# The IMPOSSIBLE didn't happen on 911



## wihosa (Apr 7, 2013)

Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.

In my first thread I pointed to two parts of the story which just don't stand scrutiny. First the vanishing pentagon plane and second the collapse of WTC7. These are not the only parts of the story which don't add up, just the most glaring and obvious.

We are to believe that the highjacker was with very little flight training able to make a very tight descending spiral turn and slam into the Pentagon. Professional pilots have attested to the difficulty of this maneuver  and doubted an amateur could pull it off. Then the plane punched thought the side of the Pentagon which is two feet thick steel reinforced concrete, the wings folded back but remained attached to the fuselage as well as the tail section and were dragged into the building where it continued on through the structural support columns (these are very substantial as it is a three story structure) and all the way to where it punched another hole in the "C ring" wall in the interior of the Pentagon. Then the entire plane along with the passengers and baggage almost completely burned up, leaving only a couple of pieces of wreckage which could have come from an airliner. Pictures taken immediately after the impact make clear that the exterior wall was still intact and the large structural failure was due to the ensuing fire so what ever hit the pentagon punched through the exterior as it did the "C ring" wall. I noted that one would expect to find at least the tail section on the ground outside the building and much more debris. The conspiracy theorists (defenders of the official story) pointed to a video of a fighter jet on a rail being slammed into a block of concrete as evidence that the plane would have been obliterated, but the video doesn't show the aftermath so it's hard to tell what was left of the plane, besides if the plane was obliterated upon contact how did it punch through the exterior wall, the structural columns and the "C"ring wall? Additionally, even if all these improbable events did occur, the idea that the plane was almost entirely consumed by fire is silly. Aluminum melts at around 1600degrees F but does not burn until heated to over 6000degrees F far beyond the temps resulting from hydrocarbon fires. There should have been large globs of melted aluminum inside the pentagon but the pictures of the aftermath don't show this. Finally I pointed out that there is YouTube video of an airliner of like size and weight which crashed on takeoff in Lagos Nigeria. It slammed into the side of a much less substantial wood frame apartment building. It did not penetrate all the way through. The tail section as expected was almost untouched and though the plane exploded and burned the airframe is easily recognized, and passengers and luggage are clearly evident. The conspiracy theorists want to hang their hat on the fact that some debris which looks similar to airliner parts were found and that light poles out side the Pentagon were knocked down or that DNA was "found" inside the Pentagon days later. Clearly, this was a conspiracy and if as I am saying it was not as a result of the official conspiracy theory, then the real conspirators had every motivation to plant phony evidence to cover their tracks.

Then there is WTC7, the smoking gun as it were. Here, if it weren't so monstrously evil it would be laughable. The evidence which can be gleaned overwhelmingly points to controlled demolition. Watch the YouTube video of the collapse, it falls neatly straight down at near free fall speed into its own footprint. This can ONLY happen if ALL the support columns fail simultaneously on each floor and synchronously from floor to floor. The chances of this happening from a random event are so vanishingly small that it must be considered IMPOSSIBLE! The NIST report asserts that this was the result of a moderate office fire but presented no science to back it up. They may as well have blamed it on fairies. Again YouTube video provides an example of what structural failure due to fire looks like. Look at the 2005 Windsor Tower fire in Madrid Spain. Here you see a modern steel frame high rise fully engulfed in fire. It rages uncontrolled for nearly two days and finally there is some structural failure. This failure is as would be expected, near the top (heat rises), slow in developing and asymmetrical. The aftermath shows a burned out wreck but with the structural frame largely in tact. The building did not simply collapse entirely in seconds.
If you are honest with yourself you simply can't ignore the obvious, WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

THE IMPOSSIBLE DIDN'T HAPPEN ON 911!


----------



## PredFan (Apr 7, 2013)

Really? Another thread on this? You claim to be advocating no theory, but you ARE advocating that WTC7 was brought down by CD, which is a conspiracy theory. And a debunked on at that.


----------



## eots (Apr 7, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Really? Another thread on this? You claim to be advocating no theory, but you ARE advocating that WTC7 was brought down by CD, which is a conspiracy theory. And a debunked on at that.



debunked by who ?? when ??


----------



## PredFan (Apr 7, 2013)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Another thread on this? You claim to be advocating no theory, but you ARE advocating that WTC7 was brought down by CD, which is a conspiracy theory. And a debunked on at that.
> ...



By all of us in numerous threads on the subject.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> THE IMPOSSIBLE DIDN'T HAPPEN ON 911!



I believe we can all agree with that statement.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.



There is no reason to have a criminal trial as all the known perps are dead. You would try their remains? Who would _you_ charge with the crime and what would you use as evidence?


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
> 
> In my first thread I pointed to two parts of the story which just don't stand scrutiny. First the vanishing pentagon plane and second the collapse of WTC7. These are not the only parts of the story which don't add up, just the most glaring and obvious.
> 
> ...



So you figure someone figured out how to drop 7 in roughly its own footprint, managed to rig the building without anyone noticing, timed the alleged CD to coincide with the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers, and did it all without anyone breathing a word of it? I thought you don't subscribe to silly CTs.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 7, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Really? Another thread on this? You claim to be advocating no theory, but you ARE advocating that WTC7 was brought down by CD, which is a conspiracy theory. And a debunked on at that.



I am making a logical conclusion, it is impossible for WTC7 to have collapsed as it did due to fire and as no other "theory" is even plausible  we are left by deductive reasoning with the only possibility cause.... Controlled Demolition.

What has been debunked is your  conspiracy theory, the official conspiracy theory. Or why don't you find a video of another building collapsing as WTC7 did as a result of fire? I found numerous videos of buildings collapsing in that manner but they were all as a result of CD. And I found a video of the Windsor Tower it looks nothing like WTC7.

I have no theory for who or why, we need evidence tested in a court of law and proven to be fact to formulate a theory.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 7, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
> ...



what if some perps were missed?


----------



## editec (Apr 7, 2013)

I think you're getting upset about the MODS electing to dismiss your theories about 911 and I don't think you ought to care.

Now I realize that some people think the word "conspiracy" has negative connotations, but honestly, you aren't so  dumb as that.

You know that the word CONSPIRACY is a values neutral term that merely means (_to breathe together_)

You also know that the word THEORY does NOT mean _"just a wild guess"._

The ONLY people you are trying to reach are those with the intellectual horsepower to understand your arguments leading to this narrative (AKA: THEORY) of yours.

Do you imagine *they think* the term* conspiracy theory* means automatically that you are nuts?

They don't.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 7, 2013)

world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.


I dont think about it much any more as we will likely never get the truth on it.


for it to fall into its own footprint in freefall time just by accident is alot to accept.


Especially when the people who ran the country at the time have been proven to have repetedly lied to the American people in matters of life and death.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 7, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
> ...



Is what you said less possible than every column in WTC7 failing simultaneously with each floor synchronously timed all as a result of a random office fire?  No because that is IMPOSSIBLE.

The perpetrators were counting on people like you to help cover up. Shrilly pointing out that there would have been a big conspiracy to pull off 911.

Well we both agree, there was a conspiracy, you have a theory which I have debunked and I have yet to form one as I don't have enough facts.

Have you even looked at videos of CD? Or the one of the Windsor Tower?


----------



## wihosa (Apr 7, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Clearly the perps were missed because as I pointed out, the impossible didn't happen. As for a criminal trial, there is no statute of limitations on murder and especially on mass murder. I ask the defenders of the official CT, what are you afraid of? If there is only a small chance we could find people who were responsible would you rather they get away with so heinous a crime?


----------



## wihosa (Apr 7, 2013)

editec said:


> I think you're getting upset about the MODS electing to dismiss your theories about 911 and I don't think you ought to care.
> 
> Now I realize that some people think the word "conspiracy" has negative connotations, but honestly, you aren't so  dumb as that.
> 
> ...



The scientific method requires evidence be tested to establish fact, then a theory can be formed. There has not been a criminal trial in which the evidence is tested so all the facts have not been established. But one fact is, the impossible didn't happen, new evidence to the contrary WTC7 was a result of CD.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 7, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.
> 
> 
> I dont think about it much any more as we will likely never get the truth on it.
> ...



Many people dont think about it any more, this is a problem for us. When your grand children ask you about it, and they will because people who were not traumatized by the events of 911 will bring a dispassionate eye to the subject, what will you tell them? Well I just didn't want to be call a conspiracy theorist so I ignored mass murder?

We are talking mass murder. I was shocked after seeing the video of WTC7. Literally. It took me months to come to grips with it. OMG! It shook my faith in America to the core. But everyone in government is not necessarily implicated. Probably most were duped as were we all initially.

We owe it to our posterity to find out.because Truth matters.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 7, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
> ...



This is what prosecutors do, they find evidence and test it in a court of law. Just because the people who have been blamed are conveniently dead is no reason to not determine the truth. I have debunked a major part of your conspiracy theory and yet you defend it. Why? No courage?


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.
> ...



Oh I agree wihosa, 

there were just more pertainent things to pay attention to for years now.

Number one was getting the centers of power away from the people who through ingorance or design allowed this country to be bombed by the enemy with VERY LITTLE resources


----------



## wihosa (Apr 7, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Why do you conclude the perps had very little resources? Are you still buying the official conspiracy theory? The evidence is that WTC7 was brought down by people with immense resources.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



You have merely played with yourself in public and you still haven't explained who you would charge and what you would use for evidence.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.
> ...



Mass murder? How many do you believe died as a result of 7's collapse?


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 7, 2013)

the mass murder part is that they then lied us into Iraq


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Soooo, from one side of your mouth you admit you haven't the facts to form a CT and from the other you promote your CD CT. Interesting.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



If you go by the official story then the Bush administration FAILED to listen to our top terror experts and through ignorance allowed a few men with a little training to attack America on its own soil killing thousands of people.



That is if you take their story as fact.


they either lied or they were completely incompetant.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Another thread on this? You claim to be advocating no theory, but you ARE advocating that WTC7 was brought down by CD, which is a conspiracy theory. And a debunked on at that.
> ...



*So you figure someone figured out how to drop 7 in roughly its own footprint, managed to rig the building without anyone noticing, timed the alleged CD to coincide with the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers, and did it all without anyone breathing a word of it? I thought you don't subscribe to silly CTs.*


----------



## PredFan (Apr 7, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.
> 
> 
> I dont think about it much any more as we will likely never get the truth on it.
> ...



And there you have it. Truthmatters agrees with the CTpeople. That should tell you how crazy your beliefs really are.


----------



## eots (Apr 7, 2013)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



In your dreams maybe


----------



## PredFan (Apr 7, 2013)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



OMG, I hope I don't dream about the USMB!


----------



## wihosa (Apr 7, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I just gave you a giant piece of evidence, the impossibility of WTC7 collapsing due to fire. As for who, more facts must be proven.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 7, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Clearly it was not a coincidence that WTC7 fell on 911' the chances of that are infinitesimal. The events are connected.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 7, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Soooo your having trouble following a line of reasoning. I have proven a fact, barring any contrary evidence from you or anyone else, it is impossible that WTC7 fell as a result of fire. Therefore your conspiracy theory is debunked. As for filling the blanks as to who, why etc, again we need evidence tested in court to form a theory.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 7, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



As horrific as it sounds it is more possible than the impossible.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 7, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.
> ...



Wrong, if truth matters agreed with the contract theorists he would agree with you. You are after all the one defending the conspiracy theory.


----------



## Spoonman (Apr 7, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



mmmmmm,  I hate to burst you lib spin bubble but the entered the country and did the actual training under Clintons watch.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.
> I dont think about it much any more as we will likely never get the truth on it.
> 
> for it to fall into its own footprint in freefall time just by accident is alot to accept.
> ...



*As wrong as misleading Americans is, it isn't proof of collusion in the 9/11 attack on America. The fact that we know we were lied to should tell you just how difficult it is to keep a secret in Washington. What is missing in your rationale is the lack of skepticism being applied to the various 9/11 CTs. 7forever claims "no plane hit any buildings on 9/11." Where does the CT lunacy end?*


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



All the theories are more probable than impossible yet the NIST findings are infinitely more probable than any of the CTs which have been floated by the 9/11 CT Movement since 9/11.
The trick is to apply the same level of skepticism to those CTs that you apply to the NIST report.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



"Contract theory?" You are reduced to playing silly semantics because your little 9/11 CT Movement has so little of substance to offer. Once you get beyond whining about the NIST report you quickly run out of steam.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Not only have you failed to prove the impossibility of 7's collapse, 9/11 already proved your supposition to be flawed. BTW, where and how would you gather facts about who else was involved?


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



7 not only collapsed as part of the attack on the Twin Towers, it collapsed as a direct result of it.


----------



## eots (Apr 7, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



NIST has finally released their final report into the collapse of Building 7, which collapsed inexplicably on 9/11. The New York Times quoted Sunder who said, "[The] reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery... It did not collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires. Earlier, Sunder was scratching his head, saying, "Weve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." Similarly, the collapse baffled FEMA who lamely concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, t*he best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. *In other words, despite the fact that FEMA claimed a diesel fuel explosion would have been improbable, NIST is now asserting that mere "fires" knocked down WTC 7? As NIST admits, this would be the "first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building." 

Arabesque: 9/11 Truth: NIST Concludes "Fire" Caused WTC 7 ?Collapse? when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had "low probability? of Knocking Down Tower


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



In the 11+ years since 9/11 no evidence of CD has been uncovered nor has any of a conspiracy beyond that of the known perps.
You've proven nothing as the reality of 7's collapse debunks your "impossible" dream and in order to have a criminal trial you will have to charge someone with a crime. 
Who would you charge and with what crime?


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 7, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



That NIST report was "finally" released 5 years ago and in all the time since, no evidence of a CD or a conspiracy to rig any WTC building has been uncovered. Are you suggesting GWB and a Girl Scout troop did the nasty deed during a weekend jamboree?


----------



## Rozman (Apr 7, 2013)

We are being asked to believe that not only was 1 WTC "preloaded" beforehand with what is it again
thermal nuclear something or other but 2 WTC as well and oh yeah 7 WTC was loaded up with explosives...C'mon guys.

How did the planners of this vast conspiracy know that 7 WTC  was going to be damaged in the attack? How did they know to load that building with explosives?...

Or maybe every building south of Canal street was loaded up just to be safe.
Are those buildings still wired with explosives.

All these years later and still not one person with a guilty conscience,a deathbed confession of their involvement.

This huge undertaking and not one news organization has done any investigating.
The only people talking about this are the few here who seem to believe that some great plan was in play.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 7, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.
> 
> 
> I dont think about it much any more as we will likely never get the truth on it.
> ...



You can accpt it TM because it didn't happen. The facade had 2.25 seconds of free fall. If you look at truther videos of 7 falling you will not see the first 8 seconds where the east Penthouse falls into the center of the building...

And it wasn't exactly in it's own footprint, it hit several other buildings...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 7, 2013)

Do some homework then tell us why they call this a punch out hole.... HINT: It's not because the nose of the plane hit it.


----------



## Spoonman (Apr 7, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.
> 
> 
> I dont think about it much any more as we will likely never get the truth on it.
> ...



so here's the deal.  at the top of both trade centers there were huge concrete platforms. these platforms were the size of the building, a full square block.  they were installed as a base for the massive communications towers on top of each of the buildings.  when the floors the planes crashed into gave out and collapsed these massive blocks started their downward motion and acted like a wedge splitting the building as they dropped.  and that is what caused the buildings to collapse the way they did.  it was basically like splitting a log.


