What brought down WTC7

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Page 37 of the NIST report you refer to has an excellent graphic illustrating all the structure in the way which would have provided resistive force to keep the acceleration of the fall observably below that of free fall if the official explanation had any basis in reality. Again, to have free fall under those conditions you'd need the weakened part of the structure to collapse first, clearing space for the upper portion to only then fall at free fall, Wile E. Coyote style.

yes all those bulging and snapped columns in the graphic would have provided a lot of structural support

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky
Moreover, this possibly goes beyond Bush, as deep as the CIA, NSA, DoD, and other entities. Also, you're assuming that Obama is the one in charge. I would argue against that.

Crazy is a bottomless well.

He did get us to respond to him for a whole bunch of pages though. Kudos.

Oh, quick question, where's the evidence for these allegations?

Ignorance is bliss. But calling dissenting opinions crazy sure is a good coping mechanism.

Here's a quick answer - these are not allegation, but rather observed activities which seem out of the ordinary, and have not been sufficiently explained. For example - why were none of the hijacked aircraft intercepted? Sound crazy to you?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And if you never claimed there was thermite, what are you claiming? Or are you another one of those truthers that's "Just asking questions, man."?

So now the towers didn't really collapse?

Wow. Interesting. This just keeps getting better and better.

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky
Moreover, this possibly goes beyond Bush, as deep as the CIA, NSA, DoD, and other entities. Also, you're assuming that Obama is the one in charge. I would argue against that.

Crazy is a bottomless well.

He did get us to respond to him for a whole bunch of pages though. Kudos.

Oh, quick question, where's the evidence for these allegations?

Ignorance is bliss. But calling dissenting opinions crazy sure is a good coping mechanism.

Here's a quick answer - these are not allegation, but rather observed activities which seem out of the ordinary, and have not been sufficiently explained. For example - why were none of the hijacked aircraft intercepted? Sound crazy to you?

No. Who was going to intercept the aircraft? How many aircraft have EVER been intercepted in the history of the US?

Edit: To answer your question, nobody would have been able to intercept the aircraft even if they wanted. The hijackers were smart. They turned off the identification beacons in the planes. That meant that FAA had to search, by hand, through about 4,000 flights to find the missing planes.

Once they found them and confirmed they'd been hijacked, they called NORAD. NORAD had NO ability prior to 9/11 to track planes within US airspace. NORAD immediately scrambled planes at Otis AFB. Due to regulations which have now changed, those planes were not allowed to fly at supersonic speed over populated cooridors. They flew a circuitous route to minimize transit time. They were launched only minutes before the planes hit the towers. Even if they HAD reached the planes, what were they going to do? Shoot them down? Why? Nobody knew that these guys were going to slam them into buildings.

I keep doing you the courtesy of responding to your queries, while you have refused to answer a single solitary question I've asked you. Instead, you rehash the same truther arguments over and over again. Unfortuantely for you, there is answer for nearly everything you point out and your "why weren't they intercepted" question simply indicates your tremendous ignorance on the subject and your willful denial of facts, logic, and reason.

If you spent more than six minutes forming your opinion about what happened on 9/11, you'd at least know that those "smart points" or whatever you think you're making have been addressed more times than most people care to remember.

edit2: Please respond to the questions I've asked you. I know you can't which is why you avoid it, but please at least try. They are simple. They ask about the framework of the conspiracy you believe in. If you cannot even outline WHAT you believe, then why are we arguing?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And if you never claimed there was thermite, what are you claiming? Or are you another one of those truthers that's "Just asking questions, man."?

So now the towers didn't really collapse?

Wow. Interesting. This just keeps getting better and better.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Start making unambiguous statements and that won't be a problem.

What do you claim really happened? Lay out your theory.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Page 37 of the NIST report you refer to has an excellent graphic illustrating all the structure in the way which would have provided resistive force to keep the acceleration of the fall observably below that of free fall if the official explanation had any basis in reality. Again, to have free fall under those conditions you'd need the weakened part of the structure to collapse first, clearing space for the upper portion to only then fall at free fall, Wile E. Coyote style.

yes all those bulging and snapped columns in the graphic would have provided a lot of structural support

Nah, that all fell away first, and then only after that would the upper section fall, just like Wile E. Coyote hovering over a crumbling pillar of rock before free falling onto the rubble below.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And if you never claimed there was thermite, what are you claiming? Or are you another one of those truthers that's "Just asking questions, man."?

So now the towers didn't really collapse?

Wow. Interesting. This just keeps getting better and better.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Start making unambiguous statements and that won't be a problem.

What do you claim really happened? Lay out your theory.

Lol, and do what, pull stuff out of my ass? Like the claim by NIST that all the fireproofing of the steel columns was destroyed by the impact of the aircraft? No, I am not gonna lay out theories without sufficient evidence. But neither am I willing to overlook the unverified assumptions made in the official story.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky
Moreover, this possibly goes beyond Bush, as deep as the CIA, NSA, DoD, and other entities. Also, you're assuming that Obama is the one in charge. I would argue against that.

Crazy is a bottomless well.

He did get us to respond to him for a whole bunch of pages though. Kudos.

Oh, quick question, where's the evidence for these allegations?

Ignorance is bliss. But calling dissenting opinions crazy sure is a good coping mechanism.

Here's a quick answer - these are not allegation, but rather observed activities which seem out of the ordinary, and have not been sufficiently explained. For example - why were none of the hijacked aircraft intercepted? Sound crazy to you?

No. Who was going to intercept the aircraft? How many aircraft have EVER been intercepted in the history of the US?

Edit: To answer your question, nobody would have been able to intercept the aircraft even if they wanted. The hijackers were smart. They turned off the identification beacons in the planes. That meant that FAA had to search, by hand, through about 4,000 flights to find the missing planes.

Once they found them and confirmed they'd been hijacked, they called NORAD. NORAD had NO ability prior to 9/11 to track planes within US airspace. NORAD immediately scrambled planes at Otis AFB. Due to regulations which have now changed, those planes were not allowed to fly at supersonic speed over populated cooridors. They flew a circuitous route to minimize transit time. They were launched only minutes before the planes hit the towers. Even if they HAD reached the planes, what were they going to do? Shoot them down? Why? Nobody knew that these guys were going to slam them into buildings.

I keep doing you the courtesy of responding to your queries, while you have refused to answer a single solitary question I've asked you. Instead, you rehash the same truther arguments over and over again. Unfortuantely for you, there is answer for nearly everything you point out and your "why weren't they intercepted" question simply indicates your tremendous ignorance on the subject and your willful denial of facts, logic, and reason.

If you spent more than six minutes forming your opinion about what happened on 9/11, you'd at least know that those "smart points" or whatever you think you're making have been addressed more times than most people care to remember.

edit2: Please respond to the questions I've asked you. I know you can't which is why you avoid it, but please at least try. They are simple. They ask about the framework of the conspiracy you believe in. If you cannot even outline WHAT you believe, then why are we arguing?

I don't have information which isn't available to the public, so you're asking the wrong guy with questions. That's why I'm discussing it here, to address the ambiguities and assumptions made by the official story.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Nah, that all fell away first, and then only after that would the upper section fall, just like Wile E. Coyote hovering over a crumbling pillar of rock before free falling onto the rubble below.

the upper section started falling slowly. why do you keep ignoring that?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: munky

I don't have information which isn't available to the public, so you're asking the wrong guy with questions. That's why I'm discussing it here, to clear up the ambiguities and assumptions made by the official story.

Why don't you stop posting and go read the NIST report. Go right to their website and read the report from start to finish. Read the Popular Mechanics piece on the conspiracy theories. Stop making other people do research for you that you're too lazy to do yourself.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Start making unambiguous statements and that won't be a problem.

What do you claim really happened? Lay out your theory.

Lol, and do what, pull stuff out of my ass? Like the claim by NIST that all the fireproofing of the steel columns was destroyed by the impact of the aircraft? No, I am not gonna lay out theories without sufficient evidence. But neither am I willing to overlook the unverified assumptions made in the official story.

First off, NIST didn't claim that ALL of the fireproofing on the steel columns was destroyed by the aircraft impact. There's one ass pull. Second, you pulled the claim about molten "steel" out of your ass, so why stop now?

 

[Delita]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And if you never claimed there was thermite, what are you claiming? Or are you another one of those truthers that's "Just asking questions, man."?

So now the towers didn't really collapse?

Wow. Interesting. This just keeps getting better and better.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Start making unambiguous statements and that won't be a problem.

What do you claim really happened? Lay out your theory.

Lol, and do what, pull stuff out of my ass? Like the claim by NIST that all the fireproofing of the steel columns was destroyed by the impact of the aircraft? No, I am not gonna lay out theories without sufficient evidence. But neither am I willing to overlook the unverified assumptions made in the official story.

This thread is sufficient evidence to prove you are a huge idiot.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Start making unambiguous statements and that won't be a problem.

