Are conspiracy theorists wrong about almost everything?

#82
If you refuse to acknowledge video showing 25% of WTC 7 was not scooped out, then we are done.
Where in the video is that? Maybe I missed it. What minute/second mark?

And - if the video shows it and I missed it, is it the side of building facing the towers? Is it before or after the towers collapsed?

Here is a shot of WTC-7 taken from an NYPD helo.
This is a view from the side, but clearly there is damage beginning at the corner that is visible and presumably runs across the entire face of the building that we can't see. I'd say 25% scooped out is about right based on what we can see from the corner.
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/comparedamage1.jpg

This link is my rebuttal - And I guess the firefighters quoted here are in on the conspiracy, right?:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
 
Last edited:
#83
And anyone thinking that the collapse of the main towers wouldn't severely damage WTC-7 isn't thinking straight in my opinion. No way all that material is going to come crashing down at high speed and not scoop out 25% of WTC-7.

In fact, as you can see in the second link in my previous comment, the firefighters expected WTC-7 to collapse because of the damage and fire. But yeah, some shadow agency must have infiltrated the NYC firefighters. Why am I wasting time debating what is held with religious faith by some people?
 
Last edited:
#84
Where in the video is that?
Video of WTC 7 showing 25% was not scooped out is at 15:38, 22:38, and 28:24.

The video also shows the fires were minor.

Instead of dropping symmetrically into their own footprint, this is what happens when steel high-rise buildings catch fire...


First Interstate Bank in Los Angeles, California (1988)
The First Interstate Bank is a 62-story steel-frame skyscraper that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From late one spring night through early morning the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3½ hours and caused an estimated $200 million of property damage. Of that fire, the U.S. Fire Administration wrote: "In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans." (Source 1 page 11, Source 2)


One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1991)
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor steel-frame skyscraper. It suffered a severe fire that started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors, causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss, and killing three firefighters. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed. Fire and safety officials said later that it was in no danger of collapsing. (Source 1, Source 2)


Mercantile Credit Insurance Building in Basingstoke, UK (1991)
The Mercantile Credit Insurance Building is a 12-story high-rise that has a fire-resistive steel frame with composite floor beams. Despite having no sprinklers, the building survived a four-hour fire that completely burned out three floors. No structural repair was required on the protected steel. (Source 1, Source 2)


Deutsche Bank Building in lower Manhattan (2007)
The Deutsche Bank Building was a steel-frame skyscraper adjacent to the World Trade Center. It had been called Bankers Trust Plaza before Deutsche Bank acquired Bankers Trust in 1998. In 2007 the then-abandoned office building, originally 40 stories, was being abated and dismantled, floor by floor, six years after it had incurred massive damage from debris hurled into it by WTC 2's explosion on September 11, 2001 (see below). By 2007, the structure had been reduced to 26 stories. A mid-afternoon seven-alarm fire, inadvertently started by workers who had been smoking, broke out on the 17th floor. The fire, which burned for seven hours, heavily damaged five floors above and five floors below its point of origin. Two firefighters died of smoke inhalation. The structure did not collapse. (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3)


Mandarin Oriental Hotel/Beijing Television Cultural Center in Beijing, China (2009)
The Mandarin Oriental Hotel was a not-yet-completed 44-story, 522-foot steel-frame skyscraper that was engulfed in flames for more than five hours on February 9, 2009. The cause of the fire was said to be an unauthorized fireworks display during the Lunar New Year celebration. One firefighter died fighting the blaze. The Mandarin Oriental Hotel's architect, Rem Koolhaus, said that the skyscraper, built with 140,000 tons of steel, incurred no structural damage and did not collapse. Nonetheless, it was later rebuilt. (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3)


A Shanghai, China, steel-frame high-rise apartment building (2010)
A Shanghai steel-frame high-rise apartment building was undergoing renovation broke out in a fire that burned throughout all 28 stories. Started by sparks that ignited scaffolding being welded by unlicensed workers, the fire burned for several hours and required more than 80 fire engines to contain it. It killed at least 58 people and injured more than 70 others. Firefighters on the ground were unable to hose water on the top of the 279-foot building. The structure did not collapse. (Source 1, Source 2)


Other Types of Construction and Fireproofing

Andraus Building, São Paulo, Brazil (1972)
The Andraus Building is a 31-story office building with reinforced concrete framing. The extremely hot fire that broke out caused severe spalling of large portions of the exterior concrete walls, joists, and columns, exposing the reinforcing steel. Nevertheless, the building did not collapse. It was subsequently repaired and returned to service. (Source)


Joelma Building (Crefisul Bank), São Paulo, Brazil (1974)
The Joelma Building is a 25-story office building made with reinforced concrete framing. Like the Andraus building (above), it suffered from severe spalling that exposed the steel reinforcing, but there was no collapse. Like the Andraus, it reopened after repairs. (Source)


The Dubai Tamweel in Dubai, UAE (2012)
The Dubai Tamweel is a 34-story residential tower made of reinforced concrete. The structure was partially gutted by fire after a blaze started at 1:30 AM. Although it was engulfed in flames and declared "uninhabitable," the structure did not collapse. Following comprehensive rehabilitation, the tower was restored. (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3)


Grosney Tower in Chechnya, Russia (2013)
The Grosney Tower experienced a fire that destroyed the plastic trimming on the exterior but left the building's interior untouched. There was no collapse. (Source)


"Address Building" in downtown Dubai, UAE (2015)
The "Address Building" is a 63-story five-star hotel and apartment complex in central downtown Dubai. It is made of reinforced concrete. As the city was preparing for New Year's Eve celebrations on the last day of the year, the building became engulfed in flames. The fire started on the 20th floor and quickly spread to the exterior, which one eyewitness said went up "like paper." According to one newspaper, internal fire extinguishing systems appeared to have worked, giving everyone inside the hotel time to get out alive. The Address has nearly 200 hotel rooms and more than 600 apartments. A total of 16 people were injured and one was killed. The structure did not collapse. (Source 1, Source 2)


Grenfell Tower in West London, U.K. (2017)
Grenfell Tower is a reinforced-concrete structure built in 1974 and containing 120 residential flats (some in low-rise buildings and others in a 24-story tower), was significantly refurbished in 2016. Exterior insulation was added. The new cladding not only contained flammable materials (polyethylene insulation covered by thin aluminum sheets that buckle in high temperatures and expose the internal material to flames) but it was installed onto the existing incombustible reinforced-concrete structure. In June 2017, a fire broke out on the 4th floor of the 24-story block of flats. It burned for 60 hours and caused 72 deaths. More than 70 other residents were injured and another 223 escaped. Though Grenfell Tower did not collapse, residents of surrounding buildings were evacuated as a precaution; later the building was determined to be structurally sound. Demolition of Grenfell Tower is expected by 2022. (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3)


The Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain (2005)
The Windsor Tower is a 28-story mixture of reinforced concrete and steel framing that was being fireproofed when fire broke out. The not-yet-fireproofed upper 10 floors partially collapsed in stages over a period of more than two hours. Although flames spread down as low as the third floor and lasted up to 20 hours, the already-fireproofed lower 17 floors did not collapse. (Source 1)
 
#85
Video of WTC 7 showing 25% was not scooped out is at 15:38, 22:38, and 28:24.

The video also shows the fires were minor.

Instead of dropping symmetrically into their own footprint, this is what happens when steel high-rise buildings catch fire...


First Interstate Bank in Los Angeles, California (1988)
The First Interstate Bank is a 62-story steel-frame skyscraper that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From late one spring night through early morning the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3½ hours and caused an estimated $200 million of property damage. Of that fire, the U.S. Fire Administration wrote: "In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans." (Source 1 page 11, Source 2)


One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1991)
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor steel-frame skyscraper. It suffered a severe fire that started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors, causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss, and killing three firefighters. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed. Fire and safety officials said later that it was in no danger of collapsing. (Source 1, Source 2)


Mercantile Credit Insurance Building in Basingstoke, UK (1991)
The Mercantile Credit Insurance Building is a 12-story high-rise that has a fire-resistive steel frame with composite floor beams. Despite having no sprinklers, the building survived a four-hour fire that completely burned out three floors. No structural repair was required on the protected steel. (Source 1, Source 2)


Deutsche Bank Building in lower Manhattan (2007)
The Deutsche Bank Building was a steel-frame skyscraper adjacent to the World Trade Center. It had been called Bankers Trust Plaza before Deutsche Bank acquired Bankers Trust in 1998. In 2007 the then-abandoned office building, originally 40 stories, was being abated and dismantled, floor by floor, six years after it had incurred massive damage from debris hurled into it by WTC 2's explosion on September 11, 2001 (see below). By 2007, the structure had been reduced to 26 stories. A mid-afternoon seven-alarm fire, inadvertently started by workers who had been smoking, broke out on the 17th floor. The fire, which burned for seven hours, heavily damaged five floors above and five floors below its point of origin. Two firefighters died of smoke inhalation. The structure did not collapse. (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3)


Mandarin Oriental Hotel/Beijing Television Cultural Center in Beijing, China (2009)
The Mandarin Oriental Hotel was a not-yet-completed 44-story, 522-foot steel-frame skyscraper that was engulfed in flames for more than five hours on February 9, 2009. The cause of the fire was said to be an unauthorized fireworks display during the Lunar New Year celebration. One firefighter died fighting the blaze. The Mandarin Oriental Hotel's architect, Rem Koolhaus, said that the skyscraper, built with 140,000 tons of steel, incurred no structural damage and did not collapse. Nonetheless, it was later rebuilt. (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3)


A Shanghai, China, steel-frame high-rise apartment building (2010)
A Shanghai steel-frame high-rise apartment building was undergoing renovation broke out in a fire that burned throughout all 28 stories. Started by sparks that ignited scaffolding being welded by unlicensed workers, the fire burned for several hours and required more than 80 fire engines to contain it. It killed at least 58 people and injured more than 70 others. Firefighters on the ground were unable to hose water on the top of the 279-foot building. The structure did not collapse. (Source 1, Source 2)


Other Types of Construction and Fireproofing

Andraus Building, São Paulo, Brazil (1972)
The Andraus Building is a 31-story office building with reinforced concrete framing. The extremely hot fire that broke out caused severe spalling of large portions of the exterior concrete walls, joists, and columns, exposing the reinforcing steel. Nevertheless, the building did not collapse. It was subsequently repaired and returned to service. (Source)


Joelma Building (Crefisul Bank), São Paulo, Brazil (1974)
The Joelma Building is a 25-story office building made with reinforced concrete framing. Like the Andraus building (above), it suffered from severe spalling that exposed the steel reinforcing, but there was no collapse. Like the Andraus, it reopened after repairs. (Source)


The Dubai Tamweel in Dubai, UAE (2012)
The Dubai Tamweel is a 34-story residential tower made of reinforced concrete. The structure was partially gutted by fire after a blaze started at 1:30 AM. Although it was engulfed in flames and declared "uninhabitable," the structure did not collapse. Following comprehensive rehabilitation, the tower was restored. (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3)


Grosney Tower in Chechnya, Russia (2013)
The Grosney Tower experienced a fire that destroyed the plastic trimming on the exterior but left the building's interior untouched. There was no collapse. (Source)


"Address Building" in downtown Dubai, UAE (2015)
The "Address Building" is a 63-story five-star hotel and apartment complex in central downtown Dubai. It is made of reinforced concrete. As the city was preparing for New Year's Eve celebrations on the last day of the year, the building became engulfed in flames. The fire started on the 20th floor and quickly spread to the exterior, which one eyewitness said went up "like paper." According to one newspaper, internal fire extinguishing systems appeared to have worked, giving everyone inside the hotel time to get out alive. The Address has nearly 200 hotel rooms and more than 600 apartments. A total of 16 people were injured and one was killed. The structure did not collapse. (Source 1, Source 2)


