# WTC-7 Was NOT A Controlled Demolition Inside Job



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Plain and simple. 

The failure of the structure was due mostly to thermal expansion. You see, Terral would like you to think that the connections and steel columns/beams needed to reach temperatures of 2800F in order to MELT. The columns, connections, and beams didn't need to melt to cause structural failure in the building. Think of this. If you have two columns with a beam between them bolted to each and applied heat to the beam, what happens? The steel GROWS as it is heated. 

One inch of steel grows .00000645 of an inch per degree F. So a 30 foot beam equals 360 inches. 360 x .00000645 equals .002322 inches. .002322 inches x 100F equals .2322 inches. So a 30 foot beam at 100F grows almost a 1/4 inch. 

According to NIST, the fireproofing kept the temperatures of the columns in WTC7 to 570F and no higher. So 30 feet of steel column at 570F would have grown by (570F x .002322 equals 1.32 inches) more than 1 1/4 inches. 

According to NIST, the floor beams in the east side of the building reached 1, 100F. So a 30 foot beam would have grown (1,100F x .002322 equals 2.5543 inches) over 2 1/2 inches. What does that do to the bolted connections on the columns? 

Let's look at this. I worked in steel mills. They use steam and superheated steam all the time. Here is a picture what they call an "expansion loop" designed into the steam line.






As the pipelines grow and shrink from use, the two lower "elbows" grow toward and shrink away from each other. The pipes utilize what's called a "roller" to allow the pipe to expand/contract. Here is a picture of a roller which is installed under the pipe.





Here is a drawing of where the "roller" is located under the pipe.





I have seen welded pipe supports sheared off of support beams because of improper placement of expansion "rollers" and "expansion loops". What do you think happens to the bolted connections of floor beams? Steam in steel mills run at temperatures of 500F to 1100F.

Not only did we have thermal expansion amongst the beams/columns, but let's throw in the fact that the steel columns and beams also WEAKENED due to the fire.

Did you ever turn on your hot water at home and hear the "creaking" noises? That's the copper pipes expanding due to the hot water running through them.

So now we have connections popping from thermal expansion, but add in the strength of the steel weakening. This all lead to the collapse of the main column in the building, below the mechanical penthouse, which has been shown to have collapsed in the video I present and why Terral only shows you the part of the video AFTER that happens.

Quite dishonest eh?

So, the columns did not need to "melt" for the steel structure to fail. This is why they use arguments like "melted steel" and "no fire can melt steel". They don't understand thermal expansion and steel weakening and try to divert people away from the actual explanation. This is why Dr. Quintiere says HIS theory is that heat caused the CONNECTIONS to fail, not the beams as NIST says. THAT'S why he wants the study to be looked at again. Not because of thermite or explosives.

The fact still remains that Terral disproves his own claims about thermite being used when he says that no "burning" or "melting" is evident in this next photo that HE annotated. Kind of disproves thermite being used huh? 






There's a whole site and PDFs that discuss how thermal expansion and fires caused the WTC7 to collapse. Terral is making shit up in his own theory which is why he won't answer any of my questions in the other thread he made.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 26, 2009)

All Anyone needs to know about why or how WTC7 fell.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

The real professionals laid it all out for us.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> All Anyone needs to know about why or how WTC7 fell.
> 
> http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf
> 
> The real professionals laid it all out for us.



Thanks SFC. I forgot to link that.


----------



## Terral (Oct 26, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> *WTC-7 Was NOT A Controlled Demolition Inside Job
> 
> *Plain and simple.



Gam is attempting to prove a 'negative' thesis, which amounts to proving nothing at all. Gam is here to push the "Official Govt Cover Story" that *"WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires,"* which is physically IMPOSSIBLE. There is no historical precedent for steel-frame skyscrapers collapsing CD-style into their own footprints from building fires 'and' Gam very well knows it. This is what a typical Controlled Demolition looks like (my WTC-7 CD Topic):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A&feature=player_embedded"]Gam Is Trying To Convince You That 'This' Happened From Building Fires[/ame] 



Gamolon said:


> The failure of the structure was due mostly to thermal expansion.



Mostly? :0) Thermal Expansion could 'never' cause the simultaneous failure of 'all' WTC-7 girders, columns, beams and bar-joists at the very same time! Any steel-framed network transports heat energy 'away' from the source into cooler areas of the network faster than any single component can be softened or melted. WTC-7 was built using *"Compartmentalization"* of all steel supports (911Research), which rules out 'Death By Fire.' Period. Here is Gam's Big Problem:

My WTC-7 CD Topic Again:






WTC-7 is imploding at free fall speed, but no signs of fire are visible through any of the unbroken windows!






WTC-7 shows the telltale 'Kink' in the roof line that is typical of Controlled Demolition Implosions. The center columns are blown out first, so the other walls can collapse inwardly upon the falling debris . . . 






. . . into a neat little pile. Look at all of the adjacent building faces to realize that WTC-7 imploded 'straight down' symmetrically into its own footprint. Even if building fires cuckoo were set all over the skyscraper (which they were not), then Gam offers no rhyme nor reason for 'how' thousands of 2800-degree columns and beams and girders were 'cut,' so that everything fell into a neat little pile. 



Gamolon said:


> You see, Terral would like you to think that the connections and steel columns/beams needed to reach temperatures of 2800F in order to MELT.



Gam is pretending that Terral stands alone with the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Explanation, when this is the precise conclusion of *hundreds of architects and engineers* (AE911Truth.org) and *scholars *(ScholarsForTruth.org) and *other people with Demolition Experience* (#3).  

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTBMcxx-78"]Judge For Yourself[/ame]



Gamolon said:


> The columns, connections, and beams didn't need to melt to cause structural failure in the building. Think of this. If you have two columns with a beam between them bolted to each and applied heat to the beam, what happens? The steel GROWS as it is heated.



Gam is trying to razzle-dazzle you with Bullony! We already saw that WTC-7 was collapsing 'and' there was no sign of any fires through the unbroken windows!






What fires??? Gam is 'talks' about fires and that is *his evidence* cuckoo! Hey, if you guys want to believe this guy pushing the *"Official Cover Story LIE,"* then thanks for helping to prove *my thesis* (#9).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0"]WTC-7 Controlled Demolition. You Decide.[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIx2CVRxRXg&feature=related]WTC-7 Controlled Demolition. You Decide.[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 26, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why _would_ there be historical evidence of this? It's not like we have a whole bunch 9/11 type historical scenarios to refer to Terrall. Even if we did a few like events to makes some kind of comparison it still woudn't amount to any statistical correlation. This may be your weakest argument yet. Especally the last sentence. You basically admit your theory is based on what it looks like to you. That's what it LOOKED like to damn near everyone. And the difference between them and you is basically a paranoid over active imagination.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Wow Terral!!!!

Look at all that severed steel...

Look at the steel structure leaning against that wall...

look at all that thermite froth on the ends of the columns and beams....

You're nothing but a liar. You have no evidence whatsoever.


----------



## eots (Oct 26, 2009)

For OpEdNews: Alan Miller - Writer

Official Explanation a Fraud 

*
World renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., has severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation, I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.*


Lynn Margulis, PhD




One of Americas most prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academys Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the *National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement*, "for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public." 

In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com, Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties. She compared 9/11 to several self-inflicted attacks that had been used in the past to arouse peoples fear and hatred and justify war, including the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, the Reichstag Fire, and Operation Himmler, which Germany used to justify the invasion of Poland, the trigger for World War II.

In her statement, Dr. Margulis cites the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11 as a useful source of information and analysis of problems with the official account of 9/11. She specifically lauded The New Pearl Harbor and The* 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.*
Internationally acclaimed for her ground-breaking scientific work, Dr. Margulis is an elected member of *The World Academy of Art and Science, an organization of 500 of the worlds leading thinkers*, chosen for eminence in art, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. And in 2006, she was selected as one of The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders by the editors of Resurgence magazine.

Dr. Margulis full statement can be read at PatriotsQuestion911.com. More information about Dr. Margulis career can be found at Sciencewriters.



Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

_*but bern8o and gam say you a toofer moron with a overactive imagination and paranoia...so consider yourself dedunked...ha..ha...cherckmate bitch*_


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

I'm supposed to be impressed that she a biologist when discussing structural steel calcs, thermal expansion, and load calcs?

Riggggghhhhhhhttt.

I guess when I have questions about biology, I'll go to a structural engineer.


----------



## Terral (Oct 26, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> You're nothing but a liar. You have no evidence whatsoever . . .








<< GAM!!

Gam ran out of *"Building Fires Did It" evidence* rather quickly . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]Liar! Liar! Pants Are On Fire![/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60"]Here Is Gam's Liar-N-Chief[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ]There Are A Lot Of People Who LIE And Get Away With It[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Typical. I have plenty of evidence. you just can't debunk it like I have your theory.


----------



## eots (Oct 26, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Gam:
> ...



where did you ever get the idea hysterical denials = debunked..lol


----------



## Terral (Oct 26, 2009)

Hi Eots:



eots said:


> where did you ever get the idea hysterical denials = debunked..lol



Hey, if anybody wants to believe that building fires can cause the CD-style collapse of steel-frame skyscrapers cuckoo, then mo-power-2-them (#9) . . .

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 27, 2009)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...



Riiighhhhtt.

How have you debunked any of my claims or evidence? Can you tell me that thermal expansion CAN'T cause connection failures in a building?

Can you debunk the fact that steel weakens at much lower temperatures that its melting temperature?

Where are all the thermite signatures Terral keeps saying he sees for WTC7?

Why does Terral or you not answer the questions pertaining to Terral's assinine theory of thermite?

You guys are goofballs.


----------



## Douger (Oct 27, 2009)

When you dumb motherfuckers quote are you smart enough to ditch the previous large photos and youtube imbedding ?
I doubt it.
 Uniquely Amurkin.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 27, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Eots:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And there is where you prove my point. Controlled demolition is accomplished by using explosives or other means to remove key support elements in order to have the building collapse in on itself with the help of gravity, minimizing as much as possible damage to surrounding structures.

Thermal expansion can accomplish the same thing along with steel weakening. I have PROVEN that thermal expansion is real and does happen. Structural steel weakening has been proven.

Your denial is idiotic. 

The fact that thermal expansion of steel members can sever bolts and break welds is has the same affect as severing connections using explosives. You're just too stupid to get that. 

Maybe you should pray for some understanding.

Even eots main squeeze, Mr. Quintiere, says that he believes that heat affected the connections in WTC and not the columns. Go figure. 

You claim that there are thermite signatures are everywhere for WTC7, yet you provide no proof. You even debunk that claim with your own photo. What a joke.

You claim that the column photo for WTC1 shows "themite residue". I (and others) have shown that it's a torch cut. It even compares exactly to other torch cut photos.

You use a cut version of a video to show that the collapse of WTC7 took 6.6 seconds. Now you changed your tune about that. 

You say the collapse of WTC7 was "one smooth motion". WRONG. It wasn't The penthouse collapsed first.

You say the collapse of WTC7 had EVERY connection severed by thermite yet the structure fell as ONE UNIT. 

I already pointed out a major mistake in one of your photos that you ADMITTED to. 

Now you just post the same crap over and over instead of answering questions because you know your dead wrong.


----------



## Terral (Oct 27, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> And there is where you prove my point. Controlled demolition is accomplished by using explosives or other means to remove key support elements in order to have the building collapse in on itself with the help of gravity, minimizing as much as possible damage to surrounding structures.



We agree. This 47-story skyscraper . . . 






. . . was transformed into this little pile . . . 






. . . in mere seconds using Controlled Demolition that is plain as the nose on your face in all of the videos:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A&feature=player_embedded"]This Is What Controlled Demolition Look Like[/ame]



Gamolon said:


> Thermal expansion can accomplish the same thing along with steel weakening. I have PROVEN that thermal expansion is real and does happen. Structural steel weakening has been proven.



No. Gam is here to shovel out the Official Cover Story LIE that building fires brought down WTC-7, which is very much IMPOSSIBLE. Gam is trying to say that a real Demolition Supervisor (#3) can thrown a match into a skyscraper, run away, and the thing will come tumbling down into its own footprint later that afternoon! Get real dude! 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I"]This Guy Is A Demolition Expert[/ame]



Gamolon said:


> Your denial is idiotic.



No. The notion that overbuilt skyscrapers can implode CD-style from building fires is the most idiotic thing that anyone can possibly try to pass off as 'reality' in a kabillion years! However, if anybody wants to believe that NONSENSE, then you cuckoo have every right to believe in *fairy tales* (#9). 



Gamolon said:


> The fact that thermal expansion of steel members can sever bolts and break welds is has the same affect as severing connections using explosives. You're just too stupid to get that.



No sir. Heat energy races through the girders, columns and beams into the cooler areas of the steel-frame network, until dispersed in the atmosphere or into the ground through the massive concrete pads. Gam is trying to say that heat energy sits motionless within the steel-frame network, as if the adjacent columns and beams will remain perfectly cool! What a moron! :0) 

Look at the size of the columns and beams that we are talking about:


















Remember that these massive beams and columns are bolted and welded to other supports inside the steel-frame network, which means any building fire heat energy races down the column into the adjacent beam and into the next column and the next beam and the next column throughout the entire skyscraper! Then wake up and realize that WTC-7 was NOT struck by any Jetliner and the building fires mere minimal 'and' the entire building was protected by a sprinkler system (story)! So who confused turned off the sprinkler system? :0)

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 28, 2009)

Just in case you *cough* missed this *cough* in the other thread, why did you lie and knowingly use an incorrect photo to advance your mistake ridden claims?



Gamolon said:


> Hey Terral.
> 
> Got a question for you. Why did you lie in this post at this forum here. The YBBS - View Single Post - 9/11 Was Definitely An Inside Job
> 
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 29, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting. 

I see no "thermite froth" signature in ANY of those photos. Further proof that your thermite claims are garbage.

Nice job again debunking your own crap. 



When will you learn? My guess is never.


----------



## kyzr (Oct 29, 2009)

I saw very plainly on the news that WTC-7 was demolished because it was structurally unsound and could not be repaired.  I have no idea what the conspiracy buffs are whining about. 
Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 29, 2009)

kyzr said:


> I saw very plainly on the news that WTC-7 was demolished because it was structurally unsound and could not be repaired.  I have no idea what the conspiracy buffs are whining about.
> Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition



Sounds entirely plausible. What is your point exactly?


----------



## kyzr (Oct 29, 2009)

The point is that there is no dispute about WTC-7.  It was deliberately taken down since it was so severely damaged by the WTC collapse and subsequent fire that it could not be restored.  

If there is a "conspiracy" it has to be about the WTC towers, NOT WTC-7.


----------



## eots (Oct 29, 2009)

kyzr said:


> The point is that there is no dispute about WTC-7.  It was deliberately taken down since it was so severely damaged by the WTC collapse and subsequent fire that it could not be restored.
> 
> If there is a "conspiracy" it has to be about the WTC towers, NOT WTC-7.



well the fact is there is a dispute as the official lie is that it fell due to building fires
and that is in fact a conspiracy


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 29, 2009)

eots said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that there is no dispute about WTC-7.  It was deliberately taken down since it was so severely damaged by the WTC collapse and subsequent fire that it could not be restored.
> ...




I suppose the damages to the s/w corner and the south side of the building had nothing to do with it? You know the areas where the tower fell on it and ripped the whole corner out for 10 stories or so? Remember what started the fires and why they had to burn out of control for hours?  Once again I offer the only proof I need to know that the building fell because of damages it sustained during the fall of the towers, and the uncontrolled fires.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf


----------



## Dante (Oct 29, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> All Anyone needs to know about why or how WTC7 fell.
> 
> http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf
> 
> The real professionals laid it all out for us.



but, but, but...what about the big bad government coverup? without IT my world is just as shitty as my outlook on life?

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha!


thanx for the clairity in this thread, but it is not going to generate enough controversy to keep it alive.


----------



## eots (Oct 29, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...



it makes no sense at all for the building to collapse in the controlled Even way it did every single beam and column would need to fail at the same precise moment even though both fire and structural damage was random and dispersed unevenly...if anything the building would have a partial collapse or topple over


----------



## eots (Oct 29, 2009)

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.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, &#8220;Questions on the WTC Investigations&#8221; at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. &#8220;I wish that there would be a peer review of this,&#8221; he said, referring to the NIST investigation. &#8220;I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they&#8217;ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.&#8221;

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST&#8217;s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. &#8220;And that building was not hit by anything,&#8221; noted Dr. Quintiere. &#8220;It&#8217;s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!&#8221;

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## Toro (Oct 29, 2009)

Good job Gamolon.

Get ready for a barrage of 485 youtube videos by people who have no idea what they are talking about.


----------



## eots (Oct 29, 2009)

Toro said:


> Good job Gamolon.
> 
> Get ready for a barrage of 485 youtube videos by people who have no idea what they are talking about.



good job at denial....so you are plannig on postimg 485 videos..toto ?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 30, 2009)

eots said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that there is no dispute about WTC-7.  It was deliberately taken down since it was so severely damaged by the WTC collapse and subsequent fire that it could not be restored.
> ...



To say that the non-truthers are claiming building fires did it is a bit simplistic, dishonest and misleading. If you want to have an honest conversation about this please attempt to show a little integrity. 

That said I am inclined to accept either scenario simply because there are plenty of logical reasons for the government to bring the building down.


----------



## Toro (Oct 30, 2009)

eots said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Good job Gamolon.
> ...



Not 485 videos by a bunch of dumb goobers, id-eots.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 30, 2009)

Nothing like denouncing Terral to really set this nutbar loon off!


----------



## Terral (Oct 30, 2009)

Hi Kyzr:



kyzr said:


> I saw very plainly on the news that WTC-7 was demolished because it was structurally unsound and could not be repaired.  I have no idea what the conspiracy buffs are whining about.
> Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition



The Official Cover Story LIE says WTC-7 collapsed from building fires/debris, after being hit by no jetliner or anything else. For WTC-7 to be intentionally *'demolished'* (Controlled Demolition), the job requires a good amount of 'time' that nobody had on 9/11 'after' the inside-job attacks began. Surveying and wiring WTC-7 for Demolition would take weeks or even months to complete and the idea that the 2800-degree steel-frame network was 'damaged beyond repair' from building fires is absolutely ridiculous!!!! 

WTC-7 Controlled Demolition << Click here

Watch the short video and decide for yourself. Again, Gam is trying to prove a negative thesis, which amounts to proving nothing at all. Zip, zero, nada, nothing. He can say, *"WTC-7 Did NOT Collapse From Santa And His Reindeer," *but that also makes a case for nothing at all. For the explanation that *"WTC-7 Definitely Collapsed From Controlled Demolition,"* see my Topic here. 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 30, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Kyzr:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, so what? It's actually something that makes sense to do given the nature of the information housed within that building. You complain that it was CD and that the area was cordoned off too quickly, yet that is exaclty what the government should have done at that point.


----------



## manu1959 (Oct 30, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...



yes blowing up  wtc 7 was intregal to taking over the world....

wtc 7 was hit by the colapsing wtc towers..tearing out almost ten floors of structure....disabling the fire sprinnkler system.....steel loses its strength at .....come on terll tell my at what temperature it fails.....hint it isn't 2800 deg.....

as someone said....it takes weeks or months to prep a building and as someone said...every column and beam would need to be preped......the planning prior to starting this work would takes many more months of engineering....

so ....lets see sept 11.....bush took office what january 20... so that would mean there were 7 months to do the engineering hire the contractor (no bid contractor i am sure) and wire the building....meanwhile another team is working to make four planes disapear along with all the people....

7 months isn't enough time.....

i say bill and hillary clinton along with richard clarke and george tenant planned it all and set it in motion with the help of bills big contibutors from dubai....


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 30, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Kyzr:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So let's set things straight. You provide a theory as to how WTC7 came down. You say it was controlled demolition by thermite cutting charges. You provide pictures, videos, and quotes as a basis for coming to your conclusions of WTC7 being brought down by thermite charges.

