I am not into the truther movement but I have a question

[Obamerican]

What??? WTC 1 and 2 fell in almost the exact same way.

hardly.the towers were from the top down dumb ass...and the fact still remains any building other than wtc 1-2 or 7 have never fallen in the manner either did from fire or structural damage

Yeah, I win, you are calling me names. All three buildings fell from where they were damaged. In the case of the WTC 7 it was from the bottom and the 5 floor where the fire raged. In the WTC 1 and 2 it was from where the planes hit, and the fires raged. All the same. What other buildings have been hit as were those two? How about the damage to the the WTC buildings? Was that controlled demolition? Do you listen to yourself?

Again, insult, a typical conspiracy theory tactic, when they are losing, which is always.

Eots listens to Alex Jones. Both are fucking idiots.

 

[Indofred]

Given building 7 did a swan dive when no others did, did anyone sue the shitty builders?

America, a compensation state, would have had lawyers crawling all over the builder's arses (in a non gay way).

 

[Freewill]

Given building 7 did a swan dive when no others did, did anyone sue the shitty builders?

America, a compensation state, would have had lawyers crawling all over the builder's arses (in a non gay way).

I agree, it seems to me that all three must have had some structural issues. The other WTC building were built differently and were smaller that is probably why they didn't fall. Plus there were no fires in any other building, as I have read.

 

[Freewill]

Agreed.


9/11 is the justification for all this accelerated police state crap we see now.

If you do not support all the police state crap then the puppetmasters say you are making us all vulnerable to a terrorist attack that could happen at anytime, anywhere, by anybody.

Yes, you're an "America-Hater" if you question Big Brother. It's a genius tactic though. It works. The indoctrination process begins early on for American Children. This video helps understand why we have a Nation of so many loyal Goose Steppers...

WTF? I listened to the video, which is well done, for about 2 minutes. I went to grammar and high school in the 50s and 60s and I don't believe what the video is trying to say is really all that true. Yes, we said the pledge of allegiance everyday, and yes we heard a prayer every day, up to HS. Neither of which prepared me to charge into cannon fire. What the video starts out as saying about Hitler and Germany he overlays with scenes from American schools.

This is nothing more then anti-American BS, creative but BS none the less.

 

[eots]

Given building 7 did a swan dive when no others did, did anyone sue the shitty builders?

America, a compensation state, would have had lawyers crawling all over the builder's arses (in a non gay way).

I agree, it seems to me that all three must have had some structural issues. The other WTC building were built differently and were smaller that is probably why they didn't fall. Plus there were no fires in any other building, as I have read.

there were fires raging in other wtc buildings that did not fall..you do not even know the details of the NIST report and have never read it

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ]Re: WTC Tower 7: Examining Conspiricist Claims - YouTube[/ame]

 

[paulitician]

Agreed.


9/11 is the justification for all this accelerated police state crap we see now.

If you do not support all the police state crap then the puppetmasters say you are making us all vulnerable to a terrorist attack that could happen at anytime, anywhere, by anybody.

Yes, you're an "America-Hater" if you question Big Brother. It's a genius tactic though. It works. The indoctrination process begins early on for American Children. This video helps understand why we have a Nation of so many loyal Goose Steppers...

WTF? I listened to the video, which is well done, for about 2 minutes. I went to grammar and high school in the 50s and 60s and I don't believe what the video is trying to say is really all that true. Yes, we said the pledge of allegiance everyday, and yes we heard a prayer every day, up to HS. Neither of which prepared me to charge into cannon fire. What the video starts out as saying about Hitler and Germany he overlays with scenes from American schools.

This is nothing more then anti-American BS, creative but BS none the less.

Watch the whole video. I'm sure you will see the eerie similarities. And read up a bit on Horace Mann.

 

[eots]

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

 

[Mr. Jones]

Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight: The 9/11 "Official Story" and the Collapse of WTC Building Seven

I viewed the video of the man trying to say their time was off. It is not surprising that anyone when confronted with questions they were not prepared to answer or do not really understand would answer them badly. Sure looking back a the video it is easy to say what these guys should have said.

David Chandler a high school physics teacher challenged the multimillion dollar agency NIST on the actual collapse of WTC 7, and concluded it indeed fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds, forcing NIST to change their report and admit to this but without explaining how this could be, even after NIST and Sham Syunder initially and correctly stated that there was no way the massive 47 story hirise could fall at free fall because the robust part of the structure would no doubt provide enough resistance to make free fall an impossibility.
Try to use your own logic about this taking into consideration that in order for the collapse to undergo free fall, all the major load bearing components would have to let go and be freed of their ability to resist the falling mass, simultaneously.
First of all the fires at these points would have to be the same temperatures, with the same intensity at the same time in order for this to happen, and no building in history has ever undergone such a thing and collapsed with such uniformity due to office fire combustibles...never. Even the NIST computer simulation does not show the way the actual collapse occurred. Combine this with the fact they were wrong about the fuel loads, the free fall, and their keeping others from duplicating their outcome by withholding the comp sim data for replication, proves that their report and outcome of the investigation is nothing more then a cover up to try to fit the demise of WTC 7 to a fire only probability.
They have admitted that neither the towers collapses nor the diesel fuel tanks were a contributing factor.

Anyway, here is an easy experiment for you to do. I viewed the video of the WTC 7 starting to fall. I see it start at the 32 second mark, but could have been sooner, and when it drops to just about where it can't be seen was about 37 seconds. This seems to be in line with what the NIST stated.

So to say either the NIST or the man commenting on the video is wrong is near impossible because it is subject to interpretation.

So let's do this. I got 5 seconds for the building to fall 18 stories, I didn't count them I just went by the video statement and when the building almost went out of sight. So that means in 5 seconds the building fell 180 to 270 feet. I again don't know the actual height of the stories so am guess 10 to 15 feet.

So using this calculator: Free Fall Calculator

For a free fall of 150 feet the time in seconds is 3.08, for 270 feet it would be 4.11 seconds well within anything that the NIST said. Not quite 40 percent different but not a few percent either. 39 percent for 150 feet and 18 percent for 270 feet.

So as you can see there are many factors that go into the calculation that the physics teacher may or may not have known. Certainly he would have access to a calculator it is just a matter if he had the right data to calculate.

NIST was charged with the calculations that Chandler and others prove to be inaccurate at best and totally misleading at worst. They initially said correctly the huge building was supposed to provide resistance and free fall could never occur...so why did they change their report? Because they were wrong, and these types of mistakes, given all the other instances of fudging data to achieve a preconceived conclusion,look like more then just errors and more like intentional fraud.

Which brings us full circle and the conclusion I come up with is that this teacher is grading the NIST not necessarily proving anything. Whether or not the building free fell, which I don't see that it did, is not an indication of whether after 7 hours of burning they finally decided to implode the building.

So now you even are going against the NIST report itself. Hell they admitted to the free fall when backed up by honest calculations and data why can't you?
Furthermore you are not giving serious consideration to the fact that free fall can only occur when the massive resistance, that NIST correctly stated no doubt would have precluded free fall from happening in the first place, and the building's support structure is supposed to have provided, vanished for the first 100 or so stories, allowing it to go from stable to free fall in an instant. You also can't grasp the fact that steel will not turn into spaghetti noodles, especially when office combustibles do not reach anywhere close to the temps required to achieve this, with such uniformity. Think all support columns, beams at the same time giving way in sporadic fires with too low of temps.
I have worked with steel and torches and done fabrication and there is no way this could have happened producing the results we see on the videos. At best if a few of the support components did magically achieve this far fetched scenario, the building would have leaned to that part of its weakest point and came down in a staggered fall, and not in such a uniform manner and straight roof line.
Steel dissipates heat causing the heat to move to the cooler parts of the building or steel, this means that the temps required to remove the resistance had to have been elevated to the point of causing this weakening/melting, had to be constant because of steels ability to dissipate the heat, and had to be both at the same time to collapse in such simultaneous uniformity.

Even if the detonators were RF remote controlled that too could have been damage by fire and the initial blast from WTC 1 and 2 falling. Also with all the radio interference from emergency crews the demolition crew would be taking a big chance using RF.

You are trying to bypass the facts that are mentioned and dismiss them simply because we don't know the equipment or technology used? Does that take away and give reason to throwing basic facts of physics that have been part of science for years and history of hirise building? I don't think so, and if you do you are lazy and in denial of the hard facts, and the evidence to seriously question the NIST fire only BS report.
Fact is massive hirise's, in particular a fortified one like WTC 7 do not come down looking like a CD due to sporadic office fires, while producing astronomical temps in the rubble pile for 3 months.

Now, rationally ask yourself the very simple question that I posed in my first post. You do not need to rely on someone else's math. You don't need to rely on reports from unnamed reporters.

The problem here is we relied on a trusted gov. agency to explain how these anomalies happened and they lied. I suggest you re analyze your own version of rational, and remove the denial and replace it with objectivity. Hell, NIST relied on someone else's math and data, to the point they were wrong in their initial estimates and report, the troubling part is that they still can not explain things without resorting to miracles having occurred, and that isn't science.

