Which 9-11 theory you believe?

[JiggsCasey]

twoofers are truly fucking morons.

Are you ever able to debate without going into a tarrets-laiden, hyperactive meltdown?

debate? i'm not here to debate. i'm here to laugh at you fucking idiots!!

That's about what I thought you had left if your arsenal. Out of bullets much?

When you're done masturbating over Loose Change goofiness, we'll be waiting for you over here at the real case: That your heroes let it happen on purpose, an aspect that you won't dare dispute, because you can't. ... Not with anything plausible beyond mere speculation.

Run along now, tarrets sufferer. Adults are talking.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Are you ever able to debate without going into a tarrets-laiden, hyperactive meltdown?

debate? i'm not here to debate. i'm here to laugh at you fucking idiots!!

That's about what I thought you had left if your arsenal. Out of bullets much?

When you're done masturbating over Loose Change goofiness, we'll be waiting for you over here at the real case: That your heroes let it happen on purpose, an aspect that you won't dare dispute, because you can't. ... Not with anything plausible beyond mere speculation.

Run along now, tarrets sufferer. Adults are talking.

You know something as fact? Such as more than mere speculation?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You have a mouse in your pocket?
the link works fine.
The cumulus database and analysis illustrate the debris tearing out at least 10 floors of the south corner the floors below floor 8 being not visible .

As to the analysis of hypothetic blasts they are categorically rejected in Chapter 8

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2792688-post615.html


The More you read of the reports

NIST and the World Trade Center

The more evidence there is the troofers are new type of idiot .

 

[eots]

according to NIST falling debris ignited and that fire that resulted in the collapse..you point to the structures that failed due to fire alone to try to suggest fire alone did not cause these structures to fail...you are a clown....what was the sole cause of these structures failing according to NIST.... fizzle ??

no jackass. according to the NIST fire was the PRIMARY cause. why do you insist on changing what the report says to fit your own paranoid conspiracy theory? i am still waiting for you link to where the NIST stated "fires alone" caused the collapse. either post it or admit you lied and get over it.

there was no "sole cause", moron. there were many factors involved.

factors contributing to wtc 7's collapse included: The thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

this describes the process ( according to NIST)_and the stuctures they say failed....not the CAUSE..without FIRE there would be no collapse because fire caused the collapse and I already posted where NIST
used the term.. fire alone...but then you are not here to debate...you are just a clown

 

[eots]

mr.fitnah;2794114]

you have a mouse in your pocket?
The link works fine.

the cumulus database and analysis illustrate the debris tearing out at least 10 floors of the south corner the floors below floor 8 being not visible .

no one said debris did not cause damage duh !..nist reported no lean
and that damage was insignificant to the collapse..that it started the fires and thats it...so are you arguing with nist ????

]as to the analysis of hypothetic blasts they are categorically rejected in chapter 8

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2792688-post615.html]

and do you have a clue how they determined this ?...no of course you dont:

The more you read of the reports

nist and the world trade center

the more evidence there is the troofers are new type of idiot

 

[JiggsCasey]

You know something as fact? Such as more than mere speculation?

I know what is court-admissible and what isn't. You?

I know the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence, and I know that circumstantial evidence is often far more powerful.

I know how to analyze data, deduct all other conclusions that couldn't possibly fit, and posit a hypothesis fit for litigation. You?

 

[Fizz]

[
That's about what I thought you had left if your arsenal. Out of bullets much?

When you're done masturbating over Loose Change goofiness, we'll be waiting for you over here at the real case: That your heroes let it happen on purpose, an aspect that you won't dare dispute, because you can't. ... Not with anything plausible beyond mere speculation.

Run along now, tarrets sufferer. Adults are talking.

another fucking idiot makes claims he cant back up.....

where did you ever here me state who my heroes are? let's see you link to that post. my heroes certainly are not anyone in government. i didnt even vote for bush, if thats what you want to claim.

so let's see your "let it happen on purpose" proof. oh, thats right. you have none.

epic fail.

 

[Fizz]

according to NIST falling debris ignited and that fire that resulted in the collapse..you point to the structures that failed due to fire alone to try to suggest fire alone did not cause these structures to fail...you are a clown....what was the sole cause of these structures failing according to NIST.... fizzle ??

no jackass. according to the NIST fire was the PRIMARY cause. why do you insist on changing what the report says to fit your own paranoid conspiracy theory? i am still waiting for you link to where the NIST stated "fires alone" caused the collapse. either post it or admit you lied and get over it.

there was no "sole cause", moron. there were many factors involved.

factors contributing to wtc 7's collapse included: The thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

this describes the process ( according to NIST)_and the stuctures they say failed....not the CAUSE..without FIRE there would be no collapse because fire caused the collapse and I already posted where NIST
used the term.. fire alone...but then you are not here to debate...you are just a clown

you really are a fucking idiot. you posted a QUESTION, not a statement, that contained "fires alone". then it goes on to refute that. you are too stupid for words.

of course without fire there would have been no collapse.... and without the towers collapsing there would have been no fire... and without planes hitting the towers the towers wouldnt have collapsed..... so are you now going to make the fucking claim that PLANES ALONE caused wtc7 to collapse? you really are a fucking moron. the NIST report clearly states what they believe caused the collapse and it does not say it was FIRES ALONE as you claim it does. you lie. it cant get much more simple than that.

