If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   11 years later America struggles to keep the boogie man alive   (cnn.com) divider line 288
    More: Asinine, Peter Bergen, von Brunn, New America Foundation, building manager, Shabab, sovereign citizens, jihadists, biological weapons  
•       •       •

17036 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Sep 2012 at 12:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



288 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-11 05:54:04 PM

Amos Quito: Harv72b: Amos Quito: Of course this was a completely honest mistake - the building WAS on fire, and as we all know, ALL steel frame skyscrapers that catch fire collapse into their own footprint.

Always.

Genuinely curious: can you provide an example of a skyscraper which caught fire and collapsed, but not in its own footprint?

/Keeping in mind that "footprint" appears to include an area several hundred feet to every side of the structure.


-Aside from WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, I know of NO modern steel framed skyscraper that has EVER collapsed due to fire.

Footprints notwithstanding.


/Of course I may be wrong
//Could someone post examples?
///Thanks in advance


Of course, nobody ever mentions the HUGE AIRPLANES FLYING AT TOP SPEED STRAIGHT INTO THE BUILDINGS when they go off about "How did they collapse from fire alone!?". Gee, Davey, I don't know, maybe it had something to do with the BIG-ASS AIRPLANES THAT HIT THE BUILDINGS FIRST!?

And what the hell were you expecting when they fell, some kind of Looney Tunes-esque keel over like a tree falling? They've been designing buildings for a long time that won't do that if they're compromised by something that endangers them to collapse.

Let's also look at the impacts themselves. The second tower was hit after the first one, and collapsed before the first one. However, it was hit further down and on a corner, weakening a vital section with more weight above it. Steel doesn't need to reach melting point to become weak, it loses roughly 50% of its strength at a temperature lower than melting point and which a fuel-, debris- and building material-fueled fire can reach. The plane impacts also blew off the heat protection from the steel.

And before anyone brings this up, the entire free-fall speed of the towers somehow being proof of controlled collapse. How? When anything falls, it's gonna reach its free-fall speed unless something gets in the way, whether it was accidentally or deliberately made to fall. It's like thinking that skydivers reach free-fall speeds, therefore someone was trying to murder them.
 
2012-09-11 06:38:42 PM

HectorSchwartz: All this BS amazes me. We lose a couple buildings and 3,500 people. We then retaliate by leveling entire cities and killing about 200,000 people.

/never forget!!!!1


When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, our response was to start killing Japanese and not stop until they capitulated under threat of genocide via nuclear bombing.

Why should 9/11, an arguably more dastardly attack, rate any less a response?
 
2012-09-11 06:41:00 PM

Mouser: HectorSchwartz: All this BS amazes me. We lose a couple buildings and 3,500 people. We then retaliate by leveling entire cities and killing about 200,000 people.

/never forget!!!!1

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, our response was to start killing Japanese and not stop until they capitulated under threat of genocide via nuclear bombing.

Why should 9/11, an arguably more dastardly attack, rate any less a response?


The guys in the planes we mostly Saudi. You asshat.
 
2012-09-11 06:46:02 PM

Mouser: HectorSchwartz: All this BS amazes me. We lose a couple buildings and 3,500 people. We then retaliate by leveling entire cities and killing about 200,000 people.

/never forget!!!!1

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, our response was to start killing Japanese and not stop until they capitulated under threat of genocide via nuclear bombing.

Why should 9/11, an arguably more dastardly attack, rate any less a response?


I seem to recall that with World War II we actually went after the ones who did it, i.e. Japan. 9/11 we kind of picked a random country, screamed "WE KILL YOU!!" and charged in. Turned out the country we picked had nothing to do with it.
 
2012-09-11 06:51:36 PM

Amos Quito: Harv72b: Amos Quito: Of course this was a completely honest mistake - the building WAS on fire, and as we all know, ALL steel frame skyscrapers that catch fire collapse into their own footprint.

Always.

Genuinely curious: can you provide an example of a skyscraper which caught fire and collapsed, but not in its own footprint?

/Keeping in mind that "footprint" appears to include an area several hundred feet to every side of the structure.

-Aside from WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, I know of NO modern steel framed skyscraper that has EVER collapsed due to fire.
Footprints notwithstanding.

/Of course I may be wrong
//Could someone post examples?
///Thanks in advance


In order to understand steel strength, you should start with the linked pdf, notice the small diagram on the left side denoting the grain and atomic changes the steel goes through with corresponding temperature change. Then extrapolate. Steel strength and ductility changes based upon temperature, as the steel heated it weakened, then failed. Falling straight down and gaining momentum and force due to gravity, the corresponding shear forces and bending moments are subsequently increased leading to continuing failures as the building parts plummet downwards.
http://www.tempil.com/wp-content/plugins/download-monitor/download.ph p ?id=Basic_Guide_to_Ferrous_2010.pdf
 
2012-09-11 06:52:39 PM

HectorSchwartz: The guys in the planes we mostly Saudi. You asshat.


Keizer_Ghidorah: I seem to recall that with World War II we actually went after the ones who did it, i.e. Japan. 9/11 we kind of picked a random country, screamed "WE KILL YOU!!" and charged in. Turned out the country we picked had nothing to do with it.


You think I'm content to stop at Iraq?
 
2012-09-11 07:39:29 PM

FarkedOver: Marine1: What do you think the Taliban is trying to do?

/please pay attention


I believe the taliban is recruiting young men who have no better lot in life because of years of imperialism. See how that works. We reap what we sow.


Quoted for truth.
 
2012-09-11 07:49:43 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: HectorSchwartz: We lost our civil liberties and our country is flat broke.

What civil liberties did you lose? And I agree we are broke, and should decrease government spending.


Are you farking kidding me?

Try going through an airport and tell me how you feel about the state of the fourth amendment these days. Link

Do you count due process count as a civil liberty? If you do I have some bad news for you.. Link

I could go on but it's likely wasted on you.
 
2012-09-11 08:00:14 PM
As long as TSA worked get to feel up 6 year old girls' snoochies, strip search 70 year old people in wheelchairs and steal whatever they can get their hands on, freedom is safe. I don't know about Islamofascist agendas, but it sure did wonders for child molesters and redistributing a lot of wealth.
 
2012-09-11 08:01:10 PM
workers...
 
2012-09-11 09:08:01 PM

FarkedOver: Marine1: Religious fundamentalists who use violence to further their means. Specifically, in this case, those who follow militant Islam

Why is militant islam at odds with the US? Do they hate our freedoms? Do they have legitimate gripes?


All religious nut hate our freedoms, including many who live here.

Gunslinger013: ThrobblefootSpectre: HectorSchwartz: We lost our civil liberties and our country is flat broke.

What civil liberties did you lose? And I agree we are broke, and should decrease government spending.

Are you farking kidding me?

Try going through an airport and tell me how you feel about the state of the fourth amendment these days. Link

Do you count due process count as a civil liberty? If you do I have some bad news for you.. Link

I could go on but it's likely wasted on you.


1. Don't fly.

2. It's awesome that we killed him. Due process does not apply to mad dog killers.
 
2012-09-11 09:18:37 PM
Interesting the CNN graphic represents "defendants".

So the numbers do not reflect occurrences of terrorism -which is a more valuable metric. One terrorist act could include many defendants.
 
2012-09-11 09:28:20 PM

nmemkha: The evil brown Muslim faces of terror:

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

[gulagbound.com image 240x360]


Is it just me or does that Aurora shooter look like he is COMPLETELY faking his so-called "illness"? And as an actor, he is remarkably poor.
 
2012-09-11 09:59:44 PM
Hey, is the religion of peace still burning our consulates?

On 9/11 no less.
 
