911 facts no theories

[Obamerican]

IT DIDN'T TOPPLE.

"If I had built a steel beam wall 1300 feet high and then pushed on it from the top to make it topple sideways, how far away would the top portion land from the foot of the bottom of that wall?"

I'm not asking anybody to believe a theory that it toppled. The fact is that it came straight down into its own basement. That's the exact reason that seeing the steel beams blast in all directions and then land on the roofs of other buildings 2 football fields away and the fact that all three buildings dropped at free fall speed leaves no doubt.

If you want to twist the facts, make up bullshit theories, and ignore evidence, I can't stop you. People hate to admit mistakes. There is no one on this planet who knows this entire case better than me.

I'm not dealing with thermite and chemicals. The people who claim to know chemistry don't know exactly what the explosives were made from. They are super sophisticated and impossible to buy. Only our military has access to these explosives and they ain't telling.

If George Bush gave the explosives and written directions on how to rig them to bin Laden those rag heads couldn't rig them. They can't even explode the underwear bomb.

You might want to thank me for helping you understand the treason perpetrated by the liar you people elected President.

You're a fucking idiot. You don't think that CD professionals in the private sector don't know how to do it? Ask them and see how long it takes to set it up, you fucking moron.

 

[candycorn]

i wanted to say "thank you" ollie. Thank you for your service. I imagine that, at times, when you read what some say here you really have to wonder, "this is what i fought for?"

ollie worked for a pay day and a pension

Yep, I only care about me, that's why I still serve in veterans organizations. That's why I do volunteer work at a veterans service office and a veterans clinic. Because I worked only for a payday and a pension. Yep damn you got me figured out.

Dumb ass.

Anybody who was still under the illusion that EOTS was anything but garbage should re-calibrate their opinions in light of this latest example. Fuck him.

 

[Fizz]

If column 79 was blasted the collapse would occur

where do they say this?

 

[SFC Ollie]

If column 79 was blasted the collapse would occur

where do they say this?

he'll direct us back to some 10 minute long video that we've probably seen 3 dozen times already. I don't want to ever go into a building that will come down with the possibility that one charge can bring it down.

Seriously, one beam without any other damage???????

Think for yourself Eots.....

 

[Gamolon]

Building 7 dropped in 6.5 seconds at free fall speed

That is COMPLETELY wrong.

 

[Fizz]

If column 79 was blasted the collapse would occur

where do they say this?

he'll direct us back to some 10 minute long video that we've probably seen 3 dozen times already. I don't want to ever go into a building that will come down with the possibility that one charge can bring it down.

Seriously, one beam without any other damage???????

Think for yourself Eots.....

he's just lying again. he does it all the time. he doesnt understand what he reads, apparently, and claims the NIST report says things it doesnt actually say.

its the same as his claim that the NIST says "fires alone" brought down building 7. they never said that.

 

[eots]

where do they say this?

he'll direct us back to some 10 minute long video that we've probably seen 3 dozen times already. I don't want to ever go into a building that will come down with the possibility that one charge can bring it down.

Seriously, one beam without any other damage???????

Think for yourself Eots.....

he's just lying again. he does it all the time. he doesnt understand what he reads, apparently, and claims the NIST report says things it doesnt actually say.


its the same as his claim that the NIST says "fires alone" brought down building g 7. they never said that.

fires brought down the wtc 7 according to NIST AND NIST clearly states that if colum 79 was buckled by explosives instead of fire it would have initiated the collapse..you just cant deal with it

 

[eots]

If column 79 was blasted the collapse would occur

where do they say this?

he'll direct us back to some 10 minute long video that we've probably seen 3 dozen times already. I don't want to ever go into a building that will come down with the possibility that one charge can bring it down.

Seriously, one beam without any other damage???????

Think for yourself Eots.....

according to NIST the failure of column 79 instated a progressive collapse

 

[SFC Ollie]

where do they say this?

he'll direct us back to some 10 minute long video that we've probably seen 3 dozen times already. I don't want to ever go into a building that will come down with the possibility that one charge can bring it down.

Seriously, one beam without any other damage???????

