• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why did they "pull" tower seven?

sheeplesnshills said:
Given all prior examples of uncontrolled fire in heavily damaged steel frame buildings, it would have been weird if the WTC7 has done any other than collapse!
Click to expand...

What prior examples exist of the complete collapse of a steel framed high rise due primarily to fire?
 
sheeplesnshills said:
I guess you missed the WTC and WTC collapses then......in fact ALL steel frame buildings that have suffered heavy damage followed by uncontrolled fires have collapsed..........3 out of 3.
Given all prior examples of uncontrolled fire in heavily damaged steel frame buildings, it would have been weird if the WTC7 has done any other than collapse!

So it looked like a CD? so what?......what would you have expected it to look like??? Please list all assumptions made and show working.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that your colleagues will be happy with you saying

'WTC7 looked like a Controlled Demolition '' Sheeplenshills

Statement made after seeing the ' before and after ' pictures.

You won't mind if I add that to my files will you ?
 
Last edited:
Remember the Barry Jennings video ? Remember Barry was talking about how the inside of WTC7 had explosions going on all over it ? This was to pre-weaken the building in anticipation of the plane crashing into it and the ensuing demolition some time later. Just like the Twin Towers really.
Click to expand...

You've never been close to big fire have you? I have and "explosions" are regular occurrences in them.All sorts of material and objects "explode" if they get hot enough and the shearing of bolted joints as they fail would also sound like an "explosion" to a layman.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
You've never been close to big fire have you? I have and "explosions" are regular occurrences in them.All sorts of material and objects "explode" if they get hot enough and the shearing of bolted joints as they fail would also sound like an "explosion" to a layman.
Click to expand...

It's really lucky that we have a mechanical engineer like you around to make sure we know the Truth. lol
 
bill smith said:
Are you sure that your collwagues will be happy with you saying

'WTC7 looked like a Controlled Demolition '' Sheeplenshills

Statement made after seeing the before and after pictures.

You won't mind if I add that to my files will you ?
Click to expand...


Pity I didn't actually sat that :)

I said "so it looked like a CD, so what?" I was simply asking you to take the next step of explaining why you thinking it looking like a CD was important.
You do know that just because something looks like something else to a layman, it does not mean they are the same thing? No perhaps not.

But feel free to distort what I said.....strange thing to do if one seeks the "truth" but go for it.:rolleyes:
 
bill smith said:
that's true...so ?

Sigh.....I guess I'll have to guide you a little..


Remember the Barry Jennings video ? Remember Barry was talking about how the inside of WTC7 had explosions going on all over it ? This was to pre-weaken the building in anticipation of the plane crashing into it and the ensuing demolition some time later. Just like the Twin Towers really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q Barry Jennings

So obviously the perps couldn't permit people see the inside of the building after the plane failed to arrive. It had to go.
Click to expand...

That doesn't tell us why you think it was demolished.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
The WTC 1 and 2....without the fire they would have remained up and possibly even repairable.
Click to expand...

First, you might want to take back your liar comment, unless you're too immature to do so.

Secondly, the collapses of the towers were not primarily due to fire. It was the combination of fire and impact damage. Goodness, don't you even know the basics of this fairy tale?

Even NIST admitted that WTC7 was the first known instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing primarily due to fire.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Pity I didn't actually sat that :)

I said "so it looked like a CD, so what?" I was simply asking you to take the next step of explaining why you thinking it looking like a CD was important.
You do know that just because something looks like something else to a layman, it does not mean they are the same thing? No perhaps not.

But feel free to distort what I said.....strange thing to do if one seeks the "truth" but go for it.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well when if I reproduce it I will link to the rest of your post and people can see that you actually did not indicate that WTC7 looked like a Controlled Demolition. How's that ? I may also reprodruce this denial of yours.
 
Last edited:
I am new here (obviously) so those in favor of the CD please answer this (I'm sure it's been talked about 100 times like every other topic in this sub-forum)...

Where were the blast caps? I don't recall seeing any. I really like what he says around 8:50. It's like "You're showing me evidence that debunks my claims...wait there's SUPER THERMITE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT!!!!"

EDIT: I also love later on when they show how thermite can't burn through the steel beam, and how complicated it actually is to keep the thermite in place. Then "Dr." Jones goes it proves nothing because they use thermate or super thermite that can be painted on. Unreal the way their minds work.
 
Last edited:
So obviously the perps couldn't permit people see the inside of the building after the plane failed to arrive. It had to go.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]


So why was the plane flying towards Washington and not NYC? and who had ever heard of the WT7 before 911? Off all the plausible terrorists targets in NYC or Wasjington, what would have been the rationale for attacking a relative nonentity?

Terrorists are supposedly attacking the WTC towers as they had before, a military target (the Pentagon) so with the 4th and last plane they are going to hit the WTC7????? Yep thats makes a convincing storyline :)
 
bill smith said:
Well when if I reproduce it I will link to the rest of your post and people can see that you actually did not indicate that WTC7 looked like a Controlled Demolition. How's that ? I may also reprodruce this denial of yours.
Click to expand...

Feel free. Distort away.:)
 
RedIbis said:
Secondly, the collapses of the towers were not primarily due to fire. It was the combination of fire and impact damage. Goodness, don't you even know the basics of this fairy tale?
Click to expand...
Dude, that's exactly what he said in the post you quoted.
sheeplesnshills said:
The WTC 1 and 2....without the fire they would have remained up and possibly even repairable.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
RedIbis said:
Even NIST admitted that WTC7 was the first known instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing primarily due to fire.
Click to expand...
And?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom