Debunking the government propaganda machine:
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
after suffering extensive damage from fires and falling debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.
|
Yes the furniture was extensively damaged not the steel. The damage has been examined by professional demolition experts who claim it was a professional demolition and well done professional demolition at that.
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
Between floors 5 and 7, the building had a system of transfer trusses and girders to transfer load to the smaller-sized foundation.
|
The super who was once an old boiler man was trapped and hit with an explosion on floor seven and thrown back up the stairs to the 8th floor.
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
When the North Tower collapsed, the antenna fell and cut through the façade of Building 7, rupturing fuel lines leading to storage tanks used by New York City's emergency services.
|
The same building super reported that 7th floor explosion was not a boiler explosion and occured before building 2 fell. Claiming that the antenna caused the fires and damage is simply a lie.
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
Sprinklers were not working, and water pressure (to enable firefighting efforts) was very low, so firefighting was curtailed. Fires continued to burn, unabated throughout the day.
|
Strange since it never was hit by an aircraft isnt it?
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
At 3:30 pm, darker plumes of smoke were observed coming from 7 World Trade Center, indicative of fire fueled by oil.
|
Darker plumes are an indicator of plastic burning. They cannot say this with any kind of reasonable certainty.
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
Such a building is generally designed to resist heat buildup for three hours.[12]
|
Doesnt really matter as a naturally aspirated fire cannot melt or get iron hot enough to lose it strength, unless the fire is over 30 floors high and can get a raging updraft which cannot occur on one or 5 floors. I cant even get my thin walled furnace to melt with a "forced air aspirated burner." (I tried LOL)
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
|
Wow Fusion bombs do that really well!
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...todustmida.jpg
Must have been some well connected terrorists.
And whats this jokers grand conclusion?
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward. "This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column," not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, "It had burned first, then buckled."[13]
|
Now I damn spit my coffee all over the key board I was laughing so hard. Anyone here actually believe this? LOL
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
Damage to 7 World Trade Center from falling debris due to the collapse of the Twin Towers was extensive.
|
A little scratch in the paint and a tiny dent?
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse.
|
I will put my money on the 30 year demolition vet who called bullshit.
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
"They made us evacuate due to the fear of 7 coming down."
|
yeh yeh everyone has seen the video of the fire dept clearing everyone out and admitting that the building IS coming down, not "potentially" coming down.
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
"Instead of the vertical beams terminating in the foundation, many of them terminate in these broad, horizontal trusses that span the width of the building. Because the building was basically hollow from the sixth floor down. It was built over this big Con Ed substation. So those trusses carry these enormous loads far, far higher than we would see in a typical skyscraper. The combination of the falling debris - which greatly stressed the structure - raised the strain on these trusses.
|
Written to give the impression they are strong as butter! LMAO
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
Controlled demolition experts reject the notion that "pull it" is a term used in building implosions. "Pull" is also used by firefighters in reference to "pulling firefighters out of a building", because the situation is too dangerous.
It is in this context that Silverstein used the term "pull it".
|
You have to be joking this old lie is still on these sites? Worse people are still quoting it? We are smarter then that arent we?
That has been proven to be a lie and the grammar usage is incorrect for pull them out and is nonsense, however fits the miplosion version perfectly. Check the grammar with any linguist.
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members,
|
That is sinmply a lie and total fabrication. That was a tiny little bar-b-q compared to the fire in wtc 1 in 1975 that completely took out 3 floors and wasted 6 total with billowing flames, but then they wanted to save the building back then.
Quote:
Debunking 9/11 myths:
The collapse did not occur at free fall speed. It took 16 seconds,
|
Wrong, it can only fall that way when the core column is removed. Most standard demolitions blow one set of core columns then the next set so the guts fold inward better. You get a deck of cards effect that way. Danny Jowenko 30 year demolition veteran examined the building and assessed the damage and said unequivocally that it was a well executed "professional demolition" on wtc 7. I am sure you all know better tho. Freefall speed only occures in demolition and is counted from the time the the building as a whole starts moving not the time to blow the core.
we can have so much fun with this ts pathetic.
In th e911 case planes flying through building and as pristine as the kennedy bullet! What the hell it worked in the 60;s and we are just as dumb today!
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...footage3-1.jpg
They were special planes tho because they can fly into and through steel. They belonged to superman because normal planes look like this from a little icestorm.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...1061321527.jpg
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...1061321531.jpg
Poor normal planes are such woozies and cant even take a little ice.
Gotta love steel turning dust in mid air with no fire nothing but a harmless little fusion nuke.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...todustmida.jpg
Geez they even blew the support columns out of this building and the damn thing just would not cooperate and fall straight down into itself. Maybe they would have been better off using a plane instead of rdx and semtek.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...edbuilding.jpg
same here:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...outhDakota.gif
Isnt it really odd that wtc 7 "collapsed" with literally no damage when the rest of the building that were completely gutted stood just fine?
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...al-smolder.jpg
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...tc6-aerial.jpg
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...-aerial-hr.jpg
Now the windsor burned like this:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...in_fire22a.jpg
and with no fire extinguishers installed after several hours the damn thing didnt have the courtesy to fall.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...one/310954.jpg
Then there is that little problem of the debris field.
If you look at the official report it shows where some of those big plane parts came from.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...ne/P200003.jpg
Damn it if there is no hole big enough to get all that crap through!
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...oleHere009.jpg
ok so no peeking now! Here is a test.
Which one is the nuke and which one is the wtc?
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...e/911NUKED.jpg
Ok I am truly getting bored so I am otta here.
The question is; why hasnt the people and city of ny sued larry silverstien for cleanup of all his dust. gotta be a billion there anyway.