163 Users Online

Home | Business | Directory | Forum | Jobs | Lifestyle | News | Tourism | What's OnContacts

Peterborough UK
09:56 on Sunday
13 June 2010

Award winning fireworks

  Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin


Stuff
 Peterborough Forums | Stuff
Subject Topic: Charlie Sheen.......... Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Colgrin
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 December 2005
Location: Ortons
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4159
Posted: 11 September 2009 at 18:34 | IP Logged Quote Colgrin

Yeah blip, governments lie and deceive.

I'm sure I'm not alone in saying this, but that is news to me! Who'd have
thought it?

__________________
"The Loch Ness Monster is actually a submarine. Driven by Bigfoot!"

Praise the Lord and get a free Playstation!!
Back to Top View Colgrin's Profile Search for other posts by Colgrin
 
blip
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2007
Location: Bourne
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2952
Posted: 11 September 2009 at 18:52 | IP Logged Quote blip

When you say that 'yeah' you know that 'governments lie and deceive', with what's coming across as a 'so what's new' attitude, do you think that Charlie Sheen has a point in writing to the president about it? 



__________________
God was drunk when he made me, but that's OK 'cause I forgive him.
Back to Top View blip's Profile Search for other posts by blip
 
Colgrin
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 December 2005
Location: Ortons
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4159
Posted: 11 September 2009 at 19:57 | IP Logged Quote Colgrin

Of course he had a right to question his government, if he is unclear of a
point or two.

Everyone should have the right to question anyone in authority if they are
not happy. Even if few agree with the one asking the questions.

That is a no-brainer. I'm wondering why you would imply I had a problem
with that.

That doesn't mean that I am in accordance with this lazy "it was an inside
job" line. I don't buy that at all.

__________________
"The Loch Ness Monster is actually a submarine. Driven by Bigfoot!"

Praise the Lord and get a free Playstation!!
Back to Top View Colgrin's Profile Search for other posts by Colgrin
 
blip
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2007
Location: Bourne
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2952
Posted: 11 September 2009 at 22:34 | IP Logged Quote blip

So what are your thoughts on the supposed demolition of wtc building 7?

__________________
God was drunk when he made me, but that's OK 'cause I forgive him.
Back to Top View blip's Profile Search for other posts by blip
 
Colgrin
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 December 2005
Location: Ortons
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4159
Posted: 11 September 2009 at 23:26 | IP Logged Quote Colgrin

What "supposed demolition'?

Oh yeah, you're referring to the conspiracy by the government to just
randomly demolish buildings (why not the neighbouring Bankers Trust
building)., this conspiracy that would have needed the bush government
to have been the most efficient in history staffed with the cleverest
geniuses ever - and why? Because they would have had to control
countless numbers of people to keep a lid on the whole conspiracy:

The NY firefighters
The NYC Police department
The courts for slapping gag orders on any investigation
All the people in the Pentagon
The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11
The entire sodding media
The photographers
Everyone in the NIST
EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD
The CIA
The FBI
FEMA
The American Society of Civil Engineers
NORAD
FAA
The airliners who owned the planes that crashed
The airports from which the planes took off
EVERY SCIENTIST AND ENGINEER IN THE WHOLE AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

etc etc... the list goes one.

Are you really trying to say that all these people could keep shtum on this
conspiracy. Are you seriously trying to say that bush and his gang of
farmyard swine were the most efficent the cleverst people ever to held
office - you know the people who couldn't keep alid on the fact that
bush choked on a sodding pretzel. Are you really trying to suggest that
there was no one out to make a name for themselves by blowing the
whistle on the whole thing?

Are you really intent on p****ing on the memories of the families who lost
loved ones in the attacks by implying that they must have been involved
in the cover up unless they fell in line with your fat lying scumbag gospel
alex jones and get obssessed with his 'controlled demolition" sh*te.

A great many questions hang over the whole day, things that have never
been sufficiently explained - that there is no question, but no, there was
no f**king conspiracy to demolish any of the buidlings - get over it.

