Rosie's Conspiracy Theories

[Paul Revere]

Quote:
Originally Posted by no1tovote4
"It is not science to deny empirical data for a more religious approach such as a belief that a building could not fall that was missing an entire supporting wall."Quote:

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

No where on the internet - not even Popular Mechanics can I find any claim that Building 7 missing an entire supporting wall or the nonsense about a wall containing cables.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No1tovote4 - Please provide a link with evidence to back your claims.

##########################################

Building 7 ENGULFED IN FLAMES ( Yeah Sure......)

When will the stupid Bu$hShit end?

 

[red states rule]

Are you an asshole in real life or do you just play one on this board?

 

[eots]

Are you an asshole in real life or do you just play one on this board?

total willful ignorance ,red state cant debate at even a grade school level .he has no facts ,no research ,not even a well thought out opinion. presented with facts his brain shuts down and childiish puns are all that will come out,in a debate redstate would lose evertime .the only positive thing i can say about redstate is he is a great spokesperson and prime example of the mentality of willfully ignorance that allowed the lies 911 and the war in Iraq to continue

 

[dewclaw]

Can you anybody really deny WTC was imploded after looking at the video? It came straight down into its own imprint.

 

[eots]

Okay, actually I am done with the "out".

I have gone back to your site. It is "former law enforcement" people. It is a dude who is an MBA of ECONOMICS, against actual engineers and structural scientists....

Hmmm.... Who would I believe?

Most of them, such as Kucinich, are simply questioning the policy that allowed them to actually crash the planes into the buildings without having at least one or two jets scrambled, not attempting to say that government planned and perpetrated the act.

Actually read the questions from most of them. The statements. None of them are attempting to say that because WTC 7 fell the government blew up uilding, it isn't there on the site from what I have read.

What I said earlier applies. Questioning the 9/11 report doesn't make one a believer in the conspiracy theory. It still doesn't, even after reading your site. Questioning the government's policy that allowed planes to be in the air a good 6 hours without scrambling a fighter to intercept them, when they were known to be hijacked, is not the same as saying the government perpetrated the act on 9/11! Pretending that it is the same is serious denial.

anyone going to this site can clearly see what you state is completely false and intentionally deceitfully .the law enforcement people he speaks of are top level FBI agents and directors as well as top level military and government researchers as well as many structural engineers and physicist,that have served through multiple administrations and the majority clearly state government involvement in 911


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 ...This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials.
www.patriotsquestion911.com/ - 291k - Cached - Similar pages

hmmmmm who would you believe

 

[Paul Revere]

I want one of the 9/11 Truth deniers to tell me who pulled the "cables" and how hard did they have to pull.

 

[eots]

this weasel is definitely
a weak link ...some bright lights and rubber hoses and he would sing like a canary


WTC 7 Larry Silverstein
lnielsen76 - 46 sec - 31-Jan-2006 - (73 ratings)
... of a 99 year lease and 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy, Larry Silverstein admits in a PBS special called "Rebuilding America" that WTC 7 was "pulled", ...
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk[/ame]

 

[no1tovote4]

The cables were on a side we couldn't see in the pictures presented by yourself. The wall contained the cables, the firefighters gave evidence that the wall was missing by reporting on it. But heck, you can't see the cables because they were in the wall and used to help support the building. They were the reason it was a part of the load bearing structure of that building.

So they pulled with cables....the cables were strong enough to break steel beams into pieces, and cruch concrete into dust.... and these cables were on the side of the building that we could not see... so somebody or some thing on the other side of the building where another building was burning, PULLED on these super strong cables using enough force ( Superman?, the Hulk?) to PULL the building down.

Now if I were playing tug of war with an elephant, and this elephant pulled me down, I would fall over in a direction toward the pulling elephant. BUT using your fantasy, I would be smashed straight into the ground.

Maybe you could explain why the BBS reported that the building had collapsed 23 miutes before it happened.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAgi4Z5ImRU[/ame]

This only makes it clear that you have no understanding of structural engineering. The cables didn't "pull" it down that is metaphor, They were used in holding the structure in one cohesive whole. It is like saying only the couplings hold an entire bridge together. It doesn't. However without them the bridge would degrade and in time collapse. In this case the weight of the building, no longer held by a load-bearing side collapses in on itself. The building was designed to do that as much as possible to decrease the damage to nearby buildings were it to collapse.

The design has many parts, including the load-bearing wall, that hold the building together. Each part would have their impact if they were destroyed either violently or by decay, that the impact could be spectacular, such as a building actually collapsing, is simply logic.

You attempt to take one sentence out of context of an entire book and refute it because it wasn't written to your standards. That is truly sad. Then you give me Doctrates of International Law to prove those Engineers wrong.

Get the book, educate yourself.

 

[no1tovote4]

anyone going to this site can clearly see what you state is completely false and intentionally deceitfully .the law enforcement people he speaks of are top level FBI agents and directors as well as top level military and government researchers as well as many structural engineers and physicist,that have served through multiple administrations and the majority clearly state government involvement in 911


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 ...This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials.
www.patriotsquestion911.com/ - 291k - Cached - Similar pages

hmmmmm who would you believe

Law enforcement officials are not structural Engineers and cannot determine why that building fell. Now the closest thing I found to a structural engineer had to do with Astrophysics, he creates designs for structures in an entirely different environment. It is like saying your wife's OBGYN is just as good at treating your cancer as your oncologist is.

Intelligence officials are also not structural Engineers.

When you go to the site you can clearly see what you assert here is preposterous, and most that actually could say something are simply questioning why Fighters weren't scrambled not the science of the building's collapse.

Not all of those on that site assert that the building was taken down by the government, that is simply disingenuous and misleading drivel.

 

[Creek_George]

How can any of you..debate what brought down those buildings?

There is no dam conspiracy that brought them to the ground...other than the fact...that two big ass planes hit them suckers..at the right spot...They did not wing them...Flew right into them...

It was probaly like a 9.9 Earthquake to whatever supported them...Diamond studed..who gives a shit...

If there was another factor to the colapse...it would be known...

If this was allowed to happen..to win support behind the Iraq War...I'd believe that more..than the conspiracy to bullshit about metal melting.....

The air flow that fed that fire streamed in...like I crack the door on my wood stove to make that baby flame...Big cities...big building...a heat source.....

Fire will not make certain metals burn...You add a air steam in....and fires sucks wind...like you would not believe...The buildings..and the space....

I could melt metal...with a $300 cheep wood burning stove...oxygen..wind..feed it....You'd be amazed...Even with the dampers closed...

Think people!!...We all know what it's like to walk downtown...big buildings....always a dam wind in the streets...Am I right?...Ha?.....That breeze...fed the fire...That even a dam Roman 3000 years ago...would of made some copper spears off the heat...

It's sad..the loss of life...We know what killed them....

We know how..what...and who...

Creek

 

[Paul Revere]

no1tovotefor, Popular Mechanics stated that “pull it” as Larry Silverstien stated they decided to “pull it” meant pulling it down as with cables. You agreed. Then you stated that the cables were inside the walls. I asked for a link. You provided none. NOWHERE can I find mention of cables in the walls.

The following evidence is from the National Institute of Standards and Technology


Here is a diagram of the framing

There was a load transfer between floors 5 and 7

There were Built up columns on the7th floor.

You stated that a whole wall was missing. I asked for a link. You supplied none.
This is the extent of the damage. This photo is as viewed from a helicopter:

Popular Mechanics falsely said the building was engulfed in flames. Here is the extent of the fire.

This photo is of the first moment of the collapse - Notice the lack of raging fires.

Even if one considered your whole wall fantasy as being real, why did the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building remain standing?

 

[no1tovote4]

no1tovotefor, Popular Mechanics stated that “pull it” as Larry Silverstien stated they decided to “pull it” meant pulling it down as with cables. You agreed. Then you stated that the cables were inside the walls. I asked for a link. You provided none. NOWHERE can I find mention of cables in the walls.

The following evidence is from the National Institute of Standards and Technology


Here is a diagram of the framing

There was a load transfer between floors 5 and 7

There were Built up columns on the7th floor.

You stated that a whole wall was missing. I asked for a link. You supplied none.
This is the extent of the damage. This photo is as viewed from a helicopter:

Popular Mechanics falsely said the building was engulfed in flames. Here is the extent of the fire.

This photo is of the first moment of the collapse - Notice the lack of raging fires.

Even if one considered your whole wall fantasy as being real, why did the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building remain standing?

No, "pull it" was in reference to the crew inside. They believed that the building could collapse, that the missing wall created a structural integrity problem. A misquoted phrase can mislead you. Don't let it.

Anyway, the cables that held the walls together "pulled" at the ceiling, when previously the wall held the weight partially. If you are referring to the passage where the cables "pulled" the wall down, that is what they were referring to.

Now if you are referring to the phrase, "They decided to pull it", they were speaking of the team inside the building. "Pull it" in that context meant to remove the team from the building because of the fear of the impending collapse.

 

[Creek_George]

What's next?

The Kennedy Assisnation?

Creek

 

[Paul Revere]

QUOTE=Creek_George;547351]How can any of you..debate what brought down those buildings?

There is no dam conspiracy that brought them to the ground...other than the fact...that two big ass planes hit them suckers..at the right spot...They did not wing them...Flew right into them...

It was probaly like a 9.9 Earthquake to whatever supported them...Diamond studed..who gives a shit...

If there was another factor to the colapse...it would be known...

The air flow that fed that fire streamed in...like I crack the door on my wood stove to make that baby flame...Big cities...big building...a heat source.....

Fire will not make certain metals burn...You add a air steam in....and fires sucks wind...like you would not believe...The buildings..and the space....

I could melt metal...with a $300 cheep wood burning stove...oxygen..wind..feed it....You'd be amazed...Even with the dampers closed...



Creek[/QUOTE]

My wood stove is steel, it has not warped, weakened or melted. I have had it cranked and glowing.

Building 7 was not hit by a plane.

 

[no1tovote4]

QUOTE=Creek_George;547351]How can any of you..debate what brought down those buildings?

There is no dam conspiracy that brought them to the ground...other than the fact...that two big ass planes hit them suckers..at the right spot...They did not wing them...Flew right into them...

It was probaly like a 9.9 Earthquake to whatever supported them...Diamond studed..who gives a shit...

If there was another factor to the colapse...it would be known...

The air flow that fed that fire streamed in...like I crack the door on my wood stove to make that baby flame...Big cities...big building...a heat source.....

Fire will not make certain metals burn...You add a air steam in....and fires sucks wind...like you would not believe...The buildings..and the space....

I could melt metal...with a $300 cheep wood burning stove...oxygen..wind..feed it....You'd be amazed...Even with the dampers closed...



Creek

My wood stove is steel, it has not warped, weakened or melted. I have had it cranked and glowing.

Building 7 was not hit by a plane.

Building 7 collapsed because it lost a large portion of its support when the towers fell. Your wood stove is steel but it was formed by a fire. At the time it was cast it was entirely molten from the fire that was used to make the metal formable.

 

[Creek_George]

QUOTE=Creek_George;547351]How can any of you..debate what brought down those buildings?

There is no dam conspiracy that brought them to the ground...other than the fact...that two big ass planes hit them suckers..at the right spot...They did not wing them...Flew right into them...

It was probaly like a 9.9 Earthquake to whatever supported them...Diamond studed..who gives a shit...

If there was another factor to the colapse...it would be known...

The air flow that fed that fire streamed in...like I crack the door on my wood stove to make that baby flame...Big cities...big building...a heat source.....

Fire will not make certain metals burn...You add a air steam in....and fires sucks wind...like you would not believe...The buildings..and the space....

I could melt metal...with a $300 cheep wood burning stove...oxygen..wind..feed it....You'd be amazed...Even with the dampers closed...



Creek

My wood stove is steel, it has not warped, weakened or melted. I have had it cranked and glowing.

Building 7 was not hit by a plane.

[/QUOTE]

Obviously..I did not refere to a stove melting with the temps..on what one could produce with it...

You know dam well what I expressed....

Open those dampers...have that baby cracked open..a window open...You ignite ....that air feeds it like 40mph wind....

It could be wet shit that caught on fire...the perfect air flow to it could make enough metal for the rebirth of Titanic II.

A city...big buildings..air space..streets....

The wind wasn't gushing by...That ..disaster sucked oxygen in....It wasn't the shit building material that made the flames so hot...not crap stashed it the buildings...Oxygen fed that fire..the air...that fire was fed with mother nature in front of your eyes...

It wasn't a little farm house..with nails that melted...I could make a fire now...Use Birch wood...and melt nails with the air flow...

The Pentagon was not hit with a plane either...I'll save my breath...

Creek

 

[Paul Revere]

Building 7 collapsed because it lost a large portion of its support when the towers fell. Your wood stove is steel but it was formed by a fire. At the time it was cast it was entirely molten from the fire that was used to make the metal formable.

LINKS???
I want to see a link that proves Building 7 lost a large portion of its support.
So did the Alfred P. Murrah lose much of it's support. It did not fall. Both WTC 7 and the Alfred P. Murrah had plenty of steel beam support left. The steel beams, like my stove, were forged from fire.

You are pulling your facts from your ass.

 

[eots]

Building 7 collapsed because it lost a large portion of its support when the towers fell. Your wood stove is steel but it was formed by a fire. At the time it was cast it was entirely molten from the fire that was used to make the metal formable.

at a temperatures of 2700 degrees in a foundry ! not from radium office fires
the nist report admits temperatures of this level where never reached ...are you really this stupid or do you simply desire to deny no matter what

 

[Creek_George]

My stove..

 

[Paul Revere]

My wood stove is steel, it has not warped, weakened or melted. I have had it cranked and glowing.

Building 7 was not hit by a plane.




You know dam well what I expressed....

Open those dampers...have that baby cracked open..a window open...You ignite ....that air feeds it like 40mph wind....



The wind wasn't gushing by...That ..disaster sucked oxygen in....It wasn't the shit building material that made the flames so hot...not crap stashed it the buildings...Oxygen fed that fire..the air...that fire was fed with mother nature in front of your eyes...

It

The Pentagon was not hit with a plane either...I'll save my breath...

Creek

The Pentagon was not a steel frame highrise.
WTC 7 had no raging hot fires and was not hit by an aircraft.
Look athe photos in this thread or search for your self.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=wtc+7+fire&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2