Building 7?

> 10 years ago
Locked
This topic has been locked
Register to post, see what you've read, and subscribe to topics.
Sailhack
Sailhack
VIC
5000 posts
VIC, 5000 posts
14 Sep 2011 9:21am
Apart from the real tragedy of human lives lost, which can't be undone now - I don't particularly CARE how the buildings came down...it doesn't affect me in my little world that revolves around day-to-day living with my head in the sand! And nothing I could ever have done would've stopped it from happening.

I wasn't there, so I can't prove it either way, and I don't trust any of the media (including the interweb conspiracists), so basically, no vote either way from me, because...

I DON'T CARE how or why, or why not, or what reason, or who!
K Dog
K Dog
VIC
1847 posts
VIC, 1847 posts
14 Sep 2011 10:39am
Sailhack said...

Apart from the real tragedy of human lives lost, which can't be undone now - I don't particularly CARE how the buildings came down...it doesn't affect me in my little world that revolves around day-to-day living with my head in the sand! And nothing I could ever have done would've stopped it from happening.

I wasn't there, so I can't prove it either way, and I don't trust any of the media (including the interweb conspiracists), so basically, no vote either way from me, because...

I DON'T CARE how or why, or why not, or what reason, or who!


Trolls a gunna make you post! You be caring if you post....

It's an interesting situation... and a mystery, and it never hurts to try and understand mysteries if you are interested in them.....

I am interested in other peoples opinions on things, hence why I posted....
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
14 Sep 2011 8:43am
kiteboy dave said...

PS:
1. Iraq never had enough oil for it to be about oil
2. Iraq wasn't threatening to withhold supply of their oil anyway

So that conspiracy excuse never made any sense.

www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php

If the Iraq War is all about oil, then the U.S. has spent a lot of money and resources to topple Saddam, run elections, and train the military/police to get less oil from Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.



Its got nothing to do with oil.
CMC
CMC
QLD
3954 posts
CMC CMC
QLD, 3954 posts
14 Sep 2011 10:56am
doggie said...

kiteboy dave said...

PS:
1. Iraq never had enough oil for it to be about oil
2. Iraq wasn't threatening to withhold supply of their oil anyway

So that conspiracy excuse never made any sense.

www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php

If the Iraq War is all about oil, then the U.S. has spent a lot of money and resources to topple Saddam, run elections, and train the military/police to get less oil from Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.



Its got nothing to do with oil.



Is it just a coincidence that we as United Nations only seem to intervene or invade countries with abundant Natural resources????

I mean we helped the East Timorise right? Yes and we also required that for this help that we renogotiated the maritime boundary of the Sunrise oil fields so that we now own them.

If we really cared about our closest neighbors actions why did we not intervene in Aceh before the Tsunami?

How about Somalia? What are we doing there? Nothing. Sorry, nothing in that one for us.

Libya, well there's one. OIL. We'll help them, we'll care, we'll also release the people responsible for the Lockerby disaster in negotiation with them to allow the major oil companies to produce from Libya.

I don't know if the US Government blew up the buildings but I do know there are some major holes in the facts presented as evidence.

I also know that after 911 the American and global public signed a blank cheque for the UN forces to do whatever it wants in defense of 'our' freedom.

To quote Michael Franti "You can bomb the world to pieces but you can't bomb it into peace"
Paradox
Paradox
QLD
1326 posts
QLD, 1326 posts
14 Sep 2011 11:08am
FlySurfer said...

barn said...
The physics aren't hard... 9.81 m/s (Gravity), then you just need the height (wikipedia) and the duration... oh and then you just need to come up with a theory of how it fell with 0 resistance.



Nope the physics are not hard at all. And gravity is 9.81m/s/s, it is an accelaration, not a velocity.

Once the floor beam conectors were sufficiently weakened it would all be over. Try understanding the report the engineers did. It is not complex once you understand how the building is put together. With those steel buildings pancaking is pretty much the only way they can fail and the only (non deliberate) thing that can do it is sustained fire. Yes - steel weakens with heat and is bloody susceptable to it. Steel members will fail thier intended purpose long before the actual steel gets anywhere near melting temperature. Believe it or not timber resists fire better than steel in buildings.

There is plenty of factual evidence for sustained fire in the building. Zero for explosives - and I would be much more skeptical if it had actually failed by toppling -it would be almost impossible.

