100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Fake Skeptics & The "Conspiracy Theorist" Slur | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The guy in the OP video makes a big deal about fake blah blah blah and slurs about CT and then goes on defending one of the most common CT stories surrounding 9/11. The problem with these clowns is that they make false statements and then make up crap to defend the false statements. The whole "explosives used in building 7" story has been debunked from every possible direction. It is time to give it up. That is so funny. Building 7 was taken down by explosives and that has been pretty much proven. Please provide a link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper (not a blog) that proves this. I would find that most interesting. There is no "single" blog. There are dozens of experts who agree who are not bullied by the crap put out by the cover up. Demolition experts and other professionals. I am sure if you were motivated to learn the truth you can find them on your own. But you are simply a defender of officialdom and an admitted CIA plant. LOL Please provide a link if you would be so kind. After all, I've presented a scientific paper proving otherwise, it's the least you could do. Please provide this alleged scientific paper. I did not ever see it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Thu 01/24/13 09:38 PM
|
|
The guy in the OP video makes a big deal about fake blah blah blah and slurs about CT and then goes on defending one of the most common CT stories surrounding 9/11. The problem with these clowns is that they make false statements and then make up crap to defend the false statements. The whole "explosives used in building 7" story has been debunked from every possible direction. It is time to give it up. That is so funny. Building 7 was taken down by explosives and that has been pretty much proven. Please provide a link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper (not a blog) that proves this. I would find that most interesting. There is no "single" blog. There are dozens of experts who agree who are not bullied by the crap put out by the cover up. Demolition experts and other professionals. I am sure if you were motivated to learn the truth you can find them on your own. But you are simply a defender of officialdom and an admitted CIA plant. LOL Please provide a link if you would be so kind. After all, I've presented a scientific paper proving otherwise, it's the least you could do. Please provide this alleged scientific paper. I did not ever see it. The paper about the 'thermitic dust residue' posted on the previous page. Here it is again. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf Now, you do remember that the thermitic residue is the basis for the CD theory, don't you? Now this paper debunk's Bentham's paper that started the whole CD theory as initially proposed by Gage and later adopted by all and sundry. Please note that this test was conducted by an independent company. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 01/24/13 09:41 PM
|
|
The guy in the OP video makes a big deal about fake blah blah blah and slurs about CT and then goes on defending one of the most common CT stories surrounding 9/11. The problem with these clowns is that they make false statements and then make up crap to defend the false statements. The whole "explosives used in building 7" story has been debunked from every possible direction. It is time to give it up. That is so funny. Building 7 was taken down by explosives and that has been pretty much proven. Please provide a link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper (not a blog) that proves this. I would find that most interesting. There is no "single" blog. There are dozens of experts who agree who are not bullied by the crap put out by the cover up. Demolition experts and other professionals. I am sure if you were motivated to learn the truth you can find them on your own. But you are simply a defender of officialdom and an admitted CIA plant. LOL Please provide a link if you would be so kind. After all, I've presented a scientific paper proving otherwise, it's the least you could do. Please provide this alleged scientific paper. I did not ever see it. The paper about the 'thermitic dust residue' posted on the previous page. Here it is again. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf Now, you do remember that the thermitic residue is the basis for the CD theory, don't you? Now this paper debunk's Bentham's paper that started the whole CD theory as initially proposed by Gage and later adopted by all and sundry. That paper appears to be a very narrow study about thermite dust at WTC area. and does not address what caused building 7 to collapse and does nothing to "debunk" expert opinions that Building 7 was a very controlled demolition, or how building 7, which was not hit by a plane managed such a clean near free fall to the ground all at once. It would be a bit of a waste of time to read it in detail because it addresses a specific theory that I am not familiar with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The simple common sense truth is that the reason for the collapse of building 7 has not been addressed by officialdom. They simply state that no explosives were found. But when asked if they looked for explosives, their answer was NO.
