Not much to explain really. And I'm not upset. You're just a ****ing idiot. It's been a long day and you are what you are, a ****ing idiot. Now you might think you're smarter than everyone else on here, you might have a reasonably high I.Q. and are probably smarter than most of the people around you when you venture away from your laptop to your humdrum job. But you're just not. Not smarter, not wiser, more savvy than the average guy on the street. So grow up, find some new interests, meet new people and stop being a ****ing idiot.
He did and has very informative views on it. I think he is basically saying go and play on a long quiet road, to somewhere that no one cares about. That's it really.. Nite peeps..
Spot on...However, hard evidence and logic don't count for conspiracy theorists so don't expect them to believe it.. Even if it didn't strike it head on, buildings of that size collapsing could destroy the very foundations of buildings around it..
Well i suppose in certain circumstances this could happen, but this possibility definitely didn't happen to WTC7 Btw The blog that you thinks spot on… have you got any background on the author "Blogger" John Ray?
WTC7 was built over an underground structure which housed an electricity substation. The building was constructed several years after the substation on a fairly complex set of foundations as it was larger than the substation construction had accounted for. Please explain why the collapse of the twin towers right next to WTC7 didn't affect it's structural stability and foundations - and please show your working out.
I'll go back to the 'need to know' theory. When people accept that there is not a 'need to know' then the answers become less sought after. There were no deaths to account for, in building 7, so yeah, it may have been a controlled destruction of the building. It may have been a contingency to blow up adjacent/surrounding buildings if other buildings came down. It's like asking questions to a dog, you can interpret the dogs behaviour to mean what you think it might mean, or you can just accept that the dog is never going to give you any answers.
Correct, but i don't think they have been brought into question by the NIST report… and please show your working out… Btw this is off the NIST report. “Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.
Sorry, which way are you arguing ? You've made posts which state the surrounding buildings did not contribute to the collapse and now you quote a NIST report which says neither explosives nor fuel fires played a role in the collapse. What are you saying ? Aliens ? Elvis ?
just trying to answer your question WTC7 was built over an underground structure which housed an electricity substation. The building was constructed several years after the substation on a fairly complex set of foundations as it was larger than the substation construction had accounted for. Please explain why the collapse of the twin towers right next to WTC7 didn't affect it's structural stability and foundations - and please show your working out. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.
The survival of several video recordings of Building 7's collapse, though of low resolution, allow study of the building's motion and the time of collapse. Each of the following videos shows the entire visible portion of the building falling with a vertical precision otherwise seen only in controlled demolition. Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate of fall is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building's roof with no air resistance
Thanks. A few posts from you claiming you know what didn't happen... care to share your thoughts or are you just making vague posts trying to catch people out ?
Conspiracist theorist idiots confirmed as having no arses at all. Confirms why they're full of **** shocker!
Wh Who? And why? People are inquisitive by nature and hate not knowing 'what really happened', big deal. Boring dickheads occupying their lives by thinking they can 'uncover the truth'. Cockroaches
Some more 'crackpot conspiracy theorist nuts' that state the 'truth' regarding 9/11 is a crock of **** ... http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of architects, engineers, and affiliates dedicated to researching and disseminating scientific information about the complete destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, with the ultimate goal of obtaining a truly independent investigation and supporting the victims in their pursuit of justice A thought provoking and insightful site that ask serious questions regarding the 'official story' - no doubt the same people who didn't watch the video link I posted in the opening thread will still think I'm a loon will not look at this site either