The only possible consipiracy you guys could chase is how the fires started and I suspect there are good reasons for that but have not bothered to look.

You guys accuse the masses of following the governments dogma like sheep, but all it takes is some loopy website with completely unbackable theories and incorrect science to baffle you with twisted "facts" and off you go....
SomeOtherGuy
SomeOtherGuy
NSW
807 posts
NSW, 807 posts
14 Sep 2011 11:10am
petermac33 said...

i'm just a simple sheeple


Just wanted to save that before you had a rethink and edited it out...

Wonder how much longer this thread will last before the mods pull it? This thread'll be the new Building 7!
SomeOtherGuy
SomeOtherGuy
NSW
807 posts
NSW, 807 posts
14 Sep 2011 11:12am
Paradox said...

You guys accuse the masses of following the governments dogma like sheep, but all it takes is some loopy website with completely unbackable theories and incorrect science to baffle you with twisted "facts" and off you go....


..baaa-ing like a petermac...
choco
choco
SA
4181 posts
SA, 4181 posts
14 Sep 2011 1:12pm
Paradox said...

FlySurfer said...

barn said...
The physics aren't hard... 9.81 m/s (Gravity), then you just need the height (wikipedia) and the duration... oh and then you just need to come up with a theory of how it fell with 0 resistance.





You guys accuse the masses of following the governments dogma like sheep, but all it takes is some loopy website with completely unbackable theories and incorrect science to baffle you with twisted "facts" and off you go....


were not all the great minds of history loopy???? everything that government does is on a need to know basis, which is why you and I know nothing.
Little Jon
Little Jon
NSW
2115 posts
NSW, 2115 posts
14 Sep 2011 2:08pm
kiteboy dave said...

PS:
1. Iraq never had enough oil for it to be about oil
2. Iraq wasn't threatening to withhold supply of their oil anyway

So that conspiracy excuse never made any sense.

www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php

If the Iraq War is all about oil, then the U.S. has spent a lot of money and resources to topple Saddam, run elections, and train the military/police to get less oil from Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.


It seems that way because you are looking at it from the wrong perpsective ie, the US government and taxpayer are worse off but the christian mercenaries and contractors like balckwater and haliburton got very rich. Don't forget the Bush's family wealth is tied up in the oil business, they made a killing just from the rise in the price of oil.

At least Donald Trump had the guts to be honest about lybia, "if we get the oil we go in".
Little Jon
Little Jon
NSW
2115 posts
NSW, 2115 posts
14 Sep 2011 2:11pm
K Dog said...

With a lot of respect to our American friends, anyone read about Building 7?

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7485331.stm

The thing is - it wasn't hit......




There are a lot of tall buildings in the world and there has been a lot of fires but none has ever collapsed let alone imploded like a perfect demolition. This is because they have been designed to withstand a fire.
evlPanda
evlPanda
NSW
9207 posts
NSW, 9207 posts
14 Sep 2011 2:34pm
evlPanda said...

and what of the THOUSANDS of people that had to be in on it, even if your science is correct (and it isn't)?


I need better bait.

SomeOtherGuy
SomeOtherGuy
NSW
807 posts
NSW, 807 posts
14 Sep 2011 4:00pm
FlySurfer said...

The physics aren't hard... 9.81 m/s (Gravity), then you just need the height (wikipedia) and the duration... oh and then you just need to come up with a theory of how it fell with 0 resistance.


You're right, the physics aren't hard. Must be as hard as speaking proper english eh?

Roof height of 1 WTC: 417m
Roof height of 2 WTC: 415m
see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

Acceleration due to gravity: 9.81 m/s/s

Time required to cover a distance of 416m thanks to gravitational acceleration (I've averaged them just because I could)
= sqrt(distance/acceleration)
= sqrt(416/9.81)
= 6.5 seconds for the roof to hit the ground.

