For the "truthers", my 2 cents on the "conspiracy"

[Terral]

Hi Suave:

My God man! This guy is nothing but a bad joke ...

As I actually stated, building debris, sonic damage and fire were the reasons for the collapse of WTC7. The video I provided proved that the claim that the building fell in 6.6 seconds was completey incorrect.

Sonic damage? This is the most ridiculous NONSENSE I have ever heard concerning this WTC-7 CD Case (my Topic). WTC-7 stood 350 feet 'away' from the north tower ...

... and no amount of 'sonic' (LOL) damage can melt 2800-degree red-iron structural steel!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIZp6aOibiM"]North Tower Collapse[/ame]

Watch the north tower collapse STRAIGHT DOWN into its own footprint! The Official Cover Story LIE (Wiki) says that the Twin Towers fell "initiating a progressive 'pancake' collapse" (FEMA Doc). This means the north tower fell 'straight down,' so that the top floors pancaked down to cause the catastrophic failure of the lower floor supports (in theory). However, IF this is true (not), then the north tower could NOT possibly throw material 350 feet away to cause the collapse of yet another overbuilt skyscraper!

Look at the "expanding pyroclastic dust clouds" (video) from the north tower coming only up to the belly of WTC-7! And yet, 'all' of the massive 2800-degree steel girders, beams and columns are 'cut' below 'and' above the pyroclastic cloud mark to transform this ...

... 47-story skyscraper into this ...

... little pile in 6.6 seconds. BTW, about 1000 professional architects and engineers agree with me (AE911truth.org). Most credible sources agree that WTC-7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds (Google), because we (#3) measure the collapse time 'by the falling roof line.'

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkDZiuOhDao"]911 Improbable Collapse[/ame]

Demo experts do not care about the time involved with the collapsing penthouse, which should 'not' be confused with the '6.6 second global collapse.' The question for thisSuave to answer is:

"Why did the penthouse begin to collapse first, when we just saw the pyroclastic dust clouds 'did not' even reach that high to start any fires?"

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI&NR=1"]Watch The WTC-7 Collapse Again[/ame]

Mark the counter at '00:06' and note where the roof line is located at the '00:12' to the '00:13' mark to realize that WTC-7 collapsed in about 6 and a half seconds. Then try to show us just one other skyscraper collapsing CD-style into its own footprint from 'building fires, debris and sonic STUPIDITY.'

This Suave guy is here to push Official 'Fires Did It' Cover Story LIES. Even if the guys is an architect, that in no way makes him a demolition man; especially when he comes here to say this ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo"]WTC-7 Side-By-Side CD Implosion[/ame]

... is ANYTHING other than a Controlled Demolition Implosion! I have built hundreds of commercial buildings and have held the hands of many architects that draw pretty pictures (A-drawings), but rely upon the structural engineer to make everything work (S-drawings). Then we have a 'second' engineer from the steel manufacturer that I actually consult when busts are found in the Architectural and Engineering Drawings. This appears to be another case of an architect that knows 'not' what he is even talking about IMHO ...

That is the very reason Mr. Suave has no reply to Post #16 'and' never will ...

GL,

Terral

 

[candycorn]

OK. I'll begin !
You are an architect.
You don't know jack shit about demolition and it's very likely you can't even change the blades on a planer.
STFU
OH !
Have a lovely day !

well said.btw disinformation agent, Terral is a demoliton expert and unlike you, tells the truth about the collapse ,knows something about demolitions and doesnt ignore witness testimonys.

The 9/11 Commission Report had 12 public hearings and over 1,000 hours of testimony.

Why are you ignoring all of that?

 

[Fizz]

anyone that claims building 7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds is a fucking LIAR.

plain and simple.

 

[Terral]

Hi Candy:

The 9/11 Commission Report had 12 public hearings and over 1,000 hours of testimony.

Why are you ignoring all of that?

The 911 Commission Report does not mention WTC-7 even once 'and' never uses the term 'explosions' even once 'and' is nothing but an Official Cover Story Fabricated LIE (#10), just like the corrupt Arlington County After Action Report.

The Official Govt Documentation Proves That 9/11 Was An Inside Job (my Topic).

Those among you standing with Bush, Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld are defending the murderers of innocent Americans 'and' you will most certainly share their fate ...

GL,

Terral

 

[Fizz]

Those among you standing with Bush, Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld are defending the murderers of innocent Americans 'and' you will most certainly share their fate ...

GL,

Terral

this is the basic problem with all you whacko conspiracy nuts. you draw a conclusion and then search for evidence that might support your preconceived outcome. you fail in every case. you have absolutely no evidence that bush, rove cheney and rumsfeld were behind 9/11 but dont let he facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

real people seeking the truth look at ALL the evidence and then after looking at it all come to a conclusion. that is what normal people do. that is why the public in general really has no major questions about 9/11 that havent been answered. there are no huge gaping holes in their logic.

your story is so full of holes it even contradicts itself. if flight 77 didnt hit the pentagon then WHERE IS IT? if flight 93 didnt crash in pennsylvania then WHERE IS IT?

what is the use of flying planes into buildings if you are going to blow them up anyway? why fly planes into 2 buildings but use a missile and an A-3 to attack the third?

how could the government go through all this "inside job" baloney and manage to keep the entire operation secret when they couldnt even keep the president getting a blowjob secret?

why would the government pull off this huge conspiracy involving secretly wiring buildings for explosives in order to justify going to war over WMDs and yet be stupid enough not to plant a WMD in iraq?

and just to be clear......
why do you think that the people that declared war on america years before.... the people that blew up the USS Cole... the people that blew up the US embassies in kenya and tanzania, the people that attacked americans living in saudi arabia, the people behind the london subway bombings, the people behind the bali bombing.....

and above all......

the people that paid for the 19 hijackers to come to america and for the pilots to go to flight school did NOT do what they claim they did on 9/11????

 

[Terral]

Hi Mr. Fizz:

This is the basic problem with all you whacko conspiracy nuts. you draw a conclusion and then search for evidence that might support your preconceived outcome . . .

Anyone can wake through your idiotic posts to see that Mr. Fizz supports 'his' version of the 9/11 Official Cover Story LIES with nothing. Your whining in Post #45 includes third-party links to NOTHING. Here is the deal about this Official Cover Story Stooge confused in a nutshell:

1. Terral is my 'real' name (#3) and these readers can look up information about me at any time. Mr. Fizz cool is just Mr. Fizz. :0)

2. I was a member of AE911Truth.org (link) and have debated these topics with real licensed architects and engineers behind closed door. Mr. Fizz. :0)

3. I am 'Terral' on all of these 911Truth/Conspiracy Boards (some info). Mr. Fizz ... :0)

Listen to that Official Cover Story Moron cool if that blows air up your skirt (#7-10) ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM]Mr. Fizz 'Can' Wave His Arms Around Like A Moron! :0)[/ame]

GL,

Terral

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hi Mr. Fizz:

This is the basic problem with all you whacko conspiracy nuts. you draw a conclusion and then search for evidence that might support your preconceived outcome . . .

Anyone can wake through your idiotic posts to see that Mr. Fizz supports 'his' version of the 9/11 Official Cover Story LIES with nothing. Your whining in Post #45 includes third-party links to NOTHING. Here is the deal about this Official Cover Story Stooge confused in a nutshell:

1. Terral is my 'real' name (#3) and these readers can look up information about me at any time. Mr. Fizz cool is just Mr. Fizz. :0)

2. I was a member of AE911Truth.org (link) and have debated these topics with real licensed architects and engineers behind closed door. Mr. Fizz. :0)

3. I am 'Terral' on all of these 911Truth/Conspiracy Boards (some info). Mr. Fizz ... :0)

Listen to that Official Cover Story Moron cool if that blows air up your skirt (#7-10) ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM]Mr. Fizz 'Can' Wave His Arms Around Like A Moron! :0)[/ame]

GL,

Terral

well said,thats a pic of a guy laughing his ass off at people like Mr Fizz who continue to show off their stupidity in defending the 9/11 coverup commission making morons out of themselves.lol.

 

[Fizz]

Hi Mr. Fizz:

This is the basic problem with all you whacko conspiracy nuts. you draw a conclusion and then search for evidence that might support your preconceived outcome . . .

Anyone can wake through your idiotic posts to see that Mr. Fizz supports 'his' version of the 9/11 Official Cover Story LIES with nothing. Your whining in Post #45 includes third-party links to NOTHING. Here is the deal about this Official Cover Story Stooge confused in a nutshell:

1. Terral is my 'real' name (#3) and these readers can look up information about me at any time. Mr. Fizz cool is just Mr. Fizz. :0)

i'm not stupid enough to post my personal info on the internet where any fucking moron, such as you and christophera, can find it and do stupid shit like order pizza delivery to one of my homes or simply call the state department and say i lost my passport. (which actually has happened to me in the past and its a pain in the ass).

if you want to be stupid and post your personal info thats your problem, not mine.

2. I was a member of AE911Truth.org (link) and have debated these topics with real licensed architects and engineers behind closed door. Mr. Fizz. :0)

and i am sure everyone but you came away with the same conclusions here.... that you are a whacko that has absolutely no proof of your wild claims while consistently ignoring all the facts that contradict your claim. hell, you keep showing a picture of a hole with aircraft debris in it and claim its empty!!

3. I am 'Terral' on all of these 911Truth/Conspiracy Boards (some info). Mr. Fizz ... :0)

so? you want a cookie or something?

Listen to that Official Cover Story Moron cool if that blows air up your skirt (#7-10) ...

Mr. Fizz 'Can' Wave His Arms Around Like A Moron! :0)

GL,

Terral

the official cover story isnt "covering" anything. its what actual happened. you have proof otherwise? i didnt think so. all you have is these wild ideas and silly theories that arent based in reality.

shit, you claim that there were TWO separate attacks on the pentagon without any facts or witnesses to back that up.

you even think that all the credible witnesses, including pilots, really saw one of these instead of a 757!!!
A3

757

 

[slackjawed]

Hi Mr. Fizz:

This is the basic problem with all you whacko conspiracy nuts. you draw a conclusion and then search for evidence that might support your preconceived outcome . . .

Anyone can wake through your idiotic posts to see that Mr. Fizz supports 'his' version of the 9/11 Official Cover Story LIES with nothing. Your whining in Post #45 includes third-party links to NOTHING. Here is the deal about this Official Cover Story Stooge confused in a nutshell:

1. Terral is my 'real' name (#3) and these readers can look up information about me at any time. Mr. Fizz cool is just Mr. Fizz. :0)

2. I was a member of AE911Truth.org (link) and have debated these topics with real licensed architects and engineers behind closed door. Mr. Fizz. :0)

3. I am 'Terral' on all of these 911Truth/Conspiracy Boards (some info). Mr. Fizz ... :0)

Listen to that Official Cover Story Moron cool if that blows air up your skirt (#7-10) ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM]Mr. Fizz 'Can' Wave His Arms Around Like A Moron! :0)[/ame]

GL,

Terral

well said,thats a pic of a guy laughing his ass off at people like Mr Fizz who continue to show off their stupidity in defending the 9/11 coverup commission making morons out of themselves.lol.

Translation;
"That's someone laughing at me and i just don't like to admit it. I expect the same guy to moon me to show his contempt."

 

[DiveCon]

please explain the need to crash planes into buildings if there are already explosives in place. why not just blame the terrorists for the explosives? why go through the complicated and impossible task of adding thousands of potential whistle blowers to a needlessly complicated plot?

a spectral of epic proportions was requited to win support for wars of conquest..blaming terrorist for explosions would leave to many loose ends on how they were planted without complicity and your assumption thousands would be required is unfounded

BULLSHIT

if explosives were planted saying terrorists infiltrated the building and did it would be easier than the crap you want to believe

 

[eots]

Ok, I am new here, so I haven't had a lot of time to dig through all of the posts on 9/11 here so I figured I would start my own thread on what I "know" about building demolition.

As an architect, I have been part of the process to a couple of building implosions. Here's where the 9/11 conspiracy theories lost me from the start. There is no way possible for the buildings that fell to have been demolished via planted explosives, not without eyewitnesses to the setup of the explosive devices and their miles of demo chord that would have been required to detonate them.

The only way you can implode a building is to destroy the metal skeleton of the structure, this is done with explosive charges set into a well configured design of column placement through out the building, from the foundation up. Each of these charges are tied together with demolition chord and set to a single bank of detonators.

In the twin towers, there would have been weeks if not months of set up to do this. Each of the columns would have had to have its column cover removed, and any fireproofing removed from the area that the charges were placed. This isn't something that would be hidden from the public, or something that could be done in the evening and put back together before the next working day. The next step is to set the demo chord...the miles and miles of demo chord to connect the charges so that they could be triggered at a specific, well planned time for each charge so that the building could fall properly. This chord would have been strung and visible to the public. There has not been a single eyewitness report of this, in addition to the fact that the videos of the lower lobby during the fall of the towers clearly shows no such demo chord in place.

I have heard by some that the chord wasn't necessary today since there are remote frequency detonators. The problem with this is, it just isn't possible in those types of buildings. There would be too much static generated by the shell of the building to assure a perfect detonation of every charge for the buildings to fall the way they did.

I know this is hard for some of you to believe...but it's true. There was no huge conspiracy by our government or the building owner to drop the towers on 9/11, no matter how many times you tell yourself it had to be a conspiracy.

I'm more than willing to debate this subject all you want. I have a heavy duty flame retardant suite on, so feel free to flame away.

-TSO

there is a much easier way to implode a building you simply light random office fires and wait a few hours until all the steel support gives way at precisely the same moment

 

[slackjawed]

Ok, I am new here, so I haven't had a lot of time to dig through all of the posts on 9/11 here so I figured I would start my own thread on what I "know" about building demolition.

As an architect, I have been part of the process to a couple of building implosions. Here's where the 9/11 conspiracy theories lost me from the start. There is no way possible for the buildings that fell to have been demolished via planted explosives, not without eyewitnesses to the setup of the explosive devices and their miles of demo chord that would have been required to detonate them.

The only way you can implode a building is to destroy the metal skeleton of the structure, this is done with explosive charges set into a well configured design of column placement through out the building, from the foundation up. Each of these charges are tied together with demolition chord and set to a single bank of detonators.

In the twin towers, there would have been weeks if not months of set up to do this. Each of the columns would have had to have its column cover removed, and any fireproofing removed from the area that the charges were placed. This isn't something that would be hidden from the public, or something that could be done in the evening and put back together before the next working day. The next step is to set the demo chord...the miles and miles of demo chord to connect the charges so that they could be triggered at a specific, well planned time for each charge so that the building could fall properly. This chord would have been strung and visible to the public. There has not been a single eyewitness report of this, in addition to the fact that the videos of the lower lobby during the fall of the towers clearly shows no such demo chord in place.

I have heard by some that the chord wasn't necessary today since there are remote frequency detonators. The problem with this is, it just isn't possible in those types of buildings. There would be too much static generated by the shell of the building to assure a perfect detonation of every charge for the buildings to fall the way they did.

I know this is hard for some of you to believe...but it's true. There was no huge conspiracy by our government or the building owner to drop the towers on 9/11, no matter how many times you tell yourself it had to be a conspiracy.

I'm more than willing to debate this subject all you want. I have a heavy duty flame retardant suite on, so feel free to flame away.

-TSO

there is a much easier way to implode a building you simply light random office fires and wait a few hours until all the steel support gives way at precisely the same moment

Do you mean fires started by flying big planes into the buildings?

 

[Fizz]

there is a much easier way to implode a building you simply light random office fires and wait a few hours until all the steel support gives way at precisely the same moment

Do you mean fires started by flying big planes into the buildings?

i think he is talking about the light, random, teeny-tiny and just slightly warm fires at WTC 7 as shown here.

 

[Big-A-]

Ok, I am new here, so I haven't had a lot of time to dig through all of the posts on 9/11 here so I figured I would start my own thread on what I "know" about building demolition.

As an architect, I have been part of the process to a couple of building implosions. Here's where the 9/11 conspiracy theories lost me from the start. There is no way possible for the buildings that fell to have been demolished via planted explosives, not without eyewitnesses to the setup of the explosive devices and their miles of demo chord that would have been required to detonate them.

The only way you can implode a building is to destroy the metal skeleton of the structure, this is done with explosive charges set into a well configured design of column placement through out the building, from the foundation up. Each of these charges are tied together with demolition chord and set to a single bank of detonators.

In the twin towers, there would have been weeks if not months of set up to do this. Each of the columns would have had to have its column cover removed, and any fireproofing removed from the area that the charges were placed. This isn't something that would be hidden from the public, or something that could be done in the evening and put back together before the next working day. The next step is to set the demo chord...the miles and miles of demo chord to connect the charges so that they could be triggered at a specific, well planned time for each charge so that the building could fall properly. This chord would have been strung and visible to the public. There has not been a single eyewitness report of this, in addition to the fact that the videos of the lower lobby during the fall of the towers clearly shows no such demo chord in place.

I have heard by some that the chord wasn't necessary today since there are remote frequency detonators. The problem with this is, it just isn't possible in those types of buildings. There would be too much static generated by the shell of the building to assure a perfect detonation of every charge for the buildings to fall the way they did.

I know this is hard for some of you to believe...but it's true. There was no huge conspiracy by our government or the building owner to drop the towers on 9/11, no matter how many times you tell yourself it had to be a conspiracy.

I'm more than willing to debate this subject all you want. I have a heavy duty flame retardant suite on, so feel free to flame away.

-TSO

Good post.

And not trying to put you down in any way of course, but the points you made, that I agree with, don't even really have much to do with being an architect. A lot of just common sense.

But unfortunately, common sense isn't all too common any more.

I'll be honest, I still to this day have a hard time believing that those planes hitting the towers are capable of bringing those enormous buildings down, but that definitely doesn't mean I buy into any of the 911 truthers nonsense either.

Gotta be open minded, yet not gullible.

 

[eots]

there is a much easier way to implode a building you simply light random office fires and wait a few hours until all the steel support gives way at precisely the same moment

Do you mean fires started by flying big planes into the buildings?

i think he is talking about the light, random, teeny-tiny and just slightly warm fires at WTC 7 as shown here.

Yes indeed not much of a fire at all compared to other building fires that did not collapse
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!![/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

Do you mean fires started by flying big planes into the buildings?

i think he is talking about the light, random, teeny-tiny and just slightly warm fires at WTC 7 as shown here.

Yes indeed not much of a fire at all compared to other building fires that did not collapse
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!![/ame]

hey dipshit, different construction and it didnt have a fucking 110 story building drop on top of it

 

[eots]

i think he is talking about the light, random, teeny-tiny and just slightly warm fires at WTC 7 as shown here.

Yes indeed not much of a fire at all compared to other building fires that did not collapse
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!![/ame]

hey dipshit, different construction and it didnt have a fucking 110 story building drop on top of it

there are multiple building fires shown in this video not just one and wtc 7 had debris from a 110 story building damage it ...it didn't have a 110 story building fall on it and as you know NIST states the that the damage was insignificant and that without the damage but with the same fire the building still would of collapsed... so why do you try to be deceptive on this fact ?

 

[DiveCon]

Yes indeed not much of a fire at all compared to other building fires that did not collapse
YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!

hey dipshit, different construction and it didnt have a fucking 110 story building drop on top of it

there are multiple building fires shown in this video not just one and wtc 7 had debris from a 110 story building damage it ...it didn't have a 110 story building fall on it and as you know NIST states the that the damage was insignificant and that without the damage but with the same fire the building still would of collapsed... so why do you try to be deceptive on this fact ?

yes, i've watched your stupid video
not ONE of those buildings were of similar construction as ANY of the WTC building
and a 110 story building DID fall on top of WTC7 so you lie to claim it didnt

 

[sparky]

round and round it goes.....~S~

 

[eots]

hey dipshit, different construction and it didnt have a fucking 110 story building drop on top of it

there are multiple building fires shown in this video not just one and wtc 7 had debris from a 110 story building damage it ...it didn't have a 110 story building fall on it and as you know NIST states the that the damage was insignificant and that without the damage but with the same fire the building still would of collapsed... so why do you try to be deceptive on this fact ?

yes, i've watched your stupid video
not ONE of those buildings were of similar construction as ANY of the WTC building
and a 110 story building DID fall on top of WTC7 so you lie to claim it didnt

no a relatively small part of debris did ...LIAR..and don't pretend you know the construction of all the buildings shown..you do not and don't pretend any particular design flaw was found in wtc 7..because there was not...NIST states that there have been very similar fires in buildings of very similar construction in its final report