The IMPOSSIBLE didn't happen on 911

[candycorn]

That's right the person who was there couldn't possibly know what she saw, but the official conspiracy theorists know what happened because they believe in spite of what this woman says, and in spite of the obvious which I pointed out when I started this thread.

The official conspiracy theory lives on and America goes on living the lie!

The only one living a lie is you.

You still can't account for physical evidence of plane wreckage on the Pentagon grounds as well as the light poles being knocked down. All of the accusatory passages and self serving commentary won't save your lame assertions.

Sorry, we're dealing in facts, you're dealing in dreams.

Sorry, the fact is there is no plane wreckage visible on the front lawn, just a couple of pieces laying about.

Yes...that is called wreckage. And wreckage was found inside the building as well. All of it matches AA77. And they all have something else in common, you can't explain how it got there .

I've referred you to a real plane crash into a much less substantial building but the plane did not penetrate all the way through and the airframe and the passengers and their luggage are all easily visible.

You're revealing just how little you know.

For one thing, SOP of a crash is to dump what fuel you have on board to minimize any fireball that would be created from the crash. That didn't happen with AA77.

For another thing, SOP of a crash is to slow the plane down by creating drag. You lower the flaps, landging gear, whatever you can. That didn't happen with AA77.

For yet another thing, SOP of a crash is to attempt to land the plane instead of crashing it. That didn't happen with AA77.

So which is it, did the plane penetrate all the way through the steel reinforced concrete exterior wall, folding back the wings and dragging them AND the tail section through and then plowing through the support columns and then punch out the 'C' wall or did it get completely obliterated on the exterior?

Wreckage was found both inside and outside the building. Nobody saw anyone planting one piece of wreckage. Try again.

Are you saying the ONLY thing that could have knocked down light poles was an airplane?

Yes.

As I pointed out we both agree their was a conspiracy
and if as I'm saying yours is wrong then whoever was behind this mass murder was certainly motivated to fool the gullible by knocking down a few light poles.

[/quote]
So, let me get your story straight and you can no longer seriously contend that you're not saying anything;

There was no plane that crashed at the Pentagon....someone planted the wreckage in side the Pentagon and outside the Pentagon. Witnesses? None.

There was no plane that knocked down the light poles outside of the Pentagon. Someone brought down the light poles in broad daylight. Witnesses? None.

There was no plane that knocked down the light poles outside the Pentagon. Someone planted a cab at the scene--in the middle of rush-hour traffic--with a smashed in windshield right next to one of these light poles. Witnesses? None. Other than the cab driver who said the light pole hit his windshield.

Lets leave the wreckage alone...

You contend that someone added to their inbox....
Planting five light poles
Planting a cab with a smashed in windshield
Blowing a multi-ton generator off of it's moorings
Damaging the multi-ton generator

All as a rouse...and with no eye-witnesses who saw any of it.

We all know you won't explain anything--the moment you write anything down it will sound like you're koo-koo--but that is the scenario you've created.

Time for you to go into denial mode.

 

[SAYIT]

It's fun watching the "logic".

No passengers on the plane so that means something else:

Blew up at the Pentagon
Took Down the Lightpoles
Crashed in the Cab Driver's Windshield
Knocked the generator off of it's moorings
Planted the airplane wreckage

Then...

Paid (and are still paying) the investigators to say it was passenger DNA they found
Paid (and are still paying) air traffic controllers to hold to the story of tracking a plane into the Pentagon
Paid (and are still paying) the dozens of eye witnesses who said they saw AA77 hit the building
Paid (and are still paying) the medical examiners, first responders, and other officials who investigated the crash scene

And (did largely the same) at three other crime scenes as well.

You are the one defending a conspiracy theory which sounds even more implausible. Guys living in caves outwit the best intelligence agencies the world has ever known.

That is an inaccuracy. The hijackers lived here. Two of the hijackers were university trained. If you're going to try to come off as being cerebral, you should study the facts a bit more.


That is an inaccuracy. There was a response from the air force. The Army National Guard (ANG?) didn't have that in their job description.


That is an inaccuracy. Multiple floors of at least one of the WTC towers remained intact at the base of the tower.


