Veterans Today Exposed!

[eots]

And neither do you, do you?

actually yes..I do

 

[eots]

On CTs dealing with WTC.

but then you know nothing about that do you ..you have never even read the NIST report ..right

you always say that and you're always wrong

really then why do you debwunkers constantly regurgitate popular mechanics myths in contradiction to the NIST report ??

 

[daws101]

but then you know nothing about that do you ..you have never even read the NIST report ..right

you always say that and you're always wrong

really then why do you debwunkers constantly regurgitate popular mechanics myths in contradiction to the NIST report ??

who say it's myth? nist is not the only source.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Basic science and absolute evidence untwoof the twoofuhs.

 

[eots]

you always say that and you're always wrong

really then why do you debwunkers constantly regurgitate popular mechanics myths in contradiction to the NIST report ??

who say it's myth? nist is not the only source.

so then you are one of the debwunkers that rejects the NIST report..intresting

 

[eots]

Basic science and absolute evidence untwoof the twoofuhs.

but you have provided none of those debwunker..

 

[daws101]

really then why do you debwunkers constantly regurgitate popular mechanics myths in contradiction to the NIST report ??

who say it's myth? nist is not the only source.

so then you are one of the debwunkers that rejects the NIST report..intresting

wrong asshole.. we've had this go round before. and you always make that false comparison.

 

[007]

 

[eots]

who say it's myth? nist is not the only source.

so then you are one of the debwunkers that rejects the NIST report..intresting

wrong asshole.. we've had this go round before. and you always make that false comparison.

so you accept the NIST report ?

 

[daws101]

so then you are one of the debwunkers that rejects the NIST report..intresting

wrong asshole.. we've had this go round before. and you always make that false comparison.

so you accept the NIST report ?

what do you think ? presuming that you do actually think.

 

[eots]

wrong asshole.. we've had this go round before. and you always make that false comparison.

so you accept the NIST report ?

what do you think ? presuming that you do actually think.

simple question why is it so hard for you to answer?..you seem very...confused

 

[daws101]

so you accept the NIST report ?

what do you think ? presuming that you do actually think.

simple question why is it so hard for you to answer?..you seem very...confused

no eots, that would be you....to anybody with two live brain cells it's obvious.
to a slapdick like you who has extreme difficulty unraveling the deep mystery of opening a child proof cap, it must be unsolvable.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The NIST report is one hell of a lot closer to the facts than a CD could ever be. I accept it but believe they didn't give enough credit to the initial damage to Bldg 7......

 

[daws101]

The NIST report is one hell of a lot closer to the facts than a CD could ever be. I accept it but believe they didn't give enough credit to the initial damage to Bldg 7......

yep!

 

[SAYIT]

really then why do you debwunkers constantly regurgitate popular mechanics myths in contradiction to the NIST report ??

who say it's myth? nist is not the only source.

so then you are one of the debwunkers that rejects the NIST report..intresting

You are one weird dude, Princess. Are you an asshole in realtime also or do you save it all for this board?

 

[eots]

The NIST report is one hell of a lot closer to the facts than a CD could ever be. I accept it but believe they didn't give enough credit to the initial damage to Bldg 7......

which just proves your complete lack of understanding ..the whole NIST theory is based on the failure of column 79 as is the computer model which is the corner stone of the theory..if you want to factor damage into the collapse theory the entire computer model becomes invalid and unworkable

 

[SFC Ollie]

I understand what i believe perfectly, no clue why eots can't understand that.

 

[SAYIT]

The NIST report is one hell of a lot closer to the facts than a CD could ever be. I accept it but believe they didn't give enough credit to the initial damage to Bldg 7......

which just proves your complete lack of understanding ..the whole NIST theory is based on the failure of column 79 as is the computer model which is the corner stone of the theory..if you want to factor damage into the collapse theory the entire computer model becomes invalid and unworkable

No, it does not and the NIST collapse is theory based on the disconnect of multiple floor beams from column 79. Do you have a better theory?

5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse? (from Q&A with Michael Newman)

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, 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, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...04GABw&usg=AFQjCNGznfpO7L80hmlNDi3z3n8SZRHsNg

 

[daws101]

The NIST report is one hell of a lot closer to the facts than a CD could ever be. I accept it but believe they didn't give enough credit to the initial damage to Bldg 7......

which just proves your complete lack of understanding ..the whole NIST theory is based on the failure of column 79 as is the computer model which is the corner stone of the theory..if you want to factor damage into the collapse theory the entire computer model becomes invalid and unworkable

wrong! it just changes...where's your proof it would be unworkable ? or are you just spewing nonsense.

 

[SAYIT]

No CD team would have prepped the floor supports of just one column in an effort to bring down 7. The anomaly is actually what proves bldg 7 was not rigged for demo but rather was unpredictably felled by previously unconsidered factors. We now know that these buildings can collapse.
So to consider other possibilities one must present another collapse theory. To date no better alternative to the NIST theory has been developed.

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, 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, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...04GABw&usg=AFQjCNGznfpO7L80hmlNDi3z3n8SZRHsNg