WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[HUGGY]

they do and when done by NIST..or in an official capacity ..but not from national geo

None of the tests were conducted NGO. They were conducted by the same type of qualifying bodies that would need to be used for your investigation. Scientists at Purdue University, The Society of Civil Engineers and the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center. What do you find these groups do be unqualified

I find it far more interesting what you DIDN'T highlight:

NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event

Fruther it should be noted that while the Mr. Quintere may not be completely satisfied with the investigation he does not share you belief that this was an inside job. I was easily abe to find Mr. Quintiere's paper on the issue. From what I can read he does support that the planes ultimately brought down the towers. What he disagrees about is how the structure failed. He indeed does not believe the steel beams softened due to fire exposure. His belief is summarized here:

2. Trusses fail as heated by fire (with insulation intact) as due to the instability of
the external columns according to Usmani et al.12, or the trusses fail at the
connections according to Burgess et al.13 and the NIST truss computations9

[/B]so you are saying ther is no tri-lateral commison ???

blah blah blah ramble ramble...what ???...I am the one that supports a real investigation...you oppose it...

Where have I ever stated I don't support further investigation? You can investigate it until the cows come home for all I care. My contention is that you are not satisified with any evidence or able to weigh objectively any evidence now or in the future that supports anything but a government inside job. Again until you face the truth about yourself, you will not learn the truth of what happened on 9/11.

a government inside job.

Is that the only alternate possibility? Cheney outed Plame and Bush apparantly didn't know about it. How about not assuming who was responsible until an honest examination reveals the truth?

 

[Bern80]

i want credible scientific study of hypothetical blast scenario's as promised by NIST and requested by the lead fire investigator

Why is it that you and your other stooges continually post claims and quotes WITHOUT the sources. Is that part of your game-plan? To quote mine and make up your own stuff so people can't make up their own minds?

Between you and 9/11 inside job, you two never quote what you are talking about. You want a "good debate" about subjects here, but refuse to make it easy to discuss by referring us to videos and past posts that supposedly contain the information.

So, I'll ask you this again. Please post the source to the quote where James Quintiere requested a scientific study of "hypothetical blast scenarios". Can you provide one or not? If not, we can all just assume that your making this crap up. Much like 9/11 inside job and his claim that steel only STARTS to melt at 2500F, yet provides no source for his claim and only gives us a mysterious "steel worker" who told him this.

This is a link to the search I did to get to his pdf paper (direct link can't be posted)

James Quintiere - Yahoo! Search Results

The guy does have some valid questions. But what is more interesting is that truthers like eots really point to him is their guy. Problem is, as far as I can tell he doesn't beleive it was an inside job either. He simply posits a different collapse scenario.

 

[Gamolon]

it was steel I provided that information several times...and you keep forgetting that the lead fire investigator at also stated that fires a the maximum temperatures for much longer durations created only minimal floor sagging...and that no forensic test should that temperatures hot enough to weaken steel was even present at the wtc...so other than popular mechanics ...who confirms....your assertions ???

Did you even read James Quintiere's paper concerning his questions to NIST about the investigation? Probably not. You and 9/11 inside job just parrot the things you read from the other truthers and don't do any research yourself. Here is a quote from Mr. Quintiere's paper found here: James Quintiere - Google Search

The ratings for the UL furnace tests were based on loaded assemblies,
and therefore the failure time is based on structural collapse. Note the long
span truss of 65-ft could not be tested. Normally the test assembly is not
loaded and temperature is the criterion for the rating; in some areas of the
world only the temperature criterion applies. By examining the
temperatures achieved and by assuming the standard time-temperature
curve represents a reasonable fire (See Figure 11), some conclusions on
failure can be drawn. Especially since structural models indicate failure of
the floors trusses at temperature of 400 – 600ºC. The UL tests of 17-
(scaled) and 35-ft truss spans give temperatures indicative of failure, and
consistent with the temperatures need to cause structural failure of the
floors in times of 58 to 86 minutes. Note the following:
• Time to reach 593 ºC (average) - 66 to 86 min.
• Time to reach 704 ºC (max.) - 58 to 76 min.
• NIST computed truss “walks off seat at 650 ºC.
The variation in the UL times is due to three separate tests at 3/4 inch of
insulation and one at 1/2 inch, indicative of WTC 2. One might question
why there is a 28-minute variation in the results for simple thermocouple
measurements in a standard time-temperature furnace test. But that is a
question for the accuracy of the test, not these general results. For these
times, of 58-86 minutes, are consistent with the failure time of 56 minutes
for Tower 2. So the UL tests do support that fire conditions can fail the
trusses in WTC 2.
Let us consider that a steel temperature of 600ºC is sufficient for
causing failure of a WTC truss as structural calculations have borne out.
Tests were done on facsimiles of the truss steel rods for various levels of
insulation thickness in a furnace at 800ºC, representative of the WTC fires
(See Figure 10). These were done with the Cafco insulation at the Isolatek
laboratory in NJ. The details of these computations can be found in
Quintiere2. Figure 11 shows the time to achieve 600ºC (failure) for the
various structural elements in the twin towers. It also displays the effect of
WTC QUESTIONS 17
Figure 11. Steel time to reach 600ºC failure criterion
lost insulation as a fraction of that lost around the perimeter. The truss
representations for WTC 1 are listed as 38 [mm] (1.5 inch insulation) and
WTC 2, 19 [mm] (3/4 inch insulation). Failure times are 70 and 110
minutes for WTC 2 and 1, respectively, for no loss of insulation. A small
loss in insulation reduces these times sharply, especially after 20 % is lost.
This result suggests that the loss of insulation on the trusses was not likely,
as collapse would have resulted much earlier than in reality. However, the
loss of all insulation on the heavy core columns results in a failure time of
about 75 minutes; this is not so inconsistent with the actual failure times of
56 and 102 minutes. But the correspondence to the truss computed times
are a much better match. Moreover, more than 50 % of the insulation must
be lost from the core heavy columns to yield failure times consistent with
the event. These computations support the trusses as the root cause of the
collapse.

And the final blow to you and everyone else who uses the lead fire investigator's thoughts and claims as proof of explosives/thermite/controlled demolition of the towers is this quote towards the end of his paper:

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses.

See that bolded part? The only thing he disagrees with in the NIST report is that they claim the CORE COLUMNS weakened. His alternate theory is that it was the TRUSSES that failed.

You didn't even read the paper did you? What a friggin joke you people are.

 

[Gamolon]

James Quintiere, Ph.D., Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science

Ok, Let's tear this post of yours to shreds and expose you for the fraud you are. Why did you put James Quintiere's name at the top of this post as if he said EVRYTHING listed below without posting the actual source for each claim? You do this quite often. Both you AND 9/11 inside job are guilty of this crap. Trying to make your claims more plausible for some reason? Afraid that people will read the ACTUAL quotes and make their own opinion?

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

The above paragraph was speaking about WTC7 specifically. What does that have to do with WTC1 and WTC2? Trying to intentionally confuse people?

Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

Again trying to confuse people by putting the above quote DIRECTLY below the "hypothetical blast scenarios" as if Quintiere is saying they should look into BLAST scenarios as a whole for ALL towers. What an lying ass you are, trying to mislead people. James Quintiere has said many times that his ALTERNATIVE scenario is the TRUSSES failed due to heat and not the COLUMNS failing as NIST claims. Nothing to do with explosives, but you guys prefer to lie and mislead to get your point across.

Pathetic.

Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done?


careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

All this followed up by his quote towards the end of his paper:

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.

So, your LEAD FIRE INVESTIGATOR" that you so proudly display as proof that we need a new investigation to prove it was a controlled demolition, states that HE believes it was STILL a structural failure due to heat, only that it was the TRUSSES that failed, not the columns.

It is clear that you guys are swallowing hook, line, and sinker, every little bit of information your "leaders" are giving you WITHOUT researching anything yourselves.

I'd laugh if this wasn't so pathetic.

 

[Liability]

James Quintiere, Ph.D., Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science

Ok, Let's tear this post of yours to shreds and expose you for the fraud you are. Why did you put James Quintiere's name at the top of this post as if he said EVRYTHING listed below without posting the actual source for each claim? You do this quite often. Both you AND 9/11 inside job are guilty of this crap. Trying to make your claims more plausible for some reason? Afraid that people will read the ACTUAL quotes and make their own opinion?

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

The above paragraph was speaking about WTC7 specifically. What does that have to do with WTC1 and WTC2? Trying to intentionally confuse people?



Again trying to confuse people by putting the above quote DIRECTLY below the "hypothetical blast scenarios" as if Quintiere is saying they should look into BLAST scenarios as a whole for ALL towers. What an lying ass you are, trying to mislead people. James Quintiere has said many times that his ALTERNATIVE scenario is the TRUSSES failed due to heat and not the COLUMNS failing as NIST claims. Nothing to do with explosives, but you guys prefer to lie and mislead to get your point across.

Pathetic.

Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done?


careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

All this followed up by his quote towards the end of his paper:

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.

So, your LEAD FIRE INVESTIGATOR" that you so proudly display as proof that we need a new investigation to prove it was a controlled demolition, states that HE believes it was STILL a structural failure due to heat, only that it was the TRUSSES that failed, not the columns.

It is clear that you guys are swallowing hook, line, and sinker, every little bit of information your "leaders" are giving you WITHOUT researching anything yourselves.

I'd laugh if this wasn't so pathetic.

It's almost like the Trufers are opposed to truth.

It's almost like they whine about alleged disinformation but instead employ it as their main form of propaganda.

It's almost like there's a chance people might take their dishonesty and stupidity in any way seriously.

Nah.

 

[Terral]

Hi Gamolon:

Quoted Part >> . . . An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures corresponding to failure based on structural analyses . . .

Gamolon Commentary >> See that bolded part? The only thing he disagrees with in the NIST report is that they claim the CORE COLUMNS weakened. His alternate theory is that it was the TRUSSES that failed.

You didn't even read the paper did you? What a friggin joke you people are.

No. What a joke you are for holding this STUPIDITY up as evidence that 'Building Fires Did It' in this WTC-7 Case!!!! Please allow me to include the description of COMPLETE MORON!!! Any 'Surface Test' makes reference and to the application of heat energy to a steel 'SEGMENT' completely detached from the MASSIVE Steel-framed network!!!! There is no amount of heat energy coming from ANY BUILDING FIRE that will cause the heat to remain stationary in ANY STEEL-FRAME NETWORK. Period! The heat energy races throughout the network from the 'hot' areas to the 'cooler' areas without requiring the permission of any NIST pinhead!!! You need a serious set of cutting torches to even begin 'severing' massive girders and columns like this . . .

The WTC Skyscrapers include MASSIVE columns that were 'CUT' (severed) into 'truck-sized' segments for easy removal by the Inside-job Terrorists who murdered innocent Americans 'and' who are still working every damned day to Cover Up their handiwork!!!

This box column is composed of massive plates that are four inches thick on each side 'and' the thermate froth is pouring out on ALL SIDES. Seventy-five percent of the froth is on the 'outside' of the column with Twenty-five percent on the 'inside,' because the thermate charge was obviously set on the OUTSIDE of the column. This massive column was 'cut' on a 45-degree angle to allow the entire column line to 'walk' in our direction.

Open up your deluded eyes to realize that the stub columns (short segments in the ground) were all forced in the same direction as the 'high' side of the 45-degree angle IN EVERY CASE. Why??? Since I am a Demo Supervisor for more than 30 years, then I 'am' qualified (#3) to answer this question: The massive 'upper' column . . .

. . . includes a 'bend' that was created 'during the Controlled Demolition' of the skyscraper; when the massive 'load' was shifted and the upper column slid off the lower column stub (short segment in the ground). The massive transfer of weight pushed the stub column in the opposite direction, until the upper column fell and impacted the concrete pad in sequence with 'all' of the upper columns in the skyscraper being 'severed.' The timing of these events allow the back of the steel-framed network to be 'broken' to initiate the "Controlled Demolition" Collapse/Implosion. These 45-degree angle 'cuts' are "Controlled Demolition Signatures" and CLEAR EVIDENCE that these WTC Skyscrapers were taken down by experts.

You will find that 'all' of the column stubs are bent in the direction of the 'high point' of the 45-degree cuts, because the column line moved in the opposite direction 'and' the weight was still pushing down on the column stubs! If these columns were cut intentionally by demo crews (not), then the massive weight would NOT be a factor and all of these column stubs would be perpendicular (90 degrees) to the ground. However, the reason that nothing I say makes any sense to the typical American FOOL is because the USA 'is' worthy of being utter destroyed off the face of the earth (#9) . . . so keep up with the nonsense and STUPIDITY.

The H1N1 Triple-triple Recombinant Biological Weapon 'is' about to mutate (my Topic) 'and' a very large percentage of the world population is going to be exterminated. THEN, perhaps, those who remain will be able to listen to common sense . . .

You guys should be spending time investigating "Swine11" (Post #303) . . .

GL,

Terral

. . .

 

[Gamolon]

No. What a joke you are for holding this STUPIDITY up as evidence that 'Building Fires Did It' in this WTC-7 Case!!!! Please allow me to include the description of COMPLETE MORON!!! Any 'Surface Test' makes reference and to the application of heat energy to a steel 'SEGMENT' completely detached from the MASSIVE Steel-framed network!!!! There is no amount of heat energy coming from ANY BUILDING FIRE that will cause the heat to remain stationary in ANY STEEL-FRAME NETWORK. Period! The heat energy races throughout the network from the 'hot' areas to the 'cooler' areas without requiring the permission of any NIST pinhead!!! You need a serious set of cutting torches to even begin 'severing' massive girders and columns like this . . .

Why do they insulate the steel structure in a building if heat from an office fire cannot affect the steel in any way due to your "transfer of heat to cooler areas"? Are you saying that your pictures show proof that the columns were cut during the demolition and not during cleanup?

 

[Bern80]

Hi Gamolon:

Quoted Part >> . . . An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures corresponding to failure based on structural analyses . . .

Gamolon Commentary >> See that bolded part? The only thing he disagrees with in the NIST report is that they claim the CORE COLUMNS weakened. His alternate theory is that it was the TRUSSES that failed.

You didn't even read the paper did you? What a friggin joke you people are.

No. What a joke you are for holding this STUPIDITY up as evidence that 'Building Fires Did It' in this WTC-7 Case!!!! Please allow me to include the description of COMPLETE MORON!!! Any 'Surface Test' makes reference and to the application of heat energy to a steel 'SEGMENT' completely detached from the MASSIVE Steel-framed network!!!! There is no amount of heat energy coming from ANY BUILDING FIRE that will cause the heat to remain stationary in ANY STEEL-FRAME NETWORK. Period! The heat energy races throughout the network from the 'hot' areas to the 'cooler' areas without requiring the permission of any NIST pinhead!!! You need a serious set of cutting torches to even begin 'severing' massive girders and columns like this . . .

So in a nutshell you are telling us the person providing this testimony, Mr. Quintiere, the same guy that eots, a fellow truther, beleives is proof of an inside job, is an idiot? It oughta tell you something when two truthers can't even agree with each other.

 

[Terral]

Hi Bern:

So in a nutshell you are telling us the person providing this testimony, Mr. Quintiere, the same guy that eots, a fellow truther, beleives is proof of an inside job, is an idiot? It oughta tell you something when two truthers can't even agree with each other.

I am not here to agree with anybody. All of this 'talk' about NIST and 911Comission Cronies is useless chatter that confuses the typical USMB reader. If anybody wishes to address 'the Topic' of this debate, then start by 'quoting >>' something from 'my work' in the Opening Post and present your advocating 'or' opposing views using the evidence.

GL,

Terral

 

[Gamolon]

Since I am a Demo Supervisor for more than 30 years, then I 'am' qualified (#3) to answer this question: The massive 'upper' column . . .

. . . includes a 'bend' that was created 'during the Controlled Demolition' of the skyscraper; when the massive 'load' was shifted and the upper column slid off the lower column stub (short segment in the ground). The massive transfer of weight pushed the stub column in the opposite direction, until the upper column fell and impacted the concrete pad in sequence with 'all' of the upper columns in the skyscraper being 'severed.' The timing of these events allow the back of the steel-framed network to be 'broken' to initiate the "Controlled Demolition" Collapse/Implosion. These 45-degree angle 'cuts' are "Controlled Demolition Signatures" and CLEAR EVIDENCE that these WTC Skyscrapers were taken down by experts.

Demo Supervisor?! Oh boy! I'm impressed! Did you learn your research skills common sense while being a Demo Supervisor? I hope not.

Can you prove to me that the columns you speak of were not cut AFTER the fact for ease of cleanup?

You see, I was a construction supervisor for many projects including work done on blast furnaces in steel mills. I also designed hydraulics for mills, designed oxygen pipelines for mills, was part of damage assessment teams for explosion disasters. I worked along side the Army Corp of Engineers, I worked in breweries and designed the piping system in them, and many other projects. Your "30 years experience" doesn't impress me at all.

I find your explanations to be completely idiotic.

 

[Gamolon]

All of this 'talk' about NIST and 911Comission Cronies is useless chatter that confuses the typical USMB reader.

I get it now. The "typical" USMB reader is far below your intelligence level to figure this stuff out themselves, so you have to bring your "vast knowledge" and "30 years as a Demo Supervisor" to the table to help them out?

Pray tell, what is a "typical" USMB reader Mr. High and Mighty?

 

[Bern80]

Hi Bern:

So in a nutshell you are telling us the person providing this testimony, Mr. Quintiere, the same guy that eots, a fellow truther, beleives is proof of an inside job, is an idiot? It oughta tell you something when two truthers can't even agree with each other.

I am not here to agree with anybody. All of this 'talk' about NIST and 911Comission Cronies is useless chatter that confuses the typical USMB reader. If anybody wishes to address 'the Topic' of this debate, then start by 'quoting >>' something from 'my work' in the Opening Post and present your advocating 'or' opposing views using the evidence.

GL,

Terral

There's nothing confusing about it at all. My beliefs aren't grounded in what the NIST or 9/11 found simpy because I dont know what's in them. As with eots, the problem in finding the truth is in your head because no scientific mind could ever claim that the truthers as well as yourself are conducting an objective, unbiased investigation. It is so obvious to anyone looking at this group from the outside that they you are cherry picking the evidence that fits your preconceived notion.

Like your pictures for example; did you not consider the beams were cut through in the cleanup process? What evidence do you have that they weren't? Hell even the truthers on the NGO special, once all the evidence was presented, were reduced to the truly laughable excuse that it was 'obviously' spray-on SUPER thermite that was used. Which is of course a substance only government officials have ever seen.

 

[Terral]

Hi Bern:

There's nothing confusing about it at all.

That is a wonderful profession . . .

My beliefs aren't grounded in what the NIST or 9/11 found simpy because I dont know what's in them.

Here is the deal in a nutshell: There are only 'two' (count them) explanations for what took WTC-7 down into its own footprint CD-style in 6.6 seconds:

1. Controlled Demolition.
2. Building Fires/Debris.

You are either in the "CD" Camp, OR you are standing with George Bush, Karl Rove, Dickless Cheney, Donald the liar Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and the other 9/11 Inside-Job Terrorists spreading a mere "Building Fires Did It" FANTASY. There is no precedent for overbuilt skyscrapers collapsing from building fires, because that is very much IMPOSSIBLE. The heat energy is 'displaced' throughout the entire steel-frame network 'and' into the air and ground MUCH more quickly than any single steel member can be softened or melted or any other such NONSENSE.

I was a member at AE911truth.org for some time (search "Terral") 'and' the Opening Post Presentation was posted in the WTC-7 Forum and scrutinized by professional architects and engineers with far more technical knowledge on these subjects than any of you. If you want to believe Loyal Bushie/Obama "Building Fires Did It" Fantasies (see #9), then that says MUCH more about you than anything that happened on 9/11 . . .

As with eots, the problem in finding the truth is in your head because no scientific mind could ever claim that the truthers as well as yourself are conducting an objective, unbiased investigation.

This is complete and utter NONSENSE. Thousands and thousands and thousands of massive steel components (girders, columns, beams, bar-joists) had to be 'cut' using deliberate 'timed sequences' to allow steel-framed skyscrapers to collapse CD-style into their own footprints.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEV7YHtAZ2Y"]Watch The Short Video And Decide For Yourself[/ame]

Danny Jowenko 'is' a Demolition Expert who knows full well that WTC-7 was taken down using . . .

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMhUTrBODtA&feature=related"]Controlled Demolition[/ame]

It is so obvious to anyone looking at this group from the outside that they you are cherry picking the evidence that fits your preconceived notion.

Bullony!!! Bern is living in 911Truth DENIAL (pic) and you refuse to wake-the-hell-up!!! Period. I know for a 100 percent FACT that WTC-7 was DEFINITELY taken down using Controlled Demolition, but you guys are at liberty to believe whatever blows air up your skirt . . .

Like your pictures for example; did you not consider the beams were cut through in the cleanup process?

Unlike Bern, I have studied these related 911 Inside Jobs from every perspective. Tell me what you see at the very top of this picture:

You are looking at another 45-degree angle 'shaped-charge' cut made during the Controlled Demolition of WTC-7. Look at all the 90-degree cuts on all the red-iron columns and beams scattered throughout the debris pile! All of these components are lying down exactly where they fell 'during' the Controlled Demolition of this skyscraper, as the debris has yet to be moved. Nobody climbed up any ladder to make a 45-degree cut that high 'and' no 45-degree cuts were made during the clean-up operation. Those cuts are dangerous, increase the chances of shifting the load 'and' waste far too much fuel. No. These 45-degree angle cuts are 'Controlled Demolition Signatures,' even if Bern has no idea what this means . . .

What evidence do you have that they weren't?

The evidence says WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled "Pull It" Demolition. Period. You want to believe "Building Fires Did It" for no good reason; except to feed your own delusions . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hi Gamolon:

Quoted Part >> . . . An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures corresponding to failure based on structural analyses . . .

Gamolon Commentary >> See that bolded part? The only thing he disagrees with in the NIST report is that they claim the CORE COLUMNS weakened. His alternate theory is that it was the TRUSSES that failed.

You didn't even read the paper did you? What a friggin joke you people are.

No. What a joke you are for holding this STUPIDITY up as evidence that 'Building Fires Did It' in this WTC-7 Case!!!! Please allow me to include the description of COMPLETE MORON!!! Any 'Surface Test' makes reference and to the application of heat energy to a steel 'SEGMENT' completely detached from the MASSIVE Steel-framed network!!!! There is no amount of heat energy coming from ANY BUILDING FIRE that will cause the heat to remain stationary in ANY STEEL-FRAME NETWORK. Period! The heat energy races throughout the network from the 'hot' areas to the 'cooler' areas without requiring the permission of any NIST pinhead!!! You need a serious set of cutting torches to even begin 'severing' massive girders and columns like this . . .

The WTC Skyscrapers include MASSIVE columns that were 'CUT' (severed) into 'truck-sized' segments for easy removal by the Inside-job Terrorists who murdered innocent Americans 'and' who are still working every damned day to Cover Up their handiwork!!!

This box column is composed of massive plates that are four inches thick on each side 'and' the thermate froth is pouring out on ALL SIDES. Seventy-five percent of the froth is on the 'outside' of the column with Twenty-five percent on the 'inside,' because the thermate charge was obviously set on the OUTSIDE of the column. This massive column was 'cut' on a 45-degree angle to allow the entire column line to 'walk' in our direction.

Open up your deluded eyes to realize that the stub columns (short segments in the ground) were all forced in the same direction as the 'high' side of the 45-degree angle IN EVERY CASE. Why??? Since I am a Demo Supervisor for more than 30 years, then I 'am' qualified (#3) to answer this question: The massive 'upper' column . . .

. . . includes a 'bend' that was created 'during the Controlled Demolition' of the skyscraper; when the massive 'load' was shifted and the upper column slid off the lower column stub (short segment in the ground). The massive transfer of weight pushed the stub column in the opposite direction, until the upper column fell and impacted the concrete pad in sequence with 'all' of the upper columns in the skyscraper being 'severed.' The timing of these events allow the back of the steel-framed network to be 'broken' to initiate the "Controlled Demolition" Collapse/Implosion. These 45-degree angle 'cuts' are "Controlled Demolition Signatures" and CLEAR EVIDENCE that these WTC Skyscrapers were taken down by experts.

You will find that 'all' of the column stubs are bent in the direction of the 'high point' of the 45-degree cuts, because the column line moved in the opposite direction 'and' the weight was still pushing down on the column stubs! If these columns were cut intentionally by demo crews (not), then the massive weight would NOT be a factor and all of these column stubs would be perpendicular (90 degrees) to the ground. However, the reason that nothing I say makes any sense to the typical American FOOL is because the USA 'is' worthy of being utter destroyed off the face of the earth (#9) . . . so keep up with the nonsense and STUPIDITY.

The H1N1 Triple-triple Recombinant Biological Weapon 'is' about to mutate (my Topic) 'and' a very large percentage of the world population is going to be exterminated. THEN, perhaps, those who remain will be able to listen to common sense . . .

You guys should be spending time investigating "Swine11" (Post #303) . . .

GL,

Terral

. . .

The Bush dupes here continue to make themselves look like idiots in the fact that in ALL 3 buildings,we have seen pics of molten metal found under them 3 weeks after the collapse and also as late as into october as well AFTER the firefighters had been spraying down the fires that whole time.the heat from below the wreakage was so intense that some of the firefighters and rescue workers reported their boots started melting off.ALL impossible 3 weeks later from just juel fuel or office fires. they sure are grasping at straws now. With thermate though,it WOULD cause that kind if intense heat and still be there 3 weeks later and well into october.office fires and jet fuel though? I love it."rolling on floor with laughter." Ilove it how the views of hundreds of architects,engineers and even demolition experts means nothing to do them.Only what NIST and the 9/11 coverup commission say.Priceless.great entertainment there.LOl.and when NIST does admit they made a mistake they the towers collapsed at freefall speed,all of a sudden they think NIST is wrong.priceless logic.I love it.LOL.

 

[Gamolon]

Here is the deal in a nutshell: There are only 'two' (count them) explanations for what took WTC-7 down into its own footprint CD-style in 6.6 seconds:

6.6 seconds?!

What the hell are you smoking? Your full of crap and I'll show you why. Look at this video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExUTAbUCYL0]YouTube - Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 - 02-22-07[/ame]

The collapse initiation STARTS at :25 in this video with part of the mechanical penthouse (left side of the video) collapsing into the building. Count how many seconds there are until the top of the rest of that penthouse starts it's way down. I get to :32 of the video. That's 7 seconds right there. Do you mean to tell me that you MISSED that part? Or are we to believe that that isn't part of the collapse for some reason? Now, add the rest of that collapse timing where the rest of the penthouse top falls to the ground. What is that? Do we add your 6.6 seconds onto that now for a grand total of 13.6 seconds?



So, total collapse DIDN'T occur in 6.6 seconds because you exclude the mechanical penthouse initial collapse from your calculation?

Why did you do that? Is it because it fit your claims better?

 

[Gamolon]

The Bush dupes here continue to make themselves look like idiots in the fact that in ALL 3 buildings,we have seen pics of molten metal

Steel or aluminum? Why can you not answer the question?

found under them 3 weeks after the collapse and also as late as into october as well AFTER the firefighters had been spraying down the fires that whole time.the heat from below the wreakage was so intense that some of the firefighters and rescue workers reported their boots started melting off.ALL impossible 3 weeks later from just juel fuel or office fires.they sure are grasping at straws now. With thermate though,it WOULD cause that kind if intense heat and still be there 3 weeks later and well into october.office fires and jet fuel though? I love it."rolling on floor with laughter." Ilove it how the views of hundreds of architects,engineers and even denolition expoerts means nothing to do them.Only whats NIST and the 9/11 coverup commission say.Priceless.great entertainment there.LOl.

Really? Thermite continues to burn for 3 weeks AFTER it's started?

Oh my freakin' God. Now I KNOW you're a joke.



Yeah. I guess you should be proud that less 1/2% of the total architects and engineers in the US believe you. That's something right?

 

[Bern80]

You are either in the "CD" Camp, OR you are standing with George Bush, Karl Rove, Dickless Cheney, Donald the liar Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and the other 9/11 Inside-Job Terrorists spreading a mere "Building Fires Did It" FANTASY. There is no precedent for overbuilt skyscrapers collapsing from building fires, because that is very much IMPOSSIBLE. The heat energy is 'displaced' throughout the entire steel-frame network 'and' into the air and ground MUCH more quickly than any single steel member can be softened or melted or any other such NONSENSE.

This is slightly disengunous. I'm thinking a few thousand pound aircraft slamming into the building at a few hundred miles per hour probably played a role as well. It wasn't 'just a fire' that brought down the towers.

This is complete and utter NONSENSE. Thousands and thousands and thousands of massive steel components (girders, columns, beams, bar-joists) had to be 'cut' using deliberate 'timed sequences' to allow steel-framed skyscrapers to collapse CD-style into their own footprints.

...which would have required thousands and thousands of people to orchestrate. No one, not a soul, has come forward to confess. Even now that Bush and his cronies are out of power, no one has come forth to implicate anyone in this theory. And btw, yes many of the beams were cut, BY A GIANT GOD DAMN AIRPLANE. It is quite clear that the top of the building starts collapsing first. What did you think should have happened? That floors 94 or so on down were going to support the collapse of the floors coming down at freefall on it on it? I'm the delusional one? So again I ask how did whoever orcheastrated this make sure that the planes hit below the point where the first charges would need to have been placed?

Bullony!!! Bern is living in 911Truth DENIAL (pic) and you refuse to wake-the-hell-up!!! Period. I know for a 100 percent FACT that WTC-7 was DEFINITELY taken down using Controlled Demolition, but you guys are at liberty to believe whatever blows air up your skirt . . .

You CAN'T know that for 100% fact. You just plain don't have the evidence to support it. You have cuts in beams. THAT'S IT. That combined with a brain already leaning toward the conspiratorial and it was a closed case for you within moments. But you don't have evidence of any peopel(s) that would have had to plant it. You don't have anything verified to be thermite residue. You don't even have any independent testing to show that thermite could have done it. What is funny is that you claim to have all this evidence for a controlled demolition, yet the very thing used to cause you admit leaves basically no evidnce behind.

You are looking at another 45-degree angle 'shaped-charge' cut made during the Controlled Demolition of WTC-7. Look at all the 90-degree cuts on all the red-iron columns and beams scattered throughout the debris pile! All of these components are lying down exactly where they fell 'during' the Controlled Demolition of this skyscraper, as the debris has yet to be moved. Nobody climbed up any ladder to make a 45-degree cut that high 'and' no 45-degree cuts were made during the clean-up operation. Those cuts are dangerous, increase the chances of shifting the load 'and' waste far too much fuel. No. These 45-degree angle cuts are 'Controlled Demolition Signatures,' even if Bern has no idea what this means . . .

I don't think you are looking at what you think you're looking at here. The iron looking squares do not appear to be I beams. They look more tile-like. Secondly I don't really see how the captioner could derive from that angle that it was a 45 degree cut. What it looks like to me on right most two iron columns (if that's what they are) appear to be composed of sections of perfect squares. On the two right most columns, part way up there is a break in this pattern, then woud continue where the captioned circle is. If possible could you please provide an uncaptioned version of this picture?

 

[eots]

those that support truth whatever that truth may be support an independent investigation with subpoena powers as the majority of 9/11 commision members and chief NIST investigators..those opposed to the truth for what ever reason would prefer to just play...debunker...bottomline

 

[Gamolon]

Unlike Bern, I have studied these related 911 Inside Jobs from every perspective. Tell me what you see at the very top of this picture:

You are looking at another 45-degree angle 'shaped-charge' cut made during the Controlled Demolition of WTC-7. Look at all the 90-degree cuts on all the red-iron columns and beams scattered throughout the debris pile! All of these components are lying down exactly where they fell 'during' the Controlled Demolition of this skyscraper, as the debris has yet to be moved. Nobody climbed up any ladder to make a 45-degree cut that high 'and' no 45-degree cuts were made during the clean-up operation. Those cuts are dangerous, increase the chances of shifting the load 'and' waste far too much fuel. No. These 45-degree angle cuts are 'Controlled Demolition Signatures,' even if Bern has no idea what this means . . .

Well Terral, obviously you haven't studied this stuff enough. It seems to me that you and the other conspiracy loons find information that supports your views and immediately stop there without looking for alternatives. This kind of crap seriously cramps your reaesrch ability. With a little effort, you would have found out that you were SADLY mistaken in your claim about the above photo.

I LOVE making you idiots look stupid. Do you know WHY it looks like a 45 degree angle super duper thermite cut? I'll tell you why "Mr. 30 years experience as a demo supervisor".

First of all, the beam is at an angle in the picture taken. So you are looking tpartially at the TOP of the columns. Second, the angle debris BEHIND the column helps to make the optical illusion that the beam is "cut" at a 45 degree angle. How do I know this? Here is a photo of the same column, but from different angle. The original photo is here: http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/wtc-7-perfect-implosion.jpg

Here is a closeup I did in Photoshop just by scaling the photo up:

It isn't cut at a 45 degree angle at ALL joker. The extents you guys go to to prove your bullshit is quite amusing.

 

[Bern80]

Unlike Bern, I have studied these related 911 Inside Jobs from every perspective. Tell me what you see at the very top of this picture:

You are looking at another 45-degree angle 'shaped-charge' cut made during the Controlled Demolition of WTC-7. Look at all the 90-degree cuts on all the red-iron columns and beams scattered throughout the debris pile! All of these components are lying down exactly where they fell 'during' the Controlled Demolition of this skyscraper, as the debris has yet to be moved. Nobody climbed up any ladder to make a 45-degree cut that high 'and' no 45-degree cuts were made during the clean-up operation. Those cuts are dangerous, increase the chances of shifting the load 'and' waste far too much fuel. No. These 45-degree angle cuts are 'Controlled Demolition Signatures,' even if Bern has no idea what this means . . .

Well Terral, obviously you haven't studied this stuff enough. It seems to me that you and the other conspiracy loons find information that supports your views and immediately stop there without looking for alternatives. This kind of crap seriously cramps your reaesrch ability. With a little effort, you would have found out that you were SADLY mistaken in your claim about the above photo.

I LOVE making you idiots look stupid. Do you know WHY it looks like a 45 degree angle super duper thermite cut? I'll tell you why "Mr. 30 years experience as a demo supervisor".

First of all, the beam is at an angle in the picture taken. So you are looking tpartially at the TOP of the columns. Second, the angle debris BEHIND the column helps to make the optical illusion that the beam is "cut" at a 45 degree angle. How do I know this? Here is a photo of the same column, but from different angle. The original photo is here: http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/wtc-7-perfect-implosion.jpg

Here is a closeup I did in Photoshop just by scaling the photo up:

It isn't cut at a 45 degree angle at ALL joker. The extents you guys go to to prove your bullshit is quite amusing.

And thus we learn one's perspective can change one's perception on a mental as well as physical level.