Anyone See 'The Ultimate Con?'...

[paulitician]

us? if you hadn't noticed you're the only twoofer on the thread at this time.
that film as with all the others presumes facts not in evidence and is based on a false premise.

Exactly,you didn't watch the movie. And isn't that what i said? Here,let me help you with your next lame reply...UH DOI...YOU GOT TIN FOIL HAT...UH UH...YOU TWOOFER...DUH.

Jesus, I'm done with this stupid fuck. Bye, asshole.

Better run. lol! You damn retarded parrot. Surpised he didn't call me a 'Twoofer' again before he took off. Must be off to his TSA Government job. Only a TSA goon could be so damn dumb.

 

[daws101]

.

us? if you hadn't noticed you're the only twoofer on the thread at this time.
that film as with all the others presumes facts not in evidence and is based on a false premise.

Exactly,you didn't watch the movie. And isn't that what i said? Here,let me help you with your next lame reply...UH DOI...YOU GOT TIN FOIL HAT...UH UH...YOU TWOOFER...DUH.

exactly what?

your question:"So tell us what you disagreed with about the movie"?
my answer:"that film as with all the others presumes facts not in evidence and is based on a false premise."[/QUOTE]it's seems my answer went right past you, not surprising

 

[paulitician]

us? if you hadn't noticed you're the only twoofer on the thread at this time.
that film as with all the others presumes facts not in evidence and is based on a false premise.

Exactly,you didn't watch the movie. And isn't that what i said? Here,let me help you with your next lame reply...UH DOI...YOU GOT TIN FOIL HAT...UH UH...YOU TWOOFER...DUH.

exactly what?

your question:"So tell us what you disagreed with about the movie"?
my answer:"that film as with all the others presumes facts not in evidence and is based on a false premise."

it's seems my answer went right past you, not surprising[/QUOTE]

So what did you disagree with specifically? Don't give me 'false premise' shyte. Because that only confirms my suspicion you didn't watch the movie.

 

[daws101]

Exactly,you didn't watch the movie. And isn't that what i said? Here,let me help you with your next lame reply...UH DOI...YOU GOT TIN FOIL HAT...UH UH...YOU TWOOFER...DUH.

exactly what?

your question:"So tell us what you disagreed with about the movie"?
my answer:"that film as with all the others presumes facts not in evidence and is based on a false premise."

it's seems my answer went right past you, not surprising

So what did you disagree with specifically? Don't give me 'false premise' shyte. Because that only confirms my suspicion you didn't watch the movie.[/QUOTE]the answer will be the same...ALL 911 conspiracy films ,books etc are based on a false premise. so any material in them is not viable.not fact, not evidence.get it!

 

[paulitician]

exactly what?

your question:"So tell us what you disagreed with about the movie"?
my answer:"that film as with all the others presumes facts not in evidence and is based on a false premise."

it's seems my answer went right past you, not surprising

So what did you disagree with specifically? Don't give me 'false premise' shyte. Because that only confirms my suspicion you didn't watch the movie.

the answer will be the same...ALL 911 conspiracy films ,books etc are based on a false premise. so any material in them is not viable.not fact, not evidence.get it![/QUOTE]

Wow,you really are dumb. You have to be a TSA Goon.

 

[daws101]

it's seems my answer went right past you, not surprising

So what did you disagree with specifically? Don't give me 'false premise' shyte. Because that only confirms my suspicion you didn't watch the movie.

the answer will be the same...ALL 911 conspiracy films ,books etc are based on a false premise. so any material in them is not viable.not fact, not evidence.get it!

Wow,you really are dumb. You have to be a TSA Goon. [/QUOTE]

btw LEARN TO USE THE QUOTE FUCTION!

 

[paulitician]

Government-dupes are so damn stupid. And people wonder why our Government is such a mess? "UH UH..DUH..YOU TWOOFER AND GOT TIN FOIL HAT." Friggin troglodytes.

 

[Obamerican]

It seems our local Ron Paul fan is willing to take his parents social security checks away from them. That would be bad since the little OWS fan is probably living in their basement and using their dial up internet. Fucking leech.

 

[paulitician]

It seems our local Ron Paul fan is willing to take his parents social security checks away from them. That would be bad since the little OWS fan is probably living in their basement and using their dial up internet. Fucking leech.

Seriously,you work for the TSA right? TSA Goons are as dumb as stumps.

 

[daws101]

It seems our local Ron Paul fan is willing to take his parents social security checks away from them. That would be bad since the little OWS fan is probably living in their basement and using their dial up internet. Fucking leech.

Seriously,you work for the TSA right? TSA Goons are as dumb as stumps.

9/11 truther challenge: WTC7 collapse | Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty

 

[paulitician]

It seems our local Ron Paul fan is willing to take his parents social security checks away from them. That would be bad since the little OWS fan is probably living in their basement and using their dial up internet. Fucking leech.

Seriously,you work for the TSA right? TSA Goons are as dumb as stumps.

9/11 truther challenge: WTC7 collapse | Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty

WTC 7 was not a collapse. It was a controlled demolition. I just watched a Doc about the Oklahoma City bombing and with all that damage,the Murrah Building was still left standing. WTC 7 had far less damage yet fell quickly and perfectly symmetrically. But it doesn't matter. You don't believe there are any Conspiracies.

 

[daws101]

Seriously,you work for the TSA right? TSA Goons are as dumb as stumps.

9/11 truther challenge: WTC7 collapse | Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty

WTC 7 was not a collapse. It was a controlled demolition. I just watched a Doc about the Oklahoma City bombing and with all that damage,the Murrah Building was still left standing. WTC 7 had far less damage yet fell quickly and perfectly symmetrically. But it doesn't matter. You don't believe there are any Conspiracies.

there is no credible evidence that proves it was a CD.

AS TO THIS :"You don't believe there are any Conspiracies" It's an erroneous assumption

based on your presupposition.

 

[daws101]

Seriously,you work for the TSA right? TSA Goons are as dumb as stumps.

9/11 truther challenge: WTC7 collapse | Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty

WTC 7 was not a collapse. It was a controlled demolition. I just watched a Doc about the Oklahoma City bombing and with all that damage,the Murrah Building was still left standing. WTC 7 had far less damage yet fell quickly and perfectly symmetrically. But it doesn't matter. You don't believe there are any Conspiracies.

GAITHERSBURG, Maryland -- Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, responded directly to many conspiracy claims here this morning at his press conference in NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md., which was attended by mainstream media and a handful of conspiracy theorist media, including a representative from InfoWars.com, a Web site that puts forward9/11 conspiracy theories. Sunder specifically addressed conspiracy claims linked to WTC 7. "Before I tell you what we found, I'd like to tell you what we did not find," Sunder told reporters. "We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down. The collapse was also not due to fires from the substantial amount of diesel fuel stored in the buildings."

Here is a summary of some common 9/11 conspiracy theory claims regarding WTC 7, along with NIST's response:

Claim: "No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode," says WTC7.net, a Web site dedicated to conspiracy theories. "The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth."
NIST report and press conference: Fire did indeed inflict enough column damage to destroy the building through a previously undocumented collapse sequence of thermal expansion. "Anyone who has run a tight jar lid under water to help loosen it knows that the metal expands when it gets hot," Sunder said. "Heat also causes steel to lose strength and stiffness. Thermal expansion occurs at temperatures much lower than those required to reduce steel strength and stiffness." The report found that as WTC 7's steel beams expanded in the heat, numerous structural connections throughout the building failed. That weakened the structure even before the collapse of any vertical columns.

Claim: The shape of the building's tidy pile of wreckage is consistent with a demolition, conspiracy theorists say.
NIST report and press conference: Sunder agrees that the wreckage was tidy and explained why. "If you look at columns 79, 80 and 81 [three of the building's central columns], the floor area that they're carrying is very large--particularly column 79, which was carrying about 2000 sq. ft. of floor area." Column 79 was the first column to fail. "It was an interior column that failed, followed by two more interior columns [80 and 81], then east to west. So what you're seeing is an interior collapse, then to the outside. What you're getting is an impression of a controlled demolition, but it's not."

Claim: The way the building fell was caused by demolition or thermate. (Thermate is thermite mixed with sulfur and sometimes other chemicals, which produces brief but intense and highly localized incendiary effects.)
NIST report and press conference: Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.

Prominent conspiracy theorist Steven Jones and others have suggested that thermate could have been inserted into a column, exploding the column without the loud boom of a demolition. Sunder said his team considered that theory. "In order for the thermate reaction to melt steel to take place, there has to be materials. If you look at the amount needed--at least 100 pounds for one column--you need someone to get that amount in the building, and place it, and for the reaction to take place. It is unlikely."

Claim: At the press conference, theorists questioned why NIST had just now found a previously undocumented cause of building collapse.
NIST report and press conference: The particulars of WTC 7's design contributed to the thermal expansion. WTC 7 had floor spans up to 54 ft. long. "Longer beams can be subject to proportionally greater expansion effects," Sunder noted. "Other tall buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing--when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional. So we knew from the beginning of our study that understanding what happened to Building 7 on 9/11 would be difficult. It did not fit any textbook description that you could readily point to and say, yes, that's why the building failed." The issue, Sunder said, was that buildings are not typically tested for their structural response to fire.

Claim: The minimal wreckage available for later investigation has generated speculation. Some conspirators point to the fast removal of debris as evidence of a government coverup.
NIST report and press conference: Compared to WTC 1 and 2, NIST had very little WTC 7 wreckage to study. The site was cleared quickly in a search-an- rescue effort, and much of the debris was transported to salvage yards. "There was no loss of life," Sunder noted. "In hindsight, we knew that the building was evacuated. But we didn't know that on that day." Hundreds of investigators at the salvage yards later found that the Twin Towers' steel columns were labeled and numbered, while the columns from Towers 5, 6 and 7 were not. "I am not surprised that there wasn't a lot of identifiable debris," Sunder said. "But at the time, we were concerned about terrorists who attacked our country and search and rescue. I think the fact that they [invesigators] didn't collect [wreckage] was the least important activity that happened that day."

Claim: Many theorists have suggested that the long delay in an explanatory report is further proof of a government coverup.
NIST and press conference: NIST first had to complete the investigation on the collapse of the Twin Towers and publish its report before turning to WTC 7. The Twin Towers report was released in September 2005. "We thought we might be able to do things much quicker and faster because of our tower experience," Sunder said. "I think we underestimated the amount of effort that would be required to answer the questions that we raised." In addition, new computer models of the collapse had to be created. "A typical fire simulation for a single floor of the building took up to two days with a state-of-the-art cluster of Linux computers. We had computer programs that took six to eight months to get a correct run, and we wanted to make sure we got this right. And three years is not an unusual length of time." Sunder emphasized that previous reports were preliminary and provisional. "We didn't have the insight that thermal expansion could have happened until early last year," Sunder said. "After that it was smooth sailing." Until last year, NIST was still investigating other hypotheses, including whether the building's location on top of an electric substation played a critical role and whether 6000 gal. of diesel fuel used to power backup generators in the building directly weakened the columns. Both hypotheses were abandoned.

Sunder classified the report's conclusions as "simple, straightforward, elegant and going along with what was observed. I would say that the findings we have are incredibly conclusive that fire is why WTC 7 collapsed

Read more: 6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST's New WTC 7 Report - Popular Mechanics

6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST's New WTC 7 Report - Popular Mechanics

 

[paulitician]

9/11 truther challenge: WTC7 collapse | Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty

WTC 7 was not a collapse. It was a controlled demolition. I just watched a Doc about the Oklahoma City bombing and with all that damage,the Murrah Building was still left standing. WTC 7 had far less damage yet fell quickly and perfectly symmetrically. But it doesn't matter. You don't believe there are any Conspiracies.

GAITHERSBURG, Maryland -- Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, responded directly to many conspiracy claims here this morning at his press conference in NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md., which was attended by mainstream media and a handful of conspiracy theorist media, including a representative from InfoWars.com, a Web site that puts forward9/11 conspiracy theories. Sunder specifically addressed conspiracy claims linked to WTC 7. "Before I tell you what we found, I'd like to tell you what we did not find," Sunder told reporters. "We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down. The collapse was also not due to fires from the substantial amount of diesel fuel stored in the buildings."

Here is a summary of some common 9/11 conspiracy theory claims regarding WTC 7, along with NIST's response:

Claim: "No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode," says WTC7.net, a Web site dedicated to conspiracy theories. "The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth."
NIST report and press conference: Fire did indeed inflict enough column damage to destroy the building through a previously undocumented collapse sequence of thermal expansion. "Anyone who has run a tight jar lid under water to help loosen it knows that the metal expands when it gets hot," Sunder said. "Heat also causes steel to lose strength and stiffness. Thermal expansion occurs at temperatures much lower than those required to reduce steel strength and stiffness." The report found that as WTC 7's steel beams expanded in the heat, numerous structural connections throughout the building failed. That weakened the structure even before the collapse of any vertical columns.

Claim: The shape of the building's tidy pile of wreckage is consistent with a demolition, conspiracy theorists say.
NIST report and press conference: Sunder agrees that the wreckage was tidy and explained why. "If you look at columns 79, 80 and 81 [three of the building's central columns], the floor area that they're carrying is very large--particularly column 79, which was carrying about 2000 sq. ft. of floor area." Column 79 was the first column to fail. "It was an interior column that failed, followed by two more interior columns [80 and 81], then east to west. So what you're seeing is an interior collapse, then to the outside. What you're getting is an impression of a controlled demolition, but it's not."

Claim: The way the building fell was caused by demolition or thermate. (Thermate is thermite mixed with sulfur and sometimes other chemicals, which produces brief but intense and highly localized incendiary effects.)
NIST report and press conference: Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.

Prominent conspiracy theorist Steven Jones and others have suggested that thermate could have been inserted into a column, exploding the column without the loud boom of a demolition. Sunder said his team considered that theory. "In order for the thermate reaction to melt steel to take place, there has to be materials. If you look at the amount needed--at least 100 pounds for one column--you need someone to get that amount in the building, and place it, and for the reaction to take place. It is unlikely."

Claim: At the press conference, theorists questioned why NIST had just now found a previously undocumented cause of building collapse.
NIST report and press conference: The particulars of WTC 7's design contributed to the thermal expansion. WTC 7 had floor spans up to 54 ft. long. "Longer beams can be subject to proportionally greater expansion effects," Sunder noted. "Other tall buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing--when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional. So we knew from the beginning of our study that understanding what happened to Building 7 on 9/11 would be difficult. It did not fit any textbook description that you could readily point to and say, yes, that's why the building failed." The issue, Sunder said, was that buildings are not typically tested for their structural response to fire.

Claim: The minimal wreckage available for later investigation has generated speculation. Some conspirators point to the fast removal of debris as evidence of a government coverup.
NIST report and press conference: Compared to WTC 1 and 2, NIST had very little WTC 7 wreckage to study. The site was cleared quickly in a search-an- rescue effort, and much of the debris was transported to salvage yards. "There was no loss of life," Sunder noted. "In hindsight, we knew that the building was evacuated. But we didn't know that on that day." Hundreds of investigators at the salvage yards later found that the Twin Towers' steel columns were labeled and numbered, while the columns from Towers 5, 6 and 7 were not. "I am not surprised that there wasn't a lot of identifiable debris," Sunder said. "But at the time, we were concerned about terrorists who attacked our country and search and rescue. I think the fact that they [invesigators] didn't collect [wreckage] was the least important activity that happened that day."

Claim: Many theorists have suggested that the long delay in an explanatory report is further proof of a government coverup.
NIST and press conference: NIST first had to complete the investigation on the collapse of the Twin Towers and publish its report before turning to WTC 7. The Twin Towers report was released in September 2005. "We thought we might be able to do things much quicker and faster because of our tower experience," Sunder said. "I think we underestimated the amount of effort that would be required to answer the questions that we raised." In addition, new computer models of the collapse had to be created. "A typical fire simulation for a single floor of the building took up to two days with a state-of-the-art cluster of Linux computers. We had computer programs that took six to eight months to get a correct run, and we wanted to make sure we got this right. And three years is not an unusual length of time." Sunder emphasized that previous reports were preliminary and provisional. "We didn't have the insight that thermal expansion could have happened until early last year," Sunder said. "After that it was smooth sailing." Until last year, NIST was still investigating other hypotheses, including whether the building's location on top of an electric substation played a critical role and whether 6000 gal. of diesel fuel used to power backup generators in the building directly weakened the columns. Both hypotheses were abandoned.

Sunder classified the report's conclusions as "simple, straightforward, elegant and going along with what was observed. I would say that the findings we have are incredibly conclusive that fire is why WTC 7 collapsed

Read more: 6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST's New WTC 7 Report - Popular Mechanics

6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST's New WTC 7 Report - Popular Mechanics

Both NIST and the 911 Commission are highly suspect. They didn't even investigate the possibilty of bombs being in either the Towers or WTC 7. NIST has even admitted this. Now how could a Terrorism investigation not even investigate the possibility of bombs being present? That just defies all logic. And the 911 Commission didn't even mention WTC 7. Way too many questions still unanswered in regards to 911. WTC 7 especially,needs to be investigated further. But like i said before,we will never agree on this so it's hardly worth further discussion.

 

[daws101]

WTC 7 was not a collapse. It was a controlled demolition. I just watched a Doc about the Oklahoma City bombing and with all that damage,the Murrah Building was still left standing. WTC 7 had far less damage yet fell quickly and perfectly symmetrically. But it doesn't matter. You don't believe there are any Conspiracies.

GAITHERSBURG, Maryland -- Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, responded directly to many conspiracy claims here this morning at his press conference in NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md., which was attended by mainstream media and a handful of conspiracy theorist media, including a representative from InfoWars.com, a Web site that puts forward9/11 conspiracy theories. Sunder specifically addressed conspiracy claims linked to WTC 7. "Before I tell you what we found, I'd like to tell you what we did not find," Sunder told reporters. "We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down. The collapse was also not due to fires from the substantial amount of diesel fuel stored in the buildings."

Here is a summary of some common 9/11 conspiracy theory claims regarding WTC 7, along with NIST's response:

Claim: "No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode," says WTC7.net, a Web site dedicated to conspiracy theories. "The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth."
NIST report and press conference: Fire did indeed inflict enough column damage to destroy the building through a previously undocumented collapse sequence of thermal expansion. "Anyone who has run a tight jar lid under water to help loosen it knows that the metal expands when it gets hot," Sunder said. "Heat also causes steel to lose strength and stiffness. Thermal expansion occurs at temperatures much lower than those required to reduce steel strength and stiffness." The report found that as WTC 7's steel beams expanded in the heat, numerous structural connections throughout the building failed. That weakened the structure even before the collapse of any vertical columns.

Claim: The shape of the building's tidy pile of wreckage is consistent with a demolition, conspiracy theorists say.
NIST report and press conference: Sunder agrees that the wreckage was tidy and explained why. "If you look at columns 79, 80 and 81 [three of the building's central columns], the floor area that they're carrying is very large--particularly column 79, which was carrying about 2000 sq. ft. of floor area." Column 79 was the first column to fail. "It was an interior column that failed, followed by two more interior columns [80 and 81], then east to west. So what you're seeing is an interior collapse, then to the outside. What you're getting is an impression of a controlled demolition, but it's not."

Claim: The way the building fell was caused by demolition or thermate. (Thermate is thermite mixed with sulfur and sometimes other chemicals, which produces brief but intense and highly localized incendiary effects.)
NIST report and press conference: Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.

Prominent conspiracy theorist Steven Jones and others have suggested that thermate could have been inserted into a column, exploding the column without the loud boom of a demolition. Sunder said his team considered that theory. "In order for the thermate reaction to melt steel to take place, there has to be materials. If you look at the amount needed--at least 100 pounds for one column--you need someone to get that amount in the building, and place it, and for the reaction to take place. It is unlikely."

Claim: At the press conference, theorists questioned why NIST had just now found a previously undocumented cause of building collapse.
NIST report and press conference: The particulars of WTC 7's design contributed to the thermal expansion. WTC 7 had floor spans up to 54 ft. long. "Longer beams can be subject to proportionally greater expansion effects," Sunder noted. "Other tall buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing--when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional. So we knew from the beginning of our study that understanding what happened to Building 7 on 9/11 would be difficult. It did not fit any textbook description that you could readily point to and say, yes, that's why the building failed." The issue, Sunder said, was that buildings are not typically tested for their structural response to fire.

Claim: The minimal wreckage available for later investigation has generated speculation. Some conspirators point to the fast removal of debris as evidence of a government coverup.
NIST report and press conference: Compared to WTC 1 and 2, NIST had very little WTC 7 wreckage to study. The site was cleared quickly in a search-an- rescue effort, and much of the debris was transported to salvage yards. "There was no loss of life," Sunder noted. "In hindsight, we knew that the building was evacuated. But we didn't know that on that day." Hundreds of investigators at the salvage yards later found that the Twin Towers' steel columns were labeled and numbered, while the columns from Towers 5, 6 and 7 were not. "I am not surprised that there wasn't a lot of identifiable debris," Sunder said. "But at the time, we were concerned about terrorists who attacked our country and search and rescue. I think the fact that they [invesigators] didn't collect [wreckage] was the least important activity that happened that day."

Claim: Many theorists have suggested that the long delay in an explanatory report is further proof of a government coverup.
NIST and press conference: NIST first had to complete the investigation on the collapse of the Twin Towers and publish its report before turning to WTC 7. The Twin Towers report was released in September 2005. "We thought we might be able to do things much quicker and faster because of our tower experience," Sunder said. "I think we underestimated the amount of effort that would be required to answer the questions that we raised." In addition, new computer models of the collapse had to be created. "A typical fire simulation for a single floor of the building took up to two days with a state-of-the-art cluster of Linux computers. We had computer programs that took six to eight months to get a correct run, and we wanted to make sure we got this right. And three years is not an unusual length of time." Sunder emphasized that previous reports were preliminary and provisional. "We didn't have the insight that thermal expansion could have happened until early last year," Sunder said. "After that it was smooth sailing." Until last year, NIST was still investigating other hypotheses, including whether the building's location on top of an electric substation played a critical role and whether 6000 gal. of diesel fuel used to power backup generators in the building directly weakened the columns. Both hypotheses were abandoned.

Sunder classified the report's conclusions as "simple, straightforward, elegant and going along with what was observed. I would say that the findings we have are incredibly conclusive that fire is why WTC 7 collapsed

Read more: 6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST's New WTC 7 Report - Popular Mechanics

6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST's New WTC 7 Report - Popular Mechanics

Both NIST and the 911 Commission are highly suspect. They didn't even investigate the possibilty of bombs being in either the Towers or WTC 7. NIST has even admitted this. Now how could a Terrorism investigation not even investigate the possibility of bombs being present? That just defies all logic. And the 911 Commission didn't even mention WTC 7. Way too many questions still unanswered in regards to 911. WTC 7 especially,needs to be investigated further. But like i said before,we will never agree on this so it's hardly worth further discussion.

yep, the standard twoofer disclaimer!

 

[paulitician]

Take a look at the Murrah Building after all the damage it received. And also take a look at other WTC buildings that were right below the Towers. All had extensive damage but were still left standing. Now take a look at WTC 7 which had far less damage than all of them...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk]WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

Take a look at the Murrah Building after all the damage it received. And also take a look at other WTC buildings that were right below the Towers. All had extensive damage but were still left standing. Now take a look at WTC 7 which had far less damage than all of them...

WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube

LOL,the bomb that destroyed the Murrah Building was OUTSIDE.
AND THE BLAST WAVE PUSHED THE BUILDING IN ON ITSELF.
WTC7 HAD NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND IF EXPLOSIVE.
WTC7 WAS A COLLAPSE DUE TO DAMAGE , the Murrah Building WAS MOSTLY VAPORIZED..

 

[paulitician]

Take a look at the Murrah Building after all the damage it received. And also take a look at other WTC buildings that were right below the Towers. All had extensive damage but were still left standing. Now take a look at WTC 7 which had far less damage than all of them...

WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube

LOL,the bomb that destroyed the Murrah Building was OUTSIDE.
AND THE BLAST WAVE PUSHED THE BUILDING IN ON ITSELF.
WTC7 HAD NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND IF EXPLOSIVE.
WTC7 WAS A COLLAPSE DUE TO DAMAGE , the Murrah Building WAS MOSTLY VAPORIZED..

And what about the other WTC buildings that were right below the Towers? They received far more damage than WTC 7 yet were still left standing. The Murrah building also suffered more damage yet didn't collapse. WTC 7 needs to be investigated further. The building collapsing so rapidly and perfectly symmetrically just doesn't add up. The odds of all support columns collapsing so perfectly even are between slim and none. It just doesn't happen. Fire could not have caused that kind of collapse.

 

[Mr. Jones]

You gentleman know who it is right? He gives the concrete evidence by leading demo experts that show beams melting which can only occur with the use of special materials. Jet fuel burns quick at low temperatures where as the beams require the very high temps to melt. One of the buildings was proven to be demolished that day. Not the world trades of course. This gentleman has more evidence against this government it will blow your mind.

I do not chose to endorse him as it will probably result in my getting kicked off this site. It happened to me once before. Free speech my ass. Are you referring to the gentleman who has the initials A.J ?

He is the best and he does his homework and has concrete evidence about a great deal of stuff that is considered theory. I know in my mind the towers were an inside job. Obama wants martial law. And dozens of other plans. So it is proven.

It's Alex Jones. You only get kicked off GLP if you mention him. And the beams didn't "melt". They softened and lost their strength.

Which would mean the the buildings would have "collapsed" at a much slower rate of decent and not gone from stable to total global failure in seconds, and the lower parts of the massive buildings should have provided much more resistance then they did.
Take into account that a falling object would travel to the ground in 9.2 seconds, and the buildings totally collapsed just a few seconds longer then that.
The lower beams didn't weaken as there was no fire in the more robust parts of the buildings. The OCT is based on BS and highly improbable and unproven theories.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Take a look at the Murrah Building after all the damage it received. And also take a look at other WTC buildings that were right below the Towers. All had extensive damage but were still left standing. Now take a look at WTC 7 which had far less damage than all of them...

WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube

LOL,the bomb that destroyed the Murrah Building was OUTSIDE.
AND THE BLAST WAVE PUSHED THE BUILDING IN ON ITSELF.
WTC7 HAD NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND IF EXPLOSIVE.
WTC7 WAS A COLLAPSE DUE TO DAMAGE , the Murrah Building WAS MOSTLY VAPORIZED..

NIST doesn't say WTC 7 collapsed to due damage, but fire, and there is evidence of explosions. So is NIST wrong or not, which is it?