9/11 conspiracies *rant*

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by FerrariAKL, Apr 5, 2006.

  1. So they had explosives planted before the 9/11 and they explosive were not affected by the fire or damage from the WTC and then waited 7 hours after the impact to destroy it. Then use a phrase that is not used in demolition to do. Or maybe pull it just meant something other than demolitioning the building.
     
  2. he was referring to his finger, and speaking to the reluctant yet gullible guy standing next to him.
     
  3. Why did building 7 collapse? It wasn't even hit by anything save a small amount of debris. It was a whole block away from the burning twin towers. And yet it collapsed in exactly the same way - a perfect implosion

    Here is a picture of building 7 at 3pm on September 11, two and a half hours before it collapsed.



    Many people have claimed that the diesel fuel and emergency generators exploded within building 7 but even the FEMA report admitted that these remained fully intact. The FEMA report sought to explain how the building collapsed but could only conclude, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.
     
  4. the twin towers did not have "a perfect implosion". and the way the building collapsed definately looked like the supporting structure just gave away from stress.

    and for the record, there were buildings VERY close to the site that didnt even suffer a scratch, while others further away got all kinds of messed up. dont use very simple generalizations like that to explain away the real possibility that it was indeed damaged by debris.
     
  5. #130 EliseS2, Apr 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    It was heavily damaged and was on fire. Name one building that you have seen collapse from fire and structural damage that did not fall in a similar way? It would be pretty easy for Fema to find evidence of controlled demolition.

    read this thread.

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=39144&page=3
     
  6. #131 CarreraGtRacer, Apr 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  7. #132 Orange F1LM, Apr 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    ok ill name one, Windsor building in Madrid

    On the night of February 12, the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain caught fire. The 32-story, steel-framed structure burned out of control for nearly twenty-four hours, at temperatures approaching an astounding 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit. By the time the fire was brought under control, the building had been reduced to little more than a steel skeleton. And yet that skeleton remained standing.
     
  8. I always thought JFK was the most overrated US President.
     
  9. Looks like a lot of it collapsed, even without the aid of a shitload of jet fuel and structural damage from the impact...
     
  10. Fine do not answer my question. I asked what ones have not collapsed in a similar fashion, you gave an example of one that did not collapse at all.
     
  11. that building has a completely different structure to WTC.
     
  12. *pimpin*
     
  13. notice the fires relative to the size of the building are about 50 times what the WTC fires were, Also notice that this building was completely gutted and still standing. Remember that the official story is that the Twin Towers collapsed from fire, both of them, two firsts in history.
     
  14. Badass. Imagine how scary a whole burning skyline would look.
     
  15. yeah, and the twin towers had a unique contribution to aid the runaway effect- jet fuel which burns crazy hot and softens structural steel beyond its ability to cope with the weight above. it's no wonder at all that the damn things collapsed.

    again, you're playing a dangerous game of comparing buildings that really dont have teh same structural properties, which is a very important role in this.
     
  16. fire+large fully loaded commercial airliners, how many times has this been tested?

    I guess I should not expect anything from someone that believes we did not land on the moon.
     
  17. The Windsor Building was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, the fire started 11 storeys from the top of the building, and it burned at temperatures of 800ºC for more than 18 hours [AFP]. The core of the building did not fail.

    The fire in WTC 1 is reported to have burned at 800ºC and was located roughly 17 storeys from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building. WTC 1 collapsed after only 85 minutes, reportedly through core failure.

    Don't you find this odd?

    Let's take a look at the cores of the buildings.


    Spain Fire Core - left
    WTC Core Right


    It is obvious that the core of WTC 1 was far more robust than the Windsor Building's core - this is to be expected since the building was 110 storeys high.

    The core was designed to support the entire weight of the buildings several times over.Far more than a mere "service core", it comprised of 47 steel box columns tied together at each floor by steel plates, similar to the 52" deep spandrel plates that tied the perimeter columns together. The largest of these core columns were 18"x36", with steel walls 4" thick near the base and tapering in thickness toward the top, and was anchored directly to the bedrock.

     
  18. Did an airliner crash through the windsor building?
     
  19. oh man, the inconsistancies...
     
  20. ya ok, I showed you a building, the one you asked for, whats wrong, dont have an answer to that?
     
  21. no an airliner didnt crash into WTC#7, since thats the building you could have asked about but didnt want to.
     
  22. You're the one comparing it to the truss system of the twin towers rather than #7...
     
  23. hey whats your comment to the two core pics I posted?
     
  24. I asked for a building that collapsed from fire and impact that was different than building 7.
     
  25. WTC 7 was also the location of a kind of a doomsday bunker (a $15 million project of Rudy Giuliani's), a command post from which to operate in case of a total infrastructure breakdown. Building 7 had apparently been bullet proofed and reinforced to withstand hurricane force winds and attacks of all kinds,


    Im looking for some details that might show actual specifics and specs on how WTC#7 was built
     

Share This Page