WTC: Were the buildings up to code?

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
[Admin: Thread split and retitled from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1122-The-Prof-Engineer-list-that-truthers-always-talk-about ]

Wow!! Where have I been . . . you mean all three towers were death traps waiting for an excuse to fall ?????? The builders and architects are the real culprits????

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Wow!! Where have I been . . . you mean all three towers were death traps waiting for an excuse to fall ?????? The builders and architects are the real culprits????

Clearly that's not what he means. However, equally clearly if the building had been built differently they would not have collapse.

His sentence seems like it's possibly cut off.

The buildings actually WERE death traps, in the event of a plane full of fuel flying into them.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Clearly that's not what he means. However, equally clearly if the building had been built differently they would not have collapse.

His sentence seems like it's possibly cut off.

The buildings actually WERE death traps, in the event of a plane full of fuel flying into them.
Sorry Mick, if the buildings were not built to code the builders are liable for at least partial damages under the law or at least significant criticism and public scrutiny for their failure to comply with established standards . . . I have seen none of this . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry Mick, if the buildings were not built to code the builders are liable for at least partial damages under the law or at least significant criticism and public scrutiny for their failure to comply with established standards . . . I have seen none of this . . .
I suspect he means the codes that were revised AFTER the events. The NIST reports say that the buildings were all conforming to codes current at the time of construction, and were being upgraded as normal.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I suspect he means the codes that were revised AFTER the events. The NIST reports say that the buildings were all conforming to codes current at the time of construction, and were being upgraded as normal.
You suspect? Seems to be a very substantial contradiction that needs to be run to ground . . . either they were in compliance or not . . . serious allegation IMO.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You suspect? Seems to be a very substantial contradiction that needs to be run to ground . . . either they were in compliance or not . . . serious allegation IMO.
Aha:

http://www.astaneh.net/#

Nothing illegal. But he's criticizing what was done.

Another description of the lecture.
http://www.euken.com/group/seaoc/mailarchive/2009c/msg01241.html
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Aha:

http://www.astaneh.net/#

Nothing illegal. But he's criticizing what was done.

Another description of the lecture.
http://www.euken.com/group/seaoc/mailarchive/2009c/msg01241.html
So we now have the proximate cause of the collapse(s)!!!! The unique design of these three towers . . . the one and only three high-rise structures to use this design and construction method (not in code but legal). . . Wow!!! Fertile ground for more conspiracy!!! Instead of only the double pay out terrorist clause recently purchased insurance contract, we now have one of kind inferior design and construction accomplished decades before the ramming of the target structures . . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
So we now have the proximate cause of the collapse(s)!!!! The unique design of these three towers . . . the one and only three high-rise structures to use this design and construction method (not in code but legal). . . Wow!!! Fertile ground for more conspiracy!!! Instead of only the double pay out terrorist clause recently purchased insurance contract, we now have one of kind inferior design and construction accomplished decades before the ramming of the target structures . . .
Wow! indeed.

Unbelievable might be an even better word.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Wow!! Where have I been . . . you mean all three towers were death traps waiting for an excuse to fall ?????? The builders and architects are the real culprits????

I second that astonishment. I have never heard that these buildings were of an 'unusual' design and not according to building codes.

This makes something of a mockery of the NIST 'factsheet' IMO, where they state:

Here they admit there were structural differences in relation to other instances of fire damaged buildings which did not collapse but there is no suggestion that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were virtually unique design not in accord with building codes etc.

And here it seems pretty much defacto that retro fitting of other buildings will be required... which I can find not one occurrence of it happening.


Additionally:

is meaningless if buildings are constructed with outside of building codes.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Oxy, good thoughts to ponder . . . if WTC #7 was closer to code and would have failed anyway due to fire . . . what high rise steel reenforced buildings could withstand a significant fire for more than a few hours without suppression ???? Who would have thunk that the Sears tower could collapse with a few hours of free burning???
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I second that astonishment. I have never heard that these buildings were of an 'unusual' design and not according to building codes.
Really? I thought the "unusual" design was well known. WTC1 & WTC2 were "tube within a tube". WTC7 was a more typical, but still a "building within a building".

https://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+"unusual+design"

This makes something of a mockery of the NIST 'factsheet' IMO, where they state:

Here they admit there were structural differences in relation to other instances of fire damaged buildings which did not collapse but there is no suggestion that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were virtually unique design not in accord with building codes etc.
"more typical" does not equate to typical. All three buildings had a unique design, the towers especially so.

I'd be interested by what Astaneh means by "the code" here. The WTC buildings did need to conform to many different codes, specifically The Building Code of the City of New York. There's a detailed description of the codes that applied, and how the WTC met them, here:

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05175.pdf

And the NIST investigation found that the construction of all the buildings was in accordance with local building code.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Really? I thought the "unusual" design was well known. WTC1 & WTC2 were "tube within a tube". WTC7 was a more typical, but still a "building within a building".

https://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+"unusual+design"
Fair enough... to rephrase: I second that astonishment. I have never heard that these buildings were of an 'unusual' design not in accord with buildings codes, standards and the practice.

"more typical" does not equate to typical. All three buildings had a unique design, the towers especially so
.
Yes all iconic buildings have a unique design, that is not the issue. It is about unique designs that do not comply with accepted building codes, especially when fire is attributed to total collapse as in 7.
I'd be interested by what Astaneh means by "the code" here. The WTC buildings did need to conform to many different codes, specifically The Building Code of the City of New York. There's a detailed description of the codes that applied, and how the WTC met them, here:

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05175.pdf

And the NIST investigation found that the construction of all the buildings was in accordance with local building code.
But surely local building codes, would be in addition to (not instead of) National building codes or as you say; 'what does Asteneh mean by "the code"
Also, what I meant instead of
is meaningless if buildings are constructed with outside of building codes.
Is:
is meaningless if buildings are constructed without regard to normally recognised and enforced National building codes
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Local codes generally incorporate by reference a set of national codes, and then amend them. NIST says that they DID meet the then current code. So we need to determine precisely what code they did not meet.

Here's some discussion on the code issue from a former fire chief:

http://www.vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

So the issues seem to be:

- The Port Authority did not have to comply with the NYC building code. (However, NIST found that it still did)
- The code was changing from "specification" to "performance". The older code would have required the steel to be encased in concrete, the new code allowed any method of fireproofing.

So I'm think Astaneh's concern with the code also centers around the distinction between "specification" and "performance". The towers were designed with "performance", which allowed them to use novel methods of construction. He's got some pdfs that should explain what he means, but the links are broken. I've emailed him to ask for them.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So the question still remains . . . will the Sears Tower collapse after a few hours of an uncontrolled wildfire??
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's the actual WTC code situation, in NIST NCSTAR 1-1B

https://www.metabunk.org//files/NCSTAR 1-1B Building Codes_unlocked.pdf

 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So the question still remains . . . will the Sears Tower collapse after a few hours of an uncontrolled wildfire??
Why is that an important question? The Sears Tower was a different type of construction - bundled tubes, so had a different degree of redundancy. WTC7 fell because a single column failed.

Here's some discussion of the Sears tower and how it would respons in a WTC1 type situation:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/09/09/would-the-sears-tower-have-survived-911
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why is that an important question? The Sears Tower was a different type of construction - bundled tubes, so had a different degree of redundancy. WTC7 fell because a single column failed.

Here's some discussion of the Sears tower and how it would respons in a WTC1 type situation:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/09/09/would-the-sears-tower-have-survived-911
It was a general question about all high-rise construction . . . because of 911 at least two similar types of construction have come into doubt . . . how do we know others are not as vulnerable until one collapses under similar conditions . . .

From the Article you cited above . . . I don't think there is consensus about the possibility . . .

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If a fire is big enough and burns long enough, then any steel framed building will collapse. The question is more how big would the fire have to be, and how long would it take.

Think about extremes. If you place a candle under a 6 ton girder, then even if the candle burns forever the girder will be unaffected.

But if you place that same girder over a huge bonfire, then the girder will lose structural strength in a few minutes.

If you encase that girder in fire insulation, an place it over a huge bonfire, then it will take much longer, maybe a few hours.

A fire will only burn as long as there is fuel available. So all building fires are self-limiting even if uncontrolled.

So the answer to the question "will the Sear Tower collapse after a few hours of uncontrolled fire" is "maybe".

But it's a not a very precise question. It's like asking "will I die if I'm stabbed". If you are stabbed in the toe with the a pin, then no. If you are stabbed through the heart with a carving knife, then probably yes. If you are stabbed repeatedly in the torso with an Exacto knife then maybe.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If a fire is big enough and burns long enough, then any steel framed building will collapse. The question is more how big would the fire have to be, and how long would it take.

Think about extremes. If you place a candle under a 6 ton girder, then even if the candle burns forever the girder will be unaffected.

But if you place that same girder over a huge bonfire, then the girder will lose structural strength in a few minutes.

If you encase that girder in fire insulation, an place it over a huge bonfire, then it will take much longer, maybe a few hours.

A fire will only burn as long as there is fuel available. So all building fires are self-limiting even if uncontrolled.

So the answer to the question "will the Sear Tower collapse after a few hours of uncontrolled fire" is "maybe".

But it's a not a very precise question. It's like asking "will I die if I'm stabbed". If you are stabbed in the toe with the a pin, then no. If you are stabbed through the heart with a carving knife, then probably yes. If you are stabbed repeatedly in the torso with an Exacto knife then maybe.
Mick, I understand your argument; however, I think few felt that WTC #7 would or should collapse completely after a few hours of uncontrolled fire . . . in essence, it seemed to many of us, the building (person) was stabbed with the pin and died . . . and we wonder if similar potential exists for other high-rise steel reinforced buildings throughout this country and the world . . . or maybe what we saw was something we simply have no explanation for . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, I understand your argument; however, I think few felt that WTC #7 would or should collapse completely after a few hours of uncontrolled fire . . . in essence, it seemed to many of us, the building (person) was stabbed with the pin and died . . . and we wonder if similar potential exists for other high-rise steel reinforced buildings throughout this country and the world . . . or maybe what we saw was something we simply have no explanation for . . .
Why do you think it was a pin-sized event? The fires burned for hours. It's well understood now why the building collapsed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
(emphasis mine)

This unique event has led to specific recommendations:
There's been lots of study into the issues raised by the collapse. Lots of engineers looking at the problems of fireproofing and progressive collapse. The issues ARE understood, and we DO have an explanation.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Really? I thought the "unusual" design was well known. WTC1 & WTC2 were "tube within a tube". WTC7 was a more typical, but still a "building within a building".

https://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+"unusual+design"



"more typical" does not equate to typical. All three buildings had a unique design, the towers especially so.

I'd be interested by what Astaneh means by "the code" here. The WTC buildings did need to conform to many different codes, specifically The Building Code of the City of New York. There's a detailed description of the codes that applied, and how the WTC met them, here:

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05175.pdf

And the NIST investigation found that the construction of all the buildings was in accordance with local building code.
L'Enfer encore

The towers' design wasn't that radical at all - it obeys all the rules of good construction practice. Tube within a tube makes it sound a little different to what it was. Those two tubes were quite robustly tied together with steel members spanning from the core to the perimeter - and they made 110 x 33 inch thick floors like this, when you take into account steel decking, concrete, steel supports, plasterboard, service voids. Add to that, the hat-truss, a very robust design of structural steelwork which spanned the top floors and tied the building together. I think this is just another hareng rouge.

