Author Topic: The Latest 9/11 conspiresists (Read 1671 times)

Slash27 · « **Reply #75 on:** February 15, 2006, 06:09:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Excellent question.. WTC7 recieved no damaged or at the most slight cosmetic damaged from the towers falling debris.. There were no 'out of control' fires that persistently burned in WTC7 as well as no documented ignition source for such fires..

I wouldnt call floors fully involved with fire "cosmetic damage".

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #76 on:** February 15, 2006, 06:48:41 PM »

wasn't there a rumor about a kid dreaming about 9-11 before it happend?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #77 on:** February 15, 2006, 07:12:36 PM »

You know, I tried to explain this all with the first post of the phase diagram of steel, showing that steel begins to lose its elastic properties when 740 c is reached, well within the temperature of burning diesel and jet fuel, but I guess the jig is up.

I should not be telling you this, but it going to get out someday. I work for a secret government agency which prepositions demolition charges in urban buildings in just the right fashion to bring the buildings down in case a big enough aircraft ever hits it.

Slash27 · « **Reply #78 on:** February 15, 2006, 07:28:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I should not be telling you this, but it going to get out someday. I work for a secret government agency which prepositions demolition charges in urban buildings in just the right fashion to bring the buildings down in case a big enough aircraft ever hits it.

Have you guys transitioned to the new Bell X-99XLT 'Super Airwolf' black helicopter we are using for cattle mutilations over here at "Project Beefcake"?

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #79 on:** February 15, 2006, 07:47:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by xrtoronto
WTC7 had sustained enough damage to bring it down...don't forget there was 500 million tons of steel in EACH tower (plus glass, wires etc) and that weight came down in seconds and showed up on sizemographs 40 miles away!

There are many photographs of WTC7 after both towers collapse.. None of which show anything more than superficial damage.. This one for instance before the attack.. Notice buildings on both sides (both which still stand)

And after, I believe just before it fell..

And finally the video.. Does this buidling fall as if it's steel supports are super heated and give way? Or does it appear to freefall like it's legs were taken away?

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse.mpg

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #80 on:** February 15, 2006, 07:52:23 PM »

looks like it fell with no demolition team involved

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #81 on:** February 15, 2006, 07:58:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You know, I tried to explain this all with the first post of the phase diagram of steel, showing that steel begins to lose its elastic properties when 740 c is reached, well within the temperature of burning diesel and jet fuel, but I guess the jig is up.

I should not be telling you this, but it going to get out someday. I work for a secret government agency which prepositions demolition charges in urban buildings in just the right fashion to bring the buildings down in case a big enough aircraft ever hits it.

A good explanation it was.. But not all seems to add up..

Are these published accounts to be dismissed completely?

''There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (â€œTwin Towersâ€) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

â€˜They showed us many fascinating slidesâ€™ [Eaton] continued, â€˜ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disasterâ€™. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that â€œAs of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.â€ (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)''

This is Leslie Robertson..

http://www.lera.com/robertson.htm

SuperDud · « **Reply #82 on:** February 15, 2006, 08:13:23 PM »

People who think theres a conspiracy remind me of a guy I recently met who thinks global warming is happening because we landed on the moon and messed things up(no, I'm not making this up lol).

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #83 on:** February 15, 2006, 08:19:38 PM »

Quote

˜ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disasterâ€™.

sounds like a false story metal cannot stay hot for that long without a constant heat source

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #84 on:** February 15, 2006, 09:14:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RAIDER14
sounds like a false story metal cannot stay hot for that long without a constant heat source

Thats partly the arguement made by my original cutNpaste.. the heat source..

Pooh21 · « **Reply #85 on:** February 15, 2006, 10:41:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RAIDER14
sounds like a false story metal cannot stay hot for that long without a constant heat source

I dont know in shop class I reduced a pipe with an arc welder to a pile of orange slag, when we came back in the next morning. the center was still faint red.

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #86 on:** February 15, 2006, 10:50:19 PM »

keyword:faint

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #87 on:** February 15, 2006, 11:40:30 PM »

No, the key word there is INSULATION

I'm pretty sure that there were several subways running through (not under) the WTC's. It'd be a good source for oxygen.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #88 on:** February 15, 2006, 11:55:34 PM »

I'm reading through this WTC7 stuff. Now, I know very little, but I can pick out the pieces of information that these D-Bags just assume.

First: "The straight-down collapse of Building 7 required that all of its columns be destroyed simultaneously."

No. For a building to come straight down, it requires all of its columns to FAIL near simultaneously.

I did watch some of the videos. The building did not appear to fail as it would with controlled destruction. It appeared to fail because the central columns failed.

They assume that it's a very rare occurance and the chances of that happening are very low that a symmetrical collapse would happen.

What you would need for this to happen (which is what I saw) is for the central columns to suddenly fail. Even a few of them. This instantaneous redistribution of load would cause the columns around to fail. Snowball effect. Which is exactly what I saw.

The central most columns failed, and thus brings in all the surrounding columns.

For this to happen, you would have to take out several columns. Now, I don't know what happened in WTC7. But if it collapsed at 5:30 in the afternoon, it is possible for a fire that happened from the beginning to take it out.

Remember, you need multiple columns to go. Demolition usually takes out all columns at the same time. Meanwhile WTC 93, only one column was minorly damaged. The load spread to all the other columns effortlessy.

dmf · « **Reply #89 on:** February 16, 2006, 12:33:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by RAIDER14

Devils face in smoke at the wtc

Ahhhhh yes the devils face again, sombody please give me a break, theres no devil in those pictures. Thats like seeing the face of God in a orange slice