9/11 Videos....

[zack_odom]

Sorry....Jeez.

[laz93se]

Sorry....Jeez.

it's not about your post.

[NAiL05]

so then why do you post.

It seems obvious that you are interested in these topics.

Yea reading biased comments is always fun. Shows how one sided some people think.

[laz93se]

Yea reading biased comments is always fun. Shows how one sided some people think.

It's always the gubiments fault. LOL

[NAiL05]

I blame bush for everything....I love comments like those.

[Charliehstle209]

[owequitit]

I only wish that there was more evidence on the collapse of wtc 7, which had practically every floor intact (structurally)except for fire damage.

According to whom?

Considering all of the seismic activity around the building, the force of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, does it really seem illogical to you that the building could collapse due to other factors?

Just because a building LOOKS like it is structurally intact, does NOT mean that it is.

I find it odd that you still cling to your beliefs when the ENGINEERS of the complex know it is plausible. Of course, I am sure you know more than them.

Same thing goes for the "staged" Pentagon collapse B.S. theories. One look at the actual photographic evidence, measured damage and engineers statements is pretty conclusive that the damage INSIDE the building, where it actually counts, was MUCH more severe than the relative appearance of the facade would have you believe.

Of course, if you neglect that ACTUAL data, or skew it, then the other theories start to look plausible. Once you twist facts like every other internet conspiracy theory.

Not to mention that the engineers would now have to be in on it, which brings the total number of people up into the 10's of thousands that are in on a conspiracy.

Because THAT is realistic.

[laz93se]

According to whom?

Considering all of the seismic activity around the building, the force of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, does it really seem illogical to you that the building could collapse due to other factors?

Just because a building LOOKS like it is structurally intact, does NOT mean that it is.

I find it odd that you still cling to your beliefs when the ENGINEERS of the complex know it is plausible. Of course, I am sure you know more than them.

Same thing goes for the "staged" Pentagon collapse B.S. theories. One look at the actual photographic evidence, measured damage and engineers statements is pretty conclusive that the damage INSIDE the building, where it actually counts, was MUCH more severe than the relative appearance of the facade would have you believe.

Of course, if you neglect that ACTUAL data, or skew it, then the other theories start to look plausible. Once you twist facts like every other internet conspiracy theory.

Not to mention that the engineers would now have to be in on it, which brings the total number of people up into the 10's of thousands that are in on a conspiracy.

Because THAT is realistic.

Are you kidding me? (seismic activity) thats a new one.

In other words YOU believe wtc 7 actually swayed left to right a few feet and crumbled to its doom.

The building collapsed at 5:20 pm due to fire and structural damage, not because of seismic activity.

Like I said, I wish there was more evidence of the collapse.
(data,pictures,video,testimony)

Here is a direct quote by FEMA:
Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

[lokuputha]

I only wish that there was more evidence on the collapse of wtc 7, which had practically every floor intact (structurally)except for fire damage.

....


and another:





*pictures = millions words

the more I watch this video, the weirder it seems... Video of Collapse

[laz93se]

The building collapsed at 5:20 pm.

Which gave the media or any one for that matter plenty of time to photograph and/or film
the damage that the building contained.

Why didn't anyone from the media pay more attention to a 47 story building if they new it was going to collapse.

Why didn't any of the other surrounding buildings like the Fiterman Hall building collapse
from damage that the wtc 7 caused.
Keep in mind the Fiterman Hall building also received considerable damage.

[owequitit]

Are you kidding me? (seismic activity) thats a new one.

In other words YOU believe wtc 7 actually swayed left to right a few feet and crumbled to its doom.

The building collapsed at 5:20 pm due to fire and structural damage, not because of seismic activity.

Like I said, I wish there was more evidence of the collapse.
(data,pictures,video,testimony)

Here is a direct quote by FEMA:
Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

More conspiracy theory word twisting. How convenient.

Don't twist my words, or I will seek to make you look like an ass.

I DID NOT say that seismic activity caused the collapse. I simply said that there is a lot more invovled structurally than APPEARANCES, and there is very likely a logical answer.

FEMA also NEVER said it wasn't possible, what they said was that it was not the most probable scenario and they would have to look into it further.

Jesus Christ, you are TWISTING THE WORDS THAT YOU POSTED.

God forbid, the answer wasn't posted on a little sticky note and wasn't staring them right in the face, so it MUST be a conspiracy, and it MUST have been unexplainable. Give me a fucking break.

Shit like this happens ALL THE TIME in airplane crashes. Sometimes, it takes awhile to find an answer among the RUBBLE. I have seen crashes that took YEARS to solve, even though they ended up being perfectly explainable,m and caused by a simple failure in many cases.

[lokuputha]

Just because a building LOOKS like it is structurally intact, does NOT mean that it is.

Yeap, that is true it is. Take that Tacoma Narrows Bridge for example...it looked perfect until weird harmonic resonances shook it like a flag in the wind.

Bridge Swaying Video



Although most lattice structure buildings are designed with safety factors around 10, which also takes into consideration harmonic resonance fatigue.

I wonder if WTC1/2 and 7 were built by the same sh*tty engineering/construction company...someone show sue them for such a sh*tty design.

[lokuputha]

Conspiracy theories are usually bigger lies than those they try to expose.

owe, just your thoughts on this:

Would you think the stigma around "Conspiracy Theories," may act as cover for real conspiracies?

Since such theoretical muse is looked down upon and the general perception is that incredible things only happen in incredible movies, would not some try to exploit this scenario for their own nefarious purposes?......nefarious...i love that word

...just keeping the discussion going...

[ACC0RD22]

usually factors of safety involve loadings without heat applied. applying the heat of burning diesel fuel on the lower floors of the building (which would bear the most load) greatly decreases the factor of safety that is built in. Much of the strength that is built in is also there because of the geometry, so if you alter that even slightly, you are introducing stresses that the members were not initially meant to hold, and failure becomes more likely.

I think the seismic activity reference was more to indicate that, although the building appeared to be structurally intact outwardly, it was collapsing on the inside. Fires on the lower floors would not allow firemen to be inside the building to check to see if the upper floors were intact, so I dont really see how anyone could actually know that.

[zack_odom]

hmmmmm...Why is tower 7 such a focal point in a conspiracy theories?
If you stop and consider hard facts, HOW MUCH did the two towers weigh?
Like a hundred thousand tons or something crazy like that????
I mean the air pressure displaced, and the seismic forces involved must be
more immense that can be imagined....