that extremely unlikely hypothesis that you call the "official story" of WTC7. Not to mention, if by the slim possibility that what they say is true, I am extremely shocked and disappointed that in this modern and scientific age the giant high rise buildings we live and work in are so poorly made that a small fire or a single plane can totally and completely demolish them in one afternoon. What does that say for today's structural engineers, architects and scientists? Not much. If I were to believe the official story, (which I don't) I would have also completely lost confidence in our military and our national defense. Protocol was not followed. Those planes should have never gotten near their targets if someone had not intervened and given orders to stand down. No, I believe we have a good military. It is the commander and Chief and his administration (Bush-Cheney) that is to blame for 9-11. If this is not true, then our military is incompetent, our structural engineers are incompetent, and our high rise buildings are vulnerable to planes, fires etc. Three Excellent Posts there Jeannie. I doubt if any of them will be addressed for their content  
you seem to have some brown stuff on your nose... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pitiful
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 04/26/12 12:47 PM
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert." Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible. )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... huh... and you don't?... i think people on both sides should be more open to ideas from the other. but, some of the things truthers come up with are just weird... and funny too. I would listen to any credible scientist who had real world evidence and could explain in layman's terms how WTC7 collapsed from a fire alone. So far all the evidence has been mathematical equations and computer simulations programmed with various different information and fabrications until they could discover how it "might be possible" for the building to have collapsed totally with no explosives involved. I don't know of any building that has ever collapsed like that suddenly and totally from a fire, let alone a steel framed one. I watched a two story lumber company building made of dry wood burn all night (it got very hot too) and it did not collapse until all the wood frames were reduced to cinders. The combustibles in WTC7 were not even near what they were in that lumber company wood building. Common sense. Who do they think they are kidding anyway? I am shocked and disappointed that any scientist would buy into that extremely unlikely hypothesis that you call the "official story" of WTC7. what i don't understand is why you are so fixated on WTC 7. about a 6 block radius was completely destroyed, and all you want to talk about is WTC 7? was the owner not getting paid unless that building was destroyed too? even if they did "pull" it, like you like to say so much, what does it matter? nobody was inside, the owner was getting paid anyway, and 2000 people lost their lives when the other 2 collapsed. do you need this to be a conspiracy? is your life going to be any different if you found out they did collapse WTC 7 on purpose? I am focused on WTC7 (and I have said this before) because it is the weak link in the whole 9/11 cover up and it was not struck by a plane and because the likelihood that it was suddenly and totally demolished only because of a fire (that could barely be seen) is infinitesimal, if not impossible. That only means one thing. Inside job. DUH. It means that whoever is responsible for this terrorist act ... they are being protected for some reason. Begin with WTC7 and you will unravel the entire fiasco of deceit. Once the truth is discovered about WTC7, there will be many questions about how and why someone spent weeks preparing it for demolition. The answer to those question will open a huge can of worms that will lead to the truth about the Twin Towers. The owner getting "paid anyway" probably has nothing to do with it. That building was home for the offices of the secret service and the CIA and other government offices. There was probably a lot of evidence in those offices. Maybe incriminating evidence. Of course we will never know. http://wtc7.net/background.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert." Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible. )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... huh... and you don't?... i think people on both sides should be more open to ideas from the other. but, some of the things truthers come up with are just weird... and funny too. I would listen to any credible scientist who had real world evidence and could explain in layman's terms how WTC7 collapsed from a fire alone. So far all the evidence has been mathematical equations and computer simulations programmed with various different information and fabrications until they could discover how it "might be possible" for the building to have collapsed totally with no explosives involved. I don't know of any building that has ever collapsed like that suddenly and totally from a fire, let alone a steel framed one. I watched a two story lumber company building made of dry wood burn all night (it got very hot too) and it did not collapse until all the wood frames were reduced to cinders. The combustibles in WTC7 were not even near what they were in that lumber company wood building. Common sense. Who do they think they are kidding anyway? I am shocked and disappointed that any scientist would buy into that extremely unlikely hypothesis that you call the "official story" of WTC7. what i don't understand is why you are so fixated on WTC 7. about a 6 block radius was completely destroyed, and all you want to talk about is WTC 7? was the owner not getting paid unless that building was destroyed too? even if they did "pull" it, like you like to say so much, what does it matter? nobody was inside, the owner was getting paid anyway, and 2000 people lost their lives when the other 2 collapsed. do you need this to be a conspiracy? is your life going to be any different if you found out they did collapse WTC 7 on purpose? I am focused on WTC7 (and I have said this before) because it is the weak link in the whole 9/11 cover up and it was not struck by a plane and because the likelihood that it was suddenly and totally demolished only because of a fire (that could barely be seen) is infinitesimal, if not impossible. That only means one thing. Inside job. DUH. It means that whoever is responsible for this terrorist act ... they are being protected for some reason. Begin with WTC7 and you will unravel the entire fiasco of deceit. Once the truth is discovered about WTC7, there will be many questions about how and why someone spent weeks preparing it for demolition. The answer to those question will open a huge can of worms that will lead to the truth about the Twin Towers. The owner getting "paid anyway" probably has nothing to do with it. That building was home for the offices of the secret service and the CIA and other government offices. There was probably a lot of evidence in those offices. Maybe incriminating evidence. Of course we will never know. http://wtc7.net/background.html who spent weeks preparing for it's destruction? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert." Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible. )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... How is talking about an energy absorbent failure model not saying something intelligent?
gobble-de-****. The dribble that he posted did not address the actual subject of the post which was about the contradictions in the NIST reports. What real world evidence do they actually have that their was a towering inferno that burned to extraordinary temperatures for 7 hours when their own photo's show the fire on the 12th floor went out? No. I posted what it was really about. You appear to lack the vocabulary to even discuss the problem at all, much less intelligently. You don't even know what the report was about. How sad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 04/26/12 08:25 PM
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert." Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible. )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... huh... and you don't?... i think people on both sides should be more open to ideas from the other. but, some of the things truthers come up with are just weird... and funny too. I would listen to any credible scientist who had real world evidence and could explain in layman's terms how WTC7 collapsed from a fire alone. So far all the evidence has been mathematical equations and computer simulations programmed with various different information and fabrications until they could discover how it "might be possible" for the building to have collapsed totally with no explosives involved. I don't know of any building that has ever collapsed like that suddenly and totally from a fire, let alone a steel framed one. I watched a two story lumber company building made of dry wood burn all night (it got very hot too) and it did not collapse until all the wood frames were reduced to cinders. The combustibles in WTC7 were not even near what they were in that lumber company wood building. Common sense. Who do they think they are kidding anyway? I am shocked and disappointed that any scientist would buy into that extremely unlikely hypothesis that you call the "official story" of WTC7. what i don't understand is why you are so fixated on WTC 7. about a 6 block radius was completely destroyed, and all you want to talk about is WTC 7? was the owner not getting paid unless that building was destroyed too? even if they did "pull" it, like you like to say so much, what does it matter? nobody was inside, the owner was getting paid anyway, and 2000 people lost their lives when the other 2 collapsed. do you need this to be a conspiracy? is your life going to be any different if you found out they did collapse WTC 7 on purpose? I am focused on WTC7 (and I have said this before) because it is the weak link in the whole 9/11 cover up and it was not struck by a plane and because the likelihood that it was suddenly and totally demolished only because of a fire (that could barely be seen) is infinitesimal, if not impossible. That only means one thing. Inside job. DUH. It means that whoever is responsible for this terrorist act ... they are being protected for some reason. Begin with WTC7 and you will unravel the entire fiasco of deceit. Once the truth is discovered about WTC7, there will be many questions about how and why someone spent weeks preparing it for demolition. The answer to those question will open a huge can of worms that will lead to the truth about the Twin Towers. The owner getting "paid anyway" probably has nothing to do with it. That building was home for the offices of the secret service and the CIA and other government offices. There was probably a lot of evidence in those offices. Maybe incriminating evidence. Of course we will never know. http://wtc7.net/background.html who spent weeks preparing for it's destruction? Well well, are you actually asking a question? I thought you believed the official story, which alleges that WTC7 was brought down totally and SUDDENLY in near free fall speed by fire. IF it were discovered that that hypothesis was impossible and proven that the fire on the 12th floor fizzeled out too soon to get as hot as they claim, then they would have to consider explosives were involved. If they considered that, then they would be faced with the notion that to prepare a building for demolition via explosives of any kind, would take a lot of time, the least of all, a few weeks. Truth is, they probably had a LOT more time than that. Probably years to prepare for this event, which was originally planned in 1993. Now you ask WHO? The terrorists of course. The question of course is ... who are the real terrorists? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 04/26/12 08:52 PM
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert." Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible. )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... How is talking about an energy absorbent failure model not saying something intelligent?