That is an inaccuracy. Though true there was a defense from ground assault, there was no air defense from the Pentagon.


And the amateurs did what you expect them to do, crash. Why is this so hard for conspiracy theorists to understand?


Another inaccuracy. Wreckage was found from all four planes.


And the building was missing 18 floors at the corner.

Oh yes, so believeable.

What is unbelievable is that you're trying to come off as some sort of scholar on the subject when clearly you are so ignorant that you continue to repeat inaccuracies.

And since that is your conspiracy theory, start defending it. Especially WTC7, which after eleven years NIST still can't explain.

The 9/11 Commission Report that details the events of the morning remains 100% accurate on all of the major points. To date, no one can quote an inaccuracy in the report.

As for WTC 7, it was missing 18 floors at the corner, had four major disasters happen across the street, suffered major fire, etc... Other buildings that day also were destroyed that didn't have a plane hit them. The only people attributing special significance to it are, I'm afraid, those who are missing something essential in their cognitive ability.

In light of that point-by-point refutation of Wilhosa's CT, one that surely he has encountered regularly, what could be his motivation to continue to post such silliness?
It clearly isn't to spread the truth about 9/11 because he just as clearly rejects the truth so why would he come to an obscure message board and make a fool of himself?
The mind of the CT is far more interesting than the CTBS they promote.

 

[SAYIT]

So, based on my post above wihosa, how much of a load was each floor able to support/resist?

Next, figure out how much of a load was imparted on the immediate floor below the descending upper section?

Let us know what you get.

Hopefully you'll begin to see that the floor below was no match for the upper descending section's load and sheared the floor connections from the perimeter and core columns. This happened all the way down the towers. This is why you see the perimeter columns falling outward like a peeled banana. Once the floors were sheared away, there was no lateral support to keep the perimeter columns from falling outward from the tower itself.

That's why you see many of the perimeter columns in the debris with their floor truss connections sheared off.

What looked like these, circled in red:

Now look like this:

Where are the pancaked floors?

Oh they turned to dust I suppose. Or maybe the fairies took them away.

Don't forget that you still have to defend the Achilles heal of your conspiracy theory, WTC7. No steel framed high rise has ever suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse due to fire, and the NIST still after eleven years can't explain it but maybe you can.
It's your theory to defend.

Sudden and immediate? WTC 7? Are we talking about the same building that had uncontrolled fires for 7 hours? I wouldn't call that sudden or immediate. Especially since the firefighter had warned it was going to collapse hours before it did........Or do you believe they were in on the plot?

Wilhosa is aware bldg 7 burned for hours but refuses to accept that fact and instead posts his lies.
There is no better proof that the NIST report is correct than the half-truths, speculation, hyperbole and outright fabrications the 9/11 "Truther" Movement is forced to try to sell.
At the end of the day all they have is a few Alex Jones (read: CTBS for $) types and a lot of little, self-styled clones (read: any of this board's CT foil-hatters).

 

[SAYIT]

It took me three hours to answer all of you conspiracy theorists. It might be a while before I have that kind of time again, but don't think for a minute that I won't.

This is too important. It's time you conspiracists demand proof for what you believe.

Only a prosecutor with subpoena power supported by will of the American People can prove fact from fiction.

Or are you afraid you may be proved wrong. Our posterity will examine the evidence from 911 with a dispassionate eye. What will you tell your grandchildren, you were afraid to be call a conspiracy theorist so you just went along with the official conspiracy theory, you didn't demand proof?

The 9/11 Commission members were all honorable, experienced, well educated and accomplished peeps.
7 of the 11 members were attorneys (plus staff attorneys) and the Commission had subpoena power.
Had they found evidence of criminal wrong-doing by anyone other than the known perps they would have made it public or called for a grand jury and further investigation.
They did not.
In order to have a criminal trial with a prosecuting attorney and a jury you must charge someone with a crime so I ask you again (not that you have ever answered) ... who would you charge?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

8 farts in a row from the paid trolls.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

It took me three hours to answer all of you conspiracy theorists. It might be a while before I have that kind of time again, but don't think for a minute that I won't.

