Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Time for the CCT. Who Will Go First. ScubyDoo? De?  

By: Zimbler0 in GRITZ | Recommend this post (2)
Fri, 16 May 25 7:31 AM | 9 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens! 		Msg. 08397 of 08414
(This msg. is a reply to 08388 by Fiz)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Fiz > Extraordinarily implausible that that plane brought down any of those buildings, and certainly not building 7.


The twin towers themselves have been discussed in here before. My favorite theory is that the planes were full of jet fuel when they slammed into the buildings. The jet fuel got loose and caught fire.

Now, one does NOT have to actually melt the steel to get a catastrophic collapse. All that needs to happen is the steel gets hot enough that it loses sufficient structural integrity to hold the building up.

The burning jet fuel heats up the steel . . . it loses structural integrity and the entire upper part of the building pancakes down pretty much like it was seen on TV.

As for 'Building 7' . . . One of the favorite theories seems to be that 'the government planted explosives' to bring it down. Now unless I miss my guess, in order to 'demo' a building the guys need to strip back a LOT of the building to expose the steel and they have to run a lot of wires to time and detonate the explosives . . . I just can't see 'the government' being able to do all that work without somebody noticing.

>>>
https://www.history.co.uk/articles/building-7-conspiracy-theories-debunked

What really happened to Building 7?

A thorough investigation into the collapse of Building 7 was carried out by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Published in 2008, its report confirmed that fires raged in an uncontrolled fashion after the building was hit by North Tower debris.

Its spread was particularly rapid as the water supply to the sprinkler system had been blocked off by the collapse of the Twin Towers. In the words of the NIST report: ‘Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.’

Instead, the searing inferno caused the steel beams and girders to thermally expand and eventually buckle. This in turn led to a ‘cascade of floor failures’ and the building’s collapse.
>>>

Zim.




Avatar

Mad Poet Strikes Again.


 - - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Time for the CCT. Who Will Go First. ScubyDoo? De?
By: Fiz in GRITZ
Fri, 16 May 25 6:11 AM 		Msg. 08388 of 08414

De: "I get the feeling that you wanted to have a high score... and that's weird. Why? Are you trying to impress someone?"

Ah...no! I'm trying to keep an open mind to things I am quite sure our government WOULD do, and COULD do, which I haven't ruled out as, basically, impossible.

Remember the rule of "MMO": means, MOTIVE, and opportunity. I have no doubt at all, for example, that parties within our government WOULD and COULD have, at least, enabled 911 in order to get that VERY profitable Iraq war going. 3,000 civilians dead and recycle the real estate with some newer buildings? Cheap at 10x the price!! If you can't look at Cheney and figure out, right away, he would have NO problem murdering millions for sufficient profit (as long as there was no real risk to him) you are not a very good judge of character. 3,000 would have come easy. (And wasn't it odd that Al Queda chose such an unlikely time to take out the building? A few hours later and they could have killed ten times as many Americans)

So, in some of these cases I don't feel I sufficiently grok the MOTIVE. Or I feel the motive is there, but I haven't got enough facts to PIN the commission "beyond a reasonable doubt". But, it isn't an issue of means, motive, and opportunity. In the case of 911, means, motive, and opportunity were all there in spades. And there are way, way, way too many factual oddities for me not to be 99%+ convinced we don't have anywhere near the correct story.

Extraordinarily implausible that that plane brought down any of those buildings, and certainly not building 7.

Or let's take the Epstein "suicide" story -- and the UNDENIABLE COVERUP BY THE US GOVERNMENT OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. And WHEN, exactly, are we going to see the full list of Jeffry's Clients? Don't hold your breath.

« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next