Newsnews

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 05:17 PM

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

"This is a study of the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001.

The objective of the study was threefold: (1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed."
http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

"The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."

http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf

86 replies, 698 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 86 replies Author Time Post
Reply A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (Original post)
Wildbill Sep 5 OP
Solesurvivor Sep 5 #1
Wildbill Sep 5 #3
Solesurvivor Sep 5 #12
Wildbill Sep 6 #22
700WinMag Tuesday #71
Wildbill Tuesday #73
700WinMag Tuesday #74
Wildbill Wednesday #80
700WinMag Thursday #84
Wildbill Thursday #85
700WinMag Thursday #86
oflguy Wednesday #78
Wildbill Wednesday #81
oflguy Thursday #83
Wildbill Tuesday #70
Solesurvivor Sep 5 #13
Banshee 3 Actual Sep 6 #17
nolidad Sep 6 #18
Banshee 3 Actual Sep 6 #20
Wildbill Sep 6 #27
Aquila Sep 7 #50
Wildbill Monday #54
nolidad Tuesday #66
nolidad Monday #59
Wildbill Monday #61
Wildbill Sep 6 #23
foia Sep 5 #2
Wildbill Sep 5 #4
foia Sep 5 #6
Grumpy Pickle Sep 5 #9
Wildbill Sep 5 #10
foia Sep 5 #14
Wildbill Sep 6 #24
foia Sep 6 #26
Wildbill Sep 6 #28
Badsamm Sep 7 #51
nolidad Tuesday #67
Banshee 3 Actual Sep 6 #21
nolidad Tuesday #68
Wildbill Sep 5 #5
foia Sep 5 #8
Wildbill Sep 7 #37
foia Sep 7 #43
Wildbill Sep 7 #45
foia Sep 7 #46
Aquila Sep 7 #48
foia Sep 7 #53
nolidad Wednesday #77
Wildbill Wednesday #82
nolidad Tuesday #69
Wildbill Tuesday #72
nolidad Wednesday #76
Banshee 3 Actual Wednesday #79
nolidad Tuesday #65
Butchie_T Sep 5 #7
wisbadger Sep 5 #11
RCW2014 Sep 5 #15
It Guy Sep 5 #16
joefriday6 Sep 6 #19
Wildbill Sep 6 #25
DP46 Sep 6 #29
Wildbill Sep 6 #30
DP46 Sep 6 #32
Wildbill Sep 7 #34
Bubba Sep 6 #31
Wildbill Sep 7 #33
bfox74 Sep 7 #35
Wildbill Sep 7 #38
bfox74 Sep 7 #47
Wildbill Monday #55
Wildbill Sep 7 #36
joefriday6 Sep 7 #44
LeeCPTINF Sep 7 #39
Wildbill Sep 7 #40
LeeCPTINF Sep 7 #41
Wildbill Sep 7 #42
LeeCPTINF Sep 7 #52
Wildbill Monday #56
Aquila Sep 7 #49
Wildbill Monday #57
Wildbill Monday #58
LineReply .
Carlos W Bush Monday #60
Wildbill Monday #62
Duke Lacrosse Tuesday #75
Wildbill Monday #63
Wildbill Monday #64

Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 05:36 PM

1. Are you a Troofer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 05:49 PM

3. are you?

I don't know what you mean....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 08:02 PM

12. No, i believe in reality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #12)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 03:16 PM

22. youwouldn't know reality if..

.it bit you onyour ass!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #22)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 10:33 PM

71. And apparently...

You wouldn't know proper grammar and sentence structure if it bit you on your ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 700WinMag (Reply #71)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 10:42 PM

73. Yet I knew 911 was an inside job....

and you didn't! :

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #73)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 10:52 PM

74. You don't...

Know shit. You are only providing information that others have provided. Information that is an opinion.

Other "experts" have provided different opinions.

So again. You don't know shit.

If you are that fucking smart and you have that much knowledge of what really happened that day you would be advertising for your book.

Instead, you are just an internet troll.

Whats really ironic is that you are a god damned hypocrite and you are not even intelligent enough to know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 700WinMag (Reply #74)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 09:38 PM

80. you're the sockpuppet troll

I know basic physics and I know fire doesn't bring down skyscrapers! Those "
Other "experts" have provided different opinions." are liars or mistaken, but I'd bet the former.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #80)

Thu Sep 12, 2019, 08:38 AM

84. "Sockpuppet"? "Troll"?

Statistics and Information

Account status: Active
Member since: Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:50 AM
Number of posts, all time: 4,725
Number of posts, last 90 days: 331

Sure, you have a physics degree...

Yet you don't know what a sock puppet is. ("sock puppet" is two words by the way) I have been here with this ID since this place opened for business.

So what is the name of your book?

Get back to us when you move out of mommy's basement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 700WinMag (Reply #84)

Thu Sep 12, 2019, 06:46 PM

85. sock puppets are not a new thing doofus!

Last edited Sat Sep 14, 2019, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)

FYI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #85)

Thu Sep 12, 2019, 10:19 PM

86. I don't know...

What a "sock puppey" is.

A sock puppet however...

1: A fake personality, usually a 'friend' or 'sister,' created by a drama queen/king for the sake of defending him/herself against others in an online forum.

So what are my other accounts that I do not have? If you can prove that I am a sock puppet (or sock puppey) I will give you my password and submit my account to you.

For someone who claims to be intelligent you sure fail a lot. Especially with your English skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #73)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 10:49 AM

78. Question for you wildbill

Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that WTC7 WAS destroyed intentionally.

How do you know it wasn't terrorists that did it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #78)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 09:42 PM

81. Geez what a ridiculous question.

It was terrorists! And many of them were in high U.S. government positions then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #81)

Thu Sep 12, 2019, 08:19 AM

83. Names? Links?

Who was behind the first WTC attack when Clinton was president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #12)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 10:31 PM

70. here's some reality for you....


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 08:04 PM

13. I love troofers, they make me laugh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #3)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 01:10 AM

17. In other words you believe Silverstein ordered it blown up for the money

Mind you the moonbats have no fucking clue what it takes to blow up a building

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #17)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 10:16 AM

18. And the dingbats have no idea

That office furnishing fires cannot heat structural steel enough to cause a symmetrical collapse of a skyscraper.

Jet fuel cannot cause 40 floors to free fall a 110 story building!

Planes striking a corner quadfrant of a skyscraper would cause the upper floors to yaw and fall at teh place whewre the core columns were compromised (maybe)- but never cause a symmetrical free fall drop onto its own footprint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #18)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 11:50 AM

20. WTC 7 had a fuel tank, Einstein,. you guys shit has been debunked time and again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #20)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 03:27 PM

27. Oh yes that bullshit written by Michael Chertoff's cousin...

Fools will fall for anything as long as it's presented by the CIA News Network and their allies. Even FEMA and NIST said the fuel tanks had no effect. Sad that people are so scientifically illiterate and gullible....
Did you even know that Jet fuel is mostly kerosene? I thought not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #20)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 07:05 PM

50. You need to read the official NIST FAQ "Einstein"

---------------"WTC 7 had a fuel tank, Einstein,. you guys shit has been debunked time and again"-------------

That shit you regurgitated has been debunked time and time again - even by the US GOV

NIST WTC 7 FAQ

19. Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000-gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000-gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000-gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition, one system used a 275-gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275-gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50-gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275-gallon day tank on the 7th floor.

Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ± 1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with approximately 1,000 gallons as the most likely figure).

The fate of the fuel in the day tanks and the two 6,000-gallon tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Seems many (most?) of those who have bought the GOV BS don't even know what the official GOV BS IS!

Try again Sparky?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Reply #50)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 03:27 PM

54. great post! thanks and keep up the great work. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Reply #50)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 01:49 PM

66. This:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #20)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 05:23 PM

59. Well Freud!

6000 gallons of diesel fuel cannot explode (which there was no explosion at the time of the collapse. nor flash of an tank erupting). Besides diesel cannot burn hot enough to melt structural stell nor push 72 structural support beams to collapse symmetrically and at free fall speed! Th ephysics is absolute on that as well as the chemistry!

If a 6,000 gallon tank of diesel eruipted- over 90% would burn immediately and the rest a short tine later.Also the building codes reqwuired flame resistant office furnisheings and wall board.

Try again!

Better yet- take a look at WTC 7 falling- then look at a controlled demolition of a high rise and see the exact symmetry of both!

The only way you get a building to collapse on its foot print and at free fall speed is to knock out all its structural columns near simultaneously.

Alos WTC 1 and 2 should have had their upper floors fall at an angle and no straight down. The planes hit a quadrant and destroyed just a few of teh 42 sore columns- the tops should have tipped over! Never mind being able to fall at free fall speed (1100 feet dropped in less than 13 seconds) into itself.

It should have pancaked and smashed irtself to a stop at around the 50th floor- That is the physics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #59)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 05:43 PM

61. exactly! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #17)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 03:17 PM

23. wrong as usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 05:48 PM

2. near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building. ROFLMAO

That's not how structures fail. "near-simultaneous" LOL.

As you watch WTC7 collapse you can clearly see that the center of the structure fails first. Once the center columns fail the loads they were bearing are transferred to adjacent columns and they fail as their load bearing capacity is exceeded. This effect works its way outward as the structure collapses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 05:50 PM

4. well...

when it's engineers and scientists verses internet sheep, I'll go with the former.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 05:58 PM

6. I have a degree in structural engineering and the term "near simultaneous" made me

fall out of my chair laughing.

Don't you find it a bit odd that the overwhelming majority of the structural engineering profession just ignores troofers? I guess they're all in on it too, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 07:39 PM

9. Building #7 was a demo job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 07:46 PM

10. :I have a degree in structural engineering:

well sure you do. And I am the king of Siam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #10)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 08:12 PM

14. Here it is, your highness.

I scanned it in - and smudged the name because I don't post personal info on political sites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #14)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 03:19 PM

24. Fake as hell!

Anyone can photo shop any document these days....
Are you really trying to convince me or yourself? Shame, shame, shame...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #24)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 03:23 PM

26. Look through all of my posts here over the years

You'll find that I've consistently revealed that I lived most of my life in Seattle and am an undergraduate alum of the University of Washington. (Go Huskies!)

(By the way, there is no country called Siam. It is now Thailand.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #26)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 03:32 PM

28. not wasting my time....

None of that means anything. GWB graduated also....
By the way I knew that about Siam also just seeing if you did....took you a while to catch that I see for such a smart UW grad like yourself. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #26)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 08:23 PM

51. And I can buy one of those, from a better school, on Ko San Road for 100 baht

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 01:55 PM

67. Well the architects for 9/11 truth

and structural engineers and physicists and demolition experts, who all bothered to go on site and investigate th ewreckage and the films and interview the first responders all came away with a different take.

They broke th elaw when they immediately started carting away the wreckage without investigators combing through it as is required in such a disaster!

why do we have films of molten steel pouring out of a building with flame retardent materials?

Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt structural steel as you should know with your degree!

Why did all three towers fall in on their own footprints? Why did all three fall at near free fall speed?

Why did WTC 7Fall when all the diesel was accounted for except for maybe 1,000 gallons and it wasn't hit by any plane?

Why did WTC 1&2 fail to pancake down as would be thye norm for a falling building dropping on itself with over 70 floors of concrete and standing steel offering more resistance than the dropping load which would have decreased in size and weight with each floor it collapsed on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #4)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 11:50 AM

21. Well its internet trolls like yourself who only show up about once a year for the same bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 02:01 PM

68. Why don't you ask a building demo expert if WTC 7 look like a planned drop?

The worlds best building demo company went on the record to say WTC was a planned drop.

