Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[Gamolon]

You are once again lying, I asked YOU many times what is the difference in the steel in the other buildings compared to the WTC buildings??

Because the design is affected differently by office fires as evidenced in the partial collapse of one building and "no inkling" of collapse in another!!!!!

And why didn't the N tower even partially collapse in "75 and YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER and instead dance around the subject lying about something I did not say!!!

Did the 1975 fires have a jet slam into the one side damaging structural components????

Of course not, but it was a fire correct? And in the WTC7 building there was a fire correct? Why didn't "fire" cause even a partial collapse in the N tower?

And there it is folks.

Mr. Jones assuming that all buildings should react the same, regardless of design, when an office fire occurs.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The funny thing is, you're too stupid to to realize that you posted the answer to your question and it's the same answer I keep giving you.

No you avoid a direct answer to my questions..it's all here in the posts.

You are lying again...site where I actually say this?

You have not answered anything, you instead are displaying a cowardly troll tactic of avoidance and deflection. So how come the 75 fire didn't cause even a partial collapse??

*sigh*

Was the structure damaged by a ******* jet before the fires started? Are you really this stupid? You don't think that played a roll in it? As I keep saying, the structural design is supposed to work as a whole. The more components you remove or weaken, then more stress is put on the remaining components.

It's not just the steel you jackass. This is the last time I am going to answer you. The design of a building dictates how it will react. Since the design of the buildings is different, you can make no comparison!!!

Why was there no global collapse in ANY of the other buildings, with free fall speed collapses??

And this is a total lie. The buildings did not collapse at free fall speed. As much as you want this to be true, it isn't.

Hey you lying OCT pole swallower. Nist finally admits 2.25 secs. of free fall! What a ******* lying scumbag you are!!

Why didn't other building infernos produce this?? Because the ONLY REASONABLE EXPLANATION IS THAT THEY WERE DESTROYED BY CD, THAT'S WHY.
Empire State Building hit by a plane, caused fires, killed people, NO GLOBAL COLLAPSE.
9-11 3 BUILDINGS, ONE not hit BY A PLANE COLLAPSED GLOBALLY,
one building fell at a rate of free fall. NIST got caught in a lie like you do here. The 9-11 commission report has been proven to be a flawed report...according to the people who wrote it...
You show a contemptuous disregard for these facts, deserving the label of treasonous scum, and coward. You have shown in these posts your true colors, coward piss yellow

 

[Gamolon]

You are once again lying, I asked YOU many times what is the difference in the steel in the other buildings compared to the WTC buildings??

Because the design is affected differently by office fires as evidenced in the partial collapse of one building and "no inkling" of collapse in another!!!!!

And why didn't the N tower even partially collapse in "75 and YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER and instead dance around the subject lying about something I did not say!!!

Did the 1975 fires have a jet slam into the one side damaging structural components????

The fact is that fires that have been proven to have been worse in structures constructed of steel have never collapsed, producing free fall speeds EVER!!

Since these buildings were designed differently, you have no comparison to make.

End of story.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Because the design is affected differently by office fires as evidenced in the partial collapse of one building and "no inkling" of collapse in another!!!!!



Did the 1975 fires have a jet slam into the one side damaging structural components????

Of course not, but it was a fire correct? And in the WTC7 building there was a fire correct? Why didn't "fire" cause even a partial collapse in the N tower?

And there it is folks.

Mr. Jones assuming that all buildings should react the same, regardless of design, when an office fire occurs.

How can you avoid answering my questions, by assuming I said something I clearly didn't?? Your a pathetic excuse even for a pole sucking OCTA.. You are a disgraceful troll, that runs away from answering clear, and sincere questions, you are an embarrassment, to all pole sucking OCTAs everywhere.

 

[Gamolon]

No you avoid a direct answer to my questions..it's all here in the posts.

You are lying again...site where I actually say this?

You have not answered anything, you instead are displaying a cowardly troll tactic of avoidance and deflection. So how come the 75 fire didn't cause even a partial collapse??

*sigh*

Was the structure damaged by a ******* jet before the fires started? Are you really this stupid? You don't think that played a roll in it? As I keep saying, the structural design is supposed to work as a whole. The more components you remove or weaken, then more stress is put on the remaining components.

It's not just the steel you jackass. This is the last time I am going to answer you. The design of a building dictates how it will react. Since the design of the buildings is different, you can make no comparison!!!

Why was there no global collapse in ANY of the other buildings, with free fall speed collapses??

And this is a total lie. The buildings did not collapse at free fall speed. As much as you want this to be true, it isn't.

Hey you lying OCT pole swallower. Nist finally admits 2.25 secs. of free fall! What a ******* lying scumbag you are!!

Why didn't other building infernos produce this?? Because the ONLY REASONABLE EXPLANATION IS THAT THEY WERE DESTROYED BY CD, THAT'S WHY.
Empire State Building hit by a plane, caused fires, killed people, NO GLOBAL COLLAPSE.
9-11 3 BUILDINGS, ONE not hit BY A PLANE COLLAPSED GLOBALLY,
one building fell at a rate of free fall. NIST got caught in a lie like you do here. The 9-11 commission report has been proven to be a flawed report...according to the people who wrote it...
You show a contemptuous disregard for these facts, deserving the label of treasonous scum, and coward. You have shown in these posts your true colors, coward piss yellow [/QUOTE]

Was it PART of the collapse or the whole collapse asshole?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Because the design is affected differently by office fires as evidenced in the partial collapse of one building and "no inkling" of collapse in another!!!!!



Did the 1975 fires have a jet slam into the one side damaging structural components????

The fact is that fires that have been proven to have been worse in structures constructed of steel have never collapsed, producing free fall speeds EVER!!

Since these buildings were designed differently, you have no comparison to make.

End of story.

They ALL had steel construction, yet only the WTC buildings..one that was not hit by a plane, collapsed globally and 1 produced 2.25 secs. of free fall.admitted to by NIST!!
Explain that you treasonous lying scumbag??
What was different in the STEEL??
Why no "thermal expansion" producing global collapse and free fall speeds in ANY of the towering infernos???

Did the WTC have faulty steel? Railroad steel perhaps

 

[Mr. Jones]

Let it be known on these forums that you Gamolon are a coward, who avoids answering legit questions, and you are a troll that can't produce evidence as to why other building infernos burned longer and more ferociously ,causing no global collapse, nor free fall speeds, despite your adherence and claim that the OCT as laid out by NIST and the government is believable.

You are forever branded as a traitor, and a liar, who only parrots the official government conspiracy THEORY, with no regard for the rest of the nation, nor the victims of the attack. You are an enemy of all real Americans, who sides with the criminals who helped/ caused the attacks. You have disgraced yourself, beyond repair, and will forever be considered a most unreliable source to believe, and engage with on this topic, I'm sure your handlers will be most displeased with your pathetic performance in this thread and others.

You lose troll.

 

[Gamolon]

Let it be known on these forums that you Gamolon are a coward, who avoids answering legit questions, and you are a troll that can't produce evidence as to why other building infernos burned longer and more ferociously ,causing no global collapse, nor free fall speeds, despite your adherence and claim that the OCT as laid out by NIST and the government is believable.

You are forever branded as a traitor, and a liar, who only parrots the official government conspiracy THEORY, with no regard for the rest of the nation, nor the victims of the attack. You are an enemy of all real Americans, who sides with the criminals who helped/ caused the attacks. You have disgraced yourself, beyond repair, and will forever be considered a most unreliable source to believe, and engage with on this topic, I'm sure your handlers will be most displeased with your pathetic performance in this thread and others.

You lose troll.

Let it be known that YOU, Mr. Jones are an imbecile and cannot seem to grasp the concept that different buildings will react differently to office fires based on there design as has been told to you many times.

Maybe someday when you grow up and learn something, you'll realize how stupid you really were. I can only hope, but based on your previous idiocy, there probably isn't much hope.

Talk to some structural engineers. They may set your sorry ass straight.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Let it be known on these forums that you Gamolon are a coward, who avoids answering legit questions, and you are a troll that can't produce evidence as to why other building infernos burned longer and more ferociously ,causing no global collapse, nor free fall speeds, despite your adherence and claim that the OCT as laid out by NIST and the government is believable.

You are forever branded as a traitor, and a liar, who only parrots the official government conspiracy THEORY, with no regard for the rest of the nation, nor the victims of the attack. You are an enemy of all real Americans, who sides with the criminals who helped/ caused the attacks. You have disgraced yourself, beyond repair, and will forever be considered a most unreliable source to believe, and engage with on this topic, I'm sure your handlers will be most displeased with your pathetic performance in this thread and others.

You lose troll.

Let it be known that YOU, Mr. Jones are an imbecile and cannot seem to grasp the concept that different buildings will react differently to office fires based on there design as has been told to you many times.

Maybe someday when you grow up and learn something, you'll realize how stupid you really were. I can only hope, but based on your previous idiocy, there probably isn't much hope.

Talk to some structural engineers. They may set your sorry ass straight.

The STEEL ************, that is what has been in question all this time!! Why don't we see thermal expansion in the other inferno fires because of this phenomena....EVER?? Or global collapse...producing free fall speeds??
You have had your ass handed to you you miserable OCTA ****
you have failed in your duty to your handlers, you are a treasonous POS.
Dance around the questions ************....DANCE

 

[SFC Ollie]

Lol..you still see the building standing, and it suffered no total complete global collapse!! No free fall, ...you got no logical explanation for why these infernos did not globally collapse
You lose troll!

How did the steel part collapse?

Can't say truthfully, but it still did not collapse globally, at amazing velocity did it??
now using your tactic..It isn't the WTC isn't it?
So how come at the ACTUAL WTC N tower..in 1975 we see no inkling of a collapse?? Answer this finally..

We do understand that in 1975 it was an office fire which was mostly limited to one floor and that the steel trusses still had the fireproofing on them. And that in 2001 an Airliner crashed into the building doing structural damage and knocking much of the fire[proofing insulation away from the steel trusses? We do understand the differences don't we?

 

[Patriot911]

Let it be known on these forums that you Gamolon are a coward, who avoids answering legit questions, and you are a troll that can't produce evidence as to why other building infernos burned longer and more ferociously ,causing no global collapse, nor free fall speeds, despite your adherence and claim that the OCT as laid out by NIST and the government is believable.

You are forever branded as a traitor, and a liar, who only parrots the official government conspiracy THEORY, with no regard for the rest of the nation, nor the victims of the attack. You are an enemy of all real Americans, who sides with the criminals who helped/ caused the attacks. You have disgraced yourself, beyond repair, and will forever be considered a most unreliable source to believe, and engage with on this topic, I'm sure your handlers will be most displeased with your pathetic performance in this thread and others.

You lose troll.

Let it be known that YOU, Mr. Jones are an imbecile and cannot seem to grasp the concept that different buildings will react differently to office fires based on there design as has been told to you many times.

Maybe someday when you grow up and learn something, you'll realize how stupid you really were. I can only hope, but based on your previous idiocy, there probably isn't much hope.

Talk to some structural engineers. They may set your sorry ass straight.

The STEEL ************, that is what has been in question all this time!! Why don't we see thermal expansion in the other inferno fires because of this phenomena....EVER?? Or global collapse...producing free fall speeds??
You have had your ass handed to you you miserable OCTA ****
you have failed in your duty to your handlers, you are a treasonous POS.
Dance around the questions ************....DANCE

The stupid dumbfuck known as Mr. Jones STILL can't understand concepts a child can easily grasp. Either that or he is too embarassed by his obvious fuckups that he can't back down from his mistakes now. What a *****!

According to dumbfucks like you, the Windsor tower shouldn't have collapsed at all, yet the steel part did. Why? Why didn't it just stay perfectly there when you claim there is no such thing as thermal expansion?

Just pointing out your amazing ignorance.

Steel failing due to fire
How about the Universal studios fire. Those steel beams sure don't look straight to me!

