# Eots why did  wtc 7  collapse



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 1, 2010)

Please list the reason/ reasons and the source.
A
B
C 

Fashion would be helpful .
Thanks.


----------



## KissMy (Oct 1, 2010)

Termites !

When was the last time they had a termite inspection?

Show us the inspection report.

They were cheap & cut corners with their termite inspections. This has been covered-up because they do not want to be sued.


----------



## The Infidel (Oct 1, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Termites !
> 
> When was the last time they had a termite inspection?
> 
> ...



They are eating away at USMB right now.....see my sig


----------



## KissMy (Oct 1, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Termites !
> ...



I hate those. I keep wanting to smack the monitor screen thinking they are real.


----------



## The Infidel (Oct 1, 2010)




----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Please list the reason/ reasons and the source.
> A
> B
> C
> ...



are you asking for the official reasons or my opinion ? if you are asking my opinion it is well reflected by this first responder

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TULmLtqRXZ4&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - FirefightersFor911TRUTH.org - Erik Lawyer - Press Conference[/ame]


----------



## xotoxi (Oct 1, 2010)

KissMy said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



I have a black fly or a fruit fly at home that keeps flying circles between my face and the screen.  And I don't want to kill it on the screen.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 1, 2010)




----------



## xotoxi (Oct 1, 2010)

Oddball said:


>



That is so bad that it goes all the way around to good.


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2010)

Oddball said:


>



what utter disrespect for the lives lost..a sure sign of a individual that  has no clue about any of the realties of 9/11 a manipulated cretin offering opinions on things he knows nothing about


----------



## Jos (Oct 1, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]YouTube - wtc 7 collapse[/ame]


----------



## Dis (Oct 1, 2010)

eots said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Oh lighten up - it's still funny... This subjects been hashed, and rehashed.. It's time for some levity.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 1, 2010)

eots said:


> what utter disrespect for the lives lost..a sure sign of a individual that  has no clue about any of the realties of 9/11 a manipulated cretin offering opinions on things he knows nothing about


Or maybe I'm just mocking yet another 9/11 conspiracy thread.

I'd bet on the latter.


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2010)

Oddball said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > what utter disrespect for the lives lost..a sure sign of a individual that  has no clue about any of the realties of 9/11 a manipulated cretin offering opinions on things he knows nothing about
> ...



I am putting my money  on the manipulate cretin...please wow me..and explain briefly your understanding of the collapse of wtc 7 and how those conclusions were reached


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 1, 2010)

you want to know the reason for that all you got to do is read through the posts of Eots and Terral on Terrals thread here where he took the Bush dupes to school that it was a controlled demolition.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...7-was-a-controlled-demolition-inside-job.html


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Oct 1, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> you want to know the reason for that all you got to do is read through the posts of Eots and Terral on Terrals thread here where he took the Bush dupes to school that it was a controlled demolition.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...7-was-a-controlled-demolition-inside-job.html
> 
> ...



was this before or after the prediction that china was on the way to invade mexico came true?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 1, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Please list the reason/ reasons and the source.
> A
> B
> C
> ...



Nope, your words  to your opinion and  the scientific facts to base them on.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 2, 2010)

Heres a really good humorous video  on bld 7 with a guy confronting Clinton..Of course the OCTA'S wont look at it since it shows this other building in a controlled demolition collapsing in the exact same manner.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtMqH6XcAdA&feature=related]YouTube - The Tourette's Guy Meets Bill Clinton[/ame]

that guy yelling out at Clinton is hysterical.


----------



## Obamerican (Oct 2, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Heres a really good humorous video  on bld 7 with a guy confronting Clinton..Of course the OCTA'S wont look at it since it shows this other building in a controlled demolition collapsing in the exact same manner.YouTube - The Tourette's Guy Meets Bill Clinton
> 
> that guy yelling out at Clinton is hysterical.


We all know that idiot with the neck brace is your dumb ass.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 2, 2010)

Anyone watching the video of Building #7 can easily see that it's a controlled demolition.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 2, 2010)

Obamerican said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Heres a really good humorous video  on bld 7 with a guy confronting Clinton..Of course the OCTA'S wont look at it since it shows this other building in a controlled demolition collapsing in the exact same manner.YouTube - The Tourette's Guy Meets Bill Clinton
> ...



sorry to break the news to you dumbass,I dont look anything like that.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

Please list the reason/ reasons and the source.
A
B
C 

Fashion would be helpful .
Thanks.


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Please list the reason/ reasons and the source.
> ...



I am not re-typing basically everything this man just said ..listen to him if you have any dispute with specific points of the presentation then I would be more than happy to address them


----------



## KissMy (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> I am not re-typing basically everything this man just said ..listen to him if you have any dispute with specific points of the presentation then I would be more than happy to address them



The fire fighter in the video started & based his whole argument on the basis that forensics were not conducted at WTC. Forensics were conducted so his & your entire argument is false.


----------



## elvis (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Wait.   I thought Alex Jones held the theory that the Hulkster destroyed the towers.   can't be any more stupid than the theories he's presented before.


----------



## Dante (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Please list the reason/ reasons and the source.
> ...



too bad opinions aren't considered facts.


----------



## Dante (Oct 2, 2010)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I am not re-typing basically everything this man just said ..listen to him if you have any dispute with specific points of the presentation then I would be more than happy to address them
> ...


----------



## KissMy (Oct 2, 2010)

If people actually study the design of the Twin Towers & WTC7 you will discover how faulty their design was against fire.

WTC7 had little support in the center because it was built over an electrical power station so all the weight had to be transfered towards the exterior of the building on a couple of main trusses. To top that there was many times more fuel stored in that building than those jetliners had in them that hit WTC 1 & 2.

The long span trusses in WTC 1 & 2 were extremely vulnerable to heat. Add the weight of a few collapsed floors & a loaded 767 Jet Plane to the floor below & it is easy to see why each floor would drop onto the next tearing them out one by one gaining mass & momentum. Without the floors the walls could not stand & every wall section would fall away as soon as the floors holding them together gave way.


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

kissmy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > i am not re-typing basically everything this man just said ..listen to him if you have any dispute with specific points of the presentation then i would be more than happy to address them
> ...



nist admits there is no physical evidence and that they entire report is based on data from photos ,videos, interviews and computer simulations


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

Your entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can you be so sure you know what happened?

the NIST investigation of WTC 7 is based on a huge amount of data. These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001, and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## Obamerican (Oct 2, 2010)

KissMy said:


> If people actually study the design of the Twin Towers & WTC7 you will discover how faulty their design was against fire.
> 
> WTC7 had little support in the center because it was built over an electrical power station so all the weight had to be transfered towards the exterior of the building on a couple of main trusses. To top that there was many times more fuel stored in that building than those jetliners had in them that hit WTC 1 & 2.
> 
> The long span trusses in WTC 1 & 2 were extremely vulnerable to heat. Add the weight of a few collapsed floors & a loaded 767 Jet Plane to the floor below & it is easy to see why each floor would drop onto the next tearing them out one by one gaining mass & momentum. Without the floors the walls could not stand & every wall section would fall away as soon as the floors holding them together gave way.


Funny how the tin foil hat crowd can't understand that simple concept.


----------



## Dante (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> kissmy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



and your evidence to the contrary is base on..?


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

KissMy said:


> If people actually study the design of the Twin Towers & WTC7 you will discover how faulty their design was against fire.
> 
> WTC7 had little support in the center because it was built over an electrical power station so all the weight had to be transfered towards the exterior of the building on a couple of main trusses. To top that there was many times more fuel stored in that building than those jetliners had in them that hit WTC 1 & 2.
> 
> The long span trusses in WTC 1 & 2 were extremely vulnerable to heat. Add the weight of a few collapsed floors & a loaded 767 Jet Plane to the floor below & it is easy to see why each floor would drop onto the next tearing them out one by one gaining mass & momentum. Without the floors the walls could not stand & every wall section would fall away as soon as the floors holding them together gave way.



NIST has never coincided design flaw there are many other buildings with  similar construction

Does this mean there are hundreds or thousands of unsafe tall buildings with long span supports that must be retrofitted in some way? 

While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion (i.e., heat-induced expansion of material at different rates). Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.
Several existing, emerging, or even anticipated capabilities could have helped prevent the collapse of WTC 7. The degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

Obamerican said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > If people actually study the design of the Twin Towers & WTC7 you will discover how faulty their design was against fire.
> ...



shut up..NIST rejected this theory completely  and wheres your link !!!


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

Dante said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > kissmy said:
> ...



logic, reason and the laws of physics


----------



## elvis (Oct 2, 2010)

Fuck all that.  the Hulkster did it.  He was funded by Mr. T and Sylvester Stallone.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 2, 2010)

KissMy said:


> If people actually study the design of the Twin Towers & WTC7 you will discover how faulty their design was against fire.
> 
> WTC7 had little support in the center because it was built over an electrical power station so all the weight had to be transfered towards the exterior of the building on a couple of main trusses. To top that there was many times more fuel stored in that building than those jetliners had in them that hit WTC 1 & 2.
> 
> The long span trusses in WTC 1 & 2 were extremely vulnerable to heat. Add the weight of a few collapsed floors & a loaded 767 Jet Plane to the floor below & it is easy to see why each floor would drop onto the next tearing them out one by one gaining mass & momentum. Without the floors the walls could not stand & every wall section would fall away as soon as the floors holding them together gave way.



You been reading too many of the fairy tales of Popular Mechanics.John Skilling after the 93 bombing told reporters when asked what would happen to the towers if struck by an airliner said they anticipated the fires replying-There would be a great loss of life due to the fires but the structure itself would remain standing.

They also reinforced the steel with more fireproofing after the 93 bombing also the majority of the fires explosion took place outside the towers not to mention the black smoke that emits from the towers proves it was oxygen starved.Also steel framed towers steel columns are thicker and stronger from the base.They are less thick and are thinner higher up so that destroys that theory. You used to make good posts saying that explosives brought the towers down.sounds like lately you have changed your mind and been taken in by propaganda.those fires werent hot enough to melt a marshmellow,let alone weaken the steel. 

not to mention it was the first time in history that a steel framed highrise building collapsed due to fire.The Meridian hotel in Philly in 97 burned for 18 hours on end and was a far more serious fire than the twin towers were.it was lit up like a torch and remained standing.you are also obviously not aware that NIST rejected your theory.


----------



## Dante (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



all of which you claim to posses or understand?




next


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Not to mention to accept the fairy tales of the 9/11 coverup commission,you are ignoring what high quality architects,scientists,demolition experts and engineers say and that to accept it,then your using the logic that the laws of physics scientists have gone by for thousands of years,no longer applies anymore.


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

Dante said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



why do people like you that have not even examined the claims of the NIST report or how they where reached pretend that they have..can you explain this ?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 2, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Please list the reason/ reasons and the source.
> A
> B
> C
> ...



You really need to watch that video that Eots laid out on what happend to wt7 and read through that thread of Terrals that I posted earlier as well..Also this should answer most of your questions.
9-11 Research: Frequently Asked Questions: Controlled Demolition

something else they didnt cover there is that the reason wt7 was brought down was it housed the records of something like the  CIA,FBI AND NSA corrupt activities or something like that.i cant remember exactly what it was.Its covered extensively in the book appropriately titled Debunking the 9/11 Debunking,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy THEORY.I'll find it in the book and post it later here sometime for you if you like.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



That is the question I would like to put to you.

Can you in one or two  sentences explain  why explosives where not used to bring down WTC 7 ? 
I can.
But I will not , until you  exhibit knowledge of   the NIST rational  for determining  that fact.


----------



## KissMy (Oct 2, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> You been reading too many of the fairy tales of Popular Mechanics.John Skilling after the 93 bombing told reporters when asked what would happen to the towers if struck by an airliner said they anticipated the fires replying-There would be a great loss of life due to the fires but the structure itself would remain standing.
> 
> They also reinforced the steel with more fireproofing after the 93 bombing also the majority of the fires explosion took place outside the towers not to mention the black smoke that emits from the towers proves it was oxygen starved.Also steel framed towers steel columns are thicker and stronger from the base.They are less thick and are thinner higher up so that destroys that theory. You used to make good posts saying that explosives brought the towers down.sounds like lately you have changed your mind and been taken in by propaganda.those fires werent hot enough to melt a marshmellow,let alone weaken the steel.
> 
> not to mention it was the first time in history that a steel framed highrise building collapsed due to fire.The Meridian hotel in Philly in 97 burned for 18 hours on end and was a far more serious fire than the twin towers were.it was lit up like a torch and remained standing.you are also obviously not aware that NIST rejected your theory.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 2, 2010)

apples and oranges dude,that proves nothing and doesnt disprove what I posted.you didnt answer my question either which is how come all of a sudden you are sounding like Fizz Gam and Candycorn,disinformation agent trolls that have penetrated this site? You USED to make intelligent well thought out posts that had evidence to back them up.Like remember this one? 

Not only did other white supremacist know, but the government knew, likely participated, & ATF were not in the Murrah building when the blast happened because they were warned on their pagers not to come in. 
1 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/75702-oklahoma-city-bombing-7.html

Here you are confirming that oklahoma city was a government inside job and you always said the same thing about 9/11, yet now all of a sudden you are pulling a 180 degree turn and are talking nonsense? whats up with that?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 2, 2010)

KissMy said:


> If people actually study the design of the Twin Towers & WTC7 you will discover how faulty their design was against fire.
> 
> WTC7 had little support in the center because it was built over an electrical power station so all the weight had to be transfered towards the exterior of the building on a couple of main trusses. To top that there was many times more fuel stored in that building than those jetliners had in them that hit WTC 1 & 2.
> 
> The long span trusses in WTC 1 & 2 were extremely vulnerable to heat. Add the weight of a few collapsed floors & a loaded 767 Jet Plane to the floor below & it is easy to see why each floor would drop onto the next tearing them out one by one gaining mass & momentum. Without the floors the walls could not stand & every wall section would fall away as soon as the floors holding them together gave way.


OK, I will give you that WTC 1 & 2 were of a unique design and may have collasped due to faulty desiign.

But, Building #7 was of *conventional *design.

And although, several other buildings like #7 have caught fire in other cities around the world over the last several decades.

Never has one fell down untill Building #7 did.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> apples and oranges dude,that proves nothing and doesnt disprove what I posted.you didnt answer my question either of what happened to your past reasonable posts you always made that explosives were used?



Wrong  thread,  move along Mr.Kook.
This thread is about eots demonstrating independent knowledge of the NIST report, not youtube videos of insane rants thanks.


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



NIST stated it would of been too loud "as loud as a shot gun blast" however there are many first responder reports of explosions at least as loud as a shot gun  blasts another excuse was "too hard" to get the minimum  100 lbs of explosives then they deemed necessary without being noticed and they throw in a few assumptions and  some double speak


----------



## daveman (Oct 2, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> You been reading too many of the fairy tales of Popular Mechanics.John Skilling after the 93 bombing told reporters when asked what would happen to the towers if struck by an airliner said they anticipated the fires replying-There would be a great loss of life due to the fires but the structure itself would remain standing.


And the White Star Line said the _RMS Titanic_ was unsinkable.  How'd that work out for them?


----------



## KissMy (Oct 2, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> apples and oranges dude,that proves nothing and doesnt disprove what I posted.you didnt answer my question either of what happened to your past reasonable posts you always made that explosives were used?



I never said explosives were used. I noted that evidence of a thermite type of metal erosion was found in the government report from WTC7 & it could have been used to weaken a critical truss. That piece of metal is in evidence but nothing has come of it. There was also aluminum / rusty steel melted dust found. The entire skin of the WTC was aluminum & the beams were rusty steel. Also the aircraft was made up of all the ingredients of Thermite except the rusty steel. The wings are made of composite honeycomb materials pictured below.










My assertion was always if it was a false flag attack, the government likely would have just allowed Al-Qaida to go through with their attacks. Bin Laden was a CIA operative who likely worked with Bush Senior. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes at the CIA. Bush & Bin Ladens were also invested in Carlyle Group that profited from war. There is no evidence showing that Bush or Bin Ladens actually profited themselves. But psycho Cynthia McKinney did stir up some shit with her Carlyle Group \ Crusader Missile \ Bush investigation.

There is no way to prove anything because most of this is circumstantial evidence. They operate at high levels & would not have been stupid enough to plant bombs at the WTC where evidence could be found.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Try again. 
I will give  you a clue . Since you are so  concerned about the sound issue.
It is a dead end for your theory.




Yes evasive double speak  for sure.
There are 3 major elements to the conclusion that explosive were not involved in the WTC 7 collapse .
The sound is one ,and it of the least scientific interest,  please illustrate knowledge of the other  elements or any element of  the WTC 7 collapse.


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

KissMy said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > apples and oranges dude,that proves nothing and doesnt disprove what I posted.you didnt answer my question either of what happened to your past reasonable posts you always made that explosives were used?
> ...



they clearly had no difficulty in omitting testimony and destroying evidence I dont agree with your assumption and the evidence of a controlled demolition is in the nature of the collapse...it is a matter of physics


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 2, 2010)

daveman said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > You been reading too many of the fairy tales of Popular Mechanics.John Skilling after the 93 bombing told reporters when asked what would happen to the towers if struck by an airliner said they anticipated the fires replying-There would be a great loss of life due to the fires but the structure itself would remain standing.
> ...



again apples and oranges.Except with Titanic Dunceman,they did not have  witnesses, many of them very credible people as I just proved in my link which proves explosives were used.the witness testimonys alone prove it and as i have said a million times,to accept the official collape of the towers,then your saying all these thousands of architects and engineers and well known scientists are not credible sources, not to mention to accept it,your saying the laws of physics scientists have gone by for thousands of years no longer applies anymore.


----------



## KissMy (Oct 2, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > If people actually study the design of the Twin Towers & WTC7 you will discover how faulty their design was against fire.
> ...



Building #7 was *NOT* of conventional design.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967. The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.

The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation. Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

Please start your own thread Mr Kiss.
This thread is about eots demonstrating independent knowledge of the NIST report.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

daveman said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > You been reading too many of the fairy tales of Popular Mechanics.John Skilling after the 93 bombing told reporters when asked what would happen to the towers if struck by an airliner said they anticipated the fires replying-There would be a great loss of life due to the fires but the structure itself would remain standing.
> ...



Please start your own thread  Mr. Daveman.
This thread is about eots demonstrating independent knowledge of the NIST report.


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



I listed the three ..trying writing a coherent question

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, *no blast sound*s were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced *without being detected*. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcaxvQGdmtw]YouTube - NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 5[/ame]


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 2, 2010)

KissMy said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > apples and oranges dude,that proves nothing and doesnt disprove what I posted.you didnt answer my question either of what happened to your past reasonable posts you always made that explosives were used?
> ...



You havent researched this very throughly because its well known that Cheney and Bush profitted immensely from these attacks with the carlyle group and that link I provided earlier explains how they easily were able to plant the explosives and how evidence of them doing so went unnoticed.You need to watch the video 9/11 mysteries. anybody who sees that and STILL doesnt think explosives were placed,well they're hopeless and in denial.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


The sound issue has been closed .


Are you stating that  a blast  was not responsible for the collapse of WTC 7 ,is that correct ?


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



lol there is not one word there that says this is particularly unconventional 
and either does NIST


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



 and how is the sound issue closed exactly ? and No I am pointing out the lame ass excuses NIST  used for not properly investigating the possibly of explosives and the flaws in their fire theory


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> lol there is not one word there that says this is particularly unconventional
> and either does NIST





This thread is about eots demonstrating independent knowledge of the NIST report.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> The sound issue has been closed .
> 
> 
> Are you stating that  a blast  was not responsible for the collapse of WTC 7 ,is that correct ?



 and how is the sound issue closed exactly ? and No I am pointing out the lame ass excuses NIST  used for not properly investigating the possibly of explosives and the flaws in their fire theory[/QUOTE]
The sound issue is closed  do to you statement 

*



			no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.
		
Click to expand...

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/2800111-post56.html

Are you stating that  a blast  was not responsible for the collapse of WTC 7 ,is that correct ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> Your entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can you be so sure you know what happened?
> 
> the NIST investigation of WTC 7 is based on a huge amount of data. These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001, and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.
> 
> Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation



Some 200 technical expertsincluding about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academiareviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, *analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests *and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 2, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > If people actually study the design of the Twin Towers & WTC7 you will discover how faulty their design was against fire.
> ...



Bull Shit, ever seen plastic burn? Nothing in an office burns giving off black smoke? Are you that dense?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Bull Shit, ever seen plastic burn? Nothing in an office burns giving off black smoke? Are you that dense?


Please start your  own thread Mr Ollie.
This thread is about eots demonstrating independent knowledge of the NIST report.


----------



## daveman (Oct 2, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


Yes, but you're a nutcase.


----------



## daveman (Oct 2, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> This thread is about eots demonstrating independent knowledge of the NIST report.


You're not holding your breath, are you?


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The sound issue has been closed .
> ...





> The sound issue is closed  do to you statement
> 
> *
> 
> ...



this statement in from NIST sand we know it to be false..untrue..a lie 




> Are you stating that  a blast  was not responsible for the collapse of WTC 7 ,is that correct ?



*No*


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Your entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can you be so sure you know what happened?
> ...


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY]YouTube - WTC 7 NIST Model vs. Reality[/ame]


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > > Are you stating that  a blast  was not responsible for the collapse of WTC 7 ,is that correct ?
> ...


----------



## Fizz (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



funny how you cant even understand the NIST report and dont even know the difference between a question and a statement yet you feel qualified to interpret what the report actually says and explain it to other people. 

you must be stoned again.


----------



## elvis (Oct 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sijN4Lt5c10]YouTube - Rainy Day Women No. 12 & 35[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Oct 2, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> not to mention it was the first time in history that a steel framed highrise building collapsed due to fire.The Meridian hotel in Philly in 97 burned for 18 hours on end and was a far more serious fire than the twin towers were.it was lit up like a torch and remained standing.you are also obviously not aware that NIST rejected your theory.


the fire in philly was actively fought the entire time and was not of the same type of construction as the towers. not sure what you are basing the "far more serious fire" and "lit up like a torch" comments on but they simply arent true.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > not to mention it was the first time in history that a steel framed highrise building collapsed due to fire.The Meridian hotel in Philly in 97 burned for 18 hours on end and was a far more serious fire than the twin towers were.it was lit up like a torch and remained standing.you are also obviously not aware that NIST rejected your theory.
> ...



Please start your own thread Mr Fizz
This thread is about eots demonstrating independent knowledge of the NIST report.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

This should not take very long Mr eots .The NIST report is complete and thorough and  the "hypothetic blast theory " does not take up much  space , please summarize the "hypothetic blast theory " section of the report.

You aught to be able to tick them off  one at a time rather than have to google the universe.


A lesson , don't hold strong opinions about things you don't understand .


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

Im sorry Mr.eots, Maybe you are having a hard time understanding what Im asking.
I want a  short synopsis of what the NIST report says about the hypothetical blast scenario  and your pinion  as to why there facts are flawed.

You have strong opinions about 911 , you should be able to  produce this off the top of your head.


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > not to mention it was the first time in history that a steel framed highrise building collapsed due to fire.The Meridian hotel in Philly in 97 burned for 18 hours on end and was a far more serious fire than the twin towers were.it was lit up like a torch and remained standing.you are also obviously not aware that NIST rejected your theory.
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!![/ame]


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

Im sorry Mr.eots, Maybe you are having a hard time understanding what Im asking.
I want a short synopsis of what the NIST report says about the hypothetical blast scenario and your pinion as to why there facts are flawed.

You have strong opinions about 911 , you should be able to produce this off the top of your head.


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Im sorry Mr.eots, Maybe you are having a hard time understanding what Im asking.
> I want a  short synopsis of what the NIST report says about the hypothetical blast scenario  and your pinion  as to why there facts are flawed.
> 
> You have strong opinions about 911 , you should be able to  produce this off the top of your head.



this has been done already..the sound was too loud they said it would be difficult to plant not be detected and there would be a shock wave that broke windows ..all of which ignores first responder testimony of blast sounds.. is based on assumption and also completely disregards the possibility of alternative explosive and goes against all fire investigation protocols


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

mr.fitnah said:


> im sorry mr.eots, maybe you are having a hard time understanding what im asking.
> I want a short synopsis of what the nist report says about the hypothetical blast scenario and your pinion as to why there facts are flawed.
> 
> You have strong opinions about 911 , you should be able to produce this off the top of your head.



I really think you are the one that needs to focus bud


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

eots said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Im sorry Mr.eots, Maybe you are having a hard time understanding what Im asking.
> ...



That is far to vague to describe the evidence .
The ruins are a record ,as are the unbroken windows  before the collapse .
First responder testimony ?
I couldn't care less.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY]YouTube - The Monkey Business Illusion[/ame]


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 2, 2010)

Im sorry Mr.eots, Maybe you are having a hard time understanding what Im asking.
I want a short synopsis of what the NIST report says about the hypothetical blast scenario and your pinion as to why there facts are flawed.

You have strong opinions about 911 , you should be able to produce this off the top of your head.


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


----------



## KissMy (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Beijing in the video was never opened & still under construction. It was nearly empty & had no floor loading, fuel or furniture to burn, a working fire suppression sprinkler system & no structural damage from planes or other buildings hitting it. It also did not rely on long steel free-span trusses.

The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid was constructed of Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal reinforced concrete columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire. The sections supported by the unprotected perimeter steel columns collapsed above the 17th Floor. The building had a working fire suppression sprinkler system & did not have structural damage from planes or other buildings hitting it. It also did not rely on long steel free-span trusses.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

explosive - A chemical that causes a sudden, almost instantaneous release of pressure, gas, and heat when subjected to sudden shock, pressure, or high temperature.
MSDS Glossary


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

here is the gorilla being missed the computer simulation, the very core of the NIST theory
does not match reality and the simulation ends at the initiation of the collapse and goes no further it is a fraud

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY]YouTube - WTC 7 NIST Model vs. Reality[/ame]



NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST&#8217;s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

And where was the noise from all of the wtc innards falling like this prior to the collapse ?


----------



## Dante (Oct 3, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



good luck with that.


----------



## fyrenza (Oct 3, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Please list the reason/ reasons and the source.
> A
> B
> C
> ...



OOps

If you can look at that, and NOT call it a controlled demolition?

I fucking want some of what you're smoking, dude!

I don't KNOW _*who*_ DID it,

but i don't expect any of us ever will, since any evidence of ANYTHING was *destroyed*.

I don't get that.

If we ~ as in our gov ~ wasn't COMPLACENT?

WTF happened, there?

DID we give up some of our freedoms, WILLINGLY?

Yes, we did.

Who did THAT little scenario play out as "helping?"

I'm still reeling from the horror of the actual happening,

WITHOUT _THEN_ being lied to and played.

And I'm just too old for this shit.  I CAN see the "play/spin."

It's disgusting to think that anyone thinks ANY of us are that stupid,

even if most of us *are* that young.


----------



## fyrenza (Oct 3, 2010)

And, no ~

I didn't read all the replies.

THAT's what I think, and unless you have some VERIFIABLE proof that some arab dudes, living in fucking CAVES were able to dream this scheme up?

AND carry it off?

Good grief!  Are we THAT fucking LAME???

Are our national defenses THAT ... lame?

You know it;  I know it;  anyone that thinks about it for 3 seconds knows that

we aren't, and we weren't.

Yet and still, an aircraft lifted off, got close enough to it's destination to actually LAND,

THEN took a little turn, to go FURTHER than if it had just targeted it's Final Desination,

and NO ONE *NOTICED*.

Yeah.

Are you sending me some of that herb?  FFS, to swallow THIS wad?

I'm going to NEED it.


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

dante said:


> mr.fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



how about you try addressing the  discrepancy between the nist computer model  and the actual event or stfu


----------



## Fizz (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> how about you try addressing the  discrepancy between the nist computer model  and the actual event or stfu



how can a building be leaning BEFORE your "explosive demolitions" are detonated?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf7Z_I1CAZ4&feature=channel]YouTube - WTC 7's structural integrity and its footprint[/ame]


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> you are under the illusion explosives mean that  they must produce a loud sound this is not the case


Explosions create shock waves characterized  by rapid changes in temperature density and pressure across the expansion field.

This is a mechanical act which includes transformation of vibratory energy or sound. 
The windows didn't  break because  there were no pressure waves, nor any transfer of vibratory energy. 

The only instances were there would be no sound would be if the explosion were to occur in the vacuum of space , because there is no medium for the acoustic  energy to be transmitted .

Or in the case of the silent explosion of stupidity you have demonstrated .

You are suffering from too much brain damage or are to naturally stupid  to understand the  basics of the topic, so there is  simply no point  in continuing  the dialog.

Thank you.


----------



## daveman (Oct 3, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > how about you try addressing the  discrepancy between the nist computer model  and the actual event or stfu
> ...



There's some "first responder testimony" that will be ignored.


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



this is one unidentified person..and if he is correct then multiple identified first responders and nist and the computer simulation they base there conclusions on is invalid...so which one is it DAVEMAN...daveman does not even understand the implications of the video he post   you make me laugh


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you are under the illusion explosives mean that  they must produce a loud sound this is not the case
> ...



I never said no sound... different explosives materials produce different levels of  shockwaves ...NIST  based its calculation  on the loudest most common explosive techniques...and coincided that if therimate was used  the sound would be far less..but deemed it to difficult... in their opinion ...  you need to pay attention.....further more the computer model shows the entire iinsides of the wtc falling before the actual collapse... where are the reports of the incredible noise that would of made before the structure fell ??


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

*Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Cente*r.  Before this appointmeseant, he served as Director, Rerch Engineering Division at Dryden.  R*ecipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)*.  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986). * Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" *1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:


*"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Cente*r]."  AE911Truth.org


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 1,200 Architects and Engineers: 

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates  hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." Sign the Petition

*ya but youse donts understands SHUCKWAVES !!! cuz yer brain damaged*


----------



## Jos (Oct 3, 2010)

fyrenza said:


> And, no ~
> 
> I didn't read all the replies.
> 
> ...


Bin Laden Not Wanted for 9/11



> The 'FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'. Vice President Cheney says, 'We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11'


9/11: Bin Laden Not Wanted 'Dead or Alive'


----------



## daveman (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...


Eots doesn't even understand that daveman didn't post a video.


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



well you re-posted with your stupid comment.. so dave..fizzle.. is the NIST computer simulation invalid in your opinion or not


----------



## daveman (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



  You made a mistake, and it's MY fault.


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



So is the NIST model invalid in your opinion  dave ?


----------



## Jos (Oct 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


 Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 3, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Please list the reason/ reasons and the source.
> A
> B
> C
> ...



Clearly the force of gravity overcame the ability of the structure to withstand it.


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Please list the reason/ reasons and the source.
> ...



so what  ?..gravity. suddenly increased..?.or did the structures integrity suddenly decrease and if so...why ?


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



The force of gravity remains constant; that means the structures integrity decreased.


----------



## The Infidel (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Yes.... it was on fire!

This is stupid.... Im out!


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...



so then that leaves us with why


----------



## The Infidel (Oct 3, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...



Hey you.... you have'nt been around long enough to speak of logic.


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Elevated temperatures of steel decrease the yield strength; clearly a proven fact.


----------



## The Infidel (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...







The Infidel said:


> Yes.... it was on fire!
> 
> This is stupid.... Im out!


----------



## The Infidel (Oct 3, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...



There you go again with facts!


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 3, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I don't recall speaking to logic, just fact.


----------



## The Infidel (Oct 3, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...




Post 117


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...



good because you are stupid if you think fire is an explanation for a complete collapse at near free fall speed...the only way NIST could explain this "extraordinary event" and the discovery of a "new kind of collapse"
is through a computer simulation that is clearly invalid


----------



## The Infidel (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I bet you dont believe we landed on the moon either... and there are lil red men on Mars.
Eots... your just plain silly.

Have fun trying to prove the earth is flat and that fire dont melt steel.

What a wack job


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



this fact does not account for a complete and symmetrical collapse  of a steel frame building at near free fall speed  especially with unevenly distrusted office fires...the only way NIST could do that is with a flawed computer simulation with all the data tweaked to the lowest possible levels of probability  and still it fails


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



It's either free-fall speed or it isn't.

I saw 3 buildings collapse that day; 2 were hit by planes and 1 was hit by falling debris of another building. All 3 sustained structural damage and were on fire before they collapsed.

Other than that, there's is no evidence of anything else happening.


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...



You are free to offer your explanation and/or theory.


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



I bet.. people unable to debate with facts will inject strawmen into the debate...
in a flailing attempt to distract from that fact and...btw fire in and of itself will not melt steel...dumbass


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> ...btw fire in and of itself will not melt steel...dumbass



The steel was not melted nor was it required to melt for the structure to fail.

Why do you bring that strawman into this discussion?


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



thats one of the dumbest things of have ever heard of course something can be near free fall..it is a measurable thing..and NIST describes the collapse as near free fall... furthermore NIST states structural damage played no significant role in the collapse and that fire without damage would of created the same result


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ...btw fire in and of itself will not melt steel...dumbass
> ...



i


> Have fun trying to prove the earth is flat and that fire dont melt steel.



it is not a strawman it is a correction to *your* "fire dont melt steel" comment


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> thats one of the dumbest things of have ever heard of course something can be near free fall..it is a measurable thing..and NIST describes the collapse as near free fall... furthermore NIST states structural damage played no significant role in the collapse and that fire without damage would of created the same result



So was it free-fall speed or not? And how does that tie into your yet to be announced theory?


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I challenge you to link to a post where I stated "fire dont melt steel".


----------



## Fizz (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> *"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Cente*r]."  AE911Truth.org



wrong building.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> this is one unidentified person..


Miller from NYFD Engine 15. dont believe me then go ask him.
now he's identified. how does that change his statement?




eots said:


> and if he is correct then multiple identified first responders and nist and the computer simulation they base there conclusions on is invalid...


no.


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > this is one unidentified person..
> ...



 you telling me ..who ..you say someone is is a unidentified firefighter to me and NIST calculated no such leans in it therefore there computer model would be invalid..you cant have it both ways


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...





> Have fun trying to prove the earth is flat and that fire dont melt steel


http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/135509-eots-why-did-wtc-7-collapse-9.html

my apologizes it was infidel who thinks fire melts steel


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > thats one of the dumbest things of have ever heard of course something can be near free fall..it is a measurable thing..and NIST describes the collapse as near free fall... furthermore NIST states structural damage played no significant role in the collapse and that fire without damage would of created the same result
> ...



a structure can not fall at freefall or near freefall and symmetrically unless all of the main supports fail at the same instance and there is little or no resistance


----------



## KissMy (Oct 3, 2010)

There were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Twin Towers and Buildings 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. *These batteries produce massive current that will melt steel. They contained tons of acid that eats through & erode steel & lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)].* The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead, the aluminum from the plane & aluminum from the tower's cladding which were the most likely to be the metals that were seen flowing from the 81st floor of Tower 2 & through the rubble pile.

NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and *the 81st floor of Tower 2*. These batteries contained large quantities of acid that eat through & erode steel & concrete. This is the most likely cause of the eroded steel samples logged into forensic evidence from WTC-7.


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

KissMy said:


> There were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Twin Towers and Buildings 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. *These batteries produce massive current that will melt steel. They contained tons of acid that eats through & erode steel & lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)].* The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead, the aluminum from the plane & aluminum from the tower's cladding which were the most likely to be the metals that were seen flowing from the 81st floor of Tower 2 & through the rubble pile.
> 
> NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and *the 81st floor of Tower 2*. These batteries contained large quantities of acid that eat through & erode steel & concrete. This is the most likely cause of the eroded steel samples logged into forensic evidence from WTC-7.


*
hey stoopid why don't you ever post a link..to your bullshit ??*


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



That quoted post isn't from me, which is why you didn't link back to it.

Why is it "truthers" lie to make their case?


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...



 my mistake,you are correct and it was infidel that believes fire melts steel
I got my "debunkers mixed up" ...it happens


----------



## KissMy (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > There were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Twin Towers and Buildings 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. *These batteries produce massive current that will melt steel. They contained tons of acid that eats through & erode steel & lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)].* The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead, the aluminum from the plane & aluminum from the tower's cladding which were the most likely to be the metals that were seen flowing from the 81st floor of Tower 2 & through the rubble pile.
> ...








NIST confirms "UPS" on 81st floor of WTC2 was power supply; may explain glowing "fountain"


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



* to subject is wtc 7  and this this is some  Italian guys blog ....and*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM]YouTube - Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11[/ame]


----------



## KissMy (Oct 3, 2010)

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf
Chapter 4, Page 118 or PDF Page 172 of 176


> Table 4&#8211;7. Modifications made due to new loading requirements in *WTC 7* (continued).
> 
> Ten additional shear studs were added to an existing W4x55 beam to support additional loads from a new file room and a new *UPS/LAN* room. Exact location of this beam could not be determined from the documentation.



UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) / LAN (Local Area Network)


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2010)

KissMy said:


> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf
> Chapter 4, Page 118 or PDF Page 172 of 176
> 
> 
> ...



SO ????.....do you have a point or are you just posting random clips of information


----------



## KissMy (Oct 3, 2010)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf
> ...



*When you have to add ten additional shear studs to floor support beams for USP Batteries, that is a hell of a lot of weight.* These are large 2VDC Industrial batteries that weigh about 200lbs each. It takes 240 of these batteries to supply the 480 volts required from the UPS system. That means there were at least 48,000lbs of batteries in this UPS room. That will do a hell of a lot of damage to a steel structure if they short out, melt steel, explode & acid erode steel. The 9/11 Commissions Report denotes sulfur as the cause of the steel erosion. Sulfur is not found in thermite but it is in battery acid.

Chapter 5 - WTC Seven - The WTC Report.