2012-09-11 10:00:43 PM
I notice that 11 years on, Truthers still have no anecdotes that put anyone at the scene planting or detonating explosives.
 
2012-09-11 10:52:44 PM

Joe Blowme: The whole article is crap....
FTA:"There have been 10 deadly attacks in the United States by nonjihadist extremists since 9/11 compared to just four by jihadists. (One of those incidents was at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009 in which 13 were killed.)"
Peter Bergen, and Jennifer Rowland are truly retarded or just good dhimmis


It's funny how one of the worst incidents took place on a farking military base, by a guy who was in the military. Great job thwarting those terrorists, everybody.
 
2012-09-11 10:56:10 PM

Abox: I notice that 11 years on, Truthers still have no anecdotes that put anyone at the scene planting or detonating explosives.


Just like the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
 
2012-09-11 11:12:29 PM

Pantubo: I thought the problem was the George Bush told you to "go to the mall" in response to these guys.


you thought wrong.

it was that George Bush said "we're going to invade Iraq for sh*ts & giggles, and we'll make some story up as to how it's connected & waste trillions of tax payer dollars in the process"

so.. that, and not that thing you made up.
 
2012-09-12 12:26:30 AM
I'm not interested in 9/11 conspiracies, but I know the US did not kill bin Laden. Given available information about his health, he most likely died peacefully several months before the supposed SEAL team raid. Unfortunately for the administration, his corpse was too far gone by the time it was found by US troops to be of any use to them - perhaps placed into a fridge and paraded around during the halftime show at the Superbowl - in showing the world that the US kicks ass and takes names. Hence, the spurious take-down scenario, the supposed KIA, and the instantaneous burial at sea, were cooked up to try to convince everyone that the US got its man despite a complete lack of any evidence that they had - apart from the testimony of a bunch of CIA spooks who's SOP is to never tell the truth.
 
2012-09-12 12:43:46 AM

Count Vitriol: I'm not interested in 9/11 conspiracies, but


lol
 
2012-09-12 12:43:51 AM

pixeled: it was that George Bush said "we're going to invade Iraq for sh*ts & giggles, and we'll make some story up as to how it's connected & waste trillions of tax payer dollars in the process"


Regardless of what faults in the rationale given for the Iraq War you and others can now see through the clarity of hindsight, among the end effects of the war was the cessation of the crippling sanctions levied against Iraq (which some international groups estimated to be responsible for as many as 500,000 deaths) and the end of the near-daily airstrikes against Iraq which took place throughout the Clinton presidency and into the first part of George W.'s. That invasion, along with the one in Afghanistan, also caused Al Qaeda to split its focus between traditional acts of terror perpetrated around the world and semi-traditional guerrilla warfare against America's military in said nations. While the deaths of so many American servicemembers in these wars is by no means something to be discounted (nor is the monetary cost), whenever you can manipulate your enemy into striking against your best-prepared defenses you have won a significant advantage in the war. Put simply, and as a former serviceman myself, I would much rather have these people trying to fight against our troops in a foreign land than plotting to blow up civilian targets throughout the United States and other Western-leaning nations.

There were many, many other justifications given for the invasion of Iraq other than the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction; daily violations of the cease-fire agreement which ended the first Gulf War, similar violations of various U.N. Resolutions passed against Iraq, human rights violations carried out against minority populations within the nation, misallocation of relief supplies delivered to Iraq during the sanctions period, overt support of various terrorist organizations by the Iraqi government, and a lack of cooperation with the IAEA among many others. You can argue all you want about whether or not the cost of the war was worth the net results (and I mean "you" in the general sense), but it will not change the fact that fewer Iraqis died, and are dying, as a result of the invasion than were perishing during the so-called "peace" in between the wars.

Sorry, you just touched on one of my peeves. :)
 
2012-09-12 12:47:06 AM
Also, my apologies for the America-centric post above. I realize that many other nations have lost soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan (and have spent money funding those wars), and I don't mean to belittle or forget those sacrifices either.
 
