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

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

"Yeah, a building fell on it."

 

[daws101]

"Yeah, a building fell on it."

sometimes there is fact in sarcasm!

 

[eots]

wtc7 :free fall:http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
why is it all of you ct r's make massive assumptions?: "Proving that someone covered something up when you are forced to prove it to the people that covered it up in the first place, leaves you at a significant disadvantage. We know this already or this whole caper would have been blown wide open already. "
you've yet to, if ever prove that allegation..
as to the so called thermite, in the only test that was allegedly made ,the sample was supposedly destroyed and cannot be taken as evidence.
why?because the "experiment cannot be repeated.
might want to check out the scientific method

YOU REALLY NEED TO STOP GOING TO THOSE DEBWUNKER SITES LIKE 911/MYTHS

S

o could you please explain your understanding of the collapse of wtc 7
from the NIST report

no need to, it's very simple :wtc7 is severly damaged by rubble,the foundation is damaged

yet another debwunker that does not even know the findings of NIST nad just keeps spewing the popular mechanics narrative...NIST determined that damage was not a significant factor in the collapse of wtc 7

fire starts, burns for 8 hours

fires started on only a few floors and many hours later started on several other floors and the actual time on beam or area would burn for is far less than 8hrs once the office contents are burned in a area the fire diminishes

as there is no water to fight the fire

sprinklers remained working on some floors

,the beam or beams holding up the cathedral ceiling of the 1st floor weaken do to 8 hours of heating

it was one beam column 79 and it could not possible be heated directly for 8 hrs or caused the entire inner structure to collapse in seconds..and you can not prove this is even possible

The EMPTY BUILDING COLLAPSES...NO DEATH OR INJURIES as the structure was evacuated hours earlier....think that about covers it .unless you can prove thermite or some other accelerant caused it?

btw that report is not from nist ,if you had read it ,you would have known that!

I have most certainly read the nist report and without question nist states damage from falling debris was not a significant factor in the collapse and the failure of column79 under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence... you have no Idea what you are talking about

 

[daws101]

YOU REALLY NEED TO STOP GOING TO THOSE DEBWUNKER SITES LIKE 911/MYTHS

S no need to, it's very simple :wtc7 is severly damaged by rubble,the foundation is damaged

yet another debwunker that does not even know the findings of NIST nad just keeps spewing the popular mechanics narrative...NIST determined that damage was not a significant factor in the collapse of wtc 7




fires started on only a few floors and many hours later started on several other floors and the actual time on beam or area would burn for is far less than 8hrs once the office contents are burned in a area the fire diminishes




sprinklers remained working on some floors



it was one beam column 79 and it could not possible be heated directly for 8 hrs or caused the entire inner structure to collapse in seconds..and you can not prove this is even possible

The EMPTY BUILDING COLLAPSES...NO DEATH OR INJURIES as the structure was evacuated hours earlier....think that about covers it .unless you can prove thermite or some other accelerant caused it?

btw that report is not from nist ,if you had read it ,you would have known that!

I have most certainly read the nist report and without question nist states damage from falling debris was not a significant factor in the collapse and the failure of column79 under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence... you have no Idea what you are talking about

nitiating Event & Vertical Progression
Initiating Event
�� First exterior sign of failure was at the east penthouse roofline,
aligned with interior columns 79, 80, and 81. Postulated
initiating events include the failure of these columns.
Vertical Progression
�� Columns 79, 80, and 81 supported large tributary areas for
floor spans of approximately 50 ft. Failure of column 79, 80, or
81 would likely result in failure at the floor-column connections
and would progress vertically up to the east penthouse. ok.... i don't

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf


nice dodge !

 

[daws101]

The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing—when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.


http://wtc.nist.gov/media/opening_remarks_082108.html

 

[eots]

yet another debwunker that does not even know the findings of NIST nad just keeps spewing the popular mechanics narrative...NIST determined that damage was not a significant factor in the collapse of wtc 7




fires started on only a few floors and many hours later started on several other floors and the actual time on beam or area would burn for is far less than 8hrs once the office contents are burned in a area the fire diminishes




sprinklers remained working on some floors



it was one beam column 79 and it could not possible be heated directly for 8 hrs or caused the entire inner structure to collapse in seconds..and you can not prove this is even possible




btw that report is not from nist ,if you had read it ,you would have known that!

I have most certainly read the nist report and without question nist states damage from falling debris was not a significant factor in the collapse and the failure of column79 under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence... you have no Idea what you are talking about

nitiating Event & Vertical Progression
Initiating Event
�� First exterior sign of failure was at the east penthouse roofline,
aligned with interior columns 79, 80, and 81. Postulated
initiating events include the failure of these columns.
Vertical Progression
�� Columns 79, 80, and 81 supported large tributary areas for
floor spans of approximately 50 ft. Failure of column 79, 80, or
81 would likely result in failure at the floor-column connections
and would progress vertically up to the east penthouse. ok.... i don't

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf


nice dodge !

you should really qoute the final report ..dont you think ?