Grenfell Tower in West London, U.K. (2017)
Grenfell Tower is a reinforced-concrete structure built in 1974 and containing 120 residential flats (some in low-rise buildings and others in a 24-story tower), was significantly refurbished in 2016. Exterior insulation was added. The new cladding not only contained flammable materials (polyethylene insulation covered by thin aluminum sheets that buckle in high temperatures and expose the internal material to flames) but it was installed onto the existing incombustible reinforced-concrete structure. In June 2017, a fire broke out on the 4th floor of the 24-story block of flats. It burned for 60 hours and caused 72 deaths. More than 70 other residents were injured and another 223 escaped. Though Grenfell Tower did not collapse, residents of surrounding buildings were evacuated as a precaution; later the building was determined to be structurally sound. Demolition of Grenfell Tower is expected by 2022. (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3)


The Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain (2005)
The Windsor Tower is a 28-story mixture of reinforced concrete and steel framing that was being fireproofed when fire broke out. The not-yet-fireproofed upper 10 floors partially collapsed in stages over a period of more than two hours. Although flames spread down as low as the third floor and lasted up to 20 hours, the already-fireproofed lower 17 floors did not collapse. (Source 1)
I'm not interested in the experience of other buildings. Like I said, not exactly the same design, construction or circumstances.

We already know that buildings that are actually like WTC-7 can collapse into their footprint from fire and structural damage because, earlier in the day, the two main towers did just that.

15.38 mark. No context whatsoever. What Side of the building? When? I already supplied links that should help you understand that the video is seriously misrepresenting the extent of the damage and fire
22.38 same problem (in fact I think it's the same shot as 15:38 - re-show to reinforce a cheap propaganda point)
28:24 - That is a corner. It's actually showing significant damage. See my previous comment with links. It actually shows that the building was indeed 25% scooped out. The scooping out runs from the corner that is shown across the entire front (South side) that is not shown. The people that made the video should know that. IMO, they are deliberately lying to sell you something.

One Quote from my link that refers to what the scurrilous video shows at 28:24
"Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day."


Sorry man, if that's what you think is proof, it's no wonder I missed it. A quick shot without context or explanation means nothing. It is proof of nothing. It's a lot like the way the MSM keeps falsely repeating that Trump said Neo-Nazis at Charlottesville were "fine people". Exact same kind of lie/propaganda.

As I keep saying, you have, at very best, a theory backed by circumstantial evidence that is not strong (see my previous comment with links). IMO, your circumstantial evidence is defeated. However, given that it is circumstantial, you need to provide plausible motive and opportunity. So far you have refused to do so.

This is however a great example of the problem with conspiracy theories and why they are almost always BS.

You have some people furthering a debunked complicated theory based on circumstantial evidence and using incomplete information as that "evidence" and deliberately ignoring strong evidence and testimony that counters that incomplete information. It becomes a matter of faith. Counter arguments are ignored or incorporated into the conspiracy theory (e.g. the firefighters testimony that WTC-7 was severely structurally damaged and burning to the point that they knew it would collapse must be deep state stooges - or they are simply not discussed by conspiracy theorists). The conspiracy theory grows even more complicated and larger. A scenario that started with circumstantial evidence that appeared on the surface to be somewhat reasonable, soon defies reason, but continues to be accepted on faith - and those that don't share that faith are dismissed as rubes, dupes, unawakened, etc. or part of the conspiracy.

Enjoy
 
Last edited:
#88
I'm not interested in the experience of other buildings.
Obviously. This is why you believe the NIST report despite thousands of Architects and Engineers saying it's fraudulent, and all the technical analysis in that video proving it was fraudulent.

I realize that being new to the study of 9/11, your mind recoils in horror at accepting the implications of the truth. I went through the same thing back in 2003. It was painful.

I can tell you that after learning how the world really works, you will eventually reach the last stage in the grieving process, Acceptance.
 
#89
Obviously. This is why you believe the NIST report despite thousands of Architects and Engineers saying it's fraudulent, and all the technical analysis in that video proving it was fraudulent.

