Sensible answers to some 9/11 Questions

[Yellowbird]

WTC 6 took a heck of alot more damage than 7. It stood. I would like to see the photos and video of severe damage and 20 story gash. If you have a link please post it.

WTC 6 wasn't a 40 story building - the structural stresses would be completely different.

Here's you link: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


Here's a summary:

As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, lets review the evidence...

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.
9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

4) Any sign of an actual explosive.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.

​

 

[Chaz]

I am not calling anyone a liar. Nor am I pointing blame to anyone. I think we can all agree that there are only two possibilities.

1. WTC 7 was brought down by fire and damage caused by debris from the towers.
-OR-

2. It was brought down by controlled demolition.

In my opinion, the evidence available suggests possibility # 2. And to think otherwise, I would need to see some compelling evidence or rationalize and talk myself into it.

 

[Fugawe]

Yeah Fagawe, its like the 60's all over again. Only now, the crazies are flying your family around.

Well, at least you guys admit to smokin' something..........now I understand.

Fugawe
:laugh:

 

[Gorilla]

AAAAAAHHHHHHH! Why am I sucked into this thread by knuckleheads who don't understand explosives, metallurgy, tensile strength, yield strength, annealing/normalization of steel, etc etc.

But, but, steel doesn't melt until something like 2600 degrees! A jet fuel fire is only, like, 1900 degrees! True but it flows like butter at well below it's melting point. Almost no strength whatsoever. Secret Mr. Wizard trick - take a bar of steel, heat it to ~ 2000 degrees. Guess what! You can bend it with your hands! You ARE SUPERMAN! YAY!

Oh yeah? It was a demolition using explosives! You can tell because it pancaked! And, uh, someone SAW some funny little booms BELOW the fire! And, uh, a FIREMAN said FUNNY WORDS! Do you have any idea how many tons of composition B or other high explosives would be needed? How many dozens of miles of detcord? How would it be installed, unnoticed? Why not make the building fall sideways? More damage that way. Steel under very high stress yields with a crack/bang that is very similar to an explosive charge.

Well, BUSH DID IT so he can, uh, TAKE THE OIL. Yeah man, it's all BIG OIL and CHENEY! Halliburton, those guys. With the funny top hats. Gee, ya think maybe there would have been an easier way to create a pretext for war? Perhaps a hundred pounds of nerve gas at a mall, with Hussein's fingerprints all over it? But it's a lot cooler to imagine the greatest Rube Goldberg scenario in the history of the world, i.e. the hijacking of aircraft, impact with the WTC, followed by some spook pushing a "controlled demo" button.

Conspiracists: Go read your op manual. You're spending waaaaay to much time with this tin-foil, geek conspiracy rubbish.

 

[Fugawe]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only