Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SemiAuto

The London Inferno

90 posts in this topic

Those claiming that WTC-7 was brought down intentionally as part of some plot need not only to prove that it happened but also explain why it would have been done.  They have neither answer.  The reason it fell is a simple one: s**t happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, veritas said:

Those claiming that WTC-7 was brought down intentionally as part of some plot need not only to prove that it happened but also explain why it would have been done.  They have neither answer.  The reason it fell is a simple one: s**t happens.

LOL!  NIST explained it in great detail but they did not think to add that "simple" reason. 

I'm not obligated to "prove" anything, I'm simply agreeing with what thousands of engineers and architects point out ... the way WTC-7 came down is not explained by the official report issued by NIST. 

BTW, any physical evidence of a controlled demolition has been disposed of.

.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Atta and Co. hijacked two airliners and, in a stroke of incredible luck, happened to fly them into two of the tallest skyscrapers in world...that just happened to be adjacent to a building rigged for demolition as part of a nefarious plot. 

Hold on whilst I adjust me tinfoil hat! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daan said:

"... a "long reach" horizontal beam on, as I recall the 13th floor failed, likely due to heat "

Yes, and as the NIST report says, it failed due to common office fires.   

 

NIST claims that a single column caused ALL other supporting columns to fail at the same time and the building collapsed at free fall speed into its own foot print ???

Thousands of engineers and architects find that to be incredible.

.

hogwash

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

47 minutes ago, JoyinMudville said:

hogwash

 

 

That's your unprofessional non-expert opinion and you are entitled to it.

.

Edited by Daan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Daan said:

 

That's your unprofessional non-expert opinion and you are entitled to it.

.

Backed up by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not believe there was a conspiracy involved in the London fire. I still would like to the information giving when the investigation is finished. That was when heck of a blaze, and the life lost was unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2017 at 2:20 PM, Daan said:

"WTC-7 collapsed due to common office fires at free fall speed into its own foot print.  "  This is what the NIST study concluded. 

I find it hard to believe simply because of the way WTC-7 collapsed at free fall speed into its own foot print ... identical to a controlled demolition.

Thousands of engineers and architects do not agree with the NIST conclusion.

 

.

I find it hard to believe that WTC7 collapsing would be necessary to the conspiracy. If it was an inside job, there'd be no point in going any further than the two twin towers (and the pentagon). Seems foolish to risk exposure on such an relatively insignificant building. But I don't expect conspiracy kooks to use any kind of logic when thinking about these things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, mlatoman said:

I think Atta and Co. hijacked two airliners and, in a stroke of incredible luck, happened to fly them into two of the tallest skyscrapers in world...that just happened to be adjacent to a building rigged for demolition as part of a nefarious plot. 

Hold on whilst I adjust me tinfoil hat! 

I know, right ......

That's similar to my line of reasoning earlier .....

And yet no one talks about the evidence of a controlled demo, such as the wiring, evidence of shaped charges on the beams in multiple locations, etc .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Eastside Terp said:

 

And yet no one talks about the evidence of a controlled demo, such as the wiring, evidence of shaped charges on the beams in multiple locations, etc .....

Because... those things don't exist?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocking video... a building with similar construction to WTC 7 implodes after long fire...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoyinMudville said:

Shocking video... a building with similar construction to WTC 7 implodes after long fire...

 

 

Really ?? ... this is comparable to WTC-7?

 

Explosives ??

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2017/01/plasco-building-collapse-tehran-iran.html

Fred Dietz1 day ago I’m going to say “inadequate sheer studs”, as there was already an Iranian architect on Press TV saying that Plasco Building (Iran’s first high-rise) was never built inline with “national construction regulations”. But that’s also a world of difference from WTC 7, which had over 3,800 sheer studs that were inspected every year by NYC (and this was revealed in a 2012 FOIA). NIST outright lied in their report and said WTC 7 didn’t have any sheer studs.