There was no evidence of explosives found at Building 7 because they did NOT LOOK FOR THEM. END OF STORY. But demolition experts from all over the world see that footage and guess what they say? Without explosives building 7 would not have fallen in the way it did. It would be IMPOSSIBLE. I believe them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Thu 01/24/13 10:26 PM
|
|
The guy in the OP video makes a big deal about fake blah blah blah and slurs about CT and then goes on defending one of the most common CT stories surrounding 9/11. The problem with these clowns is that they make false statements and then make up crap to defend the false statements. The whole "explosives used in building 7" story has been debunked from every possible direction. It is time to give it up. That is so funny. Building 7 was taken down by explosives and that has been pretty much proven. Please provide a link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper (not a blog) that proves this. I would find that most interesting. There is no "single" blog. There are dozens of experts who agree who are not bullied by the crap put out by the cover up. Demolition experts and other professionals. I am sure if you were motivated to learn the truth you can find them on your own. But you are simply a defender of officialdom and an admitted CIA plant. LOL Please provide a link if you would be so kind. After all, I've presented a scientific paper proving otherwise, it's the least you could do. Please provide this alleged scientific paper. I did not ever see it. The paper about the 'thermitic dust residue' posted on the previous page. Here it is again. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf Now, you do remember that the thermitic residue is the basis for the CD theory, don't you? Now this paper debunk's Bentham's paper that started the whole CD theory as initially proposed by Gage and later adopted by all and sundry. That paper appears to be a very narrow study about thermite dust at WTC area. and does not address what caused building 7 to collapse and does nothing to "debunk" expert opinions that Building 7 was a very controlled demolition, or how building 7, which was not hit by a plane managed such a clean near free fall to the ground all at once. It would be a bit of a waste of time to read it in detail because it addresses a specific theory that I am not familiar with. I knew you'd find an excuse not to read it. No matter. The claims of explosives originated from Bentham's paper that analysed the WTC dust and supposedly found residue of thermitic material. This paper analyses the samples and shows otherwise. Without the thermitic residue claim, the CD believers have nothing to stand on. Are you telling me you don't know why you believe in the CD theory? It is becoming apparent from recent exchanges, that you don't know much about this subject at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Thu 01/24/13 10:25 PM
|
|
The simple common sense truth is that the reason for the collapse of building 7 has not been addressed by officialdom. They simply state that no explosives were found. But when asked if they looked for explosives, their answer was NO. Why would they? The notion is insane. There was no evidence of explosives found at Building 7 because they did NOT LOOK FOR THEM. END OF STORY. Why would they? It's insane. But demolition experts from all over the world see that footage and guess what they say? Without explosives building 7 would not have fallen in the way it did. It would be IMPOSSIBLE. No sources provided, of course. And demolition experts, engineers and firefighters all over the world have no problem with understanding WTC7's collapse. Would you like sources that you won't read? Try this: http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=18&id=86 There's 109 pages on WTC7, but it comprehensively covers the majority of the hypotheses. I have plenty more if you'd like to view those. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The simple common sense truth is that the reason for the collapse of building 7 has not been addressed by officialdom. They simply state that no explosives were found. But when asked if they looked for explosives, their answer was NO. Why would they? The notion is insane. There was no evidence of explosives found at Building 7 because they did NOT LOOK FOR THEM. END OF STORY. Why would they? It's insane. But demolition experts from all over the world see that footage and guess what they say? Without explosives building 7 would not have fallen in the way it did. It would be IMPOSSIBLE. No sources provided, of course. And demolition experts, engineers and firefighters all over the world have no problem with understanding WTC7's collapse. Would you like sources that you won't read? Try this: http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=18&id=86 There's 109 pages on WTC7, but it comprehensively covers the majority of the hypotheses. I have plenty more if you'd like to view those. I also provided the ASCE sources of how building 7 actually fell in these threads months ago but, as usual, the CT posters here now claim they never existed. I lost count of the number of sources that show that the steel lost sufficient strength at 1000F to support the structural loading but a few weeks go by and they come back with the same absurd claims. It's just the same inability to learn. I also lost count of the number of explanations as to why explosives could not have been used. It's just more of the lightless, soundless, heatless, magical explosive nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The simple common sense truth is that the reason for the collapse of building 7 has not been addressed by officialdom. They simply state that no explosives were found. But when asked if they looked for explosives, their answer was NO. There was no evidence of explosives found at Building 7 because they did NOT LOOK FOR THEM. END OF STORY. But demolition experts from all over the world see that footage and guess what they say? Without explosives building 7 would not have fallen in the way it did. It would be IMPOSSIBLE. I believe them. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still like the nano thermite theory! As the prof said (since fired from his job) 'hundreds of tons!' and then, we learn it can be mixed with regular explosive and painted onto beams but of course, CTs can't decide if it was melting steel or exploding it.
Hundreds of tons, painted onto beams. Mixed with regular everyday corner store C4 and brought up in lunch buckets, five pounds at a time for ............... let's see ......... five pounds, and a hundred tons ...................... that's two hundred thousand pounds ................... five pounds for forty thousand trips with the thermite not to mention the C4. Or, Jeb Bush helping (Cheney's heart wouldn't take the strain), that's only twenty thousand trips a piece just to get the stuff there. Ok, so, is there any record of workers all over the place with buckets of slop bringing hundreds of tons into the access panels to paint this crap onto the beams and pillars? And, when working with slop, it doesn't all go where you want it to, is there any record of people over the months/weeks/years whatever getting sick from having a strange substance (which explosives do to people) getting sick from contact their skin and even their food or drink? That is probably the main evidence that there was an inside job is the sickness rate of the people who worked in the WTC. And, now we have to get the charges up there remembering that every place there was this 'special' material sloped on, it has to blow as the evidence can't remain as some shmuck worker on the ground might pull up a fragment of metal with a piece of det cord, remote det or whatever on it attatched to some painted on explosive thermite which didn't go off. So, that's a lot of stuff to get done. Lot of people. Lot of construction people with passes, excuses, paychecks etc. All without being noticed by the union who took care of the buildings. How did they do it? And, without anybody getting sick, spilling one once of this stuff onto the carpets, clothes, into the air ducts, and without being noticed? And the unions had no problem i with these non union guys just doing all this work too. And ... everything hinges on the planes hitting the buildings. If they don't hit, the explosives will be discovered and the guys that put it all there (100 - 1000 non union guys) will get lethal injections. They have no problem doing this work over weeks or months knowing that their *** is covered by dirty terrorists living in caves in Afghanistan so, are in like a dirty shirt. on the big day, they're nervous, they have to have the explosive evidence all destroyed or their *** is toast in Terra Haute so they're anxious yet, once the planes hit, they wait ............ calmly waiting ........ they need all the evidence to go up. They can't have any inspector see the explosives, wires, detonators, remote devices whatever yet they wait ....... and wait ........ long after they could logically blow the building .........rolling on the floor laughing with the sleep sleepsleep WT7 just sitting there with anybody who wants to find the explosives there about to expose the whole thing sending them all to the injection chamber and then ........ They blow it. Nothing far fetched going on there. Union guys risking their lives on the promise that some dudes living in a cave will come through with an elaborate plan kept secret for years and on four separate planes. And nobody has said a word, nobody has had any seocnd thoughts of guilt, nobody has found religion or guilt in all this time. Nobody has gotten murdered, none of the people who are exposing this conspiracy are being silenced. The entire government of the USA wants them dead and here they are, just targets for a poisoning, letter bomb, faulty ground in a hot tub, a heart attack and ......... they're all still spewing the nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
best answer from wiki answers.
