Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to Loose Change Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (14) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 Wtc7 Still Up For Debate?
IVXX
Posted: Oct 22 2006, 11:16 AM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



Let's see if Gravy can answer a couple of questions I've NEVER seen him address.

Buildings 4, 5 & 6 are hit with more debris, withstand more damage and sustain worse fires than building 7 yet these buildings are standing the next day. Care to try and explain that one Gravy??

Next...........

NIST ran test on trusses like those found in the WTC towers. Under the fires, these trusses sustained the maxium design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing. This info can be found on P. 143 of the NIST report. As I'm sure you know both towers fell in under two hours. Care to address this one Gravy??


Well Gravy care to give a shot at these two??
Top
IVXX
Posted: Oct 22 2006, 11:51 AM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



OK onto the next issue you will not see touched by Gravy.

We've all seen the video of Jason and Abby debating at Ground Zero. Jason says Molten Steel in the basement of the towers to which Abby replies "well aluminum" or something to that affect.

So let's say Abby is right cause as we know the towers were plated in aluminum so molten aluminum in the basements isn't that far off. Also remember that one of two of the hottest ground readings for days after is under building 2.

If it's molten aluminum in the basements of the towers than what is the motlen metal in the basement of building 7?? There is no aluminum in the steel work of building 7 so that would have to be molten steel/metal. Also one of two of the hottest ground readings for days after is under building 7.

Again I ask why did building 4, 5 & 6 stand for days..... weeks after 9/11 after sustaining more damage and greater fires than building 7??
Top
Momoka
Posted: Oct 22 2006, 01:44 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 546
Member No.: 454
Joined: 21-October 06



QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 22 2006, 04:16 PM)
Let's see if Gravy can answer a couple of questions I've NEVER seen him address.

Buildings 4, 5 & 6 are hit with more debris, withstand more damage and sustain worse fires than building 7 yet these buildings are standing the next day. Care to try and explain that one Gravy??

NIST ran test on trusses like those found in the WTC towers. Under the fires, these trusses sustained the maxium design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing. This info can be found on P. 143 of the NIST report. As I'm sure you know both towers fell in under two hours. Care to address this one Gravy??

I'll take this one.

WTC 7 had a weird design. It was built to straddle a Con Edison electrical substation. Because of this, there was a whole lot of space for support columns, so each column had to hold a lot more weight. Thus, taking out just two or three low columns would have made the whole thing collapse on itself.

Also, WTC 7 had trusses on the fifth and seventh floors designed to shift loads from one column to another. When columns on the South side were damaged, unusually high stress would have been moved to the other columns, exceeding their capacity.

Finally, WTC 7 was fuel of fuel tanks which literally threw fuel on the fire.

These are all factors not present in WTC 4, 5, and 6. This is why those buildings could stay up.

Your second question's in the wrong forum. This is the WTC 7 forum. Twin Towers debate goes elsewhere. And the trusses NIST tested didn't have their fireproofing blown off by an exploding plane.
Top
Quad4_72
Posted: Oct 22 2006, 01:45 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 120
Member No.: 217
Joined: 19-October 06



No, the other buildings did not have more fires. That is a false statement so do not use that as fact. A couple of those buildings were pulled down by construction crews due to damage. WTC7 had uncontrolled fires for hours on end and were unfought. The "molten steel" found, had nothing to do with thermite or explosives. First of all, high explosives do not produce pools of metal, look at any demolition. Second, thermite burns itself out in a matter of seconds and would not leave molten pools of metal in the rubble. Seeing as how there was a large amount of diesel fuel in WTC7 (43,000 gallons to be exact that were used for generators) it is more likely that under certain conditions that diesel fuel served as a source for the molten metal. As this is just my speculation, there is still no evidence to support thermite.
Top
IVXX
Posted: Oct 22 2006, 01:49 PM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



How funny. Go look at pictures of buildings 4, 5 & 6 taken the next day and you tell me again they didn't suffer more damage. Did I say anything about thermite straw man?? Didn't think so.

Top
IVXX
Posted: Oct 22 2006, 01:52 PM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 22 2006, 06:44 PM)
Your second question's in the wrong forum. This is the WTC 7 forum. Twin Towers debate goes elsewhere. And the trusses NIST tested didn't have their fireproofing blown off by an exploding plane.

