Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[Mr. Jones]

Twin towers.
1. Hit by a jet in the upper third, damaging support steel
2. Fires then ensuing after impact
3. The same tube in tube, all steel design

WTC7.
1. Same design as WTC7
2. Unfought fires because of no sprinkler system

Point out which buildings you have as a comparison that match those characteristics. If you can;t then you have NO COMPARISONS in which to prove me wrong.

I'll wait right here.

NIST says the cause of collapse at WTC 7 was fire, so that is what I am addressing. All modern hirise buildings are constructed of steel/concrete, including the ones I noted for you.
They like WTC 7 were not struck by any planes, so I ask you again, why, in your opinion, did the WTC7 collapse from fire,
and with such uniformity, while the others did not?.
Also why in your opinion, did the N tower not exhibit any sign of steel beam or column failure in the 1975 fire? There were no sprinkler systems in place at the time.
And BTW the empire state building was struck by a plane in 1945, a fire ensued and people were killed, yet it did not exhibit any sign of collapsing.

 

[Patriot911]

Twin towers.
1. Hit by a jet in the upper third, damaging support steel
2. Fires then ensuing after impact
3. The same tube in tube, all steel design

WTC7.
1. Same design as WTC7
2. Unfought fires because of no sprinkler system

Point out which buildings you have as a comparison that match those characteristics. If you can;t then you have NO COMPARISONS in which to prove me wrong.

I'll wait right here.

NIST says the cause of collapse at WTC 7 was fire, so that is what I am addressing. All modern hirise buildings are constructed of steel/concrete, including the ones I noted for you.
They like WTC 7 were not struck by any planes, so I ask you again, why, in your opinion, did the WTC7 collapse from fire,
and with such uniformity, while the others did not?.
Also why in your opinion, did the N tower not exhibit any sign of steel beam or column failure in the 1975 fire? There were no sprinkler systems in place at the time.
And BTW the empire state building was struck by a plane in 1945, a fire ensued and people were killed, yet it did not exhibit any sign of collapsing.

Ah. Once again you underline and emphasize the utterly retarded truthtard tactic of pretending every building should react the same regardless of construction, material, or circumstances. Only a truthtard would be so ignorant as to think an extremely complex structure such as a building should behave exactly like a completely unrelated structure under completely unrelated circumstances. You fuckers sure are good for a laugh. Other than that you aren't worth shit.

Did the other buildings have the exact same construction as WTC 7 including the unique structures designed for the Edison substation?

Did the other buildings have the exact same circumstances as WTC 7 in that the fires burned completely uncontested for such a long period of time?

No?

Then shut the fuck up you stupid moron! Trying to compare apples to rocks while pretending you're intelligent only emphasizes your ignorance.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Twin towers.
1. Hit by a jet in the upper third, damaging support steel
2. Fires then ensuing after impact
3. The same tube in tube, all steel design

WTC7.
1. Same design as WTC7
2. Unfought fires because of no sprinkler system

Point out which buildings you have as a comparison that match those characteristics. If you can;t then you have NO COMPARISONS in which to prove me wrong.

I'll wait right here.

NIST says the cause of collapse at WTC 7 was fire, so that is what I am addressing. All modern hirise buildings are constructed of steel/concrete, including the ones I noted for you.
They like WTC 7 were not struck by any planes, so I ask you again, why, in your opinion, did the WTC7 collapse from fire,
and with such uniformity, while the others did not?.
Also why in your opinion, did the N tower not exhibit any sign of steel beam or column failure in the 1975 fire? There were no sprinkler systems in place at the time.
And BTW the empire state building was struck by a plane in 1945, a fire ensued and people were killed, yet it did not exhibit any sign of collapsing.

Ah. Once again you underline and emphasize the utterly retarded truthtard tactic of pretending every building should react the same regardless of construction, material, or circumstances. Only a truthtard would be so ignorant as to think an extremely complex structure such as a building should behave exactly like a completely unrelated structure under completely unrelated circumstances. You fuckers sure are good for a laugh. Other than that you aren't worth shit.

Did the other buildings have the exact same construction as WTC 7 including the unique structures designed for the Edison substation?

Did the other buildings have the exact same circumstances as WTC 7 in that the fires burned completely uncontested for such a long period of time?

No?

Then shut the fuck up you stupid moron! Trying to compare apples to rocks while pretending you're intelligent only emphasizes your ignorance.

They were ALL made of steel/concrete, and the steel in those other buildings, DID NOT exhibit any of the "thermal expansion" nonsense that NIST proposes happened to building 7.
You people put up pictures of railroad tracks and compare them to the design of the WTC buildings?? WTF?
I'm comparing steel structures to steel structures, hardly comparing apples to oranges like you fucks, don't try to deflect the point answer the question as to why the steel performs differently in Manhattan compared to the rest of the world?

You can't, so I'll await another childish tirade, followed by another sidetracking post.


And yes some of them did burn out of control, haven't you bothered to look this up? You've been burned before because of your laziness.

 

[Gamolon]

NIST says the cause of collapse at WTC 7 was fire, so that is what I am addressing. All modern hirise buildings are constructed of steel/concrete, including the ones I noted for you.
They like WTC 7 were not struck by any planes, so I ask you again, why, in your opinion, did the WTC7 collapse from fire,
and with such uniformity, while the others did not?.
Also why in your opinion, did the N tower not exhibit any sign of steel beam or column failure in the 1975 fire? There were no sprinkler systems in place at the time.
And BTW the empire state building was struck by a plane in 1945, a fire ensued and people were killed, yet it did not exhibit any sign of collapsing.

Ah. Once again you underline and emphasize the utterly retarded truthtard tactic of pretending every building should react the same regardless of construction, material, or circumstances. Only a truthtard would be so ignorant as to think an extremely complex structure such as a building should behave exactly like a completely unrelated structure under completely unrelated circumstances. You fuckers sure are good for a laugh. Other than that you aren't worth shit.

Did the other buildings have the exact same construction as WTC 7 including the unique structures designed for the Edison substation?

Did the other buildings have the exact same circumstances as WTC 7 in that the fires burned completely uncontested for such a long period of time?

No?

Then shut the fuck up you stupid moron! Trying to compare apples to rocks while pretending you're intelligent only emphasizes your ignorance.

They were ALL made of steel/concrete, and the steel in those other buildings, DID NOT exhibit any of the "thermal expansion" nonsense that NIST proposes happened to building 7.
You people put up pictures of railroad tracks and compare them to the design of the WTC buildings?? WTF?
I'm comparing steel structures to steel structures, hardly comparing apples to oranges like you fucks, don't try to deflect the point answer the question as to why the steel performs differently in Manhattan compared to the rest of the world?

You can't, so I'll await another childish tirade, followed by another sidetracking post.


And yes some of them did burn out of control, haven't you bothered to look this up? You've been burned before because of your laziness.

Completely wrong.

The pictures of the railroad tracks were in direct refutation of your claim that there was a temperature threshold at which thermal expansion starts.

My point to you was that if railroad tracks can thermally expand on a hot day to a point that it bends the steel tracks, what do you think would happen to steel in an office fire that is WAY more hotter than just a "hot day".

For you to claim that I compared the railroad tracks to that of the structural design of the buildings is idiotic.

Yes you are comparing steel structures to steel structures, BUT they are NOT THE SAME DESIGN. You're being quite stupid in assuming that ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS WILL REACT THE EXACT SAME WAY REGARDLESS OF DESIGN.

Is that what you are claiming?

Yes or no?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Ah. Once again you underline and emphasize the utterly retarded truthtard tactic of pretending every building should react the same regardless of construction, material, or circumstances. Only a truthtard would be so ignorant as to think an extremely complex structure such as a building should behave exactly like a completely unrelated structure under completely unrelated circumstances. You fuckers sure are good for a laugh. Other than that you aren't worth shit.

Did the other buildings have the exact same construction as WTC 7 including the unique structures designed for the Edison substation?