What caused world trade center building seven to collapse? Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_caused_world_trade_center_building_seven_to_collapse#ixzz2IymLeUq2 est Answer The National Institute of Standards and Technology prepared the original report on the collapses of the WTC buildings, which was released in 2002. It did not even mention Building 7. This was because Bldg. 7 was not hit by a plane, came down at freefall acceleration for the first 100 feet, and came straight down in a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint, and NIST had no explanation, so they just left it out. That's quite an omission. It wasn't until about 2009 that NIST released their report on Bldg. 7, claiming that the 47-story fire-proofed steel structure collapsed because fire destroyed one column, and the failure of that one column precipitated a global collapse. This explanation, which is similar to the explanation for the collapse of Bldgs. 1 and 2, violates the laws of physics. The only way an object can descend at freefall acceleration is if there is absolutely no resistance from below. There were about 60,000 tons of structural steel below, which would require a tremendous amount of energy, which would be transferred from the descending mass to the remaining structure, and thus the acceleration would be significantly less than freefall. Also, the fact that the collapses of all 3 buildings were straight down can only be explained by the fact that all of the columns at every level all failed at precisely the same instant. The probability that a fire starting at one corner of the building would damage all columns, all carrying different loads and all being different sizes, to their individual failure points all at the same instant, is too small to calculate. And this occurred not at just one level, but every level. This makes the event sequence that much more improbable. Add to this the fact that the structural members become larger and more massive the lower the mass descends, and the concept of a lighter top structure crushing a heavier lower structure, through the path of greatest resistance, is an untenable story. The buildings failed in a sudden, brittle manner, like they were made of glass, and not the very ductile steel which is designed by metallurgists specifically to have a very predictable response to overload by ensuring that it has a wide elastic range where the material acts like a spring, and with increasing overload there is a wide plastic range where the material deforms like taffy without any increased resistance to load, followed by a strain-hardening range where the failure planes begin to interlock, which provides increasing resistance to load, up to the failure point. All of these deformations absorb energy, and are clearly visible to the naked eye, as well as being detectable with unaided hearing. All these considerations make freefall collapse due to normal overloading impossible. The only mechanism available to make these collapses happen the way that they did is controlled demolition. All the specimens of the dust spread over lower Manhattan contain microspheres of iron, as well as aluminum oxide and chips of unexploded nanothermite. These are the compounds that result from combustion of nanothermite. Nanothermite is an ultra-fine powdered combination of iron oxide and aluminum. During the ignition, the aluminum captures the oxygen from the iron oxide to form molten iron and aluminum oxide. The molten iron in freefall forms a perfect sphere, just as droplets of water from a spray bottle. When NIST was asked if they found any evidence of nanothermite, they replied that they had not. They were then asked if they looked for it, and they replied that they had not. Pretty hard to find something you're not looking for. The final evidence that nanothermite was used are the NASA infrared satellite photos taken 3 weeks after 9/11 showing temperatures of the basements to be 1800 degrees. Remember that jet fuel only burns at a temperature of 1600 degrees, and steel melts at 2800 degrees, and that nanothermite produces 4850 degrees. In conclusion, all the forensic evidence points to the scientific conclusion that nanothermite charges caused the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11/01. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_caused_world_trade_center_building_seven_to_collapse#ixzz2IymSXCLi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Fri 01/25/13 02:09 AM
|
|
best answer from wiki answers. What caused world trade center building seven to collapse? Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_caused_world_trade_center_building_seven_to_collapse#ixzz2IymLeUq2 est Answer The National Institute of Standards and Technology prepared the original report on the collapses of the WTC buildings, which was released in 2002. It did not even mention Building 7. This was because Bldg. 7 was not hit by a plane, came down at freefall acceleration for the first 100 feet, and came straight down in a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint, and NIST had no explanation, so they just left it out. That's quite an omission. It wasn't until about 2009 that NIST released their report on Bldg. 7, claiming that the 47-story fire-proofed steel structure collapsed because fire destroyed one column, and the failure of that one column precipitated a global collapse. This explanation, which is similar to the explanation for the collapse of Bldgs. 1 and 2, violates the laws of physics. The only way an object can descend at freefall acceleration is if there is absolutely no resistance from below. There were about 60,000 tons of structural steel below, which would require a tremendous amount of energy, which would be transferred from the descending mass to the remaining structure, and thus the acceleration would be significantly less than freefall. Also, the fact that the collapses of all 3 buildings were straight down can only be explained by the fact that all of the columns at every level all failed at precisely the same instant. The probability that a fire starting at one corner of the building would damage all columns, all carrying different loads and all being different sizes, to their individual failure points all at the same instant, is too small to calculate. And this occurred not at just one level, but every level. This makes the event sequence that much more improbable. Add to this the fact that the structural members become larger and more massive the lower the mass descends, and the concept of a lighter top structure crushing a heavier lower structure, through the path of greatest resistance, is an untenable story. The buildings failed in a sudden, brittle manner, like they were made of glass, and not the very ductile steel which is designed by metallurgists specifically to have a very predictable response to overload by ensuring that it has a wide elastic range where the material acts like a spring, and with increasing overload there is a wide plastic range where the material deforms like taffy without any increased resistance to load, followed by a strain-hardening range where the failure planes begin to interlock, which provides increasing resistance to load, up to the failure point. All of these deformations absorb energy, and are clearly visible to the naked eye, as well as being detectable with unaided hearing. All these considerations make freefall collapse due to normal overloading impossible. The only mechanism available to make these collapses happen the way that they did is controlled demolition. All the specimens of the dust spread over lower Manhattan contain microspheres of iron, as well as aluminum oxide and chips of unexploded nanothermite. These are the compounds that result from combustion of nanothermite. Nanothermite is an ultra-fine powdered combination of iron oxide and aluminum. During the ignition, the aluminum captures the oxygen from the iron oxide to form molten iron and aluminum oxide. The molten iron in freefall forms a perfect sphere, just as droplets of water from a spray bottle. When NIST was asked if they found any evidence of nanothermite, they replied that they had not. They were then asked if they looked for it, and they replied that they had not. Pretty hard to find something you're not looking for. The final evidence that nanothermite was used are the NASA infrared satellite photos taken 3 weeks after 9/11 showing temperatures of the basements to be 1800 degrees. Remember that jet fuel only burns at a temperature of 1600 degrees, and steel melts at 2800 degrees, and that nanothermite produces 4850 degrees. In conclusion, all the forensic evidence points to the scientific conclusion that nanothermite charges caused the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11/01. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_caused_world_trade_center_building_seven_to_collapse#ixzz2IymSXCLi Besides,the biggest flaw of them all! All the Thermites can only act on horizontal Surfaces! Unless you introduce Steeleating Termites! and it really is time for the CTs to stop chewing the same debunked Cud every couple of weeks! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
best answer from wiki answers. What caused world trade center building seven to collapse? Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_caused_world_trade_center_building_seven_to_collapse#ixzz2IymLeUq2 est Answer The National Institute of Standards and Technology prepared the original report on the collapses of the WTC buildings, which was released in 2002. It did not even mention Building 7. This was because Bldg. 7 was not hit by a plane, came down at freefall acceleration for the first 100 feet, and came straight down in a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint, and NIST had no explanation, so they just left it out. That's quite an omission. It wasn't until about 2009 that NIST released their report on Bldg. 7, claiming that the 47-story fire-proofed steel structure collapsed because fire destroyed one column, and the failure of that one column precipitated a global collapse. This explanation, which is similar to the explanation for the collapse of Bldgs. 1 and 2, violates the laws of physics. The only way an object can descend at freefall acceleration is if there is absolutely no resistance from below. There were about 60,000 tons of structural steel below, which would require a tremendous amount of energy, which would be transferred from the descending mass to the remaining structure, and thus the acceleration would be significantly less than freefall. Also, the fact that the collapses of all 3 buildings were straight down can only be explained by the fact that all of the columns at every level all failed at precisely the same instant. The probability that a fire starting at one corner of the building would damage all columns, all carrying different loads and all being different sizes, to their individual failure points all at the same instant, is too small to calculate. And this occurred not at just one level, but every level. This makes the event sequence that much more improbable. Add to this the fact that the structural members become larger and more massive the lower the mass descends, and the concept of a lighter top structure crushing a heavier lower structure, through the path of greatest resistance, is an untenable story. The buildings failed in a sudden, brittle manner, like they were made of glass, and not the very ductile steel which is designed by metallurgists specifically to have a very predictable response to overload by ensuring that it has a wide elastic range where the material acts like a spring, and with increasing overload there is a wide plastic range where the material deforms like taffy without any increased resistance to load, followed by a strain-hardening range where the failure planes begin to interlock, which provides increasing resistance to load, up to the failure point. All of these deformations absorb energy, and are clearly visible to the naked eye, as well as being detectable with unaided hearing. All these considerations make freefall collapse due to normal overloading impossible. The only mechanism available to make these collapses happen the way that they did is controlled demolition. All the specimens of the dust spread over lower Manhattan contain microspheres of iron, as well as aluminum oxide and chips of unexploded nanothermite. These are the compounds that result from combustion of nanothermite. Nanothermite is an ultra-fine powdered combination of iron oxide and aluminum. During the ignition, the aluminum captures the oxygen from the iron oxide to form molten iron and aluminum oxide. The molten iron in freefall forms a perfect sphere, just as droplets of water from a spray bottle. When NIST was asked if they found any evidence of nanothermite, they replied that they had not. They were then asked if they looked for it, and they replied that they had not. Pretty hard to find something you're not looking for. The final evidence that nanothermite was used are the NASA infrared satellite photos taken 3 weeks after 9/11 showing temperatures of the basements to be 1800 degrees. Remember that jet fuel only burns at a temperature of 1600 degrees, and steel melts at 2800 degrees, and that nanothermite produces 4850 degrees. In conclusion, all the forensic evidence points to the scientific conclusion that nanothermite charges caused the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11/01. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_caused_world_trade_center_building_seven_to_collapse#ixzz2IymSXCLi Obviously not written by somebody who is up to date on the science either. All the specimens of the dust spread over lower Manhattan contain microspheres of iron, as well as aluminum oxide and chips of unexploded nanothermite. These are the compounds that result from combustion of nanothermite. Nanothermite is an ultra-fine powdered combination of iron oxide and aluminum. During the ignition, the aluminum captures the oxygen from the iron oxide to form molten iron and aluminum oxide. The molten iron in freefall forms a perfect sphere, just as droplets of water from a spray bottle. This, is of course, the 'evidence' for a CD. When the samples were examined by an independent scientific body, they were found to show no evidence of thermite (standard, nano or super). I posted the paper for you earlier. It would've been a good idea to read that before posting this. When NIST was asked if they found any evidence of nanothermite, they replied that they had not. They were then asked if they looked for it, and they replied that they had not. Pretty hard to find something you're not looking for. Again, CTer's see this as evidence of a cover-up, however, why would they look for it? The very idea is crazy and lacks any fundamental logic. Why waste time and funding on such a stupid idea? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
best answer from wiki answers. What caused world trade center building seven to collapse? Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_caused_world_trade_center_building_seven_to_collapse#ixzz2IymLeUq2 est Answer The National Institute of Standards and Technology prepared the original report on the collapses of the WTC buildings, which was released in 2002. It did not even mention Building 7. This was because Bldg. 7 was not hit by a plane, came down at freefall acceleration for the first 100 feet, and came straight down in a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint, and NIST had no explanation, so they just left it out. That's quite an omission. It wasn't until about 2009 that NIST released their report on Bldg. 7, claiming that the 47-story fire-proofed steel structure collapsed because fire destroyed one column, and the failure of that one column precipitated a global collapse. This explanation, which is similar to the explanation for the collapse of Bldgs. 1 and 2, violates the laws of physics. The only way an object can descend at freefall acceleration is if there is absolutely no resistance from below. There were about 60,000 tons of structural steel below, which would require a tremendous amount of energy, which would be transferred from the descending mass to the remaining structure, and thus the acceleration would be significantly less than freefall. Also, the fact that the collapses of all 3 buildings were straight down can only be explained by the fact that all of the columns at every level all failed at precisely the same instant. The probability that a fire starting at one corner of the building would damage all columns, all carrying different loads and all being different sizes, to their individual failure points all at the same instant, is too small to calculate. And this occurred not at just one level, but every level. This makes the event sequence that much more improbable. Add to this the fact that the structural members become larger and more massive the lower the mass descends, and the concept of a lighter top structure crushing a heavier lower structure, through the path of greatest resistance, is an untenable story. The buildings failed in a sudden, brittle manner, like they were made of glass, and not the very ductile steel which is designed by metallurgists specifically to have a very predictable response to overload by ensuring that it has a wide elastic range where the material acts like a spring, and with increasing overload there is a wide plastic range where the material deforms like taffy without any increased resistance to load, followed by a strain-hardening range where the failure planes begin to interlock, which provides increasing resistance to load, up to the failure point. All of these deformations absorb energy, and are clearly visible to the naked eye, as well as being detectable with unaided hearing. All these considerations make freefall collapse due to normal overloading impossible. The only mechanism available to make these collapses happen the way that they did is controlled demolition. All the specimens of the dust spread over lower Manhattan contain microspheres of iron, as well as aluminum oxide and chips of unexploded nanothermite. These are the compounds that result from combustion of nanothermite. Nanothermite is an ultra-fine powdered combination of iron oxide and aluminum. During the ignition, the aluminum captures the oxygen from the iron oxide to form molten iron and aluminum oxide. The molten iron in freefall forms a perfect sphere, just as droplets of water from a spray bottle. When NIST was asked if they found any evidence of nanothermite, they replied that they had not. They were then asked if they looked for it, and they replied that they had not. Pretty hard to find something you're not looking for. The final evidence that nanothermite was used are the NASA infrared satellite photos taken 3 weeks after 9/11 showing temperatures of the basements to be 1800 degrees. Remember that jet fuel only burns at a temperature of 1600 degrees, and steel melts at 2800 degrees, and that nanothermite produces 4850 degrees. In conclusion, all the forensic evidence points to the scientific conclusion that nanothermite charges caused the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11/01. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_caused_world_trade_center_building_seven_to_collapse#ixzz2IymSXCLi Obviously not written by somebody who is up to date on the science either. All the specimens of the dust spread over lower Manhattan contain microspheres of iron, as well as aluminum oxide and chips of unexploded nanothermite. These are the compounds that result from combustion of nanothermite. Nanothermite is an ultra-fine powdered combination of iron oxide and aluminum. During the ignition, the aluminum captures the oxygen from the iron oxide to form molten iron and aluminum oxide. The molten iron in freefall forms a perfect sphere, just as droplets of water from a spray bottle. This, is of course, the 'evidence' for a CD. When the samples were examined by an independent scientific body, they were found to show no evidence of thermite (standard, nano or super). I posted the paper for you earlier. It would've been a good idea to read that before posting this. When NIST was asked if they found any evidence of nanothermite, they replied that they had not. They were then asked if they looked for it, and they replied that they had not. Pretty hard to find something you're not looking for. Again, CTer's see this as evidence of a cover-up, however, why would they look for it? The very idea is crazy and lacks any fundamental logic. Why waste time and funding on such a stupid idea? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Fri 01/25/13 02:30 AM
|
|
The simple common sense truth is that the reason for the collapse of building 7 has not been addressed by officialdom. They simply state that no explosives were found. But when asked if they looked for explosives, their answer was NO. Why would they? The notion is insane. There was no evidence of explosives found at Building 7 because they did NOT LOOK FOR THEM. END OF STORY. Why would they? It's insane. But demolition experts from all over the world see that footage and guess what they say? Without explosives building 7 would not have fallen in the way it did. It would be IMPOSSIBLE. No sources provided, of course. And demolition experts, engineers and firefighters all over the world have no problem with understanding WTC7's collapse. Would you like sources that you won't read? Try this: http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=18&id=86 There's 109 pages on WTC7, but it comprehensively covers the majority of the hypotheses. I have plenty more if you'd like to view those. I also provided the ASCE sources of how building 7 actually fell in these threads months ago but, as usual, the CT posters here now claim they never existed. I lost count of the number of sources that show that the steel lost sufficient strength at 1000F to support the structural loading but a few weeks go by and they come back with the same absurd claims. It's just the same inability to learn. I know, one can provide scientific and other sources 'till the cows come home and no-one even reads them. Is it because they're not in the video format (youtube etc.)? Some are clearly beyond one's capabilities and education (some of the engineering papers on the WTC collapse contain physics beyond my understanding). Others just assume we're 'shills' or 'disinfo' agents because we don't share their views and simply ignore anything we bring to the table. I also lost count of the number of explanations as to why explosives could not have been used. It's just more of the lightless, soundless, heatless, magical explosive nonsense. Yes, it is just amazing how people can even contemplate such an idea. To plant these explosives on the exact floors where the planes would hit without anybody noticing the extensive operation required to place them. Then trigger them at exactly the same time as the collisions, and then hope the buildings fall as planned, but not instantly, of course, that wouldn't look right. These explosives must not be conventional explosives as that would give the game away with noise, blasts and chemicals residues. All done by hundreds, perhaps thousands who don't ever blow the whistle. I mean, seriously? WTF? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Fri 01/25/13 02:36 AM
|
|
best answer from wiki answers. What caused world trade center building seven to collapse? Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_caused_world_trade_center_building_seven_to_collapse#ixzz2IymLeUq2 est Answer The National Institute of Standards and Technology prepared the original report on the collapses of the WTC buildings, which was released in 2002. It did not even mention Building 7. This was because Bldg. 7 was not hit by a plane, came down at freefall acceleration for the first 100 feet, and came straight down in a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint, and NIST had no explanation, so they just left it out. That's quite an omission. It wasn't until about 2009 that NIST released their report on Bldg. 7, claiming that the 47-story fire-proofed steel structure collapsed because fire destroyed one column, and the failure of that one column precipitated a global collapse. This explanation, which is similar to the explanation for the collapse of Bldgs. 1 and 2, violates the laws of physics. The only way an object can descend at freefall acceleration is if there is absolutely no resistance from below. There were about 60,000 tons of structural steel below, which would require a tremendous amount of energy, which would be transferred from the descending mass to the remaining structure, and thus the acceleration would be significantly less than freefall. Also, the fact that the collapses of all 3 buildings were straight down can only be explained by the fact that all of the columns at every level all failed at precisely the same instant. The probability that a fire starting at one corner of the building would damage all columns, all carrying different loads and all being different sizes, to their individual failure points all at the same instant, is too small to calculate. And this occurred not at just one level, but every level. This makes the event sequence that much more improbable. Add to this the fact that the structural members become larger and more massive the lower the mass descends, and the concept of a lighter top structure crushing a heavier lower structure, through the path of greatest resistance, is an untenable story. The buildings failed in a sudden, brittle manner, like they were made of glass, and not the very ductile steel which is designed by metallurgists specifically to have a very predictable response to overload by ensuring that it has a wide elastic range where the material acts like a spring, and with increasing overload there is a wide plastic range where the material deforms like taffy without any increased resistance to load, followed by a strain-hardening range where the failure planes begin to interlock, which provides increasing resistance to load, up to the failure point. All of these deformations absorb energy, and are clearly visible to the naked eye, as well as being detectable with unaided hearing. All these considerations make freefall collapse due to normal overloading impossible. The only mechanism available to make these collapses happen the way that they did is controlled demolition. All the specimens of the dust spread over lower Manhattan contain microspheres of iron, as well as aluminum oxide and chips of unexploded nanothermite. These are the compounds that result from combustion of nanothermite. Nanothermite is an ultra-fine powdered combination of iron oxide and aluminum. During the ignition, the aluminum captures the oxygen from the iron oxide to form molten iron and aluminum oxide. The molten iron in freefall forms a perfect sphere, just as droplets of water from a spray bottle. When NIST was asked if they found any evidence of nanothermite, they replied that they had not. They were then asked if they looked for it, and they replied that they had not. Pretty hard to find something you're not looking for. The final evidence that nanothermite was used are the NASA infrared satellite photos taken 3 weeks after 9/11 showing temperatures of the basements to be 1800 degrees. Remember that jet fuel only burns at a temperature of 1600 degrees, and steel melts at 2800 degrees, and that nanothermite produces 4850 degrees. In conclusion, all the forensic evidence points to the scientific conclusion that nanothermite charges caused the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11/01. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_caused_world_trade_center_building_seven_to_collapse#ixzz2IymSXCLi Obviously not written by somebody who is up to date on the science either. All the specimens of the dust spread over lower Manhattan contain microspheres of iron, as well as aluminum oxide and chips of unexploded nanothermite. These are the compounds that result from combustion of nanothermite. Nanothermite is an ultra-fine powdered combination of iron oxide and aluminum. During the ignition, the aluminum captures the oxygen from the iron oxide to form molten iron and aluminum oxide. The molten iron in freefall forms a perfect sphere, just as droplets of water from a spray bottle. This, is of course, the 'evidence' for a CD. When the samples were examined by an independent scientific body, they were found to show no evidence of thermite (standard, nano or super). I posted the paper for you earlier. It would've been a good idea to read that before posting this. When NIST was asked if they found any evidence of nanothermite, they replied that they had not. They were then asked if they looked for it, and they replied that they had not. Pretty hard to find something you're not looking for. Again, CTer's see this as evidence of a cover-up, however, why would they look for it? The very idea is crazy and lacks any fundamental logic. Why waste time and funding on such a stupid idea? Why because in the history of building fires no steel framed building ever totally collapsed in such a manner. duh The whole day was full of precedents. Your comment still doesn't justify the search for nanothermite. The idea that NIST would waste time and funding on such a crazy venture is silly. Just read the paper I posted for you, please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”
–Firefighter Richard Banaciski “I saw a flash flash, flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” –Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory “It was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’.” – – Paramedic Daniel Rivera ________________________________________________________________ The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that, although recorded by the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) at the end of 2001, were publicly released only on August 12, 2005. Prior to that date, very few Americans knew the content of these accounts or even the fact that they existed. Why have we not known about them until recently? Part of the answer is that the city of New York would not release them until it was forced to do so. Early in 2002, the New York Times requested copies under the freedom of information act, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration refused. So the Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit. After a long process, the city was finally ordered by the New York Court of Appeals to release the records (with some exceptions and redactions allowed). Included were oral histories, in interview form, provided by 503 firefighters and medical workers. Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire Department. The Times then made these oral histories publicly available. Once the content of these testimonies is examined, it is easy to see why persons concerned to protect the official story about 9/11 would try to keep them hidden. By suggesting that explosions were occurring in the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, they pose a challenge to the official account of 9/11, according to which the towers were caused to collapse solely by the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. http://conspireality.tv/2008/09/14/explosive-testimony-police-firemen-report-what-really-happened-on-911/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Fri 01/25/13 02:46 AM
|
|
There was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” –Firefighter Richard Banaciski “I saw a flash flash, flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” –Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory “It was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’.” – – Paramedic Daniel Rivera ________________________________________________________________ The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that, although recorded by the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) at the end of 2001, were publicly released only on August 12, 2005. Prior to that date, very few Americans knew the content of these accounts or even the fact that they existed. Why have we not known about them until recently? Part of the answer is that the city of New York would not release them until it was forced to do so. Early in 2002, the New York Times requested copies under the freedom of information act, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration refused. So the Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit. After a long process, the city was finally ordered by the New York Court of Appeals to release the records (with some exceptions and redactions allowed). Included were oral histories, in interview form, provided by 503 firefighters and medical workers. Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire Department. The Times then made these oral histories publicly available. Once the content of these testimonies is examined, it is easy to see why persons concerned to protect the official story about 9/11 would try to keep them hidden. By suggesting that explosions were occurring in the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, they pose a challenge to the official account of 9/11, according to which the towers were caused to collapse solely by the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. http://conspireality.tv/2008/09/14/explosive-testimony-police-firemen-report-what-really-happened-on-911/ So, explosions in buildings on fire. Collapsing buildings would never look like a demolition. Wow, That NEVER happens. You do realise that this 'testimony' is being quoted out of context and none of the eyewitnesses actually believe in the CD? So, have you read the links yet? I mean, I've given you a shedload of stuff to get reading. It's worth the effort. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Fri 01/25/13 02:46 AM
|
|