Time required for the towers to fall: Check this yoochoob (so you know it's true) video -


The second tower collapse starts at precisely 3:00 into the video. At 3:12 it's still collapsing. More than double what is required by freefall. Who'd'athunkit eh??
pweedas
pweedas
WA
4642 posts
WA, 4642 posts
14 Sep 2011 4:11pm


I was waiting for Isaac Newton to respond to the above use of his formula but he hasn't.
Then I remembered that he died a few years ago so I guess he can be excused.
Just before he died I think he said;
S = ut + 1/2 at^2
which means t = (2S/a) ^1/2 given that u=0, s=416, a=9.81

sooooo, t = (2 x 416 /9.81 ) to the power of 1/2
= (84.814) ^1/2
= approx 9.2 seconds.

This is still far short of the fall time shown in the Uchoob vid, but I spose the authorities could have got to the U choob server and slowed it down a tad.
Dang... there's another thousand people in on the deception. It's awfully good of them to all keep mum about it. I'm sure wikileaks will crack this open really soon and all will be revealed
Little Jon
Little Jon
NSW
2115 posts
NSW, 2115 posts
14 Sep 2011 7:23pm
How about the Pentagon crash, what happened to the plane? Can anyone post a photo of what is obviously plane wreakage. Even the video of the security camera that actually filmed the plane crashing into the Pentagon....there is no plane in the vid, the building just blows up. Maybe it was a Dracula plane and does not show up in photos or mirrors.

Then there is the Pennsilvania crash, can anyone post a pic of plane wreakage and not the stuff from the garbage truck in the ditch. Despite many years of the best forensic analysis in the world the coroner could not find any evidence anyone had died at that site.

Surley with all the security and meida someone can post a photo of plane wreakage.
SomeOtherGuy
SomeOtherGuy
NSW
807 posts
NSW, 807 posts
14 Sep 2011 7:25pm
pweedas said...

I was waiting for Isaac Newton to respond to the above use of his formula but he hasn't.


DOH! OK, obviously it's been too long since I studied my physics...

Actually, I saw somewhere in the wikipedia stuff that it was 25 seconds before the lower floors hit the ground. I was pretty sure that freefall was a bit quicker than that which made me whip out the trusty calculator and dodgy memory...
FlySurfer
FlySurfer
NSW
4460 posts
NSW, 4460 posts
14 Sep 2011 7:40pm
vacuum freefall 9.2 seconds required.
measured ~10 seconds... even if it was 12 seconds that's close enough to vacuum free fall.

If you don't want to believe your own eyes, or your visual cortex simply doesn't know how to assemble the images for your frontal lobe to understand or your frontal lobe has been damaged in some way, I can't help you.



evlPanda
evlPanda
NSW
9207 posts
NSW, 9207 posts
14 Sep 2011 7:46pm
I think it's pretty obvious that engineers put explosive charges throughout two of the most used office towers in the world without anybody noticing.

As for plane wreckage. Planes are built light for a reason.

Here's a 747 from last year:



Here's what a small plane looks like after hitting a building:



Le Concorde:



So you can imagine what is left of an aircraft, built as light as possible, after it crashes full speed into the side of the heavily re-enforced Pentagon building. It kinda disintegrates. Obviously. There'd be pieces. Everywhere. Very small ones.

There's probably no footage of the actual plane, or it's very blurry, because they didn't use high speed cameras. I'd guess security camera at 15 frames/second. Maybe less. don't know how much ground that covers, nor what speed aircrat was travelling at. Somebody can do the maths.

In the end it seems far, far more likely that a fanatical terrorist organisation trained some pilots who then hijacked some planes and crashed them into buildings that weren't designed for something like that. Seriously what is so hard to understand about that?

An aside: Bin Laden's goal was to bankrupt America, they spent a truck load on these unnecessary wars. Same way the Afghanis beat the Russians.
evlPanda
evlPanda
NSW
9207 posts
NSW, 9207 posts
14 Sep 2011 8:03pm
The videos above show an MIT Engineer disputing everything.

Jeff King is not an MIT engineer, unless you mean electrical engineer. (I'm at RMIT, workin' late)
petermac33
petermac33
WA
6415 posts
WA, 6415 posts
14 Sep 2011 6:43pm
if a plane disintegrates when contacting a building,then why no disintegration when the two planes contacted the towers?

not even the slightest deceleration actually?

you can't have it both ways.



funniest thing i've heard recently regarding this topic, was ex Yorkshire head of intelligence,Tony Farrell sacked for believing 911,among others was an inside job.


