[Closed] STW research club, I propose for the second subject building 7 9/11 event

Why did the BBC report on WTC 7 having collapsed 15 minutes before it did so?

Ooh, ooh, Mr. Beasley! Time travel...

kaesae - Member
Melting temperature of materials http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

carbon steel is 1425 = 1540 can anyone else confirm this info?

I still don't understand what the relation to a bike website is either. Surely there must be enough conspiracy forums for this to be raised on?

The fires in building 7 don't look that bad

Please ignore the rest of this footage except for the actual fires.

These fires did not have the capacity to demolish the building they affected, however we are to believe that WTC 7 was so badly damaged by from what I have seen were small isolated fires, I have to question what is being proposed.

Is that your idea of not bad? It's probably worse because you can't see lots of flames coming out of the window, it means most of the burning is happening inside. I saw the inside of a burning flat once where there was no flames coming out of the window. It was an inferno inside

Muppet!

The one in Madrid is a concrete frame! Stupid! You can clearly see it on the clip. So go and google Madrid / fire / tower block and concrete frame.......FFS

try reading some of this....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

considering how many members of NY-FD were lost in the collapse of the twin towers, it would be somewhat incredulous to get the NY-FD on-side to fake their statements and withdrawl from WT7 due to their own observations..

Also take particular note regarding the key elements of poor foundation design / sub ground level void / structural weakness @ floor 5-7.

Regarding how severe the fire was observed in some footage in comparison to a structure twice the height of differing construction methods is of irrelevance.

Building damaged from falling materials from WT1&2 collapse.
Buildings sub optimal foundation structure potentially suffers damage due to ground propogated shockwave from collapse of WT1&2.
Building suffers further fire damage that goes largely unchecked.
NY-FD observe bulging @ concern of structural integrity.
NY-FD observe audible structural failure and move out.
Building collpses in direction identified by Isacc Newton same as his apple.

Apart from the above im with you must be a conspiracy... 🙄

He's had that link already but won't read it because it has words not pictures

Please someone lock this 🙁

which part of that days events are you hoping to find were a conspiracy / faked / act of god ???

given the day was a precursor to two completely miserable military campaings that will never achieve anything long term (sadly given the losses inflicted on our troops)

who was to gain from knocking down a chuffin huge building ?

much more intresting than trying to debate civil engineering & materials science..

Conspicary - who ?
why ?
to what gain ?

maybe it was the BBC ? they could have hidden all the paperwork that would have outed Jimmy Saville (and tarnished their reputation) so they flew it on concorde to NY hid it in WT7 and blew it up...

He's had that link already but won't read it because it has words not pictures

 

kaesae - Member

Loum there is a lot of evidence that melting occurred in building no 7

CITATION NEEDED

nwilko/PJM84, those are just words you've posted. Only poorly made YouTube videos are acceptable evidence.

Everyone knows that. USADA are uploading theirs as I type.

If we're all happy to accept that the collapses were caused by fires started as a result of the two aircraft crashing into the twin towers...[quote=druidh ]
Why did the BBC report on WTC 7 having collapsed 15 minutes before it did so?

Don't tell anyone, but I have the answer to how the BBC could tell the future. They had a real life time traveler working for them for decades. We should have known all along from his catchphrase:
[img] http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuTAL3L6j4QPXfSdW3YlvR8FYRScwfT490uwdsvi1RHKLsHlKJi0CA7Ux- [/img]

Fox also reported it before it happened

as well 😯

maybe it was the BBC ? they could have hidden all the paperwork that would have outed Jimmy Saville (and tarnished their reputation) so they flew it on concorde to NY hid it in WT7 and blew it up...

Its all fitting into place now. I'm pretty sure a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend saw him there at the time with...............

I think might know this one, Is it because they were wrong 💡
the link says the area is completely sealed off and they had a report of a collapsed building that was wrong. If it had stayed intact they would have still been wrong as it is standing.
Is this meant to be the only thing that was reported that day that was wrong . I fail to see how this proves or even says anything about why it collapsed. Could you explain that to me?

Either that or the BBC was part of the global conspiracy and released the news of it at the wrong time despite the timescale given by the lizard kings.

Ps have you an explanation for how they knew ?
I imagine they had reports the fire crews left because it was structurally unsound and they feared collapse and they misheard it and then mis reported it as having collapsed rather than being expected to collapse?

Its all fitting into place now. I'm pretty sure a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend saw him there at the time with...............

Agree with druidh, that's the bit I'd like to see a decent explanation for.
Also, posters calling for the thread to be locked can easily ignore it and look elsewhere.

Here's the owner saying that the building was demolished?

On the TV, how do you explain that ❓

Also this is very interesting

[quote=kaesae ]Here's the owner saying that the building was demolished?
No he doesn't.

BBC's source was Reuters, Reuters' source was local news. The likely explanation is that the fire service reported they were evacuating WTC7 as it had become unsafe and was likely to collapse, and that this got chinese whispered. Doesn't require a conspiracy or ESP, just requires chaos and rolling news.

Has anyone ever given an explanation for why They wanted to demolish WTC7?

kaesae - Member

On the TV, how do you explain that

It's easily explained by people hearing what they want to hear, not what is actually said.

I think he means pull the firefighters out [ to protect life] unless of course you think they double as secret service demolition agents and they had the technical skills to blow it/pull it down ?

Fire protection was sprayed vermiculite. Used widely in the 70/80s. Maybe 90mins protection. The stuff is quite easily damaged

As for BBC reporting, they had a tip off from Doctor Who - just as far fetched a scenario as any conspiracy plot

And Larry Silverstein, did he not loose a fortune because of a lapsed or dishonoured insurance policy, some connection with NY Port Authority?
(I may be wrong there but seem to recall something)

He mean pull it as in pull the fire service out.
It's not complicated unless you suffer from delusional paranoia of some sort.

druidh - Member

kaesae » Here's the owner saying that the building was demolished?