There was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” –Firefighter Richard Banaciski “I saw a flash flash, flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” –Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory “It was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’.” – – Paramedic Daniel Rivera ________________________________________________________________ The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that, although recorded by the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) at the end of 2001, were publicly released only on August 12, 2005. Prior to that date, very few Americans knew the content of these accounts or even the fact that they existed. Why have we not known about them until recently? Part of the answer is that the city of New York would not release them until it was forced to do so. Early in 2002, the New York Times requested copies under the freedom of information act, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration refused. So the Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit. After a long process, the city was finally ordered by the New York Court of Appeals to release the records (with some exceptions and redactions allowed). Included were oral histories, in interview form, provided by 503 firefighters and medical workers. Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire Department. The Times then made these oral histories publicly available. Once the content of these testimonies is examined, it is easy to see why persons concerned to protect the official story about 9/11 would try to keep them hidden. By suggesting that explosions were occurring in the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, they pose a challenge to the official account of 9/11, according to which the towers were caused to collapse solely by the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. http://conspireality.tv/2008/09/14/explosive-testimony-police-firemen-report-what-really-happened-on-911/  Now it's Explosives again! And a minute ago it was nano-Thermite and HAARP! Please make up your minds for crying out loud! Learn,and repeat after me:"Fire and Explosives Do Not like each other!" No matter how much the CTs would like it to happen! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” –Firefighter Richard Banaciski “I saw a flash flash, flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” –Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory “It was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’.” – – Paramedic Daniel Rivera ________________________________________________________________ The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that, although recorded by the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) at the end of 2001, were publicly released only on August 12, 2005. Prior to that date, very few Americans knew the content of these accounts or even the fact that they existed. Why have we not known about them until recently? Part of the answer is that the city of New York would not release them until it was forced to do so. Early in 2002, the New York Times requested copies under the freedom of information act, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration refused. So the Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit. After a long process, the city was finally ordered by the New York Court of Appeals to release the records (with some exceptions and redactions allowed). Included were oral histories, in interview form, provided by 503 firefighters and medical workers. Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire Department. The Times then made these oral histories publicly available. Once the content of these testimonies is examined, it is easy to see why persons concerned to protect the official story about 9/11 would try to keep them hidden. By suggesting that explosions were occurring in the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, they pose a challenge to the official account of 9/11, according to which the towers were caused to collapse solely by the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. http://conspireality.tv/2008/09/14/explosive-testimony-police-firemen-report-what-really-happened-on-911/ Now it's Explosives again! And a minute ago it was nano-Thermite and HAARP! Please make up your minds for crying out loud! Learn,and repeat after me:"Fire and Explosives Do Not like each other!" No matter how much the CTs would like it to happen! Why is that they can't understand that Thermite (in what ever form) is not an explosive? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” –Firefighter Richard Banaciski “I saw a flash flash, flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” –Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory “It was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’.” – – Paramedic Daniel Rivera ________________________________________________________________ The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that, although recorded by the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) at the end of 2001, were publicly released only on August 12, 2005. Prior to that date, very few Americans knew the content of these accounts or even the fact that they existed. Why have we not known about them until recently? Part of the answer is that the city of New York would not release them until it was forced to do so. Early in 2002, the New York Times requested copies under the freedom of information act, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration refused. So the Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit. After a long process, the city was finally ordered by the New York Court of Appeals to release the records (with some exceptions and redactions allowed). Included were oral histories, in interview form, provided by 503 firefighters and medical workers. Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire Department. The Times then made these oral histories publicly available. Once the content of these testimonies is examined, it is easy to see why persons concerned to protect the official story about 9/11 would try to keep them hidden. By suggesting that explosions were occurring in the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, they pose a challenge to the official account of 9/11, according to which the towers were caused to collapse solely by the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. http://conspireality.tv/2008/09/14/explosive-testimony-police-firemen-report-what-really-happened-on-911/ Now it's Explosives again! And a minute ago it was nano-Thermite and HAARP! Please make up your minds for crying out loud! Learn,and repeat after me:"Fire and Explosives Do Not like each other!" No matter how much the CTs would like it to happen! |
|
|
|
|
