BBC WTC7 smoking gun... BBC jumps gun on reporting WTC7 collapse@!!!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ratboy88, Feb 26, 2007.

  1. Sorry Bub, but you proved to me just how stupid you are when you used the "jet fuel can't melt steel" theory.

    Hint - nobody says that. Never did. But if you want to claim so, go right ahead, I'll be right here laughing at you.

    But you are right about the gravity thing. The debate is about the true amount of time it took for 7 to fall. "True Believers" will say 8.2 seconds. Others, that take the time to look at other evidence, will say much longer - I believe around 18 seconds to be what seismographic evidence ACTUALLY shows.

    Start by educating yourseld here:

    http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm - about 2/3 down

    This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.
     
    #51     Feb 27, 2007
  2. You're absoultely right, I didn't research into it at all what anyone 'claims' happened. I had just assumed that that's what people were saying.. As dumb as it always sounded to me.. lol..

    There have been manyyyyyy buildings that have burned for hours and even days but have never come down due to fire.. Weakened columns, I believe is a lousy excuse for the collapse. The building was overbuilt, there's no way it was weakened from that, I'm sorry..

    8.2 seconds sounds about right for the actual time it took the penthouses to fall and that is virtually impossible without explosive devices creating a suction and pulling the building down..

    I appreciate the link, I will look into it tho
     
    #52     Feb 27, 2007
  3. man

    man

    #53     Feb 27, 2007
  4. no
     
    #54     Feb 27, 2007
  5. larry says it... bbc reported it.. i believe it !!!!!!!!!
     
    #55     Feb 27, 2007
  6. My apologies for the earlier remarks then.

    :cool:
     
    #56     Feb 27, 2007
  7. LOL....

    And herein lies your mental disability. The inability to be intelluctually honest because your reality is distorted by your feelings of persecution. To admit that there may be another perfectly logical explanation that is in direct contrast to your own views must not be admitted to.

    If you can't see it, then you are truly lost.

    Good luck...
     
    #57     Feb 27, 2007
  8. i would rather be right than impress you haroki. mental disability? care to label it?
     
    #58     Feb 27, 2007
  9. Nope.

    My advice to you would be to find your own answers.

    The first step is to admit that there's something wrong within yourself......
     
    #59     Feb 27, 2007
  10. keep your head in the sand hiroshi... it suits you. your denial is pitiful.
     
    #60     Feb 27, 2007