Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[Triton]

considering you type about 3 words per post Ollie, and with nothing of substance, you should not be commenting on stupidity

 

[Triton]

just so much resistance, the initiation of the collapse means the building did not fall at free fall, nor was it symmetrical, those damn truthtards

 

[SFC Ollie]

considering you type about 3 words per post Ollie, and with nothing of substance, you should not be commenting on stupidity

I try to keep my comments short so that simpletons like you can understand them. I do hope that wasn't to difficult to understand.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]YouTube - ‪wtc 7 collapse‬‏[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

And once again a truther shows us the video that has been edited to not show the beginning of the collapse about 8 seconds earlier.

You fools crack me up......

 

[Triton]

That wasn't symmetrical nor anywhere near free fall eots. Clearly it was a "progressive" collapse caused by fire.




I don't know what agenda you have but it is futile because all the truthtard claims and evidence can be refuted by a single sentence from SFC Ollie.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I really have to practice being more simplified in my comments so that idiots like Trimester can understand me.

 

[eots]

And once again a truther shows us the video that has been edited to not show the beginning of the collapse about 8 seconds earlier.

You fools crack me up......

you have a video that shows a 17 sec collapse ?

 

[eots]

Washington's Blog




Top Experts Say Official Explanation Makes No Sense

Numerous structural engineers - the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents - say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of physics":

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:
I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded
John D. Pryor, with more than 30 years experience:
The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation

Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:
From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:
Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite tro

 

[SFC Ollie]

Washington's Blog




Top Experts Say Official Explanation Makes No Sense

Numerous structural engineers - the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents - say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of physics":

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:
I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded (without any sounds of explosions)
John D. Pryor, with more than 30 years experience:
The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation

Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:
From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:
Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7,(This was explained) evidence of thermite ( Sorry no one has really proved this) in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite tro

Nice try, again, Still no real proof? Too bad....

 

[SFC Ollie]

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

 

[eots]

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

olile you are shameless you know this video is in complete contradiction to the findings of the N.I.ST report..if anything it should be called NIST report debunked.....

 

[SFC Ollie]

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

olile you are shameless you know this video is in complete contradiction to the findings of the N.I.ST report..if anything it should be called NIST report debunked.....

And you know that I don't agree 100% with the NIST. But at least I know there were no controlled demos.

And the main thing was to show that the penthouse did fall 6 to 8 seconds before anything else.

 

[eots]

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.



NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

 

[eots]

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

olile you are shameless you know this video is in complete contradiction to the findings of the N.I.ST report..if anything it should be called NIST report debunked.....

And you know that I don't agree 100% with the NIST. But at least I know there were no controlled demos.

And the main thing was to show that the penthouse did fall 6 to 8 seconds before anything else.

so you have the "Ollie theory"...I see...

 

[Patriot911]

Aaaah, poor eots. Always trying to fight lost battles and never up to speed on the current issue.

So where is your proof of a controlled demolition? Remember, your retarded opinion of how the collapse looked is no more "evidence" of a controlled demolition than you claiming you've seen bigfoot is evidence of the existance of bigfoot. But don't let that stop you from making a jackass out of yourself and your fellow truthtards.

 

[eots]

bigfoot what ? you babbling cretin

 

[youngpatriot]

I never really thought much about 9/11 until recently, and then I started investigating it on my own. What drew me into looking into it myself was the talk about tower #7. I hadn't even heard about tower #7 until about a year ago. And, I'm sorry folks, a 47 story building doesn't fall in less than seven seconds into it's own footprint from spontaneous fires. That's not even a remote possibility.

 

[Patriot911]

I never really thought much about 9/11 until recently, and then I started investigating it on my own. What drew me into looking into it myself was the talk about tower #7. I hadn't even heard about tower #7 until about a year ago. And, I'm sorry folks, a 47 story building doesn't fall in less than seven seconds into it's own footprint from spontaneous fires. That's not even a remote possibility.

Blah blah blah. Which sock puppet is this one? The same old story every truthtard tells. I believed until blah blah blah! Then they spout a bunch of lies that expose them for the ignorant retards they are. The building 7 collapse was over ten seconds. The fires were not spontanious. The building didn't fall into it's own footprint as proven by the buildings damaged around it.

Truthtards can't even come up with plausible bullshit anymore.

 

[youngpatriot]

I never really thought much about 9/11 until recently, and then I started investigating it on my own. What drew me into looking into it myself was the talk about tower #7. I hadn't even heard about tower #7 until about a year ago. And, I'm sorry folks, a 47 story building doesn't fall in less than seven seconds into it's own footprint from spontaneous fires. That's not even a remote possibility.

Blah blah blah. Which sock puppet is this one? The same old story every truthtard tells. I believed until blah blah blah! Then they spout a bunch of lies that expose them for the ignorant retards they are. The building 7 collapse was over ten seconds. The fires were not spontanious. The building didn't fall into it's own footprint as proven by the buildings damaged around it.

Truthtards can't even come up with plausible bullshit anymore.

Actually I'm a new member. Thanks for the warm welcome. All the original videos of tower #7 show a collapse in under 7 seconds. I didn't tell any lies. You can look at any video of the collapse and it shows it happening in less than 7 seconds.

BTW, it took NIST over 7 years to complete their investigation of tower #7. It seems to me that if there weren't any asses to cover and a simple explanation could have been provided, it would have happened in less than 7 years.

And yes, it did fall into it's own footrprint. NIST obviously had to go to great lengths to whitewash this investigation.

Your assertion that fires can bring down a skycraper in 7 or 10 seconds is laughable just as the NIST report is, which had to be altered six times before finally being completed.

Reality just doesn't back up the government's bullshit story. And you are obviously a moron if you believe otherwise.

84% of Americans don't believe the 9/11 commission's report. Time to wake up.