FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[Obamerican]

This is where I stop. This is where you CANNOT lead yourself. These exact thoughts are the last things you have to bypass in order to see the whole picture. Yes, I agree, I dont think they could keep it hidden, I dont think it would of been easy in any way to bring all those explosives in there. BUT we have no evidence to support either side of these thoughts, and theres no need to bring them up. All we need to look at are the things that we KNOW FOR SURE. 100%. Without a doubt. And those things are as follows:

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, yet collapsed at freefall speeds. This is impossible according to Newtonian Physics. (unless explosives or other factors were used, instead "offices fires"-NIST)

No steel highrise building has collapsed in the history of the world.

There was renovation to the entire elevator shafts of the towers 9 months prior to 9/11.

When the first tower collapses, and the top tilts severely, how does it STOP tipping, and how does it SMASH the other floors if its not above them since its tilting? Newtonian Physics state that the object goes through the path of least resistance, and if the top is tilting, it could only stop tilting if it fell off the side, or nothing was under it.......causing no resistance.

Building 7’s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

There's countless other facts that we know for 100% certainty that I could post, but im assuming you know them considering you are highly suspicious of this event and probably have researched.

All I can say is that thinking about whether or not our government could 'pull it off' or if they were 'smart enough to' or if they could 'keep it a secret' is not a scientific way to debunk evidence.

the "no steel highrise has ever collapsed" is a lie
there have been several

No it isnt. Show me where a steel highrise has collapsed.

I asked simple questions, or stated verified facts, you don't need to detract from the point by posting false rebuttals that ignore the other points. This tactic is a distraction, you are merely trying to make me prove the point that no steel high rise has collapsed, wasting our time, instead of letting us have a discussion about the facts at hand. Stop please.

Show me where a steel high rise had the entire face sheared off PLUS had fires burning for over 7 hours. NONE of the collapses on 9/11 has happened before. Name another building built like the WTC 1 and 2.

 

[DiveCon]

This is where I stop. This is where you CANNOT lead yourself. These exact thoughts are the last things you have to bypass in order to see the whole picture. Yes, I agree, I dont think they could keep it hidden, I dont think it would of been easy in any way to bring all those explosives in there. BUT we have no evidence to support either side of these thoughts, and theres no need to bring them up. All we need to look at are the things that we KNOW FOR SURE. 100%. Without a doubt. And those things are as follows:

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, yet collapsed at freefall speeds. This is impossible according to Newtonian Physics. (unless explosives or other factors were used, instead "offices fires"-NIST)

No steel highrise building has collapsed in the history of the world.

There was renovation to the entire elevator shafts of the towers 9 months prior to 9/11.

When the first tower collapses, and the top tilts severely, how does it STOP tipping, and how does it SMASH the other floors if its not above them since its tilting? Newtonian Physics state that the object goes through the path of least resistance, and if the top is tilting, it could only stop tilting if it fell off the side, or nothing was under it.......causing no resistance.

Building 7’s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

There's countless other facts that we know for 100% certainty that I could post, but im assuming you know them considering you are highly suspicious of this event and probably have researched.

All I can say is that thinking about whether or not our government could 'pull it off' or if they were 'smart enough to' or if they could 'keep it a secret' is not a scientific way to debunk evidence.

the "no steel highrise has ever collapsed" is a lie
there have been several

No it isnt. Show me where a steel highrise has collapsed.

I asked simple questions, or stated verified facts, you don't need to detract from the point by posting false rebuttals that ignore the other points. This tactic is a distraction, you are merely trying to make me prove the point that no steel high rise has collapsed, wasting our time, instead of letting us have a discussion about the facts at hand. Stop please.

the madrid windsor tower
the steel only part collaped
the part that was steel covered with concrete didnt
then there was a couple other smaller buildings i dont remember off the top of my head and at this point i dont give a rats ass to look up again

 

[PhysicsExist]

the "no steel highrise has ever collapsed" is a lie
there have been several

No it isnt. Show me where a steel highrise has collapsed.

I asked simple questions, or stated verified facts, you don't need to detract from the point by posting false rebuttals that ignore the other points. This tactic is a distraction, you are merely trying to make me prove the point that no steel high rise has collapsed, wasting our time, instead of letting us have a discussion about the facts at hand. Stop please.

Show me where a steel high rise had the entire face sheared off PLUS had fires burning for over 7 hours. NONE of the collapses on 9/11 has happened before. Name another building built like the WTC 1 and 2.

BuildingWhat? - A TV Ad Campaign to Raise Awareness of Building 7 - What is Building 7 ?

That building wasn't even hit by a plane and collapsed on 9/11 due to "office fires" at freefall speed, which is impossible according to Newtonian Physics.

 

[PhysicsExist]

the madrid windsor tower
the steel only part collaped
the part that was steel covered with concrete didnt
then there was a couple other smaller buildings i dont remember off the top of my head and at this point i dont give a rats ass to look up again

The windsor tower was NO WHERE NEAR total collapse. And then you say "i dont give a rats ass to look it up again". Why would you not want to know what you are talking about? Why would you want to believe in something that you weren't sure about, but then use it as a rebuttal to someone's point? It turns out youre just distracting everyone, is this your goal?

 

[Liability]

This is where I stop. This is where you CANNOT lead yourself. These exact thoughts are the last things you have to bypass in order to see the whole picture. Yes, I agree, I dont think they could keep it hidden, I dont think it would of been easy in any way to bring all those explosives in there. BUT we have no evidence to support either side of these thoughts, and theres no need to bring them up. All we need to look at are the things that we KNOW FOR SURE. 100%. Without a doubt. And those things are as follows:

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, yet collapsed at freefall speeds. This is impossible according to Newtonian Physics. (unless explosives or other factors were used, instead "offices fires"-NIST)

No steel highrise building has collapsed in the history of the world.

There was renovation to the entire elevator shafts of the towers 9 months prior to 9/11.

When the first tower collapses, and the top tilts severely, how does it STOP tipping, and how does it SMASH the other floors if its not above them since its tilting? Newtonian Physics state that the object goes through the path of least resistance, and if the top is tilting, it could only stop tilting if it fell off the side, or nothing was under it.......causing no resistance.

Building 7’s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

There's countless other facts that we know for 100% certainty that I could post, but im assuming you know them considering you are highly suspicious of this event and probably have researched.

All I can say is that thinking about whether or not our government could 'pull it off' or if they were 'smart enough to' or if they could 'keep it a secret' is not a scientific way to debunk evidence.

the "no steel highrise has ever collapsed" is a lie
there have been several

No it isnt. Show me where a steel highrise has collapsed.

I asked simple questions, or stated verified facts, you don't need to detract from the point by posting false rebuttals that ignore the other points. This tactic is a distraction, you are merely trying to make me prove the point that no steel high rise has collapsed, wasting our time, instead of letting us have a discussion about the facts at hand. Stop please.

A partial collapse was seen in Madrid in a 32 story steel highrise fire.

nwsltr69C


Of course, the analogy is incomplete due to many differing factors, but the fact remains, when a jet liner crashes into a steel core tower like the World Trade Center Towers, the structural damage actually precedes the resulting fires and the fires, which rage completely out of control can weaken support metal trusses and joints to the point of initiating a collapse.

 

[DiveCon]

the madrid windsor tower
the steel only part collaped
the part that was steel covered with concrete didnt
then there was a couple other smaller buildings i dont remember off the top of my head and at this point i dont give a rats ass to look up again

The windsor tower was NO WHERE NEAR total collapse. And then you say "i dont give a rats ass to look it up again". Why would you not want to know what you are talking about? Why would you want to believe in something that you weren't sure about, but then use it as a rebuttal to someone's point? It turns out youre just distracting everyone, is this your goal?

because i had already looked it up before
and i dont save this shit anymore because the internet changes constantly
you are totally uninformed and you want ME to do your work for you


not gonna happen

 

[DiveCon]

the madrid windsor tower
the steel only part collaped
the part that was steel covered with concrete didnt
then there was a couple other smaller buildings i dont remember off the top of my head and at this point i dont give a rats ass to look up again

The windsor tower was NO WHERE NEAR total collapse. And then you say "i dont give a rats ass to look it up again". Why would you not want to know what you are talking about? Why would you want to believe in something that you weren't sure about, but then use it as a rebuttal to someone's point? It turns out youre just distracting everyone, is this your goal?

and, i NEVER said it was a "total collapse"
because the building was of VASTLY different construction
the part that was similar totally collapsed

 

[PhysicsExist]

the madrid windsor tower
the steel only part collaped
the part that was steel covered with concrete didnt
then there was a couple other smaller buildings i dont remember off the top of my head and at this point i dont give a rats ass to look up again

The windsor tower was NO WHERE NEAR total collapse. And then you say "i dont give a rats ass to look it up again". Why would you not want to know what you are talking about? Why would you want to believe in something that you weren't sure about, but then use it as a rebuttal to someone's point? It turns out youre just distracting everyone, is this your goal?

and, i NEVER said it was a "total collapse"
because the building was of VASTLY different construction
the part that was similar totally collapsed

You have proven your worth to these discussions, please refrain from posting comments to me from this point forward, you are a mere distraction. Not trying to get personal.

 

[Liability]

4. Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and
capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes.
Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from
construction work. As a result of the delayed call to 911, the lack of a sprinkler system
in the storage area, and the failure of the alarm system, the fire in the storage room
beneath the stage was probably already unsafe for an interior attack when the 911 call
was made.
Building construction training is especially important for line fire officers. Basic fire
training does not generally cover building construction or pre-fire planning. All fire
officers need to be familiar with the specific hazards of building construction.
Understanding the risks associated with building collapse will increase safety of fire
fighting operations.

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

 

[Rat in the Hat]

By the way, this is for PhysicsExist and Bucs90.

When Mr. Brown sees that you have posted in this thread, he will probably announce that you are "agents", and that you are guilty of "concealing the methods of mass murder" because you are not endorsing his concrete theory.

Just thought you should know in advance.

 

[Liability]

The reality – that fire causes steel structures to collapse, is illustrated clearly by post-fire photos of the Windsor Tower such as this one:

-- griffin25 - 911guide

The Burfield piece (which responds to a 9/11 Troofer Conspiracy claim that no steel structures have ever collapsed due to fire) also notes that the Madrid Tower had CONCRETE elements in its design, unlike the World Trade Towers (sorry Christophera, but you are beyond retarded so your Twin Towers "concrete core" theory is stupid beyond repair):

Dr Griffin’s primary contention is that fire has not caused steel-framed buildings to collapse. However the Windsor Tower was not a steel framed building.



The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

Id.

 

[DiveCon]

The windsor tower was NO WHERE NEAR total collapse. And then you say "i dont give a rats ass to look it up again". Why would you not want to know what you are talking about? Why would you want to believe in something that you weren't sure about, but then use it as a rebuttal to someone's point? It turns out youre just distracting everyone, is this your goal?

and, i NEVER said it was a "total collapse"
because the building was of VASTLY different construction
the part that was similar totally collapsed

You have proven your worth to these discussions, please refrain from posting comments to me from this point forward, you are a mere distraction. Not trying to get personal.

no, i will post to who ever i fucking want to
dipshit
you are a pathetic fucking moron if you think it was anything OTHER than what most everyone already knows it was
seek out professional help asswipe

 

[PhysicsExist]

By the way, this is for PhysicsExist and Bucs90.

When Mr. Brown sees that you have posted in this thread, he will probably announce that you are "agents", and that you are guilty of "concealing the methods of mass murder" because you are not endorsing his concrete theory.

Just thought you should know in advance.

Ugh

 

[PhysicsExist]

and, i NEVER said it was a "total collapse"
because the building was of VASTLY different construction
the part that was similar totally collapsed

You have proven your worth to these discussions, please refrain from posting comments to me from this point forward, you are a mere distraction. Not trying to get personal.

no, i will post to who ever i fucking want to
dipshit
you are a pathetic fucking moron if you think it was anything OTHER than what most everyone already knows it was
seek out professional help asswipe

You proved my point flawlessly with this additional post. Good day, sir.

 

[DiveCon]

You have proven your worth to these discussions, please refrain from posting comments to me from this point forward, you are a mere distraction. Not trying to get personal.

no, i will post to who ever i fucking want to
dipshit
you are a pathetic fucking moron if you think it was anything OTHER than what most everyone already knows it was
seek out professional help asswipe

You proved my point flawlessly with this additional post. Good day, sir.

you are an idiot

 

[Liability]

For a guy with the vaunted word "physics" in its username, the schmuck sure seems rather lightweight.

Oh, and just to "edify" these idiot Troofers a bit more, here's a good video explaining the collapse of WTC7.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8[/ame]

 

[PhysicsExist]

You just posted a video that has 900 likes, and 1100 dislikes, first of all.

Secondly, you use this video as your source for WTC7. This video was posted in 2007. If you're into using youtube videos as a source, Im assuming you've visted youtube.com/ae911truth. If not, take a look, considering you look at the 'debunking videos', you must watch the videos they are trying to debunk.

 

[Christophera]

the madrid windsor tower
the steel only part collaped
the part that was steel covered with concrete didnt
then there was a couple other smaller buildings i dont remember off the top of my head and at this point i dont give a rats ass to look up again

The windsor tower was NO WHERE NEAR total collapse. And then you say "i dont give a rats ass to look it up again". Why would you not want to know what you are talking about? Why would you want to believe in something that you weren't sure about, but then use it as a rebuttal to someone's point? It turns out youre just distracting everyone, is this your goal?

Lillybelly and divot do have that goal and they use a false social grouping reinforced by the others in this thread. Distraction, confusion, through misrepresentation and distortion, working to reinforce misinformation.

They do not use evidence, or not reasonably and sincerely. They are conducting cognitve infiltrations as have been happening since 2004 increasingly.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/121688
Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and psuedo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.

 

[DiveCon]

dipshit lies and lies and Acts like he hasnt been exposed as a liar

 

[Christophera]

Elevator guide rails are misrepresented as "core columns" by FEMA, and the misleaders of the truth movement accept the misinfo defeating the movement.

Butt plates cannot be used to join core columns and core columns must have diagonal braces. There are none.

It is no wonder why there are never any steel core columns seen in the core area on 9-11.

That is far too small to be structural steel. It is rebar. Here is the spire, strcutural steel that is OUTSIDE of the core.