> In addition to the emergency generators, the existing uninterruptible power supply (UPS) provided 4 hours of full operation for the fire-alarm system and 12 hours of standby operation... where it is understood that a UPS system provided backup power to the 75-gpm pump... It is understood that the SSB pump was supplied power from both the SSB generators and from the UPS... The SSB fuel oil pumps were provided with UPS power supported by both base building emergency power and SSB standby power


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



so you do not support the NIST report is that correct ?


----------



## KissMy (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> so you do not support the NIST report is that correct ?



NIST has many mistakes in their conclusions, so I do not support their findings. I also do not see evidence of free fall speed or explosives. The forensics of the eroded steel in the 9/11 Commissions Report point to *Sulfuric Battery Acid *& not thermite.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm


> C.2 Sample 1 (From WTC 7) - In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion....
> 
> The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## KissMy (Oct 4, 2010)

The guy narrating that video is a bigger idiot or lier than NIST. There were no high explosives. Those type of explosives are the only type that will achieve free fall speed. Thermite will not create free fall speed. Any idiot can tell that was not free fall speed. The penthouse accelerates faster than the rest of the building therefore the rest of the building had resistance. Also crack open a text book & do the math. It was not in free fall. They are lying.

NIST has many mistakes in their conclusions, so I do not support their findings either. I also do not see evidence of free fall speed or explosives. The forensics of the eroded steel point to *sulfuric battery acid* & not thermite.

9/11 Commissions Report Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination


> C.2 Sample 1 (From WTC 7) - In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion....
> 
> The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

NIST states without question the collapse was is at near free fall speed overall and free fall for a portion
so you disagree with NIST on this conclusion also


----------



## KissMy (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> NIST states without question the collapse was is at near free fall speed overall and free fall for a portion
> so you disagree with NIST on this conclusion also



There is some funny wording in that sentence. How near is near free fall & perhaps for the penthouse portion for a portion of time but not overall.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > NIST states without question the collapse was is at near free fall speed overall and free fall for a portion
> ...



funny wording is the hallmark of the NIST report


----------



## KissMy (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Agreed !


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paF0rBNksDM&feature=related]YouTube - NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 4[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcaxvQGdmtw&feature=related]YouTube - NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 5[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI75b2S2PNs&feature=related]YouTube - Thermite Test #2 at NM Tech EMRTC[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcaxvQGdmtw&feature=related]YouTube - NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 5[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Oct 4, 2010)

the building did not fall at free fall speed.

(notice the period at the end of that sentence)


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> And although, several other buildings like #7 have caught fire in other cities around the world over the last several decades.



Can you link or provide information on these other buildings that were similar to #7?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> read through that thread of Terrals that I posted earlier as well..Also this should answer most of your questions.



You mean the one on WTC7 where he ADMITTED to being incorrect about a certain "angle cut column" and then goes on to debunk his own claim of thermite being using his own annotated photo? You mean the same thread where he claims that the building totally collapsed at free fall speeds, yet there are other truthers out there who show it fell at free fall for only about 2.5 seconds? 

That thread?



Terral said:


> WTC-7 imploded at freefall speed in 6.6 seconds


Can you show me proof that the total collapse happened in 6.6 seconds?

Here. I'll give you a clue how Terral debunks his own thermite claim. Here is a part from his annotated photo. You tell me what you see and why it debunks his claim of thermite being used. Let's see if you can figure this out.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

In case you missed it 9/11, here is Terral's admission of being wrong...


Terral said:


> Greetings to Gamolon and All:
> 
> My congratulations to Gamolon for pointing out an inconsistency in my testimony on the WTC-7 Case. Rarely does anyone come along and point out blatant errors in my work, so I want to take the time and show everyone my mistake. My original photograph here has an error:
> 
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

Couple more things 9/11...



Terral said:


> I am going to return to my illustration today and make the required changes.



Hmmm. I wonder if he ever did this...



Terral said:


> All of that being said, the 90-degree I-beam cuts that appear throughout the same picture of the collapsed WTC-7 debris pile clearly represent Controlled Demolition Signatures.



Controlled Demolition Signatures??? Yet in that same photo he claims this of the column and beam ends:





Do you get it yet 9/11?


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

gamolon said:


> sunni man said:
> 
> 
> > and although, several other buildings like #7 have caught fire in other cities around the world over the last several decades.
> ...



of course there are buildings of similar construction...nist says it does not know the exact number however...No where does NIST say the building construction was flawed or inherently unsafe


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > sunni man said:
> ...



But wait eots!

NIST is fraudulent remember??? How can you trust anything NIST says?

You are a freakin' moron. I love how you guys reject everything that is against what you believe from a source, yet use the SAME source to provide evidence in your favor.

So show us eots. Show us a link to the building that was similar to WTC7 construction and was subject to the same types of fire related circumstances.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



well yes I should preface it all with _according to nist _as most of their information is suspect...this appears to be the reason so many people that do not believe it was a controlled demotion  prefer the more dramatic and novel like popular mechanics explanation as even they can see the nist explanation is so absurd


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Really? Most of their information suspect? What about the other parts? Would those be the parts that support your views?



You use James Quintiere in the same fashion. Just look at the other thread.

You're pathetic.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



No you are... all I have dione is post his direct quotes on his view of both the NIST report and controlled demolition..you cant handle this information so you make up little imaginings that I somehow add to or take away from his quotes

HE FEELS THE DATA SHOULD BE ARCHIVED AND AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW DONE...WHY ?... BECAUSE HE SUSPECTS ITS VALIDITY


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And you're a damn liar. Here's the proof. Here's what you claimed was a direct quote:


eots said:


> THE MAN SAYS HE BELIVES OTHER SCENRIOES ARE *MORE LIKELY* THAN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION..WHY DONT YOU JUST LET THE MAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF



Then you post this quote as proof of where you got it from. You even emphasized the "more likely" part of it!


eots said:


> Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NISTs conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down.



So, show us again how you directly quoted him and didn't twist his words?


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



you are clearly out of your mind..I posted my view in all caps then below posted his supporting statement with a link...thereis no twisting of words
he feels the it was more likey floors falling than an explosion
he has not excluded the possibility  he does question why other collpse *hypothesis* ( plural ) were not examined and is asking for a open peer revived investigation ..deal with it


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Wow are you stupid. REAAADDDDDD what you posted again. You clearly state that he believes "OTHER SCENARIOS" are more likely. This is complete BS. He states in his paper in addition to the quote you posted that he believes that floor trusses failed due to fire and heat. One scenario idiot. He clearly states in his paper that the EVIDENCE he has seen point to the floor trusses failing, not the columns.

Do you get it yet? One scenario. Uno. Single. Not "OTHER SCENARIOS". You try and use him to make people think he believes there was something sinister going on and that a controlled demolition happened. You are truly pathetic.

Boy are you reaching now.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

*he suggest a theory..*..&#8220;I suggest that there&#8217;s an equally justifiable theory and that&#8217;s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact"

*He does not say*... why was the alternative hypnosis not investigated ?.*.he* *says....*.. "Why were not *alternative* collapse *hypotheses* investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?"


*he does say..*. scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. &#8220;I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,&#8221;.. _he said_.


----------



## KissMy (Oct 5, 2010)

Here is another truther sight talking about how both of the planes hit the enormous battery facilities in both towers. They theorize these batteries were secretly filled with thermite. I don't know why they don't think batteries won't do just as good of a job of destroying steel beams.

 9/11 Planes Flew Directly Into Secure Computer Rooms In Both Towers 

These terrorist were trained by CIA double agents. They do not use a cannon to kill a mosquito. They overcame hundreds of passengers & crew with just a few razorblades & hijacked their 4 jet planes. They were smart enough to only takeover fully large, heavy & fueled jet aircraft. They were likely smart enough to hit the towers in the sweet spots using these batteries to cause maximum damage. *They did not need thermite or explosives.* Evidence & whiteness's say they had cased the towers & studied the blueprints.

We have NIST confirming these UPS batteries

OSHA showing air samples for sulfuric acid were found to exceed OSHA's permissible exposure limit for Workers were sorting debris.

The 9/11 Commissions Report forensics on the eroded steel point to Sulfuric Battery Acid, not thermite.


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

You are a little obsessed with batteries aren't you why do you insist on injecting this strawman into the discussion ?...and then the links post you are the very ones you posted earlier to apparently support your own battery theory..it is all a bunch of nonsense.


----------



## KissMy (Oct 5, 2010)

eots said:


> You are a little obsessed with batteries aren't you why do you insist on injecting this strawman into the discussion ?...and then the links post you are the very ones you posted earlier to apparently support your own battery theory..it is all a bunch of nonsense.



*Free Fall Speed, Thermite & Explosives are the Straw Men of 9/11.*

The witnessed, documented & forensic evidence prove the existence of the massive amounts of these UPS Batteries are the facts of 9/11.

The witnessed, documented & forensic evidence proof of their destruction on these structures are the facts of 9/11.

Hot Acid destroys metals in seconds. Watch this 5 part series on Acid by Modern Marvels & learn something.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa3ifHYfhRY&feature=related"]Hot Acid destroys metals in seconds.[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

kissmy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you are a little obsessed with batteries aren't you why do you insist on injecting this strawman into the discussion ?...and then the links post you are the very ones you posted earlier to apparently support your own battery theory..it is all a bunch of nonsense.
> ...



*so are you like the battery guy  version of christophera  ?? Are batteries your .."concrete core" ??*


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 5, 2010)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > You are a little obsessed with batteries aren't you why do you insist on injecting this strawman into the discussion ?...and then the links post you are the very ones you posted earlier to apparently support your own battery theory..it is all a bunch of nonsense.
> ...


i'm sure the towers had MANY UPS batteries, but i doubt any of them were acid based
and its more likely they would have been dry cells


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 5, 2010)

would need to see some reliable sources on this theory


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 5, 2010)

eots said:


> *he suggest a theory..*..I suggest that theres an equally justifiable theory and thats the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact"
> 
> *He does not say*... why was the alternative hypnosis not investigated ?.*.he* *says....*.. "Why were not *alternative* collapse *hypotheses* investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?"
> 
> ...



The bottom line is, in his paper, he says that the evidence he has seen points to the floor trusses failing due to fire and heat.

PERIOD.

There is no other way around that point. No thermite. No bombs. 

You can quote all his other stuff all you want. The fact remains that in the end he says FIRE and HEAT caused a structural failure which led to the collapse of WTC7.

He is an EXPERT in his field, which is why you keep quoting him to support your crazy ideas. Until, that is, he says something against them.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 5, 2010)

eots said:


> kissmy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Now you did it! You envoked the Christophera genie and now he'll appear here in this thread.

NOOOOOO!!!!!


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *he suggest a theory..*..&#8220;*I suggest that there&#8217;s an equally justifiable theory and that&#8217;s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact"*
> ...


 
my crazy ideas ?..you mean like...*.&#8220;I wish that there would be a peer review of this",&#8220;I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable
*
*&#8220;Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers*

*&#8220;I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,&#8221; *

*" instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.&#8221;*

*Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross erro*r


*NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to computer a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done t*hat.

*" Testing by NIST has been inconclusiv*e"


*"guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."*


and on all of these points me and  Dr Q are in agreement.. there needs to be an independent fact driven investigation on the collapses that occurred on 9/11 9/11


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 5, 2010)

eots said:


> ...and on all of these points me and  Dr Q are in agreement.. there needs to be an independent fact driven investigation on the collapses that occurred on 9/11 9/11



Tell me, how do you define an "independent" investigation?

Do you get to decide who the independent investigator is?

And what do you say to those other CT'ers who don't agree with you?


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ...and on all of these points me and  Dr Q are in agreement.. there needs to be an independent fact driven investigation on the collapses that occurred on 9/11 9/11
> ...



I believe the some of best qualified individuals to select a independent investigative panel would be the 9/11 family and first responder steering committees


----------



## FireFly (Oct 5, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Here is another truther sight talking about how both of the planes hit the enormous battery facilities in both towers. They theorize these batteries were secretly filled with thermite. I don't know why they don't think batteries won't do just as good of a job of destroying steel beams.
> 
> 9/11 Planes Flew Directly Into Secure Computer Rooms In Both Towers
> 
> ...



You are right. According to The 9/11 Commissions Report the forensics on the eroded steel shown below determined that battery acid was what destroyed those steel beams & weakened the structure. There is no evidence of thermite.


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

FireFly said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another truther sight talking about how both of the planes hit the enormous battery facilities in both towers. They theorize these batteries were secretly filled with thermite. I don't know why they don't think batteries won't do just as good of a job of destroying steel beams.
> ...



BATTERIES DO NOT EXPLAIN AND DID NOT DID NOT CAUSE THIS


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]YouTube - wtc 7 collapse[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

NO BATTERIES IN THESE BUILDINGS ?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!![/ame]


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 5, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> Tell me, how do you define an "independent" investigation?
> 
> Do you get to decide who the independent investigator is?
> 
> And what do you say to those other CT'ers who don't agree with you?





eots said:


> I believe the some of best qualified individuals to select a independent investigative panel would be the 9/11 family and first responder steering committees



And what do you say to the CT'ers who don't agree with your selection?


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, how do you define an "independent" investigation?
> ...



You mean the families selections ?..I would say there is probably no group more concerned and dedicated to finding the truth and their selection would be thoughtful and honest ones


----------



## Godboy (Oct 5, 2010)

eots said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



and why would you believe that the victims, the most biased people of all, are the best people to put together a panel of unbiased investigators? Furthermore, which victims do you want? Do you want one of the majority that know this wasnt an inside job, or do you want to pick from the handful of loony victims that believe in fairy tales?


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

Godboy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...



why would you believe families committee members are the most biased group against who ?? why do ypu pretend you know the statistically breakdown of the views of family members when you clearly do not..and there are already in existence family steering committees that were involved through out the investigation that have proven themselves reasonable and intelligent informed and dedicated people..that simply had little voice in the first "investigation"


----------



## FireFly (Oct 5, 2010)

There is no evidence of thermite. The temperature of the eutectic in both cases was easily determined by the properties of the two pieces of steel. Sample 1&#8242;s eutectic approached 1,000ºC (meaning it did not go over that limit), and Sample 2&#8242;s stayed within a range of 700-800ºC. Both are extremely high temperatures, but since thermite burns far hotter than even this, *thermite is conclusively ruled out as a source for this corrosive attack.*












AE911Truth.INFO


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

FireFly said:


> There is no evidence of thermite. The temperature of the eutectic in both cases was easily determined by the properties of the two pieces of steel. Sample 1&#8242;s eutectic approached 1,000ºC (meaning it did not go over that limit), and Sample 2&#8242;s stayed within a range of 700-800ºC. Both are extremely high temperatures, but since thermite burns far hotter than even this, *thermite is conclusively ruled out as a source for this corrosive attack.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



did you just not post the exact same thing spamy ?


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...



And yet still, when others are screaming COVER-UP, how would you respond? What are you going to say when they say "those people are being paid off by the government. They are government disinformation agents covering the tracks."

You can NEVER convince everyone, because the world is full of nuts like you.


----------



## daveman (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> BATTERIES DO NOT EXPLAIN AND DID NOT DID NOT CAUSE THIS


Why do you keep saying you want to see forensic evidence, then ignore it when it's presented?


----------



## Fizz (Oct 6, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BATTERIES DO NOT EXPLAIN AND DID NOT DID NOT CAUSE THIS
> ...



because he's jealous. you have evidence and he has none.

so it's that and his penis envy.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 6, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...


i have several questions on the failures to prevent 9/11 from happening and the government screw ups that allowed it
but these morons will never accept any new investigations results as it wont do what they want because they are paranoid delusional


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > batteries do not explain and did not did not cause this
> ...



you think this is real!! ???


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

fizz said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



evidence of what ???


----------



## fyrenza (Oct 6, 2010)

What do you call a jeweler that examines every facet of a gem through a loupe before "grading" it, even though to the naked eye, the stone is perfect?

What do you call a detective that checks out all of the suspects in a murder case, even though one stands out as the (supposed) major beneficiary?

What do you call folks that work for Think Tanks, who look for the best way to achieve a solution to a problem put before them, even though there are already workable options being used?

What do you call a chess master that sees beyond the minor moves in a game, to the ultimate strategy of their opponent?

According to most of y'all's replies in this thread,

all of the above are nothing more than *morons* for not just accepting the superficial data.

That mindset is pretty pathetic, imho.


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

Indeed...bring on the" morons"

*Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng  Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive* Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  *Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering*" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

*"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Cente*r]."  AE911Truth.org



*lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical Science, U.S. Air Force (ret)  Retired U.S. Air Force command fighter pilot.  Former instructor; U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons Schoo*l and NATOs Tactical Leadership Program.  As an Air Force weapons effects expert was responsible for wartime tasking of most appropriate aircraft/munition for* target destruction to include steel and concrete superstructures*.  Former aeronautical structures flight test engineer with McDonnell Douglas, working on advanced DC-9 autopilot systems and DC-10 flight envelope expansion stress and flutter analysis.  Tactical aircraft flown: General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber, McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle, General Dynamics / Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon, McDonnell Douglas F-18 Hornet, Boeing B-1 Bomber, MiG-29 (Russian fighter), and Su-22 (Russian fighter/bomber).  3,000+ fighter hours.  *Combat time over Iraq.  20-year Air Force career.*
Statement to this website 3/25/07: "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government.  It is now time to take our country back. 

*The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned.*  There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break.  It is also impossible to report the buildings collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned.  Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein's video taped confession in which he states "they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched the building collapse." [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.] 

We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail.  Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".  Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it. 

*We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.  Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders.  The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason*!"


Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice   Association
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

*LETS HERE FROM SOME MORE MORONS*

This Newly obtained video that was reluctantly released by NIST after a lawsuit by the International Center for 9/11 Studies shows two firefighters on 9/11 discussing how secondary explosions occurred immediately before the collapse of the twin towers, providing damning new evidence that explosive devices were used to bring down the buildings.
YouTube - Firemen Explosion Testimony


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

New William Rodriguez support story

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpaZE5XSfg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - New William Rodriguez support story[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o]YouTube - Firemen Explosion Testimony[/ame]

*someone is lying*


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0EyqImTdks]YouTube - WTC 7 Sound Evidence for Explosions - DavidChandler911[/ame]


----------



## daveman (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Ahh.  The ol' "claim it's fake" ploy.  Handy, that.  

You've never seen a large-scale battery bank, have you?  Each battery (about the same size of a car battery -- sometimes larger, depending on the application) contains 4.3 mega-joules of energy.  That's a lotta energy, equal to about 2 pounds of high explosive.

Then there's the corrosive effects of sulphuric acid on steel.   You know about that, right?  or are you going to pretend that's fake, too?