''Tony Farrell, 51, handed in an annual "threat assessment" report after falling for a conspiracy theory he stumbled across on the internet.''

yeah,and the mindless masses have fallen for the conspiracy theory that fire melts steel!

that fire can bring building 7 down into it's own footprint in near perfect symmetry!



www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3699907/77-was-a-plot-by-the-Government.html

Sailhack
Sailhack
VIC
5000 posts
VIC, 5000 posts
14 Sep 2011 10:01pm
Ok, I know that I'll be contradicting my zero-care comment posted earlier...

I'll bite (kids in bed & about to do some -work).

Agree that fire won't melt steel, but I'm pretty sure heat will melt, or at least reduce the integrity of steel?!

As for controlled demolition - the impact of several storeys of weight on more than one storey with a direct impact from only 3 metres (or meters in USA) I assume would cause a chain reaction. Besides, basing a bit of knowledge on the basic building construction principles that buildings (especially multi-level) are specifically designed to implode, or fall either vertically/internally so as not to affect other surrounding buildings, it is very possible that what we have been fed actually happened. (ie; planes brought down the buildings).
japie
japie
NSW
7146 posts
NSW, 7146 posts
14 Sep 2011 10:32pm
Sailhack said...

Ok, I know that I'll be contradicting my zero-care comment posted earlier...

I'll bite (kids in bed & about to do some -work).

Agree that fire won't melt steel, but I'm pretty sure heat will melt, or at least reduce the integrity of steel?!

As for controlled demolition - the impact of several storeys of weight on more than one storey with a direct impact from only 3 metres (or meters in USA) I assume would cause a chain reaction. Besides, basing a bit of knowledge on the basic building construction principles that buildings (especially multi-level) are specifically designed to implode, or fall either vertically/internally so as not to affect other surrounding buildings, it is very possible that what we have been fed actually happened. (ie; planes brought down the buildings).


Look to see who benefits.

I was pretty sceptical myself. From 2000 through to 2007 I isolated myself from current affairs, and tv. Only when sharing a house with someone did I get exposed to the theories.

I am 56 and have seen a lot of stink over the years and had a pathological dislike of the American way. Vietmnam anyone? But this escalation in the middle east started to fascinate me as I saw dollars pour into increasing aggression. So I started to read and if you do so you uncover some very dark material which is kept out of commercial media. Sure there is a huge amount of crap out there and I had to weather an awful lot but in the process I came to read alternate current affairs journalists who had no political bent or agenda other than to tell it the way they see it.

In this process, whilst losing complete faith in commericial media, I have managed to uncover a number of folk whose insight I find quite refreshing because their writing and speaking caries that ozone scent of the truth as opposed to the stench of Murdoch and his cronies breath.

Check this out for a funny take on the CNN/Fox propaganda machine attemtping to bury Ron Paul.



FlySurfer
FlySurfer
NSW
4460 posts
NSW, 4460 posts
14 Sep 2011 10:33pm
Sailhack said...

Ok, I know that I'll be contradicting my zero-care comment posted earlier...

I'll bite (kids in bed & about to do some -work).

Agree that fire won't melt steel, but I'm pretty sure heat will melt, or at least reduce the integrity of steel?!

As for controlled demolition - the impact of several storeys of weight on more than one storey with a direct impact from only 3 metres (or meters in USA) I assume would cause a chain reaction. Besides, basing a bit of knowledge on the basic building construction principles that buildings (especially multi-level) are specifically designed to implode, or fall either vertically/internally so as not to affect other surrounding buildings, it is very possible that what we have been fed actually happened. (ie; planes brought down the buildings).


Chain reaction concrete... woohoo, man I'm going to make a killing in the arms and demolition business.

Jet fuel Bunkerbusters!

Who's with me I need investors, and y'all read like smart folk.

Elroy Jetson
Elroy Jetson
WA
706 posts
WA, 706 posts
14 Sep 2011 8:35pm
So lets go through the basic flow chart of the conspiracy with WTC 7.

We'll nut the whole process out and get the complete picture.

Feel free to correct or elaborate on the following points:


1) A group of people installed and wired up tonnes of high powered explosives in the WTC 7 during a certain time frame before 11/9/2001. It's very likely this was done in the months proceeding the planned explosion date.


2) The people that noticed/suspected suspicious activity at WTC 7 before September 11 were (insert names of individuals here).


