The IMPOSSIBLE didn't happen on 911

[Gamolon]

Don't forget that you still have to defend the Achilles heal of your conspiracy theory, WTC7. No steel framed high rise has ever suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse due to fire, and the NIST still after eleven years can't explain it but maybe you can.
It's your theory to defend.

I can play the historical proof game too wihosa.

No steel framed high rise with the same design as WTC7, has ever suffered damage to a portion of it's perimeter, had unfought fires, and remained standing.

Therefore, your belief that this could never have happened is based on garbage as you have no proof of a similar building that remained standing.

 

[Gamolon]

You have demonstrated that it is you who does not know the meaning of symmetrical.

Yeah. One section of the building, followed by the next, followed by the next...

That's symmetrical all right...

You obviously don't know what symmetrical means. It means that some think that the whole structure of WTC7 came down at the same time. This is why idiots like eots and Gage show only the remaining facade coming down and neglect showing the east penthouse. It's so that they can lie to people and claim a "symmetrical collapse".

WTC7 suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse supposedly due to a moderate fire. You can't point to another instance of this ever happening which makes it an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof.

Why don't you provide it?

By the way, your juvenile cuckoo face reveals you desperation.

Did it? Sudden and immediate? Can you explain how the bulge witnessed and the lean of WTC7 prior to collapse is "sudden"? Is this why all your conspiracy deities like Gage cut out the penthouse falling into the building? Is this why Gage says WTC7 COMPLETELY collapsed in about 6-7 seconds?

I can watch a video of it from start (penthouse collapse) to finish (when the remaining structure fell behind the buildings in the foreground) and it's almost DOUBLE the 6-7 seconds proclaimed by Gage.

Care to comment?

 

[Gamolon]

Well since I am debunking the official conspiracy theory of which you seem to be an advocate I guess this is where it has to go.

Yeah, you're debunking it allright.

1. Incorrectly stating the the melting temperature of aluminum was 1700 degrees F.
2. Stating that the floors of the twin towers were designed to hold up everyhting above it. No after you having your ass handed to you, not you say "I was talking about the columns"...
3. Stating that the curtain wall of the WTC7 was non-load bearing when you don't even know what a curtain wall is, much less what it was in regards to WTC7.

Keep up your most excellent debunking...

 

[SAYIT]

Did you happen to miss this wihosa?



Your claim of "the floors are designed to support everything above them" is complete and utter bullshit and you have no clue about structural design and what goes into it. That much is perfectly clear.

Ok fine point, but I was referring to the columns, the vertical supports for the the entire structure. The columns of each floor are designed to carry all the imposed loads of the floors and columns above them.
Now if you want to go on with your pancaking "theory" show evidence of pancaked floors.

Oh you can't because there is no evidence of that.

Your official theory is debunked.

Pancake theory?! Do you even know what the hell your debating against? I never said anything about a "floor pancake theory" dumbass. Also, here's what NIST says about the pancake theory. I bolded the important parts just for you.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

So what are you debating against?



So you get your ass handed to you and move your goalposts to saying you meant "just the columns of each floor supported the weight above them".

(ID)eot's game is Whack-a-Mole. Spank him over here, he pops up over there. Do it enough he simply disappears only to return spouting the same thoroughly refuted CTBS.
It seems he and his comrades take turns getting spanked with the others currently licking their wounds and recharging their batteries while (ID)eots holds down the fort.

 

[candycorn]

Wow, First off you cannot make controlled demolition of WTC7 a fact just because you say so. You need some kind of proof other than it looks like a CD..... Yes of course explosions were heard, they are heard in all office fires and many home fires, there are lots of things that go boom when heat is applied.....Or didn't you know that was a fact? Now ask yourself what does a CD sound like? It's not intermittent explosions lasting several hours and then no explosions when a building starts to fall. Never heard of any explosion doing a delayed time destruction sometime after the blast. And you still haven't looked for what could have caused the blast hole at the pentagon....You aren't looking for truth, you are the same as the other CTrs here....

Wow, you can not point to a single instance of what you are claiming in the case of WTC7. NOT ONE! Please show me where it has ever happened.

Oh you can't, you just have your totally debunked theory that somehow a moderate office fire caused the sudden, immediate and total collapse of the type of building which is the most engineered in history.

Your theory is as plausible as claiming fairies did it.

As for the Pentagon, again it is your theory that somehow a plane punched through two feet of steel reinforced concrete, plowed through major support columns and somehow caused the punch out hole in the "c" ring wall and then completely burned up leaving only a couple small parts behind.