More - this idea of 7 being 'a building within a building' - it's meaningless, in the way that it has no relation to reality; sorry, but that's just unmitigated cobblers, I don't care who says it. You mention redundancy, but you don't really understand it if you believe, which you very much appear to, that one column failure sends a building like 7 down in 6.6 seconds, and apprx. 2.5 secs of that in freefall - even Nist admit that, but don't explain it. I'm just beyond flabbergasted you can maintain a straight face doing this. It's fantasy.

What about Nists calculations? Have you made that foia yet? Do you think it's right or wrong that they won't release the data they used to create their 'simulation'? Do you think it's a reasonable excuse that 'public safety might be jeopardized' by the release of performance data on commonly used building materials? (Surely it's the very opposite? if Nist are right). Don't you think it's only right and proper to allow qualified people to check their methods?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You mention redundancy, but you don't really understand it if you believe, which you very much appear to, that one column failure sends a building like 7 down in 6.6 seconds, and apprx. 2.5 secs of that in freefall - even Nist admit that, but don't explain it.
6.6 seconds from what point? Lee, I think you are familiar with the explanation of why WTC 7 fell? The floor around the column failed, the column buckled and failed, more floors around that column failed. The penthouse fell, half the interior of the building was gone before the start of your 6.6 seconds.

Check this video out, your 6.6 seconds starts around 23 seconds into it. You're just ignoring those 23 seconds.
 
Last edited:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
6.6 seconds from what point? Lee, I think you are familiar with the explanation of why WTC 7 fell? The floor around the column failed, the column buckled and failed, more floors around that column failed. The penthouse fell, half the interior of the building was gone before the start of your 6.6 seconds.

Check this video out, your 6.6 seconds starts around 23 seconds into it. You're just ignoring those 23 seconds.

Yes, I've heard the explanation and I say it's cobblers. You really don't need to be an engineer -


Why don't you answer my questions re: Nist etc? Last para
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
apprx. 2.5 secs of that in freefall - even Nist admit that, but don't explain it.
They do explain it. Pages 44-45 of NCSTAR 1A, section 3.6 Timing of collapse initiation and progression
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NIST Building 7 final report 861610_unlocked.pdf


 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why don't you answer my questions re: Nist etc? Last para
Because it's a silly question. You just raise it to point out that NIST are not releasing the data. If they are not releasing it, then what's the point of me putting in a FOIA request?

You claim you can tell that the collapse is impossible, and that you've done calculations that demonstrate this for at least one building.

Why not release your calculations? If you've got proof that it could not happen, then why are YOU PERSONALLY not releasing your calculations? Just out of spite?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Because it's a silly question. You just raise it to point out that NIST are not releasing the data. If they are not releasing it, then what's the point of me putting in a FOIA request?

You claim you can tell that the collapse is impossible, and that you've done calculations that demonstrate this for at least one building.

Why not release your calculations? If you've got proof that it could not happen, then why are YOU PERSONALLY not releasing your calculations? Just out of spite?

Alright, don't answer that question then. Answer the others instead
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Because it's a silly question. You just raise it to point out that NIST are not releasing the data. If they are not releasing it, then what's the point of me putting in a FOIA request?

You claim you can tell that the collapse is impossible, and that you've done calculations that demonstrate this for at least one building.

Why not release your calculations? If you've got proof that it could not happen, then why are YOU PERSONALLY not releasing your calculations? Just out of spite?
Mick, what is the reason for not releasing the data? . . . fear that it will be used by other people to demolish a building? We already know how: cut off the fire suppression systems and make it burn from one to five hours . . . simple recipe really . . .

You are good at computer simulations are you not? . . . is it not easy (easier than not knowing the outcome) knowing the result and building the algorithms to fit the outcome . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Then let's have a full scale demonstration . . . next time we need to demolish a high-rise with similar structure . . . let's set a raging fire for ten hours and see what happens . . . no need to use explosives . . . just like I suggested using spot lights or lasers markers in the desert to see if pilots can hit a target at 500 feet off the ground at 500 mph in a 767 . . . easy to do . . . why not???
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, what is the reason for not releasing the data . . . fear that it will be used by other people to demolish a building? We already know how: cut off the fire suppression systems and make it burn from one to five hours . . . simple recipe really . . .
I imagine, yes, someone though it would allow people to figure out where to put bombs. I can't say I agree with it, but consider that from their point of view there's really no upside to releasing the data (as they consider 9/11 truthers to be fringe conspiracy theorists), so they are just using an excess of caution.

