THE OFFICAL 911 was a inside job thread

Was 911 an inside job?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 94 47.7%
  • No.

    Votes: 86 43.7%
  • Not sure yet but I will visit <a href="http://www.UniversalSeed.org" rel="external nofollow">http://

    Votes: 17 8.6%

  • Total voters
    197
Status
Not open for further replies.
i didnt see anything explaining that building's collapse in any of your sorry half assed "explanations."
again, how did 2 isolated fires on seperate floors, bring that building down at freefall speed, blowing the windows out from the bottom up, and putting the classic demolition crimp in the center of the building to make it fall inward? simple set of questions i think, why do you evade them instead of attempted to answer them, if this "debunking information" is so readily available. post me a link.

i dont get high mang. going by your sig, you're lookin like the reeferhead...

"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."

now **** off.

 
and you believe that? you take any half *** explanation the government gives out and call it fact. there was no firefighting in the building? then why were firefighters pulled out of the building since they knew it was about to collapse? big words from people with important sounding titles may make it easier for your brain to accept the garbage its being fed, but it does nothing to explain the footage of that building falling. about the only other weakass explanation for silversteins comments about "pulling the building" would be that he meant pulling the firefighters, which is ridiculous if you listen to the context in which he used it. so either he admitted they blew it up, or he said they pulled out firefighters which your experts claim weren't there. its well known fact they were in there. also, wouldnt you expect a pancake collapse (which has never happened) to blow the windows from the top down, or the collapse to start at lower 10 floors of the building, where the fires were, rather than from the top? how did these fires crimp the top part of the building inward? wouldnt you expect a pancake collapse to have at least some resistance as each floor came down, slowing the collapse, rather than coming down at freefall speed? explain away chief....

why is it always the people who believe this bullshit cover story who get all angry and resort to ignorant name calling rather than reasonable debate?

 
and you believe that? you take any half *** explanation the government gives out and call it fact. there was no firefighting in the building? then why were firefighters pulled out of the building since they knew it was about to collapse? big words from people with important sounding titles may make it easier for your brain to accept the garbage its being fed, but it does nothing to explain the footage of that building falling.

ahahaa, you live in a crazy fantasy world!!!! do they have unicorns there??

you've been proved wrong, now go away, stop perpetuating more conspiracies. What Im I supposed to do when any evidence I mention is "given out by the gov't"?? Do I have to rely on made up illogical crap posted on random, unrealiable websites like you?

 
new york firefighters are random, unreliable sources? the people who designed the buildings are?

how have i been proved wrong, i didnt see you address ANY of the questions i just posed to you.

 
new york firefighters are random, unreliable sources? the people who designed the buildings are?
how have i been proved wrong, i didnt see you address ANY of the questions i just posed to you.
Firefighters are far from experts on structural engineering, and their own personal agendas could easily color anything they say, and go unchallenged.

READ THE ARTICLE. you are WRONG, face the facts. You havent backed up anything thus far.

Do I have to spoon feed this stuff to you like the videos you guys are so keen on?

 
that makes no sense you stupid ****ing moron. how can a building in a 3rd world country burn for more than 24 hours and still stand and this one burns for a 2-3 hours and completely collapeses?
Did you actually read anything I posted, or is reading not your strong suit?

The concept of falling debris confuses you? and IM the moron? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 
no joke, the level of your guys ignorence is perplexing, Its like talking to 5th graders. Im done, you ignore all evidence that doesnt conform to your illogical reasoning.

its like anything that isnt completely layed out and spoon fed to your tiny mouth, is questionable and subject to a conspiracy theory in itself.

BTW from you article: "However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse. "

your done.

 
wasn't the article i was thinking of. this is.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

not that i expect you to read all of that, you obviously dont have the mental capacity to understand it, or the attention span to finish it.

i'm not even saying any of this PROVES 100% that the government blew up those 3 buildings. what im saying is that their official story is impossible, and that it seems to me they would have a reason for telling such blatant lies. you, on the other hand, find any article that seems to support your side of the story, and claim thats the be-all end-all explanation that blows all of these smoking guns right out of the water. i've only been focusing on wtc7. that is a small piece of a very large puzzle, with glaring, unanswered questions at every turn.

 
The buildings own falling debries caused it to fall? Do you realize how stupid that is?
The other WTC debris you moron.
what "other" falling debris your moron? if your talking about 1 tower falling from debris after the other fell, then why did it stay up for about 30 min longer? and you can see in teh videos it fell straight down, it didnt fall on top of the other one. so yes you are a stupid moron.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...

About this thread

Crown_amps

Banned
Thread starter
Crown_amps
Joined
Location
British Columbia
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
2,298
Views
34,157
Last reply date
Last reply from
Imtjnotu
IMG_20260516_193114554_HDR.jpg

sherbanater

    May 16, 2026
  • 0
  • 0
IMG_20260516_192955471_HDR.jpg

sherbanater

    May 16, 2026
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top