Well you wouldn't know who dunnit or not. You obviously don't even know the official stance the government has taken on things.
911 Revisited Poll
- Thread starter gagekko
- Start date
[video=youtube;p34XrI2Fm6I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I[/video]
Why do you keep showing me this video? Is this the OFFICIAL Government video?
Apparently you are so goddamned obsessed you can't see through your own veil.
I am NOT saying wtc7 was brought down by fire, the GOVERNMENT IS!!!
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW OR WILL I HAVE TO MAKE THE SIZE OF MY TEXT REALLY REALLY BIG??
And the government says cannabis is evil, bad for you, and has no medicinal value.... Video wasn't directed at you, just what you were talking about - chillax... And BTW, this is the first time I posted this video so WTF are you talking about "Why do you keep showing me this video?"
sorry, got you confused with zzwasted. It happens when you have no avatar. You get lumped in with all the other non avatar having muther fuckers.
IF you don't mean to direct something at someone, you shouldn't quote them.
Gotcha.. Sorry about that. My bad.
CBO is a bad example because it's obligated by law to assume that present law will always be present law. So when they make economic projections they must, by law, reflect what Congress has enacted and the courts have interpreted. Start throwing your wrenches in the numbers.
The first thing you don't understand about World Trade Center 7 is that it was built on top of a power substation that was originally designed to have a much smaller building standing on top of it. It was also a relatively old building with an antiquated sprinkler system that was never intended to handle a substantial number of fires burning simultaneously throughout the building. They basically had no choice except allowing the fires to burn uncontrolled--they had a difficult time getting water around the building.
You also don't seem to understand that the "facade" of the building was part of the building's support structure; its destruction would have a substantial impact on the integrity of the building. A typical building is a mass of steel connected together; the twin towers and World Trade Center 7 were basically hollow tubes--cores and outer walls with the floors between holding it all together. Had the terrorists targeted the Empire State Building, the consequences may have been very different.
Once the steel in a building starts bending you have a very serious problem. Combine fires burning uncontrolled, an ineffective sprinkler system/firefighting capability, and a stretched foundation at the very beginning and suddenly it seems more plausible that this building would collapse after the occurrence of an extraordinary, unprecedented event that had never been envisioned in the design phase. Adjust your game of Jenga to reflect World Trade Center 7's design and play will become far more challenging.
Fires cause steel to weaken and bend. When you don't put the fires out, your structural integrity plummets. When steel starts to fail, other steel starts to fail, and before you know it, it's all coming down. What other outcome would you expect?
The fact that something unusual happened indicates that it couldn't have happened?
Assuming "similar" means comparable, the key point seems to be at the very end of what you quoted here--"These other buildings...did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system."
Doer
Well-Known Member
I can grasp concepts but not straws.
So, everyone was in on it? How? What actually happened? Not a guess. What even, very thin fact leads you to believe this was a self inflicted wound?
Why do you think somehow this govt flew airplanes in to these large expensive structures?
And what of the fail flight the passengers augered in. More cover up. Sure.
But, of what????
WE can hang them. Do you know that? If you could find one fact that said even a rouge CIA agent with a Mossad girlfriend. ANYTHING????? We'd string them up.
But, no, you deny the story and you don't give a shred, of a hint, of a fact to support some or any other story.
Doer
Well-Known Member
A skyscraper fell on it? Prove that a skyscraper fell on it, I see the building standing and then collapse, nothing falls on it whatsoever. If instead you mean to exaggerate by a HUGE amount and that a very small piece of the tower fell on it causing some very minor damage to the facade, then you would be correct, but since the outside of building #7 is not a part of the support structure and is nothing more than a pretty covering, its destruction would have no effect on the integrity of the building.
You can't have a building fall at near free fall speed unless all support is taken out at the same time, fires on 4 or 5 floors out of 40 cannot cause it, so what did?
--------------------------------------
Drama, buddy, this means you don't understand physics that involved here or the building construction.
The only way they could get this tall for the weight is to build what they iuse in airplanes and car racing:
mon·o·coque (m
That's no facade, that the structural support of the interior. It is nearly the opposite of the way the Pentagon is constructed.
But, I have to say again, it is an amateur approach to look at un-registered in 3D coordinate, video and make determinations. It is not evidence that can stand in court. Why is that?
So imagine a Jenga game where you can only stack vertical and then across. Try it. It's very stable in static but has very little dynamic stablity. Now carefully pull out a corner of the bottom and slowly lean a book against the rest, if you can. Set a few matches in there for effect and then bounce around on the floor. See?
You see, the real question is how Building 7 remained standing, at all. That what all the responders and the after report said.
America ain't gonna string up anyone... You give amerikans too much credit. As long as they got beer and chicken wing money on weekends, amerikans are a content bunch.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Who is they? If you are not WE then the you can't vote.
WE can be content because we have executioners standing by. Lawful and when needed, extra-lawful murder. You think we are playing? No. We want you to think we are paper tigers.
The Elected WE are stone cold killers and appliers of the Torment, I assure you.
How long did Tim McVey live after sentencing? We'd zap a Mossad in a heart beat, if we could, just on general principles.
It's funny how you foreigners think you know more about what goes on here than a card carrying, Ugly American Redneck, like me.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
sounding awful butthurt there.
your insistence that building 7 fell from "Fire Alone" is ridiculous.
yeah, no damage there.
the window washers just took the day off, that's pigeon poop.
telling me what i do or do not know is ridiculous, and i read the nist report, it mainly focused on wtc 1 & 2, not 7, 7 gets barely a mention, before you start squawking about what you claim the report says why dont you provide the excerpt you claim to reference? cus i didnt recall seeing " collapsed due to fire alone" in there all.
plus i cant be bothered to read that long ass report again. it was tedious ten years ago, i doubt it's gotten any punchier since.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
yeah we should be more like germans.
germans in the glory days of 1938.
Why so bitter?
Since you cannot be bothered to read the report, nor be bothered to reference post # 199, I will reiterate it for you.
It is not MY assertion that the building came down from fire alone, I think that is the most rediculous idea ever. its only obvious that it came down from something OTHER than fire.
it is NIST and Government who claim it came down from FIRES ALONE!! Not mine. If you were a better consumer of information you would have realized that many many posts ago, but instead you just want to lay claim to something else entirely and then pretend the proof that makes your claim false does not exist.
Do you understand now? Or are you just going to point fingers and cry out "Troofer, Troofer, Squawk!!"
Indeed, what would you expect to happen here?
This is a REAL fire, not that girl scout marshmallow roast thing going on at WTC 7.
know what that building looked like 2 days later after burning uncontrollably for 8 times as long as WTC 7 did??? BTW the design is the same.
WTC 7 is the ONLY skyscraper that ever collapsed from fire. Ever.
Attachments
Doer
Well-Known Member
the outside structure concrete is gone and that is not a steel frame building
none of them were.
Concrete structure wall construction
the steel is a light weight structure held up by the walls