gobble-de-****. The dribble that he posted did not address the actual subject of the post which was about the contradictions in the NIST reports. What real world evidence do they actually have that their was a towering inferno that burned to extraordinary temperatures for 7 hours when their own photo's show the fire on the 12th floor went out? No. I posted what it was really about. You appear to lack the vocabulary to even discuss the problem at all, much less intelligently. You don't even know what the report was about. How sad. Blah blah blah blah. If you knew as much as you claim you would be able to speak to a layman in plain language so they could understand what you are talking about. Instead, you purposely speak in terms that you know I am not familiar with, and about subjects that do not address the point I am making. I am not stupid. I am a lot more literate than you, as at least I know how to speak plain English. This is what you wrote: For the record, the one dimensional analysis was to develop absorptive energy models which were verified by an order of magnitude.
Rhetoric. I'm sure you can write the above in more simple language. What one dimensions analysis are you referring to? Are you talking about some mathematical equation? And why "one dimensional?" What do you mean by "models?" Verified by who or what? And what does any of that that have to do with the NIST report and their FABRICATIONS and contradictions about the real world evidence that the fires temperatures and how long they lasted, and the photos proving that their claims could not have been true? So if you really would like to communicate with me, you need to stop trying to make yourself look like a rocket scientist whom nobody can understand because you are just too over-educated. I certainly can read your sentences but they are meaningless in the context of being a response to my post. Perhaps the plan is to make the explanations so complicated that the average person and the politicians have no clue what it means. This model allowed us to predict how much each floor slowed the falling debris from above ... but when the absorptive energy is over a order of magnitude that required for halting the progression, it pretty much looks like free fall.
The model EXACTLY matched what I have have already posted here on these threads as the failure mode, which is explained in detail. I was not talking about the speed at which the building fell, so this response is just meaningless drivel. I am talking about real world evidence that there was no TOWERING INFERNO and that the 12th floor did not burn as long as they claim and that the information they fed into their calculations was just fabricated. So the math, the numbers, and the computer simulations are moot. They don't prove anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert." Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible. )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... huh... and you don't?... i think people on both sides should be more open to ideas from the other. but, some of the things truthers come up with are just weird... and funny too. I would listen to any credible scientist who had real world evidence and could explain in layman's terms how WTC7 collapsed from a fire alone. So far all the evidence has been mathematical equations and computer simulations programmed with various different information and fabrications until they could discover how it "might be possible" for the building to have collapsed totally with no explosives involved. I don't know of any building that has ever collapsed like that suddenly and totally from a fire, let alone a steel framed one. I watched a two story lumber company building made of dry wood burn all night (it got very hot too) and it did not collapse until all the wood frames were reduced to cinders. The combustibles in WTC7 were not even near what they were in that lumber company wood building. Common sense. Who do they think they are kidding anyway? I am shocked and disappointed that any scientist would buy into that extremely unlikely hypothesis that you call the "official story" of WTC7. what i don't understand is why you are so fixated on WTC 7. about a 6 block radius was completely destroyed, and all you want to talk about is WTC 7? was the owner not getting paid unless that building was destroyed too? even if they did "pull" it, like you like to say so much, what does it matter? nobody was inside, the owner was getting paid anyway, and 2000 people lost their lives when the other 2 collapsed. do you need this to be a conspiracy? is your life going to be any different if you found out they did collapse WTC 7 on purpose? I am focused on WTC7 (and I have said this before) because it is the weak link in the whole 9/11 cover up and it was not struck by a plane and because the likelihood that it was suddenly and totally demolished only because of a fire (that could barely be seen) is infinitesimal, if not impossible. That only means one thing. Inside job. DUH. It means that whoever is responsible for this terrorist act ... they are being protected for some reason. Begin with WTC7 and you will unravel the entire fiasco of deceit. Once the truth is discovered about WTC7, there will be many questions about how and why someone spent weeks preparing it for demolition. The answer to those question will open a huge can of worms that will lead to the truth about the Twin Towers. The owner getting "paid anyway" probably has nothing to do with it. That building was home for the offices of the secret