Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
After ten years you still have not learned what gravity is? Gives a new meaning to the word "slow"![]()
Gravity is also the force that moves glaciers. Maybe there's a connection...
After ten years you still have not learned what gravity is? Gives a new meaning to the word "slow"![]()
"Gravity is also the force that moves glaciers. Maybe there's a connection..."
Maybe you might prefer a structural engineer's thorough examination of the NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7?
By Ronald H. Brookman, SE.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/NIST_Analyses_Brookman.pdf?format=pdf
Enjoy.
MM
What, then, caused that single structural entity to sink from view in its entirety. Where did the energy come from?
LOL he uses Avery, Harrit and Chandlers as his sources......just too funny.
Talk about building on Sand!![]()

LOL he uses Avery, Harrit and Chandlers as his sources......just too funny.
Talk about building on Sand!![]()

Counting the errors in his introduction
Many architects, engineers and others have never seen the rapid descent of the 47-story World Trade Center Building Seven (WTC 7) into its footprint in less than seven seconds on the afternoon of September 11,
2001. This unprecedented event—the first steel-frame building in history to collapse suddenly and completely following an uncontrolled office fire—was captured on film from various angles. Engineers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) performed extensive thermal and structural analyses of the building in an attempt to explain the
complete collapse in terms of impact damage, fire damage, column buckling and progressive collapse. This extraordinary effort by NIST provides a close-up view inside WTC 7 during the final hours, minutes and seconds before its precipitous fall. But the discovery of extreme temperatures as well as residues of molten iron and highly reactive pyrotechnic material in the World Trade Center debris1 2 3 invalidates the NIST conclusions, and further independent investigation is
required.
![]()
Is there actually anything new in that report, or is it just a polishing and stacking of the same old turds?
Counting the errors in his introduction
into its footprint in less than seven seconds on the afternoon of September 11, 2001.
This unprecedented event—the first steel-frame building in history to collapse suddenly and completely following an uncontrolled office firediscovery of extreme temperatures as well as residues of molten iron and highly reactive pyrotechnic material
Convenient for you I guess?Usually our government seems rather inefficient and inept, but 9/11 was the ultimate in multitasking events.
Which didn't cover the cost of rebuilding the towers and of course he's still paying the mortgage on the destroyed buildings. Not a very good plan.Silverstein wanted the towers torn down, but that was going to be expensive, so when they hatched the plot with the planes, he took the opportunity to have them rigged for CD as well and bought hisself some insurance.
Shredders are pretty cheap and would leave a lot less evidence than blowing up a building. Not to mention computers have back ups, intranets, servers, etc... Even in 2001. Welcome to the 21st Century.Building 7 had to go as well because of all those computers and files with the evidence of the attack on them.
1) As someone else mentioned, that's not what they hit.Over at the Pentagon, they not only wanted to make a statement, but also to get rid of some pesky accountants and try out the new missile system against a particularly strong reinforced section of building. Actually attacking themselves made it so much more convincing for the public.
I see you're kind of new here. Hint: when people havePlease tell me you aren't serious...
Usually our government seems rather inefficient and inept, but 9/11 was the ultimate in multitasking events. Silverstein wanted the towers torn down, but that was going to be expensive, so when they hatched the plot with the planes, he took the opportunity to have them rigged for CD as well and bought hisself some insurance. Building 7 had to go as well because of all those computers and files with the evidence of the attack on them.
Over at the Pentagon, they not only wanted to make a statement, but also to get rid of some pesky accountants and try out the new missile system against a particularly strong reinforced section of building. Actually attacking themselves made it so much more convincing for the public.
![]()
After ten years you still have not learned what gravity is? Gives a new meaning to the word "slow"![]()
It wasn't the government. It was a few well placed traitors at the top. People who could order underlings not to BAU without serious consequence.
Intact. The frame, the facades were completely intact as they sank from view. The interior as per your scenario had already collapsed. Go figure.