WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[Fizz]

this is what implosions sound like:

http://www.youtube.com/v/7Ng5qwtR59A&hl=en_US&fs=1&

http://www.youtube.com/v/0Fpv6pxsrOQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&

http://www.youtube.com/v/ZlGmnKvOhlg&hl=en_US&fs=1&

http://www.youtube.com/v/WroEJFgtbq4&hl=en_US&fs=1&

9/11 was one of the most videoed events in the history of the world. where is your evidence of demolition explosions?

(let me help you out here. you dont have any evidence because there were no demolition charges.)

 

[eots]

prove it.

the perpetrators hold the forensic evidence under lock and key and as stated by NIST investigators was not forth coming with evidence and attempted to deter fact finding..the evidence of the total implosion of 3 buildings for the first time in history and the controlled nature of the collapse however is evidence of controlled demolition in itself

and this is why you will not accept a new investigations results
you will INSIST they didn't release the evidence that would prove your case

I don't insist it you pathetic moron NIST investigators ..9/11 commision members and the freedom of information lawsuits do..a real investigation would have full subpoena power testimony under oath full disclose of evidence peer review of all NIST finding with media scrutiny and oversight of the family steering committee

 

[DiveCon]

the perpetrators hold the forensic evidence under lock and key and as stated by NIST investigators was not forth coming with evidence and attempted to deter fact finding..the evidence of the total implosion of 3 buildings for the first time in history and the controlled nature of the collapse however is evidence of controlled demolition in itself

and this is why you will not accept a new investigations results
you will INSIST they didn't release the evidence that would prove your case

I don't insist it you pathetic moron NIST investigators ..9/11 commision members and the freedom of information lawsuits do..a real investigation would have full subpoena power testimony under oath full disclose of evidence peer review of all NIST finding with media scrutiny and oversight of the family steering committee

only when twisted to fit your views
not one of them has ever said it was a controlled demo
not ONE
just you fucking pathetic troofer morons

 

[eots]

prove it.

the perpetrators hold the forensic evidence under lock and key and as stated by NIST investigators was not forth coming with evidence and attempted to deter fact finding..the evidence of the total implosion of 3 buildings for the first time in history and the controlled nature of the collapse however is evidence of controlled demolition in itself

so you are saying that the only evidence you have of an explosive demolition is that the buildings came down. you have no other evidence. and we are all supposed to support your theory over scientific evidence to the contrary.

the NIST report must be a fake because there are 3 buildings on the gorund. therefore explosives must have been used. therefore the NIST report is wrong. do you understand how ridiculous this is?

also, you said this is a common building design. prove it. i cant find even one other building designed like it. can you?

I posted building design information....there is no conclusive scientific evidence according to the lead investigator from 2001 to 2007...the NIST report is accused by the lead nist investigator as being deterred from fact finding and computer models were not verified.. if you prefer.. fake...the building fires did it theory is dependent on temperatures not found in any forensic test




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.




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!”




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.”
In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions




"I never received one formal reply.”

"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 "

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


the building fires theory has no evidence..no precedent..is highly improbable and inconclusive

 

[eots]

and this is why you will not accept a new investigations results
you will INSIST they didn't release the evidence that would prove your case

I don't insist it you pathetic moron NIST investigators ..9/11 commision members and the freedom of information lawsuits do..a real investigation would have full subpoena power testimony under oath full disclose of evidence peer review of all NIST finding with media scrutiny and oversight of the family steering committee

only when twisted to fit your views
not one of them has ever said it was a controlled demo
not ONE
just you fucking pathetic troofer morons

well definitely I have made a better case for controlled demolition than you have for building fires did it and I completely have kicked your ass on the fact the investigations are failed..inconclusive and a re-investigation is required...to the point you only way to weasel out of it is your..even though it was clearly flawed there is no reason to do it right because you wont believe it anyway defence...you always use your little..only when you twist them to fit your views line but never clarify or qualify any of it ..where do I twist the words of the NIST investigator in regards to the failings of the NIST report and the need to re-investigate.?...qualify it or shut the fuck up

 

[DiveCon]

I don't insist it you pathetic moron NIST investigators ..9/11 commision members and the freedom of information lawsuits do..a real investigation would have full subpoena power testimony under oath full disclose of evidence peer review of all NIST finding with media scrutiny and oversight of the family steering committee

only when twisted to fit your views
not one of them has ever said it was a controlled demo
not ONE
just you fucking pathetic troofer morons

well definitely I have made a better case for controlled demolition than you have for building fires did it and I completely have kicked your ass on the fact the investigations are failed..inconclusive and a re-investigation is required...to the point you only way to weasel out of it is your..even though it was clearly flawed there is no reason to do it right because you wont believe it anyway defence...you always use your little..only when you twist them to fit your views line but never clarify or qualify any of it ..where do I twist the words of the NIST investigator in regards to the failings of the NIST report and the need to re-investigate.?...qualify it or shut the fuck up

only in the delusional mind of a fucking troofer

i gave up providing facts for you fucking morons since they are anathema to you
why should i even bother when you have shown that the facts dont mean anything to you

 

[eots]

this is what implosions sound like:

http://www.youtube.com/v/7Ng5qwtR59A&hl=en_US&fs=1&

http://www.youtube.com/v/0Fpv6pxsrOQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&

http://www.youtube.com/v/ZlGmnKvOhlg&hl=en_US&fs=1&

http://www.youtube.com/v/WroEJFgtbq4&hl=en_US&fs=1&

9/11 was one of the most videoed events in the history of the world. where is your evidence of demolition explosions?

(let me help you out here. you dont have any evidence because there were no demolition charges.)

so let me help you out..you don't have any evidence of temperatures required to cause a collapse..because building fires did not cause it


this is what real building fires look like and do to buildings

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8[/ame]

 

[eots]

only when twisted to fit your views
not one of them has ever said it was a controlled demo
not ONE
just you fucking pathetic troofer morons

well definitely I have made a better case for controlled demolition than you have for building fires did it and I completely have kicked your ass on the fact the investigations are failed..inconclusive and a re-investigation is required...to the point you only way to weasel out of it is your..even though it was clearly flawed there is no reason to do it right because you wont believe it anyway defence...you always use your little..only when you twist them to fit your views line but never clarify or qualify any of it ..where do I twist the words of the NIST investigator in regards to the failings of the NIST report and the need to re-investigate.?...qualify it or shut the fuck up

only in the delusional mind of a fucking troofer

i gave up providing facts for you fucking morons since they are anathema to you
why should i even bother when you have shown that the facts dont mean anything to you

ya that's is your other weasel line ..you have nothing to provide your beat..so you.. pretend you have.. but will no longer bother...what a fucking loser..you cant qualify anything you say...shut the fuck up

 

[DiveCon]

well definitely I have made a better case for controlled demolition than you have for building fires did it and I completely have kicked your ass on the fact the investigations are failed..inconclusive and a re-investigation is required...to the point you only way to weasel out of it is your..even though it was clearly flawed there is no reason to do it right because you wont believe it anyway defence...you always use your little..only when you twist them to fit your views line but never clarify or qualify any of it ..where do I twist the words of the NIST investigator in regards to the failings of the NIST report and the need to re-investigate.?...qualify it or shut the fuck up

only in the delusional mind of a fucking troofer

i gave up providing facts for you fucking morons since they are anathema to you
why should i even bother when you have shown that the facts dont mean anything to you

ya that's is your other weasel line ..you have nothing to provide your beat..so you.. pretend you have.. but will no longer bother...what a fucking loser..you cant qualify anything you say...shut the fuck up

i will when YOU do
i already HAVE qualified EVERYTHING i have said, but your fucked up delusional head cant understand it

 

[eots]

shuut up...

 

[DiveCon]

shuut up...

when YOU do

 

[Fizz]

also, you said this is a common building design. prove it. i cant find even one other building designed like it. can you?

I posted building design information....there is no conclusive scientific evidence according to the lead investigator from 2001 to 2007...the NIST report is accused by the lead nist investigator as being deterred from fact finding and computer models were not verified.. if you prefer.. fake...the building fires did it theory is dependent on temperatures not found in any forensic test

you said its a common building design. what other building uses this "common" building design? you post a video of a fire in a building that is not of the same design. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM ITS A COMMON DESIGN?

you still have not shown any proof at all that demolitions were used to take down building 7. NONE!!!

you keep saying "fires cant take down the building" when that is a distortion of NIST conclusions. the NIST says thermal expansion is the cause. there is evidence of thermal expansion hours before the collapse.

you have shown videos that you claimed had the sounds of explosives used to take down WTC7. i have proved those videos were taken in the morning (about 10:30am) and the collapse of WTC7 didnt happen until many many hours later. YOUR VIDEO CLAIMS ARE A PROVEN LIE.

you still cant explain how building demolition cause a bulge in 4 stories of the building hours before they are set off.

you claim a guy inside WTC7 heard an explosion and claim this is demolitions. you have no explanation as to how this guy did the impossible task of getting out of the building before it collapses from the 8th floor.

you claim there were a few "random fires" in the building as if there were a few office trash cans on fire when in fact there were fires raging unctrolled for hours on multiple floors for HOURS.

...and here is the real humorous part. you claim you are kicking ass.

 

[SFC Ollie]

FAct is that the so called truthers cannot disprove the NIST report. All they have is,"well they are wrong"

Here's the NIST computer simulations. Have fun.

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

I'm not a scientists but they seem pretty convincing to me. Especially when you take into account that there is no physical evidence of explosions.

 

[eots]

no you have fun... wallowing in your denial



NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the 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

 

[eots]

also, you said this is a common building design. prove it. i cant find even one other building designed like it. can you?

I posted building design information....there is no conclusive scientific evidence according to the lead investigator from 2001 to 2007...the NIST report is accused by the lead nist investigator as being deterred from fact finding and computer models were not verified.. if you prefer.. fake...the building fires did it theory is dependent on temperatures not found in any forensic test

you said its a common building design. what other building uses this "common" building design? you post a video of a fire in a building that is not of the same design. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM ITS A COMMON DESIGN?

you still have not shown any proof at all that demolitions were used to take down building 7. NONE!!!

you keep saying "fires cant take down the building" when that is a distortion of NIST conclusions. the NIST says thermal expansion is the cause. there is evidence of thermal expansion hours before the collapse.

you have shown videos that you claimed had the sounds of explosives used to take down WTC7. i have proved those videos were taken in the morning (about 10:30am) and the collapse of WTC7 didnt happen until many many hours later. YOUR VIDEO CLAIMS ARE A PROVEN LIE.

you still cant explain how building demolition cause a bulge in 4 stories of the building hours before they are set off.

you claim a guy inside WTC7 heard an explosion and claim this is demolitions. you have no explanation as to how this guy did the impossible task of getting out of the building before it collapses from the 8th floor.

you claim there were a few "random fires" in the building as if there were a few office trash cans on fire when in fact there were fires raging unctrolled for hours on multiple floors for HOURS.

...and here is the real humorous part. you claim you are kicking ass.

no the real humorus part is you have not a shred of conclusive proof buildinjg fires did it...none



although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. 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

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

 

[Fizz]

I posted building design information....there is no conclusive scientific evidence according to the lead investigator from 2001 to 2007...the NIST report is accused by the lead nist investigator as being deterred from fact finding and computer models were not verified.. if you prefer.. fake...the building fires did it theory is dependent on temperatures not found in any forensic test

you said its a common building design. what other building uses this "common" building design? you post a video of a fire in a building that is not of the same design. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM ITS A COMMON DESIGN?

you still have not shown any proof at all that demolitions were used to take down building 7. NONE!!!

you keep saying "fires cant take down the building" when that is a distortion of NIST conclusions. the NIST says thermal expansion is the cause. there is evidence of thermal expansion hours before the collapse.

you have shown videos that you claimed had the sounds of explosives used to take down WTC7. i have proved those videos were taken in the morning (about 10:30am) and the collapse of WTC7 didnt happen until many many hours later. YOUR VIDEO CLAIMS ARE A PROVEN LIE.

you still cant explain how building demolition cause a bulge in 4 stories of the building hours before they are set off.

you claim a guy inside WTC7 heard an explosion and claim this is demolitions. you have no explanation as to how this guy did the impossible task of getting out of the building before it collapses from the 8th floor.

you claim there were a few "random fires" in the building as if there were a few office trash cans on fire when in fact there were fires raging unctrolled for hours on multiple floors for HOURS.

...and here is the real humorous part. you claim you are kicking ass.

no the real humorus part is you have not a shred of conclusive proof buildig fires did it...none



although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. 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

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

lets go back to the basics.

i have proof there was fire. do you have proof there was explosives?

 

[DiveCon]

no you have fun... wallowing in your denial



NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the 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

yeah, dumbfuck
never used before because they DIDNT FUCKING EXIST BEFORE
that doesnt invalidate the results

just another fucking denial of truth by the moronic troofer

 

[eots]

you said its a common building design. what other building uses this "common" building design? you post a video of a fire in a building that is not of the same design. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM ITS A COMMON DESIGN?

you still have not shown any proof at all that demolitions were used to take down building 7. NONE!!!

you keep saying "fires cant take down the building" when that is a distortion of NIST conclusions. the NIST says thermal expansion is the cause. there is evidence of thermal expansion hours before the collapse.

you have shown videos that you claimed had the sounds of explosives used to take down WTC7. i have proved those videos were taken in the morning (about 10:30am) and the collapse of WTC7 didnt happen until many many hours later. YOUR VIDEO CLAIMS ARE A PROVEN LIE.

you still cant explain how building demolition cause a bulge in 4 stories of the building hours before they are set off.

you claim a guy inside WTC7 heard an explosion and claim this is demolitions. you have no explanation as to how this guy did the impossible task of getting out of the building before it collapses from the 8th floor.

you claim there were a few "random fires" in the building as if there were a few office trash cans on fire when in fact there were fires raging unctrolled for hours on multiple floors for HOURS.

...and here is the real humorous part. you claim you are kicking ass.

no the real humorus part is you have not a shred of conclusive proof buildig fires did it...none



although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. 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

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

lets go back to the basics.

i have proof there was fire. do you have proof there was explosives?

you are still going on about this bulge ..even though it is not in any NIST computer simulations and is not considered significant...and I have proof of explosions ...so as usual point is pointless

 

[eots]

no you have fun... wallowing in your denial



NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the 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

yeah, dumbfuck
never used before because they DIDNT FUCKING EXIST BEFORE
that doesnt invalidate the results

just another fucking denial of truth by the moronic troofer

so now the lead investigator at NIST 2001-2007 is a moronic troofer and a dumfuk and divecon has decided he knows better if the computer models are valid or not...typical of divemoroncons

 

[candycorn]

eots=