2012-09-12 02:16:36 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Amos Quito: Harv72b: Amos Quito: Of course this was a completely honest mistake - the building WAS on fire, and as we all know, ALL steel frame skyscrapers that catch fire collapse into their own footprint.

Always.

Genuinely curious: can you provide an example of a skyscraper which caught fire and collapsed, but not in its own footprint?

/Keeping in mind that "footprint" appears to include an area several hundred feet to every side of the structure.


-Aside from WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, I know of NO modern steel framed skyscraper that has EVER collapsed due to fire.

Footprints notwithstanding.


/Of course I may be wrong
//Could someone post examples?
///Thanks in advance

Of course, nobody ever mentions the HUGE AIRPLANES FLYING AT TOP SPEED STRAIGHT INTO THE BUILDINGS when they go off about "How did they collapse from fire alone!?". Gee, Davey, I don't know, maybe it had something to do with the BIG-ASS AIRPLANES THAT HIT THE BUILDINGS FIRST!?


No plane hit WTC 7. And how does this address my original point: That Reuters / BBC and others reported that WTC 7 had COLLAPSED when in fact it was still standing?


And what the hell were you expecting when they fell, some kind of Looney Tunes-esque keel over like a tree falling? They've been designing buildings for a long time that won't do that if they're compromised by something that endangers them to collapse.


Like airplanes flying into them? And how does this address my original point: That Reuters / BBC and others reported that WTC 7 had COLLAPSED when in fact it was still standing?


Let's also look at the impacts themselves. The second tower was hit after the first one, and collapsed before the first one. However, it was hit further down and on a corner, weakening a vital section with more weight above it. Steel doesn't need to reach melting point to become weak, it loses roughly 50% of its strength at a temperature lower than melting point and which a fuel-, debris- and building material-fueled fire can reach. The plane impacts also blew off the heat protection from the steel.


And how does this address my original point: That Reuters / BBC and others reported that WTC 7 had COLLAPSED when in fact it was still standing?

"It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the correspondent was still talking."

Was it predicted to fall? WTC 1 and 2 were odd ducks in their open design, whereas WTC 7 was much more conventional.

And why did Larry Silverstein tell them to "pull it"?

And aside from 09-11-2011, I still have yet to see an example of a modern steel-framed skyscraper collapsing due to ANY reason other than controlled demolition.

Would you mind listing some examples here?

Thanks.
 
2012-09-12 02:24:49 PM

constructor5179: Amos Quito: Harv72b: Amos Quito: Of course this was a completely honest mistake - the building WAS on fire, and as we all know, ALL steel frame skyscrapers that catch fire collapse into their own footprint.

Always.

Genuinely curious: can you provide an example of a skyscraper which caught fire and collapsed, but not in its own footprint?

/Keeping in mind that "footprint" appears to include an area several hundred feet to every side of the structure.

-Aside from WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, I know of NO modern steel framed skyscraper that has EVER collapsed due to fire.
Footprints notwithstanding.

/Of course I may be wrong
//Could someone post examples?
///Thanks in advance

In order to understand steel strength, you should start with the linked pdf, notice the small diagram on the left side denoting the grain and atomic changes the steel goes through with corresponding temperature change. Then extrapolate. Steel strength and ductility changes based upon temperature, as the steel heated it weakened, then failed. Falling straight down and gaining momentum and force due to gravity, the corresponding shear forces and bending moments are subsequently increased leading to continuing failures as the building parts plummet downwards.
http://www.tempil.com/wp-content/plugins/download-monitor/download.ph p ?id=Basic_Guide_to_Ferrous_2010.pdf



Thanks, but I didn't challenge the (obvious) concept that steel weakens when heated.

Also WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed from top-down, where WTC7's collapse started at the bottom - and uniformly - not starting at the corner that had been badly damaged by debris, as one might expect.

Ideas?
 
