Who did 9-11?
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
Yawn,will it ever end?
Good to see the tinfoilers are still going at it tooth and nail,bloody truthers allways give me a chuckle.
Keep posting the same old lies and hope....just hope someone will jump on their bandwagon.
It was the joo's.
This is like promoting hatred isnt it?
I thought this was illegal.
Are you a member of stormfront or something?
Good to see the tinfoilers are still going at it tooth and nail,bloody truthers allways give me a chuckle.
Keep posting the same old lies and hope....just hope someone will jump on their bandwagon.
It was the joo's.
This is like promoting hatred isnt it?
I thought this was illegal.
Are you a member of stormfront or something?
I am surprised that strech has not found this:
Ahmadinejad - Guts To Tell The Truth | Real Zionist News
Ahmadinejad - Guts To Tell The Truth | Real Zionist News
It was the only link I had to a vid that was part of the OP, who pulled it off. I have no control over how their link appears after the link is posted. I doubt I am a member since this is the first I have heard of them. You seem to be plugged into who they are and no I don't need to know more. You must have this thread plugged into a siren lol.
The list of people in the US Gov (in the 2hr vid)that have extensive ties to Israel is rather high as none seem to be taking money from other Nations in the world, like North Korea.
How can knowing the list of events and list of vocal supporters be associated with 'hatred'. If anything the ones who voted them in would be the ones that would 'remove them'.
They would seem to have quite some control here in Canada at the same time. I'm under the asumption that is why we didn't even show up at the UN for Iran's speech that had 9/11 parts and mentioned Mossad.
Did our representatives also refuse to be paid for the day as that is what they are paid to do, attend UN functions.
Dex,somebody already posted the time it took, would you care to supply your reference?
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7
Neither of these pages mention the speed of WTC7
See if you can find this paragraph:
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.
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.
Source:
http://tangibleinfo.blogspot.com/2008/08/wtc7-collapse-incredible-conclusive.html
Debunking NIST's conclusions about WTC 7 is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
Symmetrical Collapse
NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically collapse as follows:
In real life, the thick structural beams and "stiff [and strong]" exterior frame used in the building should have quickly stopped any partial collapse, unless the support columns were all blown. At the very worst, we should see a 1 or 2 floor partial collapse.
Freefall Speed
NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than freefall speed. But it collapsed alot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn't very impressive -- that's like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.
Again, why did the building collapse at all, given that the thick structural beams should have quickly stopped any partial collapse?
911 wtc 7 new angle
Bomberne der forsvandt 06
http://tangibleinfo.blogspot.com/2008/08/wtc7-collapse-incredible-conclusive.html
Debunking NIST's conclusions about WTC 7 is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
Symmetrical Collapse
NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically collapse as follows:
WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
NIST can't have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or - at the very least - we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall.
In real life, the thick structural beams and "stiff [and strong]" exterior frame used in the building should have quickly stopped any partial collapse, unless the support columns were all blown. At the very worst, we should see a 1 or 2 floor partial collapse.
Freefall Speed
NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than freefall speed. But it collapsed alot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn't very impressive -- that's like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.
Again, why did the building collapse at all, given that the thick structural beams should have quickly stopped any partial collapse?
911 wtc 7 new angle
Bomberne der forsvandt 06
Uh huh. And if you actually understood what you posted you'd see NIST isn't trying to have it both ways, it's merely explaining the order in which things collapsed.
The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven
Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False
The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven
Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False
The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven
[box]
WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing. [/box]
Using the link I provided I assume. One clue that failure was taking place was the penthouse to the left fell in before any other signs were visible, several seconds pass actually, enough that the penthouse could have almost been at ground level before the other penthouse started to fall.
A few pages back I posted a vid to a structural engineer that went over this report and his conclusion was the official story didn't match the physics. One of the strongest arguments he made was a particular girder could not have been 'dislodged'
http://www.webcrawler.com/clickserv...Bh8=&40=3k85C7sApoYhZ9UZ22fgRA==&_IceUrl=true
WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing. [/box]
Using the link I provided I assume. One clue that failure was taking place was the penthouse to the left fell in before any other signs were visible, several seconds pass actually, enough that the penthouse could have almost been at ground level before the other penthouse started to fall.
A few pages back I posted a vid to a structural engineer that went over this report and his conclusion was the official story didn't match the physics. One of the strongest arguments he made was a particular girder could not have been 'dislodged'
Last edited:
they keep phucking around with this forum, I dont have a quote button any more....you can leave a message on someones wall and they can delete after reading.......then again, with the quote button gone, who's t' say we even have a wall..........