Did the other buildings have the exact same circumstances as WTC 7 in that the fires burned completely uncontested for such a long period of time?

No?

Then shut the fuck up you stupid moron! Trying to compare apples to rocks while pretending you're intelligent only emphasizes your ignorance.

They were ALL made of steel/concrete, and the steel in those other buildings, DID NOT exhibit any of the "thermal expansion" nonsense that NIST proposes happened to building 7.
You people put up pictures of railroad tracks and compare them to the design of the WTC buildings?? WTF?
I'm comparing steel structures to steel structures, hardly comparing apples to oranges like you fucks, don't try to deflect the point answer the question as to why the steel performs differently in Manhattan compared to the rest of the world?

You can't, so I'll await another childish tirade, followed by another sidetracking post.


And yes some of them did burn out of control, haven't you bothered to look this up? You've been burned before because of your laziness.

Completely wrong.

The pictures of the railroad tracks were in direct refutation of your claim that there was a temperature threshold at which thermal expansion starts.

My point to you was that if railroad tracks can thermally expand on a hot day to a point that it bends the steel tracks, what do you think would happen to steel in an office fire that is WAY more hotter than just a "hot day".

For you to claim that I compared the railroad tracks to that of the structural design of the buildings is idiotic.

Yes you are comparing steel structures to steel structures, BUT they are NOT THE SAME DESIGN. You're being quite stupid in assuming that ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS WILL REACT THE EXACT SAME WAY REGARDLESS OF DESIGN.

Is that what you are claiming?

Yes or no?

Are you saying that the steel used in these other buildings was somehow different then that used in the WTC 7 building? Or that they had a different temp threshold so we should expect no "expansion" in the steel?
Are you aware of the fire safety tests in Britain?

 

[Gamolon]

They were ALL made of steel/concrete, and the steel in those other buildings, DID NOT exhibit any of the "thermal expansion" nonsense that NIST proposes happened to building 7.
You people put up pictures of railroad tracks and compare them to the design of the WTC buildings?? WTF?
I'm comparing steel structures to steel structures, hardly comparing apples to oranges like you fucks, don't try to deflect the point answer the question as to why the steel performs differently in Manhattan compared to the rest of the world?

You can't, so I'll await another childish tirade, followed by another sidetracking post.


And yes some of them did burn out of control, haven't you bothered to look this up? You've been burned before because of your laziness.

Completely wrong.

The pictures of the railroad tracks were in direct refutation of your claim that there was a temperature threshold at which thermal expansion starts.

My point to you was that if railroad tracks can thermally expand on a hot day to a point that it bends the steel tracks, what do you think would happen to steel in an office fire that is WAY more hotter than just a "hot day".

For you to claim that I compared the railroad tracks to that of the structural design of the buildings is idiotic.

Yes you are comparing steel structures to steel structures, BUT they are NOT THE SAME DESIGN. You're being quite stupid in assuming that ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS WILL REACT THE EXACT SAME WAY REGARDLESS OF DESIGN.

Is that what you are claiming?

Yes or no?

Are you saying that the steel used in these other buildings was somehow different then that used in the WTC 7 building? Or that they had a different temp threshold so we should expect no "expansion" in the steel?
Are you aware of the fire safety tests in Britain?

Answer this for me.

Let's take two of the same columns, secure them to the ground vertically. Put a 10,000 lb weight on top of one of them and then subject them to fire.

Are you saying that both columns will have exactly the same deformation characteristics when compared?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Completely wrong.

The pictures of the railroad tracks were in direct refutation of your claim that there was a temperature threshold at which thermal expansion starts.

My point to you was that if railroad tracks can thermally expand on a hot day to a point that it bends the steel tracks, what do you think would happen to steel in an office fire that is WAY more hotter than just a "hot day".

For you to claim that I compared the railroad tracks to that of the structural design of the buildings is idiotic.

Yes you are comparing steel structures to steel structures, BUT they are NOT THE SAME DESIGN. You're being quite stupid in assuming that ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS WILL REACT THE EXACT SAME WAY REGARDLESS OF DESIGN.

