WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[JBeukema]

You won't even say what those temperatures are


losing strength =/= soften =/= melt

again, explain this

and show us the det cord, blasting caps, and other pieces of explosive devidesamng the wreckage

 

[Gamolon]

NIST has not looked for explosive residue so logically they found none..they did however examine materials and steel from the trade centers and found the temperatures required where not evident

And what were the temperatures required?

 

[JBeukema]

You won't even say what those temperatures are


losing strength =/= soften =/= melt

again, explain this

and show us the det cord, blasting caps, and other pieces of explosive devidesamng the wreckage

Why does Terral always disappear after being proven a liar and a fool

 

[eots]

You won't even say what those temperatures are


losing strength =/= soften =/= melt

again, explain this

and show us the det cord, blasting caps, and other pieces of explosive devidesamng the wreckage

the lead fire investigator at stated temperatures required to weaken steel where no evident
your stupid picture is irrelevant...firemen reported not finding an object bigger than a piece of broken telephone key pad all else was unrecognizable fragments..there was miles and miles of wire of all kinds in the trade center and all kinds of electrical components
all covered in a foot of dust...don't be stupid about the needle in the haystack..that no one was looking for

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I remember reading that above a certain floor, but below the impact points, the steel was not fireproofed

 

[JBeukema]

You won't even say what those temperatures are


losing strength =/= soften =/= melt

again, explain this

and show us the det cord, blasting caps, and other pieces of explosive devidesamng the wreckage

the lead fire investigator at stated temperatures required to weaken steel where no evident

That's not the final report said, nor what the evidence suggests according to independent examinations

Besides, you already sad they're l;ying about the official story- which means he's lying about it not being hot enough

your stupid picture is irrelevant..

.

So the fires in there were colder than red coals?

firemen reported not finding an object bigger than a piece of broken telephone key pad

What happens when you frush things under thousands of pounds of concrete?

all else was unrecognizable fragments..there was miles and miles of wire of all kinds in the trade center

Ya think?

[/quote]and all kinds of electrical components
all covered in a foot of dust...don't be stupid about the needle in the haystack..that no one was looking for[/quote]


So... you don't have any evidence of any traces of explosives or demolition equipment, even in the section that survived?

 

[DiveCon]

To those of you trying to debate the Bush dupes, Don't bother. The block here in reaching the truth is not in who has the best evidence. Forget trying to have a real debate of finding the truth. The Bush dupes are liars because they are unwilling to admit to others or maybe even themselves that it isn't the truth they are trying to prove. The block is in the mental disorder that is inside their heads. The truth that I am fairly convinced of is that there is no mountain of evidence you could provide that it was an inside job. You couldn't give them the power omniscience and convince them that thats what happened.

Liability is an idiot. He is clueless,ignores evidence and facts sinc e it doesnt fit HIS version of events and only sees what he wants to see like all us Bush dupes. There are simply too many things that also would have to happen for this to be a job done by 19 Terrorists and Bin Laden that they refuse to account for. It is really interesting to see them point to the minimal evidence for their theories and feel they don't need to provide evidence at all for how the towers collapsed. Why are they not interested in interviewing people who were in teh WTC and listening to their testiomonys? why are they afraid to watch videos we show them?. Why are they not interested in reading testimonys of witnesses and looking at suppressed videos? Why do the Bush dupes REFUSE to look at links that prove it was an inside job? These are just a few of the minor points you can't even begin to get these people to address.

Very good post there Bern.

typical lying troofer

 

[JBeukema]

Hey, 9/11 IJ...

explain this

 

[Article 15]

Altering quotes is not allowed.

~A15

 

[JBeukema]

Altering quotes is not allowed.

~A15

Did I miss something?

 

[eots]

show me that NIST did forensic test that showed the steel was subjected to temperature sufficient to weaken steel to the point of structural failure...they went on the presumption that fire must have weakened the steel even though there is no evidence then made computer models with the necessary temperatures and tweaked them ever way they could to fit the assumption...but never investigated hypothetical blast scenarios as they stated to their investigators and the public that they would..

 

[JBeukema]

To those of you trying to debate the troofers. Don't bother. The block here in reaching the truth is not in who has the best evidence. Forget trying to have a real debate of finding the truth. The truthers are liars because they are unwilling to admit to others or maybe even themselves that it isn't the truth they are trying to prove. The block is in the mental disorder that is inside their heads. Do you really think 9/11 was the first time people like eots, indside job and Terrell thought there was an evil government cover up? The truth that I am fairly convinced of is that there is no mountain of evidence you could provide that a group of terrorists crashed planes into the WTC, spilling jet fuel, which burned, weakend the steel and caused the buildings to collapse. You couldn't give them the power omniscience and convince them that thats what happened.

Liability is correct. There are simply too many things that also would have to happen for this to be an inside job that they refuse to account for. It is really interesting to see them point to the minimal evidence for their theories (claims of SUPER thermite residue) and feel they don't need to provide evidence at all for how the thermite got there. Why are they not interested in interviewing people who were in teh WTC to see if the noticed the many people it would have taken to rig the building for a controlled demolition. Why are they not interested in searching for teh government officials for the many people it would have taken to orchestrate all of this. How did 'they' (who is them, they, whoever, btw?) organize everything required for the demolition and somehow arrange for the plans to crash into the buildings? These are just a few of the minor points you can't even begin to get these people to address.

quoted for truth and to preserve the record

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I remember reading that above a certain floor, but below the impact points, the steel was not fireproofed

Not true at all.the steel in fact after the 93 bombing, was reinforced even more so everywhere in the towers on all the steel with even MUCH more fireproofing than it ever had before the 93 bombing.see your confused because your making the mistake that too many other gullible people around here have made,listening to the lies and propaganda of the corporate controlled media.anybody who knows about them knows they never have an interest in the truth about major events like this.

 

[DiveCon]

I remember reading that above a certain floor, but below the impact points, the steel was not fireproofed

Not true at all.the steel in fact after the 93 bombing, was reinforced even more so everywhere in the towers on all the steel with even MUCH more fireproofing than it ever had before the 93 bombing.see your confused because your making the mistake that too many other gullible people around here have made,listening to the lies and propaganda of the corporate controlled media.anybody who knows about them knows they never have an interest in the truth about major events like this.

proof of this?

 

[Bern80]

show me that NIST did forensic test that showed the steel was subjected to temperature sufficient to weaken steel to the point of structural failure...they went on the presumption that fire must have weakened the steel even though there is no evidence then made computer models with the necessary temperatures and tweaked them ever way they could to fit the assumption...but never investigated hypothetical blast scenarios as they stated to their investigators and the public that they would..

Did you watch the NGO piece on this. Steel beams can and do soften and fail when exposed to flame of jet fuel

 

[DiveCon]

show me that NIST did forensic test that showed the steel was subjected to temperature sufficient to weaken steel to the point of structural failure...they went on the presumption that fire must have weakened the steel even though there is no evidence then made computer models with the necessary temperatures and tweaked them ever way they could to fit the assumption...but never investigated hypothetical blast scenarios as they stated to their investigators and the public that they would..

Did you watch the NGO piece on this. Steel beams can and do soften and fail when exposed to flame of jet fuel

i watched that
didnt you love how the troofers responded
LOL
especially when they were shown that thermite wouldn't cut a vertical beam
they all then claimed what was used was a special "super thermite" that no one has ever heard of before

 

[JBeukema]

I remember reading that above a certain floor, but below the impact points, the steel was not fireproofed

Not true at all.the steel in fact after the 93 bombing, was reinforced even more so everywhere in the towers on all the steel with even MUCH more fireproofing than it ever had before the 93 bombing.see your confused because your making the mistake that too many other gullible people around here have made,listening to the lies and propaganda of the corporate controlled media.anybody who knows about them knows they never have an interest in the truth about major events like this.

The impact stripped away much of the fireproofing


fireproofing is not designed to resist such physical forces

 

[JBeukema]

 

[DiveCon]

I remember reading that above a certain floor, but below the impact points, the steel was not fireproofed

Not true at all.the steel in fact after the 93 bombing, was reinforced even more so everywhere in the towers on all the steel with even MUCH more fireproofing than it ever had before the 93 bombing.see your confused because your making the mistake that too many other gullible people around here have made,listening to the lies and propaganda of the corporate controlled media.anybody who knows about them knows they never have an interest in the truth about major events like this.

The impact stripped away much of the fireproofing


fireproofing is not designed to resist such physical forces

Correction: WAS not designed
they have reworked the formula so that now it should
and the new WTC7 is an example of it

 

[eots]

show me that NIST did forensic test that showed the steel was subjected to temperature sufficient to weaken steel to the point of structural failure...they went on the presumption that fire must have weakened the steel even though there is no evidence then made computer models with the necessary temperatures and tweaked them ever way they could to fit the assumption...but never investigated hypothetical blast scenarios as they stated to their investigators and the public that they would..

Did you watch the NGO piece on this. Steel beams can and do soften and fail when exposed to flame of jet fuel

that is not an answer to this question