|
|
GAS_MASK
Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 151
|
 Tue Sep 17, 2002 12:00 am
|
 |
|
quote:
These pictures are *not* comprehensive, nor do they tell the whole story. There are countless things that could have caused #7 to collapse. And #7's collapse *has* been discussed extensively in the media. Try a better search.
What is the whole story Ari? Do you have something better? Do you know something that I don't? If not, you are speculating as much as I am. Also, I never said the media is not discussing this, I only implied I hadn't heard about it for quite awhile.
quote:
As for the other nearby buildings . . . There were dozens of alerts for many days for people to clear the area b/c several of those bldgs were unstable and thought to be in danger of collapsing at any moment. Some are still not stable and are still being repaired/renovated.
I never disputed that fact. Try reading my posts again before you start coming to conclusions about what I am implying. My point is that many other buildings received well more severe damage than WTC#7, and none of them collapsed, even though they are much closer to the twin towers.
quote:
You have to get all the facts before jumping to conclusions. Just like that preposterous "theory" about the Pentagon. That idiot guy in France w/ his goofy ideas has been shown, over and over, to be wrong. There are ample photos all over the 'net proving that the Boeing *did* crash into the Pentagon. Again, try a more comprehensive search.
Since I can't get 100% of the facts, I'm not jumping to any conclusions. This thread is mere speculation from looking at the available facts and evidence. You can't really compare my thread to the French idiot since I have more evidence than he does, but I might point out the fact that the author never says that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. Read the article again.
quote:
It doesn't take a lot of burning jet fuel to start a fire sufficiently hot to melt steel. It's kinda like trying to figure out why a spark from a match goes one way and not another . . . there are countless variables to consider.
Sure....then why do ironworkers screw around with oxy-acetylene torches and arc-welders? If you were to use jet fuel (or WTC7's diesel fuel) for melting forged steel, you would need a forced oxygen induction system to attain temperatures that high. Hydrocarbon rich/ O2 poor fires actually burn at a lower temerature than Class A fires in the same environment. Go read a physics book to confirm this.
quote:
This is no mystery.
The only mystery I see is the fact that there are no formal investigations into why WTC#7 collapsed. Even the NY firefighters association is pissed.
|
| |
|
|
emfx13
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 959
Location: Hayward Ca.U.S.A. |
|
Sat Oct 05, 2002 8:15 pm
|
|
|
Controlled Demolition At WTC -
New Revelations
From Harry Mason
10-4-2
In the mass media propaganda barrage of 9/11/2002, researcher Mike Rivero discovered film footage of the collapse of WTC building 7. The images are at this link:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
Take a close look at the manner in which it collapses straight down. For this building to collapse in this fashion, ALL of the load bearing supports on the ground floor would have had to fail at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME. Think this happens by chance? The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.
Here is a report on the WTC tower collapses from Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press. The article appears to be well documented, although I have not seen any independent confirmation or mainstream media reports. Caveat lecteur.
www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html
New Seismic Data Refutes Official WTC Explanation
Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's twin towers immediately prior to the collapse.
American Free Press has learned of pools of "molten steel" found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse.
These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse.
In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.
In the "everything you know may be wrong" department, this anonymous article questions whether the floor trusses in the WTC towers were as lightly built as claimed in various official sources. I am critical of the article on the grounds that there is insufficient data available in the public domain to compute either the transmission of wind loads in the towers, or the amount of steel in the towers. The photos presented are poorly focused and do not appear conclusive to me. This could be an interesting lead, but more likely it is an example of intentional disinformation.
Does anyone have drawings or other photos or documentation to counter this argument?
http://nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc-demolition.htm
CONCLUSION
Impacts of the magnitude of those that occurred on September 11 were considered by the designers of the twin towers and the towers were designed to survive them.
The possibility of a jet-fuel fires the size of those that occurred on September 11 were considered by the designers of the twin towers and the towers were designed to survive them.
In order to explain why the towers collapsed, where other steel framed buildings would have survived, the WTC conspirators invented the "truss theory".
The "truss theory" is seriously flawed. It cannot explain how the perimeter wall transmits wind loading to the central core.
The "truss theory", if accepted, leads to a 33 percent underestimate of the amount of steel in the towers. That is, the "truss theory" does not account for the whereabouts of 32,000 tons of steel (of 96,000 tons) used in the construction of each of the towers.
The "truss theory" is a lie that has been spun to convince a gullible public, that what appeared to be the controlled demolitions of three of the World Trade Center buildings, were actually natural consequents of the aircraft strikes and not controlled demolitions at all.
There are photos showing large steel girders positioned where the "official" line states that only (double) trusses should be.
In all, one has to conclude that the "truss theory" is false and that those who push it are part of a large conspiracy to deceive the American people.
ARCHITECTS MUST PROVIDE WORLD TRADE
CENTER BLUEPRINTS AND PLANS.
Design architecture for the World Trade Center was provided by Minoru Yamasaki & Associates. Emery Roth & Sons served as the architect of record. Since these people have nothing to hide, they should provide the architectural plans of the World Trade Center, for all to see. This will enable any misunderstandings regarding the facts of the collapse to be established and corrected. In fact, Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Roth & Sons, or their descendent companies, should put the entire set of architectural plans on the internet.
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 3:32 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
