By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
9/11 unanswered questions on 02:00 - Jul 22 by Brynmill_Jack
You cited wikipedia!
Which cited something that wasn't Fox News.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 07:16 - Jul 22 with 1401 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 00:25 - Jul 22 by Lord_Bony
Surely,if you took one goal post away then the other post will still be standing and the crossbar will fall diagonally at one end but still in place....it would nt cause the other post to collapse and the crossbar to fall to the ground horizontally in free fall.
Same with a steel constructed tower...take one support away and the building will partly fall into that missing support while the rest is still standing supported by the others.....Maybe I'm wrong on this I don't know....
Have you googled "building 7 damage" yet and looked at the pictures? I don't know how anyone who has bothered to have looked for those pictures can seriously argue that the building should have stayed up. The bottom corner of the building is missing and its supporting about 40 floors of concrete and steel above it.
If the cross bar was carrying a huge amount of weight (like a mini bus or small lorry) to make it comparable to the load on the columns for B7, then yes the remaining post probably would collapse.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 07:54 - Jul 22 with 1388 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 07:16 - Jul 22 by Batterseajack
Have you googled "building 7 damage" yet and looked at the pictures? I don't know how anyone who has bothered to have looked for those pictures can seriously argue that the building should have stayed up. The bottom corner of the building is missing and its supporting about 40 floors of concrete and steel above it.
If the cross bar was carrying a huge amount of weight (like a mini bus or small lorry) to make it comparable to the load on the columns for B7, then yes the remaining post probably would collapse.
Well if the bottom corner is missing and this was the main cause of collapse ( according to the official enquiry NIST report it was nt) then there's a problem.
If a support is taken away from the bottom corner then there would have been some kind of collapse partially into that corner...there would MOST DEFINATLEY have been enough structural resistance from the other supporting columns to prevent the building collapsing in free fall straight down within 10 seconds...this was a 47 storey building.
It would have been a messy collapse with the building falling off at an angle with plenty of it still left standing in the event of a column failing. Take another look at the video how it collapsed.
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
9/11 unanswered questions on 07:54 - Jul 22 by Lord_Bony
Well if the bottom corner is missing and this was the main cause of collapse ( according to the official enquiry NIST report it was nt) then there's a problem.
If a support is taken away from the bottom corner then there would have been some kind of collapse partially into that corner...there would MOST DEFINATLEY have been enough structural resistance from the other supporting columns to prevent the building collapsing in free fall straight down within 10 seconds...this was a 47 storey building.
It would have been a messy collapse with the building falling off at an angle with plenty of it still left standing in the event of a column failing. Take another look at the video how it collapsed.
Good point.
Definitely something fishy about the way it collapsed.
OUT AFLI SUCK IT UP REMOANER LOSERS
🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
9/11 unanswered questions on 07:54 - Jul 22 by Lord_Bony
Well if the bottom corner is missing and this was the main cause of collapse ( according to the official enquiry NIST report it was nt) then there's a problem.
If a support is taken away from the bottom corner then there would have been some kind of collapse partially into that corner...there would MOST DEFINATLEY have been enough structural resistance from the other supporting columns to prevent the building collapsing in free fall straight down within 10 seconds...this was a 47 storey building.
It would have been a messy collapse with the building falling off at an angle with plenty of it still left standing in the event of a column failing. Take another look at the video how it collapsed.
If you're going to CAPITALISE words, make sure you can f*cking SPELL them.
Instead of looking at a video, try reading some of the reports in the journals of structural and mechanical engineers. Just a thought like...
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 08:25 - Jul 22 with 1367 views
WarwickHunt, LB is correct I am sure you will see the problem if you read a bit about the subject and what happened on 9/11. To bring his spelling into the debate is sure proof your grasping at straws.
OUT AFLI SUCK IT UP REMOANER LOSERS
🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
9/11 unanswered questions on 08:25 - Jul 22 by Lord_Bony
I have. Many reports from structural engineers have said the same thing...a steel structured building should not pancake collapse through fire.
Clue: not all buildings have the same structure. This was built over an existing electricity station and had long unsupported floor spans.
A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads."
Which parts of the NIST report do you disagree with, and why?
I won't hold my breath...
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 09:02 - Jul 22 with 1335 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 08:52 - Jul 22 by pikeypaul
WarwickHunt, LB is correct I am sure you will see the problem if you read a bit about the subject and what happened on 9/11. To bring his spelling into the debate is sure proof your grasping at straws.
*you're*
There's no problem, I've read lots thanks - just not the stuff written by f*cking fruitcakes.
Edit: your extensive reading on the subject leads you to believe there's "something fishy"? F*ck me, Prof - publish a paper.
[Post edited 22 Jul 2016 9:06]
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 09:16 - Jul 22 with 1327 views
The official enquiry has been discredited by many structural engineers for many reasons...mainly for forcing science and physics into agreeing with its final conclusions,some even resigned over this. . Many have asked for a new independent enquiry...
NIST were forced to acknowledge the weakness of the pancake theory when they tested steel samples from the World Trade Center.
"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th," concluded NIST in their Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers.
In other words there should have been enough structural resistance there to prevent a pancake collapse of WTC7 through the fires that broke out.
Remember no steel structured building ever pancake collapsed through fire before that or since...it's pretty unique.
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
9/11 unanswered questions on 09:16 - Jul 22 by Lord_Bony
The official enquiry has been discredited by many structural engineers for many reasons...mainly for forcing science and physics into agreeing with its final conclusions,some even resigned over this. . Many have asked for a new independent enquiry...
NIST were forced to acknowledge the weakness of the pancake theory when they tested steel samples from the World Trade Center.
"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th," concluded NIST in their Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers.
In other words there should have been enough structural resistance there to prevent a pancake collapse of WTC7 through the fires that broke out.
Remember no steel structured building ever pancake collapsed through fire before that or since...it's pretty unique.
Demolition job, end of discussion.
Even when you know, you never know?
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 09:20 - Jul 22 with 1318 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 07:54 - Jul 22 by Lord_Bony
Well if the bottom corner is missing and this was the main cause of collapse ( according to the official enquiry NIST report it was nt) then there's a problem.
If a support is taken away from the bottom corner then there would have been some kind of collapse partially into that corner...there would MOST DEFINATLEY have been enough structural resistance from the other supporting columns to prevent the building collapsing in free fall straight down within 10 seconds...this was a 47 storey building.
It would have been a messy collapse with the building falling off at an angle with plenty of it still left standing in the event of a column failing. Take another look at the video how it collapsed.
I give up. You win.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 09:26 - Jul 22 with 1311 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 09:16 - Jul 22 by Lord_Bony
The official enquiry has been discredited by many structural engineers for many reasons...mainly for forcing science and physics into agreeing with its final conclusions,some even resigned over this. . Many have asked for a new independent enquiry...
NIST were forced to acknowledge the weakness of the pancake theory when they tested steel samples from the World Trade Center.
"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th," concluded NIST in their Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers.
In other words there should have been enough structural resistance there to prevent a pancake collapse of WTC7 through the fires that broke out.
Remember no steel structured building ever pancake collapsed through fire before that or since...it's pretty unique.
Building 7 didn't pancake. I'm not sure who is arguing that it did. Pan caking happened on the floor plates in the twi. towers, which explains why the jets of air were seen bursting out of the windows. The outer steel structure of the two towers was left unsupported and left to fall outwards in large sections before breaking off. When you see the steel debris of the outer steel structure, you'll notice none of the concrete of the internal floor plates are connected to it.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 09:45 - Jul 22 with 1298 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 15:52 - Jul 20 by Ebo
This: Or was it the CIA and US Government deliberately allowing the terrorist attacks to go ahead that caused the towers to collapse but also gave Bush jr. the perfect opportunity to go war?
Plus some help in advance from the CIA. Building 7 was pulled down anyone can see that.
Building 7 must have been brought down by jet fuel or sheared bolts . Or something.
Larry Silverstein had the buildings reinsured against terrorist attacks in the two weeks before. Building seven housed a few government investigation agencies such as the FBI and due to the collapse all evidence they had accumulated was lost.
As was the (newly renovated) front section of the Pentagon which was also hit. Investigations included government money dealings (the loss of trillions of dollars announced by Rumsfeld the day before the attacks) and big money fraud (insurance, insider trading etc etc by firms including two situated in the WTC).
Some of the alleged patsies (OK hijackers) contacted the authorities from Saudi Arabia to say they were not involved!
And the final farce - when the vast amount of "hijackers" came from Saudi or Yemen - why invade Iraq. More holes than a cheap colander
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 11:55 - Jul 22 with 1232 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 09:45 - Jul 22 by WarwickHunt
Damn those noiseless explosives!
And damn thousands of WTC employees for not becoming suspicious by hundreds of demolition workers required to facilitate a bring-down..... And damn WTC employees eyesight for being unable to see miles upon miles of required detonation cable laid out all over the floors..... And damn their hearing for being utterly oblivious to constant pneumatic drilling required to deep-set explosive charges....... And damn all their sense's for being totally unaware of the required inner-membrane strip and removal needed to expose steel inner core and supports that was going on all around em.
I mean?... Over a period of many weeks....Hundreds of construction industry employee types removing hundreds upon hundreds of tons of material with all that dust, smoke from oxy-gas torches, sparks and noise from disk cutting grinders etc. The inconvenience and the chaos (mind that wheel barrow!) that would cause in an office environment? You'd think after the previous attack vigilance would have been in overdrive?
I've worked alongside the likes of Cardiff Demolition etc and the cr#p the tinfoiler's sprout is absolutely staggering! The common sense of a gnat!
Argus!
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 13:19 - Jul 22 with 1204 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 11:55 - Jul 22 by Wingstandwood
And damn thousands of WTC employees for not becoming suspicious by hundreds of demolition workers required to facilitate a bring-down..... And damn WTC employees eyesight for being unable to see miles upon miles of required detonation cable laid out all over the floors..... And damn their hearing for being utterly oblivious to constant pneumatic drilling required to deep-set explosive charges....... And damn all their sense's for being totally unaware of the required inner-membrane strip and removal needed to expose steel inner core and supports that was going on all around em.
I mean?... Over a period of many weeks....Hundreds of construction industry employee types removing hundreds upon hundreds of tons of material with all that dust, smoke from oxy-gas torches, sparks and noise from disk cutting grinders etc. The inconvenience and the chaos (mind that wheel barrow!) that would cause in an office environment? You'd think after the previous attack vigilance would have been in overdrive?
I've worked alongside the likes of Cardiff Demolition etc and the cr#p the tinfoiler's sprout is absolutely staggering! The common sense of a gnat!
Cardiff Demolition...wow...
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
9/11 unanswered questions on 11:55 - Jul 22 by Wingstandwood
And damn thousands of WTC employees for not becoming suspicious by hundreds of demolition workers required to facilitate a bring-down..... And damn WTC employees eyesight for being unable to see miles upon miles of required detonation cable laid out all over the floors..... And damn their hearing for being utterly oblivious to constant pneumatic drilling required to deep-set explosive charges....... And damn all their sense's for being totally unaware of the required inner-membrane strip and removal needed to expose steel inner core and supports that was going on all around em.
I mean?... Over a period of many weeks....Hundreds of construction industry employee types removing hundreds upon hundreds of tons of material with all that dust, smoke from oxy-gas torches, sparks and noise from disk cutting grinders etc. The inconvenience and the chaos (mind that wheel barrow!) that would cause in an office environment? You'd think after the previous attack vigilance would have been in overdrive?
I've worked alongside the likes of Cardiff Demolition etc and the cr#p the tinfoiler's sprout is absolutely staggering! The common sense of a gnat!
Bonkers mental, innit.
Gotta luv the "truthers".
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 13:54 - Jul 22 with 1123 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 10:40 - Jul 22 by Brynmill_Jack
Building 7 must have been brought down by jet fuel or sheared bolts . Or something.
Larry Silverstein had the buildings reinsured against terrorist attacks in the two weeks before. Building seven housed a few government investigation agencies such as the FBI and due to the collapse all evidence they had accumulated was lost.
As was the (newly renovated) front section of the Pentagon which was also hit. Investigations included government money dealings (the loss of trillions of dollars announced by Rumsfeld the day before the attacks) and big money fraud (insurance, insider trading etc etc by firms including two situated in the WTC).
Some of the alleged patsies (OK hijackers) contacted the authorities from Saudi Arabia to say they were not involved!
And the final farce - when the vast amount of "hijackers" came from Saudi or Yemen - why invade Iraq. More holes than a cheap colander
Are you serious? The Silverstein and Rumsfeld claims are laughable even by David Icke standards...
[Post edited 22 Jul 2016 13:54]
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 15:23 - Jul 22 with 1099 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 13:19 - Jul 22 by Lord_Bony
Cardiff Demolition...wow...
Well you may take the piss whilst missing completely the gist of what I was saying. Cardiff Demolition was responsible for stuff like the taking down of Brynlliw Colliery (compare colliery tower with WTC tower?) winding towers. It was indeed a microscopic outfit when compared with the 'truther's' imaginary outfit that was awarded the contract for the Sept 11th job.
But yet? The whole of Station Road Grovesend and passing public knew demolition work was in progress i.e. stopping to ask over the boundary fence "when are they coming down?" And thousands of WTC employees? Never noticed a thing out of the ordinary? Despite having to be disrupted on a daily basis over many months by the largest ever assembled demolition workforce working on the most historical and most labour intensive sky scraper demolition/ take down in entire history.
Perhaps they thought they were there with those 12" disk cutting grinders, oxy-propane bottles and pneumatic drills to fix the vending machines?
Argus!
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 15:48 - Jul 22 with 1080 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 15:23 - Jul 22 by Wingstandwood
Well you may take the piss whilst missing completely the gist of what I was saying. Cardiff Demolition was responsible for stuff like the taking down of Brynlliw Colliery (compare colliery tower with WTC tower?) winding towers. It was indeed a microscopic outfit when compared with the 'truther's' imaginary outfit that was awarded the contract for the Sept 11th job.
But yet? The whole of Station Road Grovesend and passing public knew demolition work was in progress i.e. stopping to ask over the boundary fence "when are they coming down?" And thousands of WTC employees? Never noticed a thing out of the ordinary? Despite having to be disrupted on a daily basis over many months by the largest ever assembled demolition workforce working on the most historical and most labour intensive sky scraper demolition/ take down in entire history.
Perhaps they thought they were there with those 12" disk cutting grinders, oxy-propane bottles and pneumatic drills to fix the vending machines?
I have not once mentioned buildings being blown up by explosives teams...I m sure in the hands of the right people though they would have access to classified explosives and demolition materials light years ahead of anything by Cardiff Demolition.
My simple question throughout this debate has been how did WTC7 fall as that is the only part I cant understand. So far there has nt been a good enough explanation.
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
