eots
no fly list
- Jan 6, 2007
- 28,995
- 2,107
check this out: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7
it explains the wtc7 report screw up in detail ..
from your bogus site
Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed."
- Chief Cruthers
This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, I suspect there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "a hole 20 stories tall".
From the NIST report
the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
Investigation team’s major findings and recommendations, which include identification of fire as the primary cause for the building’s failure.
clearly your site is junk and in direct contradiction with the NIST report...and btw ..you are a moron
once again wrong ....it was before the final nist report was published...
THEN WHY DO YOU AND YOUR BOGUS SITE CONTINUE THE PERPETUATE THIS MISINFORMATION ..????
but then again....But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.
INCOHERENT BABBLE...
..This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.
why does eots use the nist report as proof ....when he's spews the most shit about it being false?
TO TRY AND FORCE ENOUGH HONESTY OUT OF DEBWUNKERS AND AGENTS
TO HAVE THEM ADMIT THAT THEY CONSTANTLY CONTRADICT THE NIST REPORT IN FAVOUR OF A COLLAGE OF POPULAR SCIENCE AND NAT GEOS BASELESS ASSERTIONS THAT ARE IN CONTRADICTION THE WTC 7 FINAL REPORT.. IT WOULD SEEM MOST DEBWUNKERS FEEL NIST WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE IN DETERMINING THE CAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE
Last edited: