artisan Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Also many of the fire men reportd explosions, non of this has been reported even thouugh well documented Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 yet wt7 wasnt hit by a plane... It wasnt even on fire as far I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 while i was away they could,hence my senario of using a night time maintainance team,no one would be in the office,the security could be military,installed months before,it could be done with the right back up One of the directos of the security firm was a also a director of the bulddings, who are standing to make nealy 8 billion from this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 100% with Bartfarst, Tony and others on this one. Some links to a few web sites with articles that explain the collapse in terms of the impact and the fires. http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc42466/nrcc42466.pdf http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm Funnily enough, most "doubters" (to be as polite as I can) I've talked to are usually quite happy with the idea that a fairly small meteorite / asteroid could bring about the end of life on earth, but can't get their head round the idea that a jet plane could cause such damage to the towers although in terms of scale it is probably the equivalent of say the moon hitting earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 i dont think thats true in all cases matey! a lot of people are blinkered on both sides of the argument, and there are some gullible folk out there. i try and check out the angles available, and in this instance something isnt really sitting right with me about the official story. im going to check your links out though, maybe they will clarify it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 the second link was worthwhile, yet was still heavily based on conjecture...thats the problem here, if fema hadnt spirited away the evidence we'd know the score for real now...what a ball ache! the third is pretty flakey, the picture isnt actually indicative of the building structure, showing the central supports about 2/3 too small...and the report can be quite readily criticised almost the whole way down. checking the first link out now, but may read it tomorrow cos im tired! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiglet Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 The design was to take fully laden 707 at cruising speed wit a full load of fuel they were not going any where near criusing speed and only had on boad reduced fuel loads, Also when there was no damage to lowere floors did yhe collapse in such a quick fashion. You are ignoring the evidence The planes hit the WTC at a much higher speed than cruising speed and they were significantly larger than 707s. It wasnt even on fire as far I know All the reports state that WTC7 was on fire for several hours and there is plenty of footage of it. i know quite a few skyscrapers have been whacked by planes, or had raging fires goin off in em over the years, maybe there are a couple out there which have collapsed like these lot. There is no precedent. Many skyscrapers have been hit by small planes OR been subject to raging fires, but none of the examples totally misrepresented by the conspiracy theorists were hit by large fully fuelled commercial airliners deliberately flown into them at high speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 To put it simply, the science stands up to scrutiny, the conspicracy theories don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 the first link above provides a detailed report on the towers, and explains quite well the possible validity of the 'pancake' theory. yet there is no mention of wt7, which i find to be a confusing omission. and the author admits that, to date, only simplified analyses have been conducted to measure the varioud temperatures involved...'detailed modelling of the fire will privide...insights into likely collapse mechanisms.' when was this report done? 2002/2003? where are these 'detailed models'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 t the third is pretty flakey, the picture isnt actually indicative of the building structure, showing the central supports about 2/3 too small...and the report can be quite readily criticised almost the whole way down. The BBC diagram has actually been used by some of the "conspiracy sites".. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.