----------



## eots (Apr 7, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju3AxVZs31g]9/11 Buildings crashed to ground zero @ free fall speed - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Spoonman (Apr 7, 2013)

eots said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



except given the fact that items fall at 98m/sec and the center was 400 meters tall the guys calculation of the time is would take to fall is more than twice what it would be.   more liberal spin


----------



## eots (Apr 7, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



9.8 meters a seconded Einstein


----------



## Spoonman (Apr 7, 2013)

eots said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



so you are trying to tell me if a crane fell off the top of the world trade  center it is going to take 40 seconds to reach the ground


----------



## eots (Apr 7, 2013)

f we look at this in a purely Newtonian way: 
Assuming you have no vertical speed at the start, and using gravitonic acceleration of 9.8 m/s2 (exact value varies depending on your location on the planet), such a fall would take approx. 8.6 seconds. By that time you'll be going over 152 mph.
Realistically, you would slow down due to atmospheric friction. Skydivers tend to reach a certain maximum speed (before the chute is opened), which btw lies above and beyond what you could reach in 1200 feet. 
There are actually record attempts for reaching the maximum possible speed (where the skydiver plummets head first as an arrow to minimise the resistance on the body). 
I don't know the full effects of such friction, but can guess that over a height of 1200 feet this won't prolong your fall to beyond 9 seconds. 

How long does it take to fall 1200 feet


----------



## wihosa (Apr 8, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I am not defending a conspiracy theory, you are. And what was the NIST "finding"? That the building fell due to fire but the NIST doesn't know the mechanics of the failure. Like saying fairies did it. It's non sensical on its face yet that is the CT you subscribe to. You are free to believe in fairies, but it's a lie.

Just as a reminder you believe that every column failed at the same moment on each floor and each floor in succession. IMPOSSIBLE!


----------



## wihosa (Apr 8, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



I have no sacred cows, if Clinton is implicated so be it. Lets have a real prosecutor with subpoena power do a criminal investigation, or we can keep on living the lie.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 8, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



A simple slip of the tongue  or keyboard as it were. I meant conspiracy. I noticed it after I posted. I should have known you would jump on it because you are desperate and clutching at straws. By the way as a member of the official conspiracy movement you have nothing to offer in response to my having debunked your "the fairies did it" response.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 8, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You are wrong I did prove it. You have failed to offer any evidence that my facts are wrong. Let me guess, you forgot the facts.
1. No steel modern steel frame high rise building has EVER collapsed due to fire.
2. Video of WTC7 displays all the characteristics of controlled demolition' namely sudden, immediate and symmetrical  collapse in a straight downward direction through the path of greatest resistance.
3. Comparison to a high rise building which was on fire (Windsor Tower, Madrid Spain) which had limited failure of some structural members bears no resemblance to WTC7 except they were both modern steel frame high rise buildings.

Rebut these facts with something other than the fairies did it.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 8, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



So you believe something happened for the first time ever with out it being proven? That is the definition of gullible.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 8, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



What, the damaged curtain wall theory again? Or is it the moderate office fire of unknown origins? 

Your theory looks like Swiss cheese.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 8, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



This is what prosecutors do, they use forensic evidence and test it in court. I'm not going to propose a theory as the all the facts have not been established. The crime? Pretty obvious, murder, destruction of public and private property, and I'm sure the prosecutor could come up other charges. 

BTW there is no statute of limitations on murder.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 8, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Also in that time the NIST did not look for any evidence.

There none so blind as those that will not see.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 8, 2013)

Rozman said:


> We are being asked to believe that not only was 1 WTC "preloaded" beforehand with what is it again
> thermal nuclear something or other but 2 WTC as well and oh yeah 7 WTC was loaded up with explosives...C'mon guys.
> 
> How did the planners of this vast conspiracy know that 7 WTC  was going to be damaged in the attack? How did they know to load that building with explosives?...
> ...



Looks like a big conspiracy, for which we need a criminal investigation. Or we can keep on with your official conspiracy theory even though I have debunked a major part of it (WTC7)

When you remove what is impossible, what is left must be the truth.

Shocking. But I won't go on living the lie. 

Shocking that the media is so cowed. Perhaps some are implicated or maybe they too are afraid of being accused of wearing tin foil hats from the likes of people like you.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.
> ...



What do you think you are proving? Regardless of the number of seconds, it was only seconds. Did you bother to look at the Windsor Tower fire? That is what a major high rise fire looks like.

What do you think caused the penthouse to fall in the first place?


----------



## wihosa (Apr 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Do some homework then tell us why they call this a punch out hole.... HINT: It's not because the nose of the plane hit it.



Why don't you enlighten us? What do you think made the hole?

That is the picture of the "c"ring wall. The wall that was punctured after the plane supposedly went through the exterior concrete and steel wall and all the interior support columns.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 8, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.
> ...



Really? Very interesting, not.

You do realize that the building was calculated to support all the imposed loads and with a saftey factor of four ( design loads are four times calculated loads). That would include whatever amount of mass was in the base for the com towers. Also all high rise buildings are calculated to withstand wind loading which on towers that high is astronomical.You also realize that the weight imposed never increased.

It was basically like controlled demolition.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 8, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Don't forget the buildings fell through the path of greatest resistance, so of course is going to take longer than a brick dropped through  the air from that height.

What does ones political bent have to due with it?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



You seemed to have "missed" the following in the other thread.





Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.
> ...



So what was the safety factor of the floors impacted by the jet? Was it still 4?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Well we both agree, there was a conspiracy, you have a theory which I have debunked and *I have yet to form one as I don't have enough facts.*





wihosa said:


> But one fact is, the impossible didn't happen, *new evidence to the contrary WTC7 was a result of CD.*





Make up your mind...


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Aluminum melts at around 1600degrees F but does not burn until heated to over 6000degrees F far beyond the temps resulting from hydrocarbon fires.



1600F???

Chemical Elements.com - Aluminum (Al)



> Melting Point: 660.37 °C (933.52 K, 1220.666 °F)





wihosa said:


> Watch the YouTube video of the collapse, it falls neatly straight down at



Nope, it hit other buildings.



wihosa said:


> near free fall speed



Nope, wrong again. How long did the collapse take from start to finish?




wihosa said:


> into its own footprint.



Nope, it hit other buildings.



wihosa said:


> This can ONLY happen if ALL the support columns fail simultaneously on each floor and synchronously from floor to floor.



Is this why the east penthouse fell into the building first? Because all the support columns failed at the same time?



wihosa said:


> Look at the 2005 Windsor Tower fire in Madrid Spain. Here you see a modern steel frame high rise fully engulfed in fire.



All buildings act the same right? Design type has no play in how a building reacts to fire right?

What caused the bulge in WTC7 seen by firefighters?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2013)

wihosa said:


> You are wrong I did prove it. You have failed to offer any evidence that my facts are wrong. Let me guess, you forgot the facts.
> 1. No steel modern steel frame high rise building has EVER collapsed due to fire.



Compare apples to apples. Show me a steel high rise, designed like WTC7 that had unfought fires in it OR show me an example of a 1300' high, tube in tube, 208' x 208' square high rise, that was hit by a jet in the upper third, that remained standing.

I can play your historical bullshit game too. If you cannot provide a building fitting the criteria above, your claim is crap.



wihosa said:


> 2. Video of WTC7 displays all the characteristics of controlled demolition' namely sudden, immediate and symmetrical  collapse in a straight downward direction through the path of greatest resistance.



Did it? Symmetrical? You call the east penthouse falling into the building FIRST, followed by the rest of the building symmetrical?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 8, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Do some homework then tell us why they call this a punch out hole.... HINT: It's not because the nose of the plane hit it.
> ...



So you don't know.....And you don't know how to get through all the conspiracy crap to find out..... Got it....... i might even enlighten you some time....


----------



## Spoonman (Apr 8, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



yea, and no one ever thought pinto's would explode upon rear impact.  I mean they weren't designed to explode when hit from behind.


----------



## eots (Apr 8, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



_actually Eisenstein they did know but calculated it was cheaper to pay potential  burn victims than fix the problem_

*True Conspiracy: The Ford Pinto Memorandum*
Ford was fully aware of all these construction problems. However, people didn't know that until Mother Jones magazine published a stolen copy of an infamous memo that was sent out to all senior management at the Ford Motor Company.

Here are the highlights of the memo on the altar worshiping the Almighty Buck:
True Conspiracy: The Ford Pinto Memorandum - For Dummies


----------



## wihosa (Apr 9, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



The design of the building was unchanged. All the floors below the damaged area were still designed support all the applied loads with a safety factor of four. The weight of the structure from the damage area up did not increase. In other words the structure was still capable of supporting the damaged floors.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 9, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Well we both agree, there was a conspiracy, you have a theory which I have debunked and *I have yet to form one as I don't have enough facts.*
> ...



Having trouble following a line of reasoning?

Ok, try to pay attention, the fact that nothing but controlled demolition can explain the collapse WTC7 is not a theory, it is a fact, new evidence to the contrary not withstanding. In the eleven years since 911 the NIST has yet to explain how fire could have caused the collapse, so their assertion is just as likely as saying fairies did it. There are numerous videos of CD with WTD7 showing all the same characteristics.

Your conspiracy theory regarding WTC7 is debunked.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 9, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Well we both agree, there was a conspiracy, you have a theory which I have debunked and *I have yet to form one as I don't have enough facts.*
> ...



Do you know the difference between a theory and a fact?

Ok, try to pay attention, a theory is a reasoned explanation of the known facts.this theory would then be tested by experimentation and or test or in the case of a criminal trial in a court of law.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 9, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Aluminum melts at around 1600degrees F but does not burn until heated to over 6000degrees F far beyond the temps resulting from hydrocarbon fires.
> ...


On now were talking about what the firefighters experienced, well then how about the explosions they heard before WTC7 came down?


----------



## wihosa (Apr 9, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > You are wrong I did prove it. You have failed to offer any evidence that my facts are wrong. Let me guess, you forgot the facts.
> ...



You are lying to yourself now. Symmetrical doesn't mean that the upper most portion would not first be taken down so as to CONTROL THE DEMOLITION!


----------



## wihosa (Apr 9, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Yeah, but first you would have to have an idea of what the word enlighten means.

By the way Sarge, you're the one defending a conspiracy theory.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 9, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



No he's not but he is toying with you and you are bouncing like a puppet on a string.
I suspect many "truthers" get into the CT World for the fun but invariably end up taking themselves and their movement waaaay too seriously. When you resurface you will find a lot of people have been laughing at you.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 9, 2013)

Wow, First off you cannot make controlled demolition of WTC7 a fact just because you say so. You need some kind of proof other than it looks like a CD..... Yes of course explosions were heard, they are heard in all office fires and many home fires, there are lots of things that go boom when heat is applied.....Or didn't you know that was a fact? Now ask yourself what does a CD sound like? It's not intermittent explosions lasting several hours and then no explosions when a building starts to fall. Never heard of any explosion doing a delayed time destruction sometime after the blast. And you still haven't looked for what could have caused the blast hole at the pentagon....You aren't looking for truth, you are the same as the other CTrs here....


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 9, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



It won't help. CTs are impervious to enlightenment.

"No amount of evidence will dissuade a conspiracy theorist, but when they appeal to scientific evidence, they're fair game. And the 9-11 conspiracy sites have some very strange science." - Steven Dutch (from Nutty 9/11 Physics)


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



First of all, you ignored the actual question (for obvious reasons I might add). let me repeat it for you. What was the safety factor of the floors after being impacted by the jet? Was it still a 4?



wihosa said:


> All the floors below the damaged area were still designed support all the applied loads with a safety factor of four.



You really have no clue do you? See your next quote for proof of this...



wihosa said:


> The weight of the structure from the damage area up did not increase.



Really? The downward movement of the upper structure at collpase initiation did not increase the load/force at all????

Are you friggin' stupid?

Hmmmm. Let's try an experiment. Place a 20 pound weight on a scale. 20 pounds right? Now drop the same weight from ten feet and tell me what the impact registers.





wihosa said:


> In other words the structure was still capable of supporting the damaged floors.


When the load was static you moron!!!

Jesus H. Christ!!

No wonder you believe controlled demolition and all the other bullshit.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Big difference!!!! Explosions can be heard, but they are not always caused by EXPLOSIVES. A bulge in the building side can only mean one thing.

The support structure is weakening/failing....

The fact that you have to have this explained to you is pretty ridiculous.

What about your completely fucked up claim that aluminum melts at 1600F? Are all your beliefs based on incorrect information? I seems so at this point.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2013)

wihosa said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Video of WTC7 displays all the characteristics of controlled demolition' namely sudden, immediate and symmetrical  collapse in a straight downward direction through the path of greatest resistance.
> ...



You are lying to yourself now. Symmetrical doesn't mean that the upper most portion would not first be taken down so as to CONTROL THE DEMOLITION![/QUOTE]

Read your quote above again. You are having problems with your own bullshit.

You are applying the term "symmetrical" to describe controlled demolition and try to say that WTC7 also came down "symmetrically", therefore, it was brought down by controlled demolition. 

It was NOT symmetrical as the penthouse collapsed first. Do you even know what symmetrical means? Was the following video a symmetrical collapse? Did the whole building come down at the same time? SYMMETRICALLY??


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 9, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The fact that one who _claims_ to be a builder and _claims_ to have experience with structural steel needs to have that explained to him means one of two things; either he's lying about his experience or he is willfully distorting the facts to suit his agenda.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



I choose the latter. Like usual, they distort to suit their agenda.

Just look at eots' old posts regarding James Quintiere. He'll quote mine things from him to support his bullshit, yet ignores the fact that James still believes that fire caused the collapse.

Go figure.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 9, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



You can't fix mendacious.


----------



## eots (Apr 9, 2013)

sayit said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > sayit said:
> ...



I never ignored anything quintete says he feels fire is..._more likely _the cause..he is a good investigator he is not going to make statements of absolutes without a full and proper investigation as to the definitive causeof the collapse and  I can understand that...he has however stated very clearly the investigation was _blocked _ and _fact finding deterred _and the findings _not evidenced based_...something you like to ignore


----------



## eots (Apr 9, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Read your quote above again. You are having problems with your own bullshit.

You are applying the term "symmetrical" to describe controlled demolition and try to say that WTC7 also came down "symmetrically", therefore, it was brought down by controlled demolition. 

It was NOT symmetrical as the penthouse collapsed first. Do you even know what symmetrical means? Was the following video a symmetrical collapse? Did the whole building come down at the same time? SYMMETRICALLY??


Funny...*BECAUSE NIST DESCRIBES THE COLLAPSE AS SYMMETRICAL*


----------



## wihosa (Apr 10, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Are you or are you not defending the official "story" 911? Is that or is it not a theory that 19 hijackers caused all the damage on 911? Has there ever been a trial to test the evidence and determine if it is fact? Has the NIST ever explained how they think fire caused WTC7 to collapse?

Answers: Yes, Yes, No, No

You are the conspiracy theorist. I have debunked your theory.

As I pointed out the WTC7 fell symmetrically, luckily someone posted video of CD and we can see the building fall symmetrically. It starts at one end and and all the structural members fail in symmetry. Had the failure been asymmetrical it would have looks like the Windsor Tower with a piece here and a piece there falling at different times. Not sudden and immediate failure. Just because the was brought down from end to end does not mean it was not symmetrical.

Have you even looked at the Windsor Tower video? That's what asymmetry looks like, nothing at all what this video of CD  or the video of WTC7 look like.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 10, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Are you or are you not defending the official "story" 911? Is that or is it not a theory that 19 hijackers caused all the damage on 911? Has there ever been a trial to test the evidence and determine if it is fact? Has the NIST ever explained how they think fire caused WTC7 to collapse?

Answers: Yes, Yes, No, No

You are the conspiracy theorist. I have debunked your theory.

As I pointed out the WTC7 fell symmetrically, luckily someone posted video of CD and we can see the building fall symmetrically. It starts at one end and and all the structural members fail in symmetry. Had the failure been asymmetrical it would have looks like the Windsor Tower with a piece here and a piece there falling at different times. Not sudden, immediate and total failure. Just because it 
was brought down from end to end does not mean it was not symmetrical.

Have you even looked at the Windsor Tower video? That's what asymmetry looks like, nothing at all what this video of CD  or the video of WTC7 look like.

I challenge you to look at the Windsor Tower and tell me you think that it looks like the video of WTC7.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 10, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Wow, First off you cannot make controlled demolition of WTC7 a fact just because you say so. You need some kind of proof other than it looks like a CD..... Yes of course explosions were heard, they are heard in all office fires and many home fires, there are lots of things that go boom when heat is applied.....Or didn't you know that was a fact? Now ask yourself what does a CD sound like? It's not intermittent explosions lasting several hours and then no explosions when a building starts to fall. Never heard of any explosion doing a delayed time destruction sometime after the blast. And you still haven't looked for what could have caused the blast hole at the pentagon....You aren't looking for truth, you are the same as the other CTrs here....



Wow, you can not point to a single instance of what you are claiming in the case of WTC7. NOT ONE! Please show me where it has ever happened. 

Oh you can't, you just have your totally debunked theory that somehow a moderate office fire caused the sudden, immediate and total collapse of the type of building which is the most engineered in history.

Your theory is as plausible as claiming fairies did it.

As for the Pentagon, again it is your theory that somehow a plane punched through two feet of steel reinforced concrete, plowed through major support columns and somehow caused the punch out hole in the "c" ring wall and then completely burned up leaving only a couple small parts behind.

None of that theory was ever proven, but that is the theory you have chosen to defend.

You are the conspiracy theorist.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 10, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



As I have pointed out, you are the conspiracy theorist. Your "evidence" was never tested so it can't be considered fact. But it is a fact that no other modern steel frame high rise has ever suffered, sudden, immediate and total collapse due to fire, even fire which raged for days.

You are right about one thing though, even that fact will not dissuade you from your conspiracy theory.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 10, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Sounding a little shrill there.

Don't forget that the direction of impact of the falling upper floors was through the line of most resistance and there is what engineers refer to as the conservation of momentum. The point being that without something weakening the lower structural columns the fall of the upper floors would have been arrested. The pancaking theory doesn't hold water because with each successive floor impact the momentum would have been reduced. Don't forget it didn't gain weight and each floor was designed to support all the weight above it with a safety factor of four. It would have slowed down, not continued at near free fall speed in a symmetrical fashion.

Besides where are the pancaked floors? Oh I suppose the vanished like the pentagon jet.

You theory is really looking like Swiss cheese.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 10, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Weak. I was working from memory from my high school metal shop days. If that's all you got you might as well hang it up now. That argument is like saying  you can judge a man's entire life by his worst moment. Besides its immaterial to the point I was making, there is no way that a hydrocarbon fire can burn hot enough to entirely incinerate aluminum.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 10, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Read your quote above again. You are having problems with your own bullshit.

You are applying the term "symmetrical" to describe controlled demolition and try to say that WTC7 also came down "symmetrically", therefore, it was brought down by controlled demolition. 

It was NOT symmetrical as the penthouse collapsed first. Do you even know what symmetrical means? Was the following video a symmetrical collapse? Did the whole building come down at the same time? SYMMETRICALLY??

[/QUOTE]

Thanks for including this video of controlled demolition showing perfect symmetry. It collapses in unison from one end of the building to the other. Had it been asymmetrical failure we would have seen a little bit here then maybe a lot at the other end  or elswhere and in some places no failure at all.

You have demonstrated that it is you who does not know the meaning of symmetrical.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 10, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



I'm not lying and I am right. You are the conspiracy theorist. As  for my structural steel experience, I've install numerous steel columns the largest were six 8"x8"x1/4" tube steel columns sixteen feet tall to support the roof of a batting cage, planted in two foot diameter by six foot deep steel reinforced concrete caissons. I've also install a steel floor beam, if I remember right is was 18 lb per foot I beam supported by 6"x6"x1/4"tube steel columns with welded flanges and bolt connections.

What experience do you have with structural steel?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 10, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
> 
> In my first thread I pointed to two parts of the story which just don't stand scrutiny. First the vanishing pentagon plane and second the collapse of WTC7. These are not the only parts of the story which don't add up, just the most glaring and obvious.
> 
> ...



the jet didnt vanish most of it turned to plasma 

as for the harder pieces 

you can see parts laying all over the place 

that day 

http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm


----------



## wihosa (Apr 10, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You can't rebut the fact that nothing explains WTC7 other than controlled demolition. You can't point to another example of a steel frame high rise suffering total collapse due to fire. The NIST and you are making extraordinary claims but you know that means you need extraordinary proof and all you have is the equivalent of the fairies did it.

And you know I'm right because now you're left with nothing more than calling me a lier.

Your conspiracy theory is debunked.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 10, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
> ...



The whole plane was vaporized? Even the engines? From a hydrocarbon fire?Look at the  pictures of the Lagos Nigeria plane crash in 2012 , it exploded into a huge fire but the air frame is still intact the engines are all there save the thin skin, the tail section is mostly intact.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, you have offered only assertions.

Your theory is debunked.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 10, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Before I get accused of lying again, I should have said 18 lb per inch I beam, not per foot.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 10, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Like you I am no scientist and while "testing" and building computer models can help, nothing short of rebuilding and repeating what took place on 9/11 would validate your concerns. Perhaps the opinion of a scientist would help:

"No 110-story buildings were ever hit by fuel-laden airliners hard enough to strip the insulation off the structural steel before, either. Steel-frame buildings are incredibly strong. They have survived major earthquakes and fires, and the Twin Towers merely rocked when hit by airliners at full throttle. But the towers were not designed to survive an impact by fully-laden airliners at full throttle, then a fire in contact with unprotected steel. An impact from a jet approaching JFK at 200 miles an hour, with nearly empty tanks, and one slamming into the building at 450 miles an hour with full tanks, are two quite different things."  -  Steven Dutch (Nutty 9/11 Physics).


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 10, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



You seem to be laboring under some misconceptions which have negatively impacted on your conspiracy theory.
Since neither you nor I are scientists I will once again post the opinion of one who is:

DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY IMPLODE? 
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled [emphasis added] fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually laying out in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.
Steven Dutch - (Nutty 9/11 Physics)


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 10, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Now look who's sounding shrill.
The fact that no other steel framed buildings have collapsed is not proof of your conspiracy theory ... a controlled demo.

HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION? The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a building implosion.  - Steven Dutch (Nutty 9/11 Physics)


----------



## candycorn (Apr 10, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
> 
> In my first thread I pointed to two parts of the story which just don't stand scrutiny. First the vanishing pentagon plane and second the collapse of WTC7. These are not the only parts of the story which don't add up, just the most glaring and obvious.
> 
> ...



For the 3rd time the bldg was missing 18 floors at one corner.

Again....explain the wreckage on the pentagon lawn and the downed light poles if AA77 didnt crash there...as well as the DNA.

CHECKMATE


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 10, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, First off you cannot make controlled demolition of WTC7 a fact just because you say so. You need some kind of proof other than it looks like a CD..... Yes of course explosions were heard, they are heard in all office fires and many home fires, there are lots of things that go boom when heat is applied.....Or didn't you know that was a fact? Now ask yourself what does a CD sound like? It's not intermittent explosions lasting several hours and then no explosions when a building starts to fall. Never heard of any explosion doing a delayed time destruction sometime after the blast. And you still haven't looked for what could have caused the blast hole at the pentagon....You aren't looking for truth, you are the same as the other CTrs here....
> ...



What am I claiming? What are you claiming? There was no Moderate office fire in Bldg 7 there was a uncontrolled office fire if you would get off the truther sites and find real proof, but you don't want real proof do you. Take a look at the south side of WTC 7 instead of the north side....Moderate office fire? i think not.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Afb7eUHr64U#]WTC 7 fires and south side hole - YouTube[/ame]!

A couple small parts at the pentagon? And the DNA evidence? Do you understand how the pentagon is built? What the walls are like after the reinforced Facade? Once the plane was through that it was nothing for the blast of the fuel to reach the C ring wall. Besides all the parts that were found of the plane and the bodies...

I bet you think a missile did it, And you want to know why the Air defense systems  didn't stop it...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 10, 2013)

5 farts in a row from the paid trolls.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 10, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Don't forget that the direction of impact of the falling upper floors was through the line of most resistance



Most resistance? Are you friggin' nuts?! You must be. Explain how the floor below the descending upper section is the "path of most resistance"? Each floor is designed to handle the load of people, computers, desks, cubicles, etc., not handle the descending force/load an entire upper third of the building.

And you claim to understand structures??? 



wihosa said:


> and there is what engineers refer to as the conservation of momentum.


You have no clue what this means do you? According to you, if I throw a baseball at the window of a house, the window should resist the baseball and not shatter. 



wihosa said:


> The point being that without something weakening the lower structural columns the fall of the upper floors would have been arrested.



What do the columns have to do with ANYTHING? The upper section impacted the floor directly below. There is no way the truss connections could handle this force and were ripped apart. You idiots seem to think the structures are solid objects, what you fail to realize is that these structures were designed to handle static loads, not loads in motion.

Since you claim to know and understand so much about structural engineering, please show us how much of a load/force was generated by the upper descending section and how it compares to what the "safety factor of 4" load limit was. I'll bet you that you have NO CLUE and are just parroting the words of other delusional people.



wihosa said:


> The pancaking theory doesn't hold water because with each successive floor impact the momentum would have been reduced.



Who said anything about a pancake theory? The upper section was ripped apart, but it STILL was a descending mass. Each floor it impacted ADDED to the mass.



wihosa said:


> Don't forget it didn't gain weight and each floor was designed to support all the weight above it with a safety factor of four.



And this is where you are COMPLETELY incorrect. As explained above, each floor was designed for live loads, not the support of the entire structure above. Your stupidity is really beginning to show. Again, I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

The weight of the floor's live loads are transferred to the columns, which is transferred to the grillages set on bedrock at the base.

Are you trying to tell me that the floor my desk is sitting upon right now has the entire weight of the above section of the building (floors, people, columns, everything) placed upon it?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 10, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Don't forget it didn't gain weight and each floor was designed to support all the weight above it with a safety factor of four.



Time for your lesson wihosa...

Here is a diagram showing just how much bullshit your "understanding" of structural loads, floors, columns, and load distribution really contains.





As I stated earlier, the floors are designed for live loads. Live loads are changing loads consisting of people, cubicles, computers, etc. The floors, trusses, and truss connections are calculated and designed to support/distribute those live loads for THAT FLOOR ONLY! 

Do you get that part? FOR THAT FLOOR ONLY.

Let that sink in before going on.

Tell us why, using your vast structural engineering wisdom, were the floor trusses and connections of floor number 1 in the twin towers not more robust than the floor trusses and connections of floor 98 in the same tower if the floors took care of the loads of the building structure above? Look at the diagram above again. The arrows pointing downward to the floors represent the live load. The arrows pointing left/right beneath the floors is the live load from the floors being distributed to the columns. The arrows point downward on the columns are showing the combined loads of everything being distributed down to the foundations (grillage components in this case).

The point were the live load of the floor meets the column is were the connections (floor truss connections) are at. All of the connections and trusses are designed to work together to distribute the live load of THAT FLOOR ONLY to the columns they are attached to. They are NOT designed to handle the entire structure above as you so stupidly claim.

It was the core columns and perimeter columns that increased in size and strength the further down you went. That's because those core columns (and to some extent the perimeter columns) were responsible for supporting/and transferring the loads of the building above to the grillages, NOT the floors. Here is a grillage to be used at the base of one of the columns. This grillage component was set on bedrock.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 10, 2013)

So, based on my post above wihosa, how much of a load was each floor able to support/resist?

Next, figure out how much of a load was imparted on the immediate floor below the descending upper section?

Let us know what you get.

Hopefully you'll begin to see that the floor below was no match for the upper descending section's load and sheared the floor connections from the perimeter and core columns. This happened all the way down the towers. This is why you see the perimeter columns falling outward like a peeled banana. Once the floors were sheared away, there was no lateral support to keep the perimeter columns from falling outward from the tower itself.

That's why you see many of the perimeter columns in the debris with their floor truss connections sheared off.

What looked like these, circled in red:





Now look like this:


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 10, 2013)

wihosa said:


> You have demonstrated that it is you who does not know the meaning of symmetrical.



Yeah. One section of the building, followed by the next, followed by the next...

That's symmetrical all right...

You obviously don't know what symmetrical means. It means that some think that the whole structure of WTC7 came down at the same time. This is why idiots like eots and Gage show only the remaining facade coming down and neglect showing the east penthouse. It's so that they can lie to people and claim a "symmetrical collapse".


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 10, 2013)

wihosa said:


> What experience do you have with structural steel?



What experience?

I've dealt with structural steel and much more. Below is just a little of what I have done.

I did on-site damage assessment studies for the following two disaster sites:

*IMC/Angus Chemical*
NHRA News: Plant explosion leads to nitro shortage

*Shell Oil*
Fatal Shell blast may disrupt TPEs. (Shell Chemical Co. explosion in Belpre, Ohio, thermoplastic elastomers) - Chemical Week | HighBeam Research

I was a construction supervisor for blast furnace relinings. I designed, supervised the installation of, and the cleaning of an oxygen line in the River Rouge Complex. I design the hydraulic system for a slab mill. I've done thickness testing on vent stacks in steel mills. I designed and installed piping modules for Anhueser Busch. I designed pipe supports for the The Deseret Chemical Depot in Tooele Utah. I've done design work for all the various disciplines such as structural, mechanical, architectural, process piping, and civil, working directly with engineers who did all sorts of calculations and analysis.

Good enough for you?


----------



## eots (Apr 10, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > What experience do you have with structural steel?
> ...



No...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 10, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > What experience do you have with structural steel?
> ...



You don't have to prove yourself to the CT'rs. They are the ones who have no proof...


----------



## daws101 (Apr 10, 2013)

wow deja vu' !
I feel like I've been here a 1000 times before and everything the CT'S  posted then as now was:[ame=http://youtu.be/-JFfN5pKzFU]That is one big pile of shit. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 11, 2013)

wihosa said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...




no the pictures i posted show engine parts landing gear and other parts of the plane 

most of the "vaporizing" was plasma that occurred before the fire 

 as for a "hydrocarbon" fire it is the available 02 that dictates the temp

of the fire


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 11, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR0f8n10DR4]Jet crash into wall - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> jet crash into wall - youtube


*
this is the most pointless video ever*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 11, 2013)

It shows how metal can turn into nearly nothing when striking a reinforced wall....

I guess it is pointless if you want to believe there should have been a complete whole plane buried in the ruble at the pentagon


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia-j1PLEzIk]Space Shuttle Columbia Recovery - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> It shows how metal can turn into nearly nothing when striking a reinforced wall....
> 
> I guess it is pointless if you want to believe there should have been a complete whole plane buried in the ruble at the pentagon



its a incomplete clip that ends while the explosion is still occuring


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> it shows how metal can turn into nearly nothing when striking a reinforced wall....
> 
> I guess it is pointless if you want to believe there should have been a complete whole plane buried in the ruble at the pentagon



why didint it punch a nice round hole before it disappeared ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 11, 2013)

Talk about pointless.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 11, 2013)

eots said:


> Space Shuttle Columbia Recovery - YouTube



this is the most pointless video ever


----------



## daws101 (Apr 11, 2013)

Peer reviewed papers and articles on how the towers collapsed..


Engineers Explain WTC Collapse
ArchitectureWeek - News - Engineers Explain WTC Collapse - 2002.0529 

Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures
McGraw-Hill Construction | ENR - Research May Never Pinpoint Sequence of Events on 9/11 


IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE - icivilengineer.com 
Civil Engineering News | iCivilEngineer 

Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact - Lu XZ., Yang N., Jiang JJ. Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y. 
 "Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis"  (pdf) 
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.  

Brannigan, F.L. 
 "WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" 
 Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.  

Clifton, Charles G.  
 Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers 
 HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.  

"Construction and Collapse Factors" 
 Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.  

Corbett, G.P. 
 "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" 
 Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.  

"Dissecting the Collapses" 
 Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.  

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. 
 "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" 
 JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.  

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor. 
 World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations 
 (also available on-line)  

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.  
 "Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" 
 The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.  

Glover, N.J. 
 "Collapse Lessons" 
 Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103  

Marechaux, T.G. 
 "TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" 
 JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.  

Monahan, B. 
 "World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" 
 Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.  

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D. 
 "Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?" 
 Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.  

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs 
  Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center 
 Statement of  Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.   

Pinsker, Lisa, M. 
 "Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site" 
 Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001). 
The print copy has 3-D images.  

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) 
 Why the Towers Fell:   A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. 
 NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)   

Post, N.M. 
 "No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report" 
 ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.  

Post, N.M. 
 "Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing" 
 ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.  

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering  
 World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects 
 A resource site.  

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives" 
 ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

The Towers Lost and Beyond
The Towers Lost and Beyond 
 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Meg Hendry-Brogan, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi


----------



## PredFan (Apr 11, 2013)

The impossible didn't happen on 9-11.

I agree. What happened is what we saw. Two planes hijacked by Al-Queda terrorists flew a plane into each of the towers. As a result, the towers fell. That's the *possible*.

The *impossible* is that some shadowy cabal masqueraded as Al-Queda, with Osama Bin Laden in full cooperation, and flew the planes into the buildings, killing all of the innocent people on board plus those in the building, then a crew of demolition experts, who had previously rigged both buildings to fall from the point of impact without anyone in the buildings seeing them do it, set off the explosions AFTER they knew that firemen and policemen would be in the buildings, killing a whole bunch of innocent first responders.

That is exactly what we've been saying. The impossible did not happen on 9-11.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 11, 2013)

PredFan said:


> The impossible didn't happen on 9-11.
> 
> I agree. What happened is what we saw. Two planes hijacked by Al-Queda terrorists flew a plane into each of the towers. As a result, the towers fell. That's the *possible*.
> 
> ...


my favorite is missile hits pentagon, in the seconds fallowing  the blast a crew of several hundred the managed to place fake plane parts in such away to mimic a crash with real dead bodies and everything.
then disappear with out a trace.. 
for you dumbshits that's sarcasm...


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 12, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



I know. It's all part of the "game" to these dipshits though. Some like wihosa, because that worked a little with steel or have built houses, think they have an understanding of how steel structures and the engineering used to design said structures seem to work. 

The perfect example is wihosa's claim that any given floor is designed to support everything above it. 


wihosa said:


> Don't forget it didn't gain weight and *each floor was designed to support all the weight above it* with a safety factor of four.



This is completely incorrect as I had shown in my previous post. wihosa has no clue whatsoever what he is talking about. As you and everyone else can see, he's run away with his tail between his legs and NOBODY from the truther side cares to support him. He's been handed his ass and he knows it.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Apr 15, 2013)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




So according to you Predfan, everything about 9/11 has been debunked by "us".  Really?     What a load of BULLSHIT!   

Who is the "us" that you are referring to?  I know you ain't talking about yourself, because you have never debunked anything about 9/11, nor will you ever. Instead you will repeat the lies of 9/11 but when challenged you run away like a little bitch.

I know that you ain't talking about PFC Gomer Ollie, Dawgshit 101, Moron-in-the-hat or even Candy Ass, because not one of those piece-of-shit sock puppets HAS EVER DEBUNKED ANYTHING REGARDING 9/11, NOR CAN THEY BACK-UP THEIR BULLSHIT CLAIMS AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO BE WRONG.


So who is the "us" that you are referring to?


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The impossible didn't happen on 9-11.
> ...



come on you know not a single body or body part of a plane passenger was found  at the pentagon only bodies of pentagon employees..I am unsure as to what occurred at the pentagon but you should at least stick to the facts


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 15, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Please tell us child, which claim would you like one of us to debunk again?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 15, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



yes exactly


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



It should be noted that the author of that silliness - Wilhosa - has since slipped into the fog, perhaps never to be heard from again. Nonetheless it is _extremely_ doubtful that his exposure to facts here will alter his beliefs.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 16, 2013)

Funny how truthers react when shown they are completely clueless. 

Better to run away and hide until the dust settles instead of admitting they were wrong. 

I have some other yahoo in another thread telling me that the planes couldn't have sheared through the perimeter columns because aluminum isn't as strong as steel. To further stress the point on just how weak she thought aluminum was, she said that birds, made up of meat, can penetrate an aluminum wing.

Therefore, using her logic, we get the following strength ratio.

Steel > meat > aluminum.

I asked is she thought meat was stronger than aluminum. Of course, no response. Some truthers here have used the same logic.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Funny how truthers react when shown they are completely clueless.
> 
> Better to run away and hide until the dust settles instead of admitting they were wrong.
> 
> ...



Ya know, it's one thing to slip away and rethink one's POV when embarassed. It's another to disappear and resurface elsewhere (or later) spewing the same already debunked BS. The latter, unfortunately, seems more often the case with the willfully ignorant.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Waiting............


----------



## daws101 (Apr 16, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


very ironic, as this poster along with all the other ct's on this site continuously spew totally false or intentionally misrepresented steaming piles of bullshit.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 16, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


a quick check reveals as always that eots is talking out his ass. 
the no bodies of passengers of flight 77 claim is brought to you by the usual inside job not credible or verifiable slap dicks who in better then 11 years have done nothing but speciously speculate on the false inside job masturbation fantasy.


flight 77 bodies


----------



## gslack (Apr 16, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
> 
> In my first thread I pointed to two parts of the story which just don't stand scrutiny. First the vanishing pentagon plane and second the collapse of WTC7. These are not the only parts of the story which don't add up, just the most glaring and obvious.
> 
> ...



If you make a thread advocating a conspiracy it gets put here. Simple really.


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



those are bodies of pentagon employees...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Still waiting.....


----------



## daws101 (Apr 16, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


and you know this how?
bogus conformation in  5...4...3..2.1


----------



## PredFan (Apr 16, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Yes, by us. You don't like it, I can't help that.



Wildcard said:


> Who is the "us" that you are referring to?



Those of us on the board here.



Wildcard said:


> I know you ain't talking about yourself, because you have never debunked anything about 9/11, nor will you ever.



I am talking about myself and others like SAYIT, Daws, and Ollie, only to name a few.



Wildcard said:


> Instead you will repeat the lies of 9/11 but when challenged you run away like a little bitch.



Oh I see. 9/11insidejob has a sock. I have never run away, I have met all challenges. You people just don't like the answers, so you claim I ran away. Go away sock puppet.



Wildcard said:


> So who is the "us" that you are referring to?



Answered. Another challenge accepted and beaten.

Next!


----------



## PredFan (Apr 16, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I think he's a 9/11insidejob sock puppet.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2013)

PredFan said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



He's immature at any rate, I had to have a Mod remove his childish bullshit from my visitor messages.


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



lol ...you where the one that posted pictures with no link then titled yourself as _flight 77 bodies_ and claimed they where flight passengers...care to prove YOUR claim ?


----------



## daws101 (Apr 16, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


if you look at the bottom of the photos there's a tag...


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



and the tag does not say flight 77 bodies because.. that would be untrue


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2013)

Look at the message Wildcard posted for us on my Visitor page.



> You have decent people visiting you and posting messages and you don't want them to see the kind of person you are when it comes to things like 9/11, a bona-fide liar. If you were not scared, than why did you refuse?
> 
> "I would tell you to PM me." That's laughable.
> 
> ...



Come on child speak up in here where I can talk back to you since you don't have visitor messages nor pm's. Tell me what you believe happened on 911 and i will be glad to prove you are wrong.
Always happy to embarrass a punk kid.


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Look at the message Wildcard posted for us on my Visitor page.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you not supposed to print PMs ollie..if you could I would post liarabilties obscene and disturbing latent homosexual laden PMs


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the message Wildcard posted for us on my Visitor page.
> ...



I know I've had to have told you in the past; reading comprehension.....He posted it in my visitor messages, anyone can go to my profile and read it.... I've already had mods remove some of his childish BS.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the message Wildcard posted for us on my Visitor page.
> ...



Are you the same ornery idiot in real time or do you save it up for this board, Princess?


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



What you see is what you get...


----------



## Wyld Kard (Apr 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBASQj5hoE0]Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube[/ame]

LMFAO.  Your ignorance bores me.

That's Dawgshit 101 for you, posting the same fake images as that lying piece-of-shit PFC Gomer Ollie did in another thread, and trying to pass them off as proof of the dead bodies of the passengers from Flight AA77.  You're wrong yet again but that's normal for you.  

The melting point of aluminum is around 1,700 degrees F.  The heat that was generated in the Pentagon fire supposedly was well above this, since they claimed that the aluminum vaporized!  That happens at 11,000 degrees F!!!

DNA is an organic molecule that is very fragile, easily destroyed by temperatures at just a few hundred degrees C.  It doesnt need to be vaporized, it can be destroyed by just being close to heat! 

How does human tissue survive when massive metal engines cannot?   Answer:  It can't.

Why, after all these years, haven't we seen any clear photos of the "plane" that struck the Pentagon?

Supposedly 100 Tons of steel and titanium alloy completely disintegrated, yet, government forensics teams claim to have identified 180+ bodies.  No witnesses saw any bodies, no witnesses saw damage consistent with a 757 slamming onto the lawn and Pentagon. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0]The pentagon was not hit by a airliner. See for yourself - YouTube[/ame]

Once again you are proven wrong but do try again dumbass.


----------



## gslack (Apr 16, 2013)

I just glanced over the thread here,let me know if I got this right... Please just fill in the blanks to save time...

The twin towers were destroyed by __________, because he(they) wanted to ____________ and control the world. And you can prove this because ___________  and that wouldn't happen any other way, ever...

Yes just fill in the blanks in your response that way we can save some page space. I find this all so very fascinating and original. Thank you..


----------



## eots (Apr 17, 2013)

http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/10/2/2/7/79405343713140612.gif


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 17, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> The melting point of aluminum is around 1,700 degrees F.



Get your shit straight...

It's around 1220 degrees F. You missed by about 500 degrees F.

Metals - Melting Temperatures



Wildcard said:


> Once again you are proven wrong but do try again dumbass.



Oh the irony. Look above you dolt...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 17, 2013)

> Following approximately 2½ weeks of remains processing and two months of DNA analysis, 183
> unique identities were generated from the remains of those killed in the attack on the Pentagon,
> yielding 178 positive identifications. Some remains for each of the terrorists were recovered, as
> evidenced by five unique postmortem profiles that did not match any antemortem material
> provided by victims&#8217; families. No identifiable remains for five of the victims known to have been killed in the attack were recovered.



Andrew M Baker MD.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060907034559/http://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf


----------



## eots (Apr 17, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> > following approximately 2½ weeks of remains processing and two months of dna analysis, 183
> > unique identities were generated from the remains of those killed in the attack on the pentagon,
> > yielding 178 positive identifications. Some remains for each of the terrorists were recovered, as
> > evidenced by five unique postmortem profiles that did not match any antemortem material
> ...



claims of dna are not bodies are they ollie


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 17, 2013)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > > following approximately 2½ weeks of remains processing and two months of dna analysis, 183
> ...



No they aren't but I got tired of digging through all the alien attack and there were no planes BS sites to find any further information....Scary that you can't get the actual investigation details because of BS isn't it......


----------



## eots (Apr 17, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



thats exactly how the perpetrators want it ollie..it helps discredit reasonable questions and keeps myths like nist said fuel tanks in wtc 7 and damage caused the collapse accepted as facts or to create the impression bodies  of pentagon employees are flight 77 passengers


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 17, 2013)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



The "perpetrators," in this case, are the CT loons who flood the Internet with BS making it too time consuming for norms like Sarge to bother digging any deeper.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



It's fun watching the "logic".

No passengers on the plane so that means something else:

Blew up at the Pentagon
Took Down the Lightpoles
Crashed in the Cab Driver's Windshield
Knocked the generator off of it's moorings
Planted the airplane wreckage

Then...

Paid (and are still paying) the investigators to say it was passenger DNA they found
Paid (and are still paying) air traffic controllers to hold to the story of tracking a plane into the Pentagon
Paid (and are still paying) the dozens of eye witnesses who said they saw AA77 hit the building
Paid (and are still paying) the medical examiners, first responders, and other officials who investigated the crash scene

And (did largely the same) at three other crime scenes as well.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 17, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


are you done? everything you put in this post has been debunked...but you are amusing in a obsessive nut job kinda way.


----------



## eots (Apr 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



lol.. Its been denwunked has it


----------



## daws101 (Apr 17, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > wildcard said:
> ...


gee! how'd I know you'd say that..
and yes it has. no matter how much you bitch. 
you still have not produced any credible evidence that those are pentagon employees.

especially these two:


----------



## eots (Apr 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



yes i did...as did ollie...you however provided nothing to support your claim there are pictures of passangers bodies ...your debwunking has been debunked loser


----------



## daws101 (Apr 17, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


dodge! you calling me a loser! now that's irony in action..I'd say you were the king of losers but you'd have to blow hand job to get that spot.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 17, 2013)

candycorn said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And, of course, not one of the ever-expanding list of co-conspirators whispers a word. Not one. At some point the CTs will have everyone but themselves on the hook for 9/11. Everyone.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 17, 2013)

I did read somewhere that there were bodies found at the pentagon still strapped to their chairs.......

Wished I could find it. Had it bookmarked on my old computer, but it died on me.....


----------



## daws101 (Apr 17, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> I did read somewhere that there were bodies found at the pentagon still strapped to their chairs.......
> 
> Wished I could find it. Had it bookmarked on my old computer, but it died on me.....


you could goggle it .


Location of human remains, Forensics, DNA identification, personal effects found


Excerpt fromCollapse Rescue Operations At The Pentagon 9-11 Attack A Case Study on Urban Search and Rescue Disaster Response (PDF)

The following approach was applied to the recovery of Pentagon Incident fatalities: When a victim was located, work in the area was halted to protect the body, personal belongings, and evidence. An FBI evidence team (one of several on constant standby in front of the collapse) would document the site and gather evidence. If physical extrication was required, a Rescue Squad from the assigned US&R task force was given this task. The next step in the process was a Military Mortuary Team who collected and removed the victim from the building. 

All the debris removed from the building was spread out by the heavy equipment, and (on the signal of the IST US&R Specialist) the equipment would stop and Canine Search Teams from the US&R Task Forces would deploy across the material in search of any scent indicating human remains. Then US&R Search Team members would conduct a physical search for remains, crawling and walking over all the debris. Finally, after being searched three or more times, the debris would be loaded into trucks with skip loaders, where it would be taken to one of the Pentagon parking lots to be further combed for human remains and evidence by the FBI, ATF, Military units, and the Arlington Police Department. (p. 8)

 The remains of every flight 77 victim but one (a two-year-old) was recovered and positively identified by forensics experts. Personal effects of many survived the crash and fires and were returned to the victims' families. 


Articles on Pentagon disaster morgue operations and victim identification


Human Identification in a Post-9/11 World: The Attack on American Airlines Flight 77 and the Pentagon (PDF)


Personal effects found&#8211; Flt. 77 passenger Suzanne Calley's body found &#8211;Mortuary affairs artifacts


 The only two brothers who died at the Pentagon on 9/11 were hijackers Nawaf and Salem al-Hazmi. Remains of two brothers were identified by DNA: 
"The DNA results strengthened the hypothesis that two of the terrorists were brothers, as indicated by other evidence. Two of the terrorist STR profiles aboard the AA Flight 77 gave a sibling index greater than 500. To further test the hypothesis of maternal relatedness, AFDIL sequenced the HVI and HVII regions of mtDNA for these individuals. The sequences generated did match in HVI and HVII, which is consistent with a maternal relationship between the two men."&#8211;http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Edson2004.pdf (p. 83)

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary


----------



## candycorn (Apr 17, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Are you sure you weren't involved?  I wonder about myself.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 17, 2013)

> When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.
> 
> "It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside."



USATODAY.com - Pentagon searchers encounter grisly scenes


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 17, 2013)

candycorn said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I can't remember but if I do you will read about it in my new book, "How I Brought Down The Twin Towers!"


----------



## daws101 (Apr 17, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


wow sounds a lot like my new book: WTC, the Jim Morrison and Elvis connection.


----------



## eots (Apr 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > i did read somewhere that there were bodies found at the pentagon still strapped to their chairs.......
> ...



still no bodies


----------



## eots (Apr 17, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcLXNT2OrAM]Police Drug Lab Scientist Arrested For Purposely Producing False Positives On Drug Test - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 17, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuBIEJhPqfA]DNA lab investigation - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 17, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
> 
> In my first thread I pointed to two parts of the story which just don't stand scrutiny. First the vanishing pentagon plane and second the collapse of WTC7. These are not the only parts of the story which don't add up, just the most glaring and obvious.
> 
> ...



Could you be a little more verbose next time you start another asshole thread on your insane stupid absurd ridiculous idiotic pet conspiracy notion?

Thanks.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 17, 2013)

eots said:


> Police Drug Lab Scientist Arrested For Purposely Producing False Positives On Drug Test - YouTube



Well there you have it! Irrefutable "proof" that 9/11 was a gov't blk op! 
Thanks for playin', Princess!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 17, 2013)

eots said:


> DNA lab investigation - YouTube



Appreciate you proving that when labs are wrong they get investigated ......


----------



## wihosa (Apr 18, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
> ...



I'm sorry, reading a couple of paragraphs is too much for you?

I summed up the official conspiracy theory in a concise way (in regards to the two portions which I was speaking of). I wasn't redundant in anything I said so to call it verbose doesn't seem applicable. Regardless, I take from your invective filled diatribe you are a defender of the official conspiracy, so why don't you make a principled defense? 

Or like the other official conspiracy theorists you can simply call names.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 18, 2013)

wihosa said:


> I summed up the official conspiracy theory in a concise way (in regards to the two portions which I was speaking of). I wasn't redundant in anything I said so to call it verbose doesn't seem applicable. Regardless, I take from your invective filled diatribe you are a defender of the official conspiracy, so why don't you make a principled defense?



Did you happen to miss this wihosa?



Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget it didn't gain weight and each floor was designed to support all the weight above it with a safety factor of four.
> ...



Your claim of "the floors are designed to support everything above them" is complete and utter bullshit and you have no clue about structural design and what goes into it. That much is perfectly clear.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> Police Drug Lab Scientist Arrested For Purposely Producing False Positives On Drug Test - YouTube


ok, what the fuck does have to do with 911


----------



## daws101 (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> DNA lab investigation - YouTube


ok, what the fuck does have to do with 911 ?


----------



## daws101 (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...


 bullshit :Suzanne Calley died aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked the plane and sent it crashing into the Pentagon... Rescue crews were able to pull Calley&#8217;s body from Flight 77&#8217;s wreckage. Jensen [Calley&#8217;s husband] spent last year&#8217;s anniversary of the national tragedy in Washington, D.C. There, a Pentagon official - assigned to Calley&#8217;s family as a liaison - gave Jensen his wife&#8217;s wedding ring, which had been recovered from the plane.&#8221;
The Dispatch

I've JUST DEBUNKED YOUR LIE.


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



why no pictures ?...they took pictures of all the pentagon staffs bodies ???
sorry all you have is a story from a questionable source and a wedding ring


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

911 Evidence' Found!
Independent Medical Investigation Not Allowed As
Pentagon Controls Flight 77 Autopsy Results -
But Lists Three People Not Even On The Flight!

By Greg Szymanski
11-15-5

Flight 77 passenger, Suzanne Calley's, wedding ring and driver's license turns up in perfect condition from Pentagon wreckage. ATM card of Flight 11 passenger, Waleed Iskandar, also turns up unscathed, but he wasn't even listed as a passenger on the AA official flight list.


Capt. Jim Ingledue of the Virginia Beach Fire Department and 9/11 first responder recently reported he found the completely unblemished California ID card of a Flight 77 passenger amidst the devastation and rubble at the Pentagon.

Critics were quick to jump on what they called "another miraculous find," claiming it was just another indication of bogus evidence planted by FBI, including the unscathed passport found outside the WTC of one of the hijackers, Satum AL Suqami, the luggage of Muhammad Atta with blatant incriminating evidence and the perfectly intact Wells Fargo ATM card of Walled Iskandar, one of the Flight 11 passengers.

Still More 'Miraculous 911 Evidence' Found!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 18, 2013)

Translation: Your witnesses are questionable but mine are not. And any evidence you present that doesn't meet my qualifications is faked.

Tell us EOTS I showed a statement from one of the people in the cleanup and recovery who said he saw the bodies still strapped in their seats. Did he lie too?


----------



## daws101 (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


again your lack reading comprehension shines" Rescue crews were able to pull Calleys body from Flight 77s wreckage"
they stopped releasing those pictures years ago for obvious reasons.
btw you say my source is questionable is the most Ironic thing you posted to date, considering every thing you've ever posted is beyond question absolutely false.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> 911 Evidence' Found!
> Independent Medical Investigation Not Allowed As
> Pentagon Controls Flight 77 Autopsy Results -
> But Lists Three People Not Even On The Flight!
> ...


really? bhahahahahahahaha!


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



if there was ever a photo it would be on the net forever posted and re-posted like the ones of the pentagon employees are...they was never any such picture


----------



## daws101 (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


really? then how come every site that used to have them have removed them?
I was on another site in 04 and they were all there. 
but you go on an live your little fantasy that those people aren't dead or never lived.
I'd like to be there when you talk that shit to one of the relatives.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 18, 2013)

Actually I can't tell or find documentation telling me who those are in the pictures that were used in court. They could be passengers or they could be Pentagon employees.


 But the fact remains that it was reported that there were bodies still strapped to their seats.....


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> actually i can't tell or find documentation telling me who those are in the pictures that were used in court. They could be passengers or they could be pentagon employees.
> 
> 
> But the fact remains that it was reported that there were bodies still strapped to their seats.....



dont you find it odd that there are _reports_...but no pictures considering all the gruesome pictures they did release..there are also reports from pentagon employees that is was a missile launched as the play flew over the building


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > actually i can't tell or find documentation telling me who those are in the pictures that were used in court. They could be passengers or they could be pentagon employees.
> ...



Bullshit.


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIy9hjB3DGk]Pentagon Employee Witness Says There Was No Plane on 9-11-2001! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxMuW8PzeHY]The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## candycorn (Apr 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



And you wonder why I just put shit lumps like EOTS on ignore?  We're at the point to where people just make stuff up.  Better to just rise above it by not getting down into it.


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

candycorn said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I did not make anything up..cuntycornhole



*Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defens*e. 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."

Bio: http://militaryweek.com/


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


A woman, probably nearly in hysterics because of her newborn saw nothing that looked like a plane..... Same woman who at first thought she had triggered a bomb.....

yeah sure, she just barely escaped with her life and scrambled through the wreckage with her newborn over her shoulder, was transported to the hospital but asked other people if they saw a plane......
Where was she assigned? Showing an ID doesn't say anything about where she was assigned. Why would any supervisor insist that a woman bring their newborn to work with them. And she tells us that floors collapsed when the plane first hit. Why did she go to the hospital? And she helped other people and at the last second found her own child, was the child hurt? Why did people help her after she said they were to worried about getting out of there? Her story is as full of holes as yours.......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off - YouTube



Please,  1hr 40 minutes? And you think we'll stop and look at this propaganda? When I'm really really bored some month maybe.....


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



amazing how you and daws slander eye wittiness like the fire fighters at the wtc in favor of shyam sunder


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I would love to sit down with this woman at a computer and get her reactions to the pictures of all the air liner debris scattered all over the place. Rumsfeld even picked up a small piece and put it on his desk.


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the pentagon flyover - how they pulled it off - youtube
> ...



lots of eye-wittinesses but then they have no credibility in your world


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Hey, I'm just asking questions.....She's the one contradicting herself, and not telling the whole story. BTW Why was the tape edited? what did they leave out?


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


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



most of the witinesses would prefer sitting down with a grand jury


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



edited for people like you with short attention spans...you complain its to long then complain its to short


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And those that picked up pieces of the plane and saw the bodies in the seats have no credibility in yours....... You see the fact is that you dismiss many more witnesses than i do.....And I only have questions that you can't answer. Do you have children? Would you have asked people if they saw a plane that morning? Or would you be getting your kid out of there. I would have been looking for nothing but the quickest way away from the area.....


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO_BTH7zcNg]9/11 Pentagon Reality Check 12: eyewitness ROOSEVELT ROBERTS: Plane Flew OVER the Pentagon! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBT-f2Px1wA]The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 18, 2013)

WHy is it all these videos sound like the same guy who got his ass handed to him in Loose change?


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Funny, she isn't quite as decorated on wikki ...

"_Kwiatkowski began her military career in 1982 as a Second Lieutenant. She served at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska, providing logistical support to missions along the Chinese and Russian coasts. She also served in Spain and Italy.* Kwiatkowski was then assigned to the National Security Agency (NSA), eventually becoming a speechwriter for the agency's director.* After leaving the NSA in 1998 she became an analyst on sub-Saharan Africa policy for the Pentagon. Kwiatkowski was in her office in the Pentagon when it was attacked on September 11, 2001. From May 2002 to February 2003 she served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia directorate (NESA).[3] While at NESA, she wrote a series of anonymous articles, Insider Notes from the Pentagon which appeared on the website of David Hackworth.[4] Kwiatkowski left NESA in February 2003 and retired from the Air Force the following month._"

She was a speech writer dude... Anyone who speaks out against the NSA policies while they still work there, and continue to work there afterwards, is a plant period..... She's a disinformation broker dude, ya got took..


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> WHy is it all these videos sound like the same guy who got his ass handed to him in Loose change?



The police and civilian eye wittiness sound like the guy from loose change to you ??


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

gslack said:


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



wow thats some conspiracy theory you got there...so she is a nsa plant to make people question the official story..is this the basis of your conspiracy theory ? and what of the other wittinesses that repeat her story where do they fit in to your conspiracy ?


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Sorry, it's your claim she is to be trusted at her word correct? Wasn't that the point in the overly padded resume and flowering credentials? To dissuade any doubts to her credibility as witness your conspiracy theory here? It's your theory dude, I just pointed out she was able to openly stand against pentagon and NSA policies while working for them and keep her job until taking up conspiracy writing full-time...

Do you really think a person can get away with open and very public opposition to NSA policy and keep their job, if they were genuine? LOL, if so I recommend you visit Fort Meade sometime, take a drive through the base and look for large mirrored glass building. Ask the guards at the door about policy. Or better ask to speak to the director about it.. 

ROFL...


----------



## candycorn (Apr 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Most twoofers could clear up all of their "questions" by simply calling some of the first responders and asking them.  Strangely enough, these "truth seekers" can't muster the strength to make a phone call.  

Just ask if they have talked to them....the answer is always no.


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



so you put more credibility on wikki than you do her military bio...what a clown


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

All I can say is, NO BODY, absolutely no one legit would get to directly and openly oppose NSA and/or pentagon official policies and keep their job...  Not even a lowly linguist in the linguistics core, or simple data dink. Speaking even at all on their policies by any worker there is grounds for permanent and immediate dismissal and waiver of all compensation, including retirement bennys and everything else..

Take it how you want to view it.


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

candycorn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I posted a video of the witnesss interveiws and them being asked direct questions ..you stupid cow


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You mean I put more faith in a non-biased source over her own padded claims? Yes I do..

She ran for Representative of her state last election correct? Yeah came from the same wikki article, want to deny that as well? Oh and guess what she ran as a republican... You know the ones you pretty much blame this wacky theory on...

Whether you realize it or not, you are being played like a harp. Political parties are the show to keep us arguing. No party is going to do anything alone, it takes both parties to do any thing at all. She is a peddler of BS who gets paid for stirring up conspiracy nuts like you. She tried to move up the ladder from peddler to BS artist first class and failed...


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> All I can say is, NO BODY, absolutely no one legit would get to directly and openly oppose NSA and/or pentagon official policies and keep their job...  Not even a lowly linguist in the linguistics core, or simple data dink. Speaking even at all on their policies by any worker there is grounds for permanent and immediate dismissal and waiver of all compensation, including retirement bennys and everything else..
> 
> Take it how you want to view it.



I view it as you talking out your ass and grasping at straws...it also said she  penned these articles anonymously btw

_ "she wrote a series of anonymous articles"_


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



your only claim to padding anything is ommisions in wikki...thats your evidence?..lol


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > All I can say is, NO BODY, absolutely no one legit would get to directly and openly oppose NSA and/or pentagon official policies and keep their job...  Not even a lowly linguist in the linguistics core, or simple data dink. Speaking even at all on their policies by any worker there is grounds for permanent and immediate dismissal and waiver of all compensation, including retirement bennys and everything else..
> ...



Writing anything published "anonymously" while working for the NSA is nonsense. Good luck with that, see how well that works. She was well paid for it "anonymously" as well... You're being played..


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)




----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Evidence? Well I am afraid I am not a Utube junky like yourself, sorry I guess your Utube trumps my logical thought...Silly me...

Ever been to Fort Meade, Maryland? Ever work any kind of secure facility? Ever have to get a security clearance for a military job? The clearance works two-fold. First it tries to assess threat potential in a candidate and their "trustworthy-ness" with sensitive material or data. And second it gives them a real time list of who has access to what, when, where, and how.  A breech shows up, they check the list and bingo... Writing publicly "anonymously" or otherwise just won't happen.. Sorry especially with her claimed credentials.. 