To my knowledge and I will go back and look but NIST did the test with exposed trusses as well.
Top
The Stinger
Posted: Oct 22 2006, 06:19 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 520
Joined: 22-October 06



QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 22 2006, 06:44 PM)
I'll take this one.

WTC 7 had a weird design. It was built to straddle a Con Edison electrical substation. Because of this, there was a whole lot of space for support columns, so each column had to hold a lot more weight. Thus, taking out just two or three low columns would have made the whole thing collapse on itself.

Also, WTC 7 had trusses on the fifth and seventh floors designed to shift loads from one column to another. When columns on the South side were damaged, unusually high stress would have been moved to the other columns, exceeding their capacity.

Finally, WTC 7 was fuel of fuel tanks which literally threw fuel on the fire.

These are all factors not present in WTC 4, 5, and 6. This is why those buildings could stay up.

Your second question's in the wrong forum. This is the WTC 7 forum. Twin Towers debate goes elsewhere. And the trusses NIST tested didn't have their fireproofing blown off by an exploding plane.

So what you are saying is that the most important wtc building was the one with the worst
construction design?

Oh and wheren't the fuel tanks in the basement?
Can you explain how fire gets to them?

So if your explanation is right then why did you figure this out and not the
profesional who are paid do find this shit out?
Top
IVXX
Posted: Oct 22 2006, 08:41 PM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (The Stinger @ Oct 22 2006, 11:19 PM)
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 22 2006, 06:44 PM)
I'll take this one.

WTC 7 had a weird design. It was built to straddle a Con Edison electrical substation. Because of this, there was a whole lot of space for support columns, so each column had to hold a lot more weight. Thus, taking out just two or three low columns would have made the whole thing collapse on itself.

Also, WTC 7 had trusses on the fifth and seventh floors designed to shift loads from one column to another. When columns on the South side were damaged, unusually high stress would have been moved to the other columns, exceeding their capacity.

Finally, WTC 7 was fuel of fuel tanks which literally threw fuel on the fire.

These are all factors not present in WTC 4, 5, and 6. This is why those buildings could stay up.

Your second question's in the wrong forum. This is the WTC 7 forum. Twin Towers debate goes elsewhere. And the trusses NIST tested didn't have their fireproofing blown off by an exploding plane.

So what you are saying is that the most important wtc building was the one with the worst
construction design?

Oh and wheren't the fuel tanks in the basement?
Can you explain how fire gets to them?

So if your explanation is right then why did you figure this out and not the
profesional who are paid do find this shit out?

I'm waiting for Quad4_72 to find some pictures of 4, 5 & 6 and expalin exactly how they weren't damaged worse the building 7 on 9/11/2001.

Notice his straw man tactic people. He said and I quote, "No, the other buildings did not have more fires. That is a false statement so do not use that as fact."

I did not say that. I said, "Buildings 4, 5 & 6 are hit with more debris, withstand more damage and sustain worse fires than building 7." Watch the videos that is fact. Buildings 4, 5 & 6 were directly under the towers not a block away like building 7 to say they weren't hit by more debris and sustained worse damage shows total ignorance to the facts he claims to know.

He went on further to say, "A couple of those buildings were pulled down by construction crews due to damage."

All three of those buildings, buildings 4, 5 & 6 were pulled down in the weeks following 9/11. Again that is fact.
Top
Momoka
Posted: Oct 22 2006, 09:21 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 546
Member No.: 454
Joined: 21-October 06



QUOTE (The Stinger @ Oct 22 2006, 11:19 PM)
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 22 2006, 06:44 PM)
I'll take this one.

WTC 7 had a weird design. It was built to straddle a Con Edison electrical substation. Because of this, there was a whole lot of space for support columns, so each column had to hold a lot more weight. Thus, taking out just two or three low columns would have made the whole thing collapse on itself.

Also, WTC 7 had trusses on the fifth and seventh floors designed to shift loads from one column to another. When columns on the South side were damaged, unusually high stress would have been moved to the other columns, exceeding their capacity.

Finally, WTC 7 was fuel of fuel tanks which literally threw fuel on the fire.

These are all factors not present in WTC 4, 5, and 6. This is why those buildings could stay up.

Your second question's in the wrong forum. This is the WTC 7 forum. Twin Towers debate goes elsewhere. And the trusses NIST tested didn't have their fireproofing blown off by an exploding plane.

So what you are saying is that the most important wtc building was the one with the worst
construction design?

Oh and wheren't the fuel tanks in the basement?
Can you explain how fire gets to them?

So if your explanation is right then why did you figure this out and not the
profesional who are paid do find this shit out?

I could ask the same question of you.

But the experts DID figure it out. They came to this conslusion, and are all in more or less agreement. It makes sense, too.
Top
IVXX
Posted: Oct 22 2006, 09:28 PM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 23 2006, 02:21 AM)
QUOTE (The Stinger @ Oct 22 2006, 11:19 PM)
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 22 2006, 06:44 PM)
I'll take this one.

WTC 7 had a weird design. It was built to straddle a Con Edison electrical substation. Because of this, there was a whole lot of space for support columns, so each column had to hold a lot more weight. Thus, taking out just two or three low columns would have made the whole thing collapse on itself.

Also, WTC 7 had trusses on the fifth and seventh floors designed to shift loads from one column to another. When columns on the South side were damaged, unusually high stress would have been moved to the other columns, exceeding their capacity.

Finally, WTC 7 was fuel of fuel tanks which literally threw fuel on the fire.

These are all factors not present in WTC 4, 5, and 6. This is why those buildings could stay up.

Your second question's in the wrong forum. This is the WTC 7 forum. Twin Towers debate goes elsewhere. And the trusses NIST tested didn't have their fireproofing blown off by an exploding plane.

So what you are saying is that the most important wtc building was the one with the worst
construction design?

Oh and wheren't the fuel tanks in the basement?
Can you explain how fire gets to them?

So if your explanation is right then why did you figure this out and not the
profesional who are paid do find this shit out?

I could ask the same question of you.

But the experts DID figure it out. They came to this conslusion, and are all in more or less agreement. It makes sense, too.

Actually I believe the FEMA experts said that the fires in building 7 and how they caused the collapse remain unknown. Looks like we're all in agreement.
Top
Momoka
Posted: Oct 22 2006, 10:10 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 546
Member No.: 454
Joined: 21-October 06



QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 23 2006, 02:28 AM)
Actually I believe the FEMA experts said that the fires in building 7 and how they caused the collapse remain unknown. Looks like we're all in agreement.

Because they were working on photos that had smoke in front of everything. NIST got better photos, and could see that WTC 7 got hit by debris.
Top
Graham
Posted: Oct 23 2006, 02:15 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 100
Member No.: 355
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 23 2006, 01:41 AM)

I'm waiting for Quad4_72 to find some pictures of 4, 5 & 6 and expalin exactly how they weren't damaged worse the building 7 on 9/11/2001.

WTC 6 looks pretty fecked. how did that not fall down?

(Posted Image)

The Marriot has taken pretty hefty damage.

(Posted Image)

Surely this building should have fallen down? I see more damage here than I've seen to Building 7

(Posted Image)

I mean... how is this still standing?

(Posted Image)

Why do we not have occurances of these melting all around the world?

(Posted Image)
Top
IVXX
Posted: Oct 23 2006, 02:42 AM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 23 2006, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 23 2006, 02:28 AM)
Actually I believe the FEMA experts said that the fires in building 7 and how they caused the collapse remain unknown. Looks like we're all in agreement.

Because they were working on photos that had smoke in front of everything. NIST got better photos, and could see that WTC 7 got hit by debris.

Which brings us right back to where we started. Now without quoting the official lie since we've shown that it don't hold water and without quoting Gravy since a lot of his paper depends on the official lie, explain how build 4, 5 & 6 remained standing weeks after 9/11 yet building 7 that was nowhere near damaged as bad as the other 3 buildings goes down in 7-8 hours. Look at the pictures above this post, go find more pictures of 4, 5 & 6 and watch 9/11 Mysteries for even more pictures of the damage to those three buildings.
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 23 2006, 03:00 AM


Unregistered









QUOTE (Popeholden @ Oct 19 2006, 03:33 PM)
well here it is in PDF form if you haven't, i've been told some of the links don't work

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

popeholden youve got a nerve citing papers by gravy

why you here anyway?

im gonna get back in jref if it kills me
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 23 2006, 03:04 AM


Unregistered









for those who dont know, ive been IP banned from JREF because I was destroying the clowns there.

Gravy was reduced to lying about me, Im gonna confront the little toerag at GZ next year.

Any tips on getting back into JREF?
Top
Momoka
Posted: Oct 23 2006, 10:03 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 546
Member No.: 454
Joined: 21-October 06



QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 23 2006, 07:42 AM)
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 23 2006, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 23 2006, 02:28 AM)
Actually I believe the FEMA experts said that the fires in building 7 and how they caused the collapse remain unknown. Looks like we're all in agreement.

Because they were working on photos that had smoke in front of everything. NIST got better photos, and could see that WTC 7 got hit by debris.

Which brings us right back to where we started. Now without quoting the official lie since we've shown that it don't hold water and without quoting Gravy since a lot of his paper depends on the official lie, explain how build 4, 5 & 6 remained standing weeks after 9/11 yet building 7 that was nowhere near damaged as bad as the other 3 buildings goes down in 7-8 hours. Look at the pictures above this post, go find more pictures of 4, 5 & 6 and watch 9/11 Mysteries for even more pictures of the damage to those three buildings.

Who the hell is gravy?

Anyway, I *did* explain it. WTC had a weird design that the others didn't. As the pictures show, it took insane levels of damage.

Oh, wait. I'm not allowed to say that, am I?

And you have NOT disproven the mainstream story. You've just kept asking why buildings 4, 5, and 6 didn't fall when WTC 7. I explained it: They had a better, less awkward design. Now you've banned me from saying that, which is fricking rediculous. You can't *ban* evidence.
Top
Geek33
Posted: Oct 23 2006, 10:58 AM


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Member No.: 562
Joined: 23-October 06



Nothing HIT Wtc 7. Therefore it's collapse and likeness to a controlled demolition is highly suspect. Simple as that.

Falling chunks of concrete do not start fires.
Top
Roxdog
Posted: Oct 23 2006, 11:18 AM


Why is Al Gore's House Bigger Than Everyone Else's?


Group: Members
Posts: 5,428
Member No.: 34
Joined: 18-October 06



QUOTE
The "molten steel" found, had nothing to do with thermite or explosives.

Sources please. So you believe there was molten metal found underneath ground zero?
Top
IVXX
Posted: Oct 23 2006, 11:58 AM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 23 2006, 03:03 PM)
QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 23 2006, 07:42 AM)
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 23 2006, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 23 2006, 02:28 AM)
Actually I believe the FEMA experts said that the fires in building 7 and how they caused the collapse remain unknown. Looks like we're all in agreement.

Because they were working on photos that had smoke in front of everything. NIST got better photos, and could see that WTC 7 got hit by debris.

Which brings us right back to where we started. Now without quoting the official lie since we've shown that it don't hold water and without quoting Gravy since a lot of his paper depends on the official lie, explain how build 4, 5 & 6 remained standing weeks after 9/11 yet building 7 that was nowhere near damaged as bad as the other 3 buildings goes down in 7-8 hours. Look at the pictures above this post, go find more pictures of 4, 5 & 6 and watch 9/11 Mysteries for even more pictures of the damage to those three buildings.

Who the hell is gravy?

Anyway, I *did* explain it. WTC had a weird design that the others didn't. As the pictures show, it took insane levels of damage.

Oh, wait. I'm not allowed to say that, am I?

And you have NOT disproven the mainstream story. You've just kept asking why buildings 4, 5, and 6 didn't fall when WTC 7. I explained it: They had a better, less awkward design. Now you've banned me from saying that, which is fricking rediculous. You can't *ban* evidence.

We are looking at the same pictures right?? You're going to say that building 7 was damaged more than 4, 5 & 6?? The pictures show 7 took insane levels of damage?? It took nowhere near the insane levels that 4, 5 & 6 took. Also the Mayor's emergency bunker was in building 7 so your saying they put the bunker in the weakest building?? The mainstream story is disproven by the very fact that 4, 5 & 6 did not fall. Not even one of them. If one of those buildings would have went down I'd give more crediblity to the official lie. You have NOT proven the official lie.

Let's get this straight for you one more time. 4, 5 & 6 were directly below WTC 1 & 2. They were in more of a debris imapct field than building 7 which is one block away. These buildings were rained upon with debris unlike building 7 and unlike Mr. Straw man Quad would want you to believe fries in these buildings were worse than in 7. I didn't say "MORE" fires straw man, I said "WORSE".
Top
Graham
Posted: Oct 23 2006, 01:04 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 100
Member No.: 355
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 23 2006, 08:04 AM)
for those who dont know, ive been IP banned from JREF because I was destroying the clowns there.


link? ;)
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | WTC 7 | Next Newest »
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now

Topic OptionsPages: (14) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last »



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0369 seconds · Archive