WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[eots]

Bern80;


Plenty of science has been expended already. There is no evidence any type of explosive device was used to bring down the towers

then why would the man in charge of this report express his frustration this was never done ?..and why does he call his theory questionable and why is there no evidence of the temperatures requires to weaken steel

Even if it did it had to get there somehow. Someone had to put it there and A LOT of it to do the job, yet NO ONE has reported any such activity and NO ONE has confessed. You think there are these people that are keeping their mouths shut if not for a subpoena thrown in their face? Get real.

yes I do...not many criminals confess without interrogation or investigation

Again your notion that this was an inside job done by controlled demolition is based on very flimsy circumstantial evidence. You are somehow surprised that 100% of the people working on this don't agree on the exact same story of what happened. WELL STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. That isn't surprising in the least. The second thing it is based on, whether you care to admit it or not, is that the towers collapsinig look like what happens when a controlled demolition goes off. THAT'S IT. That is the basis of your belief. That fueled by your fucked up imagination. Which is interesting in itself considering there isn't much in the way other examples as to how sky scrapers collapse when it isn't intentional

.


you forgot the existence of molten metal and the free fall controlled collapse and first responder testimony

I don't get why someone who claims to be looking for the whole truth would claim to be satisified simply knowing that explosives were used. that leaves so many questions unanswered. Hell that wouldn't even be evidence that our government did it. For someone who wants the truth it is truly baffling the things you seem to not want answers to

I never said that ..I Said that is all forensic science needs to prove...it would be a a criminal investigations duty to find the answers to the other questions

 

[eots]

that's not true ..science would only have to prove that explosives were used

Plenty of science has been expended already. There is no evidence any type of explosive device was used to bring down the towers. Even if it did it had to get there somehow. Someone had to put it there and A LOT of it to do the job, yet NO ONE has reported any such activity and NO ONE has confessed. You think there are these people that are keeping their mouths shut if not for a subpoena thrown in their face? Get real.

Again your notion that this was an inside job done by controlled demolition is based on very flimsy circumstantial evidence. You are somehow surprised that 100% of the people working on this don't agree on the exact same story of what happened. WELL STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. That isn't surprising in the least. The second thing it is based on, whether you care to admit it or not, is that the towers collapsinig look like what happens when a controlled demolition goes off. THAT'S IT. That is the basis of your belief. That fueled by your fucked up imagination. Which is interesting in itself considering there isn't much in the way other examples as to how sky scrapers collapse when it isn't intentional.

I don't get why someone who claims to be looking for the whole truth would claim to be satisified simply knowing that explosives were used. that leaves so many questions unanswered. Hell that wouldn't even be evidence that our government did it. For someone who wants the truth it is truly baffling the things you seem to not want answers to.

Hey...they committed mass murder and all sure but hey, contempt of court...that rap scares the shit out of them!!!

I'm always curious about why none of these thousands and thousands of guys involved in this conspiracy have not tried to chisel Mr Big (every good caper has a Mr. Big) for more green. Otherwise they'd sing to feds.

I'm sure Mr. Big loved that.

All ten thousand perps...all with airtight alibis. No deathbed confessions, no drunk calls, no turning over someone else for a lighter sentence for a subsequent crime (DWI, DUID, etc..). This is the most clean cut bunch of mass murderers in the history of crime.

that is what black ops do and a examination of history would show your belief to be a fallacy..many secretes have been kept for decades..until declassified

 

[Bern80]

then why would the man in charge of this report express his frustration this was never done ?..and why does he call his theory questionable and why is there no evidence of the temperatures requires to weaken steel

He doesn't believe what you believe eots. What Mr. Quintiere believes happened is on record. He does IN FACT believe it is likely that the heat was sufficient to weaken the trusses that resulted in the collapse. That is in HIS vaunted paper that you keep calling out as your smoking gun. It's better evidence for me than it is for you. But you have totally bastardized what he believe taken his one request for demolition experiments horribly out of context. You ASSUME that he shares your opinion and he of course must want these experiments done to show a controlled demolition. He could want it for any number of reasons. Perhaps a model of some type to simply examine the physics of the building collapse. If he is any kind of researcher at all he is simply trying to collect data. The point is he isn't really the greatest piece of evidence for your case simply because while he may not like the investigation he just plain doesn't agree with the truthers.

yes I do...not many criminals confess without interrogation or investigation

If groups of people only admit to things under interrogation I am again forced to ask why Osama bin laden and al quaida took credit for the attacks?

you forgot the existence of molten metal and the free fall controlled collapse and first responder testimony

People have pointed out to you time and again eot, you can't have this one both ways. How exactly are you reconciling your first statement that you believe heat was not sufficient to weakn metal then here claim their was molten metal.

I never said that ..I Said that is all forensic science needs to prove...it would be a a criminal investigations duty to find the answers to the other questions

Your choice of words in interesting here. Why not needs to disprove again revealing your bias in your fucked up nogin. You keep saying a criminal act occurred perpetrated by our own yet you have ZERO criminal evidence for it and further dont' seem too interested in finding it. Again even you can prove a CD you still are left with who did it. You make another leap of logic for which no evidence exists being that if it was a CD it must have been the U.S. that did it.

 

[DiveCon]

well said bern

 

[eots]

He doesn't believe what you believe eots. What Mr. Quintiere believes happened is on record. He does IN FACT believe it is likely that the heat was sufficient to weaken the trusses that resulted in the collapse. That is in HIS vaunted paper that you keep calling out as your smoking gun. It's better evidence for me than it is for you. But you have totally bastardized what he believe taken his one request for demolition experiments horribly out of context.

clearly he would not request an investigation into it and repeatedly question why it was not done if he did not consider the possibility..clearly

You ASSUME that he shares your opinion and he of course must want these experiments done to show a controlled demolition. He could want it for any number of reasons. Perhaps a model of some type to simply examine the physics of the building collapse. If he is any kind of researcher at all he is simply trying to collect data. The point is he isn't really the greatest piece of evidence for your case simply because while he may not like the investigation he just plain doesn't agree with the truthers.

well all that is assumption but the fact remains he calls the findings questionable request an independent investigation with subpoena powers and encourages all to be conspiracy theorist...but you ignore all of this

People have pointed out to you time and again eot, you can't have this one both ways. How exactly are you reconciling your first statement that you believe heat was not sufficient to weakn metal then here claim their was molten metal.

it is easy the forensic test..show the temperatures of the office and fuel fire throughout...not the relatively small sections subjected to extreme temperatures required to cut

Your choice of words in interesting here. Why not needs to disprove again revealing your bias in your fucked up nogin. You keep saying a criminal act occurred perpetrated by our own yet you have ZERO criminal evidence for it and further dont' seem too interested in finding it. Again even you can prove a CD you still are left with who did it. You make another leap of logic for which no evidence exists being that if it was a CD it must have been the U.S. that did it

basically the same complaints ..the 9/11 commission has of the bin laden /no prior knowledge ..NORAD stand down story...

 

[candycorn]

He doesn't believe what you believe eots. What Mr. Quintiere believes happened is on record. He does IN FACT believe it is likely that the heat was sufficient to weaken the trusses that resulted in the collapse. That is in HIS vaunted paper that you keep calling out as your smoking gun. It's better evidence for me than it is for you. But you have totally bastardized what he believe taken his one request for demolition experiments horribly out of context.

clearly he would not request an investigation into it and repeatedly question why it was not done if he did not consider the possibility..clearly

You ASSUME that he shares your opinion and he of course must want these experiments done to show a controlled demolition. He could want it for any number of reasons. Perhaps a model of some type to simply examine the physics of the building collapse. If he is any kind of researcher at all he is simply trying to collect data. The point is he isn't really the greatest piece of evidence for your case simply because while he may not like the investigation he just plain doesn't agree with the truthers.

well all that is assumption but the fact remains he calls the findings questionable request an independent investigation with subpoena powers and encourages all to be conspiracy theorist...but you ignore all of this

People have pointed out to you time and again eot, you can't have this one both ways. How exactly are you reconciling your first statement that you believe heat was not sufficient to weakn metal then here claim their was molten metal.

it is easy the forensic test..show the temperatures of the office and fuel fire throughout...not the relatively small sections subjected to extreme temperatures required to cut

Your choice of words in interesting here. Why not needs to disprove again revealing your bias in your fucked up nogin. You keep saying a criminal act occurred perpetrated by our own yet you have ZERO criminal evidence for it and further dont' seem too interested in finding it. Again even you can prove a CD you still are left with who did it. You make another leap of logic for which no evidence exists being that if it was a CD it must have been the U.S. that did it

basically the same complaints ..the 9/11 commission has of the bin laden /no prior knowledge ..NORAD stand down story...

Aren't you supposed to be in a FEMA camp right now? They let you get on the Internet? HA HA HA

 

[Gamolon]

and why does he call his theory questionable and why is there no evidence of the temperatures requires to weaken steel

There's no evidence of thermite/explosives either, but you obviously believe that there was a controlled demolition using these items.

 

[Gamolon]

Hey eots. Since you are using quotes and information from James Quintiere from BEFORE the final report came out from NIST in 2008, have you spoken or asked Mr. Quintiere about his views now?

I see many of your references from Mr. Quintiere to be from August of 2007 and before.

Just curious.

 

[Gamolon]

Hey eots. Another question. Do you ever do any further research or do you just find information that supports you views and leave it at that? After seeing that Mr. Quintiere's questions and comments came BEFORE the final WTC7 report came out, I did a little investigation.

I found this quote:

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Taken from here: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

I suggest you present this to Mr. Quintiere and see if this satisfies his "hypothetical blast" scenario question. Looks like NIST did in fact look into these "blast scenarios".

 

[Gamolon]

More information for you eots. In the paper, NCSTAR 1A, page 26, section 3.3, they discuss hypothetical blast scenarios.

Why are you quoting old information like NIST never addressed this? Or is it the fact that you're too lazy to research anything to see if your convoluted beliefs and claims my be wrong?

 

[Terral]

Hi Bern:

P.S. You still have not answered the questions required for CD to be plausible.

Nobody is required to answer 'any' of your ridiculous questions to make the "Controlled Demolition" (AE911Truth.org) Case. I made that case in the OP of this thread if you ever want to address my CD thesis, claims, evidence or conclusions; which I doubt very much that you even begin to understand. What I would love to see is Bern's thesis and evidence for how "Building Fires/Debris Did It" for this WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Case. Please include the link to your work in Bern's next thoughtful reply. Asking me a thousand questions is NOT making your Official Cover Story Case at all . . .

TY,

Terral

 

[Bern80]

Hi Bern:

P.S. You still have not answered the questions required for CD to be plausible.

Nobody is required to answer 'any' of your ridiculous questions to make the "Controlled Demolition" (AE911Truth.org) Case. I made that case in the OP of this thread if you ever want to address my CD thesis, claims, evidence or conclusions; which I doubt very much that you even begin to understand. What I would love to see is Bern's thesis and evidence for how "Building Fires/Debris Did It" for this WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Case. Please include the link to your work in Bern's next thoughtful reply. Asking me a thousand questions is NOT making your Official Cover Story Case at all . . .

TY,

Terral

Unless you would be satisfied with the explanation 'the explosives appeared there out of thin air' then yes you do have to answer how they got there in the first place. And I did ask what was wrong with this particular theory (below) which was ignored. Again it is baffling how seemingly unimportant this detail is to the truthers. Then again since it is a decidely inconvenient truth that they have zero testimony from anyone claiming prior knowledge of the CD perhaps it is not so baffling.

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

 

[Terral]

Hi Bern:

Unless you would be satisfied with the explanation 'the explosives appeared there out of thin air' then yes you do have to answer how they got there in the first place . . .

Listen up, Bern: WTC-7 was 'DEFINITELY' brought down using Controlled Demolition. Period.

The 'only' other explanation on the table is that "Building Fire/Debris Did It." My WTC-7 CD Case has already been presented in the OP of this thread and Bern has managed to 'quote >>' and debunk NOTHING. Click on the short video clip:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]WTC-7 Collapse[/ame]

Now try to tell everyone here that you are looking at a 47-story skyscraper falling down from Building Fires. :0)

Paris Building

Office Building

Landmark Tower Implosion

Now click on each of the CD Video Clips and look for similarities to the WTC-7 CD Implosion.

Look at the faces of all the adjacent buildings!! WTC-7 imploded into its own footprint in the same exact way that these other buildings collapsed from Controlled Demolition. Nobody need convince you about how the charges were set for Bern to connect the CD dots. If you want to believe that overbuilt steel-framed skyscrapers 'can' fall down into their own footprints from building fires (that is impossible), then you confused: = #9) have every right to believe in fairy tales . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[Bern80]

Hi Bern:

Unless you would be satisfied with the explanation 'the explosives appeared there out of thin air' then yes you do have to answer how they got there in the first place . . .

Listen up, Bern: WTC-7 was 'DEFINITELY' brought down using Controlled Demolition. Period.

The 'only' other explanation on the table is that "Building Fire/Debris Did It." My WTC-7 CD Case has already been presented in the OP of this thread and Bern has managed to 'quote >>' and debunk NOTHING. Click on the short video clip:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]WTC-7 Collapse[/ame]

Now try to tell everyone here that you are looking at a 47-story skyscraper falling down from Building Fires. :0)

Paris Building

Office Building

Landmark Tower Implosion

Now click on each of the CD Video Clips and look for similarities to the WTC-7 CD Implosion.

Look at the faces of all the adjacent buildings!! WTC-7 imploded into its own footprint in the same exact way that these other buildings collapsed from Controlled Demolition. Nobody need convince you about how the charges were set for Bern to connect the CD dots. If you want to believe that overbuilt steel-framed skyscrapers 'can' fall down into their own footprints from building fires (that is impossible), then you confused: = #9) have every right to believe in fairy tales . . .

GL,

Terral

Why did you not respond to the theory posted? Obviously some very intelligent people at NIST believe in another explanation. And I thank you for proving the point I made to eots. One of your pieces of 'evidence' basically involves your observation that it looks to you like a CD. You'll have to forgive me if i don't lend much credance to that. Again for an objective person to use how they percieved the collapse as evidence one would think they would also need a frame of reference for how buildings collapse when NOT done via a controlled demolition. We don't have an awful lot of observable data on that. It is a pretty weak argument to say 'I think that was a controlled demolition because that looked like a controlled demolition' considering you don't know what a building collapsing by some other means looks like (unless of course you count the towers).

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Plenty of science has been expended already. There is no evidence any type of explosive device was used to bring down the towers. Even if it did it had to get there somehow. Someone had to put it there and A LOT of it to do the job, yet NO ONE has reported any such activity and NO ONE has confessed. You think there are these people that are keeping their mouths shut if not for a subpoena thrown in their face? Get real.

Again your notion that this was an inside job done by controlled demolition is based on very flimsy circumstantial evidence. You are somehow surprised that 100% of the people working on this don't agree on the exact same story of what happened. WELL STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. That isn't surprising in the least. The second thing it is based on, whether you care to admit it or not, is that the towers collapsinig look like what happens when a controlled demolition goes off. THAT'S IT. That is the basis of your belief. That fueled by your fucked up imagination. Which is interesting in itself considering there isn't much in the way other examples as to how sky scrapers collapse when it isn't intentional.

I don't get why someone who claims to be looking for the whole truth would claim to be satisified simply knowing that explosives were used. that leaves so many questions unanswered. Hell that wouldn't even be evidence that our government did it. For someone who wants the truth it is truly baffling the things you seem to not want answers to.

Hey...they committed mass murder and all sure but hey, contempt of court...that rap scares the shit out of them!!!

I'm always curious about why none of these thousands and thousands of guys involved in this conspiracy have not tried to chisel Mr Big (every good caper has a Mr. Big) for more green. Otherwise they'd sing to feds.

I'm sure Mr. Big loved that.

All ten thousand perps...all with airtight alibis. No deathbed confessions, no drunk calls, no turning over someone else for a lighter sentence for a subsequent crime (DWI, DUID, etc..). This is the most clean cut bunch of mass murderers in the history of crime.

that is what black ops do and a examination of history would show your belief to be a fallacy..many secretes have been kept for decades..until declassified

yeah enough of that moronic too many people would have to be involved and it could never have been kept a secret crap.there was a secret covery war the CIA was involved in in Indonisia in the 50's that nobody knew about till the mid 90's,they kept that a secret for over 40 years and in the 90's we just found out about some of the miltarys secrets from world war one,secrets that were kept from the public for over 70 years.

 

[Setarcos]

Hi Bern:

P.S. You still have not answered the questions required for CD to be plausible.

Nobody is required to answer 'any' of your ridiculous questions to make the "Controlled Demolition" (AE911Truth.org) Case.

Interesting. You feel no need to have any evidence at all? I guess we were mistaken to take you the least bit seriously, then.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hi Bern:

P.S. You still have not answered the questions required for CD to be plausible.

Nobody is required to answer 'any' of your ridiculous questions to make the "Controlled Demolition" (AE911Truth.org) Case. I made that case in the OP of this thread if you ever want to address my CD thesis, claims, evidence or conclusions; which I doubt very much that you even begin to understand. What I would love to see is Bern's thesis and evidence for how "Building Fires/Debris Did It" for this WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Case. Please include the link to your work in Bern's next thoughtful reply. Asking me a thousand questions is NOT making your Official Cover Story Case at all . . .

TY,

Terral

yeah that would be hysterical to see what kind of nonsense he comes up with for that one.as i have said before,BLD 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commissions report cause that building was NOT hit by a plane and other buildings had FAR MORE EXTENSIVE damage done to them from debris and those buildings never collapsed.funny how Bern and the other Bush dupes conviently ignore that link of what architects and engineers and what demolition experts have said. and yes,asking a thousand questionsa that have been answered before in the past is not making a case for your theories Bern.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hi Bern:

P.S. You still have not answered the questions required for CD to be plausible.

Nobody is required to answer 'any' of your ridiculous questions to make the "Controlled Demolition" (AE911Truth.org) Case.

Interesting. You feel no need to have any evidence at all? I guess we were mistaken to take you the least bit seriously, then.

He has given you evidence throughout this thread.again why do you Bush dupes ignore what architects. engineers and even demolition experts say instead of listening to the corporate controlled media and governments versions?

 

[Setarcos]

The experts all said the same thing: no evidence supporting your claims

 

[Bern80]

Hi Bern:

P.S. You still have not answered the questions required for CD to be plausible.

Nobody is required to answer 'any' of your ridiculous questions to make the "Controlled Demolition" (AE911Truth.org) Case. I made that case in the OP of this thread if you ever want to address my CD thesis, claims, evidence or conclusions; which I doubt very much that you even begin to understand. What I would love to see is Bern's thesis and evidence for how "Building Fires/Debris Did It" for this WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Case. Please include the link to your work in Bern's next thoughtful reply. Asking me a thousand questions is NOT making your Official Cover Story Case at all . . .

TY,

Terral

yeah that would be hysterical to see what kind of nonsense he comes up with for that one.as i have said before,BLD 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commissions report cause that building was NOT hit by a plane and other buildings had FAR MORE EXTENSIVE damage done to them from debris and those buildings never collapsed.funny how Bern and the other Bush dupes conviently ignore that link of what architects and engineers and what demolition experts have said. and yes,asking a thousand questionsa that have been answered before in the past is not making a case for your theories Bern.

Oh so someone did tell us who planted the explosives?

You guys really are grasping now. If this was a murder, you would be claiming the defendant shot and killed someone except there's no bullet hole in the body and you have no gun.