If you really want to be paranoid and scare yourself, you don't have to believe in right or left-wing boogeymen, there is no difference in application. You guys all talk about disinformation agents but ignore the real ones who laugh at you...


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 19, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



April Gallup? Really? You're going to use the woman who claimed it was a missile AFTER she accepted a settlement from American Airlines because it was a plane?


----------



## daws101 (Apr 19, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


excessive bullshit!


----------



## daws101 (Apr 19, 2013)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


thanks eots! wittiness:   Possessing or demonstrating wit in speech or writing; very clever and humorous.
2. Characterized by or having the nature of wit; funny or jocular: a witty saying.
3. Quick to discern and express amusing insights or relationships.
4. Entertainingly and strikingly clever or original in concept, design, or performance: a witty sculpture; witty choreography.

Ollie and I have slandered no one  the people you yammer on about  SAW  nothing or imagined they did, or misidentified what they saw or just plain lied about it.
you can post all the ear witness statements you like but it's not admissible as evidence.
pointing out those facts is not slander.

 the shit you post about  shyam sunder comes very very  close.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 19, 2013)

That's right the person who was there couldn't possibly know what she saw, but the official conspiracy theorists know what happened because they believe in spite of what this woman says, and in spite of the obvious which I pointed out when I started this thread.

The official conspiracy theory lives on and America goes on living the lie!


----------



## candycorn (Apr 19, 2013)

wihosa said:


> That's right the person who was there couldn't possibly know what she saw, but the official conspiracy theorists know what happened because they believe in spite of what this woman says, and in spite of the obvious which I pointed out when I started this thread.
> 
> The official conspiracy theory lives on and America goes on living the lie!



The only one living a lie is you.

You still can't account for physical evidence of plane wreckage on the Pentagon grounds as well as the light poles being knocked down.  All of the accusatory passages and self serving commentary won't save your lame assertions.  

Sorry, we're dealing in facts, you're dealing in dreams.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

wihosa said:


> That's right the person who was there couldn't possibly know what she saw, but the official conspiracy theorists know what happened because they believe in spite of what this woman says, and in spite of the obvious which I pointed out when I started this thread.
> 
> The official conspiracy theory lives on and America goes on living the lie!



Ah see that's not the problem. The problem arises when she goes from reporting what she saw to making claims she pulled out of her ass...

Now evidently you missed the part about her writing "anonymously" on a public website against NSA and Pentagon policies while she still worked there...  I called it BS, knowing damn well and better it wouldn't happen. No pentagon or NSA "speechwriter" could be so anonymous and keep their job... It's retarded. She's a paid shit-stirrer and conspiracy peddler..


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > I summed up the official conspiracy theory in a concise way (in regards to the two portions which I was speaking of). I wasn't redundant in anything I said so to call it verbose doesn't seem applicable. Regardless, I take from your invective filled diatribe you are a defender of the official conspiracy, so why don't you make a principled defense?
> ...



Ok fine point, but I was referring to the columns, the vertical supports for the the entire structure. The columns of each floor are designed to carry all the imposed loads of the floors and columns above them.
 Now if you want to go on with your pancaking "theory" show evidence of pancaked floors.

Oh you can't because there is no evidence of that.

Your official theory is debunked.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

candycorn said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > That's right the person who was there couldn't possibly know what she saw, but the official conspiracy theorists know what happened because they believe in spite of what this woman says, and in spite of the obvious which I pointed out when I started this thread.
> ...



Sorry, the fact is there is no plane wreckage visible on the front lawn, just a couple of pieces laying about. I've referred you to a real plane crash into a much less substantial building but the plane did not penetrate all the way through and the airframe and the passengers and their luggage are all easily visible.

So which is it, did the plane penetrate all the way through the steel reinforced concrete exterior wall, folding back the wings and dragging them AND the tail section through and then plowing through the support columns and then punch out the 'C' wall or did it get completely obliterated on the exterior?

Are you saying the ONLY thing that could have knocked down light poles was an airplane? As I pointed out we both agree their was a conspiracy and if as I'm saying yours is wrong then whoever was behind this mass murder was certainly motivated to fool the gullible by knocking down a few light poles.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, First off you cannot make controlled demolition of WTC7 a fact just because you say so. You need some kind of proof other than it looks like a CD..... Yes of course explosions were heard, they are heard in all office fires and many home fires, there are lots of things that go boom when heat is applied.....Or didn't you know that was a fact? Now ask yourself what does a CD sound like? It's not intermittent explosions lasting several hours and then no explosions when a building starts to fall. Never heard of any explosion doing a delayed time destruction sometime after the blast. And you still haven't looked for what could have caused the blast hole at the pentagon....You aren't looking for truth, you are the same as the other CTrs here....
> ...





candycorn said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
> ...



For the third time, it is the curtain wall which is damaged, a non structural element. That's akin to saying that if you scrape the skin off you leg you can't stand.

By the way I'm not playing chess, I'm pointing out the flaws in your theory.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I'm still waiting for you to show another steel frame high rise that collapsed suddenly, immediately and totally as a result of fire.

As for a missile hitting the Pentagon, is that what you think but are afraid to say?


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget that the direction of impact of the falling upper floors was through the line of most resistance
> ...



So then you do believe the pancaking "theory". Where are the pancaked floors?Oh thats right, there aren't any.

 All the structural columns of each floor are designed to support the imposed loads of all the floors and columns of the floors above.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> So, based on my post above wihosa, how much of a load was each floor able to support/resist?
> 
> Next, figure out how much of a load was imparted on the immediate floor below the descending upper section?
> 
> ...



Where are the pancaked floors?

Oh they turned to dust I suppose. Or maybe the fairies took them away.

Don't forget that you still have to defend the Achilles heal of your conspiracy theory, WTC7. No steel framed high rise has ever suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse due to fire, and the NIST still after eleven years can't explain it but maybe you can.
It's your theory to defend.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > You have demonstrated that it is you who does not know the meaning of symmetrical.
> ...



WTC7 suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse supposedly due to a moderate fire. You can't point to another instance of this ever happening which makes it an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof.

Why don't you provide it?

By the way, your juvenile cuckoo face reveals you desperation.


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

wihosa said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The bolded  and underlined part, nonsense...

The outer "curtain" as you called it was a structural element. It was explained in the construction videos you twoofers use a lot.. The outer mesh curtain helped to maintain structural integrity at the outside edges. that's why there was no outer pillars or concrete and rebar shafts anywhere but near the core or center... It so they had more "window space"... Other structures wanting more window space rely on corner pillars and inside shafts at various spots near the outer walls...


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > What experience do you have with structural steel?
> ...



I'll take you at your word. Doesn't make you right though.

You're the one defending the conspiracy theory, so you are going with the pancake "theory". Show evidence of pancaked floors.

Also provide extraordinary proof of the extraordinary claim that for the first time in history a steel framed high rise suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse due to a moderate office fire as happened to WTC7, it's also part of your theory.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Are you claiming there was a source of pure oxygen feeding the fire?


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> It shows how metal can turn into nearly nothing when striking a reinforced wall....
> 
> I guess it is pointless if you want to believe there should have been a complete whole plane buried in the ruble at the pentagon



Very small parts of a plane should still add up to the same amount, it doesn't mean that they would vanish.

And if the plane was obliterated when it hit the Pentagon wall how did it punch through the wall and the support columns and the "C"ring wall?

You have to have an answer or your theory is debunked.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Space Shuttle Columbia Recovery - YouTube



Even spread across two states more of the shuttle was recovered than of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Space Shuttle Columbia Recovery - YouTube





PredFan said:


> The impossible didn't happen on 9-11.
> 
> I agree. What happened is what we saw. Two planes hijacked by Al-Queda terrorists flew a plane into each of the towers. As a result, the towers fell. That's the *possible*.
> 
> ...



You seam to have forgotten the vanishing plane and the never before occurrence of sudden, immediate and total collapse of a steel framed high rise,WTC7 due to a moderate fire, which is impossible. 
As for a conspiracy, since you are defending one you obviously believe that it IS possible.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Just because I can't spend all my time here and so there is a delay in my answering doesn't mean I don't have and answer.

As I've already said, I was speaking of the columns, the vertical support for the structure. If as you seem to be implying that the floors pancaked, why is there no evidence of pancaked floors. Why did ALL the columns fail all the way to the ground? Wouldn't there be at least some columns still vertical with pancaked floors around them?

Also it still doesn't explain the vanishing plane or WTC7.

It's you conspiracy theory, defend it!


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Wishful thinking on your part to be sure. I have a very busy life and can't spend every waking hour pointing out the obvious to the gullible.

By the way, all the assertions made by the defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, are just that, assertions as NONE have ever been proven in a court of law.

You would think that the defenders of the official conspiracy would want that.

Nope, they believe because they want to believe.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Ok, charred bodies, where is the evidence that they are passengers from the plane? There were people in the Pentagon. Shouldn't there have been more than one hundred such charred bodies? And where is the plane, oh that's right, it incinerated.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
> ...



Well since I am debunking the official conspiracy theory of which you seem to be an advocate I guess this is where it has to go.

I on the other hand have not put forth a theory. I just keep pointing out the flaws in yours.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

candycorn said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You are the one defending a conspiracy theory which sounds even more implausible. Guys living in caves outwit the best intelligence agencies the world has ever known. Hijack airliners but there is no response from the ANG. Fly them into some of the most highly engineered buildings in the world which COMPLETELY COLLAPSE. Then fly one into one into one of the best defended buildings in the world which for some reason does not defend itself, by the way all this flying by total amateurs. Then the plane vanishes. And then to top it off a building which was not struck by a plane suffers sudden, immediate and total collapse due to a moderate office fire, something which has NEVER, REPEAT NEVER, happened before.

Oh yes, so believeable.

And since that is your conspiracy theory, start defending it. Especially WTC7, which after eleven years NIST still can't explain.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Threatened death to oneself or ones loved ones could be a pretty powerful motivator for one to remain silent. After committing mass murder what a few more?


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So the wedding ring proves the plane went into the Pentagon? There is no other way it could have been gotten?

Interesting that the fire was hot enough to incinerate aluminum but a presumably gold ring survived intact. 

Your theory looks more and more like Swiss cheese.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> All I can say is, NO BODY, absolutely no one legit would get to directly and openly oppose NSA and/or pentagon official policies and keep their job...  Not even a lowly linguist in the linguistics core, or simple data dink. Speaking even at all on their policies by any worker there is grounds for permanent and immediate dismissal and waiver of all compensation, including retirement bennys and everything else..
> 
> Take it how you want to view it.



Well that helps answer the question as to why people have kept their mouths shut all these years, doesn't it?

Loss of livelihood, a powerful motivator.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



You're the one defending a conspiracy theory.

Interesting that you point out her political party. It seems that many of the official conspiracy theory defenders do so out of fear that admitting the obvious might implicate their (Republican) party.

You make a good point that both parties are implicated in this and I don't care if my ox gets gored on this as I am anAmerican first.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



True for the twin towers, but WTC7 was a conventional steel framed high rise, the curtain wall was not a structural element. And it was not hit by a plane yet suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse.

It's your theory to defend. You have to defend all of it, not just the parts that are plausible.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 20, 2013)

It took me three hours to answer all of you conspiracy theorists. It might be a while before I have that kind of time again, but don't think for a minute that I won't.

This is too important. It's time you conspiracists demand proof for what you believe.

Only a prosecutor with subpoena power supported by will of the American People can prove fact from fiction.

Or are you afraid you may be proved wrong. Our posterity will examine the evidence from 911 with a dispassionate eye. What will you tell your grandchildren, you were afraid to be call a conspiracy theorist so you just went along with the official conspiracy theory, you didn't demand proof?


----------



## candycorn (Apr 20, 2013)

wihosa said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


That is an inaccuracy.  The hijackers lived here.  Two of the hijackers were university trained.  If you're going to try to come off as being cerebral, you should study the facts a bit more.  



wihosa said:


> Hijack airliners but there is no response from the ANG.


That is an inaccuracy.  There was a response from the air force.  The Army National Guard (ANG?) didn't have that in their job description.  



wihosa said:


> Fly them into some of the most highly engineered buildings in the world which COMPLETELY COLLAPSE.


That is an inaccuracy.  Multiple floors of at least one of the WTC towers remained intact at the base of the tower. 



wihosa said:


> Then fly one into one into one of the best defended buildings in the world


That is an inaccuracy.  Though true there was a defense from ground assault, there was no air defense from the Pentagon.



wihosa said:


> which for some reason does not defend itself, by the way all this flying by total amateurs.


And the amateurs did what you expect them to do, crash.  Why is this so hard for conspiracy theorists to understand?



wihosa said:


> Then the plane vanishes.


Another inaccuracy.  Wreckage was found from all four planes.



wihosa said:


> And then to top it off a building which was not struck by a plane suffers sudden, immediate and total collapse due to a moderate office fire, something which has NEVER, REPEAT NEVER, happened before.


And the building was missing 18 floors at the corner.



wihosa said:


> Oh yes, so believeable.


What is unbelievable is that you're trying to come off as some sort of scholar on the subject when clearly you are so ignorant that you continue to repeat inaccuracies.  



wihosa said:


> And since that is your conspiracy theory, start defending it. Especially WTC7, which after eleven years NIST still can't explain.



The 9/11 Commission Report that details the events of the morning remains 100% accurate on all of the major points.  To date, no one can quote an inaccuracy in the report.  

As for WTC 7, it was missing 18 floors at the corner, had four major disasters happen across the street, suffered major fire, etc...  Other buildings that day also were destroyed that didn't have a plane hit them.  The only people attributing special significance to it are, I'm afraid, those who are missing something essential in their cognitive ability.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 20, 2013)

wihosa said:


> That's right the person who was there couldn't possibly know what she saw, but the official conspiracy theorists know what happened because they believe in spite of what this woman says, and in spite of the obvious which I pointed out when I started this thread.
> 
> The official conspiracy theory lives on and America goes on living the lie!



How many witnesses say there was no plane? 

Now how many witnesses saw the plane?

Think about it..............


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 20, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



You really should find another vocation, you suck at this. Show me another building built to the same specifics as the twin towers, that was hit full speed by a commercial jet liner.

No, I don't think a missile had anything to do with 911. and you know that. 4 planes were hijacker three of them hit buildings one drove into the ground. Of course i also know there are no air defense batteries around the Pentagon......

There were no other planes, or Missiles, or ray beams or nukes or Thermite.....

Please carry on......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 20, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > So, based on my post above wihosa, how much of a load was each floor able to support/resist?
> ...



Sudden and immediate? WTC 7? Are we talking about the same building that had uncontrolled fires for 7 hours? I wouldn't call that sudden or immediate. Especially since the firefighter had warned it was going to collapse hours before it did........Or do you believe they were in on the plot?


----------



## candycorn (Apr 20, 2013)

wihosa said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


Yes...that is called wreckage.  And wreckage was found inside the building as well.  All of it matches AA77.  And they all have something else in common, you can't explain how it got there .



wihosa said:


> I've referred you to a real plane crash into a much less substantial building but the plane did not penetrate all the way through and the airframe and the passengers and their luggage are all easily visible.


You're revealing just how little you know.

For one thing, SOP of a crash is to dump what fuel you have on board to minimize any fireball that would be created from the crash.  That didn't happen with AA77.

For another thing, SOP of a crash is to slow the plane down by creating drag.  You lower the flaps, landging gear, whatever you can.  That didn't happen with AA77.

For yet another thing, SOP of a crash is to attempt to land the plane instead of crashing it.  That didn't happen with AA77.



wihosa said:


> So which is it, did the plane penetrate all the way through the steel reinforced concrete exterior wall, folding back the wings and dragging them AND the tail section through and then plowing through the support columns and then punch out the 'C' wall or did it get completely obliterated on the exterior?


Wreckage was found both inside and outside the building.  Nobody saw anyone planting one piece of wreckage.  Try again.



wihosa said:


> Are you saying the ONLY thing that could have knocked down light poles was an airplane?


Yes.



wihosa said:


> As I pointed out we both agree their was a conspiracy
> and if as I'm saying yours is wrong then whoever was behind this mass murder was certainly motivated to fool the gullible by knocking down a few light poles.



[/quote]
So, let me get your story straight and you can no longer seriously contend that you're not saying anything;

There was no plane that crashed at the Pentagon....someone planted the wreckage in side the Pentagon and outside the Pentagon.  Witnesses?  None.

There was no plane that knocked down the light poles outside of the Pentagon.  Someone brought down the light poles in broad daylight.  Witnesses?  None.

There was no plane that knocked down the light poles outside the Pentagon.  Someone planted a cab at the scene--in the middle of rush-hour traffic--with a smashed in windshield right next to one of these light poles.  Witnesses?  None.  Other than the cab driver who said the light pole hit his windshield.

Lets leave the wreckage alone...

You contend that someone added to their inbox....
Planting five light poles
Planting a cab with a smashed in windshield
Blowing a multi-ton generator off of it's moorings
Damaging the multi-ton generator 






All as a rouse...and with no eye-witnesses who saw any of it.

We all know you won't explain anything--the moment you write anything down it will sound like you're koo-koo--but that is the scenario you've created.  

Time for you to go into denial mode.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 20, 2013)

candycorn said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



In light of that point-by-point refutation of Wilhosa's CT, one that surely he has encountered regularly, what could be his motivation to continue to post such silliness?
It clearly isn't to spread the truth about 9/11 because he just as clearly rejects the truth so why would he come to an obscure message board and make a fool of himself?
The mind of the CT is far more interesting than the CTBS they promote.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 20, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Wilhosa is aware bldg 7 burned for hours but refuses to accept that fact and instead posts his lies.
There is no better proof that the NIST report is correct than the half-truths, speculation, hyperbole and outright fabrications the 9/11 "Truther" Movement is forced to try to sell.
At the end of the day all they have is a few Alex Jones (read: CTBS for $) types and a lot of little, self-styled clones (read: any of this board's CT foil-hatters).


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 20, 2013)

wihosa said:


> It took me three hours to answer all of you conspiracy theorists. It might be a while before I have that kind of time again, but don't think for a minute that I won't.
> 
> This is too important. It's time you conspiracists demand proof for what you believe.
> 
> ...



The 9/11 Commission members were all honorable, experienced, well educated and accomplished peeps. 
7 of the 11 members were attorneys (plus staff attorneys) and *the Commission had subpoena power*. 
Had they found evidence of criminal wrong-doing by anyone other than the known perps they would have made it public or called for a grand jury and further investigation. 
They did not. 
In order to have a criminal trial with a prosecuting attorney and a jury you must charge someone with a crime so I ask you again (not that you have ever answered) ... who would you charge?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2013)

8 farts in a row from the paid trolls.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2013)

wihosa said:


> It took me three hours to answer all of you conspiracy theorists. It might be a while before I have that kind of time again, but don't think for a minute that I won't.
> 
> This is too important. It's time you conspiracists demand proof for what you believe.
> 
> ...



wihosa,do the smart thing,dont bother with these trolls.They are paid agents sent here to try and derail and disrupt 9/11 truth discussions  or any thread that pertains to government corruption.They have been sent here by their handlers to waste your time.they want you to waste your time on them while the government plots more sinister events against us like sandy hook for instance. 

There are truthers here that no matter how many times I try and explain this to them,it goes through one ear and out the other with them and they continue to waste their time on them.dont fall into that group.It makes their hanlders happy when you play their game and take their bait.those last 8 posts by those paid trolls that replied,all they ever do is evade facts and change the subject when cornered and they cowardly run off with their tail between their legs anytime you show them videos that shread to pieces the official version as evidenced here on this thread.



Do the SMART thing,dont waste your time on these treasonous trolls.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 20, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > It took me three hours to answer all of you conspiracy theorists. It might be a while before I have that kind of time again, but don't think for a minute that I won't.
> ...




Translation:

They have handed me my ass so many times that i have to make fart jokes and pretend that they are all on ignore.....It's the only thing i can do to keep posting in here.......


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

wihosa said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



7 was a completely different structure using different methods. as you pointed out. Traditional steel framed high rise would be concrete and no"curtain" as you call it.. It was hit by debris and was on fire as I recall.. Heavily damaged...

If the did decide to "pull it" as the internet videos like to harp on, so what? There wasn't anyone in there and it was a hazard left there like that.. The damage was too severe to save the damn thing, so what's the point?

You are trying to pick gnat shit out of pepper...


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2013)

Current Issue: Tech Beat April 17, 2013 NIST Home > Public and Business Affairs Office 
Current Issue: Tech Beat April 17, 2013


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2013)

So if you accept the NIST theory is correct a single blast event on one column could of brought down wtc 7


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2013)

> Right there first sentence number 4, it opposes what you claimed they said...WTF dude? You are lying, no matter how you slice it, you are editing their words to imply the opposite of they were intended... Pretty lame tactic man...







*So you dont understand the words revision and update ??*


In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted *an additional computer analysis.* The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7&#8217;s Column 79&#8212;the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse&#8212;would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column&#8217;s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

*Other revisions* to the final WTC 7 report included:

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2013)

&#8226;
The *probable* collapse sequence for WTC 7, based on the available data and evidence, and the
computer simulations (Chapter 13); and 

(My Bold)


NIST NCSTAR 1-9, WTC Investigation
693
Appendix D
H
YPOTHETICAL
B
LAST
S
CENARIOS
D.1 BACKGROUND
As part of assessing alternative hy
potheses for initiation of the collapse
of WTC 7, a hypothetical blast
event was considered. Scenarios of a hypothetical
blast event that could have occurred in WTC 7 on
September 11, 2001, were assessed, including blast locati
on, size, and timing. Identification and analysis
of hypothetical blast scenarios was conducted in thr
ee phases, with the results
from each phase being used
as input to the next phase. The three phases were:
&#8226;
Phase I: Identify hypothetical blast scenar
ios to initiate structural collapse.
&#8226;
Phase II: Assess the blast wave propagation
inside the building and the corresponding
response of the WTC 7 windows.
&#8226;
Phase III: Assess the approximate distance from the
building that the blast would have been
audible in an urban setting


(Looks like they did look at CD, and dismissed it..)


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

eots said:


> > Right there first sentence number 4, it opposes what you claimed they said...WTF dude? You are lying, no matter how you slice it, you are editing their words to imply the opposite of they were intended... Pretty lame tactic man...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The actual text you cut and paste your edited quote from... Again using YOUR LINK!



> _In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7&#8217;s Column 79&#8212;the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse&#8212;would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column&#8217;s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events._



Now quit lying and read the actual text before going off and making a fool of yourself.. 

P.S. In case you aren't acting and really so ignorant. The difference between what you wrote and what they wrote (aside from missing words) was the fact they weren't saying that an explosive took out column 79, like you are insinuating. They simply stated that no matter how it happened (loss of column 79) it would have ended up the same way regardless of the fires...Get it? It means the column failing was the cause of the collapse, but the fires led to the columns failure...MORON...


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > Right there first sentence number 4, it opposes what you claimed they said...WTF dude? You are lying, no matter how you slice it, you are editing their words to imply the opposite of they were intended... Pretty lame tactic man...
> ...



What you have noticed is (ID)eot's willingness to make a fool of himself (just look at his avatar) to serve his agenda. It is obvious that the dissemination of truth and facts are, regrettably, just not part of that agenda. Considering his admiration for Internet BS "warriors" like Terral it seems he's hoping to be the next Internet "sensation."


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > Right there first sentence number 4, it opposes what you claimed they said...WTF dude? You are lying, no matter how you slice it, you are editing their words to imply the opposite of they were intended... Pretty lame tactic man...
> ...



insinuating?? ..I am stating the fact that according to NIST and I qoute..*The investigation team concluded that the columns failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.*

if the computer model is accepted as accurate then there is no avoiding a single blast event could of brought down the towers..if the column was blown out it .. _would still have led to a complete loss of the building_..you can argue no explosives where used but you cant argue according to NIST a single blast event could of created the same result...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2013)

Am I wrong in thinking that they said that 5 stores of the column gave out at the same time? If that is what happened then no a single blast would not do it.


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



COULD HAVE... Get it yet? All of that means squat. The fact is as NIST said, the fires caused the column to fail. What difference does it make if an explosion could have caused the same effect? Doesn't mean there was an explosion, and they certainly never said there was one.

Again you got busted misquoting and jump to a false assumption. Their words speak for themselves, just as yours do.. You cited a false and edited version of a quote, didn't check it, and it gave you the wrong impression of their findings... How many years you been peddling this and didn't even check? Since '01? What's worse is no one checked you either... I bet from looking at your posting style you have peddling this crap for a long time. Perpetuated the nonsense until you are so sure of it, even the fact your own words were shown to be false you still try and pretend its so...

Get a grip... Your argument, your obsession, your so-called "evidence" is false. You edited their words to make your claim seem accurate, when their actual words said no such thing..


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



A few weeks ago the same CT loon claimed the NIST said that a blast only as loud as standing in front of "speakers at a rock concert" could have felled bldg 7 when what they had actually said was 10x louder than those speakers. Like most 9/11 CTs, (ID)eot is an inveterate liar as well as a fool.


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



you forgot.. "This sound level is consistent with a _gunshot blast_ "

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



so to be clear are you claiming according to NIST findings..a single blast event (as loud a a shotgun) that could Buckle column 79 would not be capable of taking down wtc 7 ??


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

eots said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 22, 2013)

Did I not quote Annex D of their final report? You know the one where they investigated a possible blast scenario...The post that you ignored.

And while I'm at it column 79 it seems held until 8 floors had disconnected from it then it buckled. One blast couldn't do that...Still would have required a series of controlled explosions which were not heard.......


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 22, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Pancake theory?! Do you even know what the hell your debating against? I never said anything about a "floor pancake theory" dumbass. Also, here's what NIST says about the pancake theory. I bolded the important parts just for you.


> *NISTs findings do not support the pancake theory of collapse*, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor systemthat connected the core columns and the perimeter columnsconsisted of a grid of steel trusses integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. *Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.*



So what are you debating against?



So you get your ass handed to you and move your goalposts to saying you meant  "just the columns of each floor supported the weight above them".



If the floors/floor connections were sheared from their respective columns, what was holding up the perimeter column LATERALLY? Also, are you trying to claim that the upper section fell perfectly, column on column?

Another thing. Please explain how explosives, which according to you idiots creates immediate zero support, caused the perimeter columns to bow inward in the beginning of the collapse? How do you get that effect from explosives?




Let me explain what happened.

The impact of the jet severed perimeter columns and damaged severed some of the core columns. The fire weakened the remaining columns to initiate collapse. The upper section impacted the first floor just below and sheared it from it's respective columns. The upper section was also sheared apart as it descended created a debris pile. As the debris pile descended downward, it sheared and torn everything apart in it's path. With no lateral support, the descending debris pile pushed the perimeter columns outward like banana peels. The damaged core could not stand on it's own so it also collapsed.  This is evident by this photo which shows remnants of the core WITH NO FLOORS ATTACHED.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 22, 2013)

wihosa said:


> For the third time, it is the curtain wall which is damaged, a non structural element. That's akin to saying that if you scrape the skin off you leg you can't stand.



Do you even know what a curtain wall is and what it pertained to with WTC7? Obviously not. Is you entire argument based upon incorrect information and you lack of structural knowledge? 

Here is a photo of your a potion of your so called "curtain wall".




The curtain wall was the granite/window facade that was hanged from the structure above. The structure above helped with gravity as well as lateral loads. The long span trusses helped transfer loads to the perimeter.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 22, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Don't forget that you still have to defend the Achilles heal of your conspiracy theory, WTC7. No steel framed high rise has ever suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse due to fire, and the NIST still after eleven years can't explain it but maybe you can.
> It's your theory to defend.



I can play the historical proof game too wihosa. 

No steel framed high rise with the same design as WTC7, has ever suffered damage to a portion of it's perimeter, had unfought fires, and remained standing.

Therefore, your belief that this could never have happened is based on garbage as you have no proof of a similar building that remained standing.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 22, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Did it? Sudden and immediate? Can you explain how the bulge witnessed and the lean of WTC7 prior to collapse is "sudden"? Is this why all your conspiracy deities like Gage cut out the penthouse falling into the building? Is this why Gage says WTC7 COMPLETELY collapsed in about 6-7 seconds?

I can watch a video of it from start (penthouse collapse) to finish (when the remaining structure fell behind the buildings in the foreground) and it's almost DOUBLE the 6-7 seconds proclaimed by Gage. 

Care to comment?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 22, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Well since I am debunking the official conspiracy theory of which you seem to be an advocate I guess this is where it has to go.



Yeah, you're debunking it allright.

1. Incorrectly stating the the melting temperature of aluminum was 1700 degrees F.
2. Stating that the floors of the twin towers were designed to hold up everyhting above it. No after you having your ass handed to you, not you say "I was talking about the columns"...
3. Stating that the curtain wall of the WTC7 was non-load bearing when you don't even know what a curtain wall is, much less what it was in regards to WTC7.

Keep up your most excellent debunking...


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



(ID)eot's game is Whack-a-Mole. Spank him over here, he pops up over there. Do it enough he simply disappears only to return spouting the same thoroughly refuted CTBS.
It seems he and his comrades take turns getting spanked with the others currently licking their wounds and recharging their batteries while (ID)eots holds down the fort.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 22, 2013)

wihosa said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



You're right, you're not playing chess.  What you're doing would not be on the same intellectual equivalent as playing checkers; marbles maybe.

Obviously the damage would be greater the further down the structure you travel since, like a bowling pin, the collapsed towers debris collided with WTC7.  And, gravity being what it is, the closer down to the ground floor the damage is--i.e. greater damage--the more of an impact it has on the ability of the structure to stand.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 22, 2013)

wihosa said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Look at exhibit 1488.  The visible bight colored striped shirt should around the waist be your first clue as to it not being a military uniform.


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Am I wrong in thinking that they said that 5 stores of the column gave out at the same time? If that is what happened then no a single blast would not do it.



yes ollie you are wrong...

*The investigation team concluded that the columns failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.*

Other revisions to the final WTC 7 report included:

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget that you still have to defend the Achilles heal of your conspiracy theory, WTC7. No steel framed high rise has ever suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse due to fire, and the NIST still after eleven years can't explain it but maybe you can.
> ...



NIST, the building's structure was a* typical* tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on&#65279; the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by&#65279; perimeter moment frames
7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 22, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Am I wrong in thinking that they said that 5 stores of the column gave out at the same time? If that is what happened then no a single blast would not do it.
> ...



So the second that floor 13 joist or whatever gave way that was all it took for the whole building to fall? I read it as the  column buckled after about 8 floors gave out......5 - 13...


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. T*he goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7&#8217;s Column 79&#8212;the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse&#8212;*would still have led to a *complete loss of the building *if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors.* The investigation team concluded that the column&#8217;s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.*

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 22, 2013)

The lost of the column, not the loss of one connection......


