Do you believe what you see or what others tell you you saw?

[mikey3000]

Man, this stuff never gets old..

 

[pat grimshaw]

This is the same principle

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Didn't you already make a thread on conspiracy theories? And aren't you like 15 years late?

 

[rareboy]

I beleive what I have studied.

And what I see.

Obviously, the OP wouldn't have a fucking clue about the behaviour of structures or the actual structural layout of WTC 7.

I've posted this shit so many times for the tin foil hat brigade that it is ridiculous.....but here again is a smattering of actual facts for the paranoid bong water drinkers.

We know that WTC burned out of control for hours before collapsing.

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

The failure of WTC 7 was a classic failure triggered by the exposure of steel to intense heat for an extended period of time. Whereas steel is provided with sprayed coatings to delay collapse until firefighters can bring a blaze under control...the loss of the sprinkler systems and the fact that there was no way of fighting this fire from the outset meant that this building was a write-off from the outset.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ae911truths-case/collapse/collapse-symmetry/

It even fell backward the way it would have been modelled with the failure of the joints and the members.

So spend the time...read the analysis on this site and all the reports that they cite and it all becomes totally clear.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Or you could take a few hits, visit your favourite conspiracy web-site and watch a video made by someone who has no fucking clue about the behaviour of structures make up some bullshit theory.

 

[gsdx]

So spend the time...read the analysis on this site and all the reports that they cite and it all becomes totally clear.

Or better yet, just study a bit on building implosions and you will understand the months and months of planning, preparation, and demolition which must precede bringing down a building. It's not something you can hide or 'sneak past' passers-by.

 

[jbrown329]

I believe my own eyes. Not someone telling me what I'm supposed to see/not see. And I have a hard rule. Unless I really know the person, I take pretty much everything with a 'grain of salt'.

 

[Kabluey]

I believe what I see, unless it's something I have no understanding of (then I ask someone who has a clue).

For example, I believe that stars are celestial bodies, because people who know can provide a body of evidence that supports this, not because I've seen them in person.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

that looks like a fucking lemon to me. Its definitively not a apple

 

[G-Lexington]

Appearances can be deceiving. Sometimes, you know the truth deep within, even if the surface tells a completely different story.

Lex

 

[rareboy]

The 'Jet fuel can't melt steel beams' is one of the most aggravating misconceptions that has to be argued.

The steel doesn't melt. It deforms. And then fails at a joint or connection....just like WTC 7.

And the jet fuel didn't do this on its own. What it did do was ignite the combustible load in the buildings...so the carpets and furnishings and electronics and paper, in the absence of a functioning sprinkler system even capable of handling a catastrophic blaze, created a firestorm that could reach the temperatures required to soften and deform steel members. In the case of WTC 1 and 2, it is because the steel had been stripped of the fireproofing by the impact of the jet plane body and so had no protection.

In the case of WTC 7, the combustible load fires on several floors burned for so many hours that the resistance of the fireproofing would have been exhausted. Bear in mind that fireproofing doesn't prevent structural deformation or failure....the principal purpose is to delay long enough for safe evacuation of people from a high rise or steel structure building.

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...es/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

Most people don't appreciate that once exposed to thermal stress....steel loses its strength very rapidly.

 

[gsdx]

Most people don't appreciate that once exposed to thermal stress....steel loses its strength very rapidly.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't see what they see. They see what they hear. That makes them blind to the truth.

 

[Kabluey]

The perimeter wall was a key structural element that got breached, and the floors were long span truss supported.
I'm surprised anyone believes you could fly a jet liner into a building without causing the same.

Ever stood on the tarmac outside a 767?
I don't think the average conspiracy theorist has, and I don't think they can fathom the force of impact something that large would cause at 500mph.
That plus a fire? Unreasonable to expect any civilian building to withstand.

 

[rareboy]

This is the same principle

By the way it is not the same principle and I've knocked this stupid video exercise down in another one of your threads.

 

[Telstra]

I believe what i see.
I see fire destroyed the WTC7 and it collapsed due to intense fire for many days weaken the steel.

 

[rareboy]

^ I think you mean hours...but we appreciate that you actually understand that the steel just simply gave out at one point, causing a chain reaction and the type of failure that you could model easily.

 

[gsdx]

People who believe that the WTC7 was a controlled demolition really have no idea what a 'controlled demolition' is. Firstly, it's a controlled 'implosion' although the building is usually demolished in the process. What the 'implosion' means is that the building implodes into itself. Buildings which fall in one direction or another instead of straight down are 'controlled demolitions'.

Here's an example of a controlled implosion:

Here is a controlled demolition:

In either a demolition or an implosion, there are months and sometimes years of planning, then months of preparation which includes the demolition of support walls and, for steel supports, removal of the outer 'decoration' right down to the bare steel. Special charges are then attached strategically to the bare supports. When set off, these charges actually melt through the supports in an explosive charge. They don't actually blow them up.

If the WTC7 was a controlled implosion, along with the Twin Towers, there isn't a person in New York City who wouldn't have known about it months ahead of time, and they certainly couldn't have thrown it together in a few hours as some theorists have claimed.

If you watch the original video above again, watch the right-hand side of the building. You will see dark 'spaces' appear. A lot has been made of these as proof that it was a planned and controlled event. When you watch it and see the spaces appear, back it up again and watch more carefully when those spaces appear. The building is already collapsing at the bottom. The spaces appear because of the collapse. They had nothing to do with causing it.

 

[Telstra]

^ I think you mean hours...but we appreciate that you actually understand that the steel just simply gave out at one point, causing a chain reaction and the type of failure that you could model easily.

Don't know how long but it burn for a long time.
Saw at different angles how intense the fire was.

 

[jbrown329]

The perimeter wall was a key structural element that got breached, and the floors were long span truss supported.
I'm surprised anyone believes you could fly a jet liner into a building without causing the same.

Ever stood on the tarmac outside a 767?
I don't think the average conspiracy theorist has, and I don't think they can fathom the force of impact something that large would cause at 500mph.
That plus a fire? Unreasonable to expect any civilian building to withstand.

The towers were designed to take a full on hit from a 707 (biggest plane at the time they were built). It wasn't 707s that hit the towers. They were 767s. A far larger plane that carried a lot more fuel.

 

[Cormac135]

Not this again

Give me a cut/uncut thread instead.

 

[medic1]

^Or all bisexuals are unicorns, or just indecisive Homos.......