Eots why did wtc 7 collapse

[eots]

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

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

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

 

[eots]

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

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

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

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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

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

 

[eots]

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

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

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

That is far to vague to describe the evidence

.

yes it is but it is all NIST offers

The ruins are a record ,as are the unbroken windows before the collapse

.

talk and vague statement .. water-is wet..fire is hot...so ?

First responder testimony ?
I couldn't care less.

then you would make a terrible investigator

 

[KissMy]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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

Yeah people miss the gorilla .
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY]YouTube - The Monkey Business Illusion[/ame]
So we will just put aside the "first responder testimony"



Please describe what the NIST report reveals about the "hypothetical blast theory"
And explain exactly what is missing in the
NIST fire study.

alternative explosive

Spiders from mars?

Please be specific.

Im going to need you to have some contact with reality here.
The windows didnt break .There was no explosion.

 

[eots]

yeah people miss the gorilla

So we will just put aside the "first responder testimony"

perhaps you will but put it aside no professional investigator would so dont include me in your we

.

alternative explosive

Spiders from mars?

testing for them is in the fire investigation procedure manuals and is often done ...a reality

Im going to need you to have some contact with reality here.
The windows didnt break .There was no explosion.

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

 

[eots]

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

 

[eots]

yeah people miss the gorilla

So we will just put aside the "first responder testimony"

perhaps you will but put it aside no professional investigator would so dont include me in your we

Please describe what the NIST report reveals about the "hypothetical blast theory"
And explain exactly what is missing in the
NIST fire study.

alternative explosive

Spiders from mars?

testing for them is in the fire investigation procedure manuals and is often done ...a reality

Im going to need you to have some contact with reality here.
The windows didnt break .There was no explosion.

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


Nano-thermite, also called "super-thermite",[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles. This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and much faster.
Nano-thermite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eots]

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

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



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

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

 

[eots]

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

all of which you claim to posses or understand?




next

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

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

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

good luck with that.

 

[fyrenza]

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

Fashion would be helpful .
Thanks.

OOps

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

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

I don't KNOW who DID it,

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

I don't get that.

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

WTF happened, there?

DID we give up some of our freedoms, WILLINGLY?

Yes, we did.

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

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

WITHOUT THEN being lied to and played.

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

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

even if most of us are that young.

 

[fyrenza]

And, no ~

I didn't read all the replies.

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

AND carry it off?

Good grief! Are we THAT fucking LAME???

Are our national defenses THAT ... lame?

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

we aren't, and we weren't.

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

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

and NO ONE NOTICED.

Yeah.

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

I'm going to NEED it.

 

[eots]

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

that is the question i would like to put to you.

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

good luck with that.

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

 

[Fizz]

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

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

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

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

 

[daveman]

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

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

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

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

 

[eots]

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

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

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7z_i1caz4&feature=channel]youtube - wtc 7's structural integrity and its footprint[/ame]

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

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