Is that what you are claiming?

Yes or no?

Are you saying that the steel used in these other buildings was somehow different then that used in the WTC 7 building? Or that they had a different temp threshold so we should expect no "expansion" in the steel?
Are you aware of the fire safety tests in Britain?

Answer this for me.

Let's take two of the same columns, secure them to the ground vertically. Put a 10,000 lb weight on top of one of them and then subject them to fire.

Are you saying that both columns will have exactly the same deformation characteristics when compared?

Why can you not answer or refuse to answer a straight forward line of questioning? You are desperately trying to deflect, and muddy what is a simple question..do you know why, or not?

 

[Gamolon]

Are you saying that the steel used in these other buildings was somehow different then that used in the WTC 7 building? Or that they had a different temp threshold so we should expect no "expansion" in the steel?
Are you aware of the fire safety tests in Britain?

Answer this for me.

Let's take two of the same columns, secure them to the ground vertically. Put a 10,000 lb weight on top of one of them and then subject them to fire.

Are you saying that both columns will have exactly the same deformation characteristics when compared?

Why can you not answer or refuse to answer a straight forward line of questioning? You are desperately trying to deflect, and muddy what is a simple question..do you know why, or not?

I am answering your question. I am trying to get you to understand.

The reason buildings react differently is because the design is different. Loads are distributed differently. Fires will affect them differently.

The fact that you are comparing buildings that have different designs and are expecting them to behave the same way in a fire is evidence that you do not understand.

Now answer the question please. Will the two columns described above react the same exact way in a fire?

Yes or no?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Answer this for me.

Let's take two of the same columns, secure them to the ground vertically. Put a 10,000 lb weight on top of one of them and then subject them to fire.

Are you saying that both columns will have exactly the same deformation characteristics when compared?

Why can you not answer or refuse to answer a straight forward line of questioning? You are desperately trying to deflect, and muddy what is a simple question..do you know why, or not?

I am answering your question. I am trying to get you to understand.

The reason buildings react differently is because the design is different. Loads are distributed differently. Fires will affect them differently.

The fact that you are comparing buildings that have different designs and are expecting them to behave the same way in a fire is evidence that you do not understand.

Now answer the question please. Will the two columns described above react the same exact way in a fire?

Yes or no?

I give up, I ask a simple question to see if you know something or not, and you just avoid answering it. I am left to assume you do not know if the steel in the other burning buildings was somehow different then in WTC7. I will just try to look this up myself.
I am not asking about building design and loads, I am asking about the steel used in the hi rise construction of these buildings, and what difference between the 7 building steel and the others are.
I have made this as clear as possible to you.
I will try to find an answer elsewhere.

 

[Gamolon]

Types of steel used.
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05157.pdf

 

[PhysicsExist]

Types of steel used.
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05157.pdf

How do you remove all the core columns and support beams for the full length and width of WTC 7 ?

Explosives.

 

[candycorn]

Why can you not answer or refuse to answer a straight forward line of questioning? You are desperately trying to deflect, and muddy what is a simple question..do you know why, or not?

I am answering your question. I am trying to get you to understand.

The reason buildings react differently is because the design is different. Loads are distributed differently. Fires will affect them differently.

The fact that you are comparing buildings that have different designs and are expecting them to behave the same way in a fire is evidence that you do not understand.

Now answer the question please. Will the two columns described above react the same exact way in a fire?

Yes or no?

I give up, I ask a simple question to see if you know something or not, and you just avoid answering it. I am left to assume you do not know if the steel in the other burning buildings was somehow different then in WTC7. I will just try to look this up myself.
I am not asking about building design and loads, I am asking about the steel used in the hi rise construction of these buildings, and what difference between the 7 building steel and the others are.
I have made this as clear as possible to you.
I will try to find an answer elsewhere.

Don't leave mad...
Just leave.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Types of steel used.
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05157.pdf

How do you remove all the core columns and support beams for the full length and width of WTC 7 ?

Explosives.

Where is the evidence of explosives?