This is too important. It's time you conspiracists demand proof for what you believe.

Only a prosecutor with subpoena power supported by will of the American People can prove fact from fiction.

Or are you afraid you may be proved wrong. Our posterity will examine the evidence from 911 with a dispassionate eye. What will you tell your grandchildren, you were afraid to be call a conspiracy theorist so you just went along with the official conspiracy theory, you didn't demand proof?

wihosa,do the smart thing,dont bother with these trolls.They are paid agents sent here to try and derail and disrupt 9/11 truth discussions or any thread that pertains to government corruption.They have been sent here by their handlers to waste your time.they want you to waste your time on them while the government plots more sinister events against us like sandy hook for instance.

There are truthers here that no matter how many times I try and explain this to them,it goes through one ear and out the other with them and they continue to waste their time on them.dont fall into that group.It makes their hanlders happy when you play their game and take their bait.those last 8 posts by those paid trolls that replied,all they ever do is evade facts and change the subject when cornered and they cowardly run off with their tail between their legs anytime you show them videos that shread to pieces the official version as evidenced here on this thread.



Do the SMART thing,dont waste your time on these treasonous trolls.

 

[SFC Ollie]

It took me three hours to answer all of you conspiracy theorists. It might be a while before I have that kind of time again, but don't think for a minute that I won't.

This is too important. It's time you conspiracists demand proof for what you believe.

Only a prosecutor with subpoena power supported by will of the American People can prove fact from fiction.

Or are you afraid you may be proved wrong. Our posterity will examine the evidence from 911 with a dispassionate eye. What will you tell your grandchildren, you were afraid to be call a conspiracy theorist so you just went along with the official conspiracy theory, you didn't demand proof?

wihosa,do the smart thing,dont bother with these trolls.They are paid agents sent here to try and derail and disrupt 9/11 truth discussions or any thread that pertains to government corruption.They have been sent here by their handlers to waste your time.they want you to waste your time on them while the government plots more sinister events against us like sandy hook for instance.

There are truthers here that no matter how many times I try and explain this to them,it goes through one ear and out the other with them and they continue to waste their time on them.dont fall into that group.It makes their hanlders happy when you play their game and take their bait.those last 8 posts by those paid trolls that replied,all they ever do is evade facts and change the subject when cornered and they cowardly run off with their tail between their legs anytime you show them videos that shread to pieces the official version as evidenced here on this thread.



Do the SMART thing,dont waste your time on these treasonous trolls.

Translation:

They have handed me my ass so many times that i have to make fart jokes and pretend that they are all on ignore.....It's the only thing i can do to keep posting in here.......

 

[gslack]

For the third time, it is the curtain wall which is damaged, a non structural element. That's akin to saying that if you scrape the skin off you leg you can't stand.

By the way I'm not playing chess, I'm pointing out the flaws in your theory.

The bolded and underlined part, nonsense...

The outer "curtain" as you called it was a structural element. It was explained in the construction videos you twoofers use a lot.. The outer mesh curtain helped to maintain structural integrity at the outside edges. that's why there was no outer pillars or concrete and rebar shafts anywhere but near the core or center... It so they had more "window space"... Other structures wanting more window space rely on corner pillars and inside shafts at various spots near the outer walls...

True for the twin towers, but WTC7 was a conventional steel framed high rise, the curtain wall was not a structural element. And it was not hit by a plane yet suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse.

It's your theory to defend. You have to defend all of it, not just the parts that are plausible.

7 was a completely different structure using different methods. as you pointed out. Traditional steel framed high rise would be concrete and no"curtain" as you call it.. It was hit by debris and was on fire as I recall.. Heavily damaged...

If the did decide to "pull it" as the internet videos like to harp on, so what? There wasn't anyone in there and it was a hazard left there like that.. The damage was too severe to save the damn thing, so what's the point?

You are trying to pick gnat shit out of pepper...

 

[eots]

The bolded and underlined part, nonsense...

The outer "curtain" as you called it was a structural element. It was explained in the construction videos you twoofers use a lot.. The outer mesh curtain helped to maintain structural integrity at the outside edges. that's why there was no outer pillars or concrete and rebar shafts anywhere but near the core or center... It so they had more "window space"... Other structures wanting more window space rely on corner pillars and inside shafts at various spots near the outer walls...

True for the twin towers, but WTC7 was a conventional steel framed high rise, the curtain wall was not a structural element. And it was not hit by a plane yet suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse.

It's your theory to defend. You have to defend all of it, not just the parts that are plausible.

7 was a completely different structure using different methods. as you pointed out. Traditional steel framed high rise would be concrete and no"curtain" as you call it..

NIST, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames
NIST wtc 7 fact sheet

It was hit by debris and was on fire as I recall.. Heavily damaged...

the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

If the did decide to "pull it" as the internet videos like to harp on, so what? There wasn't anyone in there and it was a hazard left there like that.. The damage was too severe to save the damn thing, so what's the point?

You are trying to pick gnat shit out of pepper...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-QkftUPsBk]NIST 9/11 - Disclosure Might Jeopardize Public Safety - YouTube[/ame]

 

[gslack]

True for the twin towers, but WTC7 was a conventional steel framed high rise, the curtain wall was not a structural element. And it was not hit by a plane yet suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse.

It's your theory to defend. You have to defend all of it, not just the parts that are plausible.

NIST, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames
NIST wtc 7 fact sheet


the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

If the did decide to "pull it" as the internet videos like to harp on, so what? There wasn't anyone in there and it was a hazard left there like that.. The damage was too severe to save the damn thing, so what's the point?

You are trying to pick gnat shit out of pepper...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-QkftUPsBk]NIST 9/11 - Disclosure Might Jeopardize Public Safety - YouTube[/ame]

Uh-huh.. Why not go to the actual NIST text on the matter? The site you linked to doesn't seem fully functional they do have links to the actual NIST texts on the matter...

FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, and 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
The probable collapse sequence is described in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 2.4 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Chapter 13.

Seems you are trying to make some claim regarding NIST and not actually using their findings to do so... Read what you wrote carefully, tell me exactly where it proves some kind of alternative method of collapse.. now look at what you wrote and the NIST report and tell what the problem is.. Simple, it doesn't match at all...

That's why you should always check sources, especially when they claim wild things like this..

 

[eots]

NIST, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames
NIST wtc 7 fact sheet


the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008



NIST 9/11 - Disclosure Might Jeopardize Public Safety - YouTube

Uh-huh.. Why not go to the actual NIST text on the matter? The site you linked to doesn't seem fully functional they do have links to the actual NIST texts on the matter...

FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, and 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
The probable collapse sequence is described in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 2.4 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Chapter 13.

Seems you are trying to make some claim regarding NIST and not actually using their findings to do so... Read what you wrote carefully, tell me exactly where it proves some kind of alternative method of collapse.. now look at what you wrote and the NIST report and tell what the problem is.. Simple, it doesn't match at all...

That's why you should always check sources, especially when they claim wild things like this..

the link is from NIST its the most recent publication and the link works just fine..wtf do you think nist .gov means ?

the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008



NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

 

[gslack]

Uh-huh.. Why not go to the actual NIST text on the matter? The site you linked to doesn't seem fully functional they do have links to the actual NIST texts on the matter...

FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation



Seems you are trying to make some claim regarding NIST and not actually using their findings to do so... Read what you wrote carefully, tell me exactly where it proves some kind of alternative method of collapse.. now look at what you wrote and the NIST report and tell what the problem is.. Simple, it doesn't match at all...

That's why you should always check sources, especially when they claim wild things like this..

the link is from NIST its the most recent publication and the link works just fine..wtf do you think nist .gov means ?

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

Dude what's tech beat? they aren't the official NIST repository are they? I linked the actual NIST site, you linked to tech beat whatever the hell that is...

My cited source was from NIST.. Yours from tech beat..See the point?

Also your claims are not what NIST said at all.. Again WTH dude? Did you ever actually check your facts or just went with whatever excuse fit your preconceptions?

 

[eots]

the link is from NIST its the most recent publication and the link works just fine..wtf do you think nist .gov means ?

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

Dude what's tech beat? they aren't the official NIST repository are they? I linked the actual NIST site, you linked to tech beat whatever the hell that is...