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

 

[daws101]

I have most certainly read the nist report and without question nist states damage from falling debris was not a significant factor in the collapse and the failure of column79 under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence... you have no Idea what you are talking about

nitiating Event & Vertical Progression
Initiating Event
�� First exterior sign of failure was at the east penthouse roofline,
aligned with interior columns 79, 80, and 81. Postulated
initiating events include the failure of these columns.
Vertical Progression
�� Columns 79, 80, and 81 supported large tributary areas for
floor spans of approximately 50 ft. Failure of column 79, 80, or
81 would likely result in failure at the floor-column connections
and would progress vertically up to the east penthouse. ok.... i don't

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf


nice dodge !

you should really qoute the final report ..dont you think ?

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

MAYBE i SHOULD HAVE EITHER WAY ,YOU STILL HAVE NO EVIDENCE PROVING THE USE OF THERMITE OR ANY OTHER ACCELERANT.
WITHOUT THAT, IT'S JUST MASTURBATION.

 

[eots]

nitiating Event & Vertical Progression
Initiating Event
�� First exterior sign of failure was at the east penthouse roofline,
aligned with interior columns 79, 80, and 81. Postulated
initiating events include the failure of these columns.
Vertical Progression
�� Columns 79, 80, and 81 supported large tributary areas for
floor spans of approximately 50 ft. Failure of column 79, 80, or
81 would likely result in failure at the floor-column connections
and would progress vertically up to the east penthouse. ok.... i don't

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf


nice dodge !

you should really qoute the final report ..dont you think ?

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

MAYBE i SHOULD HAVE EITHER WAY ,YOU STILL HAVE NO EVIDENCE PROVING THE USE OF THERMITE OR ANY OTHER ACCELERANT.
WITHOUT THAT, IT'S JUST MASTURBATION.

So you stand corrected...

 

[daws101]

you should really qoute the final report ..dont you think ?

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

maybe i should have either way ,you still have no evidence proving the use of thermite or any other accelerant.
Without that, it's just masturbation.

so you stand corrected...

no...but you do dodge well

 

[Obamerican]

The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing—when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.


NIST and the World Trade Center : News and Events

Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.

 

[eots]

The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing—when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.


NIST and the World Trade Center : News and Events

Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.

what part of damage from falling debris played no significant role in the collapse is it you cant get through your head ?

 

[Triton]

C'mon, not another "the fires brought it down" claim.


How can you account for the manner of WTC 7's collapse?


No way could the amount of damage done to WTC 7, even coupled with the fires caused by the debris, facilitate the manner of collapse that WTC 7 experienced.




But feel free to continue believing the official fable.

 

[Obamerican]

The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing—when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.


NIST and the World Trade Center : News and Events

Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.

what part of damage from falling debris played no significant role in the collapse is it you cant get through your head ?

So, you do agree with the NIST report?

 

[Obamerican]

C'mon, not another "the fires brought it down" claim.


How can you account for the manner of WTC 7's collapse?


No way could the amount of damage done to WTC 7, even coupled with the fires caused by the debris, facilitate the manner of collapse that WTC 7 experienced.




But feel free to continue believing the official fable.

And you got your engineering degree from..............................................?

I thought so. Begone loser.

 

[eots]

Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.

what part of damage from falling debris played no significant role in the collapse is it you cant get through your head ?

So, you do agree with the NIST report?

No, I unlike you know the theories of nist...you seem to have another theory in contradiction with both NIST and CD theories ,could you elaborate on this theory and how you reached your conclusions ?

 

[Triton]

C'mon, not another "the fires brought it down" claim.


How can you account for the manner of WTC 7's collapse?


No way could the amount of damage done to WTC 7, even coupled with the fires caused by the debris, facilitate the manner of collapse that WTC 7 experienced.




But feel free to continue believing the official fable.

And you got your engineering degree from..............................................?

I thought so. Begone loser.

And who the hell are you?

 

[Triton]

Nice loser, produce nothing of substance.


Keep trying to tell everyone the fires did it or whatever other bullshit you espouse

 

[Obamerican]

C'mon, not another "the fires brought it down" claim.


How can you account for the manner of WTC 7's collapse?


No way could the amount of damage done to WTC 7, even coupled with the fires caused by the debris, facilitate the manner of collapse that WTC 7 experienced.




But feel free to continue believing the official fable.

And you got your engineering degree from..............................................?

I thought so. Begone loser.

And who the hell are you?

Why should I answer to you? After reading your posts I can clearly see I have more knowledge of engineering than you. Don't be a sock puppet of Eots. You're better than that. I hope.

 

[eots]

And you got your engineering degree from..............................................?

I thought so. Begone loser.

And who the hell are you?

Why should I answer to you? After reading your posts I can clearly see I have more knowledge of engineering than you. Don't be a sock puppet of Eots. You're better than that. I hope.

still waiting to hear your theory and how you arrived at it