I provide evidence that shows that on many of your pieces of evidence you use to come to your conclusion are INCORRECT. Let's go through those, shall we.

1. This picture below. You ADMITTED that you were wrong about the upper right column being cut at 45 degrees. This renders your follow up claim that nobody could have gotten up their to cut it moot. 2 claims rendered incorrect and useless in one swing.





2. Then there's this major lie form you, which you try and play off as a mistake. Now you admit that you were wrong about that.


Terral said:


> WTC-7 is already imploding at free fall speed, but there is 'no' sign of any building fires through any of the unbroken windows! And yet, this same skyscraper was reduced to this little pile . . .



3. Let's return again to this photo that you annotated. You claim that there is "thermite signature" everywhere such as cuts and thermite froth. Yet in this photo, you admit that there is no "MELTING" or " BURN " marks rendering your "tons of thermite signatures" null and void. You effectively canceled your own claim out in the same damn photo. What an idiot.

4. Then you go on a rant that the cuts in this photo cannot be made from a torch, but from thermite.





But after further review, these photo show the same exact types of cuts and slag as the photo above. These next photos show torch cuts.









5. You keep lying about the fact that WTC7 COMPLETELY collapsed in 6.6 seconds at free fall. Video evidence provided here shows you are COMPLETELY wrong. It shows more than DOUBLE your idiotic 6.6 seconds.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k]YouTube - WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse[/ame]

6. You have been explained many times about thermal expansion and how it affects steel, welds, and connections. I have seen first hand welds that have been snapped under piping supports due to incorrect installation of thermal expansion loops. 

7. Your understanding of structures, loads, and stresses is severely lacking. You claim that steel structures cannot collapse by office fire. You try and complicate things for the reader by added the term COMPLETELY collapse. This is misleading. Per the Windsor building pictured below, the steel part of this structure collapsed due to fire. Period. Whether it collapsed totally or not, the STEEL STRUCTURE part of the building still COLLAPSED due to fire. This is why you and your lemming Eots won't touch that piece of evidence.





8. You try and confuse the reader by using the fact that steel doesn't melt until temps reach 2800 degrees and office fires only reach temps of 800F-1000F. First, steel doesn't need to melt to cause problems. Steel loses it's strength starting at mush lower temps. Then there is thermal expansion that SNAPPED CONNECTIONS in WTC7 as I have provided proof of.

9. James Quintiere isn't calling for a new investigation because he believes that it was a controlled demolition. He wants one because he thinks that the fires caused the TRUSS CONNECTIONS to fail, not the columns as NIST's conclusion states. His quote is in his paper.

10. STILL waiting for you to provide just ONE good photo of all this "thermite siganature" garbage you keep claiming is out there on the columns and beams of WTC7. Not ONE picture can be found with what you say is there.


It's amazing how much shit you try and mislead people with to believe your deluded fantasies. It seems that every time you do address my evidence (which is like pulling teeth) is only to admit you were wrong about something. THAT'S why you avoid my proof. Eots' issue is that he has his head so far up your ass, he could probably tell you what you had for lunch last week. This is evident that he he NEVER says one word against your theory OR evidence even when you are caught red handed in a lie or mistake. Hey Eots? Where's your criticism of Terral's major mistakes? What a biased dolt you turned out to be.

So Terral,  let's debate your WTC7 claims if you have the guts and quit trying to redirect the conversation elsewhere. You're nothing but a bible thumping coward at this point. You think that because you have God behind you and quote passages from the bible, people will put that much more faith into what you say.

I have shown you to be nothing more than a liar and miscreant and that you use God's word as nothing more than a shield to hide behind.

How sad for you.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 30, 2009)

I see that Terral still isn't addressing the Damages done to WTC7 by the falling towers. Hard to believe anyone over the age of 12 is that short sighted. (That's a code word for Dumb Ass btw)


----------



## eots (Oct 30, 2009)

ames 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.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, &#8220;Questions on the WTC Investigations&#8221; at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. &#8220;I wish that there would be a peer review of this,&#8221; he said, referring to the NIST investigation. &#8220;I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they&#8217;ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.&#8221;

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST&#8217;s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. &#8220;And that building was not hit by anything,&#8221; noted Dr. Quintiere. &#8220;It&#8217;s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!&#8221;

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 30, 2009)

you guys still wasting your time with these disinfo agent plants?


----------



## eots (Oct 30, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Kyzr:
> ...



this building looks burnt to a crisp compared to the small random fires at the wtc 7 and it appears to be standing..this building also appears to be under construction..and it certainly has not collapsed into its own footprit at near free fall speed


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 30, 2009)

eots said:


> this building looks burnt to a crisp compared to the small random fires at the wtc 7 and it appears to be standing..this building also appears to be under construction..and it certainly has not collapsed into its own footprit at near free fall speed



Mistake number one. The part that is shown to have collapse was a STEEL STRUCTURE.

Mistake number two. It was a building fire. According to you, Terral, and 9/11 inside job, building fired only reach 800F-1000F.

Mistake number three. The part that is still standing was reinforced with CONCRETE.

So let's discuss this part of your quote eots.


eots said:


> this building looks burnt to a crisp



Are you suggesting that the severity of a building fire would contribute to the partial collapse of a STEEL STRUCTURE?

I'm really curious now. What caused the collapse of the STEEL STRUCTURE part of this building? It's either fire or something else. What's your answer?


----------



## Terral (Oct 30, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Mistake number one. The part that is shown to have collapse was a STEEL STRUCTURE.



Wrong. Your first mistake was starting this Topic using a negative thesis, as if you 'can' prove that WTC-7 burned down from building fires cuckoo. The *Controlled Demolition Explanation *(AE911Truth.org) is the 'only' answer for what took WTC-7 down in 6.6 seconds! Period!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]This Is 'Clearly' Controlled Demolition[/ame]



Gamolon said:


> Mistake number two. It was a building fire. According to you, Terral, and 9/11 inside job, building fired only reach 800F-1000F.



No. The source is *SchwabCorp* and *Underwriters Laboratories* (link from my WTC-7 CD Topic). Gam's job is to prove that thousands of massive 2800-degree red-iron steel girders, columns and beams were 'cut' by building fires at the very same time to create a Controlled Demolition-like IMPLOSION. Of course, he can also explain how the BBC reported that WTC-7 Collapsed about one half hour early:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo"]This Never Happened Before In History . . .[/ame] 



Gamolon said:


> Mistake number three. The part that is still standing was reinforced with CONCRETE.



Wrong. WTC-7 . . . 







. . . collapsed into its own footprint to create . . . 






. . . this little pile. Now Gam confused can start explaining where the 47 concrete slabs went in the time it took for WTC-7 to collapse at free fall speed! :0) Gam has the impossible task of defending the Official Cover Story LIE, which nobody on earth can do in a kabillion years. 

This bonehead cuckoo thinks that his job is to ask stupid questions, when he is supposed to be proving that WTC-7 collapsed CD-style into its own footprint from building fires. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]Gam Is What An Official Cover Story Stooge Looks Like ...[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 30, 2009)

Terral said:


> The 'only' answer for what took WTC-7 down in 6.6 seconds! Period!



Another lie Terral? Tsk Tsk Mr. Lake of Fire.
Here's the TRUE video of the collapse. More than DOUBLE your 6.6 garbage.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k]YouTube - WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse[/ame]

Why do you continue to lie?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 30, 2009)

Terral said:


> This bonehead cuckoo thinks that his job is to ask stupid questions, when he is supposed to be proving that WTC-7 collapsed CD-style into its own footprint from building fires.



Still waiting for your "bunch of thermite siganture" photos for WTC7. Have you found at least one?


----------



## Terral (Oct 30, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Still waiting for your "bunch of thermite siganture" photos for WTC7. Have you found at least one?














Thank you for working so hard to prove *my point* (#9). Your job is to create even more *Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPES*, just like you cuckoo. :0)






GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Oct 30, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > The 'only' answer for what took WTC-7 down in 6.6 seconds! Period!
> ...



the penthouse collapsed in about 2 secs and the entirety of the rest of the structure fall in less than 7 secs


----------



## kyzr (Oct 31, 2009)

I can see why the conspiracy nuts are all over WTC-7.  I found several discrepancies about the "official" story.
Here is the NIST version
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Yet I also found several credible sources that say that the WTC-7 remnants were demolished since the building was severely damaged and they didn't want it collapsing on the rescue workers.  So I don't know what the truth is, but it doesn't really matter since the collapse or demolition of WTC-7 wasn't the reason the WTC towers fell.  The baby killers who flew the jetliners into the towers brought down WTC-1, WTC-2 *and WTC-7.*


----------



## Trojan (Oct 31, 2009)

kyzr said:


> I
> 
> Yet I also found several credible sources that say that the WTC-7 remnants were demolished since the building was severely damaged and they didn't want it collapsing on the rescue workers.



What are the credible sources?


----------



## kyzr (Oct 31, 2009)

Trojan said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...


play the top video link
silverstein says to demolish WTC-7 - Google Videos


----------



## Trojan (Oct 31, 2009)

kyzr said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...



Your credible source is 'pull it' ??  That's your credible sources?

That's it?

If you don't want the building to collapse on rescue workers, you get them out of the building

You don't go into a burning building with explosives


----------



## kyzr (Oct 31, 2009)

Trojan said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > Trojan said:
> ...



I found another link where Silverstein clarifies that he meant to pull the firefighters to prevent their injury.  Here's the wiki link that has a nice explanation of the WTC-7 collapse.
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure why the conspiracy guys argue over WTC-7 anyway?  After the WTC towers fell on the smaller buildings, its obvious why they went down.


----------



## eots (Oct 31, 2009)

a _nice explanation_ what a goofball..._so we made the decision to pull it.._like that's how someone speaks when referring to people..


----------



## kyzr (Oct 31, 2009)

eots said:


> a _nice explanation_ what a goofball..._so we made the decision to pull it.._like that's how someone speaks when referring to people..



I'm still waiting for the conspiracy rationale'.  There is no there there.  

Why does it matter if WTC-7 fell down, or was brought down since it was so severely damaged???  What is the purpose of the "conspiracy"??


----------



## Trojan (Oct 31, 2009)

eots said:


> a _nice explanation_ what a goofball..._so we made the decision to pull it.._like that's how someone speaks when referring to people..



Nice argument from incredulity - got anything of substance?


----------



## eots (Oct 31, 2009)

kyzr said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > a _nice explanation_ what a goofball..._so we made the decision to pull it.._like that's how someone speaks when referring to people..
> ...



the purpose was a false flag terror attack to be used as a pretext for war and the invasion of two sovereign nations


----------



## kyzr (Oct 31, 2009)

eots said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



There are several major problems with that theory.
1. How WTC-7 collapsed is irrelevant to that point.  
2. Common sense says that the jet liners caused the disaster, and AQ controlled the jet liners.
3. Your only chance at a sane explanation is that someone paid AQ to conduct the attack, but who?
   a)  the CIA?
   b)  Mossad?
   c)  the Russkies?
   d)  Saddam?
   e)  someone else??

4. I don't see anyone risking a major war with the US over sponsoring a terror attack.  The only ones stupid enough to do it were living in caves in the middle of nowhere.  They said the reason for the attack was the old "for supporting Israel".  If you know any arabs you know what they feel for Israel.  

5. What would we gain from attacking AFG and Iraq?  AFG has no oil, no value that I know of.  I don't see any point of invading AFG especially after they kicked the Russkies' butts.

6. Similarly, I don't see why we would invade Iraq.  We aren't conquerers out to build empires or capture land or resources.  We have no reason to setup a pretext for a war with Iraq.  We had nothing to gain.  We are leaving Iraq with a democracy and in-charge of their oil.  

*Tell me what we had to gain by setting up a pretext to invade AFG and Iraq???  Why would we want to, and who would kill fellow Americans, which agency conducted this operation, and why wasn't congressional oversight involved, or was it?*


----------



## Trojan (Oct 31, 2009)

eots said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Do you have an aversion to answering questions?  What's the purpose of WTC 7, which had no victims and very little media attention?


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...



 my belife is it was because it housed enron investigation materials CIA documents and was the base of operations preceding the attacks and of course was also owned by Larry silverstein


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

kyzr said:


> I can see why the conspiracy nuts are all over WTC-7.  I found several discrepancies about the "official" story.
> Here is the NIST version
> Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
> 
> Yet I also found several credible sources that say that the WTC-7 remnants were demolished since the building was severely damaged and they didn't want it collapsing on the rescue workers.  So I don't know what the truth is, but it doesn't really matter since the collapse or demolition of WTC-7 wasn't the reason the WTC towers fell.  The baby killers who flew the jetliners into the towers brought down WTC-1, WTC-2 *and WTC-7.*




*Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation*


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s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.*Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, Questions on the WTC Investigations at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. I wish that there would be a peer review of this, he said, referring to the NIST investigation. I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what theyve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.


*I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable, *explained Dr. Quintiere. Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.

Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. *I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way, *


OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## candycorn (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




So he had access (and thereby could grant access) to the entire complex....yet instead of simply letting some dudes in to hit the "delete" button on a computer or wipe out file boxes.... 


he arranges for two plane crashes, two buildings to be wired for demolition, two demolition jobs on occupied buidings, kills 2,800 people, then, while the world is watching authorizes a demolition on a thrid building?  

And you wonder why nobody gives you any second thought except for comedic purposes?


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

why do you continue to pretend this is not an opinion held by many and that amongst those  are many highly respected intellectuals .. high ranking veterans  and government research scientist..why can you not even deal with that fact ?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > The 'only' answer for what took WTC-7 down in 6.6 seconds! Period!
> ...


yup that one shows it was well over 12 seconds to collapse


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you are really pathetic


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...


the collapse BEGINS with the penthouse collapse, numbnuts
it didnt finish till it lay in the pile


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

kyzr said:


> I can see why the conspiracy nuts are all over WTC-7.  I found several discrepancies about the "official" story.
> Here is the NIST version
> Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
> 
> Yet I also found several credible sources that say that the WTC-7 remnants were demolished since the building was severely damaged and they didn't want it collapsing on the rescue workers.  So I don't know what the truth is, but it doesn't really matter since the collapse or demolition of WTC-7 wasn't the reason the WTC towers fell.  The baby killers who flew the jetliners into the towers brought down WTC-1, WTC-2 *and WTC-7.*


wrong
they had to destroy OTHER buildings in the WTC complex
WTC4, 5 and 6


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

kyzr said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...


"pull it" is fire fighter terminology for evacuating the building
it dates back to the time before they had radios and would pull on the hose to tell the fire fighters to get out


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> a _nice explanation_ what a goofball..._so we made the decision to pull it.._like that's how someone speaks when referring to people..


fire fighters, YES
see above


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> why do you continue to pretend this is not an opinion held by many and that amongst those  are many highly respected intellectuals .. high ranking veterans  and government research scientist..why can you not even deal with that fact ?


because it ISNT


----------



## candycorn (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> why do you continue to pretend this is not an opinion held by many and that amongst those  are many highly respected intellectuals .. high ranking veterans  and government research scientist..why can you not even deal with that fact ?



*
Opinions....

You're kidding right?

Here is your opinion...that WTC was destroyed to stop an investigation.  

How about some facts.

As master lease holder, he could have (Larry Silverstein) let any number of operatives into 7 WTC to destroy the files.  

But instead, he arranges for:

2 aircraft hi-jackings
2 aircraft crashes
2 controlled demolitions of occupied buildings
the murder of 2,800 people
a controlled demo of 7 WTC after all of the world is watching

There is no respect forthcoming for an obviously brain-dead opinion on your part.

*


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

candycorn said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > why do you continue to pretend this is not an opinion held by many and that amongst those  are many highly respected intellectuals .. high ranking veterans  and government research scientist..why can you not even deal with that fact ?
> ...


almost
4 highjacking
3 controled demolitions
a cruise missile/a modified A-6 skyhawk(to attack the pentagon)
then gets the FBI to confiscate all the security camera footage from about 80 locations around the pentagon so no one can have proof it wasnt a 757 that hit


----------



## kyzr (Nov 1, 2009)

Nice presentation of the Pentagon attack and Flight-77 remains
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk&feature=fvw]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: Pentagon Flight 77 Photo Evidence[/ame]


----------



## Trojan (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> why do you continue to pretend this is not an opinion held by many and that amongst those  are many highly respected intellectuals .. high ranking veterans  and government research scientist..why can you not even deal with that fact ?



Its an opinion held by a fringe, that is populated with anti semites, Holocaust deniers and moon landing conspirtorists.  By and large, they quote mine and mistate evidence - many in the movement are simply looking to make a buck


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

[youtube]_kSq663m0G8[/youtube]


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 1, 2009)

Here is what I don't understand.

The Pentagon is surrounded by cameras.

Why doesn't the Federal government release even one picture of the plane hitting the building?

Just ONE photo would shut down the Truthers argument.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Here is what I don't understand.
> 
> The Pentagon is surrounded by cameras.
> 
> ...


simple
they dont have one
the cameras were not designed to capture something moving in excess of 400 MPH


----------



## Trojan (Nov 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Just ONE photo would shut down the Truthers argument.



You give the truthers too much credit -- one photo would no more stop them 130 witnesses has stoped them to this point.


----------



## Trojan (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > I can see why the conspiracy nuts are all over WTC-7.  I found several discrepancies about the "official" story.
> ...



Your intellectual dishonesty is showing for all to see




> 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.



Why would you provide quotes that seem to support the controlled demolition thesis when the person you quote clearly does not support the thesis?

That is dishonest and is called quote mining.  Please stop being dishonest and misrepresenting the evidence.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what I don't understand.
> ...


That is nonsense

I go to military air shows all of the time.

I just have an old hand held VHS Sony video camera

It has NO problem filming F16, F18, or any other jet fighter doing high speed flyby's at faster speeds than any passenger jets.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


then you know NOTHING about security cams
they dont have the same capture rate
at least they didnt back in 2001
i can only assume that they have been vastly improved since then


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




i can only assume you read too many popular science explanations


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


i can only assume you know nothing about photography and frame rates


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 1, 2009)

We are not talking about security cameras for the parking lot at WalMart or 7-11

This is the Pentagon security system.

You would think the Pentagon would have the latest and most up to date surveillance equipment that money can buy.

In my opinion, the government is hiding something.

Or else they would have released a video or a photo, even if the image was less than perfect.


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...



fuck you ...he says he thinks it is more likely a floor falling ...so don't lie...and the point is he calls the i*investigation questionable* that government lawyers *deterred fact finding *..that critical questions have been ignored...that he encourages us all to become *conspiracy theorist* and calls for a *new independent investigation*...
so why don't you stop being dishonest


----------



## Trojan (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> fuck you ...he says he thinks it is more likely a floor falling ...so don't lie...and the point is he calls the i*investigation questionable* that government lawyers *deterred fact finding *..that critical questions have been ignored...that he encourages us all to become *conspiracy theorist* and calls for a *new independent investigation*...
> so why don't you stop being dishonest



Guess you hate to be caught in a lie, in that case, don't lie and don't misrepresent.

He clearly does not believe any explosives were used, he does not support the truth movement theories.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> We are not talking about security cameras for the parking lot at WalMart or 7-11
> 
> This is the Pentagon security system.
> 
> ...


prove that the pentagon had better than standard security cameras before 9/11
remember the system they had was put in by the LOWEST BIDDER


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you are the one being dishonest
you use words that people said and twist them to fit your delusions


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

lowest bidder...what a goofball


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > We are not talking about security cameras for the parking lot at WalMart or 7-11
> ...


Actually, the onus is on you DiveCon.

To prove that the cameras were unable to capture the jet hitting the Pentgon.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


in the process
but knowing how the DoD procures equipment, i'm fairly sure they didnt have anything better than the standard security cameras because no one would have thought it would be needed 
and not being needed, they wouldnt have PAID for the better cameras


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

btw, i DO know that they just had a state of the art system that completed installation in july 2009


Seeview Security Completes Security Camera Installation Project In The Pentagon


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Trojan said:
> ...



so how do you interpret a call for a new investigation complaints government lawyers deterred fact finding and encouraging people to be conspiracy theorist ???


----------



## Trojan (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> so how do you interpret a call for a new investigation complaints government lawyers deterred fact finding and encouraging people to be conspiracy theorist ???



It does not support the demolition theory when the person making the statement specifically rejects that theory.

Its called quote mining and its intellectually dishonest.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 1, 2009)

Trojan said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Just ONE photo would shut down the Truthers argument.
> ...



I think it is also common sense.

AA 11 is hijacked and hits the North Tower
UAL 175 is hijacked and hits the South Tower

AA 77 is hijacked and, instead of hitting the Pentagon, it flies low enough to hit light poles and has a missile flying right behind it low enough to hit the Pentagon.  The Boeing 757 which is designated as AA77 is thought by the "twoofers" to have pulled up after striking the lightpole and cleared the Pentagon at the same time the missile hits which would have caused enough turbulence to likely bring down the aircraft anyway well after the Pentagon approach.  

So the "twoofers" prefer we believe that AA77 was hijacked for just shits and giggles.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


AA77 was hijacked and then the passengers killed and the body parts tossed inside the pentagon


----------



## kyzr (Nov 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> AA77 was hijacked and then the passengers killed and the body parts tossed inside the pentagon



My point exactly.  The conspiracy guys have no rationale' for anything.  All they do is pick-nits here and there without looking at the real questions.
1. which agency/entity did it?
2. why was it done?
3. how many people were involved?
4. who is going to spill the beans and sell a book?

There is no "there" there.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> We are not talking about security cameras for the parking lot at WalMart or 7-11
> 
> This is the Pentagon security system.
> 
> ...




Yes and the recorded rate for the security cameras at the Pentagon is one Frame per second. At 530 MPH the plane could easily cover the distance between takes. As we have seen in the frames that were released.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > We are not talking about security cameras for the parking lot at WalMart or 7-11
> ...


i guess these morons are expecting the Pentagon to have high speed HD cameras back in 2001 similar to the high speed cameras they use on the discovery channels show "time warp"
only problem there is is they didn't exist back then


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

I  had a digital camera in 2001


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

and why are the tapes classified


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 1, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > We are not talking about security cameras for the parking lot at WalMart or 7-11
> ...


Please post any "frames" that were released.

As I have never seen any.

Thank You


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> I  had a digital camera in 2001


how many megapixel?
and was it video or still
and was it HD and high speed?


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so how do you interpret a call for a new investigation complaints government lawyers deterred fact finding and encouraging people to be conspiracy theorist ???
> ...



I would say you are the one quote mining the entire body of the article is extremely critical of the report and its conclusions and you focus only on the line ..*most likely *a flloor falling and then exaggerate the the statement as he* specifically rejects*..as opposed to is most likely how much more dishonest can you get


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 1, 2009)

Many tourists using hand held cameras filmed the passenger jets hitting the Twin Towers on 9/11

These wern't high speed cameras.

Just average store bought units; and this was in 2001


Surly, at least one Pentagon camera caught the plane hitting the building

Or comming in to hit the building


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Many tourists using hand held cameras filmed the passenger jets hitting the Twin Towers on 9/11
> 
> These wern't high speed cameras.
> 
> ...


one did
but the frame rate was LOW because it wasnt designed to capture an object moving in excess of 400 MPH


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Many tourists using hand held cameras filmed the passenger jets hitting the Twin Towers on 9/11
> ...



and the other 84 classified tapes ?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Many tourists using hand held cameras filmed the passenger jets hitting the Twin Towers on 9/11
> ...


How do you know this?

Please post that ONE frame you say exists.

Thank You


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


they released 2 that i know of
one on the security gate AT the pentagon that had the 1 frame per second rate
and another that was slightly faster rate from a gas station
i could look for them again, but i know YOU have seen em


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 1, 2009)

DiveCon I have never seen any video or still picture of the plane either hitting the Pentagon or about to hit the Pentagon.

Please post any evidence you have concerning this.

Thank You


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> DiveCon I have never seen any video or still picture of the plane either hitting the Pentagon or about to hit the Pentagon.
> 
> Please post any evidence you have concerning this.
> 
> Thank You


i find it extremely hard to believe you have never seen them
but here

Pentagon security video -Debunk 9/11 Myths


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 1, 2009)

Thanks for posting the link DiveCon

And yes, I have seen these pictures before.

I just thought you ment you had a picture of the plane hitting the building.

All I see is a fireball.

There is no plane to be seen in any of the pictures.


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZlUZ1pvOn8]YouTube - Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 ~ 6/8[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Thanks for posting the link DiveCon
> 
> And yes, I have seen these pictures before.
> 
> ...


its there, just hard to see if you dont know what you are looking for


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> YouTube - Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 ~ 6/8


Dylan Avery????


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 ~ 6/8
> ...



no citizens investigation and eyewitness testimony from the impact site


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


except he admits he didnt see the crash
he ran out AFTER
so its likely he is mistaken and what about all those that DID see it hit

and all the debris and bodies inside the pentagon from flight 77


----------



## Trojan (Nov 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Did he just make the claim that a person who *admits *they did not see the impact is somehow a witness to the impact of the plane?


----------



## Trojan (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> my belife is it was because it housed enron investigation materials CIA documents and was the base of operations preceding the attacks and of course was also owned by Larry silverstein




I missed this -- in eots world it easier to destroy a building then it is to destroy a few boxes of fires? Not to mention that the CIA conspired to destroy its own office 



Is their a laughing dogs emoticon?


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



there are very few witnesses that actually saw the impact the majority saw the plane fly very low and then an explosion but not actual impact..USA today reporters that  said they did not see the impact and then 5 years later gave detailed accounts of the impact and are just not credible..it is had to believe this man and others are mistaken that they experienced this horrific explosion and *after* had a commercial airliner pass over their heads at less than a 100 ft above them described in such detail


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


and even fewer that claim they saw it fly away


----------



## Trojan (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> there are very few witnesses that actually saw the impact [/B]the majority saw the plane fly very low and then an explosion but not actual impact..USA today reporters that  said they did not see the impact and then 5 years later gave detailed accounts of the impact and are just not credible..it is had to believe this man and others are mistaken that they experienced this horrific explosion and *after* had a commercial airliner pass over their heads at less than a 100 ft above them described in such detail



This is a lie

*104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon. *

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact. 

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet. 

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner. 

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size. 

7 said it was a Boeing 757. 

*8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.*

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport. 

*4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon*.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole). 

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit. 

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts. 


2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel. 

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged. 

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings." 

And of course, 

*0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon. 

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.*

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

yeah, eots says there was "just a pickup truck load"







that must have been one fucking BIG ass pickup truck


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > there are very few witnesses that actually saw the impact [/B]the majority saw the plane fly very low and then an explosion but not actual impact..USA today reporters that  said they did not see the impact and then 5 years later gave detailed accounts of the impact and are just not credible..it is had to believe this man and others are mistaken that they experienced this horrific explosion and *after* had a commercial airliner pass over their heads at less than a 100 ft above them described in such detail
> ...




right...bullshit



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emMTVPhHBTE]YouTube - National Security Alert [5/8] - 9/11 & The Pentagon[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNPoxPR4Crg&feature=related]YouTube - National Security Alert [6/8] - 9/11 & The Pentagon[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwk4JK1CuQ4&feature=related]YouTube - National Security Alert [7/8] - 9/11 & The Pentagon[/ame]


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

*Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. *Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. *20-year Air Force career*.  Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University.  Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System.  Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001). 
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06:  Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski,* Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.* *"I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed *to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ... 

*It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics.  The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ... *

*There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact.*  Beyond this *strange absence of airliner debris,* there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ... 

*I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact *- no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident. 

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the *facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter*. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.  

*The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ... *

More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day." 


Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro. 


Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven  Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations." 


Bio: militaryweek.com 


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

wash, rinse, repeat


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> wash, rinse, repeat



it is absolute proof that Buddy's 9/11 _fact _list...is indeed a LIE...AND NONE OF THE LINKS WORK


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > wash, rinse, repeat
> ...


no, it isnt
but in your delusional mind, you sure do think it is


----------



## kyzr (Nov 2, 2009)

kyzr said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > AA77 was hijacked and then the passengers killed and the body parts tossed inside the pentagon
> ...



I'm still waiting for a sane rationale' of why the conspiracy existed.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 2, 2009)

eots said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




The lightpoles prove what happened.
Hitting the cab driver's car proves when it happened.


*CHECK MATE BITCH​*


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 2, 2009)

eots said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You're using Mr. Quintiere's quotes to try and support your notion that there was controlled demolition involved which is dishonest.  

The fact is, he wants a new investigation because, from what he has seen, the evidence supports his theory that FIRE caused the FLOOR TRUSSES to fail.

Your blatant attempt to try and use his quotes to support your controlled demolition theory is idiotic. He even goes AGAINST what you claim in that FIRES weakened the FLOOR TRUSSES, but you won't quote that part will you.

Biased 'til the end eh eots?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 2, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Question for you Sunni Man. How many security cameras are at the Pentagon and how many of those would have been pointed at the flight path?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 2, 2009)

eots said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Does Mr. Quintiere call for a new investigation because he believes that the was thermite/explosives involved or does he think that FIRE caused the STEEL FLOOR TRUSSES to fail?

Which one eots?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 2, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


I don't know the answer as to how many cameras cover the parameter of the Pentagon.

But I would think that every square inch of the Pentagon and surrounding area is under video survillance.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 2, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



And how many cameras do you think would be covering that particular area? One? Maybe two?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 2, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



No, you're claiming that the Pentagon has the latest, greatest security system and cameras available. So YOU need to provide your source for this. You can't make claims and assumptions based on the fact that "It's the Pentagon".

Also, you need to soruce your claim for this


Sunni Man said:


> The Pentagon is surrounded by cameras.



Please provide a source for the Pentagon being surrounded by these high tech, up to date cameras you are speaking of and the fact that they would have captured the area of the flight path.


----------



## Terral (Nov 2, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> You're using Mr. Quintiere's quotes to try and support your notion that there was controlled demolition involved which is dishonest.



The notion that "Building Fires Did It" is the most dishonest 911 LIE that anyone ever told. We have tons of evidence that WTC-7 'Was' Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org + ScholarsForTruth, #3).  

Watch The Short WTC-7 CD Video Clip



Gamolon said:


> The fact is, he wants a new investigation because, from what he has seen, the evidence supports his theory that FIRE caused the FLOOR TRUSSES to fail.



No sir. Your claim is very much IMPOSSIBLE and you very well know it.

Click on this picture of WTC-7

Look at WTC-7 in the picture of WTC-1 in full free fall collapse to realize nothing could cause 'fires' in the upper half of the 47-story skyscraper! Remember that the Twin Towers floors pancaked straight down 'and' that WTC-7 stood some 350 feet 'away' from WTC-1.






Gam is just talking lol about building fires, as if this is evidence that hundreds of fires started on all floors of the 47-story skyscraper 'and' those fires had sufficient energy to 'cut' all supporting girders, columns, beams and bar-joists required to create a Controlled Demolition Implosion-like collapse! 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]Who Does Gam Think He Is Kidding??[/ame]

This Govt Stooge has no explanation for how all *Compartmentalization Countermeasures *(911Research Info) were compromised, so that "Building Fires" cuckoo caused the catastrophic failure of 'all' massive steel supports at the very same time! 






This guy is yanking your chain with no "Building Fires Did It" explanation at all. NONE. 



Gamolon said:


> Your blatant attempt to try and use his quotes to support your controlled demolition theory is idiotic.



This sounds funny coming from a *"Building Fires Did It"* Govt Stooge!!!!

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 2, 2009)

Terral said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is, he wants a new investigation because, from what he has seen, the evidence supports his theory that FIRE caused the FLOOR TRUSSES to fail.
> ...



No dumbass. This is not my claim, but Mr. Quinitiere's claim. He has seen the tests and evidence and his theory is that the floor trusses failed due to heat from the fires.

Get your shit straight.



Terral said:


> This Govt Stooge has no explanation for how all *Compartmentalization Countermeasures *(911Research Info) were compromised, so that "Building Fires" cuckoo caused the catastrophic failure of 'all' massive steel supports at the very same time!



This coming from the guy who has admitted two mistakes already in his theory, debunks his own claim with an annotated photo, and has YET to provide one single photo of the "massive amounts" of thermite signatures all over the WTC7 columns and beams.



Come on goofball. Let's see just ONE photo of your "thermite signatures" on the columns/beams of WTC7.


----------



## eots (Nov 2, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Trojan said:
> ...



the floor truss was just an* example *of another theory you are dishonest to say that is the reason he calls for a new investigation for that reason...and you simply and conveniently ignore all the other problems an accusations he has toward the NIST REPORT *HOW DISHONEST OF YOU*


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 2, 2009)

Terral said:


> No sir. Your claim is very much IMPOSSIBLE and you very well know it.





Yeah, so IMPOSSIBLE that the steel structure part of this building collapsed due to fire.





I thought steel stuctures couldn't collapse from fire Terral? Yet there is the proof. Explain how that steel collpased.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 2, 2009)

eots said:


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



Here idiot. A quote from Mr. Quintiere's OWN paper. The conclusion at the end.


			
				 James Quintiere's paper said:
			
		

> 3. Conclusions
> I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
> their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
> then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
> ...



Go read the paper yourself. He CLEARLY thinks NIST missed the boat by claiming the fires affected the CORE COLUMNS and that, from what he has see from all the tests and evidence, it was the FLOOR TRUSSES that failed, not the columns. His is not satisfied with the NIST report stating that it was core columns. What the hell don't you understand? He even put what he thinks caused the collapse in his conclusion. Do you see WHY he wants more investigation done? Here, I'll quote him again.



			
				 James Quintiere's paper said:
			
		

> *The two different hypotheses *lead to very different consequences with
> respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
> strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions.



He CLEARLY says TWO DIFFERENT HYPOTHESES. NIST's core columns being the cause and his theory of the trusses. That's it. Nothing about thermite, controlled demolition, etc. He wants to reopen the investigation because recommendations based on the cause would be different if his theory of floor trusses failing were proved to be correct.

http://www.fpe.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf

Try again dope.


----------



## eots (Nov 2, 2009)

he wants a new investigation because he doubts the findings..wants peer review... because government lawyers deterred fact finding..because there was no ATF involvement..because of spoliation of the crime scene and the fact temperatures required to weaken steel could not be verified ..because he questions the accuracy of computer simulations etc etc...why do you lie ??


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 2, 2009)

eots said:


> the floor truss was just an* example *of another theory you are dishonest to say that is the reason he calls for a new investigation for that reason..



Just to show how stupid and dishonest you are, here is the quote AGIAN from James Quintiere's OWN paper. He writes this in his conclusion.



			
				James Quintiere's paper said:
			
		

> 3. Conclusions
> I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
> their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
> then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
> ...



What part of him wrinting "I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues." after he states that he believes the trusses were at fault do you not get?

Plain and simple. You are WRONG as I have shown.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 2, 2009)

eots said:


> fact temperatures required to weaken steel could not be verified ..because he questions the accuracy of computer simulations etc etc...why do you lie ??



Then why does his theory state that the fires caused the STEEL trusses to fail?

You're a joke.


----------



## eots (Nov 2, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > No sir. Your claim is very much IMPOSSIBLE and you very well know it.
> ...



this building is under construction..it is burnt to a crisp relative to wtc 7 *and it is still standing.*.it has not collapsed in secs to an unidentifiable pile of rubble..why do you pretend ?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 2, 2009)

eots said:


> he wants a new investigation because he doubts the findings..



Because he believes that the trusses were at fault, not the core columns.

READ THE PAPER where he says it himself. I quoted it twice already, but your to damn stupid to comprehend. You're blinded by your biased views.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 2, 2009)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...



The part that did not collapse was the concrete reinforced portion. What caused the steel only part of the building in that photo to collapse?


----------



## eots (Nov 2, 2009)

Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses.* I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists',* but in a proper 
way,


Dr. Quintiere said he originally had high hopes that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. Theyre the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what [BI also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], [/SIZE][/B]which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? *I think its the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, 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. *

*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.


2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ... 3. 

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 error? 

4. 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. 

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ... 

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation*


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 2, 2009)

eots said:


> Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses.* I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists',* *but in a proper
> way,*
> 
> 
> ...


*
you seem to miss the subtle details*


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 3, 2009)

eots said:


> Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses.* I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists',* but in a proper
> way,
> 
> 
> ...


*



It's because he thinks the TRUSSES were what failed, not the columns. 

You can't spin his words to mean anything else because in his conclusion in the paper, he says that there is sufficient evidence to put the blame on the trusses failing due to fire.

Why don't you write and ask him if you can't understand his words?*


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 3, 2009)

eots said:


> the floor truss was just an* example *of another theory



You must be brain damaged. 

It's not just an example. It's the ALTERNATE THEORY based on what evidence he has seen.


----------



## kyzr (Nov 3, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses.* I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists',* but in a proper
> ...


*

The ASCE structural experts did several analyses and posited that the trusses failed first for several reasons:
1. The truss steel is MUCH THINNER than the column steel so it would heat up much faster.
2. As the floor trusses started to fail, the lower floor got the load from upper floors, overloading that floor & columns
3. As the plane flew thru the perimeter wall it severed many perimeter columns which put much more load on the undamaged columns. 
4. As the columns heated they lost strength and eventually failed.  It looked to me from the collapse photos that the corner columns, which are the lightest, failed first, then the building collapsed as the upper floors overwhelmed the lower floors.

This sequence is simply a structural-fire analysis.  There is no conspiracy here.  The conspiracy is who drove the planes into the WTC and why, and why they weren't stopped before it happened.*


----------



## Terral (Nov 3, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> I thought steel stuctures couldn't collapse from fire Terral? Yet there is the proof. Explain how that steel collpased.



Gam's job is to prove that WTC-7 collapsed CD-style into its own footprint . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]. . . In 6.6 Seconds . . .[/ame]

. . . from building fires! Okay hotshot: Tell everyone here how 'thousands' of 2800-degree red-iron Girders, Columns, Beams and Bar-joists were 'cut' at the very same time from *building fires* cuckoo!!

Gam is doing everything possible to divert attention 'away' from the fact that '*he*' (Govt Stooge = ) has no *"Building Fires Did It" Case!*

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]Come On Stooge! Carry The Official Cover Story Ball!!![/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Nov 3, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the floor truss was just an* example *of another theory
> ...



OH REALLY...then  why did he use the plural...theories....IDIOT


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 3, 2009)

so Eots still having fun taking disinfo agent Gam to school? Lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 3, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think you MEANT to say his job is to prove that it didnt collapse CD style in its own footprint Terral? which of of course the Bush dupe cant do that.He has made pathetic attempts to convince us that it didnt fall at 6.5 seconds freefall speed to no avail and also satalite photos taken a week after the towers collapsed showed fires still going with temps that were far too hot and intense to be office fires.

the fires had been hosed down everyday for that whole week.so much so one firefighter said it was like a lake because  there was so much water sprayed down on the fires.impossible for office fires to STILL be burning at that point.

However molten metal which many rescue workers spotted underneath all three towers at the bottom of the towers which was still burning despite all the fires put on it,IS a consistant sign of thermite.Not to mention that 7 of the most renowed scientists discovered through samples taken that nano thermite was found. office fires would have been put out several days ago being  thermite though and molten metal still burning at high intense temps after that period of time days later is consistant with explosives being used.which pretty much ends this debate and why this whole discussion is mute at this point.The agent as usual of course,will make some more pitiful attempts to try  debunk it to no avail as  we know.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 3, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Gam:
> ...





Ever seen thermite in action? It burns through in seconds to minutes it does not burn for a week. Do you understand? Let me type it slower so you understand better.

T h e r m i t e   o n l y  b u r n s  f o r  a f e w   m o m e n t s !.

D o  Y o u  U n d e r s t a n d ?


----------



## eots (Nov 3, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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



and the relevence of that is what ???????


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 4, 2009)

eots said:


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



You need to learn how to read dumbass. There is nothing more to say to you other than you are completely wrong as evidenced by his conclusion, written at the end of his paper. I'll quote it again.


> 3. Conclusions
> I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
> their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
> then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
> ...



He clearly states that he has ONE alternate theory, not THEORIES. His alternate theory is that the trusses failed due to heat. 

This proves you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.  if you have issues understanding his written statements and want to interpret it as something more than what it actually means, than I suggest you contact him to clarify.

I don't think you will because you're a coward and have no interest in the truth.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 4, 2009)

Terral said:


> Tell everyone here how 'thousands' of 2800-degree red-iron Girders, Columns, Beams and Bar-joists were 'cut' at the very same time from *building fires* cuckoo!!



Thousands at the same time?!

Are you stupid or what?

Tell you what genius. In order to answer such a ridiculous question, you need to provide me your proof that "THOUSANDS" of columns, beams, girders, and bar-joists were actually cut with thermite as you claim.

I have asked you this before and you provide NO evidence for your claim whatsoever. You claim that there are "thermite signatures" everywhere for WTC7, yet you can't provide ONE photo of them. As a matter of fact, you even debunk your "tons of thermite signatures" claim with your own, annotated photo here. In this photo you have provided your proof saying that there is no evidence of MELTED or BURNED steel.





What a complete dumbass.

The penthouse fell inside the building FIRST. That doesn't represent your " AT SAME TIME" bullshit claim does it? As the penthouse structure fell into the building, can you tell me why windows on the facade broke in a downward succession as the structure inside fell downward? Same time eh? Can you please show me the "THOUSANDS" of flashes within WTC7 that represent the "THOUSANDS" of thermite cuts? 

Can you tell me why this structure is still together and not CUT by thermite? I see none of your bullshit "thermite froth" on that assembly anywhere. 





If "thousands" of cuts were made "AT THE SAME TIME", why did the collapse initiate towards the bottom and why did the penthouse fall inward first?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 4, 2009)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...



Still won't answer? How did the steel structure part of this building, shown in the photo, collapse?


----------



## eots (Nov 4, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



no you need learn to read it does not say  the other theory it says an
but that is probably beyond you...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 4, 2009)

I knew the disinfo agents would come back and not do the mature thing and admit defeat.Lol after all their bosses would never pay them if they gave in.lol according to their logic,even though the only 3 towers that collapsed emitted intense heat readings far too extreme to be office fires 3 weeks later,they were caused by office fires,priceless.i love it."rolls on floor with laughter." they exposed themselves as the disinfo agents they are.

people who are just in denial,when confronted with irrefutable evidence,they dont come back and post.disinfo agents DO. those 3 towers were the ONLY ones with intense readings of heat even though some of the other buildings were far more severely burned yet according to them,it was caused by office fires.priceless.i love the logic of disinfo agents.great entertainment.hee hee hee hee hee.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 5, 2009)

eots said:


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



Yeah. AN ALTERNATE Theory. One. 

Friggin' moron.

READ THE ENTIRE CONCLUSION.

Do you see where he says "*The two different hypotheses lead...*" in his statement? Are you that fucking stupid?

Really? 

The statement discusses two theories. Columns (NIST' theory) or trusses (Mr. Quintiere's alternate theory).

So, for the intelligence impaired, Mr. Quintiere says TWO. Which means you are either talking about ONE or the OTHER. Not ONE, THE OTHER, and an additional five MORE theories. He would have said seven then.

I suppose when you have a route mapped out to go somewhere and someone says they have an ALTERNATE ROUTE (not ROUTES with an s, but ROUTE), they have ten other routes planned out right.

Go back to school. What an complete idiot.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 5, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



Eots is a scared litte person.


----------



## Terral (Nov 5, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Do you see where he says "*The two different
> hypotheses lead...*" in his statement? Are you that fucking stupid?



Hey, Gam is the Govt Stooge that supposedly has a "Building Fires Did It" Case. Okay hotshot, so how did *'building fires'* cuckoo CUT thousands of 2800-degree red-iron girders, columns, beams and bar-joists at the VERY SAME TIME to do this?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]WTC 7 Controlled Demolition Video Clip[/ame]

Go right ahead and start explaining . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]OR, Are You Too Damned Stupid??? :0)[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 5, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no, terral, it's YOU that is too damned stupid
what do you think Jesus would say about your lies here?


----------



## eots (Nov 5, 2009)

candycorn said:


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



yes absolutely if they sad there was an alternative route I would take it to mean there was one other reasonable alternative and if the said there was alternative routes ..I would take it there was several options..dimbcunt...and I fear nothing..except garden gnomes


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 5, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> I knew the disinfo agents would come back and not do the mature thing and admit defeat.Lol after all their bosses would never pay them if they gave in.lol according to their logic,even though the only 3 towers that collapsed emitted intense heat readings far too extreme to be office fires 3 weeks later,they were caused by office fires,priceless.i love it."rolls on floor with laughter." they exposed themselves as the disinfo agents they are.
> 
> people who are just in denial,when confronted with irrefutable evidence,they dont come back and post.disinfo agents DO. those 3 towers were the ONLY ones with intense readings of heat even though some of the other buildings were far more severely burned yet according to them,it was caused by office fires.priceless.i love the logic of disinfo agents.great entertainment.hee hee hee hee hee.




Again:
Ever seen thermite in action? It burns through in seconds to minutes it does not burn for a week. Do you understand? Let me type it slower so you understand better.

T h e r m i t e o n l y b u r n s f o r a f e w m o m e n t s !.

D o Y o u U n d e r s t a n d ?

So what was it that burned for weeks afterward?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 5, 2009)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Nov 5, 2009)

once the metal was molten then insulated by the dust a debris it remained at a high temperature until it eventually cooled


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 5, 2009)

eots said:


> once the metal was molten then insulated by the dust a debris it remained at a high temperature until it eventually cooled


what metal?
zinc?
lead?
copper?
aluminum?
steel?


----------



## eots (Nov 5, 2009)

steel..


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 5, 2009)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 5, 2009)

eots said:


> steel..


so, the fires that weren't hot enough to "weaken" steel, were somehow able to make MOLTEN steal?


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 6, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> so Eots still having fun taking disinfo agent Gam to school? Lol



Do you know what an ad hominem is?


----------



## eots (Nov 6, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > steel..
> ...



thats right diveconman the fires where not hot enough to weaken steel however the charges used to cut the steel were


----------



## eots (Nov 6, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL



so what do you think burned at 2500 degrees for a week ?...office chairs ?


----------



## candycorn (Nov 6, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
> ...


----------



## eots (Nov 6, 2009)

the deniers have been reduced to inane childish  smileys as their words fail them


----------



## candycorn (Nov 6, 2009)

eots said:


> the deniers have been reduced to inane childish  smileys as their words fail them


----------



## Terral (Nov 6, 2009)

Hi Eots:



eots said:


> the deniers have been reduced to inane childish  smileys as their words fail them



Anyone who thinks that *'building fires'* cuckoo can do this . . . 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]WTC 7 Controlled Demolition Implosion[/ame]

. . . is either a *Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPE* confused or an *Official Govt Cover Story STOOGE* cool. Take your pick . . . 

WTC-7 Was *DEFINITELY* (#3) Taken Down Using *Controlled Demolition *(AE911truth.org + My Topic). That is 'the' very simple 911Truth . . . 

The Destruction Of WTC-7 Google Video << Click here

GL,

Terral


----------



## candycorn (Nov 6, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Eots:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 6, 2009)

eots said:


> yes absolutely if they sad there was *an alternative route * I would take it to mean there was *one other reasonable alternative*



So according to your own statement above, the statement by James Quintiere below quoted from his paper, you ADMIT that he was speaking of ONE OTHER THEORY.



			
				James Quintiere said:
			
		

> *An alternative hypothesis* with the insulated trusses at the root cause appears to have more support.



So your quote here is completely idiotic because he didn't say HYPOTHESES (which is plural for HYPOTHESIS), he said HYPOTHESIS.


eots said:


> and if the said there was *alternative routes* ..I would take it there was several options..dimbcunt...and I fear nothing..except garden gnomes



What a jackass.


----------



## eots (Nov 6, 2009)

you most certainly are..

"Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do" ? ... 

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 6, 2009)

eots said:


> once the metal was molten then insulated by the dust a debris it remained at a high temperature until it eventually cooled



Sorry, but there was no forensic evidence of MOLTEN STEEL.


----------



## Terral (Nov 6, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> So according to your own statement above, the statement by James Quintiere below quoted from his paper, you ADMIT that he was speaking of ONE OTHER THEORY.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]Death By 'Fire' OR Controlled Demolition???[/ame]



Gamolon said:


> So your quote here is completely idiotic because he didn't say HYPOTHESES (which is plural for HYPOTHESIS), he said HYPOTHESIS.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI&NR=1]Death By Fire, OR Controlled Demolition???[/ame]



Gamolon said:


> What a jackass.



Hey! Gam is the jackass saying that this . . . 







. . . was transformed into this . . . 






. . . by *'building fires,'* after being hit by NO PLANE and nothing even remotely similar. That makes Gam a blooming idiot cuckoo . . .  

Here is proof that bombs were planted inside the WTC Skyscrapers:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw]9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted!!![/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 6, 2009)

eots said:


> you most certainly are..
> 
> "Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do" ? ...
> 
> OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation



You HAVE to be a troll because you cannot possibly be this stupid. Or maybe you are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 6, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



disinfo agent trolls like him and candy corn post the funniest bullshit to try and save face with such lies that there was not evidence of molten steel  its funny watching them make morons out of themselves.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 6, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where are the photos of all the thermite signatures you say existed for WTC7? 

I already explained how office fires can collapse a steel structure and gave you an example. You're just to stupid to understand.


----------



## eots (Nov 6, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you most certainly are..
> ...



You HAVE to be a troll because you cannot possible be this stupid Or maybe you are.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 6, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> disinfo agent trolls like him and candy corn post the funniest bullshit to try and save face with such lies that there was not evidence of molten steel  its funny watching them make morons out of themselves.



Where's your evidence of molten steel?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 6, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > once the metal was molten then insulated by the dust a debris it remained at a high temperature until it eventually cooled
> ...



JOHN GROSS caught lying.

what other lies,bullshit and propaganda do you have to tell for the day 
agent Gam? they should pay you and fellow disinfo agent cornboy and SFC a LOT more than they do for the CONSTANT ass beatings you guys take around here and have to keep coming back for. you sure are good for laughs."rolls on floor with laughter howling out loud."
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAl3vubzSQw]YouTube - NIST engineer, John Gross, denies the existance of Molten Steel.[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 6, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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


you morons are the ones taking the beating
LOL


----------



## Terral (Nov 6, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Where's your evidence of molten steel?



We show these Govt Cover Story Stooges the same 'molten steel' evidence over and over and over again, but they continue pushing Official cover Story LIES anyway:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSXUGR2g9HU"]Molten Iron FLOWING LIKE LAVA . . .[/ame] 

Building fires *do NOT* burn hot enough to melt *2800-degree Red-Iron Structural Steel*! WTC-7 was brought down using *Controlled Demolition *(my Topic), which created the massive temperatures required to give us Molten Iron FLOWING LIKE LAVA . . . 

WTC Molten Iron Biscuit << check this out

Gam << Govt Stooge cool!

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 6, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > disinfo agent trolls like him and candy corn post the funniest bullshit to try and save face with such lies that there was not evidence of molten steel  its funny watching them make morons out of themselves.
> ...


he has none
as always
the pussy boy has me on ignore


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 6, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


terral, the fires didnt have to get "hot enough to MELT steel"
they only had to get hot enough to weaken the structural integrity
and they DID


----------



## candycorn (Nov 6, 2009)

eots said:


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


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 6, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Gam:
> ...



thanks for proving as always,that you never watch videos,that you only see what you WANT to see and hear only  what you WANT to hear.that lady at the end of that video was talking about you and cornboy. she hit the nail right on the head saying-anybody who doesnt believe this was done by our own government is an idiot.she was addressing you two.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 6, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



might as well walk away from these trolls Gam,Ditzcon, and Cornboy,  Terral,our videos are making WAY to much sense for them to comprehend as you know.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 6, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



forget it Eots,your making WAY too much sense for Ditzcon to comprehend. also did you notice the truth is really starting to hurt Cornboy kids feelings? you made him cry.did you notice that? lol.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 6, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


you have ZERO sense
just applaud the other troofer morons like you usually do


----------



## Trojan (Nov 6, 2009)

In twoofer world, nothing is evidence unless its backed by a good youtube video

gotta love em


----------



## Trojan (Nov 6, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



explosive charges do not melt steel == who told you this?


----------



## eots (Nov 7, 2009)

I didint say explode ..I said cut


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 7, 2009)

Trojan said:


> In twoofer world, nothing is evidence unless its backed by a good youtube video
> 
> gotta love em



another frady cat deniar who wont look at videos of highly credible people talking.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > In twoofer world, nothing is evidence unless its backed by a good youtube video
> ...


after watching several of them and knowing that anything YOU would post would be total nonsense, to continue to waste ones time watching ANYTHING a fucking moron like you would post would be foolishness


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

eots said:


> I didint say explode ..I said cut


yet there is ZERO evidence of shape charge cuts on ANY of the steel


----------



## candycorn (Nov 7, 2009)

eots said:


> I didint say explode ..I said cut


----------



## eots (Nov 7, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M]YouTube - Linear Thermite Cutting Charges[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0qnHlVTaVs&NR=1]YouTube - Thermite VS., 1/2 Plate steel[/ame]


----------



## eots (Nov 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I didint say explode ..I said cut
> ...



yet there is ZERO evidence fire  temperatures required to weaken steel were reached and the crime scene was hastily destroyed


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


really?
at what temp does steel start to weaken?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

eots said:


> YouTube - Linear Thermite Cutting Charges
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Thermite VS., 1/2 Plate steel


as to that top one, that rebar was a lot smaller than the core columns and would have required a much larger device
show proof any such device was found in the debris


----------



## eots (Nov 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



" 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 "

Dr. Quintiere
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

there was nothing of any kind found at the towers there was dust and tiny fragments..not a desk or a chair  or a phone.. why would there be evidence charges


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


that didnt answer the question

at what temp does steel start to weaken?


----------



## elvis (Nov 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



a lot lower than the melting point.  and steel doesn't have to melt for a building to collapse.


----------



## eots (Nov 8, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



irrelevant as there is zero evidence those temperatures existed


----------



## candycorn (Nov 8, 2009)

eots said:


> there was nothing of any kind found at the towers there was dust and tiny fragments..not a desk or a chair  or a phone.. why would there be evidence charges



What in the fuck are you talking about?

You may recall they pulled a US Flag out of Ground Zero and flew it at the World Series.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 8, 2009)

eots said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


you still haven't said WHAT temperatures


----------



## eots (Nov 8, 2009)

candycorn said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > there was nothing of any kind found at the towers there was dust and tiny fragments..not a desk or a chair  or a phone.. why would there be evidence charges
> ...



ya a flag and lots of paper but nothing of any substance they reported a peice of a telephone keypad being one of the largest objects found...that is what I am talking about


----------



## eots (Nov 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I believe  nist claims at temperatures of 1800f the steel in question would lose 10% of its room temperature strength


----------



## candycorn (Nov 8, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Nov 8, 2009)

candycorn said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



hey cornycunt how is it going ?


----------



## candycorn (Nov 9, 2009)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 10, 2009)

eots said:


> I believe  nist claims at temperatures of 1800f the steel in question would lose 10% of its room temperature strength



Can you find that quote for us please?


----------



## Terral (Nov 10, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Can you find that quote for us please?



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]Look For Evidence Of FIRE - Moron![/ame]

Let's see: Hmmmmmm. How do you  transform this . . .







. . . into this little pile . . . 






. . . in mere seconds?? Oh yeah! *Controlled Demolition* (my Topic + AE911truth.org) . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw&feature=related"]WTC-7 Was DEFINITELY Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition[/ame]

Somebody needs to lead Gam cool: = Govt Stooge) around by the hand, because he cannot find the quote to make his *"Building Fires Did It"* Case cuckoo . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 10, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I believe  nist claims at temperatures of 1800f the steel in question would lose 10% of its room temperature strength
> ...


i doubt he can


----------



## Terral (Nov 10, 2009)

Hi DiveBomb:



DiveCon said:


> that didnt answer the question
> 
> at what temp does steel start to weaken?



Since I (#3) am addressing *a complete idiot* confused, then let's try answering your question using this format:

1. There is *NO "typical building fire" scenario* (SchawbCorp/UL data from my WTC-7 CD Topic) where *2800-degree red iron structural steel* (911Review data) begins to weaken!!! 

Typical building fires burn around 800 to 1000 degrees and the melting point of structural steel is around *2800 degrees* or THREE TIMES higher. 

2. There is no such thing as 'heat energy' remaining stationary in ANY steel-frame network!! The heat energy races like electricity from hot areas to cool areas to heat the ENTIRE steel-frame network.

3. Heat energy is dispersed into the atmosphere 'and' runs down beams and columns to escape into the ground through the massive concrete pads supporting the entire skyscraper. 

4. You need cutting torches to 'cut' massive steel columns and beams in a controlled environment where 'cutting by building fires' is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.

5. The *Official Cover Story Govt Stooges* cool proclaiming that *"Building Fires Did It"* have no precedent and no evidence whatsoever that building fires can take down overbuilt skyscrapers. Period. 






6. WTC-7 collapsed 'symmetrically' straight down into its own footprint!






7. Look at the adjacent building faces and tell us why those buildings failed to also collapse CD-style into their own footprints like this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]This Is A CD Implosion![/ame]

8. You are looking at a *WTC-7 Controlled Demolition* that was DEFINITELY part of the *9/11 Inside-Job Attacks* (my Topic). 

9. Try to force *Gam* cool or any of his Official Cover Story Stooge buddies to explain how *'thousands' of 2800-degree girders, columns, beams and bar-joists were 'cut' at the very same time* all over the WTC-7 Skyscraper to create the symmetrical collapse! Good luck, because they have no answer that makes any sense . . . 

Terral


----------



## eots (Nov 10, 2009)

when *bare steel *reaches temperatures of *1,000 degrees Celsius*, it softens and its strength reduces to *roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.* Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. 

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions




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 

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 10, 2009)

eots said:


> when *bare steel *reaches temperatures of *1,000 degrees Celsius*, it softens and *its strength reduces to* *roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.* Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
> 
> NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> ...


that means at 1000° C it loses 90% of its structural integrity


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 10, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi DiveBomb:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the PROVEN LIAR and complete fucking moronic idiot


----------



## eots (Nov 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > when *bare steel *reaches temperatures of *1,000 degrees Celsius*, it softens and *its strength reduces to* *roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.* Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
> ...



ya moron I believe that is what I just posted for you and bolded as I  found the NIST answer to your question for your lame ass


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 10, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no it didnt, moron
i asked at what temp does it BEGIN to weaken
not at what temp would it lose 90% of its strength
that actually proved what YOU claimed wrong


----------



## eots (Nov 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



why do you lie so much about other people lying.. LIAR


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 10, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


look at the liar(proven) call someone else a liar

what a fucking maroon


----------



## eots (Nov 10, 2009)

no way you are the PROVEN
LIAR you PROVEN LIAR MORON.......dude you crack me up


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 10, 2009)

eots said:


> no way you are the PROVEN
> LIAR you PROVEN LIAR MORON.......dude you crack me up


you sure are cracked
thats one of the first truthful things you have said
LOL


----------



## eots (Nov 10, 2009)

dude that was lame...even for you...


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 11, 2009)

eots said:


> dude that was lame...even for you...


LOL coming from someone so lame they believe nearly every conspiracy that comes out?
LOL
sure, eots, sure


----------



## eots (Nov 11, 2009)

hey ! divecon..9/11 is an inside job...just sayin


----------



## candycorn (Nov 11, 2009)

eots said:


> when *bare steel *reaches temperatures of *1,000 degrees Celsius*, it softens and its strength reduces to *roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.* Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
> 
> NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 11, 2009)

eots said:


> when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength *reduces to roughly 10 percent* of its room temperature value.



So this is part of the quote from NIST?!

How the hell did you get the following out of the above quote?!?!?



eots said:


> I believe nist claims at temperatures of 1800f the steel in question *would lose 10%* of its room temperature strength



How the hell did you get this information so wrong? Are you that stupid? Obviously you are.

BIG Mistake. It's not "The steel would *lose* 10% of it's strength (taking it to 90% of it's room temperature strength), it is *reduced to* 10% (meaning it loses 90% of it's strength to 10% of it's original room temperature strength).

What a moron. Is this the kind of information the truthers are pushing? Incorrect information? I've already found a ton of lies and mistakes in Terral's theory. Same with Christophera's. Now YOUR information is shown to be incorrect.

You guys are hysterical. Let's post stuff that debunks your own claims. 



I also believe that the question to you was "at what temperature" does steel START to lose it's strength.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 11, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Wow.

You originally post that you thought the steel LOSES 10% of it's strength at 1800F, then post a quote from NIST saying that it actually loses 90% of it's strength at 1800F.

You HAVE to be a troll. Nobody is this stupid. Well, maybe your buddies Terral, Christophera, and 9/11 inside job.


----------



## eots (Nov 11, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength *reduces to roughly 10 percent* of its room temperature value.
> ...



hey dickwad I said.._ I belive..._I heard it in some bullshit NIST video once and that was my _best memory _of it..but then* I *found the best quote I could on the subject according to NIST claims (as nist is not clear and evasive on the issue } and *I *posted it...??...i really don't get your point...lol..lol...lol...fucking moron...SO FUCK FACE 
according to NIST at what temperature does steel START to lose its strength ??


----------



## eots (Nov 11, 2009)

candycorn said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > when *bare steel *reaches temperatures of *1,000 degrees Celsius*, it softens and its strength reduces to *roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.* Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
> ...



hey ! cuntycorn how is it going


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 11, 2009)

eots said:


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



The point is asshole, is that you are spreading INCORRECT information and you can't comprehend what you read. 

I don't don't give a rat's ass what you "believe". You posted that information as support to your idiotic claims and it was COMPLETELY wrong. Makes one wonder how much shit you "BELIEVE" to be correct, when in reality, it's completely wrong.

My point is that you stated NIST said steel loses only 10% of it's strength at 1800F. What was really said was that steel loses *90%* of it's strength at 1800F. That's what *REDUCED TO 10%* means. I made that extra big bolded text in relation to how friggin' stupid you made yourself look.

You can't read can you? You're nothing more than a biased suckhole who perpetuates incorrect information and lies. 

Above is the proof.

If you just "believed" or "kind of remembered" what NIST said, why didn't you go research it to make sure instead of making yourself look like a friggin' idiot?



eots said:


> .i really don't get your point...lol..lol...lol...fucking moron...SO FUCK FACE
> according to NIST at what temperature does steel START to lose its strength ??



That much is obvious. It's taken quite a few posts to get you to understand the difference between something LOSING 10% of it's strength and being REDUCED TO 10% of it's strength and you STILL don't get it.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 11, 2009)

eots said:


> SO FUCK FACE
> according to NIST at what temperature does steel START to lose its strength ??



It's not a NIST standard dipshit. Here is a link information on fire and how it affects different substances.

The Effects of Fire on Structural Systems | ASHI Reporter

Here is an excerpt from the above link.


> The yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC. At 1000 ºC, the yield strength is 10 percent or less. *Because of its high thermal conductivity, the temperature of unprotected internal steelwork normally will vary little from that of the fire*. Structural steelwork is, therefore, usually insulated.



So at 550C (or 1022F), steel LOSES 50% of it's strength. What do you think would happen to a structure that loses HALF it's strength? Use your head for once.

Notice also the remark that I bolded and enlarged about the thermal conductivity which Terral uses to get people to believe that the heat in steel "RACES" throughout the web of the steel structure, away from the heat source and thus the steel member in question never gets hot enough to be affected in any way.

Go look up railroad tracks and heat expansion. I told you about steam piping and expansion loops. I've seen welded supports sheared because of improperly placed thermal expansion loops. Why do they have expansion connections in bridges? Why do streets and sidewalks have those "cracks" or "separations" in them? Everything expands or contracts due to higher/lower temperatures.

Terral's thinking is complete bullshit. Heat from office fires is exactly why contractors INSULATE steel columns and beams in the first place. It's because office fires DO affect steel beams and columns. Terral is a freakin' joke. No wonder he doesn't do construction work anymore.

Here's another excerpt for you eots.


> Apart from losing practically all of its load-bearing capacity, unprotected steelwork can undergo considerable expansion when sufficiently heated. The coefficient of expansion is 10-5 per degree Celsius. Youngs modulus does not decrease with temperature as rapidly as does yield strength



You guys have a lot to learn.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 11, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You're full of shit. If you would have read further, you would understand. Here is another quote from the same page you linked above written by Mr. Quintiere.


> Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a *different cause for the collapses*; the application of *insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers.* 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*. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different, he said.



What Mr. Quintiere is saying is that he does not agree with NIST's conculsion the fire WEAKENED the columns. He says that there is sufficient evidence that fire WEAKENED the steel truss supports. Why do you never quote that stuff?

What a dishonest jackass.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 11, 2009)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



**


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 11, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


just more proof that troofer LIE


----------



## eots (Nov 11, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



those quotes are not connected you are either a mad man or dishonest the lack of evidence for temperatures required to weaken steel is not confined to one collapse theory vs another and do not appear on the same page ....*so fucktard can you answer the question or not*


----------



## eots (Nov 11, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



no moron I told divecon what i belived it was...then checked it and posted the correct information highlighting the numbers...you dont get it loser...


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 11, 2009)

eots said:


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



Right. And what you BELIEVED turned out to be completely fucking wrong which makes your argument wrong.

Do you get it yet twat?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 11, 2009)

eots said:


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


 
Yes they are. They're from the same damn link you posted.


----------



## eots (Nov 11, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



no... same link ..different section...different context  and only someone being  willfully ignorant could not see that.. so at what temperature does steel START  to weaken ?


----------



## eots (Nov 11, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



LOOK FUCKWAD... the argument is not based on what tempature NIST claims steel starts to weaken..I did my best to recall what I had heard said by NIST spokesmen  and then looked it up to confirm it and  then
* I *posted the correct information...do you get that twat


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 11, 2009)

eots said:


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


it isnt what NIST claims, its what the FACTS are


----------



## eots (Nov 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



really what do you corroborate their claim with ?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 12, 2009)

eots said:


> LOOK FUCKWAD... the argument is not based on what tempature NIST claims steel starts to weaken..



Wow. You really ARE fucking stupid aren't you? The whole argument here is whether steel structures can be affected by office fires to a point of failure. I am trying to explain to that it IS possible in that there are two ways.

One is thermal expansion. I've already explained this two you and have given you the math showing how much steel expands per degree F. I have seen welded steel supports below a steam pipe that were welded to the steel support beam below sheared off form the beam because of improper design. Steel pipe lengthen when heated and contract when they cool. If an expanding pipe can shear a welded support, what do you think an expanding beam would do it's bolted/welded connections at end? It would shear the bolts. 

When you start failing connections within a structural design, you start to lose it's integrity. Other connections have to take up the slack and at times surpass their design loads and fail.

Now add to that the fact the steel starts to lose it's load bearing strength at at temps of about 750F. That's why they insulate steel beams/columns.

So not only does steel expand and can shear bolts/connections/welds, but now you have it losing it's ability to support things as it gets heated. 

Here's a photo from the Cowell building fire. Go look it up.






See the steel columns/beams inside? Twisted like pretzels. You think that was from thermite? Here's another.





Here's a link for you to educate yourself with facts instead of just "BELIEVING" things you think are correct. Read the section about Fire Resistance. And is you believe that the folks who do the fireproofing get the ENTIRE steel structure coated evenly INCLUDING the connections between columns and beams, you have another thing coming. I have SEEN otherwise.
*Wood vs. Steel | Oregon Truss :: Roof Trusses :: Salem, Bend, Portland, Oregon*

Why you and everyone else keeps stating that steel needs to melt in order to fail is beyond me. You people (truthers) are the only people on this planet who don't get the fact that steel weakens AND expands and can cause structures to fail. 

Even your man Mr. Quintiere agrees with me in that he thinks that truss connections failed due to fire. You lose all the way around this argument. Your forum wife Terral claims all this evidence he has proves it was thermite that collapsed WTC7, but debunks himself when he presented his annotated picture that says even HE can't find burnt columns or melted steel. What a dipshit. The minute he is asked tto provide just one picture of his "shitload" of thermite signature proof he claims he has, he balks and starts spewing the "Gam needs to provide his own theory about office fires" crap. 

What a telling turn of events. When you get caught in lies and wrong information, divert everyone's attention to another topic.

I asked you how the steel part of this building collapsed and you won't answer because you know it proves my point.







eots said:


> I did my best to recall what I had heard said by NIST spokesmen  and then looked it up to confirm it and  then
> * I *posted the correct information...do you get that twat



That's it? You did your best? Your "best" is providing incorrect information as evidence to support your claim based on what you THINK you remember?

That's really fucking sad. You are accusing people of murdering thousands of people and you provide evidence that not only were you not sure of, but was completely wrong. Then you turn around and post the correct information that is 180 degrees from what you "BELIEVED" to be correct. How does that change your argument now? It has been proven that office CAN affect steel structures.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 12, 2009)

eots said:


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



Wow. Reading comprehension for $1000 Alex...



How can Mr. Quintiere's quotes be in a different context when he clearly states on more then one quote that his alternate theory is that the trusses failed due to fire. It's all over the place. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you other then that you are a moron.

As far as your question, I'll help you out. Since you can't seem to research yourself and only quote incorrect information anyways.

Steel starts to weaken at about 750F-800F.


----------



## Terral (Nov 12, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Wow. You really ARE fucking stupid aren't you? The whole argument here is whether steel structures can be affected by office fires to a point of failure. I am trying to explain to that it IS possible in that there are two ways.
> 
> One is thermal expansion ....



No, and *I 'do' *(#3) *know* that Gam is LYING through his teeth. The 2800-degree steel girders, columns and beams (like these) are MUCH too large . . .














. . .  'and' part of a 'MUCH-TOO-LARGE' steel-frame network (pic), to 'fail' from 'thermal expansion' from building fires!!! Thermal Expansion has NOTHING to do with the catastrophic failure of massive steel girders that measure 9 feet tall!!!






The problem with the Thermal Expansion Theory is that heat energy passes back and forth within the steel-frame networks from hotter to cooler areas, which spreads the energy out evenly to 'all' areas. There was simply NOT nearly enough building fire energy to even begin expanding the entire steel-frame network to do this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]This Is Controlled Demolition!![/ame]

Gam's 'stupid' Thermal Expansion Explanation cuckoo makes no provision for the missing 47 concrete slabs! Go right ahead and start explaining how Thermal Expansion from a few building fires caused 47 massive concrete slabs to vanish into thin air confused!






What building fires??? How did this massive skyscraper collapse into this neat little pile . . . 






. . . and without damaging the surrounding buildings??? *Controlled Demolition* (my Topic + AE911Truth.org) is the ONLY ANSWER that makes 'any' sense whatsoever. Why? Thank you for asking: Thermal Expansion does NOT allow for the 'cutting' of all primary and secondary supports at the 'very same time' for creating a *'symmetrical collapse'* straight down into the skyscraper footprint! We are talking about thousands and thousands and thousands of lineal feet of massive red-iron girders, columns, beams and bar-joists, so that everything implodes into a little pile; which can NEVER happen spontaneously from building fires in a kabillion years. 

Gam is pushing the Official Bush/Obama Govt Cover Story, because that is what DoD Ops/Assets do. Gam = Govt Stooge cool: = How To Spot DoD Disinfo Agent). Period. And he helps to prove my hypothesis (#9) every day . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo"]WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Explained[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Nov 12, 2009)

> Wow. You really ARE fucking stupid aren't you? The whole argument here is whether steel structures can be affected by office fires to a point of failure. I am trying to explain to that it IS possible in that there are two ways


.

the question dickhead was at what temperature does steel start to weaken and when it starts to weaken is not relevant what is relevant is at what temperature is steel weakened enough to initiate a collapse...stupid...





> Why you and everyone else keeps stating that steel needs to melt in order to fail is beyond me. You people (truthers) are the only people on this planet who don't get the fact that steel weakens AND expands and can cause structures to fail



*no one said it had to melt stupid..the claim is there was molten metal present at the wtc*






*this building is still standing chump*





> That's it? You did your best? Your "best" is providing incorrect information as evidence to support your claim based on what you THINK you remember?



yes and *two mins later *i found and posted the correct information....moron


----------



## Terral (Nov 12, 2009)

Hi Eots:



eots said:


> yes and *two mins later *i found and posted the correct information....moron



Gam confused: = Govt Op/Asset) has *no "Building Fires Did It" Case* at all. Zip, zero, nada and NONE. Anyone led to believe that building fires can do this . . 






. . . 'is' STUPID cuckoo 'and' *worthy of utter destruction* (#9). 

Yes. The Sheeple 'are' this STUPID . . . and the deadly *H1N1 'Second Wave'* is just what the *Rothschild/Rockefeller Eugenics Doctors ordered* (my recent warning post) . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 12, 2009)

eots said:


> > Wow. You really ARE fucking stupid aren't you? The whole argument here is whether steel structures can be affected by office fires to a point of failure. I am trying to explain to that it IS possible in that there are two ways
> 
> 
> .
> ...


not the metal only part, moronic chump


----------



## eots (Nov 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > Wow. You really ARE fucking stupid aren't you? The whole argument here is whether steel structures can be affected by office fires to a point of failure. I am trying to explain to that it IS possible in that there are two ways
> ...


*
apples and oranges ..chumply*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk]YouTube - WTC7 -- This is an Orange[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 12, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


sorry, but its apples to apples


----------



## candycorn (Nov 13, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 13, 2009)

Terral said:


> The problem with the Thermal Expansion Theory is that heat energy passes back and forth within the steel-frame networks from hotter to cooler areas, which spreads the energy out evenly to 'all' areas. There was simply NOT nearly enough building fire energy to even begin expanding the entire steel-frame network to do this:
> 
> This Is Controlled Demolition!!





What a dope. 



> The yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC. At 1000 ºC, the yield strength is 10 percent or less. Because of its high thermal conductivity, the temperature of unprotected internal steelwork normally will vary little from that of the fire. Structural steelwork is, therefore, usually insulated.



The above quote is taken from this site The Effects of Fire on Structural Systems | ASHI Reporter

You need to educate yourself. 

The point is that thermal expansion makes steel expand thus snapping bolted/welded connections. Not only that, but fire will reduce the strength of steel. These TWO things put together can cause failure.

The fact that you are denying that these two particular affects do not happen just goes to show how stupid you really are.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 13, 2009)

eots said:


> apples and oranges ..chumply



Nope. Both steel structure collapsed due to fire. Even though the entire building did not collapse, the steel part did. This PROVES that a steel structure can collapse due to fire.


----------



## Trojan (Nov 14, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > apples and oranges ..chumply
> ...



Logic and truthers are not friends


----------



## eots (Nov 14, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > apples and oranges ..chumply
> ...



nothing like the controled manner  which the wtc 7 fell



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk]YouTube - WTC7 -- This is an Orange[/ame]


----------



## Trojan (Nov 14, 2009)

eots said:


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



The controlled demolitions have loud explosions for all to hear

strange i don't hear them for WTC 7 -- why is that?

Supernanothermite?


----------



## Trojan (Nov 14, 2009)

Terral said:


> . . . and without damaging the surrounding buildings???
> 
> GL,
> 
> Terral



Fiterman Hall across the street was destroyed in the collapse of WTC 7

Game set match


----------



## eots (Nov 14, 2009)

Trojan said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > . . . and without damaging the surrounding buildings???
> ...



game set match pffft in your dreams...so how did every vertical support beam at the wtc 7 all fail at precisely the same moment with random and unevenly dispersed fire and damage


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 14, 2009)

eots said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...


they didnt

thats just another one of your moronic troofer lies


----------



## Trojan (Nov 14, 2009)

eots said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...




Terral's claim is that WTC7 fell and did not damage nearby buildings -- when it came down, it destroyed the building directly across the street.

He has either lied or is ignorant -- you decide which.


----------



## eots (Nov 14, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Trojan said:
> ...



really then why did it not then topple over or have a partial collapse ?..how did it fall so quickly and evenly and completely then..


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 14, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


stop lying
the mechanical penthouse went first, and your only using ONE VIEW top make your claim
that is a LIE


and it DID topple over


----------



## eots (Nov 14, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



don't be a retard by fractions of a seconds the penthouse and central supports went  first and the rest followed on a slightly leaning angle just like in a controlled demolition


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 14, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


wrong, in a controled demo it would have all gone at once and you would have heard LOUD explosions as the support beams were cut with shape charges

and as to your "retard" comment, you and your troofer buddies fit that far more than i do


----------



## eots (Nov 14, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH6JVXk7jpQ&NR=1]YouTube - 9/11 Explosions Heard Loud and Clear: WTC 7[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 15, 2009)

eots said:


> YouTube - 9/11 Explosions Heard Loud and Clear: WTC 7


you dumbass
those were NOT in connection with the collapse


----------



## eots (Nov 15, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - 9/11 Explosions Heard Loud and Clear: WTC 7
> ...



and how would you know that


----------



## eots (Nov 15, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IfgYhjQ9fE]YouTube - WTC Building 7 Explosions First Responder Craig Bartmer Interview[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 15, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


because i actually wasted the time and watched the video


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 16, 2009)

eots said:


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



The point is, an "office fire" CAN affect a steel structure AND can cause it to collapse. That has been proven. I don't care if the entire building didn't collapse. 

You, Terral, and 9/11 have all been proven wrong in your claim that fire cannot affect a steel structure.

Answer a question eots. If fire can't affect a steel structure, then why do they fireproof it?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 16, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



By fractions of a second?!

Are you fucking blind or just willfully being stupid?

Here's the video of the WHOLE collapse.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k]YouTube - WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse[/ame]

The penthouse collapse STARTS at :02. The roof starts it's descent at :09. FRACTIONS of a second?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 16, 2009)

eots said:


> central supports went  first and the rest followed on a slightly leaning angle just like in a controlled demolition



You make the statement above and follow it up with a video of the interview with Craig Bartmer in which he says the following:


			
				Craig Bartmer said:
			
		

> It was that moment, you know, "Get away", and I looked up... and... it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. And all the things started peeling in on itself and... I mean, there was an umbrella of crap seven feet over my head that I just stared at. Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running and the [explitive]'s hitting the ground behind me and the whole time your hearing "thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom." So. I think I know an explosion when I hear it."



So he is quoted as saying he heard supposed explosions DURING the collapse? AFTER the collapse initiated. Where is the description of the first big explosion that was supposed to have taken out the central column that collapsed the penthouse?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 16, 2009)

Direct evidence that refutes Bartmer's "no creaking" claim.


			
				Captain Chris Boyle said:
			
		

> So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, *there's creaking*, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped.



Not to mention that he viewed the building "leaning" before the collapse initiated.


			
				Captain Chris Boyle said:
			
		

> that building *doesn't look straight*.



Taken from this site.
Representative Press Blog: WTC 7 was severely damaged on the south side of the building and was on fire for about 7 hours


----------



## eots (Nov 16, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Direct evidence that refutes Bartmer's "no creaking" claim.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



representive press ?? were do you find such retarded sites ?


----------



## Terral (Nov 16, 2009)

Hi Gam:

WTC-7 was *'DEFINITELY'* taken down using Controlled Demolition (my Topic).



Gamolon said:


> Direct evidence that refutes Bartmer's "no creaking" claim.



This is what Controlled Demolition looks like:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]Okay, DoD Stooge: Debunk This! :0)[/ame]

This moron is going on about *'no creaking'* (LOL), when the entire 47-story skyscraper collapsed CD-style into its own footprint:







Gam proves *my thesis* (#9) to be 100 percent correct every damned day . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 16, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> WTC-7 was *'DEFINITELY'* taken down using Controlled Demolition (my Topic).
> 
> ...



the day you are correct at all will be the first time


----------



## Terral (Nov 16, 2009)

Hi Diver:



DiveCon said:


> the day you are correct at all will be the first time



Really? The *Flight 93 Case* (my Topic) shows an EMPTY HOLE like the *Pentagon Case* (my Topic).

Okay, so what is Diver's Conspiracy Theory? Oh yeah. That's right. The DiveBomb says *'no conspiracy exists'* (my sig). . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 16, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Diver:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you are wrong on just about everything you post
if you said "the sky is blue" i would go outside and check to make sure
thats how often you are wrong


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 16, 2009)

Terral said:


> Gam proves *my thesis* (#9) to be 100 percent correct every damned day





Sorry dipshit, but you have that wrong. I prove your thesis WRONG every damn day.

That's why you never answer any of my questions about your asinine theory. How does it feel to provide the following photo as evidence only to self-debunk yourself? What a dope!!





Gee Terral. Let's provide a photo that you claim shows bunches of columns cut by thermite, yet in the same photo, write annotations that say there is no evidence of "burn marks" on the same damn columns.



What an idiot you are!!!!!


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 16, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Gam proves *my thesis* (#9) to be 100 percent correct every damned day
> ...


no kidding, his annotations are pure bullshit
and he claims to be a christian yet tells lies so much


----------



## Terral (Nov 16, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Gee Terral. Let's provide a photo that you claim shows bunches of columns . . .



In other words, Gam has NO *"Building Fires Did It"* Case! Here is stupid: Gam comes out to this fine USMB 'Conspiracy Theories' Forum every damned day to push the *Official Cover Story* cool down your throats, but he cannot even begin to tell us 'how' thousands and thousands and thousands of 2800-degree girders, columns, beams and bar-joists were CUT at the very same time to cause this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]Obvious Controlled Demolition[/ame]

This idiot cuckoo thinks that yelling at *me* (#3) is going to make 'his' *Building Fires Did It Case*.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM]That THAT Is Stupid!!![/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 16, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you are the stupid one
you have NO facts to back up anything you claim and you believe so MANY conspiracies it makes you out to be one of the most gullible people on this board


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 17, 2009)

Terral said:


> but he cannot even begin to tell us 'how' thousands and thousands and thousands of 2800-degree girders, columns, beams and bar-joists were CUT at the very same time to cause this:



Ok Terral. Since you are making the claim, please show me what proof you have that there were thousands and thousands of cuts made in WTC7. You have provided us with a photo in which you yourself say there is no proof of "burn marks" on the columns or beams. Show us your "thermite froth" that appears on ANY of the WTC7 columns or floor beams.





Another lie. If thousands and thousands and thousands of beams were cut at the same time, why did the penthouse fall into the building first and then 7 seconds later the rest of the WTC7 collapsed?

Let's debate.

Or are you a chickenshit?

I'll guess chickenshit.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 17, 2009)

Hey Terral. Where are all the thermite cuts/froth on the steel assembly in this next photo? I don't see ANY. Also, did the conspirators forget to cut this assembly? Why is it still together?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 18, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> WTC-7 was *'DEFINITELY'* taken down using Controlled Demolition (my Topic).
> 
> ...



Terral your still wasting time on this pathetic disinfo agent?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Gam:
> ...



this is the simple reason terral this whole debate is mute cause this psche op agent cant get around these facts that prove explosives brought the towers down.only a moron would still defend the official version after knowing these facts not to mention how he ignores our videos we have shown him that proved explosives brought them down and where one of them showing NIST had no interest in the truth and was caught lying..


----------



## Terral (Nov 18, 2009)

Hi Inside Job with Gam and Chris mentioned:



9/11 inside job said:


> this is the simple reason terral this whole debate is mute cause this psche op agent cant get around these facts that prove explosives brought the towers down.only a moron would still defend the official version after knowing these facts not to mention how he ignores our videos we have shown him that proved explosives brought them down and where one of them showing NIST had no interest in the truth and was caught lying..



Here is the deal in a nutshell: I 'know' for *a fact* (#3) that WTC-7 was taken down using *Controlled Demolition* (my Topic + AE911Truth.org). There are plenty of DoD Ops/Assets cool: = How To Spot) willing to defend the *Official Cover Story LIE* that *'building fires'* cuckoo took down these WTC Skyscrapers. Let us be very clear that 'anyone' willing to stand up and defend these *Inside-Job Terrorists* (my 911Truth Blog) 'will' burn right along with them in the lake of fire like 'all liars.' If these readers are stupid enough to fall for this kind of disinformation trickery, they are also worthy to be 'utterly destroyed' (#9) the very same way. 

The deadly *H1N1 "Second Wave"* (my Topic) IS COMING and VERY SOON 'and' these DoD Cover Story Ops (Gam, Chris, etc.) were sent here to ensure 'you' remain fast asleep night . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 18, 2009)

wow, 9/11 rimjob and terral are too fucking stupid for words


----------



## candycorn (Nov 18, 2009)

Terral=


----------



## creativedreams (Nov 18, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Terral=



Many Americans are high enough on the intelligence curve to see that explosives were used to bring down the THREE World Trade Center Buildings that collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition.

Even a physicist for NASA has stated that there is no doubt in his mind that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings.

It is likely that first the top portion of people on the intelligence curve questioned 9/11 and perhaps it may trickle down to the lowest on the curve to question the 9/11 event.


----------



## eots (Nov 18, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Terral=
> ...



Indeed

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 18, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Terral=
> ...


you have that backwards


----------



## creativedreams (Nov 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I cannot post links yet but here is a small sample of what I can show.

The World Trade Center buildings went through many months of construction renovations up to the very day of 9/11.

It is shown in the Building Inspection logs before 9/11 that some of the renovations included work on the very support columns that failed on 9/11.

The CEO for the company that did the many months of construction renovations in the World Trade Center buildings went on to be appointed by Bush to the President's Commission on Whitehouse Fellows.

The Pentagon incident occured in the ONLY part of the Pentagon that was partitioned off for construction renovations.

Not only did the 9/11 incident occur at the ONLY part of the Pentagon where the renovations were done but it was also the ONLY part of the Pentagon that was specifically reinforced for a possible impact.

It was an 11 year renovation project that ended up *ONLY *reinforcing the part of the Pentagon that was involved in 9/11 which was still under way on the very day of 9/11.

When I can post links I will bring up indisputable sources for this and this is only the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 18, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...


you would be wasting your time as there is NO proof that would convince me to believe you since i have already SEEN all the proof there is and the sources you would be using are nothing but fucking troofer moron sites


----------



## creativedreams (Nov 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You are outright lying and when I get to 15 posts I will post indisputable links directly to the Construction companies website, CEO's advancement and name posted on the actual website to the Whitehouse Fellows, indisputable sources of Pentagon renovations, and indisputable sources of this being exactly where the 9/11 incident occured.

Like I said this is only the tip of the iceberg and everything I bring to the table will have indisputable sources and documentation.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 18, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...


no, i'm not lying

you think you are the ONLY one to ever post those fucking stupid troofer links before?


----------



## creativedreams (Nov 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Why do you continue to spin and twist?......I said it will be direct links to the Whitehouse website, Construction companies website, etc. plus it will all be backed with Mainstream Media sources such as USA Today, FOX, CNN, NY Times, etc.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 18, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...


and none of it will prove a controlled demolition


----------



## eots (Nov 18, 2009)

in diveconland anything other than the controlled press and mainstream news is  a troofer morom 
site and anyone regardless of experience ..expertise or even first hand knowledge is a troofrer moron
and any amount of evidence will not be considered proof and any highly improbable  events will be written of as coincidence..even if if it requires a hundred highly improbable events one after another


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 18, 2009)

JamesFlynn said:


> I haven't made up my mind on the whole 9/11 situation. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. I like to see facts.



Well from what I've seen on another site, you'll get few facts from Creative dreams and friends.


----------



## eots (Nov 18, 2009)

hey ollie hows the search for bin laden going ?...found any proof yet ?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 18, 2009)

eots said:


> in diveconland anything other than the controlled press and mainstream news is  a troofer morom
> site and anyone regardless of experience ..expertise or even first hand knowledge is a troofrer moron
> and any amount of evidence will not be considered proof and any highly improbable  events will be written of as coincidence..even if if it requires a hundred highly improbable events one after another


wrong again asswipe


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 18, 2009)

eots said:


> hey ollie hows the search for bin laden going ?...found any proof yet ?




Seriously? I doubt we will ever find proof of what happened to UBL. Personally I think he is dead, But I offer that as my own opinion without facts to back it up.

You'll be the first to know if any facts happen to pop up.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Inside Job with Gam and Chris mentioned:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still waiting for just ONE photo of thermite froth OR burnt column/beam ends that you say existed everywhere for WTC7

Also waiting for an explanation as to why you debunk your own claim of thermite being used with this photo and your annotations.





Here, I'll blow up the statement by you since you're blind and can't see it.





How can you claim that the beam shows no signs of "burns from fire" yet claim that it was severed by thermite?!?!

What a complete idiot!!!!


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Terral=
> ...



Was the collpase of the steel portion of this building caused by demolition?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



And those links will show that thermite and explosives were actually placed in the WTC buildings or just the fact that there would have been time to do it?

Also, while you're at it, please use your "intelligence that's high on the curve" to show me where the structural explanations of how WTC7 came down can not be possible, which leads you to believe explosives were used.

You of such 'high intelligence" should be able to provide more than "because it looked like a controlled demolition" right?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> Even a physicist for NASA has stated that there is no doubt in his mind that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings.



Really? A physicist?

No shit.

Does this physicist know anything about structural building loads? Does this physicist understand how thermal expansion and heat affects columns and beams under stress? Has this physicist examined the structural calculations and computer models and pointed out, in his "infinite wisdom" why these calculations and models are wrong? Has he shown you any errors in them?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Inside Job with Gam and Chris mentioned:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



of course agents Gam and cornboy wont read those links of yours that prove it was an inside job and yeah I know your right about that as well that thats why they are defedning the tales of the 9/11 coverup commission so we will be distracted from the REAL threat which is the vaccine for the swine flu.I tell everybody I know all the time  not take that vaccine and give them precautions on what you can do if they force vaccinate you,that time will come very soon.socialism is here in america right now.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 19, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



Dont waste your time with this troll, he is as bad as candy corn.He is in denial about ANY government conspiracy you talk to him about it.Thats why I put him on ignore a long time ago.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 19, 2009)

JamesFlynn said:


> I haven't made up my mind on the whole 9/11 situation. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. I like to see facts.




the thing is James,the official version of the governments IS a conspiracy THEORY.they have no evidence or proof whatsoever to back up their claims.since this thread is just to talk about the controlled demolition thesis,just read my next post,it pretty much proves beyond a doubt that explosives brought the towers down.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 19, 2009)

this post here is the problem the disinfo agents have here when defending the tales that the fires caused the collapse of the towers.these facts they cant get around.



9/11 inside job said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Gam:
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 19, 2009)

accidental double post.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 19, 2009)

They ALSO James cant get around the facts that explosives brought down the towers whn confronted with these videos.these videos if you watch,show overwhelming evidence that explosives brought the towers down as well.



9/11 inside job said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Gam:
> ...


----------



## creativedreams (Nov 19, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Even a physicist for NASA has stated that there is no doubt in his mind that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings.
> ...



Wow......you are a prime example as to what lengths people will go to shield their feeble minds.


----------



## creativedreams (Nov 19, 2009)

My hypothesis for 9/11...

Yes there are many terrorists in the world. I believe that the only way to deal with them is treat them like a human virus and exterminate them.

I believe the terrorists were more than willing to get on the planes and harm us American's and are guilty as charged. 

What I question is if the CIA had lured the terrorists onto the planes and remote operation controlled their hitting precise targets?

Because of the fact that terrorists do exist, this could have made the perfect scapegoat to frame for 9/11 to gain world support for ulterior motives?

What say you?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



Feeble mind.



Show me where this physicist points out the errors in the calculations or computer simulations that he finds incorrect. 

Simple really.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> My hypothesis for 9/11...
> 
> Yes there are many terrorists in the world. I believe that the only way to deal with them is treat them like a human virus and exterminate them.
> 
> ...



Since this IS a thread about WTC7 being brought down by controlled demolition, please present your proof.

It seems you conspiracy theorists are nothing more than chickenshits. Whenever you are asked to provide proof of your claim/s you falter. 

Please tell me why Terral claims that thermite cut columns in WTC7 yet provides a photo with his OWN annotations in which he admits that there are no burn marks.


----------



## creativedreams (Nov 19, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I can bring up MANY well documented statements of other Physicists, Engineers, Scientists, Architects etc and some of which were Federal employees that say the same thing and have looked at all the evidence, building designs, damage, fire etc and have all came to the same conclusion.


----------



## creativedreams (Nov 19, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Show me where this physicist points out the errors in the calculations or computer simulations that he finds incorrect.
> 
> Simple really.



The NIST investigation was appointed to be headed by Bush's personal friend. The Administration specifically instructed NIST to come up with a reason for the 3 World Trade Center collapses *without* factoring in the possibility of explosives.

This is why NIST itself could not get the computer simulations to work when plugging in the Collapse speeds vs Structural Resistance. 

This is why NIST had to revise it's collapse theory a couple of times when other Engineers called them out on that.

To this day Physicists and Engineers around the World are saying the NIST Report re-writes physics.

Oh and by the way......people involved in the NIST investigation have told Frank Gayle (Bush's personal friend appointed to head it)......... "The NIST Report is *WRONG* and that the *TOWERS SHOULD HAVE EASILY STOOD"*......direct quote.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 19, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



thats what these disinformation agent trolls do when they are confronted with evidence they cant refute.they see no truth,hear no truth, and speak no truth. Im sure you noticed that he covered his ears and eyes to those videos I just posted? He always does that when confronted with evidence he cant refute.same mold as cornboy troll you'll find out.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 19, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



Like i said,he is one of those monkeys who ignores evidence even when it comes from credible sources like the ones you mention.He is one of those monkeys that covers his ears and eyes cause he is like cornboy troll,only sees what he wants to see and hears what he wants to hear like any typical disinfo agent does.the troll ignores facts that even NIST has admitted the towers fell at freefall speed.he's hopeless as your already finding out.


----------



## Terral (Nov 19, 2009)

Hi Inside Job:



9/11 inside job said:


> thats what these disinformation agent trolls do when they are confronted with evidence they cant refute.they see no truth,hear no truth, and speak no truth.



This Gam guy has no *'Building Fires Did It' Case*. Period. He cannot begin to explain how thousands and thousands of 2800-degree red-iron girders, columns and beams were 'cut' to produce a Controlled Demolition Implosion like this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]This is Obviously "Controlled Demolition."[/ame]

A real *"Building Fires Did It" Case* would begin with an explanation of how sufficient 'building fires' started all over the skyscraper (all floors) in the first place. Then this Govt Stooge cool would explain how the overbuilt 47-story skyscraper was reduced to this little pile (from my WTC-7 CD Topic) . . . 






. . . in mere seconds, but he has no *"Building Fires Did It" Case* at all. Zip, zero, nada, NONE. 

1. How did thousands of 2800-degree girders, columns and beams get 'cut' at the same time to allow for a Controlled Demolition-like implosion?

2. Where did the 47 concrete slabs go?

No sir. This Govt Stooge confused is here to push the Official Cover Story 'and' without one shred of *"Building Fires Did It"* evidence. Why? That is easy: He knows that the typical American DUPE will believe just about *anything* (#9) . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Show me where this physicist points out the errors in the calculations or computer simulations that he finds incorrect.
> ...



Ok.

It's one thing for you to provide names and quotes of people saying that they think the NIST report is wrong.

Please show me the errors that some of these people have found in NIST's calculations, computer simulations, stress analysis, etc. to show me that what all the engineers have put forth is not possible.

Show me that thermal expansion and loss of strength in steel components due to fire does not affect steel in any way.

You folks are all the same. All you can provide is this person said this or that person believes that. Please point out mistakes that these people have found that lead them to believe that fire cannot possibly have caused WTC7 to collapse.

I have yet to see it from anyone. I have pointed out many mistakes in Terral's crazy theory. Do you think he'd be man enough to address them? He addressed one. That's it. Why do you think Terral posts the same "provide your own theory" posts every time I bring up a mistake he has made? Same with christophera. I bring out tons of mistakes and contradictions with his theory, and he just rambles on ignoring them.

Typical.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 19, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Nor have we seen any proof that disproves any other parts of the "Official" story of 9-11-01. There are some unanswered questions but the basics still hold true. Except in certain mothers basements scattered around the country.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2009)

Creativedreams. Maybe YOU can help Terral.

Can you please provide me just ONE photo "thermite froth" that Terral says is supposed to exist in WTC7? He's saysn they're all over.

Can you explain why he says WTC7 was brought down by thermite severing columns and beams all at once yet posts this photo them saying there is no evidence of burn marks on the columns/beams?





Here, I've blown up one of his annotations. so you can see it. He says they were cut by thermite, yet says there is no burn marks.





How is that possible? How can Terral claim one thing and then completely debunk himself with his own photo and you guys say nothing? Why did Terral post a photo of WTC7 and then LIE stating that it was a photo of WTC7 during the collapse that showed no damage? Did you miss that? Why did Terral insist that WTC7 TOTALLY collapsed in 6.6 seconds when it was actually more than double that amount?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



Exactly. Yet we can find all kinds of errors in their theories that they just ignore and won't answer. Just look at all of Terral's responses to my questions about his theory. He just spews the same crap about me presenting my own theory and never answers about the mistakes found in his own theory.

That's because he's a chickenshit and won't admit that he's wrong.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Inside Job:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Show me the photos that you claim exist showing all the thermite froth and thermite cuts that were made in WTC7.
According to you, there IS no evidence of thermite cuts.









Why is this structural steel still together when you claim ALL the columns/beams were cut at the same time.





Please provide an explanation as to why you claim that steel cannot be affected by fire yet I found this photo.





What's the matter Terral? Am I pointing out too many mistakes and contradictions in your theory that you can't answer? Are you going to the christophera school of "theorycrafting"? You and he are SO similar I'm starting to think you're the same person.


----------



## Terral (Nov 19, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> How is that possible? How can Terral claim one thing and then completely debunk himself with his own photo and you guys say nothing? Why did Terral post a photo of WTC7 ...



Let's see: The Department of Defense sends this Gam Stooge to this USMB Conspiracy Theories Forum to defend the *"Official Cover Story LIE,"* but his handler forgot to include any *"Building Fires Did It" Case*. Gam can throw all the rocks around, if that makes him all warm and fuzzy inside; but he can NEVER explain how building fires caused WTC-7 to implode CD-style into its own footprint in mere seconds. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]Make Up Your Own Mind In Just 48 Seconds[/ame]

The Govt Stooge confused has a fixation on 'Terral, Terral, Terral,' when he should be doing something to forward his own 'Building Fires Did It' Hypothesis. The guy is just running around frantically in circles whining like an idiot 'and' in complete denial of 'the' 911Truth that WTC-7 was *'Definitely'* (#3) taken down using *Controlled Demolition* (AE911Truth.org).

GL,

Terral


----------



## candycorn (Nov 19, 2009)

Terral=


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Inside Job:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yeah I know,true enough.like you said,his job is to preoccupy people with crap like this while the real threat around the corner is the swine flu vaccine that because of government propaganda,parents will line their children up like sheep to get that crap injected in themn which over a period of years,will destroy the immune system and the body.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Keep posting the same crap over and over and over and over Terral instead of verifying your crap theory. 

Try and explain why you believe there was thermite froth everywhere for WTC7 and that thermite was used to cut the beams and columns yet you annotate your own photo with this little gem.





Come on Terral. Defend your claim.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> complete denial of 'the' 911Truth that WTC-7 was *'Definitely'* (#3) taken down using *Controlled Demolition* (AE911Truth.org).
> 
> GL,
> 
> Terral



Then defend your claim of thermite and thermite froth. It's that simple. Why are you so afraid Terral?

I think I know why.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 19, 2009)

There was no thermite. They even triy to blame the weeks long fires on thermite while anyone who has ever used thermite knows it only burns for a few moments.


----------



## Terral (Nov 19, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Then defend your claim of thermite and thermite froth. It's that simple. Why are you so afraid Terral . . .



Gam is here to defend Loyal Bushie/Obama LIES. Right? Your story is that a band of these guys . . . 






. . . pulled off the 9/11 attacks. Right? George Bush is a 9/11 LIAR . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60"]Bush Has LIED From Day One!![/ame]

. . . and so are you 'and' *all liars* (Rev. 21:8) share the same fate.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ"]There Are A LOT Of People Like Gam Who LIE And Get Away With It . . . For Now . . .[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgAJ4sKUp8g"]This Is 'Clearly' A WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Implosion[/ame]

GL with that too,

Terral


----------



## candycorn (Nov 19, 2009)

Teral=


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why do you claim that thermite signatures were everywhere in WTC7 and then in a photo claim this?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 19, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> JamesFlynn said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't made up my mind on the whole 9/11 situation. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. I like to see facts.
> ...


LIAR

you are a fucking idiot


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


except YOU are the liar in this case
you and the rest of your 9/11 troofer nutjobs


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 20, 2009)

Terral?

Eots?

Can one of you please post a photo from WTC7 that shows the massive amounts of thermite froth on the ends of columns and beams that you guys claim exist?

I have been asking for quite some time and you two clowns haven't produced one.

In fact, Terral debunks his own claim with this annotation he created in one of the photos.





How is it possible that Terral claims thermite severed the columns and beams of WTC7 in a this photo, yet at the same time, claims that there are no burn marks on the columns beams?





The silence is deafening.


----------



## eots (Nov 20, 2009)

I  have never claimed photos of thermite froth...but your case for your collapse due to fire scenario is weak and unconvincing and lacks any conclusive evidence


----------



## Terral (Nov 20, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> The silence is deafening.



We agree!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]Gam Says "This" Happened On 9/11 From Building Fires[/ame]

Start making 'your' Loyal Bushie/Obama *"Building Fires Took Down WTC-7"* anytime!!! We all need a good laugh . . . 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM]Gam = Govt Stooge Without Any "Building Fires Did It" Case[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 20, 2009)

What is most amazing Terral is your obtuse refusal to address an abvious contradiction. You claimed the building was brought down by thermite. You posted a pic annotated by yourself showing no indication of burns or thermite. All anyone is asking for is your explanation of this obvious contradiction because your point can't be proven without doing so.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 20, 2009)

eots said:


> I  have never claimed photos of thermite froth...but your case for your collapse due to fire scenario is weak and unconvincing and lacks any conclusive evidence



I get it now. 

You'd rather support a guy with a theory that has ADMITTED to having made a mistake about a column showing a cut in one of his photos, debunks his own claim of thermite cuts in the same photo by annotating it with "there are no burn marks" on the columns/beams, won't provide the photos that he has which supports his claim of thermite froth/signatures everywhere, lies about fires not being able to affect steel, lies about a photo of WTC7 DURING it's collapse that shows no damage to the windows (turns out it was a photo BEFORE he collapse), and lies about the total collapse time of WTC7 being 6.6 seconds when in actuality it more than double that.

The only evidence you have about WCT7 is that it LOOKED like a controlled demolition.

So tell us eots. What conclusive evidence has Terral supplied here in these forums that makes you believe his theory is correct?


----------



## Terral (Nov 20, 2009)

Hi Bern:



Bern80 said:


> What is most amazing Terral is your obtuse refusal to address an abvious contradiction. You claimed the building was brought down by thermite . . .



Because you are unaware confused, this is Gam's Topic and he is the USMB spokesman for the *Official Cover Story LIE* that WTC-7 collapsed CD-style into its own footprint from building fires. I am more than happy to address Gam's 'Building Fires Did It' thesis, claims, evidence and conclusions, IF he ever gets around to making 'his' case. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]This Is 'Clearly' A Case of "Controlled Demolition."[/ame]

Okay, so Gam really believes in his heat of hearts that this cannot possibly be a case of *'Controlled Demolition'* (AE911Truth.org), BECAUSE . . . ?????

GL,

Terral


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 20, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Bern:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't care who the OP is. I asked YOU a direct question. The fact that you come up with excuse after excuse to not answer it is telling. You are a truther are you not? And yet you seem to hold two truths that can not exist simultaneosuly. Apparently you need it spelled out for you.

YOU claimed the building was brought down by CD using thermite.

YOU also posted a picture that YOU annotated staing there was no evidence of burning or thermite froth.

This contradiction being the case you have 2 options.

1) Modify your theory such that you are no longer arguing two things that can't possibly occur at the same time.

2) Explain why we are misunderstading what seems to be a fairly obvious contradiction.

Take your pick


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 20, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Bern:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why do I believe that WTC7 was not a case of controlled demolition? Because you have not supplied any evidence of a controlled demolition. 

The theory you supplied has been shown to have mistakes, contradictions, and lies. I've already pointed them out to you yet you find it to be a some kind of joke and won't address them. I've asked you to provide photos of all the thermite signatures that you say you see and you have not provided one.

All you can come up with is that it LOOKS like a controlled demolition. 

I've already listed all the garbage information from your theory that I have found in the post above.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 20, 2009)

Terral said:


> I am more than happy to address Gam's 'Building Fires Did It' thesis, claims, evidence and conclusions, IF he ever gets around to making 'his' case.



I already have. 

You made the comment that heat from fire is dissipated throughout a steel structure due to conduction and therfore a fore cannot affect steel.

This is totally incorrect.

It that were the case, why do they insulate steel columns and beams? I have posted numerous links and explanations that steel is not only affected by fire, but by an increase in temperature on a warm day. Do look up railroad tracks and heat. 

I showed you about expansion loops in a steam pipeline and why they need "sliding shoes" underneath them.

Then there is this photo.





Your claim that fire/heat cannot affect steel has been proven WRONG.


----------



## eots (Nov 20, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I  have never claimed photos of thermite froth...but your case for your collapse due to fire scenario is weak and unconvincing and lacks any conclusive evidence
> ...



with all due respect to my little green friend these theories are not terrels theories they are the conclusions of some of the best minds in the country with vast experience and expertise and their independent analysis  is far more compelling and genuine in its process than the 9/11 commission and its various spawn

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 20, 2009)

Here's another thought. If Building 7 was rigged for implosion as part of the towers destruction by Aircraft, how could the "Planners" know that the building would be damaged enough to bring it down without drawing suspicion. And why were not other buildings that were damaged enough to demolish at later dates not part of the plot?

Using any type of explosives or thermite on Bldg 7 just doesn't make sense as part of the overall picture that day.


----------



## eots (Nov 20, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Here's another thought. If Building 7 was rigged for implosion as part of the towers destruction by Aircraft, how could the "Planners" know that the building would be damaged enough to bring it down without drawing suspicion. And why were not other buildings that were damaged enough to demolish at later dates not part of the plot?
> 
> Using any type of explosives or thermite on Bldg 7 just doesn't make sense as part of the overall picture that day.



the buildings that did not collapse were not owned by Larry silverstein and did not house enron and CIA   documents..damage to building 7 was not necessary the gullible public accepted building fires alone for the longest time ...building 7 was not even include in the 9/11 report and the final non-conclusive report took 8 yrs ..many more did not even know three buildings collapsed that day for many months after all the focus was on shock and awe...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 20, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another thought. If Building 7 was rigged for implosion as part of the towers destruction by Aircraft, how could the "Planners" know that the building would be damaged enough to bring it down without drawing suspicion. And why were not other buildings that were damaged enough to demolish at later dates not part of the plot?
> ...



Please, so Mr Silverstein would have his own building destroyed and cover it up by the real attacks of the day?   You are a funny one.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 20, 2009)

eots said:


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



Really?

So this photo with annotations came from "some of the best minds in the world" as proof of thermite cut columns and beams and NOT from Terral? And in the same photo, these "best minds" then go on to claim that there is no evidence of burn marks or melting on the columns/beams?





Can you tell me which "best mind" Terral got the premise that a certain photo of WTC7 taken before it collapsed was a photo of WTC7 DURING it's collapse and showed no signs of damage? Can you show me which "best mind" started that lie?

Can you provide me with a link or reference to the "best mind" that says there is evidence of " WTC7 thermite froth/signatures" everywhere yet cannot provide one single photo of it?

Please do.

If it's NOT his theory, then why does he call it his THESIS?


----------



## eots (Nov 20, 2009)

\For OpEdNews: Alan Miller - Writer
*
Official Explanation a Fraud *


*World renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., has severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation,* I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.


*One of Americas most prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academys Space Science Board *Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President *Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement*, "for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences


In her statement, Dr. Margulis cites the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11 as a useful source of information and analysis of problems with the official account of 9/11. She specifically lauded The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, *which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.*Internationally acclaimed for her ground-breaking scientific work, Dr. Margulis is an elected member of The World Academy of Art and Science, an organization of 500 of the worlds leading thinkers


*
David L. Griscom, PhD  Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.  Fellow of the American Physical Society. * Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).  Visiting *professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).  Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).*  Winner of the 1993 N. F. *Mott Award *sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 *Otto Schott Award offered *by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 *Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award *at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. *Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, *a body of work which is highly cited by his peers.  Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any *author on list of 100 most cited articles* authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988. 
Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True:  This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.  [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.]




*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 Center*]."  AE911Truth 


*Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 950 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 



*Robert H. Waser, BS ME, MS ME, PE  Retired Research and Development Engineer, U.S. Naval Ordinance Lab. 33 year career*, of which 15 years were as Chief Engineer of the laboratory's wind tunnel complex, which includes the* world's largest hypervelocity wind tunnel. * Retired Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Maryland. 


Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 
*"The 'official' 9/11 story seems to violate laws of physics and engineering analysis, specifically with respect to the collapse speed and the temperatures of molten iron.  The only explanation that seems to be in accordance with all observations is controlled demolition*."  AE911Truth

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Terral (Nov 20, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> If it's NOT his theory, then why does he call it his THESIS?



Gam is obviously confused. If 'you' have a *"Building Fires Did It"* Case cuckoo, this is the time to start making that presentation for the benefit of these readers. 

Good Luck . . . 

Terral


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 21, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



and YOUR a brainwashed Bush dupe afraid of the truth.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 21, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


WOW
what irony


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 21, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




So you can't find any reasoning in this either? Maybe you are coming out of the fog. Run out of crack money maybe?


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world&#8217;s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to 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.
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 21, 2009)

Which still leaves you with thinking that Mr Silverstein had the twin towers the Pentagon and flight 93 hit just to cover up the destruction of his own building........


LA la la la la la.....


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 21, 2009)

eots said:


> Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way, he said.
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation



And I have bad news for you and Terral and 9/11. Dr. Quintere would in no way consider the lot of you the 
'right' type of conspiracy theorists.

What is so clear to the rest of us eludes you fools. YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH. CLEARLY you have already decided what the truth is. All the lot of you are doing is trying to do here is convince people of an ill founded conclusion.


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Which still leaves you with thinking that Mr Silverstein had the twin towers the Pentagon and flight 93 hit just to cover up the destruction of his own building........
> 
> 
> LA la la la la la.....



silverstein owned the towers as well.. bozo.... and silverstein is just a co-conspirator pawn


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 21, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Which still leaves you with thinking that *Mr Silverstein had the twin towers* the Pentagon and flight 93 hit just to cover up the destruction of his own building........
> ...


no shit moron


look at what he actually said


my GOD you are too fucking stupid


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way, he said.
> ...



he statement is more directed to his peers such as these people

*David L. Griscom, PhD  Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.  Fellow of the American Physical Society.  Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).  *Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).  Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).  Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL*. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers.  Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988. *Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True:  This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.  [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.]

... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics. 

The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215). 

Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman 

*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 Center]."  AE911Truth 


*Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 950 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 


Editor's note: WTC Building 





*One of Americas most prominent scientists,* Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as *Chairman of the Academys Space Science Board Committee *on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, "for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public." 

In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com, Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties. She compared 9/11 to several self-inflicted attacks that had been used in the past to arouse peoples fear and hatred and justify war, including the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, the Reichstag Fire, and Operation Himmler, which Germany used to justify the invasion of Poland, the trigger for World War II.

In her statement, Dr. Margulis cites the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11 as a useful source of information and analysis of problems with the official account of 9/11. She specifically lauded The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.


OpEdNews - Article: National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




he said...he had ...the twin towers..the pentagon....and...flight 93....hit....just to cover up
the destructin of ..his own.......BUILDING.....

STUPID...don't pretend.. clearly..lil uniformed Ollie was unaware that silverstein owned all 3 buildings that collapsed that day...until now


----------



## candycorn (Nov 21, 2009)

eots=


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 21, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


except he didnt
you dumb fuck
he owned LEASES, not the actual buildings


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



again you are just a weasel who's lie about Ollie's post fell apart so now you try to split hairs  and change the premise of your argument


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

candycorn said:


> eots=



hey cornycunt !... hows it hangin ?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you are the liar and a fucking moron
sheeesh seek out professional help


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

no your the liar or moron or both remember your last lie/stupidity when you tried to pretend that Ollie was aware of silverstiens connection to all 3 wtc buildings ???


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> no your the liar or moron or both remember your last lie/stupidity when you tried to pretend that Ollie was aware of silverstiens connection to all 3 wtc buildings ???


that wasnt a LIE asshole


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > no your the liar or moron or both remember your last lie/stupidity when you tried to pretend that Ollie was aware of silverstiens connection to all 3 wtc buildings ???
> ...



so stupidity then...fair enough


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 22, 2009)

Regardless whether I knew he had connections to the other Buildings or not. (actually I believe the only one he didn't have a vested interest in was #6) I still don't see one man causing or planning all this, And if I remember right he hadn't had the leases on the other buildings very long.

I also have to wonder why all these so called experts keep pointing out that Building 7 was not mentioned in the 911 Commissions report. NO SHIT? Maybe because the 911 commissions Report was not a report on why the Buildings fell but what happened to them. How the terrorists got into the states how they got onto the planes how they were trained and most importantly how to prevent it from happening again. You see the 911 Commissions Report was not written by scientists or engineers they stuck to the known facts; something you should try sometime.


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Regardless whether I knew he had connections to the other Buildings or not. (actually I believe the only one he didn't have a vested interest in was #6) I still don't see one man causing or planning all this, And if I remember right he hadn't had the leases on the other buildings very long.
> 
> I also have to wonder why all these so called experts keep pointing out that Building 7 was not mentioned in the 911 Commissions report. NO SHIT? Maybe because the 911 commissions Report was not a report on why the Buildings fell but what happened to them. How the terrorists got into the states how they got onto the planes how they were trained and most importantly how to prevent it from happening again. You see the 911 Commissions Report was not written by scientists or engineers they stuck to the known facts; something you should try sometime.



the overwhelming opinion of the 9/11 commission report by its participants was it was a cover-up and answered none of those question satisfactory and again silverstein was just a co-conspirator pawn nothing more


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless whether I knew he had connections to the other Buildings or not. (actually I believe the only one he didn't have a vested interest in was #6) I still don't see one man causing or planning all this, And if I remember right he hadn't had the leases on the other buildings very long.
> ...


another LIE you keep telling


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies ...11 Sep 2009 ... 9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, ... forced to back up a cover story now proven false, a pattern emerges. ..... into the key evidence of the massive call options that were placed on the ...
www.salem-news.com/articles/.../911_truth_9-11-09.php -


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


nothing at that link
and its not "most" if anything its a FEW


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Your link is broke dick.........


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

e 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
Gordon Duff Salem-News.com 
How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots? 


John Farmer&#8217;s book: &#8220;The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America&#8217;s Defense on 9/11&#8243;

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer&#8217;s book: &#8220;The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America&#8217;s Defense on 9/11&#8243;, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission. 

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies - Salem-News.Com


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

*Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, 9/11 Commissioner &#8211; Former 6-term Congressman from Indiana (1991 - 2003).  Former member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  Currently President of the Center for National Policy*.

CNN Article 8/2/06 : "A member of the 9/11 commission said Wednesday that panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon's inspector general. ...* "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting," Roemer told CNN. "We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission *or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News 


*Jamie S. Gorelick, 9/11 Commissioner &#8211; Former Deputy Attorney General of the United States 1994 - 1997.  Former General Counsel *of the Defense Department 1993 - 1994. Co-chaired, with Senator Sam Nunn, the Advisory Committee of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection.  Also served on the CIA's National Security Advisory Panel.  Vice chair of Fannie Mae 1997 - 2003.  Currently a partner at the law firm, WilmerHale.  Also serves on the Board of Directors of Schlumberger and United Technologies Corporation and is a member of the Harvard College Board of Overseers.

Washington Post Article 9/30/06: Regarding recent revelations of a July 10, 2001 meeting between Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Cofer Black - "Jamie S. Gorelick, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said she checked with commission staff members who told her investigators were never told about a July 10 meeting. "We didn't know about the meeting itself," she said. "I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it."  White House and State Department officials yesterday confirmed that the July 10 meeting took place..." washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines 


*John F. Lehman, Jr., PhD &#8211; 9/11 Commissioner.  Former Secretary of the Navy 1981 - 1987.  Former staff member to Henry Kissinger on the National Security Council.  Member, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).* 


Article Washington Post 8/2/06:  "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate. ... 

*"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me." *washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines 



*Peter Rundlet, Counsel for the 9/11 Commission* &#8211; Former Associate Counsel to President Clinton.  Former White House Fellow, serving in the Office of the Chief of Staff to President Clinton.  Former Vice President for National Security and International Affairs, Center for American Progress. 

Currently Director of Policy and Government Relations for Humanity United, an independent grantmaking organization committed to building a world where modern-day slavery and mass atrocities are no longer possible. 
Essay 9/30/06: *"A mixture of shock, anger, and sadness overcame me when I read about revelations in Bob Woodward&#8217;s new book about a special surprise visit that George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief Cofer Black made to Condi Rice, also on July 10, 2001 ... *
If true, it is shocking that the administration failed to heed such an overwhelming alert from the two officials in the best position to know. Many, many questions need to be asked and answered about this revelation &#8212; questions that the 9/11 Commission would have asked, had the Commission been told about this significant meeting. Suspiciously, the Commissioners and the staff investigating the administration&#8217;s actions prior to 9/11 were never informed of the meeting. 

The Commission interviewed Condoleezza Rice privately and during public testimony; it interviewed George Tenet three times privately and during public testimony; and Cofer Black was also interviewed privately and publicly. All of them were obligated to tell the truth. Apparently, none of them described this meeting, the purpose of which clearly was central to the Commission&#8217;s investigation. Moreover, document requests to both the White House and to the CIA should have revealed the fact that this meeting took place. Now, more than two years after the release of the Commission&#8217;s report, we learn of this meeting from Bob Woodward. 

*Was it covered up? It is hard to come to a different conclusion. ... At a minimum, the withholding of information about this meeting is an outrage. Very possibly, someone committed a crime. And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot*." http://think 


*Bogdan Dzakovic &#8211; Witness before the 9/11 Commission.  14-year Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration. Team Leader of the FAA's Red (Terrorism) Team, which conducted undercover tests on airport security through simulated terrorist attacks.  Former Team Leader in the Federal Air Marshal program.  Former Coast Guard officer*.

Video transcript 8/21/05 :* Regarding the 9/11 Commission "The best I could say about it is they really botched the job by not really going into the real failures. &#8230; At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous."* 911report.com - 911 report Resources and Information.This website is for sale! 


*Signatory of Petition *to Release Information Pertaining to 9/11 10/5/06: "We, the undersigned, demand the immediate declassification and release of: 
all transcripts and documents relating to the July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. It has been alleged that this urgent and out-of-the-ordinary meeting was called to discuss the increasingly dire warnings of an imminent al Qaeda attack within the U.S. ... 
the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (JICI), and 
the CIA Inspector General&#8217;s report, CIA Accountability With Respect To The 9/11 Attacks 
The disastrous nature of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks warrant the release of all of this information so that the American public may learn what its government did or did not do to protect them. Had this nation been properly warned of the looming and imminent terrorist threat, life saving choices could have been made that day." Public's Right To Know - Declassification and Release of Documents Petition


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> e 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
> Gordon Duff Salem-News.com
> How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?
> 
> ...




Now let me get this straight, the claim now is that the 911 report is almost all wrong, Yet no where in any of the stories do I see where anyone makes any claims as to what is right. So it's all wrong and we who are saying this don't know what is right.....Not one actual point do they deny. No one says that there were no Hijackers for instance. Not one claim that the Commission was wrong about Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. So just what is wrong about the report?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> e 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
> Gordon Duff Salem-News.com
> How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?
> 
> ...


ROFLMAOa book report


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > e 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
> ...



well that's the nature of a  cover-up    you have been lied to and deceived so everything comes into question the commission is invalid and a real investigation is required ...but stop pretending that 9/11 commission members support the report..they do not..clearly


----------



## candycorn (Nov 22, 2009)

eots=


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

candycorn said:


> eots=



hi candywhore..


----------



## candycorn (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > eots=
> ...



eots=


----------



## elvis (Nov 23, 2009)

This presents  Gunny with a predicament.  Candy broke a rule by altering eots' quote.  but eots broke gunny's rule about calling girls whores.  so is Candy in violation?


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> This presents  Gunny with a predicament.  Candy broke a rule by altering eots' quote.  but eots broke gunny's rule about calling girls whores.  so is Candy in violation?



candywhore is one word isnt it ?


----------



## creativedreams (Nov 23, 2009)

Not too long ago there were people in the United Kingdom Parliment who publicly stated...

"The U.S. global war on terror is bogus. The U.S. government played some roll in the destruction wrought that day."


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 23, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> Not too long ago there were people in the United Kingdom Parliment who publicly stated...
> 
> "The U.S. global war on terror is bogus. The U.S. government played some roll in the destruction wrought that day."




I guess they said that and were voted out of office for being foolish.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

*the Senior council for the 9/11 commision ort has clearly stated the report is almost entirely false*

_rThe 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission_. 

*you are in total denial*


----------



## Fizz (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> *the Senior council for the 9/11 commision ort has clearly stated the report is almost entirely false*
> 
> _rThe 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission_.
> 
> *you are in total denial*



actually, you are being very misleading to the point of creating lies.

here is what John Farmer was responsible for on the 9/11 commision

_John Farmer served as senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, where his areas of responsibility included assessing the national reaction to the terrorist attacks and evaluating the current state of national preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters. _

his book deals with the accounts of the reactions of the government to the attack and he says that the 9/11 commissions versions of reactions to the days events were thrown into question after classified material was declassified.

he does not assert that that planes did not fly into the buildings, that al qeda is responsible for the attacks or anything of the sort. he comments on what the government reaction to the attacks was.


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *the Senior council for the 9/11 commision ort has clearly stated the report is almost entirely false*
> ...



where did I say he asserted that planes did not fly into buildings ?????  he said there was a cover up...the truth is not known the official story almost entirely false as do the majority of commision members and the need for a real investigation of the events of 9/11 the only one creating lies here is you


----------



## Fizz (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> where did I say he asserted that planes did not fly into buildings ?????  he said there was a cover up...the truth is not known the official story almost entirely false as do the majority of commision members and the need for a real investigation of the events of 9/11 the only one creating lies here is you



isnt the official story that the planes flew into the buildings? so if the story is almost entirely false, as you are saying, then wouldnt this also be false? or are you saying something like only one of the two planes to hit the world trade center actually did so? you are the one making the claims its almost entirely false so please back up your claim. let's hear what was false. please be specific.


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > where did I say he asserted that planes did not fly into buildings ?????  he said there was a cover up...the truth is not known the official story almost entirely false as do the majority of commision members and the need for a real investigation of the events of 9/11 the only one creating lies here is you
> ...



don't be retarded..on something as complex as the attacks of 9/11 getting the fact that planes hit buildings is hardly an investigation  and if most everything beyond that is false distorted or misleading it is hardly sufficient`


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


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




So tell us what is false. It's not so difficult. You believe the 911 Commissions report to be mostly false, so start with chapter one and tell us what is in that chapter that is false.


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

the issue of prior knowledge..the lack of testimony from able danger..the identity of the hijackers..who financed the operation the actions and inaction's of NORAD..and the FAA..the actions of the president and vice president..the pentagon stand down/shoot down orders ..the timeline..etc etc


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> where did I say he asserted that planes did not fly into buildings ?????  he said there was a cover up...the truth is not known the official story almost entirely false as do the majority of commision members and the need for a real investigation of the events of 9/11 the only one creating lies here is you



you are claiming the 9//11 commissions report is almost entirely false.

are you now saying that planes flying into buildings wasnt included in the 9/11 commissions report?


----------



## Terral (Nov 24, 2009)

Hi Fizz:



Fizz said:


> actually, you are being very misleading to the point of creating lies . . .



That sounds funny coming from a guy sent here to push the Official Cover Story LIE that 'building fires' brought down WTC-7:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok&feature=fvst"]WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11[/ame]

Mr. Fizz here appears to be a reasonably intelligent guy, but for some reason he wants everyone to believe that this . . .

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]This Is "Obviously" A Typical Controlled Demolition Implosion[/ame]

. . . could *not possibly* be the result of *'Controlled Demolition' *(AE911Truth.org). I would like to see Mr. Fizz explain WHY he can sit there behind that computer screen and rule out *"Controlled Demolition"* (ScholarsForTruth.org) as the cause of transforming this . . . 






. . . into this . . . 






. . . little pile. I will make things very simple for Mr. Fizz:

All of this evidence (my WTC-7 Topic) cannot possibly be interpreted as a *"WTC-7 Controlled Demolition"* (see #3) BECAUSE . . . 

Try to provide these USMB readers with a truthful answer and 'without' telling a Loyal Bushie/Obama LIE . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60"]Bush Has Been Lying About 9/11 From Day One . . . Too . . .[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 24, 2009)

Fiiz obvioulsy has never read the book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory and never will cause the ones that push the fairy tale that muslins and bin laden were behind the attacks have no interest in the truth.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Fiiz obvioulsy has never read the book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory and never will cause the ones that push the fairy tale that muslins and bin laden were behind the attacks have no interest in the truth.



HAhahahaha i guess the repeated admissions by al qeda leaders are part of bush's conspiracy too!!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 24, 2009)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Fiiz obvioulsy has never read the book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory and never will cause the ones that push the fairy tale that muslins and bin laden were behind the attacks have no interest in the truth.
> ...



people will do anything for money idiot.you also demonstrate your ignorance in the fact that Bin Laden said in the few days after the attacks,he had nothing to do with it.thei was reported overseas but not here in the corporate america by the corporate controlled media though,they never report REAL news fool.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> people will do anything for money idiot.you also demonstrate your ignorance in the fact that Bin Laden said in the few days after the attacks,he had nothing to do with it.thei was reported overseas but not here in the corporate america by the corporate controlled media though,they never report REAL news fool.



first, let me get this straight. you are calling me an idiot for saying al-qeda admitted to being behind 9/11? are you fucking out of your mind? if you had a fully functioning brain cell it would be lonely.

now lets get further into your claims. 

1. you claim that bin laden denied being involved and that i_t wasnt reported in america_. *-LIE*
CNN.com - Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks - September 17, 2001

2. you claim muslims were not involved in the 9/11 attacks-* LIE* ..and a ridiculous one with many sources of proof. here is just one (unless you think the saudi's are part of a zionist plot!!).
USATODAY.com - Official: 15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Fizz:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



now you are proving what a completely paranoid lunatic you are!! 

i was SENT HERE?!!! sent by who?!! you are a moron!! please provide proof of your claims.

i know you cant because you are a LIAR!! you completely fabricated your claim i have been sent here by anyone. you have no credibility now what-so-ever. you are paranoid. your claims that there is a wild conspiracy behind 9/11 has now been proven to be paranoid lunacy because now you are claiming that i am part of some type of plot!!!


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > people will do anything for money idiot.you also demonstrate your ignorance in the fact that Bin Laden said in the few days after the attacks,he had nothing to do with it.thei was reported overseas but not here in the corporate america by the corporate controlled media though,they never report REAL news fool.
> ...



you mean all-CIA -duh and the tortured confessions and home made video tapes ..Arab dupes were used for this operation..but they were under the guidance and watchful eye of elements within the CIA...not unlike the first wtc attack


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> you mean all-CIA -duh and the tortured confessions and home made video tapes ..Arab dupes were used for this operation..but they were under the guidance and watchful eye of elements within the CIA...not unlike the first wtc attack



holy cow!! your claims just keep getting crazier!!

now you are claiming that Atta and the others were CIA operatives?!! 

are you saying Moussaoui was a CIA operative too? he admits he is muslim. he admits to being part of the 9/11 conspiracy.
Moussaoui now says White House was his attack target on Sept. 11 - The Boston Globe


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> . . . could not possibly be the result of 'Controlled Demolition' (AE911Truth.org). I would like to see Mr. Fizz explain WHY he can sit there behind that computer screen and rule out "Controlled Demolition"l



because there is no evidence of a controlled demolition.


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

bin laden without question worked with the CIA...and as for others dupes are not operatives


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 24, 2009)

Fizz said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Fizz:
> ...


yeah, if you're not with the nutter troofers, your in on it
LOL


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> bin laden without question worked with the CIA...and as for others dupes are not operatives


wrong again
that is a lie that has permeated the internet
and has no truth to it


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> bin laden without question worked with the CIA...



proof please.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 24, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > bin laden without question worked with the CIA...
> ...


he read it on the interwebs, so it MUST be true


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > bin laden without question worked with the CIA...and as for others dupes are not operatives
> ...



you mean you mean that's what popular mechanics told you and that it was not _widely reported _in the controlled media just like global warming scientist that disputed global warming have no voice but the internet

this CIA man worked with bin laden and gives the most truthful analysis of the reality of bin laden on CNN

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn61PJQGCUo[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



actually, your video does NOT say that the CIA guy worked with bin laden at all. you are once again misrepresenting what is actually in your links. its actually quite the opposite.

if you actually listen to your video, this is what the guy says:
"i spent so many years wondering how the myth of Osama bin Laden got started. We have OBL the great war hero. we have the OBL that was funded by the CIA during 3 years of war"

did you hear the words "wondering how the myth of Osama bin Laden got started"??

do you know what the word MYTH means?

also:
"he was not the great warrior that fought the soviet union to a standstill. the CIA had nothing to do with him"


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

he means the myth disseminated as a super villain..not his time in Afghanistan


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 24, 2009)

Fizz said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > . . . could not possibly be the result of 'Controlled Demolition' (AE911Truth.org). I would like to see Mr. Fizz explain WHY he can sit there behind that computer screen and rule out "Controlled Demolition"l
> ...



theres PLENTY of it fool.theres only no evidence that the fires caused the collapse.just because you only see what you WANT to see,doesnt mean there is no evidence of it.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> he means the myth disseminated as a super villain..not his time in Afghanistan


bin laden was NEVER funded by the CIA
thats the MYTH


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 24, 2009)

At 2:18 your source says "CIA had nothing to do with him"


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> he means the myth disseminated as a super villain..not his time in Afghanistan



"the CIA had nothing to do with him"

he is speaking english. we dont need you to translate or tell us what he means. we can all hear it. thanks anyway.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> theres PLENTY of it fool.theres only no evidence that the fires caused the collapse.just because you only see what you WANT to see,doesnt mean there is no evidence of it.



ok. let's see it.


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

the nature of the collapse itself is evidence to any rational person


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> the nature of the collapse itself is evidence to any rational person



i agree. so who do you think is being irrational? the 77% of americans that said unlikely or the 6% that said very likely?

_Question:
The collapse if the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.

Answers: (992 respondents)
Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 10%
Unlikely 77%
Don't know 6%
Other response 1%_


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> the nature of the collapse itself is evidence to any rational person




which scenario is the rational explanation......

1. a plane flies into a building. the building catches on fire and collapses.

or

2. a plane flies into a building. this doesnt really hurt the building much so thousands of people take part in a secret pre-planned government conspiracy to bring the buildings down by secretly bringing in explosives, secretly wiring up the explosives and the sneak out of the building all undetected while hundreds of police and firefighters are in the process of evacuating the building. not one of the thousands of conspirators necessary ever comes forward with a guilty conscience about killing 3000 people. the people involved leave no trace of any explosions behind despite everything being covered on live TV. these are the same type of people that couldnt keep the president getting a blowjob a secret.


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the nature of the collapse itself is evidence to any rational person
> ...




most polls put the number at a third some much higher but it is irrelevant crime investigations are not conducted through poll


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


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



even if its as high as you say in some polls most people overwhelmingly think it is not rational. in fact, people are twice as likely to believe that aliens have contacted humans than explosives were used at the world trade center. that should give you some perspective on your logic and rationality.

CNN - Poll: U.S. hiding knowledge of aliens - June 15, 1997


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

Fizz said:


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



then why post such nonsense..that is total irrelevant to the topic the speed and symmetrical nature of the collapse and the presence of molten steel is evidence of a controlled demolition


----------



## Fizz (Nov 25, 2009)

eots said:


> then why post such nonsense..that is total irrelevant to the topic the speed and symmetrical nature of the collapse and the presence of molten steel is evidence of a controlled demolition



because i'm showing you how absurd some of your views are.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > then why post such nonsense..that is total irrelevant to the topic the speed and symmetrical nature of the collapse and the presence of molten steel is evidence of a controlled demolition
> ...




Actually I haven't seen any proof that what was reported was molten steel. For all I know it was copper or aluminum. Or a dozen other alloys. Since there was tons and tons and hundreds of tons of other metals in those buildings.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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


too much common sense for troofers


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > then why post such nonsense..that is total irrelevant to the topic the speed and symmetrical nature of the collapse and the presence of molten steel is evidence of a controlled demolition
> ...



polls prove nothing anyone with any sense knows that


----------



## the other mike (Jul 14, 2021)

Gamolon said:


> Plain and simple.
> 
> The failure of the structure was due mostly to thermal expansion. You see, Terral would like you to think that the connections and steel columns/beams needed to reach temperatures of 2800F in order to MELT. The columns, connections, and beams didn't need to melt to cause structural failure in the building. Think of this. If you have two columns with a beam between them bolted to each and applied heat to the beam, what happens? The steel GROWS as it is heated.
> 
> ...


Yeah.
This is the thread that should be in 'conspiracy theories'.


----------



## the other mike (Jul 15, 2021)

I can tell.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jul 15, 2021)

eots said:


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


No it is not and the only molten steel was found days after the collapse at the bottom of the pile where heat had been trapped.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jul 15, 2021)

Soupnazi630 said:


> No it is not and the only molten steel was found days after the collapse at the bottom of the pile where heat had been trapped.


it was trapped and preserved so nist could report and explain it, so cough it up.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jul 15, 2021)

SFC Ollie said:


> For all I know it was copper or aluminum.


Thats a nice way to disqualify yourself


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jul 16, 2021)

KokomoJojo said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> > No it is not and the only molten steel was found days after the collapse at the bottom of the pile where heat had been trapped.
> ...


Bullshit you are really an ignorant fucking fool now post some evideence of your claims BOY


----------



## the other mike (Jul 28, 2021)

"Thermal expansion"


----------



## the other mike (Jul 28, 2021)

Gamolon said:


> Plain and simple.
> 
> The failure of the structure was due mostly to thermal expansion. You see, Terral would like you to think that the connections and steel columns/beams needed to reach temperatures of 2800F in order to MELT. The columns, connections, and beams didn't need to melt to cause structural failure in the building. Think of this. If you have two columns with a beam between them bolted to each and applied heat to the beam, what happens? The steel GROWS as it is heated.
> 
> ...


All three towers were controlled demolitions ."plain and simple"


----------



## the other mike (Jul 28, 2021)

World Trade Center 7 building did not collapse due to fire: Report - constructconnect.com - Daily Commercial News
					

A group of engineers and architects is demanding the American National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) retract and correct a 2008 report that concluded one of three World Trade Center buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel suppor




					canada.constructconnect.com


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jul 31, 2021)

Angelo said:


> World Trade Center 7 building did not collapse due to fire: Report - constructconnect.com - Daily Commercial News
> 
> 
> A group of engineers and architects is demanding the American National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) retract and correct a 2008 report that concluded one of three World Trade Center buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel suppor
> ...


AED911truth is worthless and does not constitute evidence


----------



## the other mike (Jul 31, 2021)

Soupnazi630 said:


> AED911truth is worthless and does not constitute evidence


Name one thing they've gotten wrong.

And we can believe everything our government says right ?


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jul 31, 2021)

Angelo said:


> Name one thing they've gotten wrong.
> 
> And we can believe everything our government says right ?


That they are architects and engineers .
And no but in  this case no one has challenged the NIST report


----------



## the other mike (Jul 31, 2021)

Soupnazi630 said:


> That they are architects and engineers .
> And no but in  this case no one has challenged the NIST report


Just because people haven't put forward certain physical evidence which will disprove NISTs entire report,  doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

For one thing, there hasn't been a grand jury yet because state of New York and feds keep putting it off.....

Since when do plaintiffs have to give up their information before their day in court  ?


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jul 31, 2021)

Angelo said:


> Just because people haven't put forward certain physical evidence which will disprove NISTs entire report,  doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> 
> For one thing, there hasn't been a grand jury yet because state of New York and feds keep putting it off.....
> 
> Since when do plaintiffs have to give up their information before their day in court  ?


Yes that is precidsely what it means.

There is no evidence disproving the NISt report and no one has ever put forth any siuch evideence proving it does not exist.

Since the rules of science were established


----------



## the other mike (Jul 31, 2021)

" there are no plaintiffs and there will be no grand jury..."
Soupnazi630 
 Like Ace Ventura says...."Denial can be an ugly thing..."


----------



## the other mike (Jul 31, 2021)

Soupnazi630 said:


> There is no evidence disproving the NISt report


You can keep saying that for ten more years and it still won't be true.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jul 31, 2021)

Angelo said:


> You can keep saying that for ten more years and it still won't be true.


It is true and you know it or you would have posted it


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jul 31, 2021)

Angelo said:


> " there are no plaintiffs and there will be no grand jury..."
> Soupnazi630
> Like Ace Ventura says...."Denial can be an ugly thing..."


That is correct there is no such grandjury or plaintiffs.

or evidence


----------



## the other mike (Jul 31, 2021)

Also look up our boy J Paul Bremer.
His company Marsh & McLennan took a direct hit from one of the planes (almost 300 employees died) shut miraculously , just like his buddy Larry Silverstein and his daughter and a few others ,he wasn't at work that day..... on MSNBC I believe talking about how it was Osama bin Laden who did it then after that he was made guess what.... director of something in Iraq.


----------