2012-09-12 02:29:10 PM

Harv72b: Regardless of what faults in the rationale given for the Iraq War you and others can now see through the clarity of hindsight, among the end effects of the war was the cessation of the crippling sanctions levied against Iraq (which some international groups estimated to be responsible for as many as 500,000 deaths)



Sanctions? You mean like those we're currently levying against Iran?

And over imaginary WMD's again.

LOL!
 
2012-09-12 02:41:22 PM

Amos Quito:

Ideas?


Anyone who believes that this was the result of demolitions is a complete and total moron.
 
2012-09-12 02:58:55 PM

Amos Quito: And how does this address my original point: That Reuters / BBC and others reported that WTC 7 had COLLAPSED when in fact it was still standing?



For a super-secret conspiracy that nobody to date, at any level, has confessed to being "in on," despite many types of incentive to do so - you sure seem to suggest that an awful lot of people were given advance knowledge of the "plan." And I'm to believe that 100% of those people are still 100% supportive of this false-flag attack on American citizens, and haven't had any regrets or second thoughts that would inspire them to produce a scrap of evidence documenting the massive planning effort that would have been required to execute an operation and cover-up of this magnitude? I'm shocked - that "chimp," that "bumbling buffoon" in the White House pulled off the largest and only completely-uncompromised conspiracy in history. And after only 9 months in office!
 
2012-09-12 03:09:15 PM

BigNumber12: Amos Quito: And how does this address my original point: That Reuters / BBC and others reported that WTC 7 had COLLAPSED when in fact it was still standing?


For a super-secret conspiracy that nobody to date, at any level, has confessed to being "in on," despite many types of incentive to do so - you sure seem to suggest that an awful lot of people were given advance knowledge of the "plan." And I'm to believe that 100% of those people are still 100% supportive of this false-flag attack on American citizens, and haven't had any regrets or second thoughts that would inspire them to produce a scrap of evidence documenting the massive planning effort that would have been required to execute an operation and cover-up of this magnitude? I'm shocked - that "chimp," that "bumbling buffoon" in the White House pulled off the largest and only completely-uncompromised conspiracy in history. And after only 9 months in office!


And why go for such a huge, elaborate plan? It would have been much easier to simply have one group of hijackers take over a plane and crash it into a stadium full of people. Or crash down on a parade. Or simply use a truck bomb on an embassy. Fewer people would be involved and the reaction from America probably would have been the same.
 
2012-09-12 03:36:18 PM

Mock26: And why go for such a huge, elaborate plan?



I blame spy fiction, particularly movies. Hollywood requires intricate storylines with lots of implausible plot twists and over-the-top explanations in order to make their movies enthralling and distinct from one another. It's not surprising that Americans raised on Hollywood movies would eventually just accept that that's how the world works, particularly in the absence of any knowledge of the actual workings of government intelligence agencies, since they're typically mundane, classified, or both.
 
2012-09-12 05:47:21 PM

Mock26: Amos Quito:

Ideas?

Anyone who believes that this was the result of demolitions is a complete and total moron.



Compelling argument.


BigNumber12: Amos Quito: And how does this address my original point: That Reuters / BBC and others reported that WTC 7 had COLLAPSED when in fact it was still standing?


For a super-secret conspiracy that nobody to date, at any level, has confessed to being "in on," despite many types of incentive to do so - you sure seem to suggest that an awful lot of people were given advance knowledge of the "plan." And I'm to believe that 100% of those people are still 100% supportive of this false-flag attack on American citizens, and haven't had any regrets or second thoughts that would inspire them to produce a scrap of evidence documenting the massive planning effort that would have been required to execute an operation and cover-up of this magnitude? I'm shocked - that "chimp," that "bumbling buffoon" in the White House pulled off the largest and only completely-uncompromised conspiracy in history. And after only 9 months in office!



So you think there was no conspiracy behind 9-11? What about the 19 hijackers? Weren't they conspirators?

