Conspiracy theories and lost opportunities (just for fun)

Do you remember there was a huge debris (French word) field?

 

I haven't presented a demolition theory, you guys are assuming things again. I'm consistently going with bldg7 and the various attempts to explain its demise.

Fire doesn't shatter steel, it deforms it. Fire could not have been responsible for the destruction of WTC7.

While I can understand why some of you guys would prefer to stick to the more difficult to establish issues of that day. I think its important to stick to whats clear and unmistakable. The fires in bldg 7 were not sufficient to bring down the building. The damage to the structure is hardly noticeable and asymmetrical. The building went right into its basement. Simple facts that just don't jive with the official story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3ACKK7HGUE&feature=related

and Hoyt no significant debris hit building 7 the film above will establish that the building or at least the two faces shown where the fires occurred were reasonably intact. Also that site I linked to before shows the damaged side of the building. Its not major damage and not to any structural components that can be seen in the photo's

 

TROY, HOYT, AND OTHERS, I said there is a video of a UC cal. scientist explaning ALL AND NO ONE TRIED TO FIND IT. So, I drop out of these dumb, and stupid thoughts of some who won't look for anything that does not support there thoughts. I give up on them and Boston, I am really suprised by you............So future comments by me on your potential build will for sure count as zero so I will refrane from doing so. Stan

 

It frosts my umm... well, you know... that people are willing to believe their fellow Americans are such monsters they would commit such an atrocity. Then they're willing to turn around and blindly take Osama Bin Laden's supposed word he had nothing to do with it, even though he was totally consumed with hating America and wanting to bring it down.

Let me ask this one more time: what was in it for anyone in our government, that they couldn't have gotten anyway? What was worth taking the risk of getting caught rigging several buildings for demolition, for the purpose of murdering several thousand of their countrymen?

 

your comments never count as zero, pretty sure the only person who's earned that one is ole Hoyt who I'm pretty sure just argues for the sake of arguing. I'm just absolutely sure after having worked on numerous steel framed structures early in my career that these buildings are not designed to fall down in case of sever fire. They may be designed not to fall over, thats easy enough, but they are designed to withstand fire.

I'd be happy to look at your link had you provided one but the notion that high rises are designed to collapse in case of fire is kinda, well just silly.

 

The titanic was designed to not sink. Design gets better learning from failures.
To jump from unexpected failure to controlled demolition charges doesn't hold water to me.

 

Troy I think its important to take things one step at a time, First we've got to establish what actually happened, then we can begin asking if it was malicious or not

The NIST reports complete failure to investigate any other cause but fire goes against even there own procedural guidelines. It certainly goes against the FDNY guidelines. Whats amazingly ridiculous is that 7 years and 10,000 pages later they come up with "remains unknown at this time" concerning bldg 7

WOW and you guys are not curious about that

 

fair enough but I"m not making that leap, I'm just saying lets find the cause of that "unexpected" ? failure

and I'd suggest that someone expected it because people were asked to clear out long before it collapsed

 

Looks its a sensitive issue, some folks are obviously against the whole idea of determining what brought down the building and instead seem to be getting all pissed off even asking the question.

Personally I'm really surprised that you guys aren't interested in the issue.

Its one of the biggest mysteries of our days and I guess its just to volatile for some folks

my apologies
I'm leaving the thread for a while
say what you will

 

If you think it's important for us to look at it, why don't you go find it? I'm not obligated to waste my time looking up videos either for or against absurd conspiracy theories, just because someone mentions them.... it's bad enough I'm wasting my time posting.

And I would submit that Boston's comments on 9/11 have nothing at all to do with the merits of his potential build; why should they affect your comments about it?

 

"During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse" sounds like significant fire to me.

We know there was uncontrolled fire.
Some reports say debris damage did occur. Some say it didn't. We know other buildings nearby which bore less load were damaged by debris.
We know the construction involved girders to support a larger building than the foundation was originally designed for.

"The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967. The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2). The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built. The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation ... Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames."

Maybe someone can take a detailed look at the modeling to see if it is plausible or not.

 

Again- well put.

I have been struggling keep my responses toned down on this.

regards

 

In order to believe this conspiracy theory, you first have to believe there are hordes of completely immoral people in the employ of the government, who just do whatever some psychotic madman commands, with not a single whistleblower in sight. That is tantamount to saying the human race is a lost cause.

 

I thought we had called it quits on this one?

We should or I will rapidly loose any civility I have kept to date on this issue.

Boston- the net if literally filled with web sites where you can join in with your kind.
Maybe you should take this up on one of those.

 

Evil Government? - Your words and your insinuation? It is your country and your government, - yet there is a strong persistence of denial when reasonable questions expressing doubt are put forth...

Doubt as to there being sufficient heat in the fires
No indication of a "chimney effect to support increased heat
BLACK smoke indicates excess fuel to oxygen so fires by evidence were NOT HOT
Explanation of the manner of the collapse is neatly explained
Engineering examples show that to achieve a collapse as seen in all three buildings a thermite charge (not necessarily an explosion) - but bangs were heard for Bldg 7 and seismic vibrations of a significant size immediately before the twin towers collapsed could have achieved the resultant collapse but NO OTHER explanation was officially offered
Too many other minor lies, denials and unanswered points to bother with