WTC building 7

[LA RAM FAN]

So we are to believe that George Bush coordinated a Terrorist attack and ordered the sabotage of the World Trade Center Buildings causing the collapses and the deaths of thousands to justify a war on Iraq, correct? Yes or no?

Yes,read the book in my link on post#33.Nobody has ever been able to debunk it.as i said,the author of that book has challenged congress to debate him in public out in the open on national airwaves,they wont take up the challenge because they know they cant refute his facts.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

What was the motive for the all powerful conspiracy to secretly sabotage this building?

it's what they do?

none of the conspiracy makes any rational sense

yeah the conspiracy THEORY of the governments that fires caused the collapse of the towers and 19 muslims were behind the attacks dont make sense,you are correct. again something every 9/11 apologist never has any answers for is bld 7,the crux of the 9/11 coverup.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

And that's the way it was...

Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9 11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest​

all that proves is that the government is lying,again post#33 counters all that nonsense of the governments you posted.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

What was the motive for the all powerful conspiracy to secretly sabotage this building?

it's what they do?

none of the conspiracy makes any rational sense

yeah the conspiracy THEORY of the governments that fires caused the collapse of the towers and 19 muslims were behind the attacks dont make sense,you are correct. again something every 9/11 apologist never has any answers for is bld 7,the crux of the 9/11 coverup.

I notice how you always post a funny everytime you are cornered and cant refute facts toddster.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Nothing up my sleeve, presto!

GAITHERSBURG, Maryland -- The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9 11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest​

office fires do not create a symmetrical collapses of steel framed hi-rise buildings at free fall speed

The link explains how it does. I guess you haven't read what you are replying to?

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios...


.... In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."

The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings: "These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings." If the sprinkler system in WTC 7 had been working, it is likely that "the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented." The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads." According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse."

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9 11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest​

AGAIN that link of that book in post#33 counters your link,you might actually try and read it instead of only looking at ONE SIDE of the coin.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

What was the motive for the all powerful conspiracy to secretly sabotage this building?

it's what they do?

none of the conspiracy makes any rational sense

Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings, yet its aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was its contents, like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt. Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C. (They say "Yeah but that's the ceiling" to which I say "Now imagine what the actual flame is.. Do you think it's cooler?") More than enough to melt aircraft aluminum as well. Unfortunately, they weren't charged with putting conspiracy theorists fears to rest so they didn't include a piece of aircraft aluminum in the test.

More evidence that normal fires without jet fuel added can reach over 1000 degrees C is an experiment conducted by One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering, Professor Colin Bailey, University of Manchester.

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Molten Steel

the problem of that propaganda link of yours is firefighters experienced in the sound of explosives that were witnesses there along with demolition experts refute that nonsense in that link so it doesn't debunk a single thing.lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

What was the motive for the all powerful conspiracy to secretly sabotage this building?

it's what they do?

none of the conspiracy makes any rational sense

what does a video prove?

he denies and lies about multiple eye witnesses ,samples and photographic evidence of molten metal at all three buildings...just as they deny explosions recorded and wittnessed

which is why that puts an end to the nonsense that fires brought down building 7.

 

[Wyld Kard]

It's clearly obvious this discussion is over, it's been proven time and time again there was no conspiracy to the attacks on September 11, anyone that thinks so is ignoring fact and purposely being ignorant.

It's clearly obvious this discussion is over

Not even close.

it's been proven time and time again there was no conspiracy to the attacks on September 11anyone that thinks so is ignoring fact and purposely being ignorant

It's been proven? With what? Bullshit upon more bullshit upon even more bullshit.

Anyone who is gullible enough to believe in the so-called "Official Story" which is nothing more then the "Official Big Fat Lie" is being purposely ignorant.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Toddsterpatriot

What's the matter?

Too scared to debate anything about 9/11 because it's in the CDZ?

 

[eots]

What was the motive for the all powerful conspiracy to secretly sabotage this building?

it's what they do?

none of the conspiracy makes any rational sense

Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings, yet its aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was its contents, like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt. Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C. (They say "Yeah but that's the ceiling" to which I say "Now imagine what the actual flame is.. Do you think it's cooler?") More than enough to melt aircraft aluminum as well. Unfortunately, they weren't charged with putting conspiracy theorists fears to rest so they didn't include a piece of aircraft aluminum in the test.

More evidence that normal fires without jet fuel added can reach over 1000 degrees C is an experiment conducted by One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering, Professor Colin Bailey, University of Manchester.

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Molten Steel

this is a weak attempt to explain molten metal seen in only one portion the building..does nothing to address the majority of molten metal evidence

 

[eots]

 

[eots]

• Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the World Trade Center, said 21 days after the attack: “When we were down at the B1 level, one of the firefighters said, ‘I think you’d be interested in this,’ and they pulled up a big block of concrete and there was a, like a little river of steel, flowing.”[34]
• Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health who arrived at Ground Zero September 12, 2001, said: “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster.”[35]
• In late fall 2001, Dr. Alison Geyh of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health reported: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”[36]
• Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, said in an October 2001 interview on CBS: “It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into [some] areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material.”[37]
• Dr. Keith Eaton reported in Structural Engineer: “They showed us many fascinating slides . . . ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster.”
• Don Carson, a hazardous materials expert from the National Operating Engineers Union, said six weeks after 9/11: “There are pieces of steel being pulled out from as far as six stories underground that are still cherry red.”[38]

 

[eots]

• Greg Fuchek, vice president of a company that supplied computer equipment used to identify human remains, reported that “sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.”[39]
• Sarah Atlas, of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, arrived at Ground Zero on September 11 and reported that “fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.”[40]
• Tom Arterburn, writing in Waste Age, reported that the New York Department of Sanitation removed “everything from molten steel beams to human remains.”[41]

 

[eots]

 

[eots]

 

[KokomoJojo]

What was the motive for the all powerful conspiracy to secretly sabotage this building?

it's what they do?

none of the conspiracy makes any rational sense

Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings, yet its aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was its contents, like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt. Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C. (They say "Yeah but that's the ceiling" to which I say "Now imagine what the actual flame is.. Do you think it's cooler?") More than enough to melt aircraft aluminum as well. Unfortunately, they weren't charged with putting conspiracy theorists fears to rest so they didn't include a piece of aircraft aluminum in the test.

More evidence that normal fires without jet fuel added can reach over 1000 degrees C is an experiment conducted by One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering, Professor Colin Bailey, University of Manchester.

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Molten Steel

this is a weak attempt to explain molten metal seen in only one portion the building..does nothing to address the majority of molten metal evidence

Neither does it address twice the temps required to make metal incandecsent and glow bright yellow. the aluminum from a plane would remain silver color when melted and flowing. His example is a nonstarter.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Kool!
1) I want to see pictures of column 79 (from you), and I want to know the chain of custody of the same.
2) I want to see video evidence of a plane that hit the pentagon, (from you), and the chain of custody for the same. I have only seen photo shopped smudges so far.

.

the names of the people making the charges of conspiracy. anyone can make a conspiracy charge, the burden of proof is on them to provide

Thats a nonresponse to my request for evidence in support of your claim. Care to give us a pic or something we can examine in support of your claim? Anything at all?

 

[Agit8r]

When structural metal gets overheated, it deflects. Building can even collapse without any fire. All it takes is for them to be poorly engineered. It takes an amazing amount of correct calculations to even make a building stand erect in the first place, and any amount of structural damage puts stress on the remaining members.

 

[eots]

When structural metal gets overheated, it deflects. Building can even collapse without any fire. All it takes is for them to be poorly engineered. It takes an amazing amount of correct calculations to even make a building stand erect in the first place, and any amount of structural damage puts stress on the remaining members.

what a load of nonsense, Nothing in NIST called design into question and no significant building code recommendations were made as a result of the NIST report these buildings are not fragile and have built in redundancy, .and NIST determined structural damage was not a factor in the collapse..so you are already in contradiction with the NIST report...name one steel framed hi-rise building that has suffered a complete collapse...other than the WTC buildings

 

[Agit8r]

name one steel framed hi-rise building that has suffered a complete collapse...other than the WTC buildings