Thursday, August 31, 2006

Interesting Video on WTC 7



The first half discusses the collapse of WTC 7. Unfortunately that part of the film is rather brief. The second half discusses what Silverstein's company is doing to improve on WTC 7--wider stairwells, with five times the required amount of fireproofing on the steel.

17 Comments:

At 31 August, 2006 07:51, Blogger nesNYC said...

Oh boy these professional liars and their "magic" trusses and disappearing fireproofing. This is the "magic bullet" of 911. Guys, isn't it obvious by now you're being lied to?

Check this:

The Feds take on 9/11 Truth - and fail miserably

 
At 31 August, 2006 08:04, Blogger nesNYC said...

BTW, this video shows that if indeed the fires bought down the building, then it was because of the trusses and not the damage you guys keep showing in the pictures. They in essence debunked that theory not that what they’re saying is believable anyway.

 
At 31 August, 2006 08:28, Blogger Chad said...

The Feds take on 9/11 Truth - and fail miserably

I wonder how many times you've jerked off to that article today Nessie. No better aphrodesiac than thinking you're more important than you really are.

You guys are a trip. You really are. If they don't answer your questions it's "THEY'RE STUMPED! WE'RE RIGHT!!" If they do answer your questions it's "THEY FEAR US! WE'RE RIGHT!!"

Here's a sock.... Go knock yourself out.

 
At 31 August, 2006 08:36, Blogger ScottSl said...

I recommend that everyone check this out.
Great stuff.

 
At 31 August, 2006 09:07, Blogger nesNYC said...

No better aphrodesiac than thinking you're more important than you really are.

Since you bring that up, I guess you would know first hand (pun intended :)

 
At 31 August, 2006 09:25, Blogger Chad said...

Since you bring that up, I guess you would know first hand (pun intended :)

Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"

Well played Nessie. You've put in my place.

 
At 31 August, 2006 10:25, Blogger rocketdoodle said...

Troll.

 
At 31 August, 2006 10:32, Blogger Alex said...

No, a troll is someone arguing only for the sake of arguing, who doesn't neccesarily even beleive what he's saying. The problem with non-sync is that he actually beleives everything he says. That makes him a candidate for the looney bin rather than a troll.

 
At 31 August, 2006 11:20, Blogger Pat said...

NESNYC, perhaps you missed the part about the fire starting at 10:30?

 
At 31 August, 2006 13:06, Blogger shawn said...

Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"


It's his retort to everything.

 
At 31 August, 2006 19:56, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 31 August, 2006 20:04, Blogger CHF said...

I've often wondered about how the Twoofers can claim fire doesn't effect steel badly enought for it to fail.

If that's true then why is it that in the basement of the office where I work the exposed steel beams are covered in fireproofing foam?

Is it just for looks?

 
At 31 August, 2006 21:15, Blogger nesNYC said...

can claim fire doesn't effect steel badly enought for it to fail.

Charcoal Grill.

If that's true then why is it that in the basement of the office where I work the exposed steel beams are covered in fireproofing foam?

You sure it's for fireproofing and not some other use?

 
At 31 August, 2006 21:18, Blogger nesNYC said...

NESNYC, perhaps you missed the part about the fire starting at 10:30?

Big deal? Buildings 5 and 6 were directly hit by the towers and sustained fires and other damage and guess what, they didn't collapse! BTW, this video is misleading in that because of the substation the building was reinforced with 7” beams and not flimsy trusses. A subject they conveniently omitted.

 
At 31 August, 2006 21:49, Blogger CHF said...

You sure it's for fireproofing and not some other use?

Such as.....?

 
At 31 August, 2006 21:53, Blogger CHF said...

Big deal? Buildings 5 and 6 were directly hit by the towers and sustained fires and other damage and guess what, they didn't collapse!

What the hell is that supposed to prove? As if X amount of damage will always collapse a building and Y amount won't.

Some people get shot in the leg and die while some get shot in the head and live.

Go figure.

 
At 31 August, 2006 22:27, Blogger default.xbe said...

also building 3-6 are low buildings with wide footprints, so there was more structure to spread the load to, and MUCH less weight bearing down on the damaged sections

also, they all suffered partial collapses and one of them completely collapsed

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home