Should we just focus on Building 7?

Sick hoax is a bold Accusation. I'm not saying these claims can't be objectively discussed, but no hoax.


whatreallyhappened.com...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

Now since you're all about backing claims, please explain why you can say the audio of the police dispatches doesn't match the transcript without backing it up?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Why does the time stamp also say 5:53? Just wondering what each number means. a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Im so back and forth on this. To your knowledge did they have any of the steel from building 7 to study or just from one and two towers? I've heard before that NIST didn't have any steel samples from 7 but that seems a bit much to believe. a reply to: liejunkie01

originally posted by: TheBolt
To your knowledge did they have any of the steel from building 7 to study or just from one and two towers? I've heard before that NIST didn't have any steel samples from 7 but that seems a bit much to believe.

Of course they did...
www.tms.org...

a reply to: Jchristopher5

i got feeling that this topic will end up as an NLBS episode.

peace

Right. Thank you. I just remembered I heard that from NIST itself which is why the NIST report was so hard for me to take seriously. They did everything on a computer based on no physical evidence, only video evidence. I remember now thinking how hard it would be to cite The NIST report in support of the official story when they seemed to disagree with the FEMA report that came first. I'm going to go with you and FEMA on this one.
Here's the first link I found.

www.consensus911.org...


a reply to: hellobruce

This fellow makes a few interesting observations about the NIST report...

originally posted by: TheBolt
Right. Thank you. I just remembered I heard that from NIST itself which is why the NIST report was so hard for me to take seriously. They did everything on a computer based on no physical evidence, only video evidence. I remember now thinking how hard it would be to cite The NIST report in support of the official story when they seemed to disagree with the FEMA report that came first. I'm going to go with you and FEMA on this one.
Here's the first link I found.

www.consensus911.org...


a reply to: hellobruce

Thank you for this link, and the article is very interesting.

It is clear that the NIST report was flawed and biased, just like the official 9/11 report. How anyone can think we have the truth with these two documents is beyond me. I get people that have not studied and rely on the MSM for their opinion.

Anyone who has studied must, in their heart at least, realize the total official story is full of lies and mistruths. How can anyone trust these documents?

a reply to: TheBolt

You don't even realize that what you posted contradicts your claims about the van and the transcripts. Do you have any idea how many times "druthers" have been caught doctoring videos and other items?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: TheBolt

You don't even realize that what you posted contradicts your claims about the van and the transcripts. Do you have any idea how many times "druthers" have been caught doctoring videos and other items?

Did you even read it? I'll give you it short as far as NIST stands:

First they denied the existence of molten steel at the scene:



But how can they do that because they collected no steel as evidence from the scene:

No steel from WTC 7 was recovered from the collapse site, as NIST reports have repeatedly pointed out.

Accordingly, it was impossible for NIST to make any statements about the quality of WTC 7’s steel in its investigations.

And on the steel examined by 3 scientists:

Professor Jonathan Barnett, Fire Protection Engineer, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, reported, “It came from a much larger beam… This was the size of steel that they used in the construction of Tower 7. They didn’t use this particular kind of steel in Tower 1 or Tower 2. So that’s why we know its pedigree. It was a surprise to me because it was so eroded and deformed and so we took it for analysis in the lab.” BBC, “The Third Tower,” 2008 (48-minute mark).

A story in the official publication of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute stated: “A one inch [steel] column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.”

www.consensus911.org...

Metallurgy report showing the pools were steel and not aluminum, zinc, and copper? Pools of molten metals in the debris pile that has underground fires, being fed by air through the PATH tunnels would nit be a surprise. Nor is the possibility that those fires could get hot enough to deform steel. Has nothing to do with the collapse of the buildings.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
Metallurgy report showing the pools were steel and not aluminum, zinc, and copper? Pools of molten metals in the debris pile that has underground fires, being fed by air through the PATH tunnels would nit be a surprise. Nor is the possibility that those fires could get hot enough to deform steel. Has nothing to do with the collapse of the buildings.

From the 9/11 FEMA report:

“[S]teel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon – called a eutectic reaction – occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.”

And you may also want to consider this:

In May 2004, the RJ Lee Group issued a report, entitled “WTC Dust Signature,” at the request of the Deutsche Bank, in order to prove (to its insurance company) that the building was “pervasively contaminated with WTC Dust, unique to the WTC Event.”[19] The report listed five elements in this signature, one of which was: “Spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature.”[20] This was the only statement about iron’s being modified by high temperature in this 2004 report.