I realize that being new to the study of 9/11, your mind recoils in horror at accepting the implications of the truth. I went through the same thing back in 2003. It was painful.

I can tell you that after learning how the world really works, you will eventually reach the last stage in the grieving process, Acceptance.
Charlie,
No. I believe the NIST because their report conforms to eye witness testimony (like firefighters I linked to) and to the physical evidence.

You stood up a video that totally evades the question of the structural damage to WTC-7 caused by debris from the larger tower's collapse. Your video is very dishonest in that it quickly shows some out of context little fires in WTC-7. You want to believe that the creators of the video are honest and thorough scientists. It is clear to me and others that they are not because rather than address structural damage, they try to influence the gullible with a cheap propaganda trick; to wit, panning a quick shot of small fires without speaking to what they are showing (when in the day? What side of the building? What floor? What didn't they show the viewer?). That is the best you could do to further your conspiracy theory.

I already explained why I dismiss your anecdotes of other buildings burning.
1. False equivalence - the construction, material, design and circumstances are not the same
2. Among the circumstances that are not the same is the buildings not experiencing severe structural damage as reliable witnesses have repeatedly stated WTC-7 did, on top of burning out of control for several hours (as reliable witnesses, again, stated it did).
3. What made the two main towers fall? Are saying that was also controlled demolition?

When your best evidence was debunked, yet again, you resort to pop psychology to explain to yourself why I dismiss it. You also level what I think is a kind of insult at me (I don't mind) that I don't have your deep - no doubt conspiracy rooted - understanding of how the "real world" works. This is exactly what I said that you, as a conspiracy theorist, would do; fall back on your faith and declare anyone not sharing it to be ignorant and a dupe.

Anyhow, your video is nothing new and it absolutely does not address the extent of the fires and structural damage.

Neither you nor your video address what, most importantly, is here (firefighters, etc talking about the structural damage to WTC-7) - http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
or, to a lesser degree here - http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/comparedamage1.jpg

However, I'll bite - I probably already know what you are going say, but I'll try to keep an open mind - what is it that you think I don't understand about how "the real world" really works?
 
Last edited:
#91
When your best evidence was debunked, yet again, you resort to pop psychology to explain to yourself why I dismiss it. You also level what I think is a kind of insult at me (I don't mind) that I don't have your deep - no doubt conspiracy rooted - understanding of how the "real world" works. This is exactly what I said that you, as a conspiracy theorist, would do; fall back on your faith and declare anyone not sharing it to be ignorant and a dupe.
That's going to leave a mark. Not that Charlie will notice it of course. ;)
 
#93
That's going to leave a mark. Not that Charlie will notice it of course. ;)
Fail to notice no more than you, as you continue to refuse to note evidence of election fraud and that if the Democrats were acting in good faith they would have held public hearings to review the best evidence - like the NIST did in thoroughly reviewing, before dismissing, what was proposed as alternative theories regarding WTC-7.

Intellectual integrity is a rare quality.
 
#94
Fail to notice no more than you, as you continue to refuse to note evidence of election fraud and that if the Democrats were acting in good faith they would have held public hearings to review the best evidence - like the NIST did in thoroughly reviewing, before dismissing, what was proposed as alternative theories regarding WTC-7.

Intellectual integrity is a rare quality.
Difference here is quite stark Eric. Charlie is putting forth a theory that contradicts official findings and he's putting in forth in absolute terms; there's nothing that would convince him otherwise. Pretty traditional conspiracy theorist stuff. (They're immovable.)

I've based my views on the alleged election fraud on the fact that the "evidence" has been found lacking by dozens of judges, both appointed by dems and repubs (including Trump). I don't see any evidence to believe the entire judicial system is part of the conspiracy. All that said, I'm certainly open to changing my mind should the evidence actually be found worthy. Maybe we do need public hearings. I'd be open to it, but let me ask this: What if the hearings were held and the allegations were found, yet again, to not be substantiated? Would you be satisfied?

