Buildings don't fall down just because they're on fire pt911

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are numerous demolition experts that have viewed the footage and agree that it is a textbook demolition that can not happen due to a building being on fire.

I just don't see how people can watch the footage of the building fall and not have doubts over the reasoning behind it.

All this tin foil nonsense is just an embarrassing cop out tbh. Some people just love to bury their head in the sand and accept the official story that is given to them.
When you say numerous you're talking about a handful. If that.
 


'Truthers' simply refuse to consider the logistics of any of their theories. I wonder why that is.
 
Who says it was the CIA that organised it? Let your imagination run wild for a second here and that me and you want to get rid of some exceptionally dodgy information that is going to send us to prison for a long time and wipe out our collective fortune.

We look at the first option, we need to delete the information from the servers...too risky, someone has got to be in there to do it.

Or we have a mate who owns the building where the servers are, he fancies redeveloping the whole area but knows he'll never be able to do it. He's already got a plan to destroy the surrounding buildings and claim the insurance money. He tells us of a plan where its going to be risk free for us, a group of towheaded cave dwellers are going to take the blame why don't we piggy back on his plan.

Sounds like a no brainer to me.

What should we do?
The damaging information will not be only on one server in one building. I can't believe even the CIA are that lax about data security.
 
Here we go, people bandy about this 'thousands of people involved', why does there have to be that many people involved?

The purpose of the plot will have been known by only a few, from then on in its pretty easy to direct your foot troops to do your dirty work.

When you direct your foot troops to do something seemingly mundane and then the single biggest event of all of our lifetimes takes place is it not possible that the scales may fall from their eyes?

Apparently they knew about pearl harbour before it happened but didn't do anything, h a s anyone heard owt about that?

A lot of people were looking to get into a war so looked the other way.
 
Last edited:
I'd give the report a read - it certainly does not agree that the fire was only on a few floors at one end of the building and indeed tracks the movement of fires per floor in detail from video and photo evidence. It does not claim diesel was the source of the blaze (in fact almost all fuel for the internal systems was recovered) or that the blaze got incredibly intense - just that it was on fire from 10.30 onwards for nearly 7 hours (fire accreditation for buildings is to last 3 hours without sprinklers). It was an incredibly detailed report and has further sub-reports that it references that go into each matter in further detail.

NIST also recovered and examined 236 pieces of metal structure from the various wreckage - http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html
I've read that report, very interesting. WTC7 gets mentioned twice and that is only in the criteria set out to the investigation team:

The charge to the investigation team comprised four major parts.


    • “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.
    • Determine why the injuries and fatalities were high or low depending on location including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response.
    • Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7.
Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.”

Nowhere else in the report is WTC7 mentioned. There is no mention that any of 236 items recovered came from WTC7 but there were 43 items recovered from WTC5 that wasn't mentioned in the criteria of the report.

There's consistent mention of 'Towers' and the context of the report doesn't refer to a group of buildings, as far as I'm aware WTC7 has never been referred to as a 'Tower'.

Sorry, but that report doesn't prove anything, just shows that there are questions that need to be asked and answered.

Anything to add @ProfessionalMackem ?
 
I've read that report, very interesting. WTC7 gets mentioned twice and that is only in the criteria set out to the investigation team:

The charge to the investigation team comprised four major parts.


    • “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.
    • Determine why the injuries and fatalities were high or low depending on location including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response.
    • Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7.
Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.”

Nowhere else in the report is WTC7 mentioned. There is no mention that any of 236 items recovered came from WTC7 but there were 43 items recovered from WTC5 that wasn't mentioned in the criteria of the report.

There's consistent mention of 'Towers' and the context of the report doesn't refer to a group of buildings, as far as I'm aware WTC7 has never been referred to as a 'Tower'.

Sorry, but that report doesn't prove anything, just shows that there are questions that need to be asked and answered.

Anything to add @ProfessionalMackem ?

That was the second link (the one in the post above) - it was just about the metal they had analysed. The report was what I linked in the post before that...http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

It is the full report on WTC7 - it is only about WTC7. Please check the right link, cause there is little point commenting on the above as it seems you have only read the second link from what I can make out.
 
Last edited:
That was the second link (the one in the post above) - it was just about the metal they had analysed. The report was what I linked in the post before that...http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

It is the full report on WTC7 - it is only about WTC7. Please check the right link, cause there is little point commenting on the above as it seems you have only read the second link from what I can make out.
Ah right, my bad. Didn't see that one.

That was the second link (the one in the post above) - it was just about the metal they had analysed. The report was what I linked in the post before that...http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

It is the full report on WTC7 - it is only about WTC7. Please check the right link, cause there is little point commenting on the above as it seems you have only read the second link from what I can make out.
:lol::lol:Is the the link that opens up with big red letters saying Collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7??
 
Here's how it goes......

Truther What about this?

Non truther It's shit. Here's the evidence.

Truther Yes, yes, but what about this then?

Repeat until everyone is sick.....apart from the truthers.
I get it now

I didn't understand when I did the OP :cool:
 
Yep, that is the chappie :lol:
:lol:

I've had a very very quick glance through it, not enough to comment though. Although fuel in everyone else tanks apart the Mayors and the Solomon Brothers sounds intriguing, the latter especially!;)
 
The trouble is mate your civil engineering expertise probably relates to nowt more than what you built with lego and meccano as a kid.

You believe what you want to and accept it as fact as much as an over zealous preacher accepts that God created the earth on a week off from graft.

Planes flew into two git massive buildings, those buildings collapsed and had a knock on effect for the buildings around them. They collapsed too.

Your next riposte will be "but, but, but"

But in all honesty I couldn't care. The tin foil is staying in the kitchen cupboard.

I'm not a conspiracy nut by any stretch of the imagination, I've spent 22 years of my life putting fires out and If I saw a video of building 7 collapse without knowing any other detail I'd put my house on it being a controlled demolition.

I'm seriously not saying it was but if Fred dibnah had brought that down as perfectly he would have wanked his knob off :lol:
 
I'm not a conspiracy nut by any stretch of the imagination, I've spent 22 years of my life putting fires out and If I saw a video of building 7 collapse without knowing any other detail I'd put my house on it being a controlled demolition.

I'm seriously not saying it was but if Fred dibnah had brought that down as perfectly he would have wanked his knob off :lol:
So, very difficult for a team of demolition experts to do when they have open access to an empty building in order to prepare it for a perfectly controlled and planned collapse, but apparently some anonymous people did it in secret with everything still in situ? Or, it just burned out and fell down.
 
So, very difficult for a team of demolition experts to do when they have open access to an empty building in order to prepare it for a perfectly controlled and planned collapse, but apparently some anonymous people did it in secret with everything still in situ? Or, it just burned out and fell down.
Talk about twisting what he said!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top