Friday, March 02, 2007

Why the BBC is plain wrong!

The BBC managed to, somehow, predict the collapse of WTC 7 half an hour in advance of it happening. They also predicted HOW and WHY it fell in advance. The same how and Why that has been parroted without question ever since by the 'official' news media and the 'official' government.

I am NOT suggesting that the BBC is part of the conspiracy, but I am still waiting for them to explain how they got detailed talking points in advance of the collapse happening.

This 'official' version of the conspiracy of Islamic terrorists attacking the USA and causing the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is what has lead to several wars and a major reduction in our civil liberties and a significant change in our way of life, not to mention that it has been used almost daily ever since by the Government and media to deliberately attempt to scare the population and make us live daily in fear and to submit to the Government ever since.

The Problem is WTC 7 could not have collapsed the way the official version suggests it did. Why? well below is one argument:

"Just to give you an example of the strength of a weld, for example; a 5/16" fillet weld 6" long, .928 x 5 x 6 = 27.84 kips per each 6" weld. A kip is equal to 1000 pounds, so this weld strength would be 27,840 pounds, if properly welded. thats 14 ton of force per 6 inches of weld or nearly 2.5 ton per inch. I have just read that WTC7 had steel added for reinforcement with 12 miles of welding. It supposedly fell down, at freefall speed with no resistance because of fire, no way. Workout the resistance 12 miles of welding would produce at 2.5 tons per inch. That’s 63360 inches per mile which is 760320 inches per 12 miles at 2.5 tons per inch which is 1900800 ton of resistance or 41,000 ton of resistance per floor using an average. The resistance is the force needed to shear the weld and the way this building was built all the welds per floor would need to shear at the same time to fall the way it didl. That is only the calculation for added steel. Absolute nonsense, this is so obviously not feasable.How can you meet such massive resistance and fall as fast as finding no resistance at all.If 41,000 ton of weight fell on 41,000 ton of resistance it would stop. If 100 ton of force met 50 ton of resistance you would have 50 ton of force so my point is you will meet resistance on every floor maybe not enough to stop it but easily enough to slow it..You don’t need to have any engineering knowledge to know freefall speed with absolutely no resistance is simply not possible,you just need some common sense and I despair that so many people appear not to have any.As for the heat causing the metal to weaken garbage,steel is a very good heat transferor.You can heat one beam and the heat will transfer to every other interconnected beam like a massive heatsink.Carbon fires would do diddly squat to that steel.This building WTC7 was a controlled demolition,it is the only possible explanation.
- ROBBY B | 03.01.07 - 7:04 pm"

And here is another-

the building was constructed with a huge amount of structural redundancy built in. In other words, it could stand having entire floors removed and still maintain structural integrity. In other words, it was VERY BLOODY STRONGLY BUILT! : Read more...

Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7

So in the way that the BBC has tried to muddy the water and avoid answering serious questions, they have only brought more people into contact with the WTC 7 story. Some of these people realise that, whenever, or however the collapse story came out, that the collapse, as described by the media, is (according to the laws of physics) impossible.

However plausible the notion that during the day, firefighters believed the building became structurally unsound and cleared a collapse zone, believing the building to be in danger of collapse.(fact) The news of this spread the news agencies (fact) the BBC mistakingly went to air with a collapse presented as fact half an hour before it happened (fact). The BBC was NOT part of the conspiracy to attack the United States (fact). The fact remains that, without the use of explosives, the firemen should have been keeping people away from the building for days until the area was finally cleared by the 'deconstruction and site clearing engineers. Says who? THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

Why did the firefighters believe the building was going to collapse? Some because their colleagues told them, some it was gut instinct, they looked at the building, and after everything that happened that day, they just thought it would. Some firefighters thought it would, because they had been told it was going to be blown up! SO, WHO TOLD THEM?

Therefore, it makes the media's pre-determination of collapse with their description of cause even more suspiscious.

No comments: