National Geographic on 9/11

[Gamolon]

There are witnesses who heard explosions akin to how explosives are used on buildings. Why is it you only cite the witnesses that support your view?

Wait. So every time I hear someone say that a tornado sounded like a freight train barreling through their property, I'm going to assume it was an actual freight train?

Or the next time someone says that there tire blew out and it sounded like a gunshot, I'm going to assume someone was shooting at them? Look back and read your post again. What does it say?

..."heard explosion AKIN to explosives"...

How does one describe sounds on many occasions? By using something they are familiar with?

You must be right. Those idiot cops and firefighters have no idea what explosions look or sound like.

Why did this person use the term "akin" rather than saying it was explosives that caused the explosion sound?

 

[eots]

Look.

You claim that they made an immediate conclusion by seeing the body only.

What you failed to point out is that there were tons of people who saw the planes hit the towers, the ensuing fires, the tilt of the tops of the towers, the bowing perimeter columns, etc.

You you STILL go on to claim that they had drawn their conclusion on the "body".

My point is, if you have a body, and five witnesses say they saw someone shout the person in the head with a gun, what the fuck do you think the immediate conclusion would be? Death by stabbing?

What the hell is the matter with you?

First of all, not all gunshots to the head cause death.

The point of the comparison is that 5 people witnessed the person get shot in the head. The conclusion at that point is that the cause of death was a gunshot to the head so they wouldn't look for a knife.

Are you that fucking stupid?

Secondly, your analogy simply sucks because you're trying to equate a bullet to the head as the same as a plane hitting a building.

No, you're wrong. I'm trying to equate that you saying they based their conclusion on seeing a body only and totally leaving out the fact that there were EYEWITNESSES to the planes hitting the towers AND ENSUING fires is complete idiocy. You're trying to say that they had only a body and no other evidence to make an assumption that the planes and fires caused the collapse even though people SAW the planes hit the towers and ENSUING FIRES.

shots to head are normaly fatal ..but no buildings in history ever collapsed due to fire...so you would have to compare it to a wound that is in all other cases was not fatal

 

[Gamolon]

First of all, not all gunshots to the head cause death.

The point of the comparison is that 5 people witnessed the person get shot in the head. The conclusion at that point is that the cause of death was a gunshot to the head so they wouldn't look for a knife.

Are you that fucking stupid?

Secondly, your analogy simply sucks because you're trying to equate a bullet to the head as the same as a plane hitting a building.

No, you're wrong. I'm trying to equate that you saying they based their conclusion on seeing a body only and totally leaving out the fact that there were EYEWITNESSES to the planes hitting the towers AND ENSUING fires is complete idiocy. You're trying to say that they had only a body and no other evidence to make an assumption that the planes and fires caused the collapse even though people SAW the planes hit the towers and ENSUING FIRES.

shots to head are normaly fatal ..but no buildings in history ever collapsed due to fire...so you would have to compare it to a wound that is in all other cases was not fatal

Since you want to compare apples to apples it seems, please show me a building that was of the same steel, tube in tube construction as one of the Twin Towers, and was hit by a jet.

Show me that building and that it survived.

 

[eots]

wtc 7 was hit buy no plane and fuel fires and structural damage are not considered as a factors in the collapse other than initiating the fire...

 

[Tom Clancy]

Hmm..

I think this thread should end here.. Even with all the proof we put out you guys are still stubborn and idiotic enough to believe the Truther bullshit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA]YouTube - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_c1tPMiG0&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center "Plane Missiles" Explained[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo&feature=channel]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: WTC Accounts of Bombs & Explosions Explained[/ame]

 

[eots]

Hmm..

I think this thread should end here.. Even with all the proof we put out you guys are still stubborn and idiotic enough to believe the Truth bullshit.

YouTube - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked

YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center "Plane Missiles" Explained

YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained

YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: WTC Accounts of Bombs & Explosions Explained

STFU..moron..the information in these videos is in direct contradiction with the NIST report...lol..you dint even know the official lie you support..lol..
typical of your ilk

 

[Tom Clancy]

Hmm..

I think this thread should end here.. Even with all the proof we put out you guys are still stubborn and idiotic enough to believe the Truth bullshit.

YouTube - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked

YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center "Plane Missiles" Explained

YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained

YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: WTC Accounts of Bombs & Explosions Explained

STFU..moron..the information in these videos is in direct contradiction with the NIST report...lol..you dint even know the official lie you support..lol..
typical of your ilk

This Proves exactly how the Towers Fell.. Which goes against Everything you truthers say.

Eots, let's not dumb ourselves down by calling each other names, alright?

 

[Gamolon]

wtc 7 was hit buy no plane and fuel fires and structural damage are not considered as a factors in the collapse other than initiating the fire...

So you're telling me it's 100% impossible for a steel structure to EVER collapse due to fire alone?

 

[Gamolon]

wtc 7 was hit buy no plane and fuel fires and structural damage are not considered as a factors in the collapse other than initiating the fire...

Tell you what eots.

Tell me one part of the NIST report explaining why WTC7 collapsed that you think NIST got wrong and why it's wrong. Think you can do that?

Let's debate it.

 

[eots]

no other steel frame building ever has ..with fires far more intense than wtc 7

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

 

[slackjawed]

Truthers are nutters who cannot grasp the tbasics of reason so they resort to name-calling and insults to prove a non-existent point that only they believe.

Everyone else is just too stupid to understand, except for the nutters, er I mean twoofer, er truthers.

 

[DiveCon]

so you can not answer what role if any NIST claims that fuel fires or falling debris played in the collapse of wtc 7 or the computer simulation...is that correct ?...or do you conceed that the only role damage to wtc 7 from falling debris is credited for is the intiation of the fire..

It's funny as hell how that useless penis germ obsessively accuses people of lying every single time they point to facts he does not like. He regularly rewrites the CR and anything else about 9E to try and hide his own ignorance.

and the putz projects his own faults again

 

[eots]

wtc 7 was hit buy no plane and fuel fires and structural damage are not considered as a factors in the collapse other than initiating the fire...

Tell you what eots.

Tell me one part of the NIST report explaining why WTC7 collapsed that you think NIST got wrong and why it's wrong. Think you can do that?

Let's debate it.

the temperatures used in the computer simulation are not corroborated with any forensic evidence and are in excess of normal building fires ..the computer model was never corroborated or validated..no replica test on actual floor models were done...eyewittness testimony that did not fit the scenario was excluded from investigation no other hypothetical scenarios were investigated..there was no official peer review

 

[Gamolon]

no other steel frame building ever has ..with fires far more intense than wtc 7

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

Ok. Answer the two questions below. BTW, the Madrid building was not steel only so your comparison for that one is void. It had a reinforced concrete core.
Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire

1. Are you saying that it is 100% impossible for a steel structure building to EVER collapse from an uncontrolled fire?

2. Can you show me any part of the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7 that they got wrong and why?

 

[DiveCon]

Wait. So every time I hear someone say that a tornado sounded like a freight train barreling through their property, I'm going to assume it was an actual freight train?

Or the next time someone says that there tire blew out and it sounded like a gunshot, I'm going to assume someone was shooting at them? Look back and read your post again. What does it say?

..."heard explosion AKIN to explosives"...

How does one describe sounds on many occasions? By using something they are familiar with?

You must be right. Those idiot cops and firefighters have no idea what explosions look or sound like.

Are you saying the only way to generate something that SOUNDED like an explosion or bomb is with explosives? I suggest you read a little bit.

Newbiggin cliff collapse 'sounded like an explosion' says witness - Northumberland communities - Ashington
City's logic stumps driver - Los Angeles Times

troofer morons have a problem with the english language, they dont understand similes

 

[Gamolon]

wtc 7 was hit buy no plane and fuel fires and structural damage are not considered as a factors in the collapse other than initiating the fire...

Tell you what eots.

Tell me one part of the NIST report explaining why WTC7 collapsed that you think NIST got wrong and why it's wrong. Think you can do that?

Let's debate it.

the temperatures used in the computer simulation are not corroborated with any forensic evidence and are in excess of normal building fires ..the computer model was never corroborated or validated..no replica test on actual floor models were done...eyewittness testimony that did not fit the scenario was excluded from investigation no other hypothetical scenarios were investigated..there was no official peer review

Ok, so discussing the temperatures used in the computer simulation, can you point me to the document and section of NIST's report that you read about this so we are on the same page?

 

[eots]

no other steel frame building ever has ..with fires far more intense than wtc 7

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

Ok. Answer the two questions below. BTW, the Madrid building was not steel only so your comparison for that one is void. It had a reinforced concrete core.
Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire

1. Are you saying that it is 100% impossible for a steel structure building to EVER collapse from an uncontrolled fire?

2. Can you show me any part of the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7 that they got wrong and why?

there are many other examples other than madrid in that video


(NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

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,”

 

[Gamolon]

no other steel frame building ever has ..with fires far more intense than wtc 7

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

Ok. Answer the two questions below. BTW, the Madrid building was not steel only so your comparison for that one is void. It had a reinforced concrete core.
Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire

1. Are you saying that it is 100% impossible for a steel structure building to EVER collapse from an uncontrolled fire?

2. Can you show me any part of the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7 that they got wrong and why?

there are many other examples other than madrid in that video


(NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

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,”

You still didn't answer my question.

Is it your opinion that it is 100% impossible for a structure, composed of steel beams and columns, to EVER collapse due to an uncontrolled fire?

Yes or no?

 

[Gamolon]

eots,

You mentioned the temperatures used in the computer simulation of the NIST report for WTC7 were too high for a normal office fire and never forensically proven.

Can you please point me to the section of the NIST report that mentions those temperatures, how they obtained those temperature numbers?

I want to look at the same evidence you are while we are debating.

Thanks.

 

[Bern80]

God you're fucking dumb. Yes there was a partial core still standing towards the bottom.....but it still had to continue crushing the rest of the core columns that WEREN'T still standing.

so your claim is that the entire building collapsed except the part that didnt collapse and therefore proves explosive demolitions were used?

so if the buildings were demolished with explosives why did part of the core still stand after the collapse. any controlled demolition would certainly need to take out the building core at its base.

The fact that a partial of the bottom of the core stood strong reinforces that explosives were used and planted in the upper floors to blow the supports out of the way to achieve these collapse speeds.

How the fuck did a section of the very bottom of the supports that supported ALL the weight and had ALL the fucking debris fall on them still stand and sections of the core with far less weight and debris on them collapse near the top? Because the very bottom didn't have fucking explosives blowing the columns out of the way.....

Fucking moron...

How did they make sure the palnes hit the twin towers below where the explosives were planted?