They then went for over ten minutes showing all the smoking guns of a planned drop and then put WTC 7 side by side with multiple buildings they dropped!

WTC 1&2 should have tipped and fallen sideways from the points of impact! That is what happens when a quadrant of building is destroyed by any means! The upper floors collapse the weakened quadrant and the floors then tip and fall- not bring a whole building down at near free fall speed and encountering no resistance from over 70 floors fo structural steel, core columns, and concrete! Those floors above the crashes just did not have enough time nor space to gain the speed and momentum to do what they did to those two towers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 05:53 PM

5. nonsense!

total nonsense! why not read the info report first?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #5)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 06:18 PM

8. Watch the WTC7 collapse

It's very obvious that the structure fails in the center first and then the failure moves outwards. It easily dispels the idiocy of stating the the column failures were "near simultaneous."

Who are you going to believe? Some idiot troofers or your own lying eyes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 02:06 PM

37. of course it fails in the center first then the building collapses.

Exactly what you'd do to bring it down vertically to avoid damaging adjacent structures. That way the leading collapsing structure in the center pulls the exterior inward as it's pulled down. Rudimentary physics mate!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #37)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 03:08 PM

43. I guess you didn't know that when WTC7 collapsed it damaged the Verizon building ACROSS THE STREET

Hardly "controlled" demolition. LOL.

Also when the building collapses, the left portion of the interior collapses and falls into the building first and then there's a slight PAUSE (which is not "near-simultaneous") before the center of the structure begins to fail and the failure propagates outward.

In order to believe the WTC7 was controlled demolition:

- You have to doubt the reports from the on-scene personnel that the structure was creaking, moaning and starting to deform and fail hours before the collapse. (Which is why they pulled everyone from the building.)

- Believe that magic silent explosives were used.

- That said magic explosives were secretly installed without anybody noticing.

- That there was a conspiracy involving numerous participants who have all kept quiet for 18 years

Do you know why all three buildings fell "straight" down on 9/11? Because they weighed a hell of a lot and gravity points that way. Duh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #43)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 04:05 PM

45. go ahead make up straw men all you can....

of course your premises are wrong but doesn't impede your nonsense a bit.


"In order to believe the WTC7 was controlled demolition:

- You have to doubt the reports from the on-scene personnel that the structure was creaking, moaning and starting to deform and fail hours before the collapse. (Which is why they pulled everyone from the building.)
You're cherry picking propaganda reports and witnesses:

- Believe that magic silent explosives were used. stupid premise!

- That said magic explosives were secretly installed without anybody noticing. a simple thing to do:https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=9%2F11+WTC+witnesses+to+explosions+AE911truth

- That there was a conspiracy involving numerous participants who have all kept quiet for 18 years " or dead!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #45)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 04:19 PM

46. Ever witnessed a car collision? It SOUNDS like an explosion - but it isn't.

I also suggest that you watch some actual controlled demolition videos. You'll notice that the REAL explosions are not "near-simultaneous." They go off in a controlled, very audible sequence: BOOM-BOOM-BOOM. . . And you can see the explosions. Nothing remotely like that occurred on 9/11. Nothing of that sort was recorded on 9/11 despite all of the film crews and private individuals recording there.

Oh, I almost forgot who was also in on the conspiracy; the entire NIST team comprised of leading government, educational and private structural and other experts from around the country. They're all complicit in covering up the intentional murder of over 3,000 innocent people, right?

You and common sense are not on speaking terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #46)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 06:27 PM

48. BOOM-BOOM-BOOM



What's Tucker's problem?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aquila (Reply #48)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 11:23 PM

53. Two 9/11 truthers die in a head-on collision on their way to a truther convention

St. Peter is on vacation so God Himself is minding The Pearly Gates.

God: Before you enter you may ask me any question.

Truther #1: OK, God, who is responsible for 9/11?

God: 19 crazy Arabs.