What do you claim really happened? Lay out your theory.

Lol, and do what, pull stuff out of my ass? Like the claim by NIST that all the fireproofing of the steel columns was destroyed by the impact of the aircraft? No, I am not gonna lay out theories without sufficient evidence. But neither am I willing to overlook the unverified assumptions made in the official story.

First off, NIST didn't claim that ALL of the fireproofing on the steel columns was destroyed by the aircraft impact. There's one ass pull.

Too bad their assumption was that ANY of it was destroyed. Sound like an ass pull to me.

Second, you pulled the claim about molten "steel" out of your ass, so why stop now?

No I didn't, people removing the debris made the claim. And NIST neither denied nor confirmed it, but swept it aside as irrelevant. Nice try though.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Start making unambiguous statements and that won't be a problem.

What do you claim really happened? Lay out your theory.

Lol, and do what, pull stuff out of my ass? Like the claim by NIST that all the fireproofing of the steel columns was destroyed by the impact of the aircraft? No, I am not gonna lay out theories without sufficient evidence. But neither am I willing to overlook the unverified assumptions made in the official story.

First off, NIST didn't claim that ALL of the fireproofing on the steel columns was destroyed by the aircraft impact. There's one ass pull.

Too bad their assumption was that ANY of it was destroyed. Sound like an ass pull to me.

That's it. Backpedal furiously now. Clearly you don't have an actual grasp of the facts on this issue at all. You claim the NIST report is bogus and then demonstrate that don't even know what's in it. Talk about a hack.

Second, you pulled the claim about molten "steel" out of your ass, so why stop now?

No I didn't, people removing the debris made the claim. And NIST neither denied nor confirmed it, but swept it aside as irrelevant. Nice try though.

You parroted their claim as a fact. You made the claim by proxy and now try to step away from it when you've been owned over it.

You're just another lame truther with a pretense of knowledge who doesn't actually know shit. ah heck of. We're still waiting for a smart truther to show up and you ain't it.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Delita

This thread is sufficient evidence to prove you are a huge idiot.

And I care about your dumbass opinion because...

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Delita

This thread is sufficient evidence to prove you are a huge idiot.

And I care about your dumbass opinion because...

We could ask the same of a person who refuses to read the NIST report and instead chooses to read truther sites that criticize it, someone who refuses to respond to any questions directed at them, and someone who continually shirks the opportunity to actually learn something and instead makes ridiculous arguments and statements with no basis in fact or reality.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Start making unambiguous statements and that won't be a problem.

What do you claim really happened? Lay out your theory.

Lol, and do what, pull stuff out of my ass? Like the claim by NIST that all the fireproofing of the steel columns was destroyed by the impact of the aircraft? No, I am not gonna lay out theories without sufficient evidence. But neither am I willing to overlook the unverified assumptions made in the official story.

First off, NIST didn't claim that ALL of the fireproofing on the steel columns was destroyed by the aircraft impact. There's one ass pull.

Too bad their assumption was that ANY of it was destroyed. Sound like an ass pull to me.

That's it. Backpedal furiously now. Clearly you don't have an actual grasp of the facts on this issue at all. You claim the NIST report is bogus and then demonstrate that don't even know what's in it. Talk about a hack.

You know how they determined what kinda damage the fireproofing sustained? Great diversion, try to stay on topic next time.

Second, you pulled the claim about molten "steel" out of your ass, so why stop now?

No I didn't, people removing the debris made the claim. And NIST neither denied nor confirmed it, but swept it aside as irrelevant. Nice try though.

You parroted their claim as a fact. You made the claim by proxy and now try to step away from it when you've been owned over it.

You're just another lame truther with a pretense of knowledge who doesn't actually know shit. ah heck of. We're still waiting for a smart truther to show up and you ain't it.

And I'm still waiting for an investigation not based off asinine assumptions. You're not providing one, so fuck off.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Delita

This thread is sufficient evidence to prove you are a huge idiot.

And I care about your dumbass opinion because...

We could ask the same of a person who refuses to read the NIST report and instead chooses to read truther sites that criticize it, someone who refuses to respond to any questions directed at them, and someone who continually shirks the opportunity to actually learn something and instead makes ridiculous arguments and statements with no basis in fact or reality.

Then stop asking me questions.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Delita

This thread is sufficient evidence to prove you are a huge idiot.

And I care about your dumbass opinion because...

We could ask the same of a person who refuses to read the NIST report and instead chooses to read truther sites that criticize it, someone who refuses to respond to any questions directed at them, and someone who continually shirks the opportunity to actually learn something and instead makes ridiculous arguments and statements with no basis in fact or reality.

