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

[eots]

so from your pov the firefighters on scene made no difference?

made no difference to what ?

wow you are thick THE FIRE AT THE HOTEL .
YOU KNOW ...THE ONE YOU USED AS EVIDENCE THAT NO STEEL BUILDINGS COLLAPSE BY FIRE.
I love the stuff you guys leave out to make your fairytale seem more probable.

the buildings were essentially left to burn themselves out and burned far longer and far more intensely than the wtc 7 and remained standing as have all other skyscraper fires....NIST ...SAYS WTC 7 WAS THE THE FIRST KNOW INSTANCE OF A STEEL FRAMED HI-RISE COLLAPSING DUE TO FIRE



the china hotel fire had water and firefighters to fight the fire.

FIREFIGHTING EFFORTS MADE LITTLE DIFFERENCE...WATER WAS NOT OUT ON ALL FLOORS OF WTC 7

the china hotel had not been damaged

.

ACCORDING TO NIST DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7

wtc7 had no water ,had just been severely damaged by wtc1

SPRINKLERS REMAINED OPERATIONAL ON SOME FLOORS

wtc7 the fire fighters were called away.


btw wtc7 and the china hotel both had no death or injuries

.

IRRELEVANT

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

 

[daws101]

wow you are thick THE FIRE AT THE HOTEL .
YOU KNOW ...THE ONE YOU USED AS EVIDENCE THAT NO STEEL BUILDINGS COLLAPSE BY FIRE.
I love the stuff you guys leave out to make your fairytale seem more probable.

the buildings were essentially left to burn themselves out and burned far longer and far more intensely than the wtc 7 and remained standing as have all other skyscraper fires....NIST ...SAYS WTC 7 WAS THE THE FIRST KNOW INSTANCE OF A STEEL FRAMED HI-RISE COLLAPSING DUE TO FIRE



the china hotel fire had water and firefighters to fight the fire.

FIREFIGHTING EFFORTS MADE LITTLE DIFFERENCE...WATER WAS NOT OUT ON ALL FLOORS OF WTC 7

.

ACCORDING TO NIST DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7





SPRINKLERS REMAINED OPERATIONAL ON SOME FLOORS

wtc7 the fire fighters were called away.


btw wtc7 and the china hotel both had no death or injuries

.

IRRELEVANT

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

actually it's very relevant without casualties wtc7 is about as important as a 100 year old barn falling down on an abandoned farm

 

[daws101]

wow you are thick THE FIRE AT THE HOTEL .
YOU KNOW ...THE ONE YOU USED AS EVIDENCE THAT NO STEEL BUILDINGS COLLAPSE BY FIRE.
I love the stuff you guys leave out to make your fairytale seem more probable.

the china hotel fire had water and firefighters to fight the fire.
the china hotel had not been damaged.
wtc7 had no water ,had just been severely damaged by wtc1
wtc7 the fire fighters were called away.
btw wtc7 and the china hotel both had no death or injuries.

It's also interesting to note that the steel on the upper floors of the Windsor Tower, in the video, did, in fact, collapse. What is still standing is the concrete core. And the floor where the collapse was arrested was a steel reinforced concrete mechanical floor.
It seems illogical to use this building fire as evidence of steel frame buildings NOT being able to collapse. It's not just possible, it, in fact, happened.
Madrid Windsor Tower

a small portion still under construction had some failure...the building remains standing..it did not even come close to a complete collapse is secs of and defying the laws of physics

what laws would those be?

 

[daws101]

please point out the page in the nist final report that say wtc1 had no impact on wtc7

 

[eots]

NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs).

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

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSnjyZNYlW8&playnext=1&list=PLCEBB55CF948640AB]‪NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 1‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

the buildings were essentially left to burn themselves out and burned far longer and far more intensely than the wtc 7 and remained standing as have all other skyscraper fires....NIST ...SAYS WTC 7 WAS THE THE FIRST KNOW INSTANCE OF A STEEL FRAMED HI-RISE COLLAPSING DUE TO FIRE



the china hotel fire had water and firefighters to fight the fire.

FIREFIGHTING EFFORTS MADE LITTLE DIFFERENCE...WATER WAS NOT OUT ON ALL FLOORS OF WTC 7

.

ACCORDING TO NIST DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7





SPRINKLERS REMAINED OPERATIONAL ON SOME FLOORS

.

IRRELEVANT

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

actually it's very relevant without casualties wtc7 is about as important as a 100 year old barn falling down on an abandoned farm

to a idiot..I guess it is..