Truther #2: Holy cow! This conspiracy is bigger than we thought!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #43)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 10:20 AM

77. Or you have to reject the reports of those on scene

that hours before- workers said that building was going to "drop".

YOu have to ignore the science that has proven office furnishing fires cannot melt steel.

YOu have to ignore the fact that prior to 9/11 no steel structure building ever collapsed due to fire! Some where the building was more involved and burned longer and hotter than any of the three towers!

You have to ignore there were booms heard from WTC 7

You have to ignore that some news reports reported WTC had fallen 20 minutes before it did!
You have to ignore that thermite charges don't explode and make booms!

You have to ignore that one failed column cannot and will not cause a catastrophic failure of a steel structure building!

You have to ignore that when you place WTC 7 beside similar buildings that were dropped by controlled demolition, it falls the exact same way!

You have to ignore that asymmetrical damage cannot cause a symmetrical drop at near free fall speed EVER!

Anything else you our structural engineer need to know about the facts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #77)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 09:44 PM

82. nailed it again....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 02:06 PM

69. I think I choose to believe demolition experts

Who show how planned demolitions drop a building!

Besides NIST said only one column failed causing the building to collapse.

Besides demolishing a building- they explode the inner core seconds before they demolish the outer core to cause the building to fall into its footprint just like WTC 7 did

And of course the given fact that the furnishing fires (the cause according to NIST) could never get to a sufficient temperature nor burn long enough to melt and cause steel to sag enough to cause catastrophic collapse.

Just google steel structure building fires worldwide and see for yourself! If you really are a structural engineer (I am nort doubting you) then you should knwo th ecodes that were met for these buildings to be built and how any kind of fire like th eones at WTC were insufficient to cause steel to catastrophically fail!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #69)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 10:40 PM

72. demolition experts......


and

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #72)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 10:13 AM

76. I remember when I first saw the replays of the towers falling after work.

I told my wife those buildings were dropped! I said that maybe they built them with pre-placed charges so that is something terrible happened- instead of the buildings flying all over the place- they could drop them and cause minimal damage. and harm.

NIST came out and I was unsure, then A for 9/11 truth with their experts in all categories started coming out and I knew those buildings were dropped.

Teh Why is what I wish not to investigate. But the video follow the money- is very very damning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #76)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 11:55 AM

79. Seriously? built in 73 with pre placed explosives to blow up decades later

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 01:46 PM

65. Near simultaneous failure is how buildings are demolished though!


According to NIST (the official report) Only one column failed causing the building to come down! That is just not true!

Compare demolished buildings falling with WTC 7 falling- they are the same! destruction of the columns- then explosion of the strategic floors to bring down the building.

YOu should look at the squibs that happen on WTC7 as they did in WTC 1&2. Steel buildings just don't collapse from fire!

There have been steel buildings that burned hotter and longer and more widespread than WTC did and they did not collapse!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 06:13 PM

7. You forgot something.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 07:55 PM

11. Did they run any tests with brick and chicken wire?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 08:22 PM

15. Anyone with a iota of reality understand 9-11 was a false-flag op pulled off by the trifecta

of saudi arabia, israel and US based neocon deep state operatives.

They all continue to reap the rewards of their efforts to this day...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 11:49 PM

16. Obviously it was a controlled demolition. Same as 1 and 2.

Ignore the idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It Guy (Reply #16)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 11:25 AM

19. Yes. It was a contracted hit like 1 and 2 by a home-directed false flag that needed support for

an upcoming war. And that worked out so well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It Guy (Reply #16)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 03:20 PM

25. exactly! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 04:32 PM

29. Aren't you and your other probed friends supposed to be gathering at Area 51?

Rushing the gates to prove the aliens are locked up or something.

(Pssst, you and your "truther" friends have become a punch line and not a funny one.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #29)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 04:45 PM

30. nope....

sockpuppets abound...
and:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #30)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 08:04 PM

32. At least my socks arent emitting "vibrations" and I don't have tinfoil under my hat.

Be sure and take your meds on time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #32)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 11:30 AM

34. great that makes two of us....