No he doesn't.

Perhaps you are right druidh, so what does to pull a building that is damaged or unstable mean?

To someone who is in the building and property trade?

This is not having a go simply asking a question, from what I understand of the saying, it refers to the implosion and subsequent vacuum that is used to collapse a building in on it's self and not damage surrounding buildings?

However perhaps there is another meaning?

[quote=kaesae ]
Perhaps you are right druidh, so what does to pull a building that is damaged or unstable mean?
Junkyard and IanMunro have already explained what "Pull It" refers to. It means to pull out the rescue/fire effort.

Tell me about it..... contractors.

Kaesae - You watch too much Youtube - get out and ride your bike to free your mind.

See, the thing I really like about conspiracy theorists, is that they don't mind contradictions in their own pet theories- and the "controlled demolitions" are a great example of that.

So you have this theory that they were demolished by explosives- there's some eyewitness reports to support that, and some claim that the seismographs also prove it.

But at the same time, there is also the theory that they were demolished by thermite- which helps get round the lack of evidence for explosions, and is supported by claims of abnormal melting in the structures.

But even if you think these are both plausible, obviously they can't both be right, they're competing theories. But that's OK, because if one smoking gun is good, then 2 must be better, right?

It means here i am on telly being broadcast and I am part of global conspiracy to start a war so when I say something I will just give it away that we are blowing it up as part of a global plan. I was only playing before of course this is what it means

Thank god the fire fighters were in on it too and had the skills to demolish it...they thought of everything except for not telling us what they were doing ....how foolish

In military we use to say: - pull out / bug out / prepare to move / on me (not literally)/ hit the top of one's head, point and do the running fingers.

All these mean were going to move position. Not were moving home, looking for bugs, requesting sexual favours, or suffering with hair loss worries.

Kaesae - You watch too much Youtube - get out and ride your bike to free your mind.

He can't. His bearings are ****ed.

[img] [/img]

piemonster - Member
piemonster - Member
@Kaiser or whatever
All these terrible things you are fretting about, apart from STW. What are you doing about them?

Any danger of you answering this question?

When your ready Kaese

stalker 😉

Good grief.... Do you know anything about materials engineering??. Utterly bizarre as usual. (Kaesae I mean)

Surprised kaesae would bother bringing it up again when there are numerous other conspiracies to get stuck into!

I am of the opinion that when the term pull it was used, it was in reference to the controlled demolition of building no 7 of the world trade center. There are those that say this is in reference to the pulling out of the firemen that were working in building 7.

So is there any evidence that there were explosives in building 7? or that the firemen had already been pulled out and as such didn't need to be pulled out?

To answer the first question http://911research.wtc7.net/

There is also a lot of footage on youtube of firemen saying that there are bombs in the buildings.

Anyone want to look into what the actual police and firemen were saying and if they can find any more evidence of explosives?

woody, there will be plenty of time later to research other things, hopefully I will be involved in that, once we learn how to work together and focus on accomplishing the goals, that the group sets out.

I am of the opinion that when the term pull it was used, it was in reference to the controlled demolition of building no 7 of the world trade center.

HTH

there will be plenty of time later, once we learn how to work together and focus on accomplishing the goals, that the groups of well intentioned individuals involved decide upon.

I am of the opinion that when the term pull it was used, it was in reference to the controlled demolition of building no 7 of the world trade center.

Well you obviously don't know much about the terminology used in Demolition then do you ?

Ok, so ask yourself this......... In the Demoltion industry, what does "Pull it" actually mean ?

And then ponder on why that term would be used, when people are claiming that the building was brought down by a controlled explosion.

As usual, your not making any sense I'm afraid.

there is a new type of pest, the concrete worm, developed by the CIA in a crazy attempt to destabalise the old soviet union,by having massive structural failures in their high rise concrete cities, this was abandoned.
However it may be that some rogue operatives let loose some of these worms in New York, sufficiently weakening a number of buildings, that are then at risk from seemingly small fires etc.

I am of the opinion that when the term pull it was used, it was in reference to the controlled demolition of building no 7 of the world trade center. There are those that say this is in reference to the pulling out of the firemen that were working in building 7.

WHY WILL YOU NOT LISTEN TO THE OBVIOUS TRUTH?

Count Duckula has webbed feet, ideal for getting a good grip in rubble strewn streets. Ask yourself why the authorities didn't allow for the testing for trace levels of broccoli in the ruins after the building was pulled.

Of course, there are those who say that CD is just a patsy for I.G.O.R and N.A.N.N.Y.

kaesae - Member

I am of the opinion that when the term pull it was used, it was in reference to the controlled demolition of building no 7 of the world trade center.

Clearly. But why? Whatever happened to the building, it definately wasn't [i]pulled[/i] down. And you also need to ask exactly how the fire brigade would go about doing it, even if they chose to. The context of the conversation doesn't lend itself at all to pre-planned demolition.

The 911research site is genuinely funny

So we are to believe the FDNY, already massively depleted numbers and equipment, suddenly had the ability to carry out a full scale demolition, something they don't generally train their firefighters in? Well that sounds legit.

Add to that, all the misinformation going around that day and the fact no one could confirm what actually hit the first tower until the world watched the second plane hit, it's not unreasonable to believe that the news may report things as having happened when they may not have, that's generally why they start wit "unconfirmed reports"

Any of these so called documentaries I've watched on you tube just prove to me that people only hear what they want to hear

Quite impressive having the skill to demolish a building that size with the collapse going top down. Rather than the usual blowing of the base. Wouldn't you say?