Edited by Colgrin on 11 September 2009 at 23:27


__________________
"The Loch Ness Monster is actually a submarine. Driven by Bigfoot!"

Praise the Lord and get a free Playstation!!
Back to Top View Colgrin's Profile Search for other posts by Colgrin
 
blip
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2007
Location: Bourne
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2952
Posted: 12 September 2009 at 14:38 | IP Logged Quote blip

Colgrin.

Thank you for your list of reasons against the possibility of any conspiracies. Though I’m sure you’re aware that all on your list are equally being contended by many members from each because of exposed cover-ups, eyewitness and alternate expert testimonies, etc.

The picture remains large and cumbersome. That’s why my initial question to you was merely focused at the wtc7 building, so that we can look at one manageable aspect at a time.

Hence, my simple question to you was So what are your thoughts on the supposed demolition of wtc building 7?”

 

Bldg7 was not hit by aircraft nor suffered any significant damage from blown and falling debris from hit and falling towers. A few small fires (not hot enough to cause even window breakage) were first observed only a few minutes before collapse. Nevertheless, a hyped-up common belief that "ancillary damage" from the collapses of the Twin Towers led to the collapse of bldg7 continues to persist. In fact Bldg7 was separated from the North Tower by Bldg6 and Vesey Street. A photograph of its north facade taken in the afternoon shows isolated small fires, and not even a single window was broken.

 

 

Bldg7 was evacuated by firemen at around 9am who were under instructions to ‘prepare for its collapse’ as one would prior to a controlled demolition. Interestingly, after the collapse the owner of bldg7 inadvertently on tv also used the word ‘pulled’ (a controlled explosives demolition term).

 

 

The FEMA report in chapt5 puts forward its only reasonable speculation that a leak from a diesel storage tank must have ignited and the fuel heated the trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength, precipitating a total collapse of Bldg7. Of course this is FEMA trying to make sense of a non-controlled explosives demolition scenario, and so stretch their reasoning in asking us to believe that an event that would be expected only to cause sagging of a floor instead led not only to total collapse, but to such a tidy collapse that directly adjacent buildings were scarcely even damaged. This is surprising behaviour for a steel-framed skyscraper designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Then, after laying out this highly improbable scenario, the FEMA report authours conclude: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.” But, unfortunately (or conveniantly?) all the evidence of remaining debris was prompty removed and destroyed.

 

The official explanations of WTC 7's collapse remain problematic for several reasons:

  • Fire has never caused any steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner, let alone with the vertical precision of Building 7's destruction. 1   Other steel-framed skyscrapers have experienced far more serious fires than Building 7.
  • WTC 7 fell straight down, which necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about. No random events, such as the debris damage and fires envisioned by the official reports, or explosions from fuel tanks proposed by some, could be expected to result in such a tidy and complete collapse.
  • WTC 7 fell precipitously, at a rate closely approaching the speed of gravitational free-fall. That necessitated the sudden removal of structure near ground level that would have impeded its descent.
  • The collapse of WTC 7 exhibited all of the features of a standard controlled demolition. To suppose that a cause other than controlled demolition could produce an event with all of the features uniquely characteristic of controlled demolition defies logic.

[The above extract including links are from 911research.wtc7.net]

And as you rightly point out Colgrin,A great many questions hang over the whole day, things that have never been sufficiently explained”. I agree with you on that. But unlike you, in my questioning, I’m prepared not to also overlook the possibilities of conspiracies having played a part.

 



Edited by blip on 12 September 2009 at 14:50


__________________
God was drunk when he made me, but that's OK 'cause I forgive him.
Back to Top View blip's Profile Search for other posts by blip
 
Colgrin
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 December 2005
Location: Ortons
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4159
Posted: 12 September 2009 at 16:14 | IP Logged Quote Colgrin

Well blip, you are now a building expert now eh? And a metallurgist. And
a building demolition expert to boot. Is there anything you don't have an
expert knowledge of?

