Life sucks. Lets go have a beer.
Life sucks. Lets go have a beer.
we want your oil!
i'd love to see someone refute the WTC7 thing
If I remember right, Gepper, it was addressed in the Popular Mechanics article. But you will have to go look for it.........I can't be bothered. (thank you.......I have wanted to use the 'can't be bothered' phrase for some time......) Then you can let me know why you think their reasoning is wrong.
Unless you can't be bothered, in which case, I am cool with it.
(_8(I)
This vid has some interesting info on the trade center colapsing. Its very interesting, some stuff i never knew.
Well worth the download.This video gives consipracy theorists a bad name. Not since "Fahrenheit 9/11" have I seen such bombastic, utterly laughable garbage purporting to be "truth".i'd love to see someone refute the WTC7 thing
As for WTC 7? Watch the History Channel's presentation of Greatest Engineering Disasters in their Modern Marvels series and all of this is explained. There were no preplanted explosives or any other such nonsense.
Last edited by Skizo; 08-07-2005 at 10:10 PM.
yo
we want your oil!
anyone know where i can download this Greatest engineering disasters program?Originally Posted by Skizo
i find it hard to believe a design flaw can make the owner and police lie, or make a building collapse in perfect fitting with controlled demolition because of small fires.
Use Logic Or STFU!!!
First rule of the internet...
When something is presented as fact it is fact.
There is no need for further research.
We've got the answer already, dumbshit.
Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me. Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, Bitchhhh!
Flies Like An Arrow, Flies Like An Apple
---12323---4552-----
2133--STRENGTH--8310
344---5--5301---3232
we want your oil!
hey busy, i'm asking for sources to refute this. as far as i see it's impossible to make the building collapse like this. even if it was made out of wood (so fire could break it), it could not have collapsed so perfectly.
unlike others here. i like to see the whole story before deciding someone is wrong.
so does anyone have anything that says it didn't involve well placed explosives? republican blogs that call me crazy without confronting any accusations don't count
WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. 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."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
This is from the Popular Mechanics 'Debunking the Myths' article, Gepper. They consulted 300 experts for their article, and listed them at the end. I am not convinced anyone is an 'expert' at what happens when planes fly into buildings, though, as most experts become that way based on experience, and these experts don't have much but hypothesis. After reading the whole article, though, I think they have more experience in these things than the people writing the conspiracy articles. But to each his own.
Poster
A chain-reaction collapse just doesnt go down like this.Nice read Everose but i still dont think it dissproves everything.
You can find more stuff here: http://www.conspiracyvideos.com/site...p?article.64.1
Last edited by ziggyjuarez; 08-07-2005 at 11:55 PM.
we want your oil!
interesting read, but i don't believe it. i've heard that fire can weaken the metal, but not that much. remember out of about 100 tall steel buildings that have been on fire none have collapsed. i don't think there really was 25% "scooped out" of a third of the building, how the hell would they work this out, the many cameras didn't see it and i didn't see any sources to say how they knew this. even if fire and this missing section could cause the building to collapse, i doubt it could fall so neatly, and i doubt the building owner would lie about having it pulled downWTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. 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."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
This is from the Popular Mechanics 'Debunking the Myths' article, Gepper. They consulted 300 experts for their article, and listed them at the end. I am not convinced anyone is an 'expert' at what happens when planes fly into buildings, though, as most experts become that way based on experience, and these experts don't have much but hypothesis. After reading the whole article, though, I think they have more experience in these things than the people writing the conspiracy articles. But to each his own.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
) Then you can let me know why you think their reasoning is wrong. 
Unless you can't be bothered, in which case, I am cool with it. 
Bookmarks