T1B

So..surely this steel-framed tower will presently drop in perfect free fall controlled demolition fashion, right? Because that what normally occurs when there's a fire, right?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYz_rG8YBJQ

I missed the part where the structure was cut in half by a 600 mile an hour airplane crash or where it was fueled by thousands of gallons of highly flammable jet fuel.

Minor details, B.

Everyone knows that every time a 100 story building using TWC's type of construction, has been hit by a fully fueled widebody jet at better than 400 mph (let's not get carried away with 600 mph hyperbole) it collapses.

It has happened exactly twice and likely will never happen again.

As for this tradgedy, WTF limeys? Do you fukkers even have fire codes? Looks like you're about as good at it as you are at cosmetic dentistry.

Fukking building's fire alarm system was prolly built by Lucas.

You mean like WTC7.
You two are idiots.

It was that evil man, Dubya Booooooosh who did it! London is part of his nefarious plan to make Crawford, Texas the financial capital of the world after nearly destroying New York. Booooooooooooooooosh!!!

BSmack wrote:I missed the part where the structure was cut in half by a 600 mile an hour airplane crash or where it was fueled by thousands of gallons of highly flammable jet fuel.

The WTC towers (and WTC 7) were not "cut in half" at all. The jet fuel, which burns at a much lower temperature than required to melt or in anyway weaken steel, all burned within ten minutes, and most of that was in the massive initial fireball. The official NIST report, as well as the 9/11 Commission report offer conflicting explanations in the same report (!). Moreover, notice how the British building, though much more engulfed in flame for much longer, of course has not budged or sagged or anything.

Just another reminder that we've been lied to on a massive scale, and that this lie continues, and its horrific effects--the Permanent War, Patriot Act--continue to metastasize.

WW

Nice White flag Rooster.

smackaholic wrote: fire alarm system was prolly built by Lucas.

External-cladding isn't required to be fire-proof in the building code apparently.

Seems the fire-code of '71 was repealed in 2006, the builders are claiming they were 100% within code and they're probably being honest.

smackaholic wrote:Fukking building's fire alarm system was prolly built by Lucas.

That'll rack!

And it seems that building had no fire exits and only one staircase..all "section eight"...but it still hasn't budged

Just like my BBQ, it didn't collapse after being engulfed in flames.

Well, it's tiny compared to the WTC towers (as well as WTC 7, "coughing sound"), but even if somehow a 757 did plow into it --say the top ten floors--the bottom would still remain. Why not? How come the obvious fact that a fire will not drop a steel-framed building, period, doesn't seem to register?

What's really shocking about this particular shithole straight out of the slums of Mumbai is that there were no fire escapes, no fire alarms, no sprinklers, and only one staircase (no elevators) for a twenty-four storey building.

Yeah, I'm sure it being a green building contributed more to the deaths than the fact that the fire alarm didn't work properly, the fire sprinklers didn't work at all, and that there was only one fire escape.

Papa Willie wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Yeah, I'm sure it being a green building contributed more to the deaths than the fact that the fire alarm didn't work properly, the fire sprinklers didn't work at all, and that there was only one fire escape.

But it was a green building. It didn't need things like that. I wonder how much Al Gore made off that place. I'm sure he's okay with it burning down.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Well, it's tiny compared to the WTC towers (as well as WTC 7, "coughing sound"), but even if somehow a 757 did plow into it --say the top ten floors--the bottom would still remain. Why not? How come the obvious fact that a fire will not drop a steel-framed building, period, doesn't seem to register?

What's really shocking about this particular shithole straight out of the slums of Mumbai is that there were no fire escapes, no fire alarms, no sprinklers, and only one staircase (no elevators) for a twenty-four storey building.

I don't know why I still both responding to you, but, here goes once again.

This was a more typical steel structure. Steel beams all very close to one another. The WTCs were designed to have large open spaces without such beams. You had the central spine and perimeter support. Still plenty strong, till you take out a large chunk of the perimeter with a large metal tube moving at 400+ mph and then you set it all of fire for an hour or so.

Steel, heated even a little bit, loses strength. Your lack of ability to comprehend even the simplest metalurical laws really is breathtaking. You imply that a beam will maintain full strength until it melts and collapses into a puddle of molten steel.

You claim that the only way this comes down in the fashion it did, is through a highly coordinated series of explosions. Watch the videos. The collapses start at the impact point. Any set of charges would have been wiped out by the collision.

smackaholic wrote:The collapses start at the impact point.

They do for towers 1 & 2, but not 7. There was no impact to Tower 7, which collapsed from its base like a controlled demolition. That's always troubled me. The science regarding impact and heat can't explain it.

According to 88dicksinhismouth that make you a moron.

No doubt there are questions about WT7. The problem is we don't have all of the info so we are left to theorize. Were the lower floors damaged, was the foundation, was there a fire due to natural gas lines or electrical issues? We don't know.

We do know that 88 is correct in that our government can't do basic things but could somehow pull this off is beyond belief. Thousands if not tens of thousands of people would have to have been part of the planning and cover up. Yet not one single person has had a change of conscience or death bed confession? No freaking way.

That is a fallacy not evidence. All the evidence point to demo.

Left Seater wrote:No doubt there are questions about WT7. The problem is we don't have all of the info so we are left to theorize. Were the lower floors damaged, was the foundation, was there a fire due to natural gas lines or electrical issues? We don't know.

That's why I don't jump to any conclusions, but if it walks like a duck...

Let's say rubble from Towers 1 & 2 collapsing impacted the base of Tower 7 similar to how a wrecking ball would. I'm no demolition expert, but I'd have to guess it would take MANY whacks from a wrecking ball all around the foundation to cause it to fall nearly straight down the way it did. Highly unlikely that caused its collapse.

Let's then go with fire/heat from either electricity or gas (or any source for that matter). It would take a helluva lot of heat over an extended period of time to weaken the foundation of a concrete and steel building sufficiently to cause it to collapse, especially as uniformly as it did, if it could do it at all. Not buyin' it.

I don't know what caused its collapse, but if you compare footage of it to that of almost any controlled demolition, it looks identical, and there has been no other plausible explanation given. Plus, I'm not aware of any other concrete and steel building that has been leveled by heat at the base.

our government can't do basic things but could somehow pull this off is beyond belief. Thousands if not tens of thousands of people would have to have been part of the planning and cover up. Yet not one single person has had a change of conscience or death bed confession? No freaking way.

We use the word government in very broad brush fashion. No doubt there are examples of extreme ineptitude on the part of government. However, there are many facets of government, and believe it or not, there are some very bright people who are gov't employees, but examples of that brilliance seldom make the news. I've thought as you do concerning the scope and number of people who would have to be in on a conspiracy of this magnitude, and it's tough for me to fathom as well. But few things surprise me anymore, and I can't rule out that what happened on 9/11 didn't involve some sort of evil gov't plot. Yeah, crashing planes into the twin towers to divert attention away from what may have been the real target (Tower 7) seems far-fetched and highly unlikely, but not impossible.

I don't know why Tower 7 might've been targeted. And I have no answers or theories. All I know is that the collapse of Tower 7 didn't look like the result of an attack, and did look very much like a controlled demolition.

PW, I'll come correct. I just read an article about the materials used to build the tower. According to engineers the materials used were highly flammable. They were also very cheap.

One would think that highly flammable materials would be banned for use in construction, especially high rises. But I guess there's no regulation against it. I bet those victims were glad to know that they'd be dying w/o the onus of government regulation.

Indigent residents' complaints about safety falling on the deaf ears of the wealthy in government. Now where have I heard that before....







Oh yes:

NIST? Really? So the gov didn't do anything wrong because the gov says it didn't?
What you know about NIST would fit on the head of a pin.

Moving Sale wrote:NIST? Really? So the gov didn't do anything wrong because the gov says it didn't?

That was my thought as well, although it doesn't mean what they reported isn't true. To rebut my own post, I stated that the collapse appears to have started at its base. But the lower floors aren't visible in the footage, and the report says the collapse started on the 13th floor, below the sight line, so I could be making a claim not in evidence. I also mentioned intense heat over a long period of time would be necessary, which also seems to have happened, at least according to the report and corroborated by video evidence.

88 wrote:Some of you guys are as batshit crazy as Poptard.

I won't deny (or confirm) that I may be batshit crazy. But lumping me in with 'tard is a low blow, so next time I see you, I will fight you.

Anything above zero kelvin contains heat. So what?

LongTimeSuck sure has on you guys...

First off you fat fuck, you didn't even quote the right link. That was from NIST. It is more fake science from the tard patrol. Noise travel is a function of many things. The most important is ambient noise. Did NIST measure it? How about the humidity? The dust level? The barriers between the inside of the building and the "witnesses?" Was the sound measured by these "witnesses?" How about the directivity factor? What was the frequency Kenneth? 130db can't be heard at 100feet under bad conditions and easily heard 7-10 miles under good conditions. They pulled 1/2 of a mile out of their ass you lobotomized train wreck.
This was a non peer reviwed paper (yes 88dicksinmouth is a hack for linking to it) full of conclusions looking for theories. It was intended to be consumed by stupid fucks like him and you. Remember 88dicksinass thinks voting for Trump was a good idea. That is how gullible he is.

Here is the FULL quote:
"According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings."

It's downtown NY. With the exception of WTC 1-2 it's nothe but surrounding buildings. And what "calculations" are they talking about? You are too stupid to care and too dumb to understand it anyways.

Nice white flag butter ball. I know more about the science than you do because well I am not an inbred tard.

Yeah because I just laid out a bunch of the science of sound. Flail on fat fuck.

BSmack wrote:I missed the part where the structure was cut in half by a 600 mile an hour airplane crash or where it was fueled by thousands of gallons of highly flammable jet fuel.

I missed the part where this is a steel framed structure.

Fat stupid and a racist
How surprising

Papa Willie wrote:I agree with Smackie. The #7 thing has always looked pretty fucky to me as well.

No, you agree with me. And you're right.

88 wrote:Who could have planted the explosives? And the detonation cord? And then coordinated an airplane strike? And then detonated the building remotely? And then covered it up? Fuck, our government can't even navigate a ship through the open seas without colliding with another one. Anyone who believes that the WTC was brought down through coordinated explosive devices is as loony as the now perforated moron who shot at GOP baseball players in Alexandria last week.

Who indeed...

Hi, we're the welcome wagon!..We fit right in and you never notice us at all..

atmdad wrote:

BSmack wrote:I missed the part where the structure was cut in half by a 600 mile an hour airplane crash or where it was fueled by thousands of gallons of highly flammable jet fuel.

I missed the part where this is a steel framed structure.

Yer right, it's not even steel-framed, and it still stood firm through a much longer fire than the ones which dropped the mighty towers of WTC (all recently insured for billions). Who are you again?

Of course the buildings collapsed..we get around...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnPL5OXSBNE