• 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.

Wtc 7

beachnut said:
You read that wrong, you failed to grasp the meaning and have made up a lie. The part did not say collapse was highly improbable, try again. Try quoting things right! You may learn how to understand what the quote really means is not what you think it is.

Changing meaning is not good.

Fire it destroys steel strength, see, and this fire was fought, WTC7 WAS NOT FOUGHT.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg[/qimg]
Fire makes steel fail, quickly. This fire was fought! But…



What was different in WTC7.


Lack of knowledge, false information, and lies are the standard characteristics of 9/11 truth. I expect people would study 9/11 before picking the losing side.
Click to expand...


That was after 11 hours, and even then, they stated that the FIRE DAMAGED floors MIGHT PANCAKE. Sounds resonable to me.
What happened in WTC7 bears no resemblance to that scenario.

The whole building fell like a house of cards, not a pancaking of the fire damaged floors.
In WTC 7, its as if the lower floors all ceased to exist at exactly the same time.

Thanks for posting something sensible, which has zero to do with the unsensable out and out collapse of WTC 7.
 
Sabrina said:
Holy thread necromancy, Batman!

Wow, this one's old. *LOL*
Click to expand...

In the future, maybe we can start a new thread and link to the old one. It's a bit awkward continuing a thread almost a year later. The OP hasn't even posted since last July.
 
roundhead said:
That was after 11 hours, and even then, they stated that the FIRE DAMAGED floors MIGHT PANCAKE. Sounds resonable to me.
What happened in WTC7 bears no resemblance to that scenario.

The whole building fell like a house of cards, not a pancaking of the fire damaged floors.
In WTC 7, its as if the lower floors all ceased to exist at exactly the same time.
Thanks for posting something sensible, which has zero to do with the unsensable out and out collapse of WTC 7.
Click to expand...

Of course anyone who has seen the full collapse progression and not selected sections would know that this is not the case. And there's no reason to expect the collapse to have progressed in the same fashion as the twin towers or prior examples because of both its design and circumstances. The initiation mechanisms between WTC 7 and the twin towers were different and therefore the collapse as expected progressed differently. It's not rocket science. What you describe as completely "insensible out and out" was a progressive collapse. Whether this was a "first" to result in a total catastrophic failure or not makes no difference, the general principal is the same, structural failure isn't new...

*Exits necromantic thread*
 
roundhead said:
That was after 11 hours, and even then, they stated that the FIRE DAMAGED floors MIGHT PANCAKE. Sounds resonable to me.
What happened in WTC7 bears no resemblance to that scenario.

The whole building fell like a house of cards, not a pancaking of the fire damaged floors.
In WTC 7, its as if the lower floors all ceased to exist at exactly the same time.

Thanks for posting something sensible, which has zero to do with the unsensable out and out collapse of WTC 7.
Click to expand...
You have yet to demonstrate that you've read the NIST report on WTC 7, much less understood it.
 
Gravy said:
You have yet to demonstrate that you've read the NIST report on WTC 7, much less understood it.
Click to expand...

I have read their lame excuses to try and justify the demolition of the building as fire induced. They fail at that horribly.
 
roundhead said:
I have read their lame excuses to try and justify the demolition of the building as fire induced. They fail at that horribly.
Click to expand...

I sense your keen understanding of physics, building collapse and building performance allows you to make this statement.

But I'm a "show, don't tell" kind a guy. Could you please offer a technical treatise on why "their" "excuses" were "lame" and why "[T]hey fail at that horribly[.]"? Don't spare the deep technical language, mathematical and physical principles or complex formulas and calculations. I can handle it.

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Mince said:
I sense your keen understanding of physics, building collapse and building performance allows you to make this statement.

But I'm a "show, don't tell" guy. Could you please offer a technical treatise on why "their" "excuses" were "lame" and why "[T]hey fail at that horribly[.]"? Don't spare the deep technical language, mathematical and physical principles or complex formulas and calculations. I can handle it.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Christopher 7 has done an excellent job of pointing out the idiocy of the OCT regarding building 7, i suggest you read some of his posts regarding the matter and gain an education. He does an excellent jopb of pointing out all the lies, deceit, and rubbish the report poses.
 
roundhead said:
Christopher 7 has done an excellent job of pointing out the idiocy of the OCT regarding building 7, i suggest you read some of his posts regarding the matter and gain an education. He does an excellent jopb of pointing out all the lies, deceit, and rubbish the report poses.
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't know.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

And for the record, I have read at least most of what C7 has published and all of it is conjecture and uneducated speculation based on other peoples conjecture and speculation.

Gain an education? Hehe. Good one.
 
roundhead said:
Christopher 7 has done an excellent job of pointing out the idiocy of the OCT regarding building 7, i suggest you read some of his posts regarding the matter and gain an education. He does an excellent jopb of pointing out all the lies, deceit, and rubbish the report poses.
Click to expand...
Since you are simply parroting work by Chris, maybe you give him appropriate credit and not pretend you are the one doing the "thinking", as you do here:
roundhead said:
I have read their lame excuses to try and justify the demolition of the building as fire induced. They fail at that horribly.
Click to expand...
 
'Now we find out that WTC7 was designed and constructed with a very unusual technique to insure complete structural integrity even if whole floors were removed. It was one of the most structurally redundant buildings ever built in the history of steel structures.'
http://tyrannyalert.com/wtc7solution.htm The Strength of WTC7
 
bill smith said:
'Now we find out that WTC7 was designed and constructed with a very unusual technique to insure complete structural integrity even if whole floors were removed. It was one of the most structurally redundant buildings ever built in the history of steel structures.'
http://tyrannyalert.com/wtc7solution.htm The Strength of WTC7
Click to expand...

old news
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building - and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation,'' said John D. Spassoff, a district manager of Silverstein Properties.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom