"Building What": Geraldo At Large

[georgephillip]

From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

"On November 13, Bob McIlvaine and Tony Szamboti appeared on Geraldo Rivera's show "Geraldo At Large" on Fox News to talk about the 'BuildingWhat?' TV ad campaign and World Trade Center Building 7 for a short segment.

"Bob McIlvaine lost his son Bobby McIlvaine on September 11, 2001. He is an active member of NYC CAN, a group that co-sponsors the 'BuildingWhat?' TV ad campaign.

"Tony Szamboti is a mechanical engineer and signer of the petition at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a group of more than 1,350 professionals calling for a new independent investigation into the destruction of Building 7 and the twin towers."

For those who are interested (unafraid?) of an independent investigation into the collapse of "Building What", aka, WTC7 there may never be a better time to educate Americans about how many skyscrapers fell on 9/11/2001.

 

[uscitizen]

Geraldo is still alive?

 

[Patriot911]

My question is what will all the truthtards do if they ever get their "independant investigation" and it comes to the exact same conclusion as the investigation that has already been done. We all know the answer. If the "investigation" doesn't tell them exactly what they want to hear, they will ignore it like they ignore all the rest of the evidence they don't like. In other words, a new investigation is a waste of time and money. The truthtards won't like the outcome and everyone else won't be surprised by the outcome.

Regardless, truthtards are lacking the one thing they really need to get a new investigation. Evidence. They have zero evidence the original investigation was fundamentally flawed.

 

[georgephillip]

My question is what will all the truthtards do if they ever get their "independant investigation" and it comes to the exact same conclusion as the investigation that has already been done. We all know the answer. If the "investigation" doesn't tell them exactly what they want to hear, they will ignore it like they ignore all the rest of the evidence they don't like. In other words, a new investigation is a waste of time and money. The truthtards won't like the outcome and everyone else won't be surprised by the outcome.

Regardless, truthtards are lacking the one thing they really need to get a new investigation. Evidence. They have zero evidence the original investigation was fundamentally flawed.

In spite of the government's successful policy of destroying much of the evidence through "cleaning up" the crime scene, there's no shortage of scientific proof WTC7 did not collapse from scattered fires and debris.

Some are simply afraid to look...

Evidence Destroyed is...

 

[georgephillip]

Geraldo is still alive?

That's the rumor.

The question in my mind is...has he earned so much money he no longer cares about anything resembling the truth.

Stay tuned.

 

[Patriot911]

My question is what will all the truthtards do if they ever get their "independant investigation" and it comes to the exact same conclusion as the investigation that has already been done. We all know the answer. If the "investigation" doesn't tell them exactly what they want to hear, they will ignore it like they ignore all the rest of the evidence they don't like. In other words, a new investigation is a waste of time and money. The truthtards won't like the outcome and everyone else won't be surprised by the outcome.

Regardless, truthtards are lacking the one thing they really need to get a new investigation. Evidence. They have zero evidence the original investigation was fundamentally flawed.

In spite of the government's successful policy of destroying much of the evidence through "cleaning up" the crime scene, there's no shortage of scientific proof WTC7 did not collapse from scattered fires and debris.

Some are simply afraid to look...

ae911truth uses junk science, a lot of flawed opinion, and outright lies to make their case. A shame they fool gullible people like you into believing their bullshit. How does it feel to be led around by the short and curlies by people who's only goal is to milk you of as much money as possible?

 

[georgephillip]

Are you an architect or engineer?

Do you have any links to support your claims?

 

[Patriot911]

Are you an architect or engineer?

Do you have any links to support your claims?

Nope. But the one engineer I DO have trumps all your wannabes. Leslie Robertson, the lead engineer for the twin towers, understands what happened far better than a bunch of truthtards sitting around trying to figure out how they can make a living bilking gullible people like you out of your money.

I know plenty of architects. Architects have some understanding of engineering, but not to the degree necessary to make the kind of bullshit claims constantly being made at ae911. Richard Gage is a dumbfuck who couldn't make it in the real world so now he makes his money telling truthtards what they want to hear.

As for links, that is too general just in claiming ae911 is a bunch of fucked up whiners out to make a buck or two. Hell, just look at all the donate buttons they have on every page. They couldn't be happier separating you sheep from your wool.

State your case and I will debunk it complete with links to back up my claims.

 

[PhysicsExist]

Are you an architect or engineer?

Do you have any links to support your claims?

Nope. But the one engineer I DO have trumps all your wannabes. Leslie Robertson, the lead engineer for the twin towers, understands what happened far better than a bunch of truthtards sitting around trying to figure out how they can make a living bilking gullible people like you out of your money.

I know plenty of architects. Architects have some understanding of engineering, but not to the degree necessary to make the kind of bullshit claims constantly being made at ae911. Richard Gage is a dumbfuck who couldn't make it in the real world so now he makes his money telling truthtards what they want to hear.

As for links, that is too general just in claiming ae911 is a bunch of fucked up whiners out to make a buck or two. Hell, just look at all the donate buttons they have on every page. They couldn't be happier separating you sheep from your wool.

State your case and I will debunk it complete with links to back up my claims.

First of all sir, I'd like to point out that it's quite obvious you have an Anti-911truth agenda. It is clear, and most obvious when it comes to your registrar name and the date you joined, but that is just my opinion.

To continue, I'm going to take you up on your claim.

State your case and I will debunk it complete with links to back up my claims

Let's start it off simple.

1) WTC7 Fell in Freefall for around 2-3 seconds (as admitted by NIST, and proven by video evidence.)

My question is: How does a building fall through the path of Greatest Resistance? If building 7 freefell into its own footprint, it needed to have the least resistance directly under it. Where did all the support beams and columns on every floor go? The ONLY way for it to fall this way is if there is nothing under it, according to Newtonian Physics.

2) Office fires burn at 1200-1400 Degrees, even as high as 1800 according to NIST. If this is the case, how does it melt steel in WTC7? You need 2400-2800 F degrees to even start melting steel, (especially with fireproofing) 1000 degrees off is a HUGE problem. You cannot tell me water freezes at 40 degrees F or 100 degrees F, therefore you cannot say steel is melted by office fires. Basic science.

3) Regarding the Twin Towers, simple question:

How does a building with Asymmetrical damage (from the plane) collapse with Symmetrical damage? and 2nd part to this question is, how does the collapsing Twin Tower accelerate during initiation? Where is the 'jolt'?

Newton's basic laws of physics were violated in all 3 WTC collapses.

And just a reminder 'Patriot911', do not distract from these points; instead debunk them with physics and facts, and show me your opinion and sources. It is impossible to refute these basic points, so I can only expect your 'agenda' to try and detour from the discussion at hand. Rebuttal my points.

PS. You joined recently, are you a Disinfoagent? Just wondering.

 

[Patriot911]

First of all sir, I'd like to point out that it's quite obvious you have an Anti-911truth agenda. It is clear, and most obvious when it comes to your registrar name and the date you joined, but that is just my opinion.

No shit, Sherlock! Did it take you all day to come to that conclusion or did someone have to point it out to you? Nice that I am your first post on a fresh account. My guess is you followed me from somewhere.

1) WTC7 Fell in Freefall for around 2-3 seconds (as admitted by NIST, and proven by video evidence.)

My question is: How does a building fall through the path of Greatest Resistance? If building 7 freefell into its own footprint, it needed to have the least resistance directly under it. Where did all the support beams and columns on every floor go? The ONLY way for it to fall this way is if there is nothing under it, according to Newtonian Physics.

First off, it didn't fall into it's own footprint. If it did, no other building around it would be damaged. It did, however, fall straight down.

If you had ever read the NIST report, you would know that the collapse initiated inside the building before it was ever really visible on the outside. Thus the support structures were already compromized. It isn't hard to imagine there would be a 2-3 second span of time where the resistance just wasn't there.

A controlled demolition is just a collapse initiated with explosives. From there, gravity does all the work. If it can be done in a controlled demoltion, it can also happen if the collapse is initiated by other means such as fire.

2) Office fires burn at 1200-1400 Degrees, even as high as 1800 according to NIST. If this is the case, how does it melt steel in WTC7? You need 2400-2800 F degrees to even start melting steel, (especially with fireproofing) 1000 degrees off is a HUGE problem. You cannot tell me water freezes at 40 degrees F or 100 degrees F, therefore you cannot say steel is melted by office fires. Basic science.

Only truthtards believe the steel actually melted. Steel loses half it's strength at just over 1000F, well within the range of office fires. That is why they put flame retardant on the beams; to keep them from warping or failing due to a normal office fire. Do you really think a beam has to completely melt before it fails?

3) Regarding the Twin Towers, simple question:

How does a building with Asymmetrical damage (from the plane) collapse with Symmetrical damage?

Simple. The collapse of the south tower where you had the most obvious asymmetrical damage was not a symmetrical collapse at the start. Watch any of the videos and you will see the entire upper structure starting to rotate before the stress on the supporting structures was too great and they too failed, bringing the entire structure down in what you call a "collapse with symmetrical damage".

and 2nd part to this question is, how does the collapsing Twin Tower accelerate during initiation? Where is the 'jolt'?

It is called gravity. Gravity tries to accelerate everything at 32 feet per second per second. That is called free fall. For there to be a "jolt", you would need enough resistance to completely arrest the entire upper structure of either tower. Neither tower's structures were designed to handle anywhere near the dynamic load of the entire upper structure moving down and colliding with them. Thus you had near instantanious failure. Did it slow down the collapse? Yes. The towers didn't fall at free fall acceleration speeds. We know this because we can clearly see debris being pushed over the edge of the collapse event and debris beating the collapse event to the ground. As Galileo proved at the leaning tower of Pisa, two objects of differing mass will fall at the same rate of speed.

Newton's basic laws of physics were violated in all 3 WTC collapses.

No they didn't. You can't violate the laws of physics without rewriting the laws of physics. What you are rather lamely pretending is that explosives can somehow make the laws of physics seem to be broken, yet you have not explained exactly how this is done. Instead you are parroting all the conspiratard sites that pretend to know physics, but are really just out to bilk simpletons such as yourself out of your money through donations by telling you what you want to hear.

And just a reminder 'Patriot911', do not distract from these points; instead debunk them with physics and facts, and show me your opinion and sources. It is impossible to refute these basic points, so I can only expect your 'agenda' to try and detour from the discussion at hand. Rebuttal my points.

I believe I did. Go ahead and respond to them.

PS. You joined recently, are you a Disinfoagent? Just wondering.

Coming from someone with exactly one post (this one), you don't have room to talk. Actually I stated why I came over here. Some truthtards claimed I was someone else over here so I came over here to prove I wasn't. Oh well. The truthtards at the other site were getting tired of constantly being beat up by the truth.

 

[PhysicsExist]

My question is: How does a building fall through the path of Greatest Resistance? If building 7 freefell into its own footprint, it needed to have the least resistance directly under it. Where did all the support beams and columns on every floor go? The ONLY way for it to fall this way is if there is nothing under it, according to Newtonian Physics.

First off, it didn't fall into it's own footprint. If it did, no other building around it would be damaged. It did, however, fall straight down.

You are going to argue whether into its 'own footprint' and straight down are the same thing? I can see how you find arguments; you make irrelevant points and detract from the actual issue at hand.

Your Response:

If you had ever read the NIST report, you would know that the collapse initiated inside the building before it was ever really visible on the outside. Thus the support structures were already compromized. It isn't hard to imagine there would be a 2-3 second span of time where the resistance just wasn't there.

First off all, Freefall is impossible. why do you keep going around that, if the buildling fell there was no resistance. 2-3 second freefall is 10 floors. You are legitimately saying 10 floors of steel structure provided the same resistance as air would? Just stop it. You aren't citing any facts, just opinions that have no merit.

A controlled demolition is just a collapse initiated with explosives. From there, gravity does all the work. If it can be done in a controlled demoltion, it can also happen if the collapse is initiated by other means such as fire.

This is false. it does not initiate the fall, it creates the fall by removing every support beam simultaneously so that it falls perfectly within its footprint. Even if the slightest mishap goes wrong, the building will tilt because of the Resistance that was not removed. You are illogical and are citing fallacies. WTC7 to freefall for 2-3 seconds would have to have 10 floors perfectly removed simultaneously. That is a fact, according to Newtonian Physics. Stop spreading lies.

Only truthtards believe the steel actually melted. Steel loses half it's strength at just over 1000F, well within the range of office fires. That is why they put flame retardant on the beams; to keep them from warping or failing due to a normal office fire. Do you really think a beam has to completely melt before it fails?

If it did not completely melt then the path of greatest resistance would of been the path the steel didnt melt in, resulting in the building NOT falling through straight down. Steel doesn't not turn molten from office fires. WTC7 and the TwinTowers BOTH had molten steel. Again, you don't cite sources, you talk out of pure assumption.

Simple. The collapse of the south tower where you had the most obvious asymmetrical damage was not a symmetrical collapse at the start. Watch any of the videos and you will see the entire upper structure starting to rotate before the stress on the supporting structures was too great and they too failed, bringing the entire structure down in what you call a "collapse with symmetrical damage".

Oh now you just put yourself into a big hole. You just stated the building tilted, that is 100% correct. If a building tilts, does it cause symmetrical damage? no. If the top section tilted like it did, why did it not FALL off to the side and continue to tilt? once it tilted the building started to explode, leaving no resistance, thus stopping the tilt, defying Newton's laws of physics if it were a pancake collapse. You said it yourself and you cant get away from this one, you just admitted that Newton's laws of physics didnt exist on 9/11 by stating the Tilt caused Symmetrical damage. That is embarrassing.

It is called gravity. Gravity tries to accelerate everything at 32 feet per second per second. That is called free fall. For there to be a "jolt", you would need enough resistance to completely arrest the entire upper structure of either tower. Neither tower's structures were designed to handle anywhere near the dynamic load of the entire upper structure moving down and colliding with them. Thus you had near instantanious failure. Did it slow down the collapse? Yes.

You didnt cite any sources for this fact, which is a pure lie. Gravity pulls things at 32 feet per second, what does that have to do with 70+ floors being crushed by something that is half its size? The only way to push down through the greatest resistance is by having it not exist anymore. It did not slow down the collapse, you dont even look into your statements. It is clear in the video, and with simple engineers programs to calculate there was no slow down, but an acceleration.

The towers didn't fall at free fall acceleration speeds. We know this because we can clearly see debris being pushed over the edge of the collapse event and debris beating the collapse event to the ground. As Galileo proved at the leaning tower of Pisa, two objects of differing mass will fall at the same rate of speed.

The Twin Tower collapsing in 9.5 is freefall, stop citing fallacies. Once again you prove MY point. How are debris pushed over the edge hundreds of feet? Gravity doesnt cause lateral ejections, and the buildilng fell at almost the same speed as those lateral ejected debris. Just stop it.

No they didn't. You can't violate the laws of physics without rewriting the laws of physics. What you are rather lamely pretending is that explosives can somehow make the laws of physics seem to be broken, yet you have not explained exactly how this is done. Instead you are parroting all the conspiratard sites that pretend to know physics, but are really just out to bilk simpletons such as yourself out of your money through donations by telling you what you want to hear.

What planet are you on? You disregard any fact I make. In order for NISTs story to apply, Newtonian Physics would have to be violated, that is a fact. Stop detracting from the point. Site sources and rebuttal with science, you are just a mere distraction piece thus far.

And just a reminder 'Patriot911', do not distract from these points; instead debunk them with physics and facts, and show me your opinion and sources. It is impossible to refute these basic points, so I can only expect your 'agenda' to try and detour from the discussion at hand. Rebuttal my points.

I believe I did. Go ahead and respond to them.

I will state this again, office fires do not melt steel, do not create molten steel, do not cause steel high rises to collapse symmetrically, let alone all 3.

Stop avoiding the facts, stop spinning information, and stop picking certain things apart to make a random point, answer the specific question. How does a building with Asymmetrical damage, with the top of the building collapsing down sideways, how does that create a symmetrical collapse from 100 stories? It doesnt.

Coming from someone with exactly one post (this one), you don't have room to talk.

I actually have the right to speak, and a good reason to. You go around giving out disinformation about the facts of 9/11, whether its for personal gain, you are hired, or you like arguments, whatever it is, you need to be exposed with your trolling.

Actually I stated why I came over here. Some truthtards claimed I was someone else over here so I came over here to prove I wasn't. Oh well. The truthtards at the other site were getting tired of constantly being beat up by the truth.

1,400 Architects and Engineers are Truthtards?

BuildingWhat campaign. they are Truthtards?

NYCCAN organization. they are Truthtards?

I'd like to see your opinion 9/11 Commission Report then LMAO.

Stating why you came here, naming yourself patriot 911, and spewing disinformation with no sources, no facts, no science, no logic and no evidence, you prove nothing other than the fact you are here ONLY for disrupting the Truth.

I wish I could see exactly where your IP was from, I'm willing to bet it would be associated with someone you wouldnt want us to know. Any admin wanna trace it? Lol

once again, rebuttal my points with facts. You have yet to prove 1 fact. I cite physics, I cite sources (If the website would let me post links, it doesnt) and I use basic knowledge and my eyeballs. You just smash a keyboard and spew disinformation and illogical rebuttals. I wish we could have this conversation in real life, infront of logical people, where true citizens and peers could hear the Man you really are. You are a disgrace sir.

I am not going to be responding to your next post most likely. My point was proven by your response that you are a joke. Anyone that will come into this thread will see you dont cite sources, you dont use facts, you dont believe in Newtonian Physics, and cant stay on topic. Good Luck, and I wish a Admin could forward me your IP just for shits and giggles.

The perpetrators are running scared. Stop assisting them.

 

[Patriot911]

My question is: How does a building fall through the path of Greatest Resistance? If building 7 freefell into its own footprint, it needed to have the least resistance directly under it. Where did all the support beams and columns on every floor go? The ONLY way for it to fall this way is if there is nothing under it, according to Newtonian Physics.

First off, it didn't fall into it's own footprint. If it did, no other building around it would be damaged. It did, however, fall straight down.

You are going to argue whether into its 'own footprint' and straight down are the same thing? I can see how you find arguments; you make irrelevant points and detract from the actual issue at hand.

In it's own footprint means debris doesn't go outside the footprint. It is a controlled demolition term. Look it up.

First off all, Freefall is impossible.

You can't have it both ways. You claim the building fell in free fall, yet you claim it is impossible. Either it didn't fall in free fall or you are wrong.

why do you keep going around that, if the buildling fell there was no resistance. 2-3 second freefall is 10 floors. You are legitimately saying 10 floors of steel structure provided the same resistance as air would? Just stop it. You aren't citing any facts, just opinions that have no merit.

If ten floors worth of structure had already failed, what is to keep the building from achieving free fall for those ten floors? This is what the NIST said happened, yet you say it is impossible. Strange..... I seem to believe the experts over some tart who thinks he is a physics expert.

This is false. it does not initiate the fall, it creates the fall by removing every support beam simultaneously so that it falls perfectly within its footprint.

Wow. Apparently you've NEVER seen a controlled demolition in your life. They don't cut all the supports at once. Then you would have a structure that falls OUTSIDE it's footprint which is what you DON'T want in a controlled demolition. What a controlled demolition does is time the supports to fail at different intervals to make the collapse progress as they want it to so the building falls in on itself and not just straight down. Thanks for showing you are working with zero knowledge about controlled demolitions.

Even if the slightest mishap goes wrong, the building will tilt because of the Resistance that was not removed.

BULLSHIT! You're trying to tell us that a single support can support the whole fucking building to the point where the building will tilt rather than destroy the support?!? WOW! You bring a whole new meaning to the term truthtard!!!

You are illogical and are citing fallacies.

Really? So far the only one talking out his ass is you.

WTC7 to freefall for 2-3 seconds would have to have 10 floors perfectly removed simultaneously. That is a fact, according to Newtonian Physics. Stop spreading lies.

I'm not. You're trying to pretend a single support would cause the building to tilt. THAT claim is absolutely RETARDED! No building is designed so that even a whole bunch of supports would support the massive weights and stresses involved in a tilting structure before collapsing.

If it did not completely melt then the path of greatest resistance would of been the path the steel didnt melt in, resulting in the building NOT falling through straight down. Steel doesn't not turn molten from office fires. WTC7 and the TwinTowers BOTH had molten steel. Again, you don't cite sources, you talk out of pure assumption.

Show me ANY source that says the buildings failed due to MELTED beams. You won't be able to find any because once again you are talking out your ass. Even your fellow truthtards gave up on the melted steel argument a long time ago. A shame you couldn't even follow your fellow sheep.

Oh now you just put yourself into a big hole. You just stated the building tilted, that is 100% correct. If a building tilts, does it cause symmetrical damage? no. If the top section tilted like it did, why did it not FALL off to the side and continue to tilt? once it tilted the building started to explode, leaving no resistance, thus stopping the tilt, defying Newton's laws of physics if it were a pancake collapse. You said it yourself and you cant get away from this one, you just admitted that Newton's laws of physics didnt exist on 9/11 by stating the Tilt caused Symmetrical damage. That is embarrassing.

Embarassing for you, not for me. As I already explained and you conveniently ignored, the supports are not designed to support the entire top part tilting. Did the top part continue to rotate? Absolutely. Newtonian physics at work. Was it tilting over the edge as you suggest? Not by a long shot. It was rotating INTO the building, not over the edge. You sure you want to continue making a complete ass out of yourself like this?

You didnt cite any sources for this fact, which is a pure lie. Gravity pulls things at 32 feet per second, what does that have to do with 70+ floors being crushed by something that is half its size? The only way to push down through the greatest resistance is by having it not exist anymore. It did not slow down the collapse, you dont even look into your statements. It is clear in the video, and with simple engineers programs to calculate there was no slow down, but an acceleration.

Yes, tempesta. I've heard your bullshit before. It didn't fly then and it doesn't fly now. There was resistance. We know that by the debris being pushed over the edge and the debris beating the collapse event to the ground. The ONLY thing that could slow down the collapse event is resistance from the building. You were too damn stupid to understand then that a less than full acceleration is still a deceleration. If something is expected to accelerate at 32 feet per second per second and it DOESN'T, something slowed it down. That is deceleration and that is caused by resistance. You are the only one I've ever met that couldn't grasp such a simple concept.

The Twin Tower collapsing in 9.5 is freefall, stop citing fallacies.

Why? Who is citing falacies? YOU are. First off, you don't calculate distance from the tops of the towers. The point of collapse to the ground is where you calculate from. The fact the tops of the towers collapsed INTO the collapse event is just more proof that the towers did not fall at free fall speeds. If they had, the tops of the towers would still be intact upon impact. So the south tower fell in 9.5 seconds and the north tower fell in 11. Neither one is free fall speed.

Once again you prove MY point. How are debris pushed over the edge hundreds of feet? Gravity doesnt cause lateral ejections, and the buildilng fell at almost the same speed as those lateral ejected debris. Just stop it.

You got owned on this subject as well. It is called newtonian physics. Once the debris was pushed over the side, it would continue on it's lateral trajectory all the way to the ground. It was pushed over the side by the resistance of the rest of the building. Debris is going to take the path of least resistance. It can't fall down, so it falls over the edge, thus giving it lateral momentum.

What planet are you on? You disregard any fact I make. In order for NISTs story to apply, Newtonian Physics would have to be violated, that is a fact. Stop detracting from the point. Site sources and rebuttal with science, you are just a mere distraction piece thus far.

Awww... is poor tempesta getting frustrated? You claim the laws of physics have been broken. Hmmm. Strange. You CAN'T break the laws of physics and we didn't see any laws of physics broken that day. All we have so far are the retarded claims of a guy with ZERO CLUE about physics pretending the laws were broken because that gives him some small modicum of self worth. Instead you only demonstrate what a joke you are.

I will state this again, office fires do not melt steel, do not create molten steel, do not cause steel high rises to collapse symmetrically, let alone all 3.

True, true and you're full of shit. The steel didn't melt. Again you are the only truthtard pushing that point. NOBODY ELSE is making that claim but you. Why? Because otherwise your claims make you look like an ass and a fool. In other words, your true self shows through.

Stop avoiding the facts, stop spinning information, and stop picking certain things apart to make a random point, answer the specific question. How does a building with Asymmetrical damage, with the top of the building collapsing down sideways, how does that create a symmetrical collapse from 100 stories? It doesnt.

I already showed it does. Why is it you can't explain how a single structure can withstand the weights and forces of the entire upper section without failing?

Coming from someone with exactly one post (this one), you don't have room to talk.

I actually have the right to speak, and a good reason to. You go around giving out disinformation about the facts of 9/11, whether its for personal gain, you are hired, or you like arguments, whatever it is, you need to be exposed with your trolling.

In your dreams tempesta. I don't get paid for this. I LOVE making pissant truthtards that wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit them on the ass look like the fools that they are. You failed to respond to my rebuttal with anything other than the usual truthtard you're wrong. Oh WAAAH! You are such a fool and such an easy truthtard to debunk. YOU may not think you've been debunked, but everyone else knows the truth.

Actually I stated why I came over here. Some truthtards claimed I was someone else over here so I came over here to prove I wasn't. Oh well. The truthtards at the other site were getting tired of constantly being beat up by the truth.

1,400 Architects and Engineers are Truthtards?

Yup.

BuildingWhat campaign. they are Truthtards?

Same people, asshole!

NYCCAN organization. they are Truthtards?

Yup.

I'd like to see your opinion 9/11 Commission Report then LMAO.

Not truthtards. In fact, every time you've been asked to present a single piece of evidence that the 9/11 commission was fundamentally wrong, you ran for your mama like the little bitch that you are.

Stating why you came here, naming yourself patriot 911, and spewing disinformation with no sources, no facts, no science, no logic and no evidence, you prove nothing other than the fact you are here ONLY for disrupting the Truth.

Wrong again. If I were "spewing disinformation" you would be able to refute what I claim. Here's a hint, junior.... saying "nuh uh" isn't a refutation.

I wish I could see exactly where your IP was from, I'm willing to bet it would be associated with someone you wouldnt want us to know. Any admin wanna trace it? Lol

:roll: Go ahead. It comes from Colorado. Littleton to be exact. The admins already have my information. They can verify it all they want. I am SURE you would love to know who I really am as I am constantly showing you fucking truthtards up for the pieces of shit that you are. But, alas, you are stuck in ignorance as always.

once again, rebuttal my points with facts. You have yet to prove 1 fact. I cite physics, I cite sources (If the website would let me post links, it doesnt) and I use basic knowledge and my eyeballs. You just smash a keyboard and spew disinformation and illogical rebuttals. I wish we could have this conversation in real life, infront of logical people, where true citizens and peers could hear the Man you really are. You are a disgrace sir.

More blathering from a nobody with narcissism issues.

I am not going to be responding to your next post most likely. My point was proven by your response that you are a joke. Anyone that will come into this thread will see you dont cite sources, you dont use facts, you dont believe in Newtonian Physics, and cant stay on topic. Good Luck, and I wish a Admin could forward me your IP just for shits and giggles.

Run little bitch! You've been owned again!

The perpetrators are running scared. Stop assisting them.

Why would I assist truthtards? It is much more fun to make them cry.

 

[eots]

First off, it didn't fall into it's own footprint. If it did, no other building around it would be damaged. It did, however, fall straight down.

If you had ever read the NIST report, you would know that the collapse initiated inside the building before it was ever really visible on the outside. Thus the support structures were already compromized. It isn't hard to imagine there would be a 2-3 second span of time where the resistance just wasn't there

wouldint the entire enternal structures of the building collping befrore the outside create a massive amount of noise ? dust ? why did no one report anything like this

A controlled demolition is just a collapse initiated with explosives. From there, gravity does all the work. If it can be done in a controlled demoltion, it can also happen if the collapse is initiated by other means such as fire.

Only truthtards believe the steel actually melted

.

femas first report said the steel melted first responder claimed melted steel

Steel loses half it's strength at just over 1000F, well within the range of office fires. That is why they put flame retardant on the beams; to keep them from warping or failing due to a normal office fire. Do you really think a beam has to completely melt before it fails?

do you relly think they design skyscraper without this foreknowledge of the properties of steel Einstein...lol

Simple. The collapse of the south tower where you had the most obvious asymmetrical damage was not a symmetrical collapse at the start. Watch any of the videos and you will see the entire upper structure starting to rotate before the stress on the supporting structures was too great and they too failed, bringing the entire structure down in what you call a "collapse with symmetrical damage".

911parrot...lol.....so if fire alone could have weakened the critical column #79 and initiate the collapse..then why could not a single explosive charge do the same ?...if the NIST thery is correct then wtc 7 could brought down without having to set charges everywhere...correct ?

 

[PhysicsExist]

Patriot911:

You live in Littleton, CO.

Colorado Public Television (Channel 12 on your TV) just aired Loose Change an American Coup on Dec 4th 2010.

Did you care to watch?

Their station is located in between your place of residence, and the Department of Homeland Security.

Good day sir.

 

[Patriot911]

wouldint the entire enternal structures of the building collping befrore the outside create a massive amount of noise ? dust ? why did no one report anything like this

Well, if I understand your craptastic English, they DID hear the noise. Just look up any of the truthtard videos that claim they have the explosions caught on tape. They have a low frequency rumble that happens just prior to the external collapse. Now, anyone who has seen a controlled demolition knows, high explosives don't make a low rumble. An internal collapse sure would.

A controlled demolition is just a collapse initiated with explosives. From there, gravity does all the work. If it can be done in a controlled demoltion, it can also happen if the collapse is initiated by other means such as fire.

femas first report said the steel melted first responder claimed melted steel

FEMA's report was talking about steel samples from WTC 7.... you know... the steel you truthtards claim was shipped overseas before anyone could look at it, that showed heavy corrosion and exposure to high heat. They never say the steel melted and that caused the collapse.

First responders claimed molten metal. Are they metalurgists? No. So how can they say it was steel? There are plenty of metals and alloys that will melt at the temperatures one finds in an office fire. The kicker is there were reports of molten metal weeks after the collapse. There is no chemical or explosive known to mankind that can melt steel and keep it melted for a week short of a nuclear reaction. Therefore one has to look at other sources of heat after the collapse which would be the subterranian fires fueled by debris and the subway tunnels for oxygen.

Steel loses half it's strength at just over 1000F, well within the range of office fires. That is why they put flame retardant on the beams; to keep them from warping or failing due to a normal office fire. Do you really think a beam has to completely melt before it fails?

do you relly think they design skyscraper without this foreknowledge of the properties of steel Einstein...lol

OF COURSE they know steel has the potential to fail in a fire. That's the whole point. If steel had no chance of failure as many truthtards pretend, they wouldn't need fire retardant to slow or prevent collapse.

911parrot...lol.....so if fire alone could have weakened the critical column #79 and initiate the collapse..then why could not a single explosive charge do the same ?...if the NIST thery is correct then wtc 7 could brought down without having to set charges everywhere...correct ?

I am guessing you've been drinking heavily, doing drugs or both. But no, you're not correct. First off, there were three critical columns, 79, 80 and 81. Second, the other columns were already weakened by fire, thus preventing them from holding their full loads. Third, without extensive computer modeling by experts, knowing exactly which column to blow and where would be guesswork at best. Do you really think they would leave it to guesswork?

And then, of course, we get back to the complete lack of evidence of explosives. Even a single large charge (controlled demolitions usually cut up to 95% of the beam to help the explosive work, thus they would need a larger than normal charge) would be recorded on audio tapes, blow out windows, and register on the seismographs that recorded the events of 9/11.

You have another issue with this claim though. How would the conspirators know for sure that debris from the towers would first hit the WTC 7, second start fires, third be assured the fire department would not fight the fires, fourth be assured that the water mains would be broken, and fifth scare the fire department enough to declair the WTC 7 a collapse hazard? That is a HELL of a lot of stuff to leave to chance. Would you knowing your life was on the line?

 

[Patriot911]

Patriot911:

You live in Littleton, CO.

Colorado Public Television (Channel 12 on your TV) just aired Loose Change an American Coup on Dec 4th 2010.

Did you care to watch?

Their station is located in between your place of residence, and the Department of Homeland Security.

Good day sir.

Nope. Who would watch such a pile of crap. Go read screw loose change for a rebuttal of loose change.

 

[georgephillip]

After NIST first denied WTC7's free-fall in its final draft report released in August 2008, claiming that WTC7 took 40% longer than 'free-fall time' to collapse, AE911Truth associate David Chandler publicly challenged NIST's claims at a technical briefing.

"Along with several others, he filed formal requests for corrections during the public response period."

"In its final report NIST reversed itself on its denial of free-fall, but it couched its revised statement in deceptive language and failed to address how free-fall could be compatible with its fire-induced progressive collapse analysis.

"For the observed straight-down collapse, a thick network of heavy steel columns and beams, had to be forcibly removed and more than 400 structural steel connections had to fail per second, evenly all across each of the eight floors involved.

"These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section – NOT caused by it – because a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."

Anyone disagree with the claim "more that 400 structural steel connections had to fail per second, evenly across each of the eight floors involved" for the observed period of WTC7 free fall?

Republic Magazine16 P.23

 

[Big Black Dog]

I hate Geraldo... He's the worst person on Fox News... Yuck. Ms. G. Carlson is more my style.

 

[georgephillip]

I hate Geraldo... He's the worst person on Fox News... Yuck. Ms. G. Carlson is more my style.

Judge Andrew Nappolitano also has expressed interest in WhatBuilding's efforts.
Geraldo has come a long way from where he started back in the 70s when his politics were much farther to the left.

If either Andrew or Geraldo can keep their jobs at FOX and question the official version of 911, it could make the 2012 election a real barn burner.

Does anyone know Sarah's or Huck's "thoughts" on 9/11Truth?

 

[PhysicsExist]

I hate Geraldo... He's the worst person on Fox News... Yuck. Ms. G. Carlson is more my style.

Judge Andrew Nappolitano also has expressed interest in WhatBuilding's efforts.
Geraldo has come a long way from where he started back in the 70s when his politics were much farther to the left.

If either Andrew or Geraldo can keep their jobs at FOX and question the official version of 911, it could make the 2012 election a real barn burner.

Does anyone know Sarah's or Huck's "thoughts" on 9/11Truth?

Hello phillip, great that you have taken the 'blinders' off and can reasonably think and use basic logic to determine that 9/11 requires a new investigation, its people like us that will help these Architects & Engineers for 911 truth, Patriotsquestion911, Firefightersfortruth, and the Building What campaign.

I'm new to the forum but i saw your question regarding Huckabee. Apparently Bob McIlvaine after the Geraldo interview was approached by huckabee behind the scenes and he shared his gratitude and shock around their building 7 message. You can see Bob say this himself on air, just youtube/google it, I cannot post links here cuz im a newbie.

But either way, MSM needs to run this 9/11 Truth, and if Fox News is the first to do so, and uses it as a platform with Huckabee or whatnot, I am all for it, even though I despise Faux News.