Tin Foil Crue: Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7

I said




NIST report, pages 50-51:



My statement and what you quoted from the NIST report are not in contradiction. They acknowledge the structural damage, but I do not see here that they applied any causality from the debris to the collapse. In fact, if anything, mentioning the expanded timeframe from damage to collapse seems to exclude causality.
 
Some one brought up the fact that they thought it was shady that all the steel from the towers was shipped to china asap. Someone else thought they made a battle ship out of the steel. You call them a moron and point out that it was a LHD. You tell them to at least pretend to know they're talking about. I have a feeling you do that yourself a lot huh?
 
I dunno where he is, but i'm willing to bet a lot of faggot OTers misconstrued what he said in order to have a leg to stand on as far as a "defense" goes
 
this is the biggest thing for me. Common sense should tell anyone that localized structural damage does not send a steel building into free fall.

Its a stretch, but I could maybe believe that burning jet fuel corabined with the energy of impact could blow the fire retardant off the steel beams that held together the towers and cause them to pancake the way they did.

But IMO its damn near impossible for debris and office fires would make a building do what WTC 7 did. And if you believe that WTC7 was brought down via external incindieries, its not a far stretch to believe the towers were as well.
 
the lease owner blew it up to get money like a month after he got a huge policy on the building...ie: insurance fraud.


remeraber that family guy episode where nigil the brit buys the drunken clam and burns it down the next day? yea, just like that.

so then that raises more questions...if he did it right as the other wtc towers fell, then he must have known beforehand that there would be an attack.
 
Even if we accept your grossly exaggerated 99% nuraber, that would still leave over 100 gallons of jet fuel and massive holes in the buildings to help the fires breath. One fucking gallon of jet fuel could start a horribly destructive fire
 
Are you seriously ignoring that fires were raging across a shit load of floors, unchecked, for a majority of the day?

And again, with a lot of the new construction techniques developed over the past 30 years or so, if one part fails, the whole thing fails. You could easily obtain a pancake collapse like that one with failed trusses and key points being weakened or compromised by fire.

edit: Also, people can look at it and say, yea that was because of the fire and compromise of key points due to heat stress because people out there actually study building behavior under fire conditions.
 
what's your explanation for two eyewitness accounts of explosions inside WTC7 that day?

and one of the witnesses specifically stated it was not diesel tanks because he has knowledge of boilers

[y]9LLHTh_UjBc[/y]

[y]BUfiLbXMa64[/y]
 
Any building that has collapsed due to steel bowstring truss failure or gusset plate failure...which is to say just about any building using those features that came under fire


I don't care about the Jet fuel. Average office contents with all the plastics and shit that exist in those buildings can burn upwarRAB of 1000 degrees F. Steel fails around 7-800 degrees F. I'm sure you've heard and ignored that before.


You do realize that in a lot of the new lightweight components that have been used since the 80's, if one part fails, you lose the whole thing right?

People just don't accept the fact that fire can bring these buildings down because this was the first prime example of a high rise collapsing due to fire. It happened again in 2008 in Holland. I'll see if I can find the video.
 
Back
Top