Ted Huntington1 day ago yeah it is from one side to the other- like a "triangle" collapse. Look how there are some initial detonations, a pause of a few seconds, a large detonation, another pause of a few seconds, then the sequential detonations. Why oh why do we know that no evidence of explosives will be found.

ouchyg1 day ago (edited) Classic controlled demolition signs. Detonator flashes 0:46, explosive ejections 0:08, explosive streamers, and explosions 1:03. From nearly every angle lateral energy releases before the building displayed any vertical motion (begins to collapse). This wasn't caused by just fire. I wonder what this is all about?
 

 

Shocking ... NIST lied.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have serious concerns for anyone who truly believes WTC-7 was taken down intentionally. That something so devastating could be kept silent and all evidence suppressed (let alone the reasoning behind it) is illogical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mlatoman said:

I have serious concerns for anyone who truly believes WTC-7 was taken down intentionally. That something so devastating could be kept silent and all evidence suppressed (let alone the reasoning behind it) is illogical. 

It leads to the inevitable conclusion that they think 9/11 was an inside job, a charge of extreme gravity.  Anyone claiming it needs to come forth with one shred of credible evidence, not unfounded rumors, dot connecting or claims from whacko websites.  That anything that monumental could be kept secret defies belief.  Of course, many people still argue passionately for all sorts of conspiracies so the phenomenon is not uncommon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, veritas said:

It leads to the inevitable conclusion that they think 9/11 was an inside job, a charge of extreme gravity.  Anyone claiming it needs to come forth with one shred of credible evidence, not unfounded rumors, dot connecting or claims from whacko websites.  That anything that monumental could be kept secret defies belief.  Of course, many people still argue passionately for all sorts of conspiracies so the phenomenon is not uncommon.

 

It is laughable to think that such a thing could be kept secret in a town where it seems absolutely nothing can be kept secret.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many posters here really think 9/11 was an inside job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mrsmlh said:

I wonder how many posters here really think 9/11 was an inside job.

I wonder why the posters involved don't just start a thread on it, and this one play in it's own sandbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gonzoliberal said:

I wonder why the posters involved don't just start a thread on it, and this one play in it's own sandbox.

Yes this too.  I found it a little strange that a thread about the London high rise burning became a thread about the towers being an inside job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mrsmlh said:

Yes this too.  I found it a little strange that a thread about the London high rise burning became a thread about the towers being an inside job.

My first post in this thread simply stated that the London building was engulfed in fire and the fire did not cause the building to implode.

Other posters brought the WTC into the conversation giving reasons why the WTC situation was different.

Thousands of engineers and architects find the NIST report on WTC-7 lacking.

Just sayin'

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, veritas said:

It leads to the inevitable conclusion that they think 9/11 was an inside job, a charge of extreme gravity.  Anyone claiming it needs to come forth with one shred of credible evidence, not unfounded rumors, dot connecting or claims from whacko websites.  That anything that monumental could be kept secret defies belief.  Of course, many people still argue passionately for all sorts of conspiracies so the phenomenon is not uncommon.

Let's just focus on WTC-7.  The owner of WTC-7 announced plans to replace WTC-7 in April, 2000 with construction to begin in 2002.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/03/15/bombshell-larry/

It is reasonable to believe that preparations for controlled demolition might have occurred before 911.  That might explain Silverstein's use of the phrase "pull it" on 911 if, in fact, the building had already been prepared for demolition.

Just sayin'

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Daan said:

Let's just focus on WTC-7.  The owner of WTC-7 announced plans to replace WTC-7 in April, 2000 with construction to begin in 2002.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/03/15/bombshell-larry/

It is reasonable to believe that preparations for controlled demolition might have occurred before 911.  That might explain Silverstein's use of the phrase "pull it" on 911 if, in fact, the building had already been prepared for demolition.

Just sayin'

.

 

Ask yourself this, why would a conspirator even take down WTC7, a relatively insignificant building in the grand scheme of things on that day? Logically it makes no sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Heisenberg said:

Ask yourself this, why would a conspirator even take down WTC7, a relatively insignificant building in the grand scheme of things on that day? Logically it makes no sense. 

 

Insurance pays for the entire new building project ??  This was originally a project to be paid for by the WTC-7 owner.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Daan said:

 

Insurance pays for the entire new building project ??  This was originally a project to be paid for by the WTC-7 owner.

.

That's retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0