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

candycorn said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > ok, charred bodies, where is the evidence that they are passengers from the plane? There were people in the pentagon. Shouldn't there have been more than one hundred such charred bodies? And where is the plane, oh that's right, it incinerated.
> ...



I do not know what happened at the pentagon but the bodies you keep showing are staff..staff at the pentagon do not wear military uniforms cornyhole


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> The lost of the column, not the loss of one connection......



Come on ollie you can read...according to the NIST theory a single blast event no louder than a shot gun would cause the complete loss of wtc 7


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

*the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column* would have *resulted in a sound level *of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile,* if unobstructed by surrounding buildings.* *This sound level is consistent with a** gunshot blast,*

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



More of your bullshit eots? Do you like cherry picking quotes to try and support your crap? Here is the WHOLE quote. The part in red is what you left out.



> *The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[6] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2).[7] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[8] The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[9] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor,* the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.



So again, show me a building that was the same design as WTC7, had unfought fires, and had partial perimeter damage, that remained standing.

I suppose you consider the twin towers and WTC7 to have been the same exact design. What a dumbass...


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Yes. The 9/11 CT Movement is populated by inveterate liars. From top to bottom it is a cesspool of mendacity. Thanks for asking.


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


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



_partial perimeter damage is irrelevant to the collapse sequence and the design of the wtc was referred to as typical and common by NIST_

Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused* an extraordinary event," *said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder.
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

ex·traor·di·nar·y  (k-strôrdn-r, kstr-ôr-)
adj.
1. Beyond what is ordinary or usual: extraordinary authority.
2. Highly exceptional; remarkable: an extraordinary achievement.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 22, 2013)

candycorn said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


it was the vending machine guy!
what these assholes fail to accept is there were and are photos and video of the investigation they /us will never see. to them it's the perfect out, they will keep demanding things that cannot be produced by non investigators ,which just feeds the cover up fantasy.
the question they can never answer is: how, if a missile did hit the pentagon how was it possible for the perpetrators to spread all the faked wreckage around, place the bodies, all within a few seconds after the supposed blast with it not being observed or questioned.?
I have some experience with what could only be called "set dressing" the scene.
at a minimum you would need a crew of at least 100 (not counting the truck drives or off loading crews )
a parking area close to but not visible to staff and visitors(unless of course the staff was in on it)
then , this is most important: be able to in a coordinated, choreographed  manner set all the "prop" plane parts in a convincing mock up set and touch up the bodies to appear as if they were in a crash.
all this in a burning ,collapsing structure without being seen or injured and leaving in several semis vans or trucks...
that sort of set up takes day not seconds.
anybody saying  anything else is talking out their ass.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 22, 2013)

eots said:


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



What a load of bullshit. Why'd you leave out the part in red?

Answer a question. Were the twin towers and WTC7 the same design? They were both "tube" designs right?

Did the twin towers have transfer trusses on floors 5 through 7 to transfer loads to the SMALLER, existing foundation? Did the twin towers have a structural diaphragm on it's lower floors to distribute the loads between the new and old caissons?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 22, 2013)

eots said:


> *NIST*, the building's structure was a* typical* tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on&#65279; the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by&#65279; perimeter moment frames
> 7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Just curious eots. Can you explain why you put "NIST" atthe start of that cherry-picked quote above? I clicked the reference notation after that sentence and it refers to a document written by John J. Salvarinas. I searched that document for the word "tube" and couldn't find it anywhere within.

What gives eots? Lying through your ass again?

I looked through NIST's publications for WTC7, NCSTAR 1A, NCSTAR 1-9, and NCSTAR 1-9A and couldn't find the word "tube in those either. 

So where did NIST say this? Here is the link to Salvarinas' document. See if you can find the statement, referenced by your link, that says "typical tube design"...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/CSEC/Salvarinas_1986.pdf


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. ... WTC 7 used a structural system design in *widespread use.* 
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)




----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION

Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the 
disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the 
collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 
11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following
Information

http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 22, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > The lost of the column, not the loss of one connection......
> ...



How does a single blast take out 5 to 8 floors of support? Where do they say that anyway?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 22, 2013)

eots said:


> *the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column* would have *resulted in a sound level *of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile,* if unobstructed by surrounding buildings.* *This sound level is consistent with a** gunshot blast,*
> 
> Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation



I would say they need to explain that better.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 22, 2013)

eots said:


> ex·traor·di·nar·y  (k-strôrdn-r, kstr-ôr-)
> adj.
> 1. Beyond what is ordinary or usual: extraordinary authority.
> 2. Highly exceptional; remarkable: an extraordinary achievement.





> *which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings,*



Can you explain the use of the word, but?

Or maybe the term "uncontrolled but" ?


----------



## daws101 (Apr 22, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ex·traor·di·nar·y  (k-strôrdn-r, kstr-ôr-)
> ...



_yes it means nothing just a word game to try and create the impression other building fires where controlled...but then later go to say_

"Separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present."

FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

do these fires look controlled to you ?

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


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column* would have *resulted in a sound level *of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile,* if unobstructed by surrounding buildings.* *This sound level is consistent with a** gunshot blast,*
> ...



oh for gods sakes ollie it pretty simple..


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 22, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1815HtMKFE]NIST Report We Proved For The First Time That A Modern Skyscraper Could Fall From Fire - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## candycorn (Apr 22, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

> Amazingly EOTS hasn't sued to court to give Zach a new trial.


__________________

_they wont even allow a freedom of information request for the bogus NIST computer model or I would_


REQUEST REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION

Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the 
disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the 
collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 
11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following
Information

http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf
__________________


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-QkftUPsBk]NIST 9/11 - Disclosure Might Jeopardize Public Safety - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 23, 2013)

eots said:


> NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. ... WTC 7 used a structural system design in *widespread use.*
> NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse



So what? It's still a different design dumbass. 

I asked you a question above and you ignored it because you know what the answer is and what it means to your argument.

According to you, WTC7, WTC1, and WTC2 were the same "tube" design. So are they exactly the same or not? You have no clue about structural design and try cherry-pick quotes to support your garbage. They may have used a general structural design principal, but the buildings were VERY different in design. That's what you're afraid to admit because it kills your beliefs. Just to show how ignorant you really are, below are just some of the differences in what you consider to be exactly the same design...

*1.* Did WTC1 and WTC1 use I beams like in WTC7 beneath their concrete flooring? *No, they used the type of trusses shown below.*



*2.* Did WTC7 have viscoelastic damper connections like WTC1 and WTC2 on each floor? *No.*


> This viscoelastic damper connected a floor truss to an exterior steel column of the World Trade Center. Building movement caused by wind was a major concern to the architects and engineers designing the 110-story towers. They cleverly mitigated apparent building movement by using these dampers to allow the exterior of the building to sway slightly under wind load, while the floor remained largely stationary.
> 
> The damper and other floor attachment brackets were also a point of failure leading to the towers' collapse. When the intense fire heated the 60 foot-long floor trusses, they eventually distorted and pulled free of their attachments to the exterior columns. As the upper floors of the towers fell, the weight then pancaked the lower floors, breaking floor truss attachments unaffected by heat. Each of these huge towers collapsed in about ten seconds.


*3.* Was WTC1 and WTC2 trapezoid in shape like WTC7? *No. The towers were 208' x 208'*
*4.* Did WTC1 and WTC2 have a pre-existing foundation structure from another building incorporated into it's design?* Nope.*
*5.* Did WTC1 and WTC2 use a lower floor to function as a structural diaphragm in order to provide lateral stability and distribute loads between the new and old caissons? *No.*
*6.* Did WTC1 and WTC2 use a "typical tube design" above a certain floor level while using column transfer trusses below it like WTC7? *No.*


> The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.


*7.* Did WTC7 use the same design for the perimeter columns? *No.*
*8.* Did WTC7 have a hat truss on the roof to help transfer loads between the core structure and perimeter columns? *No.*
*9.* Was WTC7 designed the same way as WTC1 and WTC2 to resist wind loads? *No.*
*10.* Was WTC7 1300 feet in height? *No.*

Two things for you eots. I bet you pass these right up.

Since you and wihosa want historical proof, I counter and ask you to provide me proof that  a similarly designed building to WTC7 that had unfought fires in it, remained standing in any point in history.

Do you still stand behind your claim that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, employing the same supposed "tube" design principals, despite all the differences listed above, can be considered the same exact design?

Trying to generalize a building design and claiming that all buildings using this "widespread" design principal is pathetic. This just shows just how little you know of structural engineering. You and wihosa are employing the same level of knowledge here.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 23, 2013)

next, wilwhudafuk, author of the absurd OP, will regale us with all the stories of when, in his estimation, the impossible DID happen.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2013)

Well, in a sense the OP is right. the Impossible really didn't happen on 911......It would have been impossible for anyone to keep this covered up if it had been a false flag.....


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Well, in a sense the OP is right. the Impossible really didn't happen on 911......It would have been impossible for anyone to keep this covered up if it had been a false flag.....



True.  Sadly, that is not the sense in which the author of the dopey OP meant it.

And, it is still true that, by definition, the impossible never happens.  And never has.  And never will.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 23, 2013)

eots said:


> do these fires look controlled to you ?
> 
> Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube



Was the Cultural Center building in that video a "tube design"? 

It was built to withstand major earthquakes. Was WTC7, WTC1, and WTC2 built to withstand major earthquakes?

Were 600 hundred firefighters involved in fighting the fires of WTC7 like they were at the Cultural Center you provide for comparison?

Fail again loser. It's SO easy to show your ignorance. What other bogus comparisons do you have?

Once again. Please provide a building of similar construction to WTC7 that had UNFOUGHT fires in it and remained standing.

I'll wait here...


----------



## daws101 (Apr 23, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


still trying to sell that bullshit...


----------



## daws101 (Apr 23, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 23, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > It took me three hours to answer all of you conspiracy theorists. It might be a while before I have that kind of time again, but don't think for a minute that I won't.
> ...



Like I said before Wihosa.dont waste your time on these paid shills.thats all they are here for is to waste your time.anytime they are cornered and confronted with overwhelming evidence and facts they cant refute of videos you show them,they cowardly run off and evade those facts changing the subject as evidenced on this thread.

Note not ONE of them had any answers to counter any of these facts in these first five videos me and Paulitician posted.they never do. this was the link I meant to post but forgot to the other day.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...solved-names-connections-details-exposed.html

again proof they are cowardly trolls who cant refute facts running off not even trying to address them since they know they are cornered by these 5 videos they cant counter.pathetic.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 23, 2013)

By the way,Glsack. you are a pathetic troll who has no debating skills and would be laughed out of a debating hall within a minute as we BOTH know.you didnt even BOTHER to read the TITLE of this thread here of mine here or the first post of what I posted in it or the link whatsoever.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-70-s-there-was-a-conspiracy-to-kill-jfk.html

you just saw my user name and made this cowardly,chilidish,and juvenile post below on it  as evidenced on this link when I provided proof that even the government itself admitted they were wrong that there was a second gunman involved in the JFK assassination. so you have just proven you have no credibility whatsoever on this thread here.the truth hurts,so you shoot the messenger.how pathetic.this is your pathetic,childish,and juvenile comeback you had when cornered with facts as evidenced on that link I provided of my thread.

Got a question for ya... Do you believe in every single conspiracy theory or what? Can you name one you don't believe in? 

No surprise,that the paid shill Dawgshit thanked you.He has humiliated and embarrased himself showing off to everyone what a retard he is evading evidence and facts when cornered throughout that entire thread, so its probably just as well you didnt try and counter facts like idiot Dawgshit has because you would just expose yourself as the idiot troll you are just like he has. 

All you and dawgshit do when cornered with facts you cant refute,is make juvenile posts like that one above I just quoted you on from my thread.

Dawgshit is every bit as cowardly as you are. when I provided this post below that proves oswald was innocent and there were multiple shooters,all he could cowardly do is come back and say bullshit knowing he was defeated as evidenced on his post to me immediately after I made my second post,post # 154 on this page on  this thread here in this link below.Dawgshit like you,had NO ANSWERS.HE never does.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/285978-kennedy-assassination-question-11.html
you both are a couple of cowards who cant debate.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 23, 2013)

9/11 Rimjob's latest effort to express just how "miffed" it is:



> 9/11 inside job                Today 05:47 PM - permalink
> 
> you are a fucking agent troll who will die slowly partcipating in all these government coverups for money being an idiot thinking money will buy you happinees.i just twish I could be there to see it when you suffer so I can laugh at you fucking agent troll.



The 9/11 Rimjob addition to my Visitor's message area.  Just now.  



I TWISH him well.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> 9/11 Rimjob's latest effort to express just how "miffed" it is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why would he/she/it want happy knees????????? Wait, never mind.......


----------



## daws101 (Apr 23, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> By the way,Glsack. you are a pathetic troll who has no debating skills and would be laughed out of a debating hall within a minute as we BOTH know.you didnt even BOTHER to read the TITLE of this thread here of mine here or the first post of what I posted in it or the link whatsoever.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-70-s-there-was-a-conspiracy-to-kill-jfk.html
> 
> ...


your shit has been refuted each and every time you post it.
your denial of this does not make us cowards, it does however make you one..
hey ass hole, your post proves nothing except you believe it, that's no proof of Oswald's innocence.
besides this a thread about 911 not hand job's gumbo of conspiracy .


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 25, 2013)

3 farts in a row from the agent trolls.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 29, 2013)

Wow.

Make a couple of fact filled posts refuting these idiotic claims and the truthers disappear like cockroaches when the light comes on.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 29, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Wow.
> 
> Make a couple of fact filled posts refuting these idiotic claims and the truthers disappear like cockroaches when the light comes on.



Indeed.  The striped shirt on the victim seems to have silenced the morons for the time being...time to roll onto a different topic.  Hope they bring up faked phone calls again...that is particually target rich.


----------



## eots (Apr 29, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Wow.
> 
> Make a couple of fact filled posts refuting these idiotic claims and the truthers disappear like cockroaches when the light comes on.



Fact filled post ?...seemed to have missed that one


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 29, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> By the way,Glsack. you are a pathetic troll who has no debating skills and would be laughed out of a debating hall within a minute as we BOTH know.you didnt even BOTHER to read the TITLE of this thread here of mine here or the first post of what I posted in it or the link whatsoever.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-70-s-there-was-a-conspiracy-to-kill-jfk.html
> 
> you both are a couple of cowards who cant debate.



Repeating the same old silly lies does not make them truths but does make you a lying fool, Princess. Carry on.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.
> ...





Im STILL waiting for agent Gamolon and his other fellow agent trolls to debunk these facts in these 5 videos on this thread. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...solved-names-connections-details-exposed.html


 these videos have been around now for SEVERAL years and as i said before,all the trolls do is change the subject and do this- when they are cornered by these facts in here.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 29, 2013)

Poor 911shitforbrains. He places everyone who disagrees with his fairytales on ignore then cries because he hasn't seen them dismiss his opinions which he calls facts.......


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 29, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Poor 911shitforbrains. He places everyone who disagrees with his fairytales on ignore then cries because he hasn't seen them dismiss his opinions which he calls facts.......



2 words ... plausible deniability. If he doesn't see the truth, he can wallow in his ignorance.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 30, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.
> ...


one?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 1, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.
> ...



The problem is obvious.

You have been reading the troofers' posts.  Thus, you will NEVER see any of those "fact" things.

You id-eots.


----------