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



you a really buying this ?...examine the links...and once again it appears the debwunkers reject the NIST report so there seems to unanimous agreement among all that the NIST report is a complete  failure


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

none of this battery  theory is consistent with any of the eyewitness testimony -


----------



## KissMy (Oct 6, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



A car battery weighs about 35 lbs. Each of these UPS batteries weigh about 200 lbs. They are 6.6 times larger than a car battery. There were over 240 of these per UPS system times 6.6 equals *1,584 car batteries*. Now that is a hell of a lot of destructive force. Batteries give off hydrogen & oxygen which are basically rocket fuel & high explosive. Lots of people have had car batteries explode due to these gasses building up in the battery. Each of these battery explosions would be seven times more powerful. Packed tightly in racks many would go off at the same time. When heated or smashed they are more volatile.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> *LETS HERE FROM SOME MORE MORONS*
> 
> This Newly obtained video that was reluctantly released by NIST after a lawsuit by the International Center for 9/11 Studies shows two firefighters on 9/11 discussing how secondary explosions occurred immediately before the collapse of the twin towers, providing damning new evidence that explosive devices were used to bring down the buildings.
> YouTube - Firemen Explosion Testimony


no jackass.... secondary explosions happen all the time and they are NOT proof of explosive demolitions planted in the buildings.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 6, 2010)

daveman said:


> Ahh.  The ol' "claim it's fake" ploy.  Handy, that.



and of course not one shred of evidence to back it up!!!


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Ahh.  The ol' "claim it's fake" ploy.  Handy, that.
> ...



so you once again call the NIST report into question ...thank you


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

KissMy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



a car battery explosion is fuck all I mean it might cost you a eye if you are too close but all in all...fuck all

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6CxVyCzntU&feature=related]YouTube - Car battery explosion[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *LETS HERE FROM SOME MORE MORONS*
> ...



In the lobbies and basements  ??


----------



## Fizz (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Yes. 

Please explain how these first responders are still alive if what they witnessed were explosive demolitions going off!!! How did they make it out of the building between the time the explosive demolitions were set off and the building collapse?

You really are fucking stupid!!


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



why were the lobbies and basements exploding almost a 80 floors from the fires.. so you say they are lying about huge explosion like bombs going off ?


----------



## Fizz (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


No jackass. Another fucking stupid assumption by you. You seem completely incapable of not making significant leaps in logic to support you silly claims. 

If YOU claim something is fake then YOU need to back it up. It's really quite a simple concept. I don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding it. 

Oh wait. Now I remember why you can't understand it. It's because you are a MORON!!


----------



## Fizz (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I can prove there were elevator shafts. Can you prove explosive demolitions?

Again, how the fuck did your witnesses make it out of the building before it collapsed if they were indeed explosive demoliions. 

There's a hole in your theory big enough to drive the titanic through.


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



but the fuel was mostly consumed in the initial explosion,the transcripts from the fire fighters inside says they contained most of the fires and elevators still working...why do you think it is necessary for the building to fall with the first explosion ? explosives were planted in 93 why not 2001 ?? why could explosives not of played a role in the collapse ?


----------



## Fizz (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Ok. Let me get this straight so we can all have a good laugh at your expense. 

You claim either that:

the building demolitions were set off over an extended period of time by design. That demolitions were planted and set off in the basement but the collapse started 80 floors above it. 

Or

building demolitions were set off and they had no effect on the building. Then after some time something else started the collapse 80 floors up.


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



If fire could bring down the buildings wtc 1-2 and 7...then definitely it is safe to assume a combination of the two would have at minimum the same result if the terrorist did not know the towers would fall they may of wanted to increase the damage and shock value with a repeat performance of 93


----------



## KissMy (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The explosions would have been larger. They will not blow down one of those buildings. They are kept in vented rooms to prevent these gasses from building up & blowing out rooms or floors. The ventilation system was not working after the crash. I am still not saying their explosions brought down buildings but they would account for the blue flashes & explosions saw & heard by whitenesses. The acid is the real destructive force unleashed from at least 25 tons of batteries per building.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> If fire could bring down the buildings wtc 1-2 and 7...then definitely it is safe to assume a combination of the two would have at minimum the same result if the terrorist did not know the towers would fall they may of wanted to increase the damage and shock value with a repeat performance of 93


ok. So now you make the retarded claim that terrorists planted explosive demolitions in the towers and when set off they failed to bring the building down. 

This leaves us with the fire from the plane crashes bringing the buildings down. 

Thanks. You have now officially debunked yourself!!


----------



## eots (Oct 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > If fire could bring down the buildings wtc 1-2 and 7...then definitely it is safe to assume a combination of the two would have at minimum the same result if the terrorist did not know the towers would fall they may of wanted to increase the damage and shock value with a repeat performance of 93
> ...



its not a claim moron..I am putting forth the  possibility..all I want is a fact driven investigation by honest people to replace the official cover up story


----------



## Fizz (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



so get off your lazy ass and go investigate....

oh, i'm sorry. you wanted honest people. that leaves most of the twoofers out. should be a really short investigation.


----------



## eots (Oct 7, 2010)

yes I understand you are Ignorant to the reality that an investigation requires authority and subpoena power access to unreleased documents and a budget...poor lil retarded fizzle


----------



## Fizz (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> yes I understand you are Ignorant to the reality that an investigation requires authority and subpoena power access to unreleased documents and a budget...poor lil retarded fizzle



baby steps....

you are getting way ahead of yourself, jackass.

go investigate and find some real evidence. you have none. this is where you need to start. later, if you ever find any evidence you can start getting into the entire subpoena stuff but dont get ahead of yourself. we dont subpoena people just for the fuck of it so we can go fishing. 

you want an investigation then YOU pay for it. the US government already had one paid for by the taxpayers. just because you whackos dont like the conclusions doesnt mean all us normal americans need to pay for another investigation that will no doubt reach the same conclusions and you also won't like.


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> If fire could bring down the buildings wtc 1-2 and 7...then definitely it is safe to assume a combination of the two would have at minimum the same result if the terrorist did not know the towers would fall they may of wanted to increase the damage and shock value with a repeat performance of 93



Ah, a new theory...

"It was an accident, honest injun, theory."

Here's the detailed plan:

1. Have ninjas plant explosives in the basement.

2. Wait for the government to fly remote-controlled airplanes into the the towers.

3. Set off the pre-planted bombs to scare people.

4. Oops...the buildings weren't supposed to fall <we better get out of here>


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2010)

KissMy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Eots thinks you're making all that up.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


No, all you want to hear is "George Bush blew up the WTC!!!11oneone"

You're destined to go through life bitter and disappointed.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> but the fuel was mostly consumed in the initial explosion



Is that why there are witnesses/survivors who smelled "kerosene" smells or "fuel" smells from many of the floors way below the jet impacts?

Can you tell me why William Rodriguez described the man he saw coming out of the elevator at the sub-basement level as having SEVERE BURNS and his SKIN HANGING OFF HIM? Does this sound like explosives caused this type of injury or does it sound like burns?

Good grief eots!

Use your brain for once.


----------



## eots (Oct 7, 2010)

many floors away? how many ? got a link ? he also tells  of explosions from beneath him
are you claiming fuel remained unignited and traveled 100 floors down to the sub-basement then exploded ?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> many floors away? how many ? got a link ? he also tells  of explosions from beneath him
> are you claiming fuel remained unignited and traveled 100 floors down to the sub-basement then exploded ?



Sure do. Here's the first link of eyewitness accounts:
insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts,lobb - 911stories

Just a couple of excerpts from that page:


> The scenes passed in surreal succession. Michael Zhu, a 33-year-old resident of South Plainfield, descended 51 stories of the North Tower and escaped before it collapsed, alongside fellow workers bearing burn victims in their arms. In the lobby, he smelled gasoline as the overhead sprinklers soaked his dusty clothing. "I feel like I am going to die," he said





> Erik O. Ronningen: The main lobby was a shambles. Chandeliers down; the marble walls in broken piles on the floor; the giant directional signage dangling from the ceilings; all the windows broken, the revolving doors broken and off kilter and the elevator doors all blown out. We walked through water pouring out of the ceiling like Niagara Falls, and sloshed through the darkened Mall in shin-deep water.


*Notice that the above description says he was in the LOBBY and the elevator doors were blown out. Doesn't match Christophera's "No elevator access from outside the core at the lobby level of WTC1" does it.*



> Firefighter John Morabito of ladder 10, which is just 200 yards from the north tower.
> Just inside the front entrance, Morabito found two victims of the fireball. A man, already dead, was pushed against a wall, his clothes gone, his eyeglasses blackened, his tongue lying on the floor next to him. The other was a woman, with no clothes, her hair burned off, her eyes sealed.


*Yeah, that sounds like the results of a BOMB explosion doesn't it?*



> Dave Bobbitt, Port Authority Operations
> "It was quite hectic, and we did what we could to stay in contact with the elevator passengers while helping to direct other people out of the building and direct firemen to the stairs and the elevators," Bobbitt remarked. "When entering the North Tower, we saw the marble on the walls was severely cracked, and Riccardelli told everyone to stay back from the walls. Don (Parente) noticed that the doors of elevators number 6 and 7 had been blown out." Courage Above and Beyond the Call of Duty: A Report of the September 11, 2001 Experiences of Port Authority Engineers at the World Trade Center


*Another quote against the "elevator access outside the core only" bullcrap.*



> As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didnt recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. Thats when Lieutenant Foti said oh, thats the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if youre camping and you drop a kerosene lamp.


*Kerosene smell, 3rd floor. People incinerated. Does this happen with explosives??*



> Thats the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. Im assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint


*Another elevator door description proving Christophera wrong. Jet fuel reference.*

There are many more eots. Go read. I'll wait here.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> many floors away? how many ? got a link ? he also tells  of explosions from beneath him
> are you claiming fuel remained unignited and traveled 100 floors down to the sub-basement then exploded ?



How about this quote from Willie?:


> And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance



CNN.com - Transcripts

Ball of fire came down the shaft.

Hmmmmm.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> many floors away? how many ? got a link ? he also tells  of explosions from beneath him
> are you claiming fuel remained unignited and traveled 100 floors down to the sub-basement then exploded ?



