Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Eots has the results of such testing, yes?
I think he was the subject of a lot of tests...mental exams, metal drugs, all failed.
but that's only because you are a douchebag that can not address the fact of molten metal and deceptions of NIST
Another problem with the Official Fire Cover Story is these 45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts appear everywhere . . .
That's a bogus video because you cut out the collapse of the mechanical penthouse into the building itself. Why are you ignoring this? Because it fits your views better? 6.6 seconds is bullshit. It was LONGER than that because the collapse STARTED with the collapse of the penthouse. How sad you are trying to mislead people.
I think he was the subject of a lot of tests...mental exams, metal drugs, all failed.
but that's only because you are a douchebag that can not address the fact of molten metal and deceptions of NIST
Molten metal. You keep saying this yet cannot answer my question. Aluminum or steel? Which was found?
Edit:
I would like to see the forensic evidence you have in your possession that proves molten steel was found which leads you to believe thermite was used in a controlled demolition. Otherwise, you need to question your theory like you do the official story.
yes
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
"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 "
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.
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
Then please explain Mr. Quintiere's quote from the paper he wrote that says this:
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.
So he believes that all the testing and evidence point to TEMPERATURES affecting the STEEL FLOOR TRUSSES to a point that they FAILED.
What? Were the trusses made of plastic?
The problem with you is you are trying to use Mr. Quintiere's quotes as evidence that HE believes that there was a controlled demolition and we need a new investigation. That is TOTALLY wrong. He believes that the failure due to TEMPERATURES falls on the floor trusses and NOT on the columns.
So your man Quintiere, in his own paper, says there is enough to show that TEMPERATURES affected the STEEL trusses to a point of failure.
You're just plain wrong now. Your own WITNESS agrees with us.
yes
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
"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 "
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 NISTs investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
Then please explain Mr. Quintiere's quote from the paper he wrote that says this:
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.
So he believes that all the testing and evidence point to TEMPERATURES affecting the STEEL FLOOR TRUSSES to a point that they FAILED.
What? Were the trusses made of plastic?
The problem with you is you are trying to use Mr. Quintiere's quotes as evidence that HE believes that there was a controlled demolition and we need a new investigation. That is TOTALLY wrong. He believes that the failure due to TEMPERATURES falls on the floor trusses and NOT on the columns.
So your man Quintiere, in his own paper, says there is enough to show that TEMPERATURES affected the STEEL trusses to a point of failure.
You're just plain wrong now. Your own WITNESS agrees with us.
you cling to the one example he gives of another possibility and wholly ignore everything else the man said..ultimately and overwhelmingly he believes
Dr. Quintiere said he originally had high hopes that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. Theyre the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think its the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
so if the penthouse is supported by a cental colum undamged by falling debri why did it collapse first ?
then how dis the other colums fail at the exact same instance..it just isnt possible with fire
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.
so if the penthouse is supported by a cental colum undamged by falling debri why did it collapse first ?
then how dis the other colums fail at the exact same instance..it just isnt possible with fire
I have posted the explanation for this TWICE now (this will be the 3rd) in this very thread. No one as yet as bothered to refute it.
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.
Then please explain Mr. Quintiere's quote from the paper he wrote that says this:
So he believes that all the testing and evidence point to TEMPERATURES affecting the STEEL FLOOR TRUSSES to a point that they FAILED.
What? Were the trusses made of plastic?
The problem with you is you are trying to use Mr. Quintiere's quotes as evidence that HE believes that there was a controlled demolition and we need a new investigation. That is TOTALLY wrong. He believes that the failure due to TEMPERATURES falls on the floor trusses and NOT on the columns.
You're just plain wrong now. Your own WITNESS agrees with us.
you cling to the one example he gives of another possibility and wholly ignore everything else the man said..ultimately and overwhelmingly he believes
Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
One example?! It's his ONLY alternate theory.
And YOU ignore the fact that your own star witness says that there was TEMPERATURES high enough to AFFECT the STEEL FLOOR TRUSSES enough to make them FAIL and that this evidence furthers his own theory that it was the TRUSSES, not the CORE COLUMNS that were the cause of the collapse.
Why does he think this?
so if the penthouse is supported by a cental colum undamged by falling debri why did it collapse first ?
then how dis the other colums fail at the exact same instance..it just isnt possible with fire
I have posted the explanation for this TWICE now (this will be the 3rd) in this very thread. No one as yet as bothered to refute it.
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.
its just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and does nothing to answer the question at all and there is no link to where this garbage came from..sounds like popular mechanics
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."
I have posted the explanation for this TWICE now (this will be the 3rd) in this very thread. No one as yet as bothered to refute it.
its just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and does nothing to answer the question at all and there is no link to where this garbage came from..sounds like popular mechanics
It quote clearly states it came from NIST. Yes it is the pop mech. article. now prove they are lieing.
you cling to the one example he gives of another possibility and wholly ignore everything else the man said..ultimately and overwhelmingly he believes
Dr. Quintiere said he originally had high hopes that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. Theyre the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think its the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
One example?! It's his ONLY alternate theory.
And YOU ignore the fact that your own star witness says that there was TEMPERATURES high enough to AFFECT the STEEL FLOOR TRUSSES enough to make them FAIL and that this evidence furthers his own theory that it was the TRUSSES, not the CORE COLUMNS that were the cause of the collapse.
Why does he think this?
NO I am using he words to show the and that information was withheld and "fact finding deterred" and that he is "calling for a new and independent investigation "and that the temperatures required for ant of his theory's to be functional" can not be corroborated with forensic testing"..and that he encourages other scientist to be " conspiracy theorist"
You see, eots the truth of the agenda of the likes of you and terrel is revealed through the manner in which you choose to attempt to tackle the problem. No objective problem solver would do what you are doing . . .
cuckoo running around wanting to believe Loyal Bushie/Obama LIES!!!! its just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and does nothing to answer the question at all and there is no link to where this garbage came from..sounds like popular mechanics
It quote clearly states it came from NIST. Yes it is the pop mech. article. now prove they are lieing.
popular mechanics pfttt..you prove one word of there crap is true.. it reads like a novel written for school children not a scientific report
Hi Bern with Eots mentioned:
You see, eots the truth of the agenda of the likes of you and terrel is revealed through the manner in which you choose to attempt to tackle the problem. No objective problem solver would do what you are doing . . .
WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition. Period. Eots and I are arguing with complete buffoons with no clue about how to prove that "Building Fires Did It." These morons want to believe that all structural steel 'cuts' (like this one) took place 'after' WTC-7 burned down. No sir. The entire structure COLLAPSED . . .
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]. . . Straight Down Into Its Own Footprint . . .[/ame]
. . . to create this little pile:
There is no amount of hydrocarbon fuel and no amount of 'building fires' and no amount of falling WTC-1 debris that can bring this 47-story skyscraper down CD-style in a kabillion years!!!!!! This is obviously a Controlled Demolition, but we have far too many Official Cover Story Idiots
Maybe Eots is entertained by arguing with idiots . . .
GL,
Terral
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.
it could also have been lead from the massive battery systems in the buildingsI think he was the subject of a lot of tests...mental exams, metal drugs, all failed.
but that's only because you are a douchebag that can not address the fact of molten metal and deceptions of NIST
Molten metal. You keep saying this yet cannot answer my question. Aluminum or steel? Which was found?
Edit:
I would like to see the forensic evidence you have in your possession that proves molten steel was found which leads you to believe thermite was used in a controlled demolition. Otherwise, you need to question your theory like you do the official story.
It quote clearly states it came from NIST. Yes it is the pop mech. article. now prove they are lieing.
popular mechanics pfttt..you prove one word of there crap is true.. it reads like a novel written for school children not a scientific report
Accept for all of the scientists they actually cite of course in the article.
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics
Pretty lame eots. You really can't do it can you? You really don't have the integrity to man up and admit you have NOTHING to credibly refute this theory, do you.
