WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[DiveCon]

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




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




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

no, that was terral, he(Eots) didnt believe that one

 

[DiveCon]

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

how are you here?
why didnt we get you yesterday?

 

[DiveCon]

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).

he NEVER responds to actual question, just copy & paste the same crap he always does

 

[Terral]

Hi Setarcos:

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

I have no need to answer any of your silly questions, as if questioning me to death makes the "Building Fires Did It" Case. If Setarcos has a "Building Fires Did It" Case, then go right ahead and present your fantasy from the evidence. I 'have' presented the evidence in the Opening Post of this WTC-7 thread. No. I do not expect you cuckoo to take my WTC-7 testimony seriously (#9) and I am probably the only member here actually qualified (#3) to write on this Topic . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[candycorn]

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




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




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







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

no, that was terral, he(Eots) didnt believe that one

My bad.

 

[DiveCon]

Hi Setarcos:

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

I have no need to answer any of your silly questions, as if questioning me to death makes the "Building Fires Did It" Case. If Setarcos has a "Building Fires Did It" Case, then go right ahead and present your fantasy from the evidence. I 'have' presented the evidence in the Opening Post of this WTC-7 thread. No. I do not expect you cuckoo to take my WTC-7 testimony seriously (#9) and I am probably the only member here actually qualified (#3) to write on this Topic . . .

GL,

Terral

except NO ONE SAYS just fires did it
fires contributed to it along with the damage done either by the 2 Boeing airplanes or the fact a 110 story building fell into and on top of WTC7

 

[eots]

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”

 

[DiveCon]

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”

and was that before or after the final report?

 

[eots]

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”


“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,”


OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[Bern80]

Hi Setarcos:

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

I have no need to answer any of your silly questions, as if questioning me to death makes the "Building Fires Did It" Case. If Setarcos has a "Building Fires Did It" Case, then go right ahead and present your fantasy from the evidence. I 'have' presented the evidence in the Opening Post of this WTC-7 thread. No. I do not expect you cuckoo to take my WTC-7 testimony seriously (#9) and I am probably the only member here actually qualified (#3) to write on this Topic . . .

GL,

Terral

No one is JUST the building fires did it. This a weak contrivance that no one has asserted that you are holding up for the convenience of your own argument. A think two multi planes crashing in the buildings may have had a bit to do with it as well.

Again Terral if this was a controlled demolition, the explosives used had to get there somehow. The work required for buildings that large to fall into their footprints that you claim (not quite actually) would have been quite intricate, yet there has not been a peep from a soul claiming any prior knowledge of any even remotely suspicious activity suggesting such a thing may have taken place. You ignore this because it is incredibly inconvenient for your argument.

Clearly on the two main towers the areas above where the planes hit start to come down first. So I ask AGAIN, how did 'they' make sure the planes hit below where the detonated for the controlled demolition. I also again ask you to address the theory presented by NIST on how/why WTC 7 came down. What do you know about it to be factually inacurrate?

 

[eots]

Hi Setarcos:

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

I have no need to answer any of your silly questions, as if questioning me to death makes the "Building Fires Did It" Case. If Setarcos has a "Building Fires Did It" Case, then go right ahead and present your fantasy from the evidence. I 'have' presented the evidence in the Opening Post of this WTC-7 thread. No. I do not expect you cuckoo to take my WTC-7 testimony seriously (#9) and I am probably the only member here actually qualified (#3) to write on this Topic . . .

GL,

Terral

No one is JUST the building fires did it. This a weak contrivance that no one has asserted that you are holding up for the convenience of your own argument. A think two multi planes crashing in the buildings may have had a bit to do with it as well.

Again Terral if this was a controlled demolition, the explosives used had to get there somehow. The work required for buildings that large to fall into their footprints that you claim (not quite actually) would have been quite intricate, yet there has not been a peep from a soul claiming any prior knowledge of any even remotely suspicious activity suggesting such a thing may have taken place. You ignore this because it is incredibly inconvenient for your argument.

Clearly on the two main towers the areas above where the planes hit start to come down first. So I ask AGAIN, how did 'they' make sure the planes hit below where the detonated for the controlled demolition. I also again ask you to address the theory presented by NIST on how/why WTC 7 came down. What do you know about it to be factually inacurrate?

all witnesses reporting suspicious activity and those who had awareness of prior knowledge were omitted from the report



James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”



“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,”



Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,”

World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”


In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

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

. A 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.

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? ...

4 validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.



OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[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.

Any answer eots?

 

[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".

No comments on this eots?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

you STILL wasting your time with the disinformation agents Eots?

 

[DiveCon]

you STILL wasting your time with the disinformation agents Eots?

he still talks to you, so yes

 

[eots]

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".

No comments on this eots?

LOL..a NIST fact sheet explaining why they assume that controlled demolition would be noticed is not an scientific investigation of blast scenarios...

DR Quintere statement that..these collapse scenarios have a low probability
should also be noted..there are several explanations to your questions..my answer would be why don't we have an independent investigation with subpoena power and explore all evidence as requested by the family steering committee ..members of the 9/11 commission and the former lead fire investigator at NIST

 

[LA RAM FAN]

btw Ditzcon a moron like yourself who talks to himself-which is what you do when you talk to me since your on my ignore list,truley has a sad life and hardly has any credibility.LOL.

 

[DiveCon]

btw Ditzcon a moron like yourself who talks to himself-which is what you do when you talk to me since your on my ignore list,truley has a sad life and hardly has any credibility.LOL.

if a moron has me on his ignore list, then why is that moron even addressing my post

 

[LA RAM FAN]

keep on responding to me loser,it just shows how pathetic you are and how desperate you are for my attention and how you feel the need to talk to yourself.Pretty pitiful you are that your that desperate for attention when you KNOW that person doesnt read your posts.LOL

 

[DiveCon]

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".

No comments on this eots?

the troofers will always ignore the actual truth