Wow. I just noticed that you carry the same lie over here to this forum. Trying to pass off a picture showing "no damage" and claiming that photo shows WTC7 "already imploding at free fall speed" when the PENTHOUSE hasn't even collapsed yet in that photo.
The lengths you guys go to...
Nothing wrong with a few little lies, eh Terral?
gam..I find your evidence disingenuous..illogical and not compelling compared to the evidence of controlled demolition
Ahhhh yes. Eots speaks again. If you consider MY evidence all those things, what do you consider Terral's evidence? Particularly, what do you think of his lie posted above? The one where he KNOWINGLY uses a photo from BEFORE the collapse even started as evidence of NO BROKEN WINDOWS DURING the free fall collapse?
You're nothing but a friggin' biased hypocrite. You support people who have been PROVEN to post lies. You support them because they share the same beliefs you do.
How sad.
Where's your criticism of Terral and his bogus evidence?
and I find the opinions of the experts I have listed including the nist lead fire investigator to be more credible than popular mechanics magazine
You mean the same lead fire investigator, James Quintiere, who, based on his analysis and studies done by NIST, believes that the STEEL TRUSSES are what failed due to HEAT from FIRE and CAUSED THE COLLAPSE? You mean THAT OPINION of your EXPERT? Here dopey, I'll even quote you HIS conclusion at the end of his paper and bold what he thinks the cause was based on his EXPERT, CREDIBLE opinion.
James Quintiere said:
I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the
collapse.
An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.
The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions. I would
recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST
study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening
this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.
So you support his conclusion/hypothesis that heat from the fires caused the trusses to fail. I mean, he is a CREDIBLE EXPERT in your opinion right?
You guys are a riot. You debunk your own shit with your own evidence.
confused