3) WTC 1 and 2 fell down on 11/9/2001 and collapsed into rubble (officially because 2 planes crashed into them. Others say they fell down because of missile strike or bombs. Bottom line is: "they fell down")


4) The people who had control of the detonation button waited until both WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed.


5) The people who had control of the detonation button waited for several more hours to pass


6) Late in the day the explosives were detonated by (insert possible groups or machines responsible) using a computer controlled sequence.


7) WTC 7 fell down


8) No person was killed or injured due to WTC 7 collapsing


Is this a correct summary of the "True" events?

saltiest1
saltiest1
NSW
2568 posts
NSW, 2568 posts
14 Sep 2011 10:43pm



this topic has been covered before, and i will point out again that the towers were not built in the traditional way with a core being the main support structure.
external framing played a huge role in structural support, and when heated, and damaged, collapse is obvious.
to be able to obtain a ballanced opinion, you can not go looking for one answer to fit what you want to believe.
petermac33
petermac33
WA
6415 posts
WA, 6415 posts
14 Sep 2011 10:58pm
saltiest1 said...




this topic has been covered before, and i will point out again that the towers were not built in the traditional way with a core being the main support structure.
external framing played a huge role in structural support, and when heated, and damaged, collapse is obvious.
to be able to obtain a ballanced opinion, you can not go looking for one answer to fit what you want to believe.


sorry saltiest, you have been had again.

all giant superstructures have central support columns,why because if they had none the horizontal beams would bend/sag. the distance from each end of the exterior horizontal columns would be too great.



cisco
cisco
QLD
12365 posts
QLD, 12365 posts
15 Sep 2011 1:44am
FlySurfer said...

vacuum freefall 9.2 seconds required.
measured ~10 seconds... even if it was 12 seconds that's close enough to vacuum free fall.

If you don't want to believe your own eyes, or your visual cortex simply doesn't know how to assemble the images for your frontal lobe to understand or your frontal lobe has been damaged in some way, I can't help you.



Thanks FlySurfer. The first two vids show the HOW and the third shows the WHY.

How can anybody be so gullible enough to believe the official, fictional story line???

In this thread no one has yet mentioned the huge amount of GOLD that was moved out of harms way prior to the collapses.


cisco
cisco
QLD
12365 posts
QLD, 12365 posts
15 Sep 2011 2:32am
Why was $40,000,000 spent on investigating Monica's head job on Bill??

Because he was a progressive and showing signs of emulating J.F.K. and the plan was to destroy the institution of the American Presidency.

Why was only $600,000 spent on investigating the 9/11 WTC catastrophe??

Because it was an inside job and the plan was to irrevocably alter the American legal structure so as to deny human rights, eg the Patriot Act.

Wake up people!! It is a con job!!

If you want to learn a little about the American Constitution, how good it is and why the elites are throwing everything they can at it to tear it down watch the whole 51 minutes of this.

The yanks really are our best friends.



As he says, we need to get rid of this two party partisanship, get back to the principals of right and wrong and eliminate the power of the privately owned central banking system.
cisco
cisco
QLD
12365 posts
QLD, 12365 posts
15 Sep 2011 3:29am
Will you be one of those that does not wake up??



And what if you do wake up??

petermac33
petermac33
WA
6415 posts
WA, 6415 posts
15 Sep 2011 2:34am


We're seeing a society that not only has a lot more people of lower IQ, but a lot fewer people of higher IQ. In other words: a dumbing down, a chemical dumbing down of society.

So everyone is sort of mediocre. That leaves them dependent on government, because they can't excel.

We have these people of lower IQ who are totally dependent. Then we have this mass of people who are going to believe anything they are told because they can't really think clearly—and very few people of a very high IQ have good cognitive function who can figure this all out.

And that's what they want.

So you can kind of piece it together as to why they are so insistent in spending so many hundreds of millions of dollars of propaganda money to dumb down society.”

- Dr. Russell Blaylock

SandS
SandS
VIC
5904 posts
VIC, 5904 posts
15 Sep 2011 7:27am
- Dr. Russell Playcock ?
Please Register, or first...
This topic has been locked
Topics Subscribe Topic Is Locked

Return To Classic site 😭
Or... let us know if a problem, so we can tweak! 😅