Can anyone who supports this conspiracy idea answer any of these questions?
7 Is Exploding
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Rufus_1611, May 3, 2007.
Page 5 of 8
-
-
....... -
to start the fire(s) in Building 7) fell on itself so it couldn't
start the fires in #7 -- this is proof of U.S. Government
conspiracy? -
When some of you have the time, :rolleyes: you might want to look at major bridge failures, which, BTW, do not include the collapse of the KY river bridge at 'Brooklyn', south of Lexington on US-68, and located just a few miles from my home, near the Daniel Boone Tunnel in 1955 under the weight of only one food service delivery truck, or any of the Katrina related failures, just to see how many ways something designed and seemingly so strong, can fail.
Here is a link from 'Wiki'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_disasters
Here is a coupla' links with pictures of the 'Brooklyn Bridge' collapse, and the replacement bridge built in 1956.
http://www.jessamineco.com/tourism/guidebook/guidebook.htm
http://www.bridgestunnels.com/index.php?catid=59&photos=0
Ed -
-
The aliens took down building 7. That is the only explanation. The black helocopters have been ruled out.
-
WTC 7 was not only damaged by fire. I just read an article that said 25% of the lower 10 floors were severely damaged from the debris of towers 1 and 2 collapsing.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5 -
Larry Silverstein, in the PBS documentary video I mention earlier, says they made the decision to 'pull' the building. Never mind that just a couple of minutes later in the same video we hear demolition crews use the term pull to refer to bringing down one of the remaining structures, Silverstein recants and says by pull the building, he meant pull the firefighters out of the building. OH REALLY?
From the Popular Mechanics article:
-
-
-
Maybe the firefighters were setting charges. But then it may have been Miss Scarlett in the green room with the candle stick. -
-
-
James,
I am no expert, but I would suggest there may be a difference between containing fires and fighting fires. -
-
-
Regards,
BiR -
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. -
I used to be the opposite. I had no desire to question the official story. I saw the attacks on TV and I knew that Osama bin Laden was the devil and his al Kayda crew were responsible. But at the insistence of my wife, I finally sat down and started to look at this issue, and I think so much of what I assumed to be fact was shown to be nothing of the sort. The contradictory stories and the swiftness with which the evidence was swept away, contradicting every forensic principle, only makes me more sure that something else happened that day. Kind of like David Copperfield making the statue of Liberty disappear. I don't know what he did, but it wasn't that.
-
Page 5 of 8