Anyway, so you visited the site and carried out an independent peer
reviewed investigation as well did you? let me guess, bush pulled that
too.

blip wrote:

"Bldg7 was not hit by aircraft nor suffered any significant
damage from blown and falling debris from hit and falling towers. A few
small fires (not hot enough to cause even window breakage) were first
observed only a few minutes before collapse"



Really?

""On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--
approximately ten stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building
was scooped out," Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology"" -

0r

"Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or
many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout
there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it,
right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said
nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.
We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. "
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html

Or

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some
point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the
scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to
go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there.
[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face
you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine,
5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible
from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits
to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were
surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the
building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html

So according to fire officers at the scene the building was extensively
damaged.

blip wrote:

"‘pulled’ (a controlled explosives demolition
term)"



It may have been a demolition term but it is also a term used by
firefighters to clear a building if it is feared to collapse.

""They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7
World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on
the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see
the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right
out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous,
tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about.
They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on
Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody
back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on
in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we
didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the
amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard
Banaciski"

Of course FEMA may have not made the correct assessment, whether it
be due to internal corruption, incompetence, not having access to certain
information for whatever reason or a multitude of other issues. However
the failings of the agency does not automatically lead to conspiracy.

blip wrote:

"But unlike you, in my questioning, I’m prepared not to
also overlook the possibilities of conspiracies having played a
part."



That's where Blip and reality part company. You see your little conspiracy
hangs on the very notion that bush and his friends were infinitely cleverer
than they let on. As anyone with half a brain cell realises that's plain
ridiculous.

You know the thing is, is I have a rather limited knowledge of building
technology and building demolition and despite claims to contrary,
neither do you. However I would prefer to get my "evidence" from people
who know, that is technical journals, peer reviewed publications, never
mind what agrees with the government or not.

It seems you get your "evidence" from numpties and charlatans and fat
hypocritical liars who's careers are reliant on fuelling looney conspiracies
and lies in order to get other numpties to buy their p****poor books and
crappy DVDs.

__________________
"The Loch Ness Monster is actually a submarine. Driven by Bigfoot!"

Praise the Lord and get a free Playstation!!
Back to Top View Colgrin's Profile Search for other posts by Colgrin
 
blip
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2007
Location: Bourne
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2952
Posted: 13 September 2009 at 22:56 | IP Logged Quote blip

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said.

 

The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.

If you read his report, all he does is provide recommendations for stronger framework builds in future.

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Aug 21, 2008
Report and Recommendations for Improving Building Safety Released for Comment

 



__________________
God was drunk when he made me, but that's OK 'cause I forgive him.
Back to Top View blip's Profile Search for other posts by blip
 
Colgrin
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 December 2005
Location: Ortons
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4159
Posted: 14 September 2009 at 01:34 | IP Logged Quote Colgrin

Blip quoted:
"Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer
simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in
the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also
determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely
trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads
from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation
(over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a
significant role in the collapse."

Interestingly you left out the very next paragraph:

According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of
WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at
temperatures “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in
current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural
system design in widespread use.


[http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html]

According to firefighters at the scene, you know guys who could
recognise what people in the know call "fires" say that there was a bloody
great hole in the side of WTC 7 and that the firefighters were losing the
battle in putting out the fires.

Go figure!

__________________
"The Loch Ness Monster is actually a submarine. Driven by Bigfoot!"

Praise the Lord and get a free Playstation!!
Back to Top View Colgrin's Profile Search for other posts by Colgrin
 
blip
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2007
Location: Bourne
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2952
Posted: 14 September 2009 at 01:57 | IP Logged Quote blip

Exactly. Only typical understrenthening of floor structures as found in most modern buids was given as a contributing factor. Though as the FEMA report concludes: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown”.

__________________
God was drunk when he made me, but that's OK 'cause I forgive him.
Back to Top View blip's Profile Search for other posts by blip
 

<< Prev Page of 5 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum