Unanswered, you can go no further

[daws101]

"I do not have to prove a negative. YOU are making the claim that there was some conspiracy behind this other than the terrorist conspiracy that the official version claims. It is on YOU to prove that. You can't prove your conspiracy theory by poking holes in the official version. You have to prove yours."

Classic, refusal to accept the fact of not only free fall acceleration, but complete & total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 as total proof that the whole operation was a planned event that included the destruction of the towers & 7 from the very beginning.

false.. you have no evidence corroborating that beating a dead horse scenario.
The 2.5 sec of freefall to a portion of wtc7's north face is not significant
as to the total destruction of the three structures that's what happens when structures sustain that kind of damage.

Shocking..... truly shocking, I really wish Don Herbert were here to weigh in on the subject.
the free fall acceleration is VERY significant in that it clearly indicates that there is NO resistance at all under the falling mass.
that is for the whole length of the North & west walls, there would not only have to be the removal of resistance, but that ALL of the resistance would have had to be removed at all the same time. NOW do you see?

false !
mr wizard! fuck me.....

 

[n0spam4me]

Some people choose to be rude, as an alternative to actually delivering a rebuttal to the topic at hand. .... oh well .....

Somebody please, if you have an explanation, I'd like to see it, that is why should if be possible
in response to fires and asymmetrical damage, for the North & West walls of the skyscraper to be seen
descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec? and keep their shape as they fall.......

 

[daws101]

Some people choose to be rude, as an alternative to actually delivering a rebuttal to the topic at hand. .... oh well .....

Somebody please, if you have an explanation, I'd like to see it, that is why should if be possible
in response to fires and asymmetrical damage, for the North & West walls of the skyscraper to be seen
descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec? and keep their shape as they fall.......

asked and answered.

 

[n0spam4me]

and so allegedly the "daws101" answer is the end-all be-all answer to the whole thing and nobody need give it any thought beyond what the supreme giver of INFORMATION has posted?

 

[daws101]

and so allegedly the "daws101" answer is the end-all be-all answer to the whole thing and nobody need give it any thought beyond what the supreme giver of INFORMATION has posted?

rolf!
might want to learn the definition of alleged
your whole "theory"is alleged

 

[n0spam4me]

and so allegedly the "daws101" answer is the end-all be-all answer to the whole thing and nobody need give it any thought beyond what the supreme giver of INFORMATION has posted?

rolf!
might want to learn the definition of alleged
your whole "theory"is alleged

other than to simply call it wrong, what have you got in rebuttal to the statements I have made about WTC7 & free fall acceleration?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Some people choose to be rude, as an alternative to actually delivering a rebuttal to the topic at hand. .... oh well .....

Somebody please, if you have an explanation, I'd like to see it, that is why should if be possible
in response to fires and asymmetrical damage, for the North & West walls of the skyscraper to be seen
descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec? and keep their shape as they fall.......

what else do you expect from government paid disinfo agents such as dawgshit and the other paid trolls that have penetrated this site?

 

[Skylar]

Some people choose to be rude, as an alternative to actually delivering a rebuttal to the topic at hand. .... oh well .....

Somebody please, if you have an explanation, I'd like to see it, that is why should if be possible
in response to fires and asymmetrical damage, for the North & West walls of the skyscraper to be seen
descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec? and keep their shape as they fall.......

Your explanation doesn't work. As there were no bombs. The collapse of the building initiated in silence. And actual controlled demolition is ludicrously loud. There are no such thing as 'silent explosives'. Ending your conspiracy.

The building was on fire, precluding any system of controlled demolition. As it too would have been on fire. And any wires, control boards, receivers, transmitters, blasting wire, det cord, primers or charges would have been reduced to bubbling pools of plastic. Making bombs impossible.

There were no cut girders. Absolutely none, despite your theory requiring thousands and thousands of such cuts. That's how controlled demolition demolishes...it cuts the girder with an explosive charge. No cut girders, no controlled demolition.

If you have an explanation for all of these huge, theory killing holes, I'd love to see it. But you don't. And each one ends your conspiracy utterly. Together, it gets a little silly.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Sklyar, you're not very good at this.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Sklyar, you're not very good at this.

thats the understatement of the century.his bosses pay him well.no way would people like and dawgshit come back for their constant ass beatings they get here everyday for free.

 

[Skylar]

Sklyar, you're not very good at this.

Uh-huh. Note you don't actual refute anything I've said.

Try again.

 

[Skylar]

Sklyar, you're not very good at this.

thats the understatement of the century.his bosses pay him well.no way would people like and dawgshit come back for their constant ass beatings they get here everyday for free.

Laughing....dude, you accuse anyone who doesn't drink the truther Koolaid of being some 'paid shill'. Anyone who doesn't ape your conspiracy becomes part of it.

And yet you can't resolve any of the gaping, bleeding, ludicrous holes in the truther conspiracy either. You ignore them entirely.

No rational person ever would.

 

[n0spam4me]

On 911 hours after the Twin Towers collapsed Building Seven collapsed. The NIST charged with the investigation (even though it is not an investigatory body) finally admitted that yes indeed the building fell at free fall acceleration for the first 2 plus seconds. This means that there was ZERO resistance to collapse, which means that 400 structural steel connections failed simultaneously every second.

The NIST blamed "normal office fires". There have been many skyscraper fires, and many which burned longer and were far more involved. None of those previous fires have ever produced total and complete collapse in mere seconds. Most did not induce any collapse at all. The Windsor Hotel in Madrid Spain burned for nearly 24 hours, virtually gutting the entire structure. In spite of that the structural frame did not collapse save for a limited area which was at the top of the hottest part of the fire. As one would expect the small amount of collapse was slow with structural members showing deformation and uneven failure.

Building Seven if the proof positive of controlled demolition and that the "Official Conspiracy Theory" is a lie. This fact alone is enough to open a real investigation. If you consider your self a patriot you should support the prosecution of the greatest crime in our history. No other evidence is needed to start the investigation for if this evidence goes unanswered then we can go no further. All other parts of the "Official Conspiracy Theory" fall apart.

To attempt to address the topic at hand, Nothing descends at 9.8 m/s^2 unless the resistance has been completely removed out from under the falling mass, if it has to push anything or crush/break anything on the way down it will not descend at 9.8m/s^2, and with that said, noting that the "collapse" if WTC7 includes the descent of the north & west walls in unison and keeping their shape as they descend, what other explanation ( that is other than CONTROLLED DEMOLITION ) can anyone suggest?

 

[Skylar]

To attempt to address the topic at hand, Nothing descends at 9.8 m/s^2 unless the resistance has been completely removed out from under the falling mass, if it has to push anything or crush/break anything on the way down it will not descend at 9.8m/s^2, and with that said, noting that the "collapse" if WTC7 includes the descent of the north & west walls in unison and keeping their shape as they descend, what other explanation ( that is other than CONTROLLED DEMOLITION ) can anyone suggest?

By 'topic at hand', you mean that you'll continue to ignore the fact that your bombs were a physical impossibility and your explanation doesn't work?

That the collapse of WTC 7 initiated in virtual silence? And that there are no such thing as silent explosives?

That the building was on fire, which means that any system of explosives was also on fire? And thus, would have burned up?

That there were no cut girders, the method in which controlled demolition actually demolishes a building......despite your failed conspiracy requiring thousands?

That there was no apparatus of explosives ever found, before, during or after the collapse? Not a single charge, not an inch of blasting wire, absolutely nothing?

That the Port Authority bomb squad had gone through the entire WTC plaza only a week before the collapse and found no bombs of any kind?

That there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples?

That the FDNY had put a transit on WTC 7 and watched its burning, its buckling, its leaning, its slow structural failure over hours. And that the FDNY had anticipated its collapse by hours due to fire and structural damage, correctly predicting its collapse time to within about an hour?

Keep running.

 

[n0spam4me]

"That the collapse of WTC 7 initiated in virtual silence? And that there are no such thing as silent explosives?

That the building was on fire, which means that any system of explosives was also on fire? And thus, would have burned up?"

This has already been addressed multiple times, the fact is that theatrical fires could have been done so as to be visible from outside the building but present no danger to the demolition charges placed in the building. and also your collapsed in silence argument is so far off the mark, the fact is that witnesses heard explosions, and explosions were recorded on the audio track of videos done that day. Even if there were no energetic materials in the building, to say that WTC7 "collapsed" in silence is a crock because there would be sound from the building coming down under any conditions at all.

 

[Skylar]

"That the collapse of WTC 7 initiated in virtual silence? And that there are no such thing as silent explosives?

That the building was on fire, which means that any system of explosives was also on fire? And thus, would have burned up?"

This has already been addressed multiple times,

If by 'addressed', you mean you simply deny it ever happened and ignore all the video and eye witness accounts that demonstrate you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, then its been 'addressed'. If however you mean you've been able to credibly explain why any rational person would ignore the videos and FDNY eye witness accounts that contradict you....then no. You never have.

Why would I ignore the FDNY and the video that contradicts you. And instead believe you, citing yourself? Especially when every other aspect of your conspiracy fails so laughably and miserably. No apparatus of explosives, no cut girders, no bomb residue, the Port Authority Bomb squad with their bomb sniffing dogs finding no bombs, etc.

Explain it to us. Why would I or any other rational person ignore the mountains of evidence that you do?

the fact is that theatrical fires could have been done so as to be visible from outside the building but present no danger to the demolition charges placed in the building.

You say 'theatrical fires' were a fact, huh? Surely you realize that typing the word 'fact' doesn't magically make it so, right? Especially when you can't backany of that up with the slightest evidence. You have no experience with fires, theatrical or otherwise. You weren't at the fire in question.

The FDNY was and was. They watched the fire burned, uncontrolled. They put a transit on the building and measured WTC 7's slow structural failure. Its burning. Its buckling. Its leaning. They anticipated its collapse DUE to those fires by hours. They were able to predict the collapse of the WTC to within about an hour. And the NIST investigation backs the overwhelming majority of their assessment.

And then there's you, saying they are all wrong. Because you watched a 27 second youtube video a decade after the fact and know better.

Laughing...that's adorable! But really, what evidence do you have that the fires were 'theatrical'. So far its you citing yourself......and you citing yourself. While the folks contradicting you are experts in their field, and actually present at the fire in question for hours.

The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down.

–Captain Robert Sohmer

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

Odd, he doens't mention a 'theatrical fire' once. Its like you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down.

–Firefighter Vincent Massa

But hey, they were only fire fighting experts with collective centuries of experience who were eye witnesses to the fire in question for hours. What could they possibly know compared to you....and your 27 second youtube video?

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.

–FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

But you know better than the deputy chief, huh? Laughing....no you don't.

Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable.

–PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade
page 48.
www.thememoryhole.org servermaintenance

A fire chief indicating that the building was actively burning, out of control, and imminent collapse was probable. That's a trifecta of contradiction for your silly little conspiracy, isn't it?

Best ignore them all. After all, they might actually inform you what happened. And you couldn't have that.

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
FDNY, Division 1
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

But you know better than Deputy Chief Hayden, huh? Um, no....you don't. You're clueless. You have no relevant experience in fires and weren't there. And Hayden is an expert with 33 years of experience, and was there.

Hayden is credible. You aren't.

So, with the building on fire, any system of explosives would have burned. And you've been able to offer us nothing to resolve this theory killing hole. Ending your junk conspiracy yet again.

Oh, and BTW, the 13th floor was where the NIST investigation found the buckling began. Perfectly matching the FDNY account. So that's two expert sources with access to the site that contradict you. And nothing backing you up. You lose again.

and also your collapsed in silence argument is so far off the mark, the fact is that witnesses heard explosions, and explosions were recorded on the audio track of videos done that day.

Then show us. Here's a video of the collapse of the WTC 7.



It collapse initiates so quietly it doesn't interrupt the conversation of those nearby. The video literally shows the opposite of what you claim. So what do you do? What you always do when faced with compelling, contradictory evidence. You ignore it.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do? There is no reason. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[n0spam4me]

posts filled with appeals to authority ..... (etc... ) Please be so kind as to bless this forum what what YOU think of the events of 9/11/2001, note that the "FLT175" videos ( that is the ones not obscured by the north tower or other skyscrapers ... ) constitutes a violation of the laws of physics. + the fact that the "collapse" events of WTC1, 2 & 7 could not possibly have happened except for being an engineered event.

 

[n0spam4me]

1. Do you deny that two jet planes hit the towers?
2. Was #7 in use before 9/11 or was it empty.
3. Do you believe that the two towers (not just #7) were also brought down by controlled demolition?

#1 - Quite possibly missiles, but most certainly NOT hijacked airliners.
#2 - yes, in use, ( as if that makes a difference to a covert operation )
#3 - Yes the towers & 7 were blown up ..... and exactly who has a problem seeing that?

 

[Montrovant]

Of course no planes hit the towers........it was ORBS!

 

[n0spam4me]

On 911 hours after the Twin Towers collapsed Building Seven collapsed. The NIST charged with the investigation (even though it is not an investigatory body) finally admitted that yes indeed the building fell at free fall acceleration for the first 2 plus seconds. This means that there was ZERO resistance to collapse, which means that 400 structural steel connections failed simultaneously every second.

The NIST blamed "normal office fires". There have been many skyscraper fires, and many which burned longer and were far more involved. None of those previous fires have ever produced total and complete collapse in mere seconds. Most did not induce any collapse at all. The Windsor Hotel in Madrid Spain burned for nearly 24 hours, virtually gutting the entire structure. In spite of that the structural frame did not collapse save for a limited area which was at the top of the hottest part of the fire. As one would expect the small amount of collapse was slow with structural members showing deformation and uneven failure.

Building Seven if the proof positive of controlled demolition and that the "Official Conspiracy Theory" is a lie. This fact alone is enough to open a real investigation. If you consider your self a patriot you should support the prosecution of the greatest crime in our history. No other evidence is needed to start the investigation for if this evidence goes unanswered then we can go no further. All other parts of the "Official Conspiracy Theory" fall apart.

I submit to this forum that the fall of the towers + 7 had to have been controlled demolition, not to mention the fact that all 4 airliners were obviously bogus.
9/11/2001 = THE BIG LIE! WAKE UP PEOPLE!