Conversely, if they election is found to be fraudulent, I'd stand right next to you in fighting to see Trump re-instated as the rightful POTUS.
 
#95
Difference here is quite stark Eric. Charlie is putting forth a theory that contradicts official findings and he's putting in forth in absolute terms; there's nothing that would convince him otherwise. Pretty traditional conspiracy theorist stuff. (They're immovable.)

I've based my views on the alleged election fraud on the fact that the "evidence" has been found lacking by dozens of judges, both appointed by dems and repubs (including Trump). I don't see any evidence to believe the entire judicial system is part of the conspiracy. All that said, I'm certainly open to changing my mind should the evidence actually be found worthy. Maybe we do need public hearings. I'd be open to it, but let me ask this: What if the hearings were held and the allegations were found, yet again, to not be substantiated? Would you be satisfied?

Conversely, if they election is found to be fraudulent, I'd stand right next to you in fighting to see Trump re-instated as the rightful POTUS.
Do you think that saying that something is "official" solves the debate? As if being "official" is equal to being true - or, at least, truthful and reliable.

You would better call the statements made by the power-wielding and / or power-supported actors and / or institutions official narratives - or official claims - rather than "official findings": in nearly each and every case there is a damn lot of sound empirical evidence that does not correspond with them, or even openly contradicts them; and the evidence that may be, to some degree, used to support them, is always open to alternative interpretations, masy of which are much more valid than the official ones (in the case of 9/11 false flag attack, just ask Charlie for more info, or read 9/11 Truth materials more carefully).

And their official status, by the most generous evaluation, means nothing and adds nothing. By the the less generous one - one that is preferred by me - it adds a weight (a pretty heavy weight, I would say) to the position that opposes them, since institutional and "respectable" sources are much more deeply integrated in, and higher elevated within, the current social power structure, and thus much much prone both to unconscious bias and to conscious deception than noninstitutional and "non-respectable" ones.

All power organisations are based on violence, deception and bribery; all are affront to mankind; in the end, all of them must be, and someday will be, eliminated. They are intrinsically unworthy, and supporting them, let alone serving them, is an unworthy cause. The worthy one is opposing them.
 
Last edited:
#98
Do you think that saying that something is "official" solves the debate? As if being "official" is equal to being true - or, at least, truthful and reliable.

You would better call the statements made by the power-wielding and / or power-supported actors and / or institutions official narratives - or official claims - rather than "official findings": in nearly each and every case there is a damn lot of sound empirical evidence that does not correspond with them, or even openly contradicts them; and the evidence that may be, to some degree, used to support them, is always open to alternative interpretations, masy of which are much more valid than the official ones (in the case of 9/11 false flag attack, just ask Charlie for more info, or read 9/11 Truth materials more carefully).

And their official status, by the most generous evaluation, means nothing and adds nothing. By the the less generous one - one that is preferred by me - it adds a weight (a pretty heavy weight, I would say) to the position that opposes them, since institutional and "respectable" sources are much more deeply integrated in, and higher elevated within, the current social power structure, and thus much much prone both to unconscious bias and to conscious deception than noninstitutional and "non-respectable" ones.

All power organisations are based on violence, deception and bribery; all are affront to mankind; in the end, all of them must be, and someday will be, eliminated. They are intrinsically unworthy, and supporting them, let alone serving them, is an unworthy cause. The worthy one is opposing them.
Ah yes. Vortex, our local ANTIFA/Anarchist misinformation operator from the Iron Curtain heard from again. Doing his best to spread chaos against America wherever he goes.

Honest People Like Charlie should keep in mind that a lot of conspiracy theories are deliberately generated by people like Vortex, who's goal is the farthest thing from Truth.
 
#99
Probably regret weighing in on this. But some extremely important details are being left out so make of it what you will.

Firstly other buildings suffered far more structural damage than building 7 and did not collapse symmetrically at free fall speeds into it's own foot print immediately following a large explosion heard on the scene. Indistinguishable from controlled demolition and in many cases even better.

Building 6 I believe. Gutted to the basement like a crater.


