How can anyone accept the oFISHYal story?

[justin_o_guy]

Building 7 was a typical steel skeleton building, as opposed to the construction of the Twin Towers. It had an area that wasn't quite "normal" due to the need to stretch the load bearing area over & because the final design was much larger than the original design, the building required some crafty engineering. heres a C&P out of an article..

The first seven floors were also difficult. The building's 350-ft side cantilevers 7 ft over the substation from the seventh floor to the roof. Eight 55-ton, 60-ft-long girders that taper from 9 to 3 ft deep had to be lifted over the substation and placed under seventh-floor framing to carry cantilever loads to the core. The weight and reach involved prompted the use of two cranes and a derrick to lift each girder.

Why do people believe a fire could make a steel skeleton building just FALL? Dont people understand that steel weakens slowly as heat builds? Any building would sag & slowly fail. Building 7 was supposed to be Hot enough to cause it to collapse, yet the building was not completely engulfed in flames. How exactly do I put sufficient heat on steel to cause it to collapse yet not burn the structure?
Does anyone who believes the lies of 9/11 take the time to consider the Amount of heat a piece of steel has to absorb before it is weakened? They need to visit a welder & see a piece of heavy steel heated with an Oxygen/Acetylene torch until the steel is red hot & then will just barely bend. To believe the heat was sufficient to compromise the strength, yet insufficient to burn every flamable object in & on that building is incomprehensible to me.
BUT, lets just Say the diesel did it. Then, in order for that chaotic element, Fire, to have done the deed, The diesel would have had to accumulate at the strongest points in the building & find sufficient oxygen to burn as hot as it could. I await the explanation on how it did that. The corners are the strongest points in a building, so, instead of pooling, as fluids are known to do, the diesel had to run & stack itself in the corners.. I cant accept that. Can you?

[Atomgrad]

Why do people believe a fire could make a steel skeleton building just FALL?

Because the Government and everytv station, newspaper and media outlet told them so.

Dont people understand that steel weakens slowly as heat builds?

Obviously not

How exactly do I put sufficient heat on steel to cause it to collapse yet not burn the structure?

Simple, you get 19 Arabs with box cutters, who "hate us for our freedom" to fly 2 planes into buildings on the other side of the square. Please note, it is vitally important that they "hate us for our freedom" because otherwise you have to rely on the Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics. just like the engineers and architects did when they designed the building. They didn`t factor in all that "hate", if they had, all 3 buildings would have survived, just like they were designed too. Come on now, surely you`ve heard the saying "Hate is a powerful emotion"?, now you know what it means.

Does anyone who believes the lies of 9/11 take the time to consider the Amount of heat a piece of steel has to absorb before it is weakened?

Of course not, otherwise they wouldn`t be believers in the official story.

Fire, to have done the deed, The diesel would have had to accumulate at the strongest points in the building & find sufficient oxygen to burn as hot as it could. I await the explanation on how it did that.

Already told you, you get 19 Arabs, armed with boxcutters, who "hate us for our freedom" to fly planes into buildings on the other side of the square, come on man are you stupid? Everyone knows that when you fly a plane into a plane proof building it collapses and the resulting collapse causing diesel to stack itself into the strongest parts of a building on the other side of the square. The 19 Arabs obviously knew this, because they didn`t bother flying any planes into WTC7 to cause the collapse, they knew they didn`t need too.

 

[cladano]

What's WTC Building 7?

That's what I get when I talk to people. And NOBODY believes the official story. That's of course because most people don't even know what the official story is. They just know that if you say it's an inside job your a conspiracy nut because that's what the media tells them.

[The dvd man]

These "debunkers" are idiots.

They say that the planes caused the damage to take down the trade centers. They claim the jetfuel took it down.

They are dissproving themselves because no plane hit WTC7, so with their Twin towers jet fuel theory they are calling themselves liers.

They are just flat out not thinking, a plane hitting close to the top of the building would cause the top of the building to tumble down SLOWLY. But even that would be unlikely. The top of the building is being supported by the lower part that's not damage, Correct? Well it's not gaining any weight and the bottom isn't losing strength, hell; it has to be losing weight putting even less stress on the bottom of the trade centers.

Everything they say is dissproved by another thing that they say themselves.

Just like all those people who say "About the only thing they got right was the date" That makes them look really intelligent doesn't it?

[Freeski]

What's WTC Building 7?

That's what I get when I talk to people. And NOBODY believes the official story. That's of course because most people don't even know what the official story is. They just know that if you say it's an inside job your a conspiracy nut because that's what the media tells them.

You said a mouthful there, dude. A lifetime of wisdom!

[911harleyguy]

3 BUILDINGS. 2 PLANES. 1 COVER UP. ZERO CONSPIRACY.

[Finchie]

I'm think I'm on the verge of an argument with a colleague on WTC7.

For about 2.5 seconds the top section of the building was in near free fall. NIST admit that so no dispute here.

My question is how on earth do official story believers explain this (the free-fall)? I just cannot think of any argument I may have to counter and I have done some searches but found nothing sensible or that addresses this point.

[Flynn]

The way the buildings exploded speaks the most for me,
here's a lovely vid with all the footage  :

Between the Lies (2009) - full length film

Composed almost entirely of news broadcasts from 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13, this film shows the media lies that stuck with the public and more importantly, the truths that were quickly forgotten.

AVI (874MB)
http://www.archive.org/download/Between_the_Lies/between_the_lies_xvid_860kbps.avi
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9ICEZATF

DVD image (4.1 GB)
http://www.archive.org/download/Between_the_Lies/between_the_lies_plus_extras.iso

The DVD contains a chapter menu and three extras (NYC-CAN promo, 10 minute presentation about WTC7 and the trailer from 9/11: Press for Truth. The AVI file contains only the film.
---
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21011

[Finchie]

Thanks Flynn. I've not seen this film and so will look forward to watching it. I might then pass it on to my colleague!