Fire - not explosives - brought 7 WTC down on 9/11, says report

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: event8horizon
the nist focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario. involving column 79 on floor 12 with 9 lbs RDX. they didnt test anything else it looks like b/c "other scenarios would have required more explosives. or were considered infeasible to carry out without detecdtion."
i guess they didnt test the thermite/thermate scenario.

They didn't test it because the evidence did not point towards an explosion... duh. Why waste resources when the evidence is clearly telling you that a fire brought the building to structural failure.

There is just no convincing you. We'd have better success opening a door with the words "Open Sesame" than showing you that you are a crazy, tinfoil hat wearing loon.

as posted above they didnt test for the signitures of explosives.

their evidence didnt point towards it but others have. what the evidence they had to look at and analyze is still not available to the public.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: nick1985
event8horizon here is a hypothetical situation for you, please answer.

An all knowing being appears before you and asks, "Do you think WT7 was an inside job by the US government?". You can only answer with a "yes" or a "no", and if you are wrong he murders you and your family. Also, if you say anything other than "yes" or "no", he murders you and your family.

What would your answer be?

all knowing istead of all powerfull.......answer nothing...try to escape and if counter, attack. thats easy nick.

Let me speak for Nick when I say, not only does you and your family die, but you get obliterated.

Indeed!

I mean, it was a real tough question to answer...

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
event8horizon, 9/11 Truthers are tinfoil hat through and through because they can never come up with solid, verifiable evidence to support any of their claims. Pure innuendo and conjecture, and sadly hacks like Alex Jones and Loose Change make money off it.

In any case, we would have seen concerted efforts by all sorts of special attorneys/prosecutors, yet none have occurred. This reality is stark and obvious, and I feel bad that you waste so much of your life trying to prove something with nothing concrete.

bush made a law to shield the israeli security at the gates of the airports. i remember familes were trying to sue them amoung other security companies.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: event8horizon
the nist focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario. involving column 79 on floor 12 with 9 lbs RDX. they didnt test anything else it looks like b/c "other scenarios would have required more explosives. or were considered infeasible to carry out without detecdtion."
i guess they didnt test the thermite/thermate scenario.

They didn't test it because the evidence did not point towards an explosion... duh. Why waste resources when the evidence is clearly telling you that a fire brought the building to structural failure.

There is just no convincing you. We'd have better success opening a door with the words "Open Sesame" than showing you that you are a crazy, tinfoil hat wearing loon.

as posted above they didnt test for the signitures of explosives.

their evidence didnt point towards it but others have. what the evidence they had to look at and analyze is still not available to the public.

They didn't test for asteroid residue either. Why not? Prove an asteroid didn't bring down WTC7.

That is the argumentative modus operandi you are using. You are completely ignoring that they didn't test for many different possibilities because there's absolutely no reason to do so. There is NO evidence of explosives. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that?

He said, she said, some dude thinking he heard something that maybe sounded like a loud noise, or some goofball on the internet seeing a video of the collapse and thinking it looks like a demolition is not evidence of one. When you have some solid evidence instead of suspicions, allegations based on hearsay, and paranoid delusions about how the jews out to get us, come back and add something of interest to this thread. Until then you just appear to be another average 9/11 loonie.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
event8horizon, 9/11 Truthers are tinfoil hat through and through because they can never come up with solid, verifiable evidence to support any of their claims. Pure innuendo and conjecture, and sadly hacks like Alex Jones and Loose Change make money off it.

In any case, we would have seen concerted efforts by all sorts of special attorneys/prosecutors, yet none have occurred. This reality is stark and obvious, and I feel bad that you waste so much of your life trying to prove something with nothing concrete.

bush made a law to shield the israeli security at the gates of the airports. i remember familes were trying to sue them amoung other security companies.

That is not evidence, it's conjecture. You lack basic reasoning skills if you cannot tell the difference.

 

[event8horizon]

tlc-
i think u know me better than that.....i dont think the "jews" did it. thats lumping everyone together. i lean more towards the italian ex prez statement.....cia, mossad and the zionist world.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
event8horizon, 9/11 Truthers are tinfoil hat through and through because they can never come up with solid, verifiable evidence to support any of their claims. Pure innuendo and conjecture, and sadly hacks like Alex Jones and Loose Change make money off it.

In any case, we would have seen concerted efforts by all sorts of special attorneys/prosecutors, yet none have occurred. This reality is stark and obvious, and I feel bad that you waste so much of your life trying to prove something with nothing concrete.

bush made a law to shield the israeli security at the gates of the airports. i remember familes were trying to sue them amoung other security companies.

That is not evidence, it's conjecture. You lack basic reasoning skills if you cannot tell the difference.

did he or did he not make a law to shield those companies

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Regardless of how convincing the evidence is that what happened was planes flew in to the WTC towers, the consipracvy theorists will always say, "Well but that doesn't answer the question XYZ".

No, it never will becasue by definition you CT people will never accept any official answer until you get the one you want. So the whole discussion is pointless as all the information is already out there and you can believe one one of two things:

1. 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and flew three of them into buildings

2. The government did all of this, covered it up, demolished huge structures that would take hundreds of people months to wire and rig and no one ever found out.

