Why is it truthers feel the need to lie?

[PhysicsExist]

NIST proved it, if you disagree then find some solid physical evidence and disprove them. And please remember that they did not say it was simultaneous. They said it was a progressive collapse.

We'll wait; at least another 9 years.

Why don't you answer my question, sir? Why are you afraid? Stop avoiding the facts.

How does a steel highrise freefall into its own footprint? For 2.25 seconds, or 8 floors, there was ZERO resistance. This is the same resistance AIR gives. 8 floors of building is NOT the same make up as air, thus this is impossible, unless explosives removed all supports, making the resistance makeup the equivalent of air.

When you can show me a video tape of that building with the audio of explosions that sound anything like a controlled demolition I might actually take you seriously. But no such audio exists because if it did we would have seen it from you fools years ago. You got nothing.

What WORLD do you live in? Do you need SOUND to know that a gun fired and killed someone when you clearly see it happen on TV? Do you need SOUND to see those planes HIT the towers? Do you need SOUND to see Newtonian physics? Stop it Ollie. You have more respect for yourself than this. Stop playing these games.

How does a steel highrise freefall into its own footprint? For 2.25 seconds, or 8 floors, there was ZERO resistance. This is the same resistance AIR gives. 8 floors of building is NOT the same make up as air, thus this is impossible, unless explosives removed all supports, making the resistance makeup the equivalent of air.


Not having audible explosions on video as your rebuttal is a complete JOKE. You're implying you need sound or else explosions NEVER occurred, but when a video clearly shows an object fall at freefall, that proves nothing. What reality do you live in? Your own? Newtonian Physics do not lie-YOU DONT NEED AUDIO to support physics.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why don't you answer my question, sir? Why are you afraid? Stop avoiding the facts.

How does a steel highrise freefall into its own footprint? For 2.25 seconds, or 8 floors, there was ZERO resistance. This is the same resistance AIR gives. 8 floors of building is NOT the same make up as air, thus this is impossible, unless explosives removed all supports, making the resistance makeup the equivalent of air.

When you can show me a video tape of that building with the audio of explosions that sound anything like a controlled demolition I might actually take you seriously. But no such audio exists because if it did we would have seen it from you fools years ago. You got nothing.

What WORLD do you live in? Do you need SOUND to know that a gun fired and killed someone when you clearly see it happen on TV? Do you need SOUND to see those planes HIT the towers? Do you need SOUND to see Newtonian physics? Stop it Ollie. You have more respect for yourself than this. Stop playing these games.

How does a steel highrise freefall into its own footprint? For 2.25 seconds, or 8 floors, there was ZERO resistance. This is the same resistance AIR gives. 8 floors of building is NOT the same make up as air, thus this is impossible, unless explosives removed all supports, making the resistance makeup the equivalent of air.


Not having audible explosions on video as your rebuttal is a complete JOKE. You're implying you need sound or else explosions NEVER occurred, but when a video clearly shows an object fall at freefall, that proves nothing. What reality do you live in? Your own? Newtonian Physics do not lie-YOU DONT NEED AUDIO to support physics.

Do explosions create a sound? Then I want to hear that explosion. You have lost it. Silent explosions?

 

[HUGGY]

According to you and your version of Newtonian physics, nothing can fall at free fall because even AIR provides resistance.



But you just admitted in the other thread that it is possible for a falling body to get close to (indistinguishable from) free fall speeds based on having enough of a load to overcome the resistance? Did you not just admit that?



Who said anything about "melting steel". Are you familiar with the terms "thermal expansion", "creep", "beams walking off supports", and "the weakening of steel due to heat"?

At what temperature does steel START to lose it's strength? Now apply the stress of a load to that same, weakened steel.



Really? Then explain how the columns beneath the east mechanical penthouse failed and the penthouse fell into the building. That happened and there was no sign of these "deformities" either. Watch the video. You can see the windows breaking on the perimeter facade as the penthouse fell into the the building. Here is a photo of STEEL railroad tracks and what happened from thermal expansion. Thermal expansion caused my the SUN beating down on them.

No, that leads to NO other questions because you have not proven that NIST explanations and calculations of how WTC7 collapsed is not possible OR what the errors in their report are. You dismiss their report with evidence that is incorrect.

Your train tracks were not deformed from sunlight. The cause of these bent rails is what is called "creep". It is a geological term for drift in earth near or at the surface. Creep happens very slowly under normal conditions and rapidly by earthquake. It is usually ground moving by gravity from a higher to a lower level but it can also be earth moving almost horizontally or even upwards with enough preassure.

Sorry Huggy that is thermal expansion.

Thermal expansion is a particularly serious problem where railroad tracks are concerned, since the tracks on which the trains run are made of steel. Steel, as noted earlier, expands by a factor of 12 parts in 1 million for every Celsius degree change in temperature, and while this may not seem like much, it can create a serious problem under conditions of high temperature.

Most tracks are built from pieces of steel supported by wooden ties, and laid with a gap between the ends. This gap provides a buffer for thermal expansion, but there is another matter to consider: the tracks are bolted to the wooden ties, and if the steel expands too much, it could pull out these bolts. Hence, instead of being placed in a hole the same size as the bolt, the bolts are fitted in slots, so that there is room for the track to slide in place slowly when the temperature rises.
Read more: Real-life applications - Thermal Expansion

It appears you did not read your own example. By using simple math it is clear the picture does not show an example of thermal expansion. If there were no slots in the rails and they just ignored thermal expansion which is a rediculous assumtion to get a 1000 to one expansion the tracks would have to be laid in 0 C (32 F) and the picture taken at nearly 100 C (212 F). If those temperatures differentials were even possible the rails would only buckle and deflect a maximum of one foot at 200 F over about a qtr of a mile. The deflection would not just be in one horizontal direction either. It would more than likely lift the ties as that would be the path of least resistance. The picture definitely DOES NOT show an example of thermal expansion.

 

[eots]

a few columns being blown or thermite in combination with explosive would not be as loud as NIST guesstimates using no sound damping and the loudest explosives possible

 

[DiveCon]

Objects cannot freefall through eachother, thus the 8 floors collapsing at freefall in WTC7 are impossible, unless those floors were simultaneously removed. Fire cannot do this, fire cannot cause 'thermal expansion' to cause this, fire cannot melt steel to cause this, fire cannot symmetrically burn 8 floors and have them fail simultaneously. And if they did, there wouldn't be freefall/symmetrical collapse. Why do you over look this simple fact? This fact is ALL you need to know that the NIST report is a fraud, and there is a coverup.

How does a steel highrise freefall into its own footprint? For 2.25 seconds, or 8 floors, there was ZERO resistance. This is the same resistance AIR gives. 8 floors of building is NOT the same make up as air, thus this is impossible, unless explosives removed all supports, making the resistance makeup the equivalent of air.

Ollie, care to address this fact?

NIST proved it, if you disagree then find some solid physical evidence and disprove them. And please remember that they did not say it was simultaneous. They said it was a progressive collapse.

We'll wait; at least another 9 years.

Why don't you answer my question, sir? Why are you afraid? Stop avoiding the facts.

How does a steel highrise freefall into its own footprint? For 2.25 seconds, or 8 floors, there was ZERO resistance. This is the same resistance AIR gives. 8 floors of building is NOT the same make up as air, thus this is impossible, unless explosives removed all supports, making the resistance makeup the equivalent of air.

it DIDNT
that is just another LIE you morons keep making

 

[SFC Ollie]

a few columns being blown or thermite in combination with explosive would not be as loud as NIST guesstimates using no sound damping and the loudest explosives possible

Keep telling yourself that. Then go get a demolitions company to prove it.

 

[candycorn]

a few columns being blown or thermite in combination with explosive would not be as loud as NIST guesstimates using no sound damping and the loudest explosives possible

Keep telling yourself that. Then go get a demolitions company to prove it.

Doesn't matter, no thermite was found at the scene.

 

[DiveCon]

a few columns being blown or thermite in combination with explosive would not be as loud as NIST guesstimates using no sound damping and the loudest explosives possible

Keep telling yourself that. Then go get a demolitions company to prove it.

Doesn't matter, no thermite was found at the scene.

no explosive residue, no detcord, no wires, no detonators, no evidence at all to any of the things they claim

 

[eots]

a few columns being blown or thermite in combination with explosive would not be as loud as NIST guesstimates using no sound damping and the loudest explosives possible

Keep telling yourself that. Then go get a demolitions company to prove it.

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]

a few columns being blown or thermite in combination with explosive would not be as loud as NIST guesstimates using no sound damping and the loudest explosives possible

Keep telling yourself that. Then go get a demolitions company to prove it.

Doesn't matter, no thermite was found at the scene.

it was by those who actually looked for it

 

[DiveCon]

a few columns being blown or thermite in combination with explosive would not be as loud as NIST guesstimates using no sound damping and the loudest explosives possible

Keep telling yourself that. Then go get a demolitions company to prove it.

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

highlighted key words you either dont understand, of simply choose to ignore

 

[DiveCon]

Keep telling yourself that. Then go get a demolitions company to prove it.

Doesn't matter, no thermite was found at the scene.

it was by those who actually looked for it

NO, it wasn't

 

[SFC Ollie]

a few columns being blown or thermite in combination with explosive would not be as loud as NIST guesstimates using no sound damping and the loudest explosives possible

Keep telling yourself that. Then go get a demolitions company to prove it.

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

If fire were not a factor? If falling debris were not a factor?

So they were factors in the actual collapse..... Thanks for getting that straightened out.

 

[tempesta29]

If fire were not a factor? If falling debris were not a factor?

So they were factors in the actual collapse..... Thanks for getting that straightened out.

Learn to read. And when I say that, I mean really learn to read (and comprehend).

Obviously fire and debris were not decisive factors according to NIST because they were not required for collapse. We're to believe that the failure of one column can cause a steel framed high rise to collapse in a virtual free fall into its own footprint.

I wonder if this event weren't connected to the emotions and controversy of 9/11 if so many people would agree with completely counter-intuitive theories. I suspect not.

 

[SFC Ollie]

If fire were not a factor? If falling debris were not a factor?

So they were factors in the actual collapse..... Thanks for getting that straightened out.

Learn to read. And when I say that, I mean really learn to read (and comprehend).

Obviously fire and debris were not decisive factors according to NIST because they were not required for collapse. We're to believe that the failure of one column can cause a steel framed high rise to collapse in a virtual free fall into its own footprint.

I wonder if this event weren't connected to the emotions and controversy of 9/11 if so many people would agree with completely counter-intuitive theories. I suspect not.

I read and comprehend just fine thank you. And unlike some people I can see evidence and I can see Bull Shit and know the difference.

 

[eots]

according to NIST take out column 79 and the building collapses regardless of cause

 

[tempesta29]

I read and comprehend just fine thank you. And unlike some people I can see evidence and I can see Bull Shit and know the difference.

Then you must have understood that NIST's claim is that fire and debris were not decisive influences on WTC 7's collapse, that the collapse of column 79 was the only requisite, right?

Because from what you typed, it seemed like you didn't recognize that point.

 

[DiveCon]

I read and comprehend just fine thank you. And unlike some people I can see evidence and I can see Bull Shit and know the difference.

Then you must have understood that NIST's claim is that fire and debris were not decisive influences on WTC 7's collapse, that the collapse of column 79 was the only requisite, right?

Because from what you typed, it seemed like you didn't recognize that point.

no, that is NOT what they concluded

 

[eots]

i read and comprehend just fine thank you. And unlike some people i can see evidence and i can see bull shit and know the difference.

then you must have understood that nist's claim is that fire and debris were not decisive influences on wtc 7's collapse, that the collapse of column 79 was the only requisite, right?

Because from what you typed, it seemed like you didn't recognize that point.

no, that is not what they concluded

so according to you they concluded.....?

 

[DiveCon]

then you must have understood that nist's claim is that fire and debris were not decisive influences on wtc 7's collapse, that the collapse of column 79 was the only requisite, right?

Because from what you typed, it seemed like you didn't recognize that point.

no, that is not what they concluded

so according to you they concluded.....?

what they actually said, ya know, not your delusional spin on it