Then stop asking me questions.

We stopped asking you questions ages ago. You, Kyle and event8horizon have proved that nothing is going to change your mind. Nothing. God could come out of the sky, say, "Hi everybody, I exist, and 9/11 was carried out by Saudi Arabians in airplanes" and you'd continue to sputter "bu-bu-bu-but the STEEL!" There's over 800 posts in this thread by a multitude of people and the only people you've managed to convince are the 2 other guys who already agreed with you. You may not be stupid, but on this topic you are acting like a complete idiot. You are willfully ignorant by your own admission and you expect us to listen to your opinion? Unless you're only posting here to make truthers look like morons, I can't fathom what agenda you think you're "advancing" by continuing to post in this thread.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Nah, that all fell away first, and then only after that would the upper section fall, just like Wile E. Coyote hovering over a crumbling pillar of rock before free falling onto the rubble below.

the upper section started falling slowly. why do you keep ignoring that?

Yes it seems so. But, then think about that for a second. All stuff that fell at free fall did so. The roof upon which the coyote sat fell as did the sides and front and back. That means all the stuff inside did too. All at the same time otherwise there would be Resistance in some amount to obviate free fall to whatever it (the Resistance) resisted.
So, we have to get all the stuff inside to not resist in any way any part of the observable free fall bit. We have to do this using gravity alone. The fire enabled the event but the fire didn't make the stuff fall... But for gravity it would have just floated there. So, how can we do that... all at same time?
The NIST argument is something like ok... 79 went and 44 walked off its joint there and all the other beams and cross trusses and ties and well, everything went down in a manner that the last bit to go held everything up until it went too and it fell at free fall as well cuz then nothing was connected or resisted.
I'd have said 79 was the last to go since it held up the penthouse and immediately after the penthouse area buckled the whole shebang fell... at free fall..

Edit: the fall was symetrical ergo the loss of vertical counter force also had to be symetrical as well as the lateral force to keep the walls from buckling in, out or whichever.
I can't visualize how that could happen..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Delita

This thread is sufficient evidence to prove you are a huge idiot.

And I care about your dumbass opinion because...

His name backward is Atiled and anyone knows that you usually use grout to make it ( A tiled bit) look pretty not to adhere it... ???

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: munky
And I'm still waiting for an investigation not based off asinine assumptions. You're not providing one, so fuck off.

You mean asinine as in "I believe the CIA and other high level groups did it though I have not one iota of evidence at all to support that belief" asinine?

As I said before, a simple car accident always leaves behind unanswered questions, but the investigators figure out what happened to the best of their ability. But since you already "know" the CIA did this, no amount of proof to the contrary will convince you. Your mind is completely made up, because what you believe can't be disproven. On the other hand, everyone on the other side of the equation would shift positions in a second if rational, hard evidence (non-forged documents, confessions from several high level govt agents, etc) arose demonstrating conspiracy. However, in 8 years, no physical or testimonial evidence worth anything has come up, and every single accredited group investigating has confirmed what happened. Mountains of reviewed and corroborated expert evidence vs some websites and internet forums of self-congratulatory "physics buffs"...hmm.

 

[LunarRay]

Wouldn't it be more fun to try and deal with WTC 7's dynamic defiance of obvious logic than to say that don't exist cuz In America bad guys use Crest and never ever ever use Baking Powder.

EDIT: before you say... Baking Soda... I meant to say Powder... !!! There is a reason..

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: shira
How can this thread still be continuing? Theories involving vast conspiracies, requiring countless people in TWO politically-opposite administrations to all stay silent, CANNOT be valid.

Think about it: If the Obama Administration had ANY knowlege/evidence whatsoever that WTC7 was an "inside job," they'd blow the lid off of this thing. They would LOVE to blow the lid off.

Good point. Don't expect any of them to understand simple logic like this.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: munky
You know how they determined what kinda damage the fireproofing sustained? Great diversion, try to stay on topic next time.

Diversion? wtf? You're the one that brought up the fireproofing, idiot. I merely showed how completely ignorant you were about what is contained in the NIST report. You try to dismiss the report yet don't appear to have a clue about what it contains. What are you, one of Nancy Pelosi's offspring?

And I'm still waiting for an investigation not based off asinine assumptions. You're not providing one, so fuck off.

There's been an investigation, a very thorough one, and a minority of paranoid dumbasses claiming otherwise doesn't make their claim true.