service and the CIA and other government offices. There was probably a lot of evidence in those offices. Maybe incriminating evidence. Of course we will never know. http://wtc7.net/background.html who spent weeks preparing for it's destruction? Well well, are you actually asking a question? I thought you believed the official story, which alleges that WTC7 was brought down totally and SUDDENLY in near free fall speed by fire. IF it were discovered that that hypothesis was impossible and proven that the fire on the 12th floor fizzeled out too soon to get as hot as they claim, then they would have to consider explosives were involved. If they considered that, then they would be faced with the notion that to prepare a building for demolition via explosives of any kind, would take a lot of time, the least of all, a few weeks. Truth is, they probably had a LOT more time than that. Probably years to prepare for this event, which was originally planned in 1993. Now you ask WHO? The terrorists of course. The question of course is ... who are the real terrorists? so i guess the diesel fuel that ran the generators that was spilling all over the place had nothing to do with it? not to mention the sections of WTC 2 that weighed about 10 tons each, falling from about 90 floors up that peppered WTC 7 couldn't have weakened the structure? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 04/26/12 08:57 PM
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert." Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible. )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... huh... and you don't?... i think people on both sides should be more open to ideas from the other. but, some of the things truthers come up with are just weird... and funny too. I would listen to any credible scientist who had real world evidence and could explain in layman's terms how WTC7 collapsed from a fire alone. So far all the evidence has been mathematical equations and computer simulations programmed with various different information and fabrications until they could discover how it "might be possible" for the building to have collapsed totally with no explosives involved. I don't know of any building that has ever collapsed like that suddenly and totally from a fire, let alone a steel framed one. I watched a two story lumber company building made of dry wood burn all night (it got very hot too) and it did not collapse until all the wood frames were reduced to cinders. The combustibles in WTC7 were not even near what they were in that lumber company wood building. Common sense. Who do they think they are kidding anyway? I am shocked and disappointed that any scientist would buy into that extremely unlikely hypothesis that you call the "official story" of WTC7. what i don't understand is why you are so fixated on WTC 7. about a 6 block radius was completely destroyed, and all you want to talk about is WTC 7? was the owner not getting paid unless that building was destroyed too? even if they did "pull" it, like you like to say so much, what does it matter? nobody was inside, the owner was getting paid anyway, and 2000 people lost their lives when the other 2 collapsed. do you need this to be a conspiracy? is your life going to be any different if you found out they did collapse WTC 7 on purpose? I am focused on WTC7 (and I have said this before) because it is the weak link in the whole 9/11 cover up and it was not struck by a plane and because the likelihood that it was suddenly and totally demolished only because of a fire (that could barely be seen) is infinitesimal, if not impossible. That only means one thing. Inside job. DUH. It means that whoever is responsible for this terrorist act ... they are being protected for some reason. Begin with WTC7 and you will unravel the entire fiasco of deceit. Once the truth is discovered about WTC7, there will be many questions about how and why someone spent weeks preparing it for demolition. The answer to those question will open a huge can of worms that will lead to the truth about the Twin Towers. The owner getting "paid anyway" probably has nothing to do with it. That building was home for the offices of the secret service and the CIA and other government offices. There was probably a lot of evidence in those offices. Maybe incriminating evidence. Of course we will never know. http://wtc7.net/background.html who spent weeks preparing for it's destruction? Well well, are you actually asking a question? I thought you believed the official story, which alleges that WTC7 was brought down totally and SUDDENLY in near free fall speed by fire. IF it were discovered that that hypothesis was impossible and proven that the fire on the 12th floor fizzeled out too soon to get as hot as they claim, then they would have to consider explosives were involved. If they considered that, then they would be faced with the notion that to prepare a building for demolition via explosives of any kind, would take a lot of time, the least of all, a few weeks. Truth is, they probably had a LOT more time than that. Probably years to prepare for this event, which was originally planned in 1993. Now you ask WHO? The terrorists of course. The question of course is ... who are the real terrorists? so i guess the diesel fuel that ran the generators that was spilling all over the place had nothing to do with it? not to mention the sections of WTC 2 that weighed about 10 tons each, falling from about 90 floors up that peppered WTC 7 couldn't have weakened the structure? I am still discussing WTC7. I am not discussing WTC2. There was no diesel fuel running all over the place in WTC7. Did you read the final report? The final report stated that the building collapsed because of fire only. Not because of structural damage from falling debris from WTC2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert." Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible. )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... huh... and you don't?... i think people on both sides should be more open to ideas from the other. but, some of the things truthers come up with are just weird... and funny too. I would listen to any credible scientist who had real world evidence and could explain in layman's terms how WTC7 collapsed from a fire alone. So far all the evidence has been mathematical equations and computer simulations programmed with various different information and fabrications until they could discover how it "might be possible" for the building to have collapsed totally with no explosives involved. I don't know of any building that has ever collapsed like that suddenly and totally from a fire, let alone a steel framed one. I watched a two story lumber company building made of dry wood burn all night (it got very hot too) and it did not collapse until all the wood frames were reduced to cinders. The combustibles in WTC7 were not even near what they were in that lumber company wood building. Common sense. Who do they think they are kidding anyway? I am shocked and disappointed that any scientist would buy into that extremely unlikely hypothesis that you call the "official story" of WTC7. what i don't understand is why you are so fixated on WTC 7. about a 6 block radius was completely destroyed, and all you want to talk about is WTC 7? was the owner not getting paid unless that building was destroyed too? even if they did "pull" it, like you like to say so much, what does it matter? nobody was inside, the owner was getting paid anyway, and 2000 people lost their lives when the other 2 collapsed. do you need this to be a conspiracy? is your life going to be any different if you found out they did collapse WTC 7 on purpose? I am focused on WTC7 (and I have said this before) because it is the weak link in the whole 9/11 cover up and it was not struck by a plane and because the likelihood that it was suddenly and totally demolished only because of a fire (that could barely be seen) is infinitesimal, if not impossible. That only means one thing. Inside job. DUH. It means that whoever is responsible for this terrorist act ... they are being protected for some reason. Begin with WTC7 and you will unravel the entire fiasco of deceit. Once the truth is discovered about WTC7, there will be many questions about how and why someone spent weeks preparing it for demolition. The answer to those question will open a huge can of worms that will lead to the truth about the Twin Towers. The owner getting "paid anyway" probably has nothing to do with it. That building was home for the offices of the secret service and the CIA and other government offices. There was probably a lot of evidence in those offices. Maybe incriminating evidence. Of course we will never know. http://wtc7.net/background.html who spent weeks preparing for it's destruction? Well well, are you actually asking a question? I thought you believed the official story, which alleges that WTC7 was brought down totally and SUDDENLY in near free fall speed by fire. IF it were discovered that that hypothesis was impossible and proven that the fire on the 12th floor fizzeled out too soon to get as hot as they claim, then they would have to consider explosives were involved. If they considered that, then they would be faced with the notion that to prepare a building for demolition via explosives of any kind, would take a lot of time, the least of all, a few weeks. Truth is, they probably had a LOT more time than that. Probably years to prepare for this event, which was originally planned in 1993. Now you ask WHO? The terrorists of course. The question of course is ... who are the real terrorists? so i guess the diesel fuel that ran the generators that was spilling all over the place had nothing to do with it? not to mention the sections of WTC 2 that weighed about 10 tons each, falling from about 90 floors up that peppered WTC 7 couldn't have weakened the structure? I am still discussing WTC7. I am not discussing WTC2. read it again...thats why you can't understand simple physics, you cannot interpret what you read.... my whole response is about WTC 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was no diesel fuel running all over the place in WTC7. Did you read the final report? The final report stated that the building collapsed because of fire only. Not because of structural damage from falling debris from WTC2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was no diesel fuel running all over the place in WTC7. Did you read the final report? The final report stated that the building collapsed because of fire only. Not because of structural damage from falling debris from WTC2. see. your wrong again... i've already posted pictures and diagrams that refute everything you've said, and you just ignore them... try reading something besides a truther site, you might be a little more informed... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 04/26/12 09:57 PM
|
|
That report was published in 2006 and was simply NIST's "working hypothesis." Popular Mechanics rashly treated it as one of the "conclusions" reached by "hundreds of experts."
