Time to put up or shut up.

[RadiomanATL]

I saw no flashes.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I saw no flashes.

I had to play it 3 times and go full screen, it was rather obvious then....

 

[RadiomanATL]

I saw no flashes.

I had to play it 3 times and go full screen, it was rather obvious then....

On which one?

 

[Paulie]

I do think it's strange that the entire building's interior supports were completely compromised structurally to the point of zero resistance when the entire building fell.

I can definitely understand why people think something is not right.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I saw no flashes.

I had to play it 3 times and go full screen, it was rather obvious then....

On which one?

The 5th video. It was nothing but reflection.

 

[PhysicsExist]

Did not know you were talking about WTC7 witness testimony.

But here's that as well:

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

He has since died after this interview.

and your rebuttal responses do those videos provide nothing but opinion. Those are witness testimony and video evidence of explosions, these are the same avenues you use legally to provide a case. If it exploded in a secondary fashion it is completely discounted as a demolition? Thats a stretch, and you know it. Stop fighting the facts. And to say "no audio" as a way to prove the video proves nothing is a complete disgrace. Absorb the information and facts that are being presented, stop trying to debunk them, you cannot debunk videos/audio/physics by simply discounting them because you feel like it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I had to play it 3 times and go full screen, it was rather obvious then....

On which one?

The 5th video. It was nothing but reflection.

OK, yeah, I saw it. And yeah, just a reflection. The freaking windows didn't break.

 

[SFC Ollie]

OK P E, plain and simple, if you have ever heard what a controlled demo sounds like then please produce audio of said controlled demolition of Bldg 7.

We will watch our children raise our grandchildren while we wait.

 

[PhysicsExist]

OK P E, plain and simple, if you have ever heard what a controlled demo sounds like then please produce audio of said controlled demolition of Bldg 7.

We will watch our children raise our grandchildren while we wait.

Did you watch the Barry Jennings video? Its not good enough either, you want a different one. What else do you want? Theres NOTHING else that can be shown, because EVERYTHING HAS BEEN SHOWN.

Witness Testimony of explosions- Check
First hand account of WTC7 Explosions - Check
Freefall Acceleration through greatest resistance - check
Video evidence of the collapse - check
expert analysis - check
Laws of physics - check

And here you are avoiding those facts, and asking for different videos....

you are purposefully avoiding the facts that are being presented to you right infront of your eyes, and instead are demanding a video that 100% proves demolition was involved without a doubt by hearing exact demolition explosions and visuals of such. Stop it. read my responses, use your logic and think with an open mind, stop being so against me. I am providing WITNESS testimony videos, VIDEOS of a building FREEFALLING through the path of greatest resistance. These are FACTS and you need to accept them rather than avoiding them.

 

[DiveCon]

OK P E, plain and simple, if you have ever heard what a controlled demo sounds like then please produce audio of said controlled demolition of Bldg 7.

We will watch our children raise our grandchildren while we wait.

Did you watch the Barry Jennings video? Its not good enough either, you want a different one. What else do you want? Theres NOTHING else that can be shown, because EVERYTHING HAS BEEN SHOWN.

Witness Testimony of explosions- Check
First hand account of WTC7 Explosions - Check
Freefall Acceleration through greatest resistance - check
Video evidence of the collapse - check
expert analysis - check
Laws of physics - check

And here you are avoiding those facts, and asking for different videos....

you are purposefully avoiding the facts that are being presented to you right infront of your eyes, and instead are demanding a video that 100% proves demolition was involved without a doubt by hearing exact demolition explosions and visuals of such. Stop it. read my responses, use your logic and think with an open mind, stop being so against me. I am providing WITNESS testimony videos, VIDEOS of a building FREEFALLING through the path of greatest resistance. These are FACTS and you need to accept them rather than avoiding them.

all of that is BULLSHIT
not facts, moron

 

[Gamolon]

Office fires cannot do this.

Are you suggesting that office fires cannot affect steel components in any way and make them fail/collapse?

 

[Gamolon]

Physicsexist,

Here is Chandler's question.

Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this claiming 40% slower then freefall based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?

Can you please point out to me in that question where Chandler differentiates between asking about a PART of the collapse being at freefall and the ENTIRE collapse being at freefall?

It is quite clear to me that Sunder is speaking about the ENTIRE facade collapse taking 40% longer to descend than if it had collapsed at freefall. Are you saying the facade DID collapse entirely at freefall? If you are, I suggest you look at the videos and figure this out for yourself.

 

[Gamolon]

the fact the nist report fails to prove its theory is reason for a new investigation

The opinion of a lying piece of shit truthtard is NOT a reason for a new investigation. And that is all your post is. The NIST reports have been verified by universities and engineering agencies around the world. It has to be. The NIST reports aren't to prove what happened to a bunch of stupid fucks like you. The NIST reports help guide future engineering. Thus they are gone over with a fine toothed comb. No reputable agency or university has found anything materially wrong with the reports or their conclusions.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

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

Hey eots.

Do you agree with Quintere's conclusion about what he thinks the cause of the collapse of the two towers was? I'll post the quote from his paper so you can read it.

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.

Do you agree with him or not?

 

[Gamolon]

Hmm. I dont mean to be rude but, The path of greatest resistance is the support and structure itself, correct? So if it fell into its own footprint, it went through that path. And if it fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds at least, then there is a huge problem according to Newtonian Physics, because that is only possible if the resistance was completely removed. Which fire cannot do. (<-Read this sentence multiple times.)

Do you understand the fact that any structure as a whole is comprised of many smaller components and connections which all come come together as one entity? If you start removing or weakening certain components, the other components have to pick up the slack. Sooner or later, as more components are weakened or failed, the rest of the structure that is left will come to a point that it is over-stressed from having to take up the slack and it will fail as a whole.

You people don't understand that a failed structural component is the same as having nothing there at all.

 

[PhysicsExist]

You people don't understand that a failed structural component is the same as having nothing there at all.

First of all, this is a completely false statement, which also defies physics.

A failed structure is not the same thing as having nothing there at all, are you insane?

Air is not the same as Steel, so your claim is reckless and misinforming.

If an object (such as a failed structure) falls to the ground, there is a ZERO chance it can fall at freefall, because the path of greatest resistance is directly under it. If this were so, the only way, IN REALITY, to have the building collapse in such a fashion, the support and columns on 8 floors had to have been NOT IN THE WAY, at precisely the same moment.

Your statement completely redefines Physics, and you have no evidence to support your VERY reckless claim that: " You people don't understand that a failed structural component is the same as having nothing there at all "

You can't be redefining science to make you hypothesis correct. Stop it. Use your logic. Think about it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF1CW9QdzA0[/ame]

 

[Gamolon]

because the path of greatest resistance is directly under it.

And this is where you are completely incorrect.

If a COLUMN below a given mass fails due to stress, there is NO RESISTANCE from that column anymore.

PERIOD.

Hence the term "fails". Just like your posts.

 

[Gamolon]

You people don't understand that a failed structural component is the same as having nothing there at all.

First of all, this is a completely false statement, which also defies physics.

A failed structure is not the same thing as having nothing there at all, are you insane?

Air is not the same as Steel, so your claim is reckless and misinforming.

If an object (such as a failed structure) falls to the ground, there is a ZERO chance it can fall at freefall, because the path of greatest resistance is directly under it. If this were so, the only way, IN REALITY, to have the building collapse in such a fashion, the support and columns on 8 floors had to have been NOT IN THE WAY, at precisely the same moment.

Your statement completely redefines Physics, and you have no evidence to support your VERY reckless claim that: " You people don't understand that a failed structural component is the same as having nothing there at all "

You can't be redefining science to make you hypothesis correct. Stop it. Use your logic. Think about it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF1CW9QdzA0[/ame]

Speaking of physics, your "* floors have been removed" garbage was debunked by Chandler's video. If the floors were removed as you claim, why was there .8 seconds of NON FREE FALL before the actual 2.25 seconds of freefall started?

If the floors were removed like you claim, freefall would have started from the get go. So your claim defies physics.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

You people don't understand that a failed structural component is the same as having nothing there at all.

First of all, this is a completely false statement, which also defies physics.

A failed structure is not the same thing as having nothing there at all, are you insane?

Air is not the same as Steel, so your claim is reckless and misinforming.

If an object (such as a failed structure) falls to the ground, there is a ZERO chance it can fall at freefall, because the path of greatest resistance is directly under it. If this were so, the only way, IN REALITY, to have the building collapse in such a fashion, the support and columns on 8 floors had to have been NOT IN THE WAY, at precisely the same moment.

Your statement completely redefines Physics, and you have no evidence to support your VERY reckless claim that: " You people don't understand that a failed structural component is the same as having nothing there at all "

You can't be redefining science to make you hypothesis correct. Stop it. Use your logic. Think about it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF1CW9QdzA0[/ame]

Speaking of physics, your "* floors have been removed" garbage was debunked by Chandler's video. If the floors were removed as you claim, why was there .8 seconds of NON FREE FALL before the actual 2.25 seconds of freefall started?

If the floors were removed like you claim, freefall would have started from the get go. So your claim defies physics.

The .8 seconds was a different kind of Newtonian Physics than the Newtonian Physics of the free fall.

Both you must believe in Newtonian Physics.

 

[PhysicsExist]

because the path of greatest resistance is directly under it.

And this is where you are completely incorrect.

If a COLUMN below a given mass fails due to stress, there is NO RESISTANCE from that column anymore.

PERIOD.

Hence the term "fails". Just like your posts.

You're disturbingly misinformed. Whoever explained physics to you left out the main points, like the physics part.

you state that if a "column below a given mass falls due to stress, there is no resistance from that column anymore"

That is a complete lie, and almost a joke. You're saying that that column DOES NOT EXIST anymore? The columns are there, if they fail, they would show facade damage, and the building would be deformed in certain areas during the 5 hours it burnt, it didnt.

Facts:
1) Building 7 came down in a sudden collapse, across the full length of the building, for full freefall acceleration for 105 feet, or 8 floors.

2) The freefall for 2.25 seconds is impossible because in a natural collapse a building would need its columns to buckle/fail

3) When columns buckle/fail, there is a MINIMUM resistance, its asymptotic (it never gives a zero) thus meaning this is IMPOSSIBLE for freefall to occur.

There is no rebuttal to these facts. Read this, and use your logic. We have intellect for a reason, take advantage of it. I'm not here to spread lies and waste time, I'm here to get the truth and facts out.

 

[SFC Ollie]

There had to have been signs that the building was going to come down. All the firefighters knew it. Were they all in on it?

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.), Battalion 13
So we started heading over to where Building 7 was at and they were like Building 7 is going to collapse, you can't go over there, this and that, and there was another building that they thought was going to collapse that was like right behind the triage center, the building that we were in.

Frank Cruthers -- Fire Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --
...
-- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. Thre was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolands and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed

Frank Fellini -- Fire Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.
So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T (E.M.S.), Battalion 13
When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back. They pulled us all back at the time, almost about an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe.

Vincent Massa -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Engine 64
At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down.
...
I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up.

9-11 Research: WTC 7 Collapse Foreknowledge