| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Hello again! I would remind you that there is now a forum for folk such as yourself called "Critic's Corner". |
I'm not criticising anyone or anything in the above post Mr Watson. Merely stating the obvious. If on the other hand the photographs to which I refer makes the core membership uncomfortable continuing their previous assertions, then they are criticising themselves.
I'm sure I'll be moderated out if it's necessary to keep the truth off the front page.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| andrewwatson wrote: | | A Sharp Major wrote: | | Good views, perhaps the best you'll see, of the 'back' of WTC 7 after the collapse of the second tower. Looks very damaged and very on fire. |
Hello again! I would remind you that there is now a forum for folk such as yourself called "Critic's Corner".
If yoo address your question there , I will answer it. |
Actually I don't see how else to debate new evidence like these photos without pointing out pros and cons. Never did like positive discrimination. Negative gets too bad a press these days... Negatives can be very good.
In fact one thing that is wrong with society is there is far too MUCH positive FEEDBACK. This is why debt causes inflation for example, or why everyone goes to uni now...
Fred Dibnah knew the value of -ve feedback... 'The Governor'
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A Sharp Major wrote: | | Quote: | | Hello again! I would remind you that there is now a forum for folk such as yourself called "Critic's Corner". |
I'm not criticising anyone or anything in the above post Mr Watson. Merely stating the obvious. If on the other hand the photographs to which I refer makes the core membership uncomfortable continuing their previous assertions, then they are criticising themselves.
I'm sure I'll be moderated out if it's necessary to keep the truth off the front page. |
I will answer your question here, and let the modertors take the decision to move the posts.
If you had seen the excellent section WTC7 in the film IMPROBABLE COLLAPSE , you will learn that the preliminary NIST repoprt identified an area of gouging on the South side, which is what your photo shows, affecting three structural columns. It also said that column 80 (beneath the Penthouse) had been weakened by the fire. However, the building di not fall in the direction of the area of gouging NOR column 80. It slid evenly and uniformly to the ground.
This is exactly the way it would have fallen if all the columns had been taken out by explosives in a standard controlled demolition. Even assuming for a moment that history had been made that day and the first steel-framed skyscraper in history - sorry the third, according to NIST and FEMA had 'collapsed' due to fire, it would have fallen in a very different way. Even FEMA admitted that their 'best hypothesis' - collapse due to fire - 'has only a small probability of occurrence'.
Weasel words indeed.
To re-cap, it didn't fall like a burning building. but swiftly and symetrically AWAY from the area of structural damage caused by the fallen debris.
If you still don't accept that it was demolished, I cannot help you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread is rubbish some people need to get their facts right!
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great photos.
Regarding the building with its top sliced off - does anyone know which building this is? I don't recall having come across this before.
I agree that the photos of the core still standing are interesting.
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject: Demolition questions |
|
|
No more lies: The question about the building with the diagonal cut was answered by Gefbass above, but for some reason I could only now see the attached pictures - presume you haven't been able to see them either. It's some strange thing on this forum that often you can't see picture attachments until you post a reply. Anyway the answer is that it's just an illusion, the building is masked by debris/dust.
About the core - I doubt Fallious would want to give any credence to Judy Woods, but remarking that the core remnant is about half the height of the whole tower ties in with JW's observations that the upper parts of nearby buildings weren't damaged by having steel beems embedded in them, and the hypothesis that a different method of destruction was used for the top of the building - i.e. (I think) the top steel was vapourised, leaving less steel in the eventual 'pile' and less weight going onto the bathtub. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
