911 Truth Movement

[Harry]

You might have to read back few pages. There was much more damage to WTC 7 than first thought. Nothing strange.

can you point us to that evidence?

chapter 5 from FEMA's report states -

"At 10:29 a.m., WTC 1 (the north tower) collapsed, sending its debris into the streets below. The extent and severity of the resulting damage to WTC 7 are currently unknown. However, from photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts discussed below, it was assumed that the south side of the building was damaged to some degree and that fires in WTC 7 started at approximately this time"

 

[Harry]

the NIST reports states fires brought down the building.

as reported on popular mechanics -

"Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."

"Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause"

 

[bullus_hit]

You might have to read back few pages. There was much more damage to WTC 7 than first thought. Nothing strange.

The base of the buliding appears to give way, that is the only means by which a perfectly symmetrical collapse can take place. Even if there was damage to the south side, any collapse would have been lopsided as opposed to perfectly uniform. The other point is that the heat of burning furniture is insufficient to melt steel, not to mention that the fire occured on the upper levels of the building. It just doesn't add up and NIST have provided a pretty lame excuse for what transpired.

 

[jb03]

The base of the buliding appears to give way, that is the only means by which a perfectly symmetrical collapse can take place. Even if there was damage to the south side, any collapse would have been lopsided as opposed to perfectly uniform. The other point is that the heat of burning furniture is insufficient to melt steel, not to mention that the fire occured on the upper levels of the building. It just doesn't add up and NIST have provided a pretty lame excuse for what transpired.

I am not sure that any of the points you make bullus are actually correct.

 

[Disco08]

What's wrong with them?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

What's wrong with them?

You mean besides the fact they contain no evidence?

 

[Disco08]

You have to present evidence for every point you make now? Why not actually tell us why he's wrong?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

You have to present evidence for every point you make now? Why not actually tell us why he's wrong?

If your point is that WTC 7 couldn't have fallen the way it did under normal stresses of a 220 story steel framed tower partially falling on it, and several floors burning for up to 7 hours, and that and that "Even if there was damage to the south side, any collapse would have been lopsided as opposed to perfectly uniform"
then yes I would like some proof. You think I am being unreasonable?

 

[Baloo]

If your point is that WTC 7 couldn't have fallen the way it did under normal stresses of a 220 story steel framed tower partially falling on it, and several floors burning for up to 7 hours, and that and that "Even if there was damage to the south side, any collapse would have been lopsided as opposed to perfectly uniform"
then yes I would like some proof. You think I am being unreasonable?

Apologist troll.

 

[Disco08]

Great contribution.

If your point is that WTC 7 couldn't have fallen the way it did under normal stresses of a 220 story steel framed tower partially falling on it, and several floors burning for up to 7 hours, and that and that "Even if there was damage to the south side, any collapse would have been lopsided as opposed to perfectly uniform"
then yes I would like some proof. You think I am being unreasonable?

Yep. If you'd watched the doco Azza linked to those points are all covered by people wth vast expertise in the topics being discussed.

 

[Baloo]

Great contribution.

Nothing you haven't used on this thread towards kr. Or is only one side allowed to call the other trolls ?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Great contribution.

Yep. If you'd watched the doco Azza linked to those points are all covered by people wth vast expertise in the topics being discussed.

Thanks! Bullus didn't quote The doco or any other material.

 

[Disco08]

This entire thread is based on AE911truth's objection to NIST's WTC7 report. If you haven't watched this material you're wasting the time of those who have.

Nothing you haven't used on this thread towards kr. Or is only one side allowed to call the other trolls ?

KR's disrepestful posting deserved the response it got. All you just did is jump in to try and be a smart arse.

 

[Baloo]

KR's disrepestful posting deserved the response it got. All you just did is jump in to try and be a smart arse.

His posting wasnt close to being disprespectful IMO. Your response to him was one of the main reasons I decided to jump off this merry-go-round of a thread and instead sit on the sidelines occasionally popping balls into the mouths of clowns. It's certainly as much fun without getting dizzy.

 

[Disco08]

I've seen you take offense to far less. Happy to agree to disagree though.

Did you watch the AE doco?

 

[Baloo]

Did you watch the AE doco?

Nope.

 

[Disco08]

Why not?

 

[poppa x]

What's wrong with them?

refer page 1 and read onwards if you have the time.

 

[Disco08]

I've read every word in this thread. Can you tell me why they're wrong?

 

[Baloo]

Why not?

Because I couldn't be bothered anymore. Everything I've been told to read or watch in the past failed to prove anything so I'm assuming this is no different and I've already invested too much time in this wacky conspiracy theory.