And are you denying that Reuters and the BBC reported that WTC 7 collapsed well before it collapsed?
 
2012-09-12 06:45:21 PM

Amos Quito: So you think there was no conspiracy behind 9-11? What about the 19 hijackers? Weren't they conspirators?


Come on, you're being disingenuous. You know exactly what I mean.


Amos Quito: And are you denying that Reuters and the BBC reported that WTC 7 collapsed well before it collapsed?


If that's an accurate description of the order of events - news services reporting building collapses before they happened - then I think it's a hell of a lot more likely that it was the result of the fact that two monstrous buildings had already collapsed, and Manhattan was in farking chaos. The people in that studio aren't omniscient, they're shut up in a building and relying on voices in their earpieces to try to understand what's going on outside, and it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination - we've seen it during other catastrophes as well - to realize that there was likely quite a bit of misinformation and rumor swirling around that day. And Lord knows, news organizations have never jumped the gun before while trying to scoop their competitors. 

Honestly, that's not nearly the stretch of the imagination required to believe that a massive conspiracy, planned and executed so perfectly that none of the WTC7 workers noticed their building being rigged up for demo (in the weeks it would take to accomplish) and nobody has spoken up about it since, that this conspiracy would "whoops!" and hand their news anchors sekrit details a few minutes too early.
 
2012-09-12 07:03:52 PM

Amos Quito: Derp


I'm done. Have fun with your trolling.
 
2012-09-12 07:32:59 PM

Harv72b: Amos Quito: Derp

I'm done. Have fun with your trolling.



I wasn't trolling (at least not you) ;-)

The sanctions against Iraq were horrendous.

Want to see a great clip? Watch British Prime Minister George Galloway rip the US Senate inquirers a new a$$hole over the sanctions and the war on Iraq.

It's a keeper.
 
2012-09-12 07:49:11 PM

BigNumber12: Amos Quito: So you think there was no conspiracy behind 9-11? What about the 19 hijackers? Weren't they conspirators?

Come on, you're being disingenuous. You know exactly what I mean.


Amos Quito: And are you denying that Reuters and the BBC reported that WTC 7 collapsed well before it collapsed?

If that's an accurate description of the order of events - news services reporting building collapses before they happened - then I think it's a hell of a lot more likely that it was the result of the fact that two monstrous buildings had already collapsed, and Manhattan was in farking chaos. The people in that studio aren't omniscient, they're shut up in a building and relying on voices in their earpieces to try to understand what's going on outside, and it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination - we've seen it during other catastrophes as well - to realize that there was likely quite a bit of misinformation and rumor swirling around that day. And Lord knows, news organizations have never jumped the gun before while trying to scoop their competitors.


I linked to the video above. The BBC reporter was outside in the sunshine - telling us that WTC7 - the Solomon Brothers' Building had collapsed - you can see it standing over her left shoulder as she reports the grim news. 


Honestly, that's not nearly the stretch of the imagination required to believe that a massive conspiracy, planned and executed so perfectly that none of the WTC7 workers noticed their building being rigged up for demo (in the weeks it would take to accomplish) and nobody has spoken up about it since, that this conspiracy would "whoops!" and hand their news anchors sekrit details a few minutes too early.



Of course it was all a coincidence. Reporters think: "Two buildings on fire fell - therefor ALL buildings on fire fall". Right?

Just a coincidence - one of many, MANY coincidences that just happened to fall on that fateful day.

The only other explanation is that it was the Hand of God, so I'll go with "coincidence".
 
2012-09-12 08:03:17 PM

Amos Quito: I wasn't trolling (at least not you) ;-)



Ah, I see ;-)
 
2012-09-13 12:40:37 AM

Amos Quito: Mock26: Amos Quito:

Ideas?

Anyone who believes that this was the result of demolitions is a complete and total moron.


Compelling argument


Actually, it is a very compelling argument when you just apply common sense.

