WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[eots]

WTC-7 is already imploding at free fall speed, but there is 'no' sign of any building fires through any of the unbroken windows! And yet, this same skyscraper was reduced to this little pile . . .

Wow. I just noticed that you carry the same lie over here to this forum. Trying to pass off a picture showing "no damage" and claiming that photo shows WTC7 "already imploding at free fall speed" when the PENTHOUSE hasn't even collapsed yet in that photo.

The lengths you guys go to...



Nothing wrong with a few little lies, eh Terral?

gam..I find your evidence disingenuous..illogical and not compelling compared to the evidence of controlled demolition and I find the opinions of the experts I have listed including the nist lead fire investigator to be more credible than popular mechanics magazine

 

[DiveCon]

WTC-7 is already imploding at free fall speed, but there is 'no' sign of any building fires through any of the unbroken windows! And yet, this same skyscraper was reduced to this little pile . . .

Wow. I just noticed that you carry the same lie over here to this forum. Trying to pass off a picture showing "no damage" and claiming that photo shows WTC7 "already imploding at free fall speed" when the PENTHOUSE hasn't even collapsed yet in that photo.

The lengths you guys go to...



Nothing wrong with a few little lies, eh Terral?

gam..I find your evidence disingenuous..illogical and not compelling compared to the evidence of controlled demolition and I find the opinions of the experts I have listed including the nist lead fire investigator to be more credible than popular mechanics magazine

except the people you usually quote don't actually agree with you

 

[eots]

Wow. I just noticed that you carry the same lie over here to this forum. Trying to pass off a picture showing "no damage" and claiming that photo shows WTC7 "already imploding at free fall speed" when the PENTHOUSE hasn't even collapsed yet in that photo.

The lengths you guys go to...



Nothing wrong with a few little lies, eh Terral?

gam..I find your evidence disingenuous..illogical and not compelling compared to the evidence of controlled demolition and I find the opinions of the experts I have listed including the nist lead fire investigator to be more credible than popular mechanics magazine

except the people you usually quote don't actually agree with you

except that is just your MORON LIE
that you PROVE..with nothing..just a empty statement you MORON LIAR

 

[DiveCon]

gam..I find your evidence disingenuous..illogical and not compelling compared to the evidence of controlled demolition and I find the opinions of the experts I have listed including the nist lead fire investigator to be more credible than popular mechanics magazine

except the people you usually quote don't actually agree with you

except that is just your MORON LIE
that you PROVE..with nothing..just a empty statement you MORON LIAR

its not a lie
you troofer morons are the liars

 

[Gamolon]

WTC-7 is already imploding at free fall speed, but there is 'no' sign of any building fires through any of the unbroken windows! And yet, this same skyscraper was reduced to this little pile . . .

Wow. I just noticed that you carry the same lie over here to this forum. Trying to pass off a picture showing "no damage" and claiming that photo shows WTC7 "already imploding at free fall speed" when the PENTHOUSE hasn't even collapsed yet in that photo.

The lengths you guys go to...



Nothing wrong with a few little lies, eh Terral?

gam..I find your evidence disingenuous..illogical and not compelling compared to the evidence of controlled demolition

Ahhhh yes. Eots speaks again. If you consider MY evidence all those things, what do you consider Terral's evidence? Particularly, what do you think of his lie posted above? The one where he KNOWINGLY uses a photo from BEFORE the collapse even started as evidence of NO BROKEN WINDOWS DURING the free fall collapse?

You're nothing but a friggin' biased hypocrite. You support people who have been PROVEN to post lies. You support them because they share the same beliefs you do.

How sad.

Where's your criticism of Terral and his bogus evidence?

and I find the opinions of the experts I have listed including the nist lead fire investigator to be more credible than popular mechanics magazine

You mean the same lead fire investigator, James Quintiere, who, based on his analysis and studies done by NIST, believes that the STEEL TRUSSES are what failed due to HEAT from FIRE and CAUSED THE COLLAPSE? You mean THAT OPINION of your EXPERT? Here dopey, I'll even quote you HIS conclusion at the end of his paper and bold what he thinks the cause was based on his EXPERT, CREDIBLE opinion.

I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the
collapse.
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.
The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions. I would
recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST
study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening
this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.

So you support his conclusion/hypothesis that heat from the fires caused the trusses to fail. I mean, he is a CREDIBLE EXPERT in your opinion right?

You guys are a riot. You debunk your own shit with your own evidence.

 

[Gamolon]

Hi Gam:

Keep changing the story Terral. Sooner or later you'll get it right . . .

WTC-7 Was Definitely Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition (my OP). Period. The time from the WTC-1 and WTC-2 Demolition Implosions to the WTC-7 Demolition Implosion, later that afternoon, was 'hours.' However, the Controlled Demolition of WTC-7 from the 'start' of the implosion to the 'collapse' was exactly "6.6 seconds" (story and story and story). My choice of terms and phrases are understood through the 'context' of each statement.

Gam confused is trying to cast the shadow of doubt upon my person (#3), because of the folly of his "Building Fires Did It" explanations. :0)

GL,

Terral

Utter bullshit. COMPLETE collapse in 6.6 seconds??

I have video proof that you are WRONG. Why do you ignore the mechanical penthouse collapse? It that not part of WTC7?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ]YouTube - Collapse of WTC7[/ame]

Can you tell me why this video shows the COMPLETE collapse, starting with the penthouse you ignore, took about 14 seconds until the building disappeared?

6.6 seconds for a COMPLETE collapse is a lie, just like the majority of your evidence.

 

[eots]

Wow. I just noticed that you carry the same lie over here to this forum. Trying to pass off a picture showing "no damage" and claiming that photo shows WTC7 "already imploding at free fall speed" when the PENTHOUSE hasn't even collapsed yet in that photo.

The lengths you guys go to...



Nothing wrong with a few little lies, eh Terral?

gam..I find your evidence disingenuous..illogical and not compelling compared to the evidence of controlled demolition

Ahhhh yes. Eots speaks again. If you consider MY evidence all those things, what do you consider Terral's evidence? Particularly, what do you think of his lie posted above? The one where he KNOWINGLY uses a photo from BEFORE the collapse even started as evidence of NO BROKEN WINDOWS DURING the free fall collapse?

You're nothing but a friggin' biased hypocrite. You support people who have been PROVEN to post lies. You support them because they share the same beliefs you do.

How sad.

Where's your criticism of Terral and his bogus evidence?

and I find the opinions of the experts I have listed including the nist lead fire investigator to be more credible than popular mechanics magazine

You mean the same lead fire investigator, James Quintiere, who, based on his analysis and studies done by NIST, believes that the STEEL TRUSSES are what failed due to HEAT from FIRE and CAUSED THE COLLAPSE? You mean THAT OPINION of your EXPERT? Here dopey, I'll even quote you HIS conclusion at the end of his paper and bold what he thinks the cause was based on his EXPERT, CREDIBLE opinion.

I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the
collapse.
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.
The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions. I would
recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST
study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening
this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.

So you support his conclusion/hypothesis that heat from the fires caused the trusses to fail. I mean, he is a CREDIBLE EXPERT in your opinion right?

You guys are a riot. You debunk your own shit with your own evidence.

these are only theory's ..possibilities he suggested they are not conclusive but you pick this one piece out and ignore the fact that suggest we all become conspiracy theorist and how lawyers deterred fact finding and that forensic evidence of materials supplied do not show temperatures required to weaken steel and his call for a re-investigation...because you are disingenuous

 

[Gamolon]

do not show temperatures required to weaken steel

One of your CREDIBLE, EXPERT, PROFESSIONAL eyewitnesses disagrees with you. Remember?

He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted—it’s kind of like that.” He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.”

This goes hand in hand with Mr. Quintiere's alternate theory.

Another question. At what temperature does steel START to weaken? Do you have an answer or are you just going to play the idiot the rest of your stay here?

 

[Gamolon]

these are only theory's ..possibilities he suggested they are not conclusive but you pick this one piece out and ignore the fact that suggest we all become conspiracy theorist and how lawyers deterred fact finding and that forensic evidence of materials supplied do not show temperatures required to weaken steel and his call for a re-investigation...because you are disingenuous

Why are you not criticizing Terral's or Christophera's theories like you are the official story? I guess you support their lies because they agree with your beliefs and views?

 

[Terral]

Hi Gam:

Gam wants everyone to believe that the WTC skyscrapers collapsed from building fires, which is the most ridiculous story that anyone has ever heard!

Why are you not criticizing Terral's or Christophera's theories like you are the official story? I guess you support their lies because they agree with your beliefs and views?

Okay, hotshot: If there is no conspiracy involved with the WTC attacks, then go right ahead and explain this evidence for the EMPTY HOLE!

This is a picture of the EMPTY HOLE outside Shanksville, PA:

My Flight 93 Topic:

This is Official Govt Documentation for a crashed 100-ton Jetliner that is in reality an EMPTY HOLE.

All of the pictures show the same EMPTY HOLE, because this hole was created 'before' the U.S. Geological Survey Photograph taken on April 20, 1994 (Click And Wake Up Already).

I can show you many pictures of the same EMPTY HOLE . . .

. . . but you choose to remain in 911Truth DENIAL! We have the Flight 93 LIE and the Pentagon LIE and the WTC LIE all happening on the same day, but all Gam can talk about is the WTC attacks! Why does this guy completely ignore all of the evidence for the EMPTY HOLE in this Shanksville Case????

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s"]Where Is The 100-Ton Jetliner????[/ame]

The Govt is LYING about the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition 'and' the Govt is LYING about the EMPTY HOLE outside Shanksville 'and' Gam is here to shove Official Cover Story LIES down your throats. Why? That is easy: DUPES (#7) will believe just about anything . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[DiveCon]

Terral, it is NOT an empty hole as you claim

seriously, seek out professional help for your OCD

 

[Gamolon]

Okay, hotshot: If there is no conspiracy involved with the WTC attacks, then go right ahead and explain this evidence for the EMPTY HOLE!

Why would I do that?

I already exposed your lies and deceit you have used in your WTC7 theory and you won't even discuss those. You try to ignore them and move on to something.

So. Please explain this.

Hey Terral.

Got a question for you. Why did you lie in this post at this forum here. The YBBS - View Single Post - 9/11 Was Definitely An Inside Job

Here is your post.

1. The pictures of WTC-7 falling at almost ‘freefall speed’ . . .

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors...wtc/WTC_ch5.htm

. . . do not even show evidence of fire in the unbroken windows. Remember our massive columns and beams are located very near these windows and require 2,800 degrees to begin melting.

Can you explain why you used THAT picture to try and get people to believe that it was a picture of WTC7 as it fell at free fall speed, but had no broken windows from damage, thus being evidence AGAINST fires causing damage?

Why did you lie and use that picture above when it clearly shows the PENTHOUSE ON THE LEFT has not COLLAPSED INTO THE BUILDING yet? Telling us that the collapse has not yet even started, yet you tried to pass it off as a photo of WTC7 DURING collapse?

What a despicable liar you are?

Again. Why did you knowingly use a picture of WTC7 BEFORE it started to collapse and claim that it is a photo DURING it's collapse that shows no damage?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Terral, it is NOT an empty hole as you claim

seriously, seek out professional help for your OCD

Quite true, I see lots of debris from 93.

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/thumbs/P200061.jpg

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

But I'm sure we've all seen these and hundreds more before. I just don't understand how anyone can deny the proof from a court.

 

[DiveCon]

Terral, it is NOT an empty hole as you claim

seriously, seek out professional help for your OCD

Quite true, I see lots of debris from 93.

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/thumbs/P200061.jpg

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

But I'm sure we've all seen these and hundreds more before. I just don't understand how anyone can deny the proof from a court.

yup, seen those a bunch of times, have the main source page bookmarked

they have been shown this over and over and they still stay in denial

 

[eots]

yes we saw the sketchy pictures of a few unidentified parts that appear to be taken with the exception of possible one somewhere other than the impact site...not impressed

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=PlayList&p=16D800790A246B99&index=0&playnext=1]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80&feature=PlayList&p=AA7BEAA90FAA78A8&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4&feature=PlayList&p=AA7BEAA90FAA78A8&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2]YouTube - WTC7: Nist Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)[/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)


YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)


YouTube - WTC7: Nist Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

they only admit a "free fall" for a PORTION
not what you morons do

 

[eots]

YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)


YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)


YouTube - WTC7: Nist Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

they only admit a "free fall" for a PORTION
not what you morons do

yes the visable portion..then they make an assumption on no evidence that perhapes it slowed in the unseen portion so they can try to extended the collapse time...lol...moron

 

[DiveCon]

YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)


YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)


YouTube - WTC7: Nist Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

they only admit a "free fall" for a PORTION
not what you morons do

yes the visable portion..then they make an assumption on no evidence that perhapes it slowed in the unseen portion so they can try to extended the collapse time...lol...moron

no, a portion AFTER the collapse started
you guys always time the collapse from the wrong point and not the actual start
when the penthouse collapsed

 

[SFC Ollie]

Consider the seismic records of the closest seismic recording station, at Palisades, NY (PAL). They show a very similar pattern for the leveling of WTC 1 and 2. In both cases there is about five seconds of high-amplitude movement, followed by about three seconds of movement at less than half that amplitude, and then by about 15 seconds of much weaker movement. In addition there is some still weaker movement starting about 12 seconds before the onsets of the high-amplitude movement. The main difference is that for WTC 1 the initial high-amplitude phase builds in intensity to a much higher spike than any seen for WTC 2.

The fact that the largest movement is followed by smaller movement has been cited as evidence that bombs, detonated at the starts of the collapses, generated the large movement, and that the debris impacting the ground contributed to the smaller subsequent movement. However, bombs, if detonated underground, would have generated strong P waves in addition to S waves. The fact that only strong S waves were reported is consistent with the theory that the largest movement was caused by building remains hitting the ground.

9-11 Research: Speed of Fall