WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[SFC Ollie]

there was clearly molten steel ..and in the presence of molten steel ..your building fires did it theory falls to pieces

Show me the test that showed that there was molten steel, and not some other alloy.

 

[eots]

the government wont allow any such test just as they wont recognize any such testimony but we have the statements of engineers..iron workers and first responders all saying the ends if the steel columns were melted

 

[SFC Ollie]

And there is only one Picture that shows a melted column. And it sure looks like a cutting torch did that one to me.

I don't buy it. You cannot look at molten metal and tell what it is. I don't care who you are.

 

[Fizz]

the government wont allow any such test just as they wont recognize any such testimony but we have the statements of engineers..iron workers and first responders all saying the ends if the steel columns were melted

eaots, i fond you one of the very few logical posters here. i dont agree with you on most things but at least you dont seem to think i'm some government secret spy just because i dont agree.

being new here i'm not sure exactly what evidence has already been posted one way or the other on this subject but it seems to me that claims of molten steel and claims the steel columns were melted arent the same thing.

put yourself in the place of a first responder looking at the ends of a steel column. obviously if you see molten metal dripping you are going to say the column is melting. but if you take a column that is twisted and bent and charred wouldnt you probably also say it melted? i think you might be taken the word "melted" too literally as meaning molten and thats not the case.

 

[eots]

among other things the refusal of NIST to recognise these witnesses and allow peer reviewed testing of samples leads me to believe it was without question ..steel

 

[SFC Ollie]

among other things the refusal of NIST to recognise these witnesses and allow peer reviewed testing of samples leads me to believe it was without question ..steel

I believe nothing without question when there is doubt. You simply want it to be true. I don't understand why but............to each their own.

 

[eots]

among other things the refusal of NIST to recognise these witnesses and allow peer reviewed testing of samples leads me to believe it was without question ..steel

I believe nothing without question when there is doubt. You simply want it to be true. I don't understand why but............to each their own.

well then you should fully support the forensic testing of this material and for a reinvestigation with testimony under oath and full subpoena power and the archiving of all NIST DATA for full peer reviewed studies as requested by the lead investigator of NIST from 2001/20007...but you seem to prefer to just question but demand no answer...to each his own

 

[B94]

What about this -

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg&feature=related[/ame]

 

[eots]

like all of these debunkig theories it is inconstant with the findings and data of NIST

 

[DiveCon]

like all of these debunkig theories it is inconstant with the findings and data of NIST

well, it sure showed you friend, Steven Jones as a FUCKING LIAR and a fraud

 

[eots]

like all of these debunkig theories it is inconstant with the findings and data of NIST

well, it sure showed you friend, Steven Jones as a FUCKING LIAR and a fraud

by using data inconsistent with NIST

 

[DiveCon]

like all of these debunkig theories it is inconstant with the findings and data of NIST

well, it sure showed you friend, Steven Jones as a FUCKING LIAR and a fraud

by using data inconsistent with NIST

prove it is inconsistent first
you just saying it is, doesnt pass

i dont care what the fuck NIST said
i still know it wasnt a controlled demolition
you need to grow a fucking brain

 

[eots]

well, it sure showed you friend, Steven Jones as a FUCKING LIAR and a fraud

by using data inconsistent with NIST

prove it is inconsistent first
you just saying it is, doesnt pass

i dont care what the fuck NIST said
i still know it wasnt a controlled demolition
you need to grow a fucking brain

you know ?...and you proof is ? and why would I take the time to give you the inconstancy's if you already don't give a fuck what NIST says you are a diveconspirator and you don't believe in the accuracy of any study official or otherwise ..remember

 

[DiveCon]

by using data inconsistent with NIST

prove it is inconsistent first
you just saying it is, doesnt pass

i dont care what the fuck NIST said
i still know it wasnt a controlled demolition
you need to grow a fucking brain

you know ?...and you proof is ? and why would I take the time to give you the inconstancy's if you already don't give a fuck what NIST says you are a diveconspirator and you don't believe in the accuracy of any study official or otherwise ..remember

fuck off asswipe
i dont really give a rats ass what ANY government organization says, the fact speak for themselves to anyone with a rational mind, and YOU and the rest of the fucking moronic troofers dont have one

 

[Fizz]

you know ?...and you proof is ? and why would I take the time to give you the inconstancy's if you already don't give a fuck what NIST says you are a diveconspirator and you don't believe in the accuracy of any study official or otherwise ..remember

Occam's Razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible.

for WTC 7 collapse you need too many unproven assumptions before you get to a controlled demolition. You assume that the fires could not have caused a collapse. you assume that damage from the tower collapse was not significant. you assume that the combination of those two things are not enough to cause collapse. you assume that explosives were used. you assume that people were able to plant those explosives. you assume they were able to do it undetected by everyone else present in the WTC area. you assume there was a need for it to be secretly demolished to begin with...... and so on.... and so on...

you see where i am going with this?

 

[eots]

you know ?...and you proof is ? and why would I take the time to give you the inconstancy's if you already don't give a fuck what NIST says you are a diveconspirator and you don't believe in the accuracy of any study official or otherwise ..remember

Occam's Razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible.

for WTC 7 collapse you need too many unproven assumptions before you get to a controlled demolition. You assume that the fires could not have caused a collapse. you assume that damage from the tower collapse was not significant. you assume that the combination of those two things are not enough to cause collapse. you assume that explosives were used. you assume that people were able to plant those explosives. you assume they were able to do it undetected by everyone else present in the WTC area. you assume there was a need for it to be secretly demolished to begin with...... and so on.... and so on...

you see where i am going with this?

the entire building fires did it theory is based by there own admission of a series of assumptions that rare and low probability events all occurred in sequence..your example does not really apply when it comes to the physics the wtc 7 collapse as physics does not speculate as to motives

 

[eots]

QUOTE=Fizz
you assume that damage from the tower collapse was not significant. you assume that the combination of those two things are not enough to cause collapse.

the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

 

[Fizz]

the entire building fires did it theory is based by there own admission of a series of assumptions that rare and low probability events all occurred in sequence..your example does not really apply when it comes to the physics the wtc 7 collapse as physics does not speculate as to motives

Occum's Razor does apply to physics. Einstein used it in developing his theory of relativity.

 

[eots]

you see unlike yourself NIST understands that if the structural damage to wtc 7 is factored into the collapse there is no way they can create a scenario where a total collapse of such symmetry could occur so they are required to deem it as not contributing to the collapse and try and create a unverified computer model to show how it could have occurred.. something no amount of data manipulation could achieve with the damaged factored in

 

[eots]

The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.

The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos.
As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced “large amounts of visible smoke” from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed.
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw[/ame]



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9pjy3fSWYM[/ame]