More from Willie:


> William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.
> 
> "We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."



This was from him on September 12th, 2001. Here is the link:
CNN.com - Collapsed Trade Center towers still dangerous - September 12, 2001

So one day after the attacks, he says "loud rumbles like someone moving furniture". Does that sound like an explosion from below that pushed him upward and cracked the ceiling?????

Why did his story change about this "explosion" over time eots?

Any clue?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 7, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > many floors away? how many ? got a link ? he also tells  of explosions from beneath him
> ...


he met Alex Jones


----------



## eots (Oct 7, 2010)

several others repeat the same story as Willie


----------



## eots (Oct 7, 2010)

still wailing for that smell of kerosene in the sub-basement link


----------



## eots (Oct 7, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpaZE5XSfg&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> several others repeat the same story as Willie



Why did you skip my question?

Why did Willie change his story eots? Why was it "rumbling furniture" the day after when it was fresh in his mind and then later it became "explosion below him that tossed him upwards"?

Any ideas?

How do "explosives" cause skin to hang from ones body and cause massive burns?

Any clue?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> still wailing for that smell of kerosene in the sub-basement link



Why? I showed you links to the lobby where they smelled it. You wanted links about "many floors below" and you got them.

What now that I've provided you these eyewitness reports of the "kerosene smell" from lobby and first few floors?


----------



## eots (Oct 7, 2010)

explosions cause fires ..


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> explosions cause fires ..



Let's see. eots wants to be diffcult.

Kerosene smell, melted name tags, people's eyes melted shut, fireballs, people dead in positions that say they were killed instantly...

Yeah that sounds like things that explosions cause and not a lit ball of jetfuel. Do you know how stupid you sound? Really?

Please explain how this happened from explosives. If it was explosives, how did the concussion not knock the person out of the chair and away from the desk? SO I guess your "explosives" caused a fire that burned this person and he just sat at his desk while he burned right?


> Thats the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. Im assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint



What an idiot you are.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> explosions cause fires ..



fires cause explosions.

name one building implosion that caused a fire. 

how is it possible for these people to witness explosive demolitions, if thats what they were, and then make it out of the building before it collapsed? did the explosive demolitions not work?!!


----------



## eots (Oct 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > explosions cause fires ..
> ...



been through that one all ready fizzle ..you guy as are just rambling now


----------



## eots (Oct 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > explosions cause fires ..
> ...



they gut the building of things that may catch fire in a explosion


----------



## Fizz (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



but its so much fun to point out the huge fucking hole in your explosive demolition theory. i thought i would try again since you really cant come up with a good answer.

if the explosions were explosive demolitions then how did these people make it out of the building between the time they were set off and the time the building collapsed? didnt the explosive demolitions work?!!


----------



## Jos (Oct 7, 2010)

Ever notice, mostly it's the Israel-firsters who defend the official story on the WTC 7 collapse?


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 7, 2010)

Jos said:


> Ever notice, mostly it's the Israel-firsters who defend the official story on the WTC 7 collapse?



What is an "Israel-firster" and what do you think happened to WTC7?


----------



## Jos (Oct 7, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > Ever notice, mostly it's the Israel-firsters who defend the official story on the WTC 7 collapse?
> ...



An israel-firster might  be an  American who puts isreali interests before American interests


----------



## Fizz (Oct 7, 2010)

Jos said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...



how about agreeing with the official investigations because all the other theories are require insane leaps of logic.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 7, 2010)

Jos said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...


those dont exist
only to antisemites when someone points out they are antisemites


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 7, 2010)

Jos said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...



And what do you think happened to WTC7?


----------



## Fizz (Oct 7, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...



apparently jews ran into the building disguised as flames and planted explosive demolitions.


----------



## eots (Oct 7, 2010)

no one appears to be capable of debating the validity of NIST report and its failure in coming to any conclusive   or reasonable explanation of the collapse..it seems that the NIST version is so ludicrous to all that..that one can only dispute the controlled demolition theory while rejecting the NIST report ..I


----------



## Fizz (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> no one appears to be capable of debating the validity of NIST report and its failure in coming to any conclusive   or reasonable explanation of the collapse..it seems that the NIST version is so ludicrous to all that..that one can only dispute the controlled demolition theory while rejecting the NIST report ..I


Where did the nist claim they couldn't find an explanation for the collapse?

You're making shit up again!!!


----------



## eots (Oct 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > no one appears to be capable of debating the validity of NIST report and its failure in coming to any conclusive   or reasonable explanation of the collapse..it seems that the NIST version is so ludicrous to all that..that one can only dispute the controlled demolition theory while rejecting the NIST report ..I
> ...




You're the worst offender for fusing popular mechanics myths and the NIST report


----------



## Fizz (Oct 7, 2010)

eots said:


> You're the worst offender for fusing popular mechanics myths and the NIST report


so? 

you base your crap on stupid youtube videos!! 
i find the NIST report and even popular mechanics more reliable than youtube. 

find any proof of explosive demolitions yet?


----------



## Jos (Oct 8, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...


It was "PULLED" was it not?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 8, 2010)

Jos said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...


define "pulled"


----------



## Fizz (Oct 8, 2010)

Jos said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...



yes. all the firefighters were pulled out and it was left to burn.


----------



## fyrenza (Oct 8, 2010)

Jos said:


> An israel-firster might  be an  American who puts isreali interests before American interests



Oh, OOPS!

An Isreali fighter puts GOD'S interests above American interests.

What a shock.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 8, 2010)

fyrenza said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > An israel-*first*er might  be an  American who puts isreali interests before American interests
> ...


i think you read that wrong


----------



## Jos (Oct 8, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100[/ame]


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 8, 2010)

Jos said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...



We're still waiting for you to explain what "pulled" means.


----------



## Jos (Oct 8, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Who is "We", or do you have multiple sock puppets here?
Ask Larry to explain what " He" meant by pull it. (did he mean his finger?)
Wiki can give you their explanation
Answers.com - What does it mean to pull a building

What do you think "pull it" means?>>


----------



## eots (Oct 8, 2010)

the decision was made to pull;; and we watched the building come down....but all the firefighters had been out for hours before the collapse


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 8, 2010)

Jos said:


> Who is "We", or do you have multiple sock puppets here?



We = me and the other sane people on this forum.



Jos said:


> Ask Larry to explain what " He" meant by pull it. (did he mean his finger?)



Here's a video for the explanation. Of course you don't have to believe it, your choice.

LiveLeak.com - 9/11 Debunked: Larry Silverstein's "Pull It" Explained



Jos said:


> What do you think "pull it" means?



I believe he was talking about the fire fighters and such.


You still haven't said what you think happened.


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 8, 2010)

eots said:


> the decision was made to pull;; and we watched the building come down....but all the firefighters had been out for hours before the collapse



You're making the claim.

What time was the decision made to pull and what time were the safety forces pulled out and what time did the building collapse?


----------



## Jos (Oct 8, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > Who is "We", or do you have multiple sock puppets here?
> ...


 LOL and pray tell how "sane" people like you get Banned from arguewitheveryone?


----------



## Dante (Oct 8, 2010)

Jos said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...



What is "arguewitheveryone"?


----------



## Jos (Oct 8, 2010)

Dante said:


> What is "arguewitheveryone"?


Let me google that for you


----------



## Dante (Oct 8, 2010)

Jos said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > What is "arguewitheveryone"?
> ...



 haven't used that link B-4

Let me google that for you


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 8, 2010)

Jos said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...



Because I openly challenged the site owner regarding his new "copyright" rules...and lost.

See, it doesn't hurt to actually answer a question. You should give it a try.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 8, 2010)

Jos said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...



Read what these* firefighters* say about what "pull it" means.

Firefighters Forums: Term "Pull it"


----------



## Dante (Oct 8, 2010)

the last word on this




Dante said:


> *Wishing eots was in wtc 7 when it collapsed*
> 
> Not that anyone or I should wish this, but I think this may be the only way the fool would ever get IT, IT being the truth.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jos (Oct 8, 2010)

fyrenza said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > An israel-firster might  be an  American who puts isreali interests before American interests
> ...



Would that be the Israeli Fisters?


----------



## Jos (Oct 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Read what these* firefighters* say about what "pull it" means.
> 
> Firefighters Forums: Term "Pull it"


These appear to be real firefighters
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8efGoRSLUG8[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Oct 8, 2010)

Jos said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Read what these* firefighters* say about what "pull it" means.
> ...



i watched the first 4 seconds because thats all you get when you arent fucking smart enough to tell people where to look in a fifteen minute video. 

i'm not watching the whole thing. if you have a point then make it. otherwise, if i want to watch youtube videos i will go to youtube's site.

once again, secondary explosions happen at fires all the time. its nothing new. it does not mean explosive demolitions.


----------



## Jos (Oct 8, 2010)

Fizz said:


> i watched the first 4 seconds because thats all you get when you arent fucking smart enough to tell people where to look in a fifteen minute video.
> 
> i'm not watching the whole thing. if you have a point then make it. otherwise, if i want to watch youtube videos i will go to youtube's site.
> 
> once again, secondary explosions happen at fires all the time. its nothing new. it does not mean explosive demolitions.



Ah a dumb American


----------



## Fizz (Oct 8, 2010)

Jos said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > i watched the first 4 seconds because thats all you get when you arent fucking smart enough to tell people where to look in a fifteen minute video.
> ...



an american on *US*MESSAGEBOARD.

and you find this odd?


----------



## eots (Oct 8, 2010)

Dante said:


> the last word on this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you have not the first clue of the nist report and it failings ...go back to what you are good at ... playing the role of lefty in the false left/right paradigm you call ltruth


----------