Popular Mechanics was even ready to announce that NIST's working hypothesis, which involved both debris-induced damage and long-burning fires fed by diesel fuel, had solved the mystery of WTC7's collapse. Although this collapse had been "initially puzzling to investigators," Popular Mechanics told the public in 2006, these investigators "now believe the building failed from a combination of long-burning fires in its interior and damage caused from the North Tower's collapse. Popular Mechanics was treating this working hypothesis as settled fact even though it admitted, NIST had not decided how the two elements in this hypothesis were related. The fact that Popular Mechanics could treat a preliminary report as definitive suggest that it was guided by a rather strong will to believe. NIST'S 2008 SOLUTION TO THE MYSTERY. NIST itself, in any case was evidently not so certain during that period that it had solved the mystery of WTC7. When asked early in 2006 why this building had collapsed, Sunder replied "Truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No 7." The NIST final report on WTC7 no longer affirms the two elements that, according to Popular Mechanics. had provided a satisfactory solution to the mystery of WTC7's collapse. That is (1) NIST no longer claims that the diesel fuel in WTC7 explained why the fires burned so long, saying instead that "fuel oil fires did not play a roll in the collapse of WTC7." NIST SAID THAT IN THEIR FINAL REPORT. They also no longer claim that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by damage inflicted on it by the North Tower debris, saying instead: "Other than initiating the fires in WTC7, the damage from the debris from WTC1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC7." So, I know you guys love to quote Popular Mechanics, but they are motivated by political agendas. You may need to study the final NIST report. That is what I have read. I have not set eyes on any "truther sites" I read real books and reports. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That report was published in 2006 and was simply NIST's "working hypothesis." Popular Mechanics rashly treated it as one of the "conclusions" reached by "hundreds of experts." Popular Mechanics was even ready to announce that NIST's working hypothesis, which involved both debris-induced damage and long-burning fires fed by diesel fuel, had solved the mystery of WTC7's collapse. Although this collapse had been "initially puzzling to investigators," Popular Mechanics told the public in 2006, these investigators "now believe the building failed from a combination of long-burning fires in its interior and damage caused from the North Tower's collapse. Popular Mechanics was treating this working hypothesis as settled fact even though it admitted, NIST had not decided how the two elements in this hypothesis were related. The fact that Popular Mechanics could treat a preliminary report as definitive suggest that it was guided by a rather strong will to believe. NIST'S 2008 SOLUTION TO THE MYSTERY. NIST itself, in any case was evidently not so certain during that period that it had solved the mystery of WTC7. When asked early in 2006 why this building had collapsed, Sunder replied "Truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No 7." The NIST final report on WTC7 no longer affirms the two elements that, according to Popular Mechanics. had provided a satisfactory solution to the mystery of WTC7's collapse. That is (1) NIST no longer claims that the diesel fuel in WTC7 explained why the fires burned so long, saying instead that "fuel oil fires did not play a roll in the collapse of WTC7." NIST SAID THAT IN THEIR FINAL REPORT. They also no longer claim that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by damage inflicted on it by the North Tower debris, saying instead: "Other than initiating the fires in WTC7, the damage from the debris from WTC1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC7." So, I know you guys love to quote Popular Mechanics, but they are motivated by political agendas. You may need to study the final NIST report. That is what I have read. I have not set eyes on any "truther sites" I read real books and reports. huh... so according to you and NIST, they were magic fires?... how did they start if the fuel had nothing to do with it? they also have pictures of the debris falling on the building and of the fires on the inside... and numerous reports of a 20 story hole in the building... but since you don't read anything that goes against what you say, you couldn't have known that... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That report was published in 2006 and was simply NIST's "working hypothesis." Popular Mechanics rashly treated it as one of the "conclusions" reached by "hundreds of experts." Popular Mechanics was even ready to announce that NIST's working hypothesis, which involved both debris-induced damage and long-burning fires fed by diesel fuel, had solved the mystery of WTC7's collapse. Although this collapse had been "initially puzzling to investigators," Popular Mechanics told the public in 2006, these investigators "now believe the building failed from a combination of long-burning fires in its interior and damage caused from the North Tower's collapse. Popular Mechanics was treating this working hypothesis as settled fact even though it admitted, NIST had not decided how the two elements in this hypothesis were related. The fact that Popular Mechanics could treat a preliminary report as definitive suggest that it was guided by a rather strong will to believe. NIST'S 