Before the NIST report a earlier report from FEMA had conducted a metallurgic analysis on the steel. Describing the samples as - quote "undergoing a high temperature corrosion attack". Turning heavy steel into - quote "Swiss cheese." The effects included- quote "rapid oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting..." So it not only melted but some of it had "evaporated".



Quote - “A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”... “No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.”

In the interest of openness, the report cannot determine whether it occurred before or after collapse or the timeframe in which it occurred.

While some sulfuric compounds are used in construction materials elemental sulfur is not. It is however used in combination with Iron oxide and aluminum to lower the melting point of steel.

This "swiss cheese" effect is also seen in debris from the other towers.


Red gray chips whose thermal behavior was indistinguishable from advanced thermite explosives were also discovered. Particle sizes in the red layer were less than a tenth of a micron in size, 1000 times smaller than a human hair thus dramatically increasing the surface area for even greater acceleration of a chemical reaction.

Also to add, the fires persisted for months through all attempts to extinguish them and even rainy weather. Fire men describe white hot beams that when pulled from the ground suddenly burst into flames. This is a acceleration of the reaction with increased exposure to oxygen not a regular fire on steel!

This evidence suggest the source was not that of regular building fire but is that of a chemical nature. Similar to that which is used for underwater welding and of course with a exothermic reduction-oxidation reaction. The reaction releases the energy thus not requiring external fuel sources. This explains what cannot be explained.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Or you can ignore this and believe the other conspiracy theory, (yes it is!) It's your choice.

 
Last edited:
Probably regret weighing in on this. But some extremely important details are being left out so make of it what you will.

Firstly other buildings suffered far more structural damage than building 7 and did not collapse symmetrically at free fall speeds into it's own foot print immediately following a large explosion heard on the scene. Indistinguishable from controlled demolition and in many cases even better.

Building 6 I believe. Gutted to the basement like a crater.


Before the NIST report a earlier report from FEMA had conducted a metallurgic analysis on the steel. Describing the samples as - quote "undergoing a high temperature corrosion attack". Turning heavy steel into - quote "Swiss cheese." The effects included- quote "rapid oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting..." So it not only melted but some of it had "evaporated".



Quote - “A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”... “No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.”

In the interest of openness, the report cannot determine whether it occurred before or after collapse or the timeframe in which it occurred.

While some sulfuric compounds are used in construction materials elemental sulfur is not. It is however used in combination with Iron oxide and aluminum to lower the melting point of steel.

This "swiss cheese" effect is also seen in debris from the other towers.


Red gray chips whose thermal behavior was indistinguishable from advanced thermite explosives were also discovered. Particle sizes in the red layer were less than a tenth of a micron in size, 1000 times smaller than a human hair thus dramatically increasing the surface area for even greater acceleration of a chemical reaction.

Also to add, the fires persisted for months through all attempts to extinguish them and even rainy weather. Fire men describe white hot beams that when pulled from the ground suddenly burst into flames. This is a acceleration of the reaction with increased exposure to oxygen not a regular fire on steel!

This evidence suggest the source was not that of regular building fire but is that of a chemical nature. Similar to that which is used for underwater welding and of course with a exothermic reduction-oxidation reaction. The reaction releases the energy thus not requiring external fuel sources. This explains what cannot be explained.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Or you can ignore this and believe the other conspiracy theory, (yes it is!) It's your choice.

Et tu Lone Shaman?....sigh...palm to forehead, etc

That's not what a thermite burn looks like. Who knows where that steel is from. It doesn't even look like structural beams.

Bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that conspiracy theorists are like those religious people that say they can mathematically prove that god exists. They never seem to pause to think that if such a math formula was real - meaning it was mathematically sound - that it would be the most famous and talked about equation ever. When real mathematicians aren't impressed, the religious guys just make excuses for why the real guys don't recognize their infallible genius. Round and round it goes. Like I said, conspiracy theories are a matter of faith and there's no point arguing them.

Here's an interesting video showing thermite being used on railroad track to bond two sections.
 
Last edited:
Top