*** Did WTC 7 Collapse due to fire ***

*** Did WTC 7 Collapse due to fire ***

Created by Timesten on Nov 19, 2010

4,842 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

First Prev
of 108
Next Last
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#2371 Jun 1, 2013
Yes it did collapse due to fire and Tom gets even hotter around girl scout cookie time!

“Google Operation Northwoods”

Since: Aug 10

** 9-11 was an inside job **

#2372 Jun 1, 2013
andet1987 wrote:
implosion, an inside job
Agreed... A few Office fires in isolates areas of the building do not cause a global collapse on all 4 corners at the same exact time.
https://sites.google.com/site/911whatyoumight...

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#2373 Jun 3, 2013
Timesten wrote:
<quoted text>Agreed... A few Office fires in isolates areas of the building do not cause a global collapse on all 4 corners at the same exact time.
https://sites.google.com/site/911whatyoumight...
And of course you base that on your twoofy understanding of structural dynamics, failure analysis, physics, fire science and materials.

And you wonder why you get mocked?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#2374 Jun 3, 2013
Timesten wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed... A few Office fires in isolates areas of the building do not cause a global collapse on all 4 corners at the same exact time.
https://sites.google.com/site/911whatyoumight...
Why not, a four-teen year old can cause a fire in your pants.
Mulch Ado

Mill Valley, CA

#2376 Jun 18, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course you base that on your twoofy understanding of structural dynamics, failure analysis, physics, fire science and materials.
And you wonder why you get mocked?
Sweet Irony Alert LOL

Do you wonder why You get mocked pig?

Porkpigpie Preference
Porkpigpie Prefers to Present Particularly Prolific Paid Professors to Pollinate Peer-reviewed Papers to Parrot his Position in which he Proposes will Purportedly and Positively Prove Pig’s Propaganda.
Also
Porkpigpies Periodic Penile Penetration Produces Persistent Progressive Perianal Pruritis Perhaps Particularly Perturbing Problematic Presentation Portending Poor Prognosis Preventing Pig’s Proper Posture.

Please Procure Provisional Portable Protective Prosthetic Plug Plus Purchase Purified Peroxide Possibly Preventing Potential Pyrogenicly Putrid Protozoan Parasites Producing Purulent Purple Pustules Potentially Puckering Pig's Piehole.

Can I huh Mommy, can I ? Oh Mommy I see your pigpiehole !?!?!?

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#2378 Jun 19, 2013
How did nist establish the baseline performance of building 7 , and what is the formula used to verify the validity of it? Who was responsible for providing this evaluation?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#2379 Jun 20, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
How did nist establish the baseline performance of building 7 , and what is the formula used to verify the validity of it? Who was responsible for providing this evaluation?
You're looking for one simple equation?

F=MA

Verified by Newton.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#2380 Jun 20, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
You're looking for one simple equation?
F=MA
Verified by Newton.
Newton provided the baseline performance of building #7 ?
I guess the wright brothers were flying the planes.
Actually they used 4 , how did they derive at the 4 used? Who decided these 4 were the best ?

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#2381 Aug 8, 2013
WTC 7 is considered to be much more important to understand [than the Twin Towers],” because engineers had no answer to the question,“why did 7 come down?”

From a purely scientific perspective, of course, there would have been an obvious answer.

Scientists, presupposing the regularity of nature, operate on the principle that like effects generally imply like causes.

Scientists are, therefore, loathe to posit unprecedented causes for common phenomena. By 9/11, the collapse of steel-framed high-rises had become a rather common phenomenon, which most Americans had seen on television. And in every one of these cases, the building had been brought down by explosives in the process known as controlled demolition.

From a scientific perspective, therefore, the obvious assumption would have been that WTC 7 came down because explosives had been used to remove its steel supports.

However, the public discussion of the destruction of the World Trade Center did not occur in a scientific context, but in a highly charged political context.

America had just been attacked, it was almost universally believed, by foreign terrorists who had flown hijacked planes into the Twin Towers, and in response the Bush administration had launched a “war on terror.”

The idea that even one of the buildings had been brought down by explosives would have implied that the attacks had not been a surprise, so this idea could not be entertained by many minds in private, let alone in public.

This meant that people had to believe, or at least pretend to believe, that Building 7 had been brought down by fire, even though, as Glanz wrote:“[E]xperts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.”[3]

And so, this building’s collapse had to be considered a mystery – insofar as it was considered at all.

But this was not much. Although WTC 7 was a 47-story building, which in most places would have been the tallest building in the city, if not the state, it was dwarfed by the 110-story Twin Towers.

It was also dwarfed by them in the ensuing media coverage. And so, Glanz wrote, the collapse of Building 7 was “a mystery that ... would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world,” if the Twin Towers had not also come down.[4] As it was, however, the mystery of Building 7’s collapse was seldom discussed.

For those few people who were paying attention, the mysteriousness of this collapse was not lessened by the first official report about it, which was issued by FEMA in 2002. This report put forward what it called its “best hypothesis” as to why the building collapsed, but then added that this hypothesis had “only a low probability of occurrence.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-c...

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#2382 Aug 8, 2013
Govie =“best hypothesis”, with “only a low probability of occurrence.”

"Probable collapse sequence".

This is the best the govie can come up with to explain 9/11 destruction.

What a joke.

http://rethink911.org/

Find out for yourself.

Huh Eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#2383 Aug 10, 2013
One of the general principles of scientific work is that its conclusions must not be dictated by nonscientific concerns – in other words, by any concern other than that of discovering the truth.

This former NIST employee’s statement gives us reason to suspect that NIST, while preparing its report on WTC 7, would have been functioning as a political, not a scientific, agency.

The amount of fraud in this report suggests that this was indeed the case.

According to the National Science Foundation, the major types of scientific fraud are fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.

There is no sign that NIST is guilty of plagiarism, but it is certainly guilty of fabrication, which can be defined as “making up results,” and falsification, which means either “changing or omitting data.”[13]

The omission of evidence by NIST is so massive, in fact, that I treat it as a distinct type of scientific fraud. As philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said in his 1925 book, Science and the Modern World:“It is easy enough to find a [self-consistent] theory ..., provided that you are content to disregard half your evidence.”

The “moral temper required for the pursuit of truth,” he added, includes “[a]n unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account.”[14]

NIST, however, seemed to manifest an unflinching determination to disregard half of the relevant evidence.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-c...

Huh Eh !

NIST = magic.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#2384 Aug 10, 2013
There many pieces of evidence, all ignored by NIST, that steel had melted.

Particles of Metal in the Dust: The Deutsche Bank building, which was right next to the Twin Towers, was heavily contaminated by dust produced by their destruction. But Deutsche Bank’s insurance company refused to pay for the clean-up, claiming that this dust had not resulted from the destruction of the WTC.

So Deutsche Bank hired the RJ Lee Group to do a study, which showed that the dust in the Deutsche Bank was WTC dust, which had a unique signature. Part of this signature was “Spherical iron ... particles.”[20]

This meant, the RJ Lee Group said, that iron had “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.”[21] The study even showed that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted almost 6 percent of WTC Dust – meaning almost 150 times as much as normal.[22]

The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization”[23]– meaning 1,749°C (3,180°F).[24]

Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.”

Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F).[25]

NIST, however, did not mention either of these studies, even though the latter one was carried out by another US government agency.

NIST could not mention these studies because it was committed to the theory that the WTC buildings were brought down by fire, while these studies clearly showed that something other than fire was going on in those buildings.

Ya gotta stick to your lies, and ignore incriminating evidence.

Huh Eh !

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-c...

Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#2385 Aug 28, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
There many pieces of evidence, all ignored by NIST, that steel had melted.
Show me a scientific test that shows that it was steel and tell me why it would matter even if it was Heisenturd.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#2387 Aug 29, 2013
Oh elevator boy-sheep 20 pilots STREET CORNER JEEBUS is tired of having to taste his own foot in other related threads so he comes here to pretend all his pedantically vaporous nonsense hasn't been addressed over and over with him losing every lame attempt at argument.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 108
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min Buck Crick 64,461
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 min DebraE 106,596
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 9 min bad bob 183,209
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min LAWEST100 654,352
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 20 min RiccardoFire 45,277
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 31 min WasteWater 2,597
Encourage Teenage Girls To Have Sex (Oct '11) 57 min Horny jack 26 male 29
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr The Hangman 973,918
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Brian_G 281,947
More from around the web