After much hard thought, I think I will pick door number 1.

I love the missile hitting the pentagon theory the best. All the consipiracy nuts cannot even answer a simple question like what happened to the Boeing 757 that was fllight 77. It was a published flight listed weeks in advance. Pilots, cleaning crews, loaders, passengers all had their physical hands on the Boeing 757. But yet the hole looked like it could have been created by a missile so thats what it was.

You can't argue facts with these people. It was fun in the beginning to argue with the CT crowd... but really they are insance.

 

[Woofmeister]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Bah arguing with the conspiracy theorists about this is a compete waste of time. The conspiracy mongers always zero in on small pieces of the puzzle but never stitch any thing together into a meaningful narrative. Something that is required in order to offer an alternative explanation for anything.

I challenge any 9-11 "truther" to answer the following question:

"The reason why it was necessary for the Republicans/Zionists/Mossad/Aliens/Haliburton Employees, etc. to knock down 7 World Trade Center after the World Trade Center Towers had already collapsed was because . . .

of coarse that is a hypothetical question but didnt a plane crash or get shot down??? maybe that was suppose to hit wtc7.

So, they rigged explosives in case the plane didn't crash into WTC7?

Yep. That's the whole problem with the 9-11 truthers; every time you ask the "why" question they always want to skip ahead to the details rather than the big picture. To say "they" (and we never are told exactly who) blew up WTC7 because United Flight 93 was supposed to hit it but crashed in Pennsylvania simply begs the question. Once again, "why was it necessary to destroy WTC7 in the first place"?

So all of you troofers out there, help me out, the reason why WTC7 had to be destroyed was?

 

[event8horizon]

tlc's topic of interest. heres how some a@e911truth look at the wtc's destruction.

http://video.google.com/videop...d=-8182697765360042032

ill be back in alittle while
im all about debating tlc

 

[First]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
event8horizon, 9/11 Truthers are tinfoil hat through and through because they can never come up with solid, verifiable evidence to support any of their claims. Pure innuendo and conjecture, and sadly hacks like Alex Jones and Loose Change make money off it.

In any case, we would have seen concerted efforts by all sorts of special attorneys/prosecutors, yet none have occurred. This reality is stark and obvious, and I feel bad that you waste so much of your life trying to prove something with nothing concrete.

bush made a law to shield the israeli security at the gates of the airports. i remember familes were trying to sue them amoung other security companies.

That is not evidence, it's conjecture. You lack basic reasoning skills if you cannot tell the difference.

did he or did he not make a law to shield those companies

And there is no evidence that the shield was to cover up a conspiracy to murder thousands of Americans.

I'll say it again; you lack basic reasoning skills if you cannot tell the difference between evidence and conjecture.

 

[nick1985]

9/11 truthers....lulz

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: nick1985
you and your family die, sorry

Please ask this question now of all truthers

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: nick1985
you and your family die, sorry

Please ask this question now of all truthers

The problem is that truthers only ask questions, they don't answer them. They do everything in their power to stay away from a defensive posture because they know if they have to answer questions the weaknesses in their arguments, knowledge, and intelligence become highly evident. That's why event8horizon dodges and weaves when asked questions about his beliefs on 9/11. If he makes any solid claims he'll have to answer questions himself and he wants to avoid that at all cost.

 

[Capt Caveman]

fwiw - on Discovery Channel right now is 'Inside the Twin Towers'

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The problem is that truthers only ask questions, they don't answer them. They do everything in their power to stay away from a defensive posture because they know if they have to answer questions the weaknesses in their arguments, knowledge, and intelligence become highly evident. That's why event8horizon dodges and weaves when asked questions about his beliefs on 9/11. If he makes any solid claims he'll have to answer questions himself and he wants to avoid that at all cost.

Concise. Convincing. Well-reasoned.

I agree with TLC.

Is this the End of Days?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
fwiw - on Discovery Channel right now is 'Inside the Twin Towers'

thanks. Just switched it on.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
fwiw - on Discovery Channel right now is 'Inside the Twin Towers'

It's a repeat, but an outstanding doucmentary on what happened that awful day. Not this crap a putz like event8 tries to throw out.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: nick1985
you and your family die, sorry

Please ask this question now of all truthers

The problem is that truthers only ask questions, they don't answer them. They do everything in their power to stay away from a defensive posture because they know if they have to answer questions the weaknesses in their arguments, knowledge, and intelligence become highly evident. That's why event8horizon dodges and weaves when asked questions about his beliefs on 9/11. If he makes any solid claims he'll have to answer questions himself and he wants to avoid that at all cost.

Yes, but if we ask them all this yes/no question, then they all die! It's a trap, you see, a conspiracy!

 

[Rainsford]

This NIST report is exactly why I dislike the whole "9/11 Truth" movement. Although the truthers often demonstrate a basic lack of understanding about science and engineering, the real problem is that the official story (ie, what really happened) gets supporting reports like this, where many different details are examined to provide a clear, overall picture of events.