 

[Obamerican]

please point out the page in the nist final report that say wtc1 had no impact on wtc7

Remember that Eots (the idiot) will take portions of the NIST report that he agrees with and use that as his argument. But if YOU use the NIST report as a rebuttal he will find a YouTube video that says you're full of shit.

 

[eots]

please point out the page in the nist final report that say wtc1 had no impact on wtc7

Remember that Eots (the idiot) will take portions of the NIST report that he agrees with and use that as his argument. But if YOU use the NIST report as a rebuttal he will find a YouTube video that says you're full of shit.

Simple Simon seems to have a hard time with the concept that if one is to debate the validity of the NIST theory its important to know what that theory actually is

 

[Obamerican]

please point out the page in the nist final report that say wtc1 had no impact on wtc7

Remember that Eots (the idiot) will take portions of the NIST report that he agrees with and use that as his argument. But if YOU use the NIST report as a rebuttal he will find a YouTube video that says you're full of shit.

Simple Simon seems to have a hard time with the concept that if one is to debate the validity of the NIST theory its important to know what that theory actually is

Doesn't answer the question, bitch. Keep doing slight of hand, asshole. Everyone here knows how dishonest you really are.

Got that visit from Alex Jones yet? He went and visited Harry Dean Stanton and Jesse Ventura. I would think he would heap praise on you too.

Fucking moron.

 

[Triton]

eots and Mr. Jones continue to shred through this BS that is being spewed attempting to compare buildings with damage and partial collapses that are NOTHING like WTC 7 experienced on 9/11.

You're really comparing the Madrid building to WTC 7?

Simply ridiculous.

 

[daws101]

NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs).

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

‪NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 1‬‏ - YouTube

another dodge! answer the question

 

[eots]

NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs).

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

‪NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 1‬‏ - YouTube

another dodge! answer the question

dodge ?...are you incapable of reading ?

 

[daws101]

please point out the page in the nist final report that say wtc1 had no impact on wtc7

Remember that Eots (the idiot) will take portions of the NIST report that he agrees with and use that as his argument. But if YOU use the NIST report as a rebuttal he will find a YouTube video that says you're full of shit.

thanks !
I gage the veracity of of Eots and 911 blow job's statements by what they leave out and and the amount of name calling ,it screams of desperation !

 

[daws101]

actually it's very relevant without casualties wtc7 is about as important as a 100 year old barn falling down on an abandoned farm

to a idiot..I guess it is..

only an idiot would say that,
without that context (deaths and injuries) wtc7 is a non event.

 

[daws101]

NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs).

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

‪NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 1‬‏ - YouTube

another dodge! answer the question

dodge ?...are you incapable of reading ?

so your theory is nano thermite.
enlighting me on how, who and when it was planted.

 

[eots]

to a idiot..I guess it is..

only an idiot would say that,
without that context (deaths and injuries) wtc7 is a non event.

the first known instance a hi-rise steel framed building collapsing primarily due to fire is not a non -event

 

[daws101]

only an idiot would say that,
without that context (deaths and injuries) wtc7 is a non event.

the first known instance a hi-rise steel framed building collapsing primarily due to fire is not a non -event

‪9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim‬‏ - YouTube

 

[daws101]

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

Archives - Walls and Ceilings
24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____

[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]

"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"

Page Not Found - Chicago Public Library


The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

pg 6/74

The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.

The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74

The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]

pg 16/74

Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings

pg 17/74

Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.

pg. 21/74

The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.

pg. 26/74

Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.

The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters.

pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74

Other Fires

In February 1991, a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza - a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on its steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage, authorities were worried it might collapse.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors."

USFA Page Not Found

About 2 years later, the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf


Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-061.pdf


Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out


USFA Page Not Found

 

[eots]

another dodge! answer the question

dodge ?...are you incapable of reading ?

so your theory is nano thermite.
enlighting me on how, who and when it was planted.

nice dodge..first we conclude NIST failed in determine the cause of the collapse, then we look at the most reasonable explanation for the collapse which is some form of explosives and do the appropriate testing on any renaming materials..once the form of explosives is positively determined...the how and who would follow

 

[eots]

the first known instance a hi-rise steel framed building collapsing primarily due to fire is not a non -event

‪9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim‬‏ - YouTube

this is NIST statement...you are debunking the NIST theory.. dummy..this entire video is in direct contradiction to the findings of NIST and the madrid did not collapse...so why do you pretend it did ?