Think for yourself Eots.....

according to NIST the failure of column 79 instated a progressive collapse

Along how many floors did this column fail? And how many explosives (your word with the s on it) would it take?

fires brought down the wtc 7 according to NIST AND NIST clearly states that if colum 79 was buckled by explosives instead of fire it would have initiated the collapse..you just cant deal with it

And so you also agree that one charge would not have done the job.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE SOURCE OVER AND OVER AND YOUR QUESTION SHOWS YOUR COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE NIST PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE THEORY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paF0rBNksDM&playnext=1&list=PL7366B73F9A934166&index=3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcaxvQGdmtw&list=PL7366B73F9A934166&index=5&playnext=2

In the first video, the spokesman states that fire was the reason this particular building came down. He also states that clearly no building is created to withstand a collision by an airplane which goes against what information is available. There are numerous occasions when hirise buildings burned for even longer periods of time, without collapsing. The other side contradicts these statements, and have a reasonable argument to ask for another investigation. A new phenomena that causes building collapse has just been discovered! What a bunch of bullshit!

 

[Mr. Jones]

And so you also agree that one charge would not have done the job.

According to what was said, if this column 79 was so critical to the buildings demise, then it would have to have been the easiest building to rig! Shit, one charge on this column is all it would take. How many explosions would be heard then?

 

[Mr. Jones]

SO you've heard controlled demolitions but you think the collapses on 9-11 were similar?

I would check in with an audiologist if I were you.

You surly have heard a shotgun blast.. that's how loud the NIST spokesman said it would be? There were explosions, and there are witnesses that heard them! The explosion wouldn't have to be as loud as NIST claims in the video, if thermate was used. Again, the other side have valid reasons for questioning, and calling them out on this BS. These people aren't kooks, they have valid points, and make good arguments against the official version. NIST has to say a never before phenomena occurred to explain it away. Bullshit.

 

[SFC Ollie]

One more time, this is what a controlled demolition looks like and sounds like.

Notice there is a series of explosions before the building starts to move, it begins to fall with the second series of explosions.

Your mention of thermite we will simply have to hide a smile and pretend you didn't mention it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ[/ame]

 

[candycorn]

SO you've heard controlled demolitions but you think the collapses on 9-11 were similar?

I would check in with an audiologist if I were you.

You surly have heard a shotgun blast.. that's how loud the NIST spokesman said it would be? There were explosions, and there are witnesses that heard them! The explosion wouldn't have to be as loud as NIST claims in the video, if thermate was used. Again, the other side have valid reasons for questioning, and calling them out on this BS. These people aren't kooks, they have valid points, and make good arguments against the official version. NIST has to say a never before phenomena occurred to explain it away. Bullshit.

I guess ignorance is not bliss. You sound really pissed.

How about a narrative in your own words describing what happened that day from your stand point?

I'll wager you're too scared to write one.

Man up for a change.

 

[Fizz]

fires brought down the wtc 7 according to NIST AND NIST clearly states that if colum 79 was buckled by explosives instead of fire it would have initiated the collapse..you just cant deal with it

you claimed the NIST said "fires alone" brought down WTC7. The NIST never said that. you lied. it was your own stupid fucking interpretation of the NIST report and you were WRONG.

now you claim the NIST said explosives could take out column 79 (not colum, you illiterate dickhead) and cause the collapse. The NIST never said that. You lied. once again, it's your own stupid fucking interpretation of the NIST and you are simply WRONG!!

deal with it!!

 

[Wayne1954]

Here is a new video that shows that even ordinaty thermite can cut steel like that which was used in the WTC. This was an engineer who shows how he developed a thermite box-cutter at home to cut steel.

The National Geographic (and others) failed use of thermite to do any damage to steel (and this engineer's initial attempts) show that a poor design won't cut steel. But that with a little enineering, it can.

I am not be able to post URLs yet, so just change the [dot] to a "." to watch it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g[/ame]

I you want to reply to this post, please watch the video first.

 

[Wayne1954]

Mr CandyCorn:

In response to your comments in your post #260, you said:

Comment #1: "Kinetic energy is being overlooked. Especially the energies created by a mass of 30 some floors falling down."
Answer: Remember that at time=0, (before the top 30 floors of the buiding began its descent) there was no kinetic energy ... it wasn't moving. Then suddenly it all came down all at once as if all the supporting structure below it didn't exist.