 

[Mr. Jones]

Let it be known that YOU, Mr. Jones are an imbecile and cannot seem to grasp the concept that different buildings will react differently to office fires based on there design as has been told to you many times.

Maybe someday when you grow up and learn something, you'll realize how stupid you really were. I can only hope, but based on your previous idiocy, there probably isn't much hope.

Talk to some structural engineers. They may set your sorry ass straight.

The STEEL ************, that is what has been in question all this time!! Why don't we see thermal expansion in the other inferno fires because of this phenomena....EVER?? Or global collapse...producing free fall speeds??
You have had your ass handed to you you miserable OCTA ****
you have failed in your duty to your handlers, you are a treasonous POS.
Dance around the questions ************....DANCE

The stupid dumbfuck known as Mr. Jones STILL can't understand concepts a child can easily grasp. Either that or he is too embarassed by his obvious fuckups that he can't back down from his mistakes now. What a *****!

According to dumbfucks like you, the Windsor tower shouldn't have collapsed at all, yet the steel part did. Why? Why didn't it just stay perfectly there when you claim there is no such thing as thermal expansion?

Just pointing out your amazing ignorance.

Steel failing due to fire
How about the Universal studios fire. Those steel beams sure don't look straight to me!

Ah there you go again trying to say that I said something I did not.
I see you posting nonsense again, instead of trying to help your fellow traitor with some kind of explanation as to why the buildings that experienced blazing infernos DID NOT GLOBALLY COLLAPSE, producing free fall speeds.
Or try to explain to us why the STEEL in these infernos did NOT experience 'thermal expansion" to the point where the buildings collapsed straight down??
So many examples of blazing infernos...yet NOT A ONE totally collapsed.
What's with the steel in Manhattan NY, Why only there do buildings collapse, at free fall speed while ejecting debris hundreds of feet away??
Why do the 9-11 commission writers reject their own report, one quit, and one wrote a book about the frustrations and lies that prevented them from doing their job??
Why is that?
Do you care to answer these questions?? Or are you just here to get away from the ass kicking you are receiving in the other thread??? HMMMM?
According to you, a child should understand your explanation, but you provide absolutely NONE!

You sick treasonous ***** are the scum of the Earth..Instead of standing with the people in your country, you stand with the liars and criminals that
have been caught deceiving your fellow citizens and are hell bent on destroying it!

So can you provide a logical explanation, to the above questions, or are you going to continue to make an ass out of yourself for the umpteenth time on a public forum?
The STEEL ************! What is the difference in the STEEL not the ******* design asshole! Why does the STEEL behave differently in the WTC buildings then in the other infernos in question???
It doesn't matter the design, how many rooms or offices you jaggoff!
It's the STEEL...Why didn't the STEEL expand and cause the buildings to globally collapse...at free fall speed...is the STEEL different in NYC?
Answer this instead of using your BS troll tactics for once?
What makes the STEEL so ******* different in the other buildings? The fires in the other buildings were certainly hot enough, and longer lasting wouldn't you agree?
And why not even a partial collapse in 1975 in the N tower, it was still a fire of high intensity and duration right?
Nist said fires were the primary cause of collapse...right?

 

[Mr. Jones]

How did the steel part collapse?

Can't say truthfully, but it still did not collapse globally, at amazing velocity did it??
now using your tactic..It isn't the WTC isn't it?
So how come at the ACTUAL WTC N tower..in 1975 we see no inkling of a collapse?? Answer this finally..

We do understand that in 1975 it was an office fire which was mostly limited to one floor and that the steel trusses still had the fireproofing on them. And that in 2001 an Airliner crashed into the building doing structural damage and knocking much of the fire[proofing insulation away from the steel trusses? We do understand the differences don't we?

No YOU do not know about the 1975 fire Alzheimer Ollie.
It burned 6 floors for 3 hours mostly in the 11th floor.
Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing.
The captain of Engine Co. 6 described the suppression effort as "like fighting a blow torch."

The fire burned for 3 hrs, and did not cause any thermal expansion nor did any portion of it collapse.
That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9-11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break...

So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

BELLACIAO - The 1975 World Trade Center Fire - Simpleton says:

Why no collapse like WTC 7 Ollie?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Can't say truthfully, but it still did not collapse globally, at amazing velocity did it??
now using your tactic..It isn't the WTC isn't it?
So how come at the ACTUAL WTC N tower..in 1975 we see no inkling of a collapse?? Answer this finally..

We do understand that in 1975 it was an office fire which was mostly limited to one floor and that the steel trusses still had the fireproofing on them. And that in 2001 an Airliner crashed into the building doing structural damage and knocking much of the fire[proofing insulation away from the steel trusses? We do understand the differences don't we?

No YOU do not know about the 1975 fire Alzheimer Ollie.
It burned 6 floors for 3 hours mostly in the 11th floor.
Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing.
The captain of Engine Co. 6 described the suppression effort as "like fighting a blow torch."

The fire burned for 3 hrs, and did not cause any thermal expansion nor did any portion of it collapse.
That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9-11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break...

So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

BELLACIAO - The 1975 World Trade Center Fire - Simpleton says:

Why no collapse like WTC 7 Ollie?

The fire actually burned the insulation off some communications cables that ran from floor to floor and never really did any damage on any other floors other than 11. And again you ignore the facts. The trusses and beams had fireproofing in 1975. It wasn't blown off by an airliner. That is probably the biggest difference. You do remember the airliners?

 

[SFC Ollie]

7 WTC is a different story. The insulation was in place as far as we know. And this is where I believe that NIST was wrong. I believe that the damage done to the building by the towers falling did have more to do with it than they claim. We cannot see all the damage because of the fires on the south side of the building.

 

[eots]

7 WTC is a different story. The insulation was in place as far as we know. And this is where I believe that NIST was wrong. I believe that the damage done to the building by the towers falling did have more to do with it than they claim. We cannot see all the damage because of the fires on the south side of the building.

well there is one little problem with that Ollie the computer model is the corner stone of the NIST theory and evidence and if you consider damage you cant get it to produce a isometrically collapse ...so if you think NIST is wrong about the damage...then you also invalidate the computer model and the NIST theory

 

[eots]

We do understand that in 1975 it was an office fire which was mostly limited to one floor and that the steel trusses still had the fireproofing on them. And that in 2001 an Airliner crashed into the building doing structural damage and knocking much of the fire[proofing insulation away from the steel trusses? We do understand the differences don't we?

No YOU do not know about the 1975 fire Alzheimer Ollie.
It burned 6 floors for 3 hours mostly in the 11th floor.
Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing.
The captain of Engine Co. 6 described the suppression effort as "like fighting a blow torch."

The fire burned for 3 hrs, and did not cause any thermal expansion nor did any portion of it collapse.
That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9-11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break...

So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

BELLACIAO - The 1975 World Trade Center Fire - Simpleton says:

Why no collapse like WTC 7 Ollie?

The fire actually burned the insulation off some communications cables that ran from floor to floor and never really did any damage on any other floors other than 11. And again you ignore the facts. The trusses and beams had fireproofing in 1975. It wasn't blown off by an airliner. That is probably the biggest difference. You do remember the airliners?

that might explain a partial collapse...maybe...but not the rest of the collapse

 

[candycorn]

YouTube - Help put this TV Ad on the Air -- Go to RememberBuilding7.org

Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.

The investigation was fine; you can find no inaccuracies in the 9/11 Commission report.

 

[eots]

YouTube - Help put this TV Ad on the Air -- Go to RememberBuilding7.org

Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.

The investigation was fine; you can find no inaccuracies in the 9/11 Commission report.

the 9/11 commission was not investigating the cause of the collapse cornyhole

 

[PhysicsExist]

7 WTC is a different story. The insulation was in place as far as we know. And this is where I believe that NIST was wrong. I believe that the damage done to the building by the towers falling did have more to do with it than they claim. We cannot see all the damage because of the fires on the south side of the building.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)[/ame]