yay youtube vids. conspiracy confirmed. yay!
Alright, have a look folks, Oklahoma City April 15th, 1995
Unless WTC 7 looked worse that that from the back, there's no logical way to explain it's collapse. "It was a fire.."
Okay.. well that ^^ was a bomb, and that building was still standing in that photograph. Odd huh? Almost like large buildings are built to stay standing...
Unless WTC 7 looked worse that that from the back, there's no logical way to explain it's collapse. "It was a fire.."
Okay.. well that ^^ was a bomb, and that building was still standing in that photograph. Odd huh? Almost like large buildings are built to stay standing...
For those of you short of time, I direct you to 5:30mins into that clip. Anyone got an explination they saw/heard of that explains the smoke arising from the ground?
Martyn
Last edited by Bell (2008-07-18 16:31:02)
gas line? cars? you know, stuff that dont react well to shit falling on them?
SourceCommieChipmunk wrote:
Alright, have a look folks, Oklahoma City April 15th, 1995
http://www.911review.com/precedent/deca … ahbldg.jpg
Unless WTC 7 looked worse that that from the back, there's no logical way to explain it's collapse. "It was a fire.."
Okay.. well that ^^ was a bomb, and that building was still standing in that photograph. Odd huh? Almost like large buildings are built to stay standing...
With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
Okay, so why did the building collapse in on itself, look at where the damage is shouldn't that side of the building failed, not right down the middle?
have you any idea how crowded the streets around wtc were? I have been there many times. fucking parking lot.Bell wrote:
That sends smoke 50 stories in to the air?usmarine2 wrote:
gas line? cars? you know, stuff that dont react well to shit falling on them?
Man you must be sitting waiting on replies Didnt even get time to go check up for an edit. Yeah course, infact am in NYC now, staying at the grand hyat just along from grand central. But I mean it is a huge dust cloud, very much like the dust the trade centre it's self was turned into. So something had to of been blown to fuck (as in a building), and am only curious as to what that was. The volume of smoke atleast is what throws me.usmarine2 wrote:
have you any idea how crowded the streets around wtc were? I have been there many times. fucking parking lot.Bell wrote:
That sends smoke 50 stories in to the air?usmarine2 wrote:
gas line? cars? you know, stuff that dont react well to shit falling on them?
Last edited by Bell (2008-07-18 16:44:59)
It's because of the little green men!ATG wrote:
Who's getting rich off the war?
Who's not securing the border?
Why?
Gotta better explanation? Please discuss.
9-11 was act two scene twelve I say.
well commie, according to you damn near everything is a lie. do you have any idea how impossible it would be to keep that many things secret? I mean come on dude. reality check time.
I refer you to my previous statement and the source therefrom.CommieChipmunk wrote:
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h208/ … tc7swd.jpg
Okay, so why did the building collapse in on itself, look at where the damage is shouldn't that side of the building failed, not right down the middle?
EDIT: Plus, you can't really compare OKC and WTC7 because the buildings were constructed in different ways.The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
Last edited by DesertFox- (2008-07-18 16:58:55)
you should take a lesson from the NTSB.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Alright, have a look folks, Oklahoma City April 15th, 1995
http://www.911review.com/precedent/deca … ahbldg.jpg
Unless WTC 7 looked worse that that from the back, there's no logical way to explain it's collapse. "It was a fire.."
Okay.. well that ^^ was a bomb, and that building was still standing in that photograph. Odd huh? Almost like large buildings are built to stay standing...
Attack the facts and thoughts presented, not the person.
That photo shows a building that was riped apart by an explosion. And what is left is standing fine, looks untouched.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Alright, have a look folks, Oklahoma City April 15th, 1995
http://www.911review.com/precedent/deca … ahbldg.jpg
Unless WTC 7 looked worse that that from the back, there's no logical way to explain it's collapse. "It was a fire.."
Okay.. well that ^^ was a bomb, and that building was still standing in that photograph. Odd huh? Almost like large buildings are built to stay standing...
The WTC7 building was destroyed down one side and came down because of fire and the fact that a large portion of the buildings columns where cantilevered over an electricity substation and a train tunnel. Instead of the fire having to weaken lots of small columns it only had to weaken a few large ones which were in turn supporting lots of smaller columns. Hence why it came down so straight. That's my conclusion anyway.
It's time to apply Occums razor.
First lets state the only absolutely known facts:
1. A plane flew into the South Tower.
2. A plane flew into the North Tower.
3. Building 7 suffers damage to one corner.
4. South Tower collapses in on itself.
5. North Tower collapses in on itself.
6. Building 7 collapses in on itself.
(exact chronology is not relevant, btw)
Now, what is the simplest explanation that ties all these facts together?
A) That all three buildings just happened to suffer the right amount of damage in exactly the right places to cause them all to become pulverised into dust and fall in on themselves.
or
B) That all three buildings were ultimately brought down by controlled explosions.
First lets state the only absolutely known facts:
1. A plane flew into the South Tower.
2. A plane flew into the North Tower.
3. Building 7 suffers damage to one corner.
4. South Tower collapses in on itself.
5. North Tower collapses in on itself.
6. Building 7 collapses in on itself.
(exact chronology is not relevant, btw)
Now, what is the simplest explanation that ties all these facts together?
A) That all three buildings just happened to suffer the right amount of damage in exactly the right places to cause them all to become pulverised into dust and fall in on themselves.
or
B) That all three buildings were ultimately brought down by controlled explosions.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-07-19 00:39:57)
A obviously.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
It's time to apply Occums razor.
First lets state the only absolutely known facts:
1. A plane flew into the South Tower.
2. A plane flew into the North Tower.
3. Building 7 suffers damage to one corner.
4. South Tower collapses in on itself.
5. North Tower collapses in on itself.
6. Building 7 collapses in on itself.
(exact chronology is not relevant, btw)
Now, what is the simplest explanation that ties all these facts together?