None of that theory was ever proven, but that is the theory you have chosen to defend.

You are the conspiracy theorist.

Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.

In my first thread I pointed to two parts of the story which just don't stand scrutiny. First the vanishing pentagon plane and second the collapse of WTC7. These are not the only parts of the story which don't add up, just the most glaring and obvious.

We are to believe that the highjacker was with very little flight training able to make a very tight descending spiral turn and slam into the Pentagon. Professional pilots have attested to the difficulty of this maneuver and doubted an amateur could pull it off. Then the plane punched thought the side of the Pentagon which is two feet thick steel reinforced concrete, the wings folded back but remained attached to the fuselage as well as the tail section and were dragged into the building where it continued on through the structural support columns (these are very substantial as it is a three story structure) and all the way to where it punched another hole in the "C ring" wall in the interior of the Pentagon. Then the entire plane along with the passengers and baggage almost completely burned up, leaving only a couple of pieces of wreckage which could have come from an airliner. Pictures taken immediately after the impact make clear that the exterior wall was still intact and the large structural failure was due to the ensuing fire so what ever hit the pentagon punched through the exterior as it did the "C ring" wall. I noted that one would expect to find at least the tail section on the ground outside the building and much more debris. The conspiracy theorists (defenders of the official story) pointed to a video of a fighter jet on a rail being slammed into a block of concrete as evidence that the plane would have been obliterated, but the video doesn't show the aftermath so it's hard to tell what was left of the plane, besides if the plane was obliterated upon contact how did it punch through the exterior wall, the structural columns and the "C"ring wall? Additionally, even if all these improbable events did occur, the idea that the plane was almost entirely consumed by fire is silly. Aluminum melts at around 1600degrees F but does not burn until heated to over 6000degrees F far beyond the temps resulting from hydrocarbon fires. There should have been large globs of melted aluminum inside the pentagon but the pictures of the aftermath don't show this. Finally I pointed out that there is YouTube video of an airliner of like size and weight which crashed on takeoff in Lagos Nigeria. It slammed into the side of a much less substantial wood frame apartment building. It did not penetrate all the way through. The tail section as expected was almost untouched and though the plane exploded and burned the airframe is easily recognized, and passengers and luggage are clearly evident. The conspiracy theorists want to hang their hat on the fact that some debris which looks similar to airliner parts were found and that light poles out side the Pentagon were knocked down or that DNA was "found" inside the Pentagon days later. Clearly, this was a conspiracy and if as I am saying it was not as a result of the official conspiracy theory, then the real conspirators had every motivation to plant phony evidence to cover their tracks.

Then there is WTC7, the smoking gun as it were. Here, if it weren't so monstrously evil it would be laughable. The evidence which can be gleaned overwhelmingly points to controlled demolition. Watch the YouTube video of the collapse, it falls neatly straight down at near free fall speed into its own footprint. This can ONLY happen if ALL the support columns fail simultaneously on each floor and synchronously from floor to floor. The chances of this happening from a random event are so vanishingly small that it must be considered IMPOSSIBLE! The NIST report asserts that this was the result of a moderate office fire but presented no science to back it up. They may as well have blamed it on fairies. Again YouTube video provides an example of what structural failure due to fire looks like. Look at the 2005 Windsor Tower fire in Madrid Spain. Here you see a modern steel frame high rise fully engulfed in fire. It rages uncontrolled for nearly two days and finally there is some structural failure. This failure is as would be expected, near the top (heat rises), slow in developing and asymmetrical. The aftermath shows a burned out wreck but with the structural frame largely in tact. The building did not simply collapse entirely in seconds.
If you are honest with yourself you simply can't ignore the obvious, WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

THE IMPOSSIBLE DIDN'T HAPPEN ON 911!

For the 3rd time the bldg was missing 18 floors at one corner.

Again....explain the wreckage on the pentagon lawn and the downed light poles if AA77 didnt crash there...as well as the DNA.

CHECKMATE

For the third time, it is the curtain wall which is damaged, a non structural element. That's akin to saying that if you scrape the skin off you leg you can't stand.

By the way I'm not playing chess, I'm pointing out the flaws in your theory.

You're right, you're not playing chess. What you're doing would not be on the same intellectual equivalent as playing checkers; marbles maybe.

Obviously the damage would be greater the further down the structure you travel since, like a bowling pin, the collapsed towers debris collided with WTC7. And, gravity being what it is, the closer down to the ground floor the damage is--i.e. greater damage--the more of an impact it has on the ability of the structure to stand.

 

[candycorn]

come on you know not a single body or body part of a plane passenger was found at the pentagon only bodies of pentagon employees..I am unsure as to what occurred at the pentagon but you should at least stick to the facts

a quick check reveals as always that eots is talking out his ass.
the no bodies of passengers of flight 77 claim is brought to you by the usual inside job not credible or verifiable slap dicks who in better then 11 years have done nothing but speciously speculate on the false inside job masturbation fantasy.


flight 77 bodies

Ok, charred bodies, where is the evidence that they are passengers from the plane? There were people in the Pentagon. Shouldn't there have been more than one hundred such charred bodies? And where is the plane, oh that's right, it incinerated.

Look at exhibit 1488. The visible bight colored striped shirt should around the waist be your first clue as to it not being a military uniform.

 

[eots]

Am I wrong in thinking that they said that 5 stores of the column gave out at the same time? If that is what happened then no a single blast would not do it.

yes ollie you are wrong...

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Other revisions to the final WTC 7 report included:

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

 

[eots]

Don't forget that you still have to defend the Achilles heal of your conspiracy theory, WTC7. No steel framed high rise has ever suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse due to fire, and the NIST still after eleven years can't explain it but maybe you can.
It's your theory to defend.

I can play the historical proof game too wihosa.

No steel framed high rise with the same design as WTC7, has ever suffered damage to a portion of it's perimeter, had unfought fires, and remained standing.

Therefore, your belief that this could never have happened is based on garbage as you have no proof of a similar building that remained standing.

NIST, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames
7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SFC Ollie]

Am I wrong in thinking that they said that 5 stores of the column gave out at the same time? If that is what happened then no a single blast would not do it.

yes ollie you are wrong...

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Other revisions to the final WTC 7 report included:

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

So the second that floor 13 joist or whatever gave way that was all it took for the whole building to fall? I read it as the column buckled after about 8 floors gave out......5 - 13...

 

[eots]

Am I wrong in thinking that they said that 5 stores of the column gave out at the same time? If that is what happened then no a single blast would not do it.

yes ollie you are wrong...

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Other revisions to the final WTC 7 report included:

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

So the second that floor 13 joist or whatever gave way that was all it took for the whole building to fall? I read it as the column buckled after about 8 floors gave out......5 - 13...

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or 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.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm

 

[SFC Ollie]

The lost of the column, not the loss of one connection......

 

[eots]

ok, charred bodies, where is the evidence that they are passengers from the plane? There were people in the pentagon. Shouldn't there have been more than one hundred such charred bodies? And where is the plane, oh that's right, it incinerated.

look at exhibit 1488. The visible bight colored striped shirt should around the waist be your first clue as to it not being a military uniform.

I do not know what happened at the pentagon but the bodies you keep showing are staff..staff at the pentagon do not wear military uniforms cornyhole

 

[eots]

The lost of the column, not the loss of one connection......

Come on ollie you can read...according to the NIST theory a single blast event no louder than a shot gun would cause the complete loss of wtc 7

 

[eots]

the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast,

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[Gamolon]

Don't forget that you still have to defend the Achilles heal of your conspiracy theory, WTC7. No steel framed high rise has ever suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse due to fire, and the NIST still after eleven years can't explain it but maybe you can.
It's your theory to defend.

I can play the historical proof game too wihosa.

No steel framed high rise with the same design as WTC7, has ever suffered damage to a portion of it's perimeter, had unfought fires, and remained standing.

Therefore, your belief that this could never have happened is based on garbage as you have no proof of a similar building that remained standing.

NIST, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames
7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More of your bullshit eots? Do you like cherry picking quotes to try and support your crap? Here is the WHOLE quote. The part in red is what you left out.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[6] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2).[7] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[8] The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[9] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.

So again, show me a building that was the same design as WTC7, had unfought fires, and had partial perimeter damage, that remained standing.

I suppose you consider the twin towers and WTC7 to have been the same exact design. What a dumbass...

 

[SAYIT]

Yeah. One section of the building, followed by the next, followed by the next...

That's symmetrical all right...

You obviously don't know what symmetrical means. It means that some think that the whole structure of WTC7 came down at the same time. This is why idiots like eots and Gage show only the remaining facade coming down and neglect showing the east penthouse. It's so that they can lie to people and claim a "symmetrical collapse".

WTC7 suffered sudden, immediate and total collapse supposedly due to a moderate fire. You can't point to another instance of this ever happening which makes it an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof.

Why don't you provide it?

By the way, your juvenile cuckoo face reveals you desperation.

Did it? Sudden and immediate? Can you explain how the bulge witnessed and the lean of WTC7 prior to collapse is "sudden"? Is this why all your conspiracy deities like Gage cut out the penthouse falling into the building? Is this why Gage says WTC7 COMPLETELY collapsed in about 6-7 seconds?

I can watch a video of it from start (penthouse collapse) to finish (when the remaining structure fell behind the buildings in the foreground) and it's almost DOUBLE the 6-7 seconds proclaimed by Gage.

Care to comment?

Yes. The 9/11 CT Movement is populated by inveterate liars. From top to bottom it is a cesspool of mendacity. Thanks for asking.

 

[eots]

I can play the historical proof game too wihosa.

No steel framed high rise with the same design as WTC7, has ever suffered damage to a portion of it's perimeter, had unfought fires, and remained standing.

Therefore, your belief that this could never have happened is based on garbage as you have no proof of a similar building that remained standing.

NIST, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames
7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More of your bullshit eots? Do you like cherry picking quotes to try and support your crap? Here is the WHOLE quote. The part in red is what you left out.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[6] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2).[7] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[8] The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[9] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.

So again, show me a building that was the same design as WTC7, had unfought fires, and had partial perimeter damage, that remained standing.

I suppose you consider the twin towers and WTC7 to have been the same exact design. What a dumbass...

partial perimeter damage is irrelevant to the collapse sequence and the design of the wtc was referred to as typical and common by NIST

Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event," said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder.
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

 

[eots]

ex·traor·di·nar·y (k-strôrdn-r, kstr-ôr-)
adj.
1. Beyond what is ordinary or usual: extraordinary authority.
2. Highly exceptional; remarkable: an extraordinary achievement.

 

[daws101]

a quick check reveals as always that eots is talking out his ass.
the no bodies of passengers of flight 77 claim is brought to you by the usual inside job not credible or verifiable slap dicks who in better then 11 years have done nothing but speciously speculate on the false inside job masturbation fantasy.


flight 77 bodies

Ok, charred bodies, where is the evidence that they are passengers from the plane? There were people in the Pentagon. Shouldn't there have been more than one hundred such charred bodies? And where is the plane, oh that's right, it incinerated.

Look at exhibit 1488. The visible bight colored striped shirt should around the waist be your first clue as to it not being a military uniform.

it was the vending machine guy!
what these assholes fail to accept is there were and are photos and video of the investigation they /us will never see. to them it's the perfect out, they will keep demanding things that cannot be produced by non investigators ,which just feeds the cover up fantasy.
the question they can never answer is: how, if a missile did hit the pentagon how was it possible for the perpetrators to spread all the faked wreckage around, place the bodies, all within a few seconds after the supposed blast with it not being observed or questioned.?
I have some experience with what could only be called "set dressing" the scene.
at a minimum you would need a crew of at least 100 (not counting the truck drives or off loading crews )
a parking area close to but not visible to staff and visitors(unless of course the staff was in on it)
then , this is most important: be able to in a coordinated, choreographed manner set all the "prop" plane parts in a convincing mock up set and touch up the bodies to appear as if they were in a crash.
all this in a burning ,collapsing structure without being seen or injured and leaving in several semis vans or trucks...
that sort of set up takes day not seconds.
anybody saying anything else is talking out their ass.

 

[Gamolon]

NIST, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames
7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More of your bullshit eots? Do you like cherry picking quotes to try and support your crap? Here is the WHOLE quote. The part in red is what you left out.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[6] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2).[7] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[8] The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[9] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.

So again, show me a building that was the same design as WTC7, had unfought fires, and had partial perimeter damage, that remained standing.

I suppose you consider the twin towers and WTC7 to have been the same exact design. What a dumbass...

partial perimeter damage is irrelevant to the collapse sequence and the design of the wtc was referred to as typical and common by NIST

Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event," said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder.
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

What a load of bullshit. Why'd you leave out the part in red?

Answer a question. Were the twin towers and WTC7 the same design? They were both "tube" designs right?

Did the twin towers have transfer trusses on floors 5 through 7 to transfer loads to the SMALLER, existing foundation? Did the twin towers have a structural diaphragm on it's lower floors to distribute the loads between the new and old caissons?