Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

9/11 Bombshell:WTC7 Security Official Details


An Urban Legend

Recommended Posts

LOL INDEPENDANT, what are you talking about - All the 'Independant' investigations have been governmentally funded with Feds assistance.

Mate..

I think we may be finally on the Home Straight to the Truth.

Edited by recon_soldier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • flyingswan

    321

  • Q24

    261

  • Sunofone

    83

  • AROCES

    64

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

:lol: Oh, yea, sorry about that then Aroces, I didnt mean to call you ignorant in an insulting sense, more like ignorant in the sense that your so "unknowing" to alot of the very facts we are trying to discuss. So if I call you ignorant, dont take it personally. ;) But I find it funny you claim you were using logic; from reading your post that appeared to be the most distant thing from your arguments......

Well, I mean it when I said you look rediculous believing all this conapiracy crap. But don't take it personally. Think about it, you have all your evidence and it is getting nowhere but here at UM.

Sounds rediculous indeed. but don't take it personally :tu:

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fires dont cause buildings to collapse neatly straight down in 7 seconds without damaging nearby buildings, a controlled demolition does though......

Oh, now that's funny, Im glad you have a sense of humor but too bad you cant argue. You see AROCES, this is all you ever do, you make a jive remark to make fun of the claim being contested while believing you have just refuted it. Jokes dont disprove, nor do they prove, so lets leave them out of this discussion, let deal with facts.

YUP, that's funny is the only thig you can say. You have no answer to why none of the hundreds of insurance companies involve is embracing any of your SOLID EVIDENCE. Now, you will say they are part of the conspiracy? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh really? If thats the case he will be even more enraged while he argues with 3/4 of the fire department and first responders who claim they heard,saw, and felt explosions around WTC 1,2, and 7. :rolleyes:

And to invetigate the cause of fire is part of the Fire Departments job. Why no report of a bomb from them if 3/4 think they heard, saw and felt bombs going off? Fire department par of conspiracy?

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People like you Acroces are the reason tyranny can prevail.

Educated but stupid at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People like you Acroces are the reason tyranny can prevail.

Educated but stupid at the same time.

Wow, not only you believe of this myth, but feel smart in doing so. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People like you Acroces are the reason tyranny can prevail.

Educated but stupid at the same time.

click and watch

Edited by Bella-Angelique
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAH the buildings foundation was damaged, What a dumb ass.

Hahahah.. 1/4 ....my god..Teetering. Media at its best.

If you are going to link something, Dont link to the Glen beck show, That is so neo-con influenced.

But hell, You live in the US - You must know more then i do.

The building had only very lightly damage, To one side of it.

That video proves absolutely nothing except it was an attempt to shove the truth aside, again.

Mr Acroces. Of course i feel incredibly smart while believing the fable. lol sarcasm.

No sir, I would feel stupid to be fooled by my own governments spin though.

Edited by recon_soldier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAH the buildings foundation was damaged, What a dumb ass.

Hahahah.. 1/4 ....my god..Teetering. Media at its best.

If you are going to link something, Dont link to the Glen beck show, That is so neo-con influenced.

But hell, You live in the US - You must know more then i do.

The building had only very lightly damage, To one side of it.

That video proves absolutely nothing except it was an attempt to shove the truth aside, again.

Mr Acroces. Of course i feel incredibly smart while believing the fable. lol sarcasm.

No sir, I would feel stupid to be fooled by my own governments spin though.

So much HARD, SOLID, UNDENIABLE evidence you believe in and yet it is getting nowhere, why?

You being fooled alright, but you are barking at the wrong tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, generally i dont go near the 9/11 Thing, i prefer the other thousands of bits of evidence that we are being controlled and manipulated by a powerful world elite.

But heck, Im sure you think im wrong there too - Everyman to his own eh.

Edited by recon_soldier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

linked-image

Jet fuel did not do this to the World Trade Center steel. This steel bended next to NO CRACKS. It bent like a pretzel, and Aroces fire cannot do this to steel.

You bend, shape and manufacture steel with heat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how much heat is required to Manipulate Steel.

What sort of temperatures are achieved by burning Jet fuel, at its highest point.

Sir, I await your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no argument against these facts. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 was a classic controlled demolition. And not to mention, there was flowing molten metal found under the base of all 3 buildings months are the collapses. To defend the government's lies on this issue has to be from blind ignorance.