A) That all three buildings just happened to suffer the right amount of damage in exactly the right places to cause them all to become pulverised into dust and fall in on themselves.
or
B) That all three buildings were ultimately brought down by controlled explosions.
todays phrase is STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, boys and girls.
i know, some of you think that fire cant cause a lack of STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. however, if any of you had any experience beyond youtube videos, you would realize just how wrong that thought is.
sadly, fire does cause metal to weaken. i know, that just doesnt work for you....so please, put your tin foil hats on, and continue this sad little debate.
please, i would love to see some more random facts placed how you want them.
and so much effort into cracking this secret, kudos....brilliant.
i know, some of you think that fire cant cause a lack of STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. however, if any of you had any experience beyond youtube videos, you would realize just how wrong that thought is.
sadly, fire does cause metal to weaken. i know, that just doesnt work for you....so please, put your tin foil hats on, and continue this sad little debate.
please, i would love to see some more random facts placed how you want them.
and so much effort into cracking this secret, kudos....brilliant.
So, three buildings, of two different designs/constructions, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions?Parker wrote:
todays phrase is STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, boys and girls.
i know, some of you think that fire cant cause a lack of STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. however, if any of you had any experience beyond youtube videos, you would realize just how wrong that thought is.
sadly, fire does cause metal to weaken. i know, that just doesnt work for you....so please, put your tin foil hats on, and continue this sad little debate.
please, i would love to see some more random facts placed how you want them.
and so much effort into cracking this secret, kudos....brilliant.
Come on!
Occums Razor dude, Occams Razor.
Lets take out those complications one at a time shall we:
three buildings, of two different designs/constructions, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions
three buildings, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions
three buildings, all damaged by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions
three buildings, all damaged in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions
three buildings, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions
three buildings, all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions
three buildings, all brought down by controlled explosions
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
So, three buildings, of two different designs/constructions, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions?Parker wrote:
please, i would love to see some more random facts placed how you want them.
Come on!
Occums Razor dude, Occams Razor.
Lets take out those complications one at a time shall we:three buildings, of two different designs/constructions, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings, all damaged by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings, all damaged in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings, all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings, all brought down by controlled explosions
lol, what do you know?Parker wrote:
please, i would love to see some more random facts placed how you want them.
carry on
Which of the facts that I present do you question?Parker wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
So, three buildings, of two different designs/constructions, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions?Parker wrote:
please, i would love to see some more random facts placed how you want them.
Come on!
Occums Razor dude, Occams Razor.
Lets take out those complications one at a time shall we:three buildings, of two different designs/constructions, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings, all damaged by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings, all damaged in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings, all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings, all brought down by controlled explosionslol, what do you know?Parker wrote:
please, i would love to see some more random facts placed how you want them.
carry on
I can't be bothered to do them one at a time:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
So, three buildings, of two different designs/constructions, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions?Parker wrote:
todays phrase is STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, boys and girls.
i know, some of you think that fire cant cause a lack of STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. however, if any of you had any experience beyond youtube videos, you would realize just how wrong that thought is.
sadly, fire does cause metal to weaken. i know, that just doesnt work for you....so please, put your tin foil hats on, and continue this sad little debate.
please, i would love to see some more random facts placed how you want them.
and so much effort into cracking this secret, kudos....brilliant.
Come on!
Occums Razor dude, Occams Razor.
Lets take out those complications one at a time shall we:
three buildings, of two different designs/constructions, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions
three buildings which suffered damage all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed
I would love not to get mired in this debate, but regardless of whether jet fuel can heat steel enough to cause the building to collapse, there is still the problem of the lack of uniform heating of the steel. I saw the plane go through the corner of one of the buildings, not directly into the middle. I find it hard to imagine the steel away from the impact zone, and throughout the entire building, heated uniformly as would be necessary for the implosion that occurred. The buildings falling looked like a controlled demolition. I even remarked that when I saw it for the first time in fifth grade. Controlled demolitions don't happen by chance, not in three different instances.
Edit: The proof of the plane hitting through the corner is in 0:08 seconds of Bell's movie.
Edit: The proof of the plane hitting through the corner is in 0:08 seconds of Bell's movie.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-07-19 01:30:44)
Hardly looks like a controlled explosion, Scorpion.
Last edited by Poseidon (2008-07-19 01:29:51)
I'm sorry, but you are removing the evidential fact that all 3 buildings collapsed in on themselves as if brought down in a controlled explosion.Bertster7 wrote:
I can't be bothered to do them one at a time:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
So, three buildings, of two different designs/constructions, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions?Parker wrote:
todays phrase is STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, boys and girls.
i know, some of you think that fire cant cause a lack of STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. however, if any of you had any experience beyond youtube videos, you would realize just how wrong that thought is.
sadly, fire does cause metal to weaken. i know, that just doesnt work for you....so please, put your tin foil hats on, and continue this sad little debate.
please, i would love to see some more random facts placed how you want them.
and so much effort into cracking this secret, kudos....brilliant.
Come on!
Occums Razor dude, Occams Razor.
Lets take out those complications one at a time shall we:three buildings, of two different designs/constructions, all of which suffered different degrees of damage by different cause and in different locations, all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosionsthree buildings which suffered damage all lost structural integrity in such a way that they all collapsed
Applying Occums Razor does not mean to 'ignore important evidential facts', rather it means to 'remove complicating factors to find the simplest explanation'.
Oh yes it does.Poseidon wrote:
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6151 … c4obs2.jpg
Hardly looks like a controlled explosion, Scorpion.