My cited source was from NIST.. Yours from tech beat..See the point?

Also your claims are not what NIST said at all.. Again WTH dude? Did you ever actually check your facts or just went with whatever excuse fit your preconceptions?

tech beat is NIST...web address...nist .gov.. it is an update on the final wtc 7 NIST report

Media Contact: Michael E. Newman, [email protected], (301) 975-3025



[NIST Tech Beat Search] [Credits] [NIST Tech Beat Archives] [Media Contacts]
Editor: Michael Baum
Date updated: November 20, 2008
Contact: [email protected]

 

[eots]

Current Issue: Tech Beat April 17, 2013 NIST Home > Public and Business Affairs Office
Current Issue: Tech Beat April 17, 2013

 

[gslack]

Dude what's tech beat? they aren't the official NIST repository are they? I linked the actual NIST site, you linked to tech beat whatever the hell that is...

My cited source was from NIST.. Yours from tech beat..See the point?

Also your claims are not what NIST said at all.. Again WTH dude? Did you ever actually check your facts or just went with whatever excuse fit your preconceptions?

tech beat is NIST...web address...nist .gov.. it is an update on the final wtc 7 NIST report

Media Contact: Michael E. Newman, [email protected], (301) 975-3025



[NIST Tech Beat Search] [Credits] [NIST Tech Beat Archives] [Media Contacts]
Editor: Michael Baum
Date updated: November 20, 2008
Contact: [email protected]

Okay i see now its their newsletter then got it, my bad, apologies.. if that's true though, why the discrepancies between what they said, and what you claimed they said?

 

[eots]

tech beat is NIST...web address...nist .gov.. it is an update on the final wtc 7 NIST report

Media Contact: Michael E. Newman, [email protected], (301) 975-3025



[NIST Tech Beat Search] [Credits] [NIST Tech Beat Archives] [Media Contacts]
Editor: Michael Baum
Date updated: November 20, 2008
Contact: [email protected]

Okay i see now its their newsletter then got it, my bad, apologies.. if that's true though, why the discrepancies between what they said, and what you claimed they said?

I DID NOT CLAIM ANYTHING I POSTED THEIR QUOTE..

 

[eots]

So if you accept the NIST theory is correct a single blast event on one column could of brought down wtc 7

 

[gslack]

Okay i see now its their newsletter then got it, my bad, apologies.. if that's true though, why the discrepancies between what they said, and what you claimed they said?

I DID NOT CLAIM ANYTHING I POSTED THEIR QUOTE..

It's an inaccurate quote...It's cut and pasted from bits and placed to give a false impression of their findings...

Your quote...

the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

The dash between the two sentences in the first part above.. You left out some shit there.. That's acceptable to be brief and only as long as you don't change the implied or intended meaning of the material you are citing. Which your edited quote certainly did that...

From your NIST FAQ's link....

4. What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

Right there first sentence number 4, it opposes what you claimed they said...WTF dude? You are lying, no matter how you slice it, you are editing their words to imply the opposite of they were intended... Pretty lame tactic man...

 

[eots]

I DID NOT CLAIM ANYTHING I POSTED THEIR QUOTE..

It's an inaccurate quote...It's cut and pasted from bits and placed to give a false impression of their findings...

Your quote...



The dash between the two sentences in the first part above.. You left out some shit there.. That's acceptable to be brief and only as long as you don't change the implied or intended meaning of the material you are citing. Which your edited quote certainly did that...

From your NIST FAQ's link....

4. What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

Right there first sentence number 4, it opposes what you claimed they said...WTF dude? You are lying, no matter how you slice it, you are editing their words to imply the opposite of they were intended... Pretty lame tactic man...

are you actually trying to deny if you accept the NIST theory is correct a single blast event on one column could of brought down wtc 7 ??

 

[eots]

Right there first sentence number 4, it opposes what you claimed they said...WTF dude? You are lying, no matter how you slice it, you are editing their words to imply the opposite of they were intended... Pretty lame tactic man...

So you dont understand the words revision and update ??


In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Other revisions to the final WTC 7 report included:

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008