Remember the first attack on the WTC was a large bomb in the basement. It failed because of the placement of the bomb. If they could work out where the best place to put them bomb was, then they might have succeeded.

Now of course you might ask what's the harm, as WTC7 does not exist. But the difficult thing is not modeling the shape of the new building, blueprints and construction photos exist, as does the building itself. it's the figures for strengths and masses of the individual connections. That's the type of thing the WTC7 model has with a really high degree of accuracy. Someone decided that's information best kept away from potential bombers. Nobody in power is likely to override it - there's just no upside for them to do so. It's kind of like the crap surrounding exporting encryption technology. Most people agree the restrictions do nothing, however nobody in power is likely to change the law, because it's anti-terror.

You are good at computer simulations are you not . . . is it not easy (easier than not knowing the outcome) knowing the result and building the algorithms to fit the outcome . . .
Yes it is. But you can't stop other people from creating their own models, and pointing out you are wrong. If NIST had faked the simulation, then it would eventually be revealed.

You know why AE911 does not start a fundraising drive to pay for an independent model to be built? It's because A) there are really not that many truthers. And B) they know it will just confirm the NIST finding.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Then let's have a full scale demonstration . . . next time we need to demolish a high-rise with similar structure . . . let's set a raging fire for ten hours and see what happens . . . no need to use explosives . . . just like I suggested using spot lights or lasers markers in the desert to see if pilots can hit a target at 500 feet off the ground at 500 mph in a 767 . . . easy to do . . . why not???
Because it's not guaranteed that the building will collapse, or collapse safely, or collapse fully, and you would be left with a building in an unsafe state that would then cost 10x to demolish. Nor is it likely that the EPA would approve the burn.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I imagine, yes, someone though it would allow people to figure out where to put bombs. I can't say I agree with it, but consider that from their point of view there's really no upside to releasing the data (as they consider 9/11 truthers to be fringe conspiracy theorists), so they are just using an excess of caution.

Remember the first attack on the WTC was a large bomb in the basement. It failed because of the placement of the bomb. If they could work out where the best place to put them bomb was, then they might have succeeded.

Now of course you might ask what's the harm, as WTC7 does not exist. But the difficult thing is not modeling the shape of the new building, blueprints and construction photos exist, as does the building itself. it's the figures for strengths and masses of the individual connections. That's the type of thing the WTC7 model has with a really high degree of accuracy. Someone decided that's information best kept away from potential bombers. Nobody in power is likely to override it - there's just no upside for them to do so. It's kind of like the crap surrounding exporting encryption technology. Most people agree the restrictions do nothing, however nobody in power is likely to change the law, because it's anti-terror.



Yes it is. But you can't stop other people from creating their own models, and pointing out you are wrong. If NIST had faked the simulation, then it would eventually be revealed.

You know why AE911 does not start a fundraising drive to pay for an independent model to be built? It's because A) there are really not that many truthers. And B) they know it will just confirm the NIST finding.

Cobblers! LoL!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
How can they run the simulation if you don't have the data NIST has . . . . keep the data secret forever and no one can challenge you . . . simple recipe . . .

I did not suggest a independent model . . . I suggested using fire instead of explosives to demolish a high-rise condemned building . . . and yes there are not enough truthers to make a difference . . . it doesn't mean they are wrong . . . most people are too busy and don't want to be involved with fringe issues . . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Then let's have a full scale demonstration . . . next time we need to demolish a high-rise with similar structure . . . let's set a raging fire for ten hours and see what happens . . . no need to use explosives . . . just like I suggested using spot lights or lasers markers in the desert to see if pilots can hit a target at 500 feet off the ground at 500 mph in a 767 . . . easy to do . . . why not???

