Toronto 9/11 Ad Campaign Launched: Subway Riders Will See Footage of WTC 7 Collapse

reply to post by spooky24


I will go through some stuff i have kicking about and see if i can find anything to answer your question.

Can u shoot me a U2U with some of that flight 93 info, its quite a knowledge gap for me on the 9/11 saga and i would like to know more.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin



Yes the 2.3 seconds of free fall gets all the truthers excited, because it is a big deal...not sure how you can say it is just a mere 2.3 seconds of free fall like that is no big deal... What about the official claim justifies the free fall?
Hence it trying to be covered up in 05...but you don't care about that, cover ups are fine and dandy as long as all they are doing is trying to save face for their incompetence.....
Silverstien commets are very strange... Who was the fire commander he was talking to, WHY was he talking to him and why would it be larry's call to "pull it" regardless of what it actually meant.
Jennings, well you either take what he was to say or you don't.. I go off his original street side interview and he is pretty clear that there was an explosion, and we know it was not the fuel tanks.
BBC will be the same, very strange they announce the collapse of a building when it is still in the shot they are broadcasting... but hey what ever floats your boat
I am sorry that you feel that all the firefighters that day that were around the building claiming they saw/felt/heard explosives don't know what they are talking about, I don't share that opinion....

The evidence that you want and call for so much is locked up by the feds... you know this and that is why you resort to that claim.
If you want to stick you head in the ground and let them tell you what happened that is fine...
Everything that is available to the public points to CD, they release the info on their models on what cause the collapse then maybe it will be a different story

Take the vid of the boeing hitting the pentagon while we are at it as well

reply to post by Sremmos80


cough...cough,cough....

any actual evidence though that there was foul play, besides the terrorists smashing planes into the buildings next door that is.?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Well since all the evidence that would prove with out a shadow of a doubt is not available to the public, that would jeopardize our safety, duh...

What is available to us does not prove with out a shadow of a doubt that it was in fact 19 hijackers led by OBL...

What is available to us is that fact our agencies knew about the attack and even going as far as taking agents off cases
I understand you don't think that is a big deal, but I do

You keep telling you self that the 2.3 second free fall is no big deal and that that happens from random events happening in the perfect manner
Keep telling your self that it was just a day full of massive chain reactions that brought down 3 towers in ways that no one has ever seen before and brought us brand new never before seen events and new definitions of how some laws of physics work.
Deal

reply to post by spooky24

You continue to spam this board and the 9/11 forum. That is the same cut and paste garbage you have posted more than a dozen times just in the last month. STOP REPEAT POSTING!!!

YOU call it "SPAM"....I call it UNCHANGEABLE facts and SCIENCE!


sorry but, the wording of FACTS and SCIENCE stay the SAME....they DO NOT CHANGE....so if you want to call facts and science....."spam"....by all means, go for it.

so can NOT argue the dictum of 'Those whom assert MUST PROVE'....so you call.."spam".....spoken like a 'true' shill' would do....if you were one...[but that is another thread huh.]

you want to shut me up....then do it through posting FACTS and SCIENCE that put me to shame.


prove the facts wrong
prove the known taught science wrong.


i know you can't....and so do YOU!

reply to post by jude11

Just want to thank you for your in-depth reply as a contribution to the topic. Thanx jude11

no problem more than glad to help, i hope my aggressiveness don't get me banned, but I can't help that, this entire 9-11 topic gets me angry it was allowed this far with nothing behind it but agenda.....please, feel free to use anything to combat these idiot rampant shills.

reply to post by spooky24

There are some more things coming out of the archives about WCT7

lol...too bad for you it's nothing YOU can use to support HOW fire globally REMOVES 105 vertical feet of structural mass BEFORE 1.74 seconds to ALLOW the unified FFA recorded @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s.

I am frustrated

I'll bet

"A fireman-Butch Brandies tells other fireman not to go into the building because of creaking noises and a collapsed ceiling in the lobby" This also, was at 9:59
Captain Chris Bolye recalls that there "was a hole 20 stories tall in the building with fire on multiple floors" and "I informed someone(?????) that the building was in danger of collapse"

probably from the BOMBS Jennings and Hess reported BEFORE ANY tower fell....we know it was NOT from falling tower debris.....

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

Frustrating to say the least!

for you.....when are ya going to respond to the FACTS and SCIENCE?????

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Do you mean you are trying to work out the exact time that WTC-7 was evacuated and who ordered it? sorry just want to be clear on your question.

.....you mean..."DISTRACTION'!

WHO CARES about when it was "evacuated"....tell me how FIRE we can't see, does ALL the necessary work BEFORE 1.74 seconds.....as SCIENCE says it MUST!

tell me HOW FIRE ALONE removes 105 vertical feet of structural resistance globally in WTC7, BEFORE 1.74 seconds so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, GLOBALLY and UNIFIED IMMEDIATELY following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds......

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse, "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is NONE of the gravitational energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

I really hate repeating UNCHANGEABLE facts and science....you ..'people' really need to pay attention....some might think it's spam....

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

, besides the terrorists smashing planes into the buildings next door that is.?

to w3hich 2005 NIST found caused MINIMAL damage to each leaving 240 INTACT fireproofed vertical support that MUST simultaneously fail from spot fire.

33 outer columns were damaged from the impacts. You can count the columns yourself, 33 out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%. 86% of the outer columns intact and undamaged.

NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged. That's 6-8 out of 47. We'll go with 7 since it's in the middle. 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% of the core columns were damaged leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.


just as designed by J.Skilling to do...[Worthington,Skilling, Hale,and Jackson]

spooky24
reply to post by hgfbob

 

You continue to spam this board and the 9/11 forum. That is the same cut and paste garbage you have posted more than a dozen times just in the last month.

STOP REPEAT POSTING!!!

well at least he didnt accuse you of posting spam....i get that someone told you what they believe and you believe it too i get that,but just for arguments sake do you think you can answer his questions or at least give us some actual evidence to rebut his claims other than a tree branch can fall in mysterious ways because correct me if i am wrong but buildings like skyscrapers are built to withstand more than just fire or designed to free-fall from a little structural integrity....

reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed


This is exactly the same response that pisses me off and why at times i just want to leave this place and let you all wither away in your own astounding ignorance.

Its this bit right here that really grinds on me.

I get that someone told you what they believe and you believe it too i get that

You see Spooky at myself (i know arrogant) are probably two of the most informed "OSers" who still bother to regularly post on this forum, there where others, probably even better informed, but they have all seen the light i think I went on to pastures new. So for me, a individual who has been actively studying the topic of 9/11 with a particular focus on 9/11 conspiracies i find incredibly insulting when you basically say we only believe the OS because "someone" told me what to believe when to be quite frank. I know what i am talking about.

Additionally you also just dont quite see the irony to this point.

The whole reason that people believe 9/11 conspiracies is because someone told them, Steven Jones told them thermite was found in the dust and because he told them he proved it, for a while it "proved" the inside job theory because "someone" (Jones) told you so. Just unfortunate that his theory turned out to be utter rubbish.

but just for arguments sake do you think you can answer his questions or at least give us some actual evidence to rebut his claims

This is something else that is a total pain, its the way the you guys go about presenting your evidence, you point out all these little anomalies, some can be explained, some cannot. But you fail to look at the bigger picture of the historical backdrop to 9/11 and the sum of the events that took place that day. Rather you look at things in isolation, with no real view of the big picture and not actual solid proof beyond these anomalies and never, ever, provide any actually proof of your claims.

Case in point.

You will claim that WTC-7 was brought down by controlled demolition because it looked like a controlled demolition, but you cannot provide any actually proof it was a controlled demolition. Then you demand that we prove it was not a controlled demolition effectively asking us to prove a negative as you have no proof of controlled demolition.

Its actually very annoying.

But lets just take one off the lines the above member has used (each of which requires a lengthy explanation.

NCSTAR1A p.39/130 "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

Yes the important word is "initiating" the collapse, if you read the full report it becomes clear that a number of factors contributed to the demise of WTC-7 including the massive damage it sustained, in the picture below is just one example.



The building did sustain significant damage caused by the debris from WTC-1, the NIST report makes this very clear but it does say that it was not that damage which actually initiated the global collapse of the building rather NIST state that it initiated by the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion between steel and concrete causing the floors to crack and sag. The connections holding floor 13 to column 79 failed resulting in the collapse of floor 13 when a girder connecting column 44 to 79 failed due to the sagging of the floor. The collapse of floor 13 caused a progressive collapse of the floors below it on until they reached the reinforced floor 5. However this action left column 79 (one of the 3 large support columns for the eastern portion of the building) without any lateral support causing it to buckle, the cause of the “kink” and then its failure. The Failure of column 79 resulted in an upwards progression of collapse of the floors it was supporting which caused the collapse of the East Penthouse. Effectively the floors beneath it had all collapsed in this section of the building. This put additional strain on the 2 remaining supporting interior columns, 80 and 81 which under the redistributed weight coupled with the debris, effects of fire and lack of lateral support also buckled causing the first and second transfer trusses to also fail. This redistributed the load of the building on to columns 58-7 and now the entire weight of the building was being supported by these interior columns which were insufficient (hence the need for the transfer trusses in the first place), and as such they also began to buckle and fail. The columns began to fail form east to west (as is evidence from the collapse of the east penthouse) this caused a progressive collapse of the core support of the building and the entire interior of the building collapsed. Eventually the building essentially became a hollow shell and the exterior support columns also failed and the building fell straight down. There was very little resistance because the interior of the building had already collapsed.

So the collapse was actually initiated because floor 13 collapsed due to fires, NIST are quite open about this.

But to get back to you, and your annoying post.

correct me if i am wrong but buildings like skyscrapers are built to withstand more than just fire or designed to free-fall from a little structural integrity....

No you are not wrong but you are being totally ignorant of the events that took place with in WTC-7 that day, i would highly recommend you read through the thread i authored on the subject that a member lined to in the first page of this thread. WTC-7 was burning for hours with out any real attempt being made to extinguish the fires. There was a lot of stuff going on with that building that caused it to collapse. And it is a lot more complex that "they just used explosives".

Please refrain from implying that either myself or anyone else is some how ignorant, stupid, gullible or however else you would like to phrase it in future because you dont agree with what we have to say.

says more about you than it does about us.

signalfire
Sigh...

For those who haven't yet seen it, here's a link to the voluminous work done by Jeff Prager regarding the evidence (debunk it if you can) of mini-nukes being used to take down the towers. It's worth looking at just for the amazingly zoomable photos that are included which you won't easily have access to anywhere else.

Jeff Prager Nukes - 911

Funny that this information is so demonized and not discussed fairly, while Judy Wood's cockamamie theories are trotted out over and over again.

The truth appears to be that someone nuked NYC and whoever it is will feel free to do it again if they're not brought to justice. Is your city next in line for the 'no one could ever have imagined' false flag scenario?

Ha ha ha..."mini nukes." What an absolute pile of road apples.

reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed

but just for arguments sake do you think you can answer his questions

what questions are these???

NO questions were asked...it is a refusal to respond TO the FACTS and SCIENCE of the 2005 NIST scientific investigation and the 2008 HYPOTHESIZED claims that were presented.

which you are more than welcome to respond to.

or at least give us some actual evidence

lol..for what??..asking questions and DEMANDING the answers.....what evidence do I need?

The Dictum of both Law and Debate is those whom assert MUST prove....

FIRST come the asserted official claims PUSHED as truth....now, 'truthers' asking questions and DEMANDING the answers/supporting evidence of those claims pushed.......awesome how that works huh!!!!


I assert nothing but facts from the 2005 10,000+, page NIST report and taught science...why cant OS pushers ever quote the NIST reports????
..they seem to quote only duh-bunker sites...

i posted quotes from the 2005 NIST whom did NOT find a reason why three buildings failed on 9-11.....and a 2008 NIST hypothesis crew whom claims "BRAND new never before seen physics", among with fire fell these three like "NO OTHER has done before".....actual words of Shyam Sunder from the 2008 NIST tech briefing....

...they refuse to prove outside the authors.


your last little bit of nonsense is like you gasping for air.....

to rebut his claims other than a tree branch can fall in mysterious ways because correct me if i am wrong but buildings like skyscrapers are built to withstand more than just fire or designed to free-fall from a little structural integrity...

respond to my post, don't just PRETEND it's something else....lmao..

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

You see Spooky at myself (i know arrogant) are probably two of the most informed "OSers" who still bother to regularly post on this forum

and neither of you can respond to me....pathetic.

Case in point. You will claim that WTC-7 was brought down by controlled demolition

NOT ONCE!!!


I said PROVE the official claims FIRE did all that work......and you BOTH crumbled.

because it looked like a controlled demolition, but you cannot provide any actually proof it was a controlled demolition. Then you demand that we prove it was not a controlled demolition effectively asking us to prove a negative as you have no proof of controlled demolition

..it is YOU whom can NOT prove the asserted official claims.....so anytime you are asked to, you twist the conversation to controlled demo.

if you read the full report it becomes clear that a number of factors contributed to the demise of WTC-7 including the massive damage it sustained, in the picture below is just one example.

NOT caused by FALLING TOWER DEBRIS....maybe the BOMBS Jennings and Hess testified to huh!!!

so, YOU point to a pic of structural damage....the 2005 NIST states it's NOT caused by falling tower debris.......HELLO!!!!

seems to me YOU are ignoring scientific fact in lieu of agenda, [what you want to believe]......now where did I see that before????

the NIST report makes this very clear but it does say that it was not that damage

yet you just can't point to WHERE huh.....but it's in there huh.....lol!

...no it's not....
duh-bunker sites will claim that ...but NOT the 2005 NIST.

The connections holding floor 13 to column 79 failed

oh there ya go regurgitating the STORY......too bad for YOU we are here for the DATA that makes the story happen.....WHY the refusal to release that?

their claim which YOU are describing, they refuse to prove...

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"..

so, 2005 NIST finds NO Steel from WTC7 to examine...and 2008 NIST claims "brand new physics occurred"...they refuse to prove.......[see a problem here yet?]

Presenting a claim within a scientific context by using NOTHING to validate the theory is called BULLSH*T!
...no matter WHO says it.

and it's also amusing how you like to MISDIRECT....making it seem as there is NO difference between a natural gravitational collapse of a steel frame building and that same building occurring acceleration EQUAL to gravity....

another "too bad for YOU" that only one can use it's weight to destroy structural members in order to collapse......that same steel building ACCELERATING EQUAL to g. can not, the path is already there...

tell me how fire does this in 1.74 seconds

from fire no one sees?

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

any actual evidence though that there was foul play

any actual evidence of the claims PUSHED as truth????

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure."NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235
"no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper"NIST 1-3 p.99
"recovered bolts were stronger than typical".NIST 1-2 p.133
"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

point to the 10,000+ pages to show the 'REPRESENTATION' of HIGH TEMP WTC steel that failed from these fires to give direction to a LATTER HYPOTHESIS crew it did...

besides the terrorists smashing planes

that NIST found caused 14.5% asymmetrical structural damage to each tower leaving 240 intact fire proofed support on EACH damaged floor that must simultaneously fail to have occurred what we all see...

there is NO evidence these fires present failed a single one...

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


well thx for replying to my question (which was not directed at you) but since you decided to answer for spooky i thank you anyway...

as far your statement that you are so knowledgeable on the subject well that is subjective and the fact that you had to resort to name calling shows a little about yourself that is really not very desirable

reply to post by jaffo


Nicely debunked. Not.

You didn't read it, did you?

There is no room for insults in a civilized debate.

The fact remains that until you can put explosives in that building your theories, are, and always be, theories.

There is just as much chance that Jeff and his mini nukes caused the collapse. Or the wind, global warming or moose and squirrel for that matter.

For the last time-opinion is not evidence.

By the way Jeff Prager is an alright guy-he is just trying to make a buck and in this day and age it's hard to criticize that.

Who's paying for the ad
campaign?

I have an education in math and physics and from what I know about 9/11 I am convinced the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. No one will convince me otherwise. Even the video of the airplanes hitting doesn't make sense, but that is another story. Having said that, I know this can never be 'proven' in any academic discussion, it's always possible to deny any given statement. Sometimes judges and juries decide something is proven based on expert testimony and that is the best we could hope for.