 

[eots]

no jackass. according to the NIST fire was the PRIMARY cause. why do you insist on changing what the report says to fit your own paranoid conspiracy theory? i am still waiting for you link to where the NIST stated "fires alone" caused the collapse. either post it or admit you lied and get over it.

there was no "sole cause", moron. there were many factors involved.

factors contributing to wtc 7's collapse included: The thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

this describes the process ( according to NIST)_and the stuctures they say failed....not the CAUSE..without FIRE there would be no collapse because fire caused the collapse and I already posted where NIST
used the term.. fire alone...but then you are not here to debate...you are just a clown

you really are a fucking idiot. you posted a QUESTION, not a statement, that contained "fires alone". then it goes on to refute that. you are too stupid for words.

of course without fire there would have been no collapse.... and without the towers collapsing there would have been no fire... and without planes hitting the towers the towers wouldnt have collapsed..... so are you now going to make the fucking claim that PLANES ALONE caused wtc7 to collapse? you really are a fucking moron. the NIST report clearly states what they believe caused the collapse and it does not say it was FIRES ALONE as you claim it does. you lie. it cant get much more simple than that.

no where after the" question"..they pose.. to themselves..the do not go on to refute it.. absolutely not ..they change the wording a little elaborate a little but confirm the statement

 

[eots]

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

 

[Fizz]

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

RIGHT. because it had the same design flaws with and without the damage. it still doesnt say "fires alone" caused the collapse.

from the same link you provided....

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

 

[eots]

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

RIGHT. because it had the same design flaws with and without the damage. it still doesnt say "fires alone" caused the collapse.

from the same link you provided....

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

once again that is describing the process of the failure...the CAUSE of the buckling they describe was...FIRE

 

[eots]

would wtc 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the wtc towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, wtc 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. questions and answers about the nist wtc 7 investigation

right. Because it had the same design flaws with and without the damage. It still doesnt say "fires alone" caused the collapse.

From the same link you provided....

Would wtc 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the wtc towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, wtc 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

nist never coincides design flaws

 

[Fizz]

would wtc 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the wtc towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, wtc 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. questions and answers about the nist wtc 7 investigation

right. Because it had the same design flaws with and without the damage. It still doesnt say "fires alone" caused the collapse.

From the same link you provided....

Would wtc 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the wtc towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, wtc 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

nist never coincides design flaws

and they never say "fire alone" caused the collapse. you lied. you got caught.

 

[Fizz]

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

RIGHT. because it had the same design flaws with and without the damage. it still doesnt say "fires alone" caused the collapse.

from the same link you provided....

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

once again that is describing the process of the failure...the CAUSE of the buckling they describe was...FIRE

uh no... once again you are wrong. the cause of the buckling was that column 79 was unsupported for nine stories due to floors 13 to 5 collapsing.

why dont you simply stick to what the NIST actually says instead of trying to spin it into your "fires alone" lie.....

for someone that claims to be an expert on wtc7 you sure do make an awful lot of fuck-ups. but i'm sure thats consistent with the rest of your life.

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.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

 

[eots]

RIGHT. because it had the same design flaws with and without the damage. it still doesnt say "fires alone" caused the collapse.

from the same link you provided....

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

once again that is describing the process of the failure...the CAUSE of the buckling they describe was...FIRE

uh no... once again you are wrong. the cause of the buckling was that column 79 was unsupported for nine stories due to floors 13 to 5 collapsing.

why dont you simply stick to what the NIST actually says instead of trying to spin it into your "fires alone" lie.....

for someone that claims to be an expert on wtc7 you sure do make an awful lot of fuck-ups. but i'm sure thats consistent with the rest of your life.

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.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

it buckled because of the fires caused other to collapse not because of structural damage from debris as you deceptively try to imply


Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

 

[Fizz]

it buckled because of the fires caused other to collapse not because of structural damage from debris as you deceptively try to imply


Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

listen, idiot. you claim that the NIST said fires alone caused the collapse. its a lie. how far back do you wish to take the cause of the collapse? column 79 buckled because it was unsupported by floors 13 to 5. (no, the fires didnt directly cause it to buckle like you claimed earlier). the floors collapsed due to thermal expansion. the thermal expansion was caused by the fires. the fires were caused by the collapse of the towers. the collapse of the towers were caused by planes hitting them......

therefore, by your logic.... planes alone caused the collapse of WTC7!!!

why dont you just quit lying and stick to what the NIST report ACTUALLY says instead of making shit up. fires were the primary cause of collapse along with several other factors.

the NIST does not say fires alone caused the collapse. you blatantly are lying when you say that and you know it.

 

[eots]

nist did say fires alone...they wrote the NIST fact Sheet.no one else and they do not refute the question they posed, they confirm it....with the admission that similar fires ignited by any other means would of created the same result ...you continue to describe the process of failure and the structures that failed as cause

 

[eots]

"This would be the first known instance of fire causing the complete collapse of a tall building "

http://wtc.nist.gov/

 

[SFC Ollie]