There are Private Demolition companies, anyone came out yet and said, YES, that is definitely a controlled demolition. Imagine how as smart as you think you are they will look? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the way the media manipulates such things, It simply would not happen - But if it did, they would kill the story quickly or simply start attacking the person on past indescretions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how much heat is required to Manipulate Steel.

What sort of temperatures are achieved by burning Jet fuel, at its highest point.

Sir, I await your answer.

1st - there is no way to know the exact temperature inside a burning building for each material and object can burn differently.

2nd - steel varies, depends on the strenght.

3rd - you don't need as much heat to just bend it than to mold or melt it.

Let me tell you this. I had a tire range that I could not use for my after market wheel before because of the angle. Heat it up at my gas kitchen stove, hammmered it to change angle of the bend. Let it cool off, and problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the way the media manipulates such things, It simply would not happen - But if it did, they would kill the story quickly or simply start attacking the person on past indescretions.

So now the Media, the governemnt, the Insurance companies, The politicians, United Airlines, The Federal governemnt, the Military is part of the conspiracy.

Amazing huh? And they all are able to keep the secret and work as one to fool, fool who? There is no one left? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Where did i say anything about the Airlines, insurance companes or certain Politicians...

Seriously.

Its a hell of alot easier to get people to go along with something when they think they are apart of a drill.

Coincidence that they were doing those drills on that day though, Wouldnt you say ;)?

Edited by recon_soldier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Where did i say anything about the Airlines, insurance companes or certain Politicians...

Seriously.

Its a hell of a lot easier to get people to go along with something when they think they are apart of a drill.

Coincidence that they were doing those drills on that day though, Wouldnt you say ;)?

But that is precisely the point. With all the involvement to pull such stunt, it's just not possible to do it discreetly. I mean with today's communication and Media, how can anyone pull such thing.

This is not a lone assasin with a rifle.

Why do the believers think that we have lots of EVIL men in the government who would kill thousands just like that. Don't you folks ever thought that those people have families too and people they care about?

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a hell of alot easier to get people to go along with something when they think they are apart of a drill.

Coincidence that they were doing those drills on that day though, Wouldnt you say ;)?

And when it became obvious that it wasn't a drill, not one of the people involved would have blown the whistle? "I was tricked into it, my boss was responsible for 9/11".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand why, assuming 9/11 was a false flag attack, some people suppose that a great number of people (specifically Americans) would have to be involved.

If we take Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Giuliani, Silverstein, a handful of other higher ups from the US/Israel/World and add in any number of CIA/Mossad operatives, would that not be enough?

I do not believe that any of the fire/police service, media, airlines, insurers, etc, needed to be directly involved with pulling off the operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That has been explained, by several engineers, both independent and the government. Support beams collapsed and it cause a pancake effect.
OMFG, I just have been given the right to call you flat out idiotic. WTC7 did not PANCAKE! The buildings feel straight down in a classic controlled demoltion form, if there was a pancake collapse at the end of the collapse sequence there would a been a stack of floors pancaked on top of each other with the standing spindals of the core columns; this is not what we saw! The buildings collapsed straight down, with no resistance onto its own footprint without major damage to any other building. You are one of the many people trapped under a veil of ignorance, the truth can show its light but you'll push it away because your so accustomed to the dark.

linked-imagelinked-imagelinked-image

This here is a picture of Bankers Trust, a building which was closer to the towers than building 7. This building was slightly closer to the South Tower than Building 7 was to the North Tower.This building sustained considerally more damage than ANY photos shown of building 7, YET it DID NOT COLLAPSE. What happened to a building collapsing from fire set from debris? No, this did not happen to this building. Why? Well, it's simple this building wasnt set up to have a control demolition. And look at the animation, WTC7 did not perform a pancake collapse, pancake collapses encounter resistance which slows the collapse down, this building came straight down vertically with no resistance. And note buildings dont "teater" when they are damaged, they aren't built like Legos which can be blown over by wind.

The point is, if ever there was the slightest evidence of foul play, Insurance companies would be one of the most interested, agree? How come none is buying into any of this theory?
Hmm, how is that possible when they believe the official fable? Everyone seems to swallow the official story without even slightly leaving the possibility open of foul play. Then, when people question the official story they lose they're job, get ridiculed, get pentalized by they're superiors, and gag ordered, meaning if they speak about what they know, they goto jail. So much for exposing curruption.

Then how come none of the major media is following up on your nail in the coffin crap?
This is exactly why it makes no sense to talk to a person of your level of low understanding and childish midset, your quick to ridicule and insult. And actually, the media did interview Barry Jennings, but guess what? His story disproved the official account as to why building 7 fell, so they simply quit talking about it and gave no further attention. Is your mind even mildly educated on the concept of "Media Cover-Up" or "Media Blackout"? The media dances to the tune of the government's riddle, anything contrary to what the government says, they ridicule,insult, and then take away all attention to make sure the story goes no where. The less people know the better chances that it will never get talked about, all keeping in the mind the first time it was publically brought up it wasnt presented unbiasedly to the public.

Well, I mean it when I said you look rediculous believing all this conapiracy crap. But don't take it personally. Think about it, you have all your evidence and it is getting nowhere but here at UM.

Sounds rediculous indeed. but don't take it personally

When I call you ignorant, I mean it with the highest sense of the word. Actually, WE the people have all this evidence and it is getting to more places than you. More celebrities have now embrassed that the official account of 9/11 being a fable not the mention the countless other government whitsle-blowers who went public. You keep that in mind........my message travels father than your keyboard.

YUP, that's funny is the only thig you can say. You have no answer to why none of the hundreds of insurance companies involve is embracing any of your SOLID EVIDENCE. Now, you will say they are part of the conspiracy?
No, what funny is how you CANT REFUTE ME. What kind of response is that? You have yet to explain any aspects of the collapse I raised. Instead you do just what your doing now, respond back with ridicule or a question already answered.

And to invetigate the cause of fire is part of the Fire Departments job. Why no report of a bomb from them if 3/4 think they heard, saw and felt bombs going off? Fire department par of conspiracy?
Did I not just make a thread full of FIRST RESPONDER TESTIMONY!? Literally every person in that list claims to hears large explosions and even say they heard bombs. Ok, officially Im ignoring you now. It's a waste of time talking to someone who is blind and deaf as they speak.

You bend, shape and manufacture steel with heat.
The heat experienced by the WTC steel cannot produce that.

NIST "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."

Nist Page 180.

Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel. "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST page 181

Aroces, Im done with you. You've been proved wrong on so many occations until I would go down in Ripely Believe It or Not for being the person with the most patience.

I do not understand why, assuming 9/11 was a false flag attack, some people suppose that a great number of people (specifically Americans) would have to be involved.

If we take Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Giuliani, Silverstein, a handful of other higher ups from the US/Israel/World and add in any number of CIA/Mossad operatives, would that not be enough?

I do not believe that any of the fire/police service, media, airlines, insurers, etc, needed to be directly involved with pulling off the operation.

Great point.

Need to know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "need to know", when used by government and other organizations (particularly those related to the military or espionage), describes the restriction of data which is considered very sensitive.

Under need-to-know restrictions, even if one has all the necessary official approvals (such as a security clearance) to access certain information, one would not be given access to such information unless one has a specific need to know; that is, access to the information must be necessary for the conduct of one's official duties.

As with most security mechanisms, the aim is to make it difficult for unauthorised access to occur, without inconveniencing legitimate access. The principle also aims to discourage "browsing" of sensitive material by limiting access to the smallest possible number of people.

The Battle of Normandy in 1944 is an example of a need-to-know restriction. Though thousands of military personnel were involved in planning the invasion, only a small number of them knew the entire scope of the operation; the rest were only informed of data needed to complete a small part of the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMFG, I just have been given the right to call you flat out idiotic. WTC7 did not PANCAKE! The buildings feel straight down in a classic controlled demoltion form, if there was a pancake collapse at the end of the collapse sequence there would a been a stack of floors pancaked on top of each other with the standing spindals of the core columns; this is not what we saw! The buildings collapsed straight down, with no resistance onto its own footprint without major damage to any other building. You are one of the many people trapped under a veil of ignorance, the truth can show its light but you'll push it away because your so accustomed to the dark.

Nope, you call idiot anyone who does not believe in your fairy tale. The truth? Fairy tale is not real, that is why you keep seeking the truth.