2008 SOLUTION TO THE MYSTERY. NIST itself, in any case was evidently not so certain during that period that it had solved the mystery of WTC7. When asked early in 2006 why this building had collapsed, Sunder replied "Truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No 7." The NIST final report on WTC7 no longer affirms the two elements that, according to Popular Mechanics. had provided a satisfactory solution to the mystery of WTC7's collapse. That is (1) NIST no longer claims that the diesel fuel in WTC7 explained why the fires burned so long, saying instead that "fuel oil fires did not play a roll in the collapse of WTC7." NIST SAID THAT IN THEIR FINAL REPORT. They also no longer claim that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by damage inflicted on it by the North Tower debris, saying instead: "Other than initiating the fires in WTC7, the damage from the debris from WTC1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC7." So, I know you guys love to quote Popular Mechanics, but they are motivated by political agendas. You may need to study the final NIST report. That is what I have read. I have not set eyes on any "truther sites" I read real books and reports. huh... so according to you and NIST, they were magic fires?... how did they start if the fuel had nothing to do with it? they also have pictures of the debris falling on the building and of the fires on the inside... and numerous reports of a 20 story hole in the building... but since you don't read anything that goes against what you say, you couldn't have known that... What part of this statement do you not understand? ====================================================== NIST no longer claims that the diesel fuel in WTC7 explained why the fires burned so long, saying instead that "fuel oil fires did not play a roll in the collapse of WTC7." NIST SAID THAT IN THEIR FINAL REPORT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That report was published in 2006 and was simply NIST's "working hypothesis." Popular Mechanics rashly treated it as one of the "conclusions" reached by "hundreds of experts." Popular Mechanics was even ready to announce that NIST's working hypothesis, which involved both debris-induced damage and long-burning fires fed by diesel fuel, had solved the mystery of WTC7's collapse. Although this collapse had been "initially puzzling to investigators," Popular Mechanics told the public in 2006, these investigators "now believe the building failed from a combination of long-burning fires in its interior and damage caused from the North Tower's collapse. Popular Mechanics was treating this working hypothesis as settled fact even though it admitted, NIST had not decided how the two elements in this hypothesis were related. The fact that Popular Mechanics could treat a preliminary report as definitive suggest that it was guided by a rather strong will to believe. NIST'S 2008 SOLUTION TO THE MYSTERY. NIST itself, in any case was evidently not so certain during that period that it had solved the mystery of WTC7. When asked early in 2006 why this building had collapsed, Sunder replied "Truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No 7." The NIST final report on WTC7 no longer affirms the two elements that, according to Popular Mechanics. had provided a satisfactory solution to the mystery of WTC7's collapse. That is (1) NIST no longer claims that the diesel fuel in WTC7 explained why the fires burned so long, saying instead that "fuel oil fires did not play a roll in the collapse of WTC7." NIST SAID THAT IN THEIR FINAL REPORT. They also no longer claim that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by damage inflicted on it by the North Tower debris, saying instead: "Other than initiating the fires in WTC7, the damage from the debris from WTC1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC7." So, I know you guys love to quote Popular Mechanics, but they are motivated by political agendas. You may need to study the final NIST report. That is what I have read. I have not set eyes on any "truther sites" I read real books and reports. huh... so according to you and NIST, they were magic fires?... how did they start if the fuel had nothing to do with it? they also have pictures of the debris falling on the building and of the fires on the inside... and numerous reports of a 20 story hole in the building... but since you don't read anything that goes against what you say, you couldn't have known that... What part of this statement do you not understand? ====================================================== NIST no longer claims that the diesel fuel in WTC7 explained why the fires burned so long, saying instead that "fuel oil fires did not play a roll in the collapse of WTC7." NIST SAID THAT IN THEIR FINAL REPORT well, just like you truthers, i don't believe very much yall type in here.... i'll look it up for myself later, at a real website... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That report was published in 2006 and was simply NIST's "working hypothesis." Popular Mechanics rashly treated it as one of the "conclusions" reached by "hundreds of experts." Popular Mechanics was even ready to announce that NIST's working hypothesis, which involved both debris-induced damage and long-burning fires fed by diesel fuel, had solved the mystery of WTC7's collapse. Although this collapse had been "initially puzzling to investigators," Popular Mechanics told the public in 2006, these investigators "now believe the building failed from a combination of long-burning fires in its interior and damage caused from the North Tower's collapse. Popular Mechanics was treating this working hypothesis as settled fact even though it admitted, NIST had not decided how the two elements in this hypothesis were related. The fact that Popular Mechanics could treat a preliminary report as definitive suggest that it was guided by a rather strong will to believe. NIST'S 2008 SOLUTION TO THE MYSTERY. NIST itself, in any case was evidently not so certain during that period that it had solved the mystery of WTC7. When asked early in 2006 why this building had collapsed, Sunder replied "Truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No 7." The NIST final report on WTC7 no longer affirms the two elements that, according to Popular Mechanics. had provided a satisfactory solution to the mystery of WTC7's collapse. That is (1) NIST no longer claims that the diesel fuel in WTC7 explained why the fires burned so long, saying instead that "fuel oil fires did not play a roll in the collapse of WTC7." NIST SAID THAT IN THEIR FINAL REPORT. They also no longer claim that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by damage inflicted on it by the North Tower debris, saying instead: "Other than initiating the fires in WTC7, the damage from the debris from WTC1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC7." So, I know you guys love to quote Popular Mechanics, but they are motivated by political agendas. You may need to study the final NIST report. That is what I have read. I have not set eyes on any "truther sites" I read real books and reports. huh... so according to you and NIST, they were magic fires?... how did they start if the fuel had nothing to do with it? they also have pictures of the debris falling on the building and of the fires on the inside... and numerous reports of a 20 story hole in the building... but since you don't read anything that goes against what you say, you couldn't have known that... What part of this statement do you not understand? ====================================================== NIST no longer claims that the diesel fuel in WTC7 explained why the fires burned so long, saying instead that "fuel oil fires did not play a roll in the collapse of WTC7." NIST SAID THAT IN THEIR FINAL REPORT well, just like you truthers, i don't believe very much yall type in here.... i'll look it up for myself later, at a real website... Only Quoting The National Institute of Standards and Technology 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That report was published in 2006 and was simply NIST's "working hypothesis." Popular Mechanics rashly treated it as one of the "conclusions" reached by "hundreds of experts." Popular Mechanics was even ready to announce that NIST's working hypothesis, which involved both debris-induced damage and long-burning fires fed by diesel fuel, had solved the mystery of WTC7's collapse. Although this collapse had been "initially puzzling to investigators," Popular Mechanics told the public in 2006, these investigators "now believe the building failed from a combination of long-burning fires in its interior and damage caused from the North Tower's collapse. Popular Mechanics was treating this working hypothesis as settled fact even though it admitted, NIST had not decided how the two elements in this hypothesis were related. The fact that Popular Mechanics could treat a preliminary report as definitive suggest that it was guided by a rather strong will to believe. NIST'S 2008 SOLUTION TO THE MYSTERY. NIST itself, in any case was evidently not so certain during that period that it had solved the mystery of WTC7. When asked early in 2006 why this building had collapsed, Sunder replied "Truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No 7." The NIST final report on WTC7 no longer affirms the two elements that, according to Popular Mechanics. had provided a satisfactory solution to the mystery of WTC7's collapse. That is (1) NIST no longer claims that the diesel fuel in WTC7 explained why the fires burned so long, saying instead that "fuel oil fires did not play a roll in the collapse of WTC7." NIST SAID THAT IN THEIR FINAL REPORT. They also no longer claim that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by damage inflicted on it by the North Tower debris, saying instead: "Other than initiating the fires in WTC7, the damage from the debris from WTC1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC7." So, I know you guys love to quote Popular Mechanics, but they are motivated by political agendas. You may need to study the final NIST report. That is what I have read. I have not set eyes on any "truther sites" I read real books and reports. huh... so according to you and NIST, they were magic fires?... how did they start if the fuel had nothing to do with it? they also have pictures of the debris falling on the building and of the fires on the inside... and numerous reports of a 20 story hole in the building... but since you don't read anything that goes against what you say, you couldn't have known that... What part of this statement do you not understand? ====================================================== NIST no longer claims that the diesel fuel in WTC7 explained why the fires burned so long, saying instead that "fuel oil fires did not play a roll in the collapse of WTC7." NIST SAID THAT IN THEIR FINAL REPORT well, just like you truthers, i don't believe very much yall type in here.... i'll look it up for myself later, at a real website... Only Quoting The National Institute of Standards and Technology
i guess we will see, i'm downloading the PDF version right now.... 160 pages.... |
|
|
|
|
