911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[eots]

those who pretend to know the future are frauds

There is a video with somebody saying "keep your eye on that building, its coming down"
and there are all sorts of claims that the firefighters, and others knew that WTC7 was going to fall, before it fell.
Chrystal ball?

Apples and oranges but you make an important point. Those at ground zero on 9/11 could see the damage done to WTC7 by large falling chunks of the Towers and knew what came next. Neither Eots nor anyone else can predict "that will never happen again."

according to your NIST report damage was not factor in the collapse of wtc 7..you have read the NIST report right ?

 

[Capstone]

...Those at ground zero on 9/11 could see the damage done to WTC7 by large falling chunks of the Towers and knew what came next. ... [emphasis Capstone's]

That "the building [was] about to blow up"?

...Neither Eots nor anyone else can predict "that will never happen again."

Eots' prediction was based on the impossibility of the "collapse scenario" provided by NIST, in which a 105 ft. freefall was admitted, and here's the key, even though the admission was completely inexplicable under the fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis. So, Eots was right. The third law of motion had never been violated before, it certainly wasn't violated on 9/11/01 (meaning NIST's explanation was garbage from the word go), and it will never be so violated in the future.

 

[deep_space]

I invite the curious to do a YOUTUBE search on "Why The NIST Report on WTC 7 is Unscientific and False"
check it out.

 

[SAYIT]

those who pretend to know the future are frauds

There is a video with somebody saying "keep your eye on that building, its coming down"
and there are all sorts of claims that the firefighters, and others knew that WTC7 was going to fall, before it fell.
Chrystal ball?

Apples and oranges but you make an important point. Those at ground zero on 9/11 could see the damage done to WTC7 by large falling chunks of the Towers and knew what came next. Neither Eots nor anyone else can predict "that will never happen again."

according to your NIST report damage was not factor in the collapse of wtc 7..you have read the NIST report right ?

WTC7 was not severely damaged by falling chunks of the Towers and damage was not a factor in the collapse? Really dude ... "Truthers" say the silliest things.

 

[Capstone]

WTC7 was not severely damaged by falling chunks of the Towers and damage was not a factor in the collapse? Really dude ... "Truthers" say the silliest things.

...except he didn't say that.

How's about responding in reference to what he did say?

 

[SAYIT]

WTC7 was not severely damaged by falling chunks of the Towers and damage was not a factor in the collapse? Really dude ... "Truthers" say the silliest things.

...except he didn't say that.

How's about responding in reference to what he did say?

I don't play by your 9/11 "Truther" rule book and I have no interest in buying your DVDs or T-shirts, Princess. If you or Eots actually wanted to know what brought down WTC7, you would have looked it up by now.

 

[deep_space]

At least to this "truther" suffice to say that the NIST report(s) on the subject fall very far short of actually explaining anything.

 

[SAYIT]

At least to this "truther" suffice to say that the NIST report(s) on the subject fall very far short of actually explaining anything.

Sooo, are you a "no-planer" or a "silent explosives" type foil-hater? Spiders from Mars perhaps?

 

[deep_space]

At least to this "truther" suffice to say that the NIST report(s) on the subject fall very far short of actually explaining anything.

Sooo, are you a "no-planer" or a "silent explosives" type foil-hater? Spiders from Mars perhaps?

Your incredulity does not change the facts of what happened that day. I say that I do not believe the official story, and then the wild accusations of "tin-foil-hat" + hyperbole to demonstrate your lack of though on the subject.

 

[SAYIT]

At least to this "truther" suffice to say that the NIST report(s) on the subject fall very far short of actually explaining anything.

Sooo, are you a "no-planer" or a "silent explosives" type foil-hater? Spiders from Mars perhaps?

Your incredulity does not change the facts of what happened that day. I say that I do not believe the official story, and then the wild accusations of "tin-foil-hat" + hyperbole to demonstrate your lack of though on the subject.

As expected. A typical non-answer to the obvious question. You're dismissed.

 

[eots]

At least to this "truther" suffice to say that the NIST report(s) on the subject fall very far short of actually explaining anything.

Sooo, are you a "no-planer" or a "silent explosives" type foil-hater? Spiders from Mars perhaps?

Your incredulity does not change the facts of what happened that day. I say that I do not believe the official story, and then the wild accusations of "tin-foil-hat" + hyperbole to demonstrate your lack of though on the subject.

As expected. A typical non-answer to the obvious question. You're dismissed.

the obvious question is if you read and understood the NIST report
why do you contradict the report..or is it you find the NIST report inaccurate ?

 

[SAYIT]

At least to this "truther" suffice to say that the NIST report(s) on the subject fall very far short of actually explaining anything.

Sooo, are you a "no-planer" or a "silent explosives" type foil-hater? Spiders from Mars perhaps?

Your incredulity does not change the facts of what happened that day. I say that I do not believe the official story, and then the wild accusations of "tin-foil-hat" + hyperbole to demonstrate your lack of though on the subject.

As expected. A typical non-answer to the obvious question. You're dismissed.

the obvious question is if you read and understood the NIST report
why do you contradict the report..or is it you find the NIST report inaccurate ?

No ... the question is: why must all "Truthers" lie?

 

[Capstone]

I don't play by your 9/11 "Truther" rule book and I have no interest in buying your DVDs or T-shirts, Princess. If you or Eots actually wanted to know what brought down WTC7, you would have looked it upby now.

The rules you don't play by are those of honest discussion. It's what makes you and your kind so transparent.

Here's what Eots actually said:

according to your NIST report damage was not factor in the collapse of wtc 7..you have read the NIST report right ?

Now here's what NIST said:

"...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...."

"...NIST carefully considered the condition of the SFRM installation in WTC 7, including the applied thickness and evidence of gaps or damage in the SFRM. The SFRM in WTC 7 was modeled as undamaged except in the southwest region of the building where there was debris impact damage.4 A uniform thickness equal to the specified SFRM thickness was used for the finite element thermal analyses of WTC 7 because: 1) the variability in the SFRM thickness was small, 2) no evidence of significant damage to the SFRM was found, and 3) small areas of SFRM damage would not have affected the thermal or structural response of the structural framing system."

"...The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns...."

True, according to NIST, the fires that eventually spread to the northeast portion of the building were ignited by the debris from Tower 1, but the structural damage itself, which was caused to the southwest region of Building 7, played no role in the initiation of the collapse.

Now what do you have to say?

 

[SAYIT]

I don't play by your 9/11 "Truther" rule book and I have no interest in buying your DVDs or T-shirts, Princess. If you or Eots actually wanted to know what brought down WTC7, you would have looked it upby now.

The rules you don't play by are those of honest discussion. It's what makes you and your kind so transparent.

Here's what Eots actually said:

according to your NIST report damage was not factor in the collapse of wtc 7..you have read the NIST report right ?

Now here's what NIST said:

"...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...."

"...NIST carefully considered the condition of the SFRM installation in WTC 7, including the applied thickness and evidence of gaps or damage in the SFRM. The SFRM in WTC 7 was modeled as undamaged except in the southwest region of the building where there was debris impact damage.4 A uniform thickness equal to the specified SFRM thickness was used for the finite element thermal analyses of WTC 7 because: 1) the variability in the SFRM thickness was small, 2) no evidence of significant damage to the SFRM was found, and 3) small areas of SFRM damage would not have affected the thermal or structural response of the structural framing system."

"...The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns...."

True, according to NIST, the fires that eventually spread to the northeast portion of the building were ignited by the debris from Tower 1, but the structural damage itself, which was caused to the southwest region of Building 7 played no role in the initiation of the collapse.

Now what do you have say?

Note: "...The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse." That does not mean "did not contribute to the collapse." In fact, it was the burning debris from the Towers which set off the fires that did bring down WTC7.
So the only question left is mine: why must you "Truthers" always lie?

 

[eots]

I don't play by your 9/11 "Truther" rule book and I have no interest in buying your DVDs or T-shirts, Princess. If you or Eots actually wanted to know what brought down WTC7, you would have looked it upby now.

The rules you don't play by are those of honest discussion. It's what makes you and your kind so transparent.

Here's what Eots actually said:

according to your NIST report damage was not factor in the collapse of wtc 7..you have read the NIST report right ?

Now here's what NIST said:

"...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...."

"...NIST carefully considered the condition of the SFRM installation in WTC 7, including the applied thickness and evidence of gaps or damage in the SFRM. The SFRM in WTC 7 was modeled as undamaged except in the southwest region of the building where there was debris impact damage.4 A uniform thickness equal to the specified SFRM thickness was used for the finite element thermal analyses of WTC 7 because: 1) the variability in the SFRM thickness was small, 2) no evidence of significant damage to the SFRM was found, and 3) small areas of SFRM damage would not have affected the thermal or structural response of the structural framing system."

"...The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns...."

True, according to NIST, the fires that eventually spread to the northeast portion of the building were ignited by the debris from Tower 1, but the structural damage itself, which was caused to the southwest region of Building 7 played no role in the initiation of the collapse.

Now what do you have say?

Note: "...The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse." That does not mean "did not contribute to the collapse." In fact, it was the burning debris from the Towers which set off the fires that did bring down WTC7.
So the only question left is mine: why must you "Truthers" always lie?

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

 

[Capstone]

When and where did I (or Eots) lie, Sayit?

Eots and I both quoted you talking about the severity of the visible "damage" you claimed was responsible for the apparent foreknowledge of those like the cop who warned on camera that "the building [was] about to blow up".

You're the one who dishonestly mischaracterized Eots' statement. As usual.

 

[deep_space]

As expected. A typical non-answer to the obvious question. You're dismissed.

Sooo, are you a "no-planer" or a "silent explosives" type foil-hater? Spiders from Mars perhaps?

and you have the colossal gall to tell me that I'm "dismissed"

Your actions make such an effective statement about what you are up to, I need add nothing,

Except to say that the NIST report = FRAUD.

 

[jillian]

now this is hilarious!

not even the debunker trolls want to stick their neck out on this one.

gotta love it when truthers present an unimpeachable case.

Relax, chuckles. Your conspiracy was already proven impossible 6 times over.

Read above.

that's never stopped the troofer butters, has it.

 

[eots]

now this is hilarious!

not even the debunker trolls want to stick their neck out on this one.

gotta love it when truthers present an unimpeachable case.

Relax, chuckles. Your conspiracy was already proven impossible 6 times over.

Read above.

that's never stopped the troofer butters, has it.

wtf are you babbling about ?

 

[jillian]

now this is hilarious!

not even the debunker trolls want to stick their neck out on this one.

gotta love it when truthers present an unimpeachable case.

Relax, chuckles. Your conspiracy was already proven impossible 6 times over.

Read above.

that's never stopped the troofer butters, has it.

wtf are you babbling about ?

no one is babbling but the troofer idiots.

of course, troofer idiots are deranged and don't understand that.

now run along.