This here is a picture of Bankers Trust, a building which was closer to the towers than building 7. This building was slightly closer to the South Tower than Building 7 was to the North Tower.This building sustained considerally more damage than ANY photos shown of building 7, YET it DID NOT COLLAPSE. What happened to a building collapsing from fire set from debris? No, this did not happen to this building. Why? Well, it's simple this building wasnt set up to have a control demolition. And look at the animation, WTC7 did not perform a pancake collapse, pancake collapses encounter resistance which slows the collapse down, this building came straight down vertically with no resistance. And note buildings dont "teater" when they are damaged, they aren't built like Legos which can be blown over by wind.

So? One building collapsed the other did not. Were they identical? NO. There you go. :tu:

Hmm, how is that possible when they believe the official fable? Everyone seems to swallow the official story without even slightly leaving the possibility open of foul play. Then, when people question the official story they lose they're job, get ridiculed, get pentalized by they're superiors, and gag ordered, meaning if they speak about what they know, they goto jail. So much for exposing curruption.

You don't have an answer, that is why you just call the Isurance companies idiots as well.

Imagine, if you can prove to them your fairy tale, they can charge the government all the coverages they paid off.

And you will be their HERO. Well, what are you waiting for??? ;)

This is exactly why it makes no sense to talk to a person of your level of low understanding and childish midset, your quick to ridicule and insult. And actually, the media did interview Barry Jennings, but guess what? His story disproved the official account as to why building 7 fell, so they simply quit talking about it and gave no further attention. Is your mind even mildly educated on the concept of "Media Cover-Up" or "Media Blackout"? The media dances to the tune of the government's riddle, anything contrary to what the government says, they ridicule,insult, and then take away all attention to make sure the story goes no where. The less people know the better chances that it will never get talked about, all keeping in the mind the first time it was publically brought up it wasnt presented unbiasedly to the public.

Fine, Barry Jennings made the case ON TV LIVE! What more do you need? It got no where, huh?

I'm telling you, you being fooled alright. But not by the governemnt. Alex jones? :ph34r:

When I call you ignorant, I mean it with the highest sense of the word. Actually, WE the people have all this evidence and it is getting to more places than you. More celebrities have now embrassed that the official account of 9/11 being a fable not the mention the countless other government whitsle-blowers who went public. You keep that in mind........my message travels father than your keyboard.

And many years from now, you will still think we all are ignorant as you pursue your fairy tale. And eventually, you will start doubting it yourself.

No, what funny is how you CANT REFUTE ME. What kind of response is that? You have yet to explain any aspects of the collapse I raised. Instead you do just what your doing now, respond back with ridicule or a question already answered.

Well, you claim you have SOLID evidence. OK, fine, now how come it does not go any further than UM? And all you can do is blame the boogey man.

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel. "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST page 181

Oh yeah, did they find Bomb blast on the paint instead then? Nope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand why, assuming 9/11 was a false flag attack, some people suppose that a great number of people (specifically Americans) would have to be involved.

If we take Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Giuliani, Silverstein, a handful of other higher ups from the US/Israel/World and add in any number of CIA/Mossad operatives, would that not be enough?

I do not believe that any of the fire/police service, media, airlines, insurers, etc, needed to be directly involved with pulling off the operation.

Then go ask a Controlled Demolition Company what it takes to do such task. See, if Bush and his buddies can pull such stunt with a few CIA operatrives.

Well, it seem like the Fire, police and etc. are not buying into the conspiracy crap. Cover up then or they think it is all nonsense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, you call idiot anyone who does not believe in your fairy tale. The truth? Fairy tale is not real, that is why you keep seeking the truth.
Well no, I only called you that because instead of refuting me you come back and make jokes in a pathetic attempt to discredit my claim, still to which you havnt done. Remember, jokes do not = refutation.

So? One building collapsed the other did not. Were they identical? NO. There you go.
Both of these buildings were steel framed structures, both buildings took damage from the towers debris, and one collapsed, yet the one with the minor damage did not. Oh what a striking paralle, Wtc7 and Bankers Trust both take debris damage, wt7 with the minor damage collapses, and then we have the South Tower collapsing first when it was hit second, so much for the duration of burning fires.

You don't have an answer, that is why you just call the Isurance companies idiots as well.

Imagine, if you can prove to them your fairy tale, they can charge the government all the coverages they paid off.

And you will be their HERO. Well, what are you waiting for???

Wow, bold assertions; I never called the insurance companies idiots. Posting to you is a waste of time, its like trying to show a person without a mouth how to speak. Acroces, when you are ready to debate and actually can produce a intellectual rebutal, contact me, until then, Im ignoring you.
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.