The truthers, on the other hand, deal exclusively with innuendo and conjecture, apparently operating with a distorted scientific method that says you can prove anything by having a litany of pseudo-facts. Nobody comes out with a step by step report of what they think happened based on the evidence they've been able to gather. Instead, they have some lame video with a serious sounding narrator and serious sounding music, and then interview some guy who thinks he heard explosions or play a video clip of an official taken out of context. There is no big picture, just a bunch of hand waving where they attempt to distract you so you don't notice that there is no overall story, and what story does exist doesn't make any sense.

Let's forget the details for a moment, because most people obviously don't know what they are talking about anyways, and focus on whether or not the argument the truthers are trying to make with WTC 7 even makes sense. Assuming 9/11 WAS a conspiracy, what's the motive for blowing up WTC 7? It seems like a tremendous amount of effort to "fake" the building falling down for very little obvious gain. In fact, virtually ALL parts of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have this problem. Even if I bought the technical stuff, the theories don't make sense from a practical standpoint...why would anyone go to the trouble to do what's being suggested? If it was a real conspiracy, it seems like it would have been far easier to do the attack exactly as you'd say it happened, just blame someone else. That kind of thing is much harder to prove and far easier to cover up.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
fwiw - on Discovery Channel right now is 'Inside the Twin Towers'

It's a repeat, but an outstanding doucmentary on what happened that awful day. Not this crap a putz like event8 tries to throw out.

do they talk about the fema sample.

Appendix C of FEMA?s BPAT Report (attached to this email) documents steel samples showing
rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting.11 A liquid eutectic mixture, including
sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide
flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World
Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this ?the deepest mystery uncovered in the
investigation.?.

Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron,
aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine ? the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech
incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There?s no other possible source for all the molten iron that was found. One of thermate?s key ingredients is sulfur, which can form the liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.
In addition, World Trade Center 7?s catastrophic structural failure showed every characteristic

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: nick1985
you and your family die, sorry

Please ask this question now of all truthers

The problem is that truthers only ask questions, they don't answer them. They do everything in their power to stay away from a defensive posture because they know if they have to answer questions the weaknesses in their arguments, knowledge, and intelligence become highly evident. That's why event8horizon dodges and weaves when asked questions about his beliefs on 9/11. If he makes any solid claims he'll have to answer questions himself and he wants to avoid that at all cost.

well, your getting off topic then the mods will prob lock this topic b/c we went off track. u can post it in the other 911 thread if u like and ill answer the best i can.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
fwiw - on Discovery Channel right now is 'Inside the Twin Towers'

It's a repeat, but an outstanding doucmentary on what happened that awful day. Not this crap a putz like event8 tries to throw out.

do they talk about the fema sample.

Appendix C of FEMA?s BPAT Report (attached to this email) documents steel samples showing
rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting.11 A liquid eutectic mixture, including
sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide
flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World
Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this ?the deepest mystery uncovered in the
investigation.?.

Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron,
aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine ? the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech
incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There?s no other possible source for all the molten iron that was found. One of thermate?s key ingredients is sulfur, which can form the liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.
In addition, World Trade Center 7?s catastrophic structural failure showed every characteristic

Have you ever taken basic chemistry? Do you know what steel is?

I ask this because as you add heat, you separate bonds and release elements. Then I ask again if you know what is in steel.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: nick1985
you and your family die, sorry

Please ask this question now of all truthers

The problem is that truthers only ask questions, they don't answer them. They do everything in their power to stay away from a defensive posture because they know if they have to answer questions the weaknesses in their arguments, knowledge, and intelligence become highly evident. That's why event8horizon dodges and weaves when asked questions about his beliefs on 9/11. If he makes any solid claims he'll have to answer questions himself and he wants to avoid that at all cost.

Yes, but if we ask them all this yes/no question, then they all die! It's a trap, you see, a conspiracy!

Sure. But they'd claim it was really Bush, the CIA, and Mossad that killed them.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
fwiw - on Discovery Channel right now is 'Inside the Twin Towers'

It's a repeat, but an outstanding doucmentary on what happened that awful day. Not this crap a putz like event8 tries to throw out.

do they talk about the fema sample.

Appendix C of FEMA?s BPAT Report (attached to this email) documents steel samples showing
rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting.11 A liquid eutectic mixture, including
sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide
flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World
Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this ?the deepest mystery uncovered in the
investigation.?.

Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron,
aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine ? the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech
incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There?s no other possible source for all the molten iron that was found. One of thermate?s key ingredients is sulfur, which can form the liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.
In addition, World Trade Center 7?s catastrophic structural failure showed every characteristic

Have you ever taken basic chemistry? Do you know what steel is?

I ask this because as you add heat, you separate bonds and release elements. Then I ask again if you know what is in steel.

again refer to the bpat fema sample and how f'ed up that sample is. the only theory that i have seen presented is tlc's theory that a british born canadian came up with (frank greening). so i actually applaud tlc of understanding that this piece of metal isnt just scrap shit. its VERY important.