However, RJ Lee had written an earlier report in 2003, entitled “WTC Dust Signature Study,” which contained much more about iron. It said: “Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust . . . but are not common in ‘normal’ interior office dust.”[21] This 2003 version of the report even pointed out that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted an enormous amount of the WTC dust: 5.87 percent (meaning that there was almost 1,500 times more iron in the dust than normal).[22] This earlier version also explicitly stated that iron and other metals were “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.”[23]

www.consensus911.org...

a reply to: Zcustosmorum. The spherical particles, are the residue from WELDING. Again, something that would be EXPECTED to be found. The "normal office dust" statement is misleading, because NORMALLY an office has not collapsed.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: TheBolt
Right. Thank you. I just remembered I heard that from NIST itself which is why the NIST report was so hard for me to take seriously. They did everything on a computer based on no physical evidence, only video evidence. I remember now thinking how hard it would be to cite The NIST report in support of the official story when they seemed to disagree with the FEMA report that came first. I'm going to go with you and FEMA on this one.
Here's the first link I found.

www.consensus911.org...


a reply to: hellobruce

Thank you for this link, and the article is very interesting.

It is clear that the NIST report was flawed and biased, just like the official 9/11 report. How anyone can think we have the truth with these two documents is beyond me. I get people that have not studied and rely on the MSM for their opinion.

Anyone who has studied must, in their heart at least, realize the total official story is full of lies and mistruths. How can anyone trust these documents?

Thanks from me too for the article, TheBolt.

I've seen more photos of the melted steel in other articles. Anyone still believing that fire brought that building down is lost in confusion. All the evidence points straight to controlled demolition. ALL of it! All the video, all the photos, all the audio, all the documents, all the witness testimonies, and all the events that transpired after 9/11 in the Middle East. Once you are able to incorporate all that evidence into this new reality, all the events during and after 9/11 make perfect sense. Those who haven't switched on the lights yet, but are curious enough to be reading about 9/11, will keep searching until that light-switch is flicked on, because nothing in the "War on Terror" makes any sense. This is the reason the truth movement will only continue to grow, exponentially sooner or later. Jchristopher5 proves my point.

To all those still clinging to the fence, do yourself and the world a favour and take the biggest leap of your life. It won't be easy, but it will feel right.

soulwaxer (who comes in peace)

I'm not even sure what post of mine you're referring to that contradicts my statement about the vans so I can't comment. All I can say on that until you explain yourself is that I've provided links to several news and police reports, press conferences, etc that prove the van story is not a "sick hoax" perpetrated by me. Either offer me evidence that the police never mentioned it or offer me an apology. I'm not holding my breath for either one. Secondly:

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
Metallurgy report showing the pools were steel and not aluminum, zinc, and copper? Pools of molten metals in the debris pile that has underground fires, being fed by air through the PATH tunnels would nit be a surprise. Nor is the possibility that those fires could get hot enough to deform steel. Has nothing to do with the collapse of the buildings.

This statement kind of contradicts itself too because you believe the claim that studying the world trade centre steel has provided clues to it's collapse yet as you say, because the rubble pile would be expected to cause the materials to react differently than it would during the collapse, so there's no real way for either side including the official side to say for sure what state those samples were in during the collapse itself. By that logic I would say anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Anyone still believing that fire brought that building down is lost in confusion. All the evidence points straight to controlled demolition. ALL of it! All the video, all the photos, all the audio, all the documents, all the witness testimonies, and all the events that transpired after 9/11 in the Middle East.

Tell you what,

Debunk this thread point by point then come back and tell us how "all the evidence points straight to a controlled demolition".

a reply to: TheBolt The last paragraph makes no sense. You claim molten steel, yet no one has any metallurgy studies to prove it, but, that there are plenty of softer metals that the fires in the pile were well over the melting temps for, so, I would not be surprised that the pools were the softer metals. Then, I also say that, I would not be surprised if the underground fires go hot enough to deform steel. And it all comes back to....that happened after the collapse when the materials were buried, and exposed to underground fires......and had no relationship to the collapses....other than being a byproduct.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: soulwaxer

Anyone still believing that fire brought that building down is lost in confusion. All the evidence points straight to controlled demolition. ALL of it! All the video, all the photos, all the audio, all the documents, all the witness testimonies, and all the events that transpired after 9/11 in the Middle East.

Tell you what,

Debunk this thread point by point then come back and tell us how "all the evidence points straight to a controlled demolition".

Lol!

You expect me to read through that wall of crap… why?

I read many of your posts in the past, but it only took a day or two to see right through you. Why would I waste my time reading walls and walls of text that come from you. Are you special or something?

soulwaxer

This is where you're wrong about me. Don't ever lump me in with a crowd. I never once in any of my posts said molten steel. I don't know what the molten metal was. I also have never said controlled demolition is my one definite belief. I have never presented an alternate theory on the collapses. I've only ever asked questions against the official story, in an open effort to get more information and education mind you, which is something no one could ever accuse you of. reply to: cardinalfan0596

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Had a quick look over your thread and had to have a chuckle when I read this bit..

we can also safely say that