All you need do is engage your logic. Why would the news reporters get information that the WTC 7 collapsed before it actually collapsed?

I already stated my opinion on this, and again it may have come from the fact that the reporter who was on scene and heard Silverstein was on the phone with the insurance company and word got out it was "coming down" they fucked up their timing. Now, try to use your own logic and think about how such a massive structure is to be rigged for CD in such short order?? It isn't possible therefore it had to be pre-rigged months or weeks in advance. Why? Perhaps to ready it for the 9-11 shock and awe show that was needed as a new "Pearl Harbor type of catastrophic event" to galvanize support to go and kill the bad guys. Insurance fraud with friendly judges were a side benfit for lucky Larry.

BTW, you posted this: "Evidence that contradicts NIST and the official story line is available, and contrary to what some on the USMB say, has not been explained or countered in any rational and scientific way. I find it laughable that when I ask these people to post any rational counter rebuttals they answer by saying that it has already been debunked, without ever linking to anything that advances their position and backs up their claim that the 9-11 attacks and the science of the massive building complex has already been explained adequately."

I did provide a link that completely demolished the theories you presented.

Here is another: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Pentagon - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics

Popmechanics does not explain away shit and that rag and their article have been destroyed for the BS that it is. This is old news, look up rebuttals to their BS. In the age of the internet it should be no problem.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Given building 7 did a swan dive when no others did, did anyone sue the shitty builders?

America, a compensation state, would have had lawyers crawling all over the builder's arses (in a non gay way).

I agree, it seems to me that all three must have had some structural issues. The other WTC building were built differently and were smaller that is probably why they didn't fall. Plus there were no fires in any other building, as I have read.

there were fires raging in other wtc buildings that did not fall..you do not even know the details of the NIST report and have never read it

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ]Re: WTC Tower 7: Examining Conspiricist Claims - YouTube[/ame]

Anyone who still points to Popular Mechanics as the answer to this topic is seriously way behind the curve. WTC 7 was a heavily fortified building too, makes me laugh that even with NIST admitting the towers nor the fuel tanks inside WTC 7 were contributing factors in the collapse of 7, these people still can't grasp the ridiculous fire only report, and try to resort to saying what a shitty design the building was. They also don't grasp the facts about steel, heat, and its ability to dissipate both, or the fact that NIST has been caught BSting in many instances.
WTC 7 was brought down by hi tech CD with the owner asking permission to due so and it still doesn't resonate with these idiots...

 

[paulitician]

To believe our Government told us the truth about 9/11, would be believing in the Mother of all Conspiracy Theories. It would be absolutely crazy. That's one Conspiracy Theory i'll never subscribe to.

 

[Indofred]

Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube

That video is pointless.

None of those building were hit by an aircraft where there was a massive fireball, hot enough to change the melting point of steel but not hot enough to burn a paper passport.
The conditions just aren't the same.

 

[eots]

Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube

That video is pointless.

None of those building were hit by an aircraft where there was a massive fireball, hot enough to change the melting point of steel but not hot enough to burn a paper passport.
The conditions just aren't the same.

1..building 7 was not hit by an aircraft

2.a short lived fireball can not greatly effect the strength of steel that requires and is credited to sustained fires

 

[Freewill]

Given building 7 did a swan dive when no others did, did anyone sue the shitty builders?

America, a compensation state, would have had lawyers crawling all over the builder's arses (in a non gay way).

I agree, it seems to me that all three must have had some structural issues. The other WTC building were built differently and were smaller that is probably why they didn't fall. Plus there were no fires in any other building, as I have read.

there were fires raging in other wtc buildings that did not fall..you do not even know the details of the NIST report and have never read it

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ]Re: WTC Tower 7: Examining Conspiricist Claims - YouTube[/ame]

Yeah, why didn't they pull WTC 5?

According to this site WTC 5 did partially collaspe. (tried to find an independent source)

http://www.haifire.com/Resources/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

 

[Freewill]

Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube

That video is pointless.

None of those building were hit by an aircraft where there was a massive fireball, hot enough to change the melting point of steel but not hot enough to burn a paper passport.
The conditions just aren't the same.

1..building 7 was not hit by an aircraft

2.a short lived fireball can not greatly effect the strength of steel that requires and is credited to sustained fires

WTC 7 burned for 7 hours, the chances are it was fed by pressurized diesel fuel that was there to supply generators. It is in the video.

Here is a video of another buidling falling due to fire: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9TOFP7ViY]building collapses due to fire - YouTube[/ame]

Here is an article that you may or may not find interesting: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

 

[Indofred]

I rather like this one.
Seems so many of the dead terrorists are still walking around.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue-MLMnlTzY&feature=related]What Happened to the Planes and Passengers on 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Indofred]

911 WHAT REALLY HAPPENED! See with your own eyes - YouTube

 

[eots]

I agree, it seems to me that all three must have had some structural issues. The other WTC building were built differently and were smaller that is probably why they didn't fall. Plus there were no fires in any other building, as I have read.

there were fires raging in other wtc buildings that did not fall..you do not even know the details of the NIST report and have never read it

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ]Re: WTC Tower 7: Examining Conspiricist Claims - YouTube[/ame]

Yeah, why didn't they pull WTC 5?

According to this site WTC 5 did partially collaspe. (tried to find an independent source)

http://www.haifire.com/Resources/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

nonsense..partial collapse..bits of floor sagged...there in zero comparison to a complete progressive collapse in secs..

 

[eots]

That video is pointless.

None of those building were hit by an aircraft where there was a massive fireball, hot enough to change the melting point of steel but not hot enough to burn a paper passport.
The conditions just aren't the same.

1..building 7 was not hit by an aircraft

2.a short lived fireball can not greatly effect the strength of steel that requires and is credited to sustained fires

WTC 7 burned for 7 hours, the chances are it was fed by pressurized diesel fuel that was there to supply generators. It is in the video.

Here is a video of another buidling falling due to fire: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9TOFP7ViY]building collapses due to fire - YouTube[/ame]

Here is an article that you may or may not find interesting: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

You a joke...the building does not collapse a portion does and the steel frame is clearly still standing after the facade collapses...you constantly contrdict the NIST REPORT...which states desial fuel was not a factor in the collapse and that building 7 was the first steel framed building in history to suffer a complete collapse due to fire ...the more you post the clearer it becomes you have never read and have no understanding of the NIST report
and therefore have no credibility in your opinion of the validity of the report

 

[Mr. Jones]

WTC 7 burned for 7 hours, the chances are it was fed by pressurized diesel fuel that was there to supply generators. It is in the video.

The extreme difficulty of explaining the collapse of building 7, assuming that it is not permissible to mention controlled demolition---has been recognized by the official bodies. The report prepared under FEMA’s supervision came up with a scenario employing the diesel fuel, then admitted that this scenario had “only a low probability of occurrence.” Even that statement is generous, because the probability that some version of the official story of building 7 is true is the same as it is for the towers, essentially zero, because it would violate several laws of physics. In any case, the 9/11 Commission, perhaps because of this admission by FEMA, avoided the problem by simply not even mentioning the fact that this building collapsed.

Some defenders of the official story have claimed, to be sure, that the diesel fuel stored in this building somehow caught fire and created a towering inferno. But if building 7 had become engulfed in flames, why did none of the many photographers and TV camera crews on the scene capture this sight?

And it certainly would not explain the particular nature of the collapse---that the building imploded and fell straight down rather than falling over in some direction, as purportedly expected by those who gave the order to create a large collapse zone. Battalion Chief John Norman, for example, said: “We expected it to fall to the south” (Norman 2002). Nor would the damage-plus-fire theory explain this building’s collapse at virtually free-fall speed or the creation of an enormous amount of dust—additional features of the collapses that are typically ignored by defenders of the official account.

It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding buildings. And they could not have orchestrated a cover-up, from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to the NIST Report. All of these things could have been orchestrated only by forces within our own government.

The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of ‘X-Files’ proportions and insidiousness.

The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration’s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account of 911 Cannot Be True

 

[daws101]

That video is pointless.

None of those building were hit by an aircraft where there was a massive fireball, hot enough to change the melting point of steel but not hot enough to burn a paper passport.
The conditions just aren't the same.

1..building 7 was not hit by an aircraft

2.a short lived fireball can not greatly effect the strength of steel that requires and is credited to sustained fires

WTC 7 burned for 7 hours, the chances are it was fed by pressurized diesel fuel that was there to supply generators. It is in the video.

Here is a video of another buidling falling due to fire: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9TOFP7ViY]building collapses due to fire - YouTube[/ame]

Here is an article that you may or may not find interesting: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

hey freewill if you hadn't noticed by now, eots ,sister Jones et al have a major problem, all of what they claim to be evidence has been debunked.
it is based on the false premise that the government was "in on it!"
in the nearly 11 years since 911 not one of there many claims have turned out to be true.
even the so called leaders of the twoofer movement have stopped backing those claims.
all you are left with is the dregs.