It would have taken probably hundreds of people to organize everything in setting this up if it was staged by our own government. Not only that, but it would have taken a lot of time. And you honestly believe that in all this planning that everyone managed to keep this secret? Do not forget about the implementation, either. How long would it have taken to set all the necessary charges to blow up those buildings? And without pre-weakening the structure as is usually done in building demolitions it would have taken a lot of explosives. Do you honestly believe that all of these explosives (probably on the order of at least a ton per building) could have been put in place without anyone noticing? There are simply far too many weak links for all of this to have not only been carried out with near text book precision but to have remained in the dark for over a decade.

Oh yeah, what about the fourth plane that was taken down by the passengers? What about all the explosives at its target? Or, if you subscribe to the cruise missile theory what happened to that missile? Where did it blow up? Why did no one see it being detonated prematurely?

And to address the issue of the towers collapsing downward, that was a result of how they were constructed. Can you point to any other skyscrapers of similar height and design that were set on fire after having jet liners crashed into them to use as a reference on how plane-hit, burning skyscrapers are supposed to collapse?
 
2012-09-13 12:41:42 AM

Amos Quito: And are you denying that Reuters and the BBC reported that WTC 7 collapsed well before it collapsed?


That proves absolutely nothing.
 
2012-09-14 04:09:43 PM

Amos Quito: Keizer_Ghidorah: Amos Quito: Harv72b: Amos Quito: Of course this was a completely honest mistake - the building WAS on fire, and as we all know, ALL steel frame skyscrapers that catch fire collapse into their own footprint.

Always.

Genuinely curious: can you provide an example of a skyscraper which caught fire and collapsed, but not in its own footprint?

/Keeping in mind that "footprint" appears to include an area several hundred feet to every side of the structure.


-Aside from WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, I know of NO modern steel framed skyscraper that has EVER collapsed due to fire.

Footprints notwithstanding.


/Of course I may be wrong
//Could someone post examples?
///Thanks in advance

Of course, nobody ever mentions the HUGE AIRPLANES FLYING AT TOP SPEED STRAIGHT INTO THE BUILDINGS when they go off about "How did they collapse from fire alone!?". Gee, Davey, I don't know, maybe it had something to do with the BIG-ASS AIRPLANES THAT HIT THE BUILDINGS FIRST!?


No plane hit WTC 7. And how does this address my original point: That Reuters / BBC and others reported that WTC 7 had COLLAPSED when in fact it was still standing?


And what the hell were you expecting when they fell, some kind of Looney Tunes-esque keel over like a tree falling? They've been designing buildings for a long time that won't do that if they're compromised by something that endangers them to collapse.


Like airplanes flying into them? And how does this address my original point: That Reuters / BBC and others reported that WTC 7 had COLLAPSED when in fact it was still standing?


Let's also look at the impacts themselves. The second tower was hit after the first one, and collapsed before the first one. However, it was hit further down and on a corner, weakening a vital section with more weight above it. Steel doesn't need to reach melting point to become weak, it loses roughly 50% of its strength at a temperature lower than melting point and which a fuel-, debris- and building materi ...


Maybe the big hunk of the lower part of WTC7 being knocked out of it by chunks of the Towers and the building being on fire had something to do with it. I mean, they're only obvious in several videos and pictures of WTC7 before it collapsed. Not to mention the firemen inside WTC7 mentioned creaking and groaning and the building looking weaker and the fire chief telling them to pull out before it fell.

But nothing will ever change the minds of conspiracy theorists. You insist we believe 100% that the hundreds of thousands of people supposedly involved in this massive conspiracy were never seen, never noticed, paid enough to keep silent about their friends and loved ones and families being sacrificed and to not go to the press to reveal a gigantic news story for the fame and fortune, and were coordinated enough to make military planning look like a kids' soccer match. And you expect us to believe all of that with ZERO evidence, while all the evidence in the world won't convince you otherwise.
 
Displayed 38 of 288 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report