Comment #2: "Its a movie. No kidding."
Answer: Good ... so we agree that the perimiter column sections did not "pole vault" 600 feet away.

Comment #3: "Your assumptions are asinine."
Answer: So you understand what I said, and simply disagree with the physics and observations. But can you articulate what is wrong? Rember, the assumption was: 'Now we need to make an assumption. We need to assume that the top 30-floor section is disconnected from the structure below' [for it to begin falling through the remaining structue]. If it wasn't disconnected from the structure below, it would still be supported ... and the only thing it could do would be to topple. But it didn't. For a simple expmeriment, take a coffee cup and place it on the floor. Take a waste-paper basket (or something similar) and balance it on top of the coffee cup. Nice and stable ... and fully supported. As long as the waste-paper basket remains supported, it can only tip over. Parts of the building could have fallen away, but the fully supported columns would have remained ... well ... fully supported all the way down to bedrock through undamaged, intact, columns.

Comment #4: "In other words, no."
Answer: "The physics described above should be enough of an answer." is still a good answer. Do you have any specific comments about the physics?

Comment #5: "Tell us your story about how they wired 220 floors for controlled demolition without anybody noticing."
Answer: I don't know who, what, why and how. All I know is that the official story is WRONG and we need a new, comprehensive and truthful investigation. The current engineering report by NIST is Fradulent. I do know that a new management team took over two months beore 9/11 and they had the ability to change security protocols and grant 'badges' to whomever. Turned $125 million int 5.6 Billion through insurance policies. Can't say they did it, but they should be asked some hard questions in a rigorous legal format.

See the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" web-site

 

[SFC Ollie]

A video to answer a video. Maybe you can understand it that way.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[Mr. Jones]

One more time, this is what a controlled demolition looks like and sounds like.

Notice there is a series of explosions before the building starts to move, it begins to fall with the second series of explosions.

Your mention of thermite we will simply have to hide a smile and pretend you didn't mention it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Hey I'm not a scholar, architect, nor an engineer, and I'm assuming neither are you, so we have to put our faith in people that have the knowledge and skill to look at this situation objectively. There are 2 sides that are competing for your approval of their presentation of the facts. One is the government, who has not presented a viable story IMO, according to the science presented and has often lied to its citizens, in many peoples opinions. The other side are people who are not government appointed, non biased, and are under no pressure to produce or manufacture evidence, at the govs. behest, and come from all over the fields of science and technology, aviation, military etc.. And they present a compelling counter point, that the NIST, and the gov. have not even considered on many points. Countless people are saying the collapse looked looked a CD, the collapse exhibited all the trademarks of a CD, but one that was brought down by an unconventional agent, thermite. NIST doesn't mention the pools of molten metal in the sub structures of the buildings that lingered for months afterward! WTF? NIST didn't talk to eyewitnesses, and left a lot of things out of the investigation. That doesn't sound like a thorough investigation to a lot of people, myself included.

 

[SFC Ollie]

One more time, this is what a controlled demolition looks like and sounds like.

Notice there is a series of explosions before the building starts to move, it begins to fall with the second series of explosions.

Your mention of thermite we will simply have to hide a smile and pretend you didn't mention it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Hey I'm not a scholar, architect, nor an engineer, and I'm assuming neither are you, so we have to put our faith in people that have the knowledge and skill to look at this situation objectively. There are 2 sides that are competing for your approval of their presentation of the facts. One is the government, who has not presented a viable story IMO, according to the science presented and has often lied to its citizens, in many peoples opinions. The other side are people who are not government appointed, non biased, and are under no pressure to produce or manufacture evidence, at the govs. behest, and come from all over the fields of science and technology, aviation, military etc.. And they present a compelling counter point, that the NIST, and the gov. have not even considered on many points. Countless people are saying the collapse looked looked a CD, the collapse exhibited all the trademarks of a CD, but one that was brought down by an unconventional agent, thermite. NIST doesn't mention the pools of molten metal in the sub structures of the buildings that lingered for months afterward! WTF? NIST didn't talk to eyewitnesses, and left a lot of things out of the investigation. That doesn't sound like a thorough investigation to a lot of people, myself included.

Notice there is a series of explosions before the building starts to move, it begins to fall with the second series of explosions.


NIST left out what?

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, NIST and the World Trade Center. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

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