I thought that was a great idea first time you posited it. It wouldn't settle the matter, but it would be very interesting indeed. I'd probably even turn on a tv for that!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But Mick, everyone knows that it would fall . . . and almost straight down . . . it happened three times in one day . . . and well, why not supply the heat (using heating coils) on strategic floor joints . . . you know . . . like the one that brought down the penthouse in WTC#7. . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Okay, so why has nobody actually taken to the trouble to model WTC7 (or 1 or 2) to demonstrate why NIST is incorrect?
Why don't you? You're so passionate about Nist and their report - you don't need to be a genius to see that it doesn't make sense. It really is that basic. It's non-science dressed as science. It's desperately depressing.

I have to be honest, I can't believe this is just a hobby for you. There appears to be too much at stake; and too big a hole in the available evidence to reconcile.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But Mick ,everyone knows that it would fall . . . and almost straight down . . . it happened three times in one day . . . and well, why not supply the heat using heating coils on strategic floor joints . . . you know . . . like the one that brought down the penthouse in WTC#7. . .
You are being silly now. How would you know it would fall straight down unless it's EXACTLY the same as WTC7? How would they know which are the strategic floor joints without spending months on computer analysis? And if they knew it, then why would they do it at all? Just to satisfy Truthers? What you are suggesting would cost millions. Why would someone do that?

Again, there is NO UPSIDE for anyone to spend money to satisfy Truthers.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why don't you? You're so passionate about Nist and their report - you don't need to be a genius to see that it doesn't make sense. It really is that basic. It's non-science dressed as science. It's desperately depressing.

I have to be honest, I can't believe this is just a hobby for you. There appears to be too much at stake; and too big a hole in the available evidence to reconcile.
What evidence could I give you to demonstrate this is just a hobby?

I'm not "passionate" about the NIST reports. I just don't see what's wrong with them.

You claim that you've proven them wrong, yet you won't release your proof. Why not?

If I do it, then nothing changes.

If you do it, then EVERYTHING CHANGES, so why not?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Ghost Doll Reflection - Mistakes Were Made UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Cube Radio Donald Trump initially said he thought there were "bombs" on the planes on 9/11 9/11 44
Mick West Why Were There Contrails Today, But Not Yesterday? It's the Weather! Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Keith Johnson CLAIM: Dispatch Log Shows CT State Police Were at Sandy Hook School Hours Before the Shooting Sandy Hook 1
TemplarJLS Debunked:"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be... - Prince Philip Quotes Debunked 3
M Claim: Malaysian experts were shot at by Ukraine SU-25 and by GRAD Flight MH17 10
Mick West Debunked: Why were Life Star helicopters not deployed to Sandy Hook School? Sandy Hook 208
scombrid Is any crisis real? Yes, even the mall attacks in Kenya were fake. Conspiracy Theories 6
Mick West How to Tag someone in a post to let them know they were mentioned How To 3
Joe Newman MKULTRA - Were children involved, and was the focus only to find a truth serum? Conspiracy Theories 7
Titus Dafoe General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years Conspiracy Theories 61
sunyatajon If Chemtrails were real, they would affect the perpetrators Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Thomas Hughson Were the conspiracy theorist right about Fluoride? Conspiracy Theories 178
Fred259 WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building? 9/11 58
Juror No. 8 Obama kills Osama: What if real reporters were allowed White House press passes? General Discussion 0
T Expulsion of Compressed Air and Debris from Collapsing Buildings 9/11 59
benthamitemetric Subpixel Motion Tracking: Methods, Accuracy, and Application to Video of Collapsing Buildings 9/11 192
mynym WTC7 and other Buildings, the Significance of Sheer Studs 9/11 1
Mick West Decoded: Statue with a QR code head UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 26
Mick West How To Embed CodePen (Interactive Javascript code and animations) How To 2
George B Why was the US code changed to make human experimentation illegal? Chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 42
Related Articles





















Related Articles

Top