 

[TakingTheRedPil]

I had to create an account just to post on this forum. It is absolutely unthinkable that there are actually people who are still trying to convince others the official story is correct and those three buildings collapsed due to planes and fires after all the evidence the points to the contrary.

It's ridiculous!

Buildings do not collapse in perfect symmetry, simultaneously all the way down without controlled demolition. Period. Not on planet Earth. It is an unnatural event.

In my opinion all of you doing this and ridiculing those bringing data backed up by evidence and facts are all guilty of obstruction of justice. And you're only convincing yourselves anyway. Most people that take a look at the evidence brought forth by respected organizations such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth cannot deny the facts these buildings could not have been collapsed by fire and no longer believe a word you people say or the Official Investigation by NIST.

 

[KissMy]

The chief engineer Leslie Robertson who designed & built the WTC says the WTC buildings could not stand without the floor trusses. The floor trusses in these buildings were longer than any other buildings. These 60'ft steel truss spans are more susceptible to fire than the typical 15'ft span of steel reinforced concrete beam. Ask any fireman & they will tell you "never trust the truss" Then factor in the floors below the impact must now support the weight of several floors above & their contents that had been knocked down onto them from the airliner impact plus the additional weight of the 100,000-lb aircraft. Chief design engineer Leslie Robertson who built the WTC agrees that the WTC buildings would have collapsed as they did, due to floor truss damage from plane impact & fire damage.

 

[eots]

the 3 wtc buildings could not stand without the floor trusses. The floor trusses in these buildings were longer than any other buildings. These 60'ft steel truss spans are more susceptible to fire than the typical 15'ft span of steel reinforced concrete beam. Ask any fireman & they will tell you "never trust the truss"

the 3 buildings ?...really.. would that be the tri-towers ? and by more susceptible you mean pulverized to dust and collapsing in secs ?

 

[KissMy]

 

[eots]

by.. affected.. do you mean smashed into pieces and collapsing in seconds ?

 

[Patriot911]

They were ALL made of steel/concrete, and the steel in those other buildings, DID NOT exhibit any of the "thermal expansion" nonsense that NIST proposes happened to building 7.

Really? You know that for a fact? You fucking liar.

What would you call what happened to the steel in this example?

You people put up pictures of railroad tracks and compare them to the design of the WTC buildings?? WTF?

I'm comparing steel structures to steel structures, hardly comparing apples to oranges like you fucks, don't try to deflect the point answer the question as to why the steel performs differently in Manhattan compared to the rest of the world?

Wrong yet again you lying little fuck. You think the only thing that matters is that the structures are made out of steel? I guess I should have called you an ignorant little fuck as well.

You can't, so I'll await another childish tirade, followed by another sidetracking post.

Yes, we're all well aware you can't handle the fact you've been exposed yet again. Keep trying to pretend all buildings should behave the exact same way as long as they contain steel regardless of construction, materials and circumstances. I love it when truthtards just INSIST their ignorance is somehow justified.

And yes some of them did burn out of control, haven't you bothered to look this up? You've been burned before because of your laziness.

Yes. The building above was allowed to burn out of control. It suffered a partial collapse. Where? Only in the steel framed section of the building. OH NOES!!!! I am sure you will dismiss that FACT as immaterial.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I had to create an account just to post on this forum. It is absolutely unthinkable that there are actually people who are still trying to convince others the official story is correct and those three buildings collapsed due to planes and fires after all the evidence the points to the contrary.

It's ridiculous!

Buildings do not collapse in perfect symmetry, simultaneously all the way down without controlled demolition. Period. Not on planet Earth. It is an unnatural event.

In my opinion all of you doing this and ridiculing those bringing data backed up by evidence and facts are all guilty of obstruction of justice. And you're only convincing yourselves anyway. Most people that take a look at the evidence brought forth by respected organizations such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth cannot deny the facts these buildings could not have been collapsed by fire and no longer believe a word you people say or the Official Investigation by NIST.

Awe, look, another sock.

There is no evidence only opinion. And opinion is not evidence.