I always take my meds(for RA) on time....thanx.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 07:20 PM

31. In My Opinion, The Controversy Over 9-11

Is similar to that of Global Warming. Very few of us have the education, knowledge, and background to follow the science and math involved. Doesn't mean we're stupid. Just means our education went in a different direction.

So we tend to agree with those who reflect our opinions in other areas. Conservatives, by and large, don't believe we can solve global warming by destroying people's livelihoods, transportation, and regressing society to the stone age. Similarly, conservatives believe the Muslims hijacked the 9-11 planes and flew them into buildings.

Here's my theory about 9-11: President Bush had already incurred the enmity of the liberal elite and the mainstream media. They saw the attack on WTC and Pentagon as an excuse to further harass and calumniate him. Some anonymous member of the Politburo said, "Hey, let's claim Bush did it. Nobody will believe it, of course, but he'll have to waste time defending himself and those around him. It'll weaken his Presidency, however infinitesimally, and thus bring us a tiny step closer to the glorious overthrow of capitalism."

To the surprise and delight of the Politburo, rank and file liberals latched onto that fantasy like flies on feces. At least, they pretended to buy that story. No way to know how many actually believed it.

Odd thing is that they're keeping it up even today. Bush been out of office for ten-plus years, and they're still peddling that "9-11 Truth" fable. I guess they have to follow through because the alternative is to admit they were lying back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubba (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 11:24 AM

33. nonsense bubba!

Hulsey's simulation clearly shows that fires couldn't have caused a failure to begin with. It's a lot more detailed than NIST's simulation and he also points out multiple flaws with the NIST simulation in his report. Just read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #33)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 01:13 PM

35. Why would this be alerted? Obvious no hide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bfox74 (Reply #35)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 02:09 PM

38. because suppression is their....

only hope. It damn sure isn't the science!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 04:30 PM

47. I don't buy the "science," but still no reason to alert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bfox74 (Reply #47)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 03:35 PM

55. well you should indeed learn some science....

especially concerning conservation of momentum. hydrocarbon fire temperatures and the melting point of steel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 01:39 PM

36. ....Daniel Sunjata......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #36)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 04:04 PM

44. Anyone that doesn't believe that 911 was a planned hit from the inside is not thinking.

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2019, 05:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 02:24 PM

39. Complete bullshit. Nothing but an attempt to sow dissention

Are you a Russian troll, in their pay, or just a useful idiot?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeeCPTINF (Reply #39)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 02:36 PM

40. Man you're so brainwashed by the MSM you're totally lost.

Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia! Such nonsense is hilarious. Thanks for exposing your gullibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #40)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 02:39 PM

41. And thank you for being exhibit 1

Truthers are either ignorant of science and math or are deliberately speadung lies for a political agenda. I think we can safely put you in category two.

Here's a thought. What is the minimum number of people needed to pull off 9 11 as an inside attack?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeeCPTINF (Reply #41)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 02:46 PM

42. Nonsense again....

You're the one doesn't know squat about science and physics....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #42)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 09:00 PM

52. Your mastery of rhetoric and logic is stunning to behold

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeeCPTINF (Reply #52)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 03:37 PM

56. as is your ignorance....

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #40)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 06:34 PM

49. That poster sounds exactly like Maddow




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 04:24 PM

57. experts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #57)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 04:32 PM

58. expert.....


"influences in effect during the NIST investigation"...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 05:42 PM

60. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carlos W Bush (Reply #60)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 05:47 PM

62. Jet fuel....

jet fuel is mostly kerosene. Steel melts around 2700 degrees F while jet fuel, gasoline, wood,paper etc can only reach around 1800 degrees F.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Reply #62)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 11:36 PM

75. At what temperature does aluminum burn in air?

How about titanium?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 06:08 PM

63. 9/11 BOMBS in Tower Core When 1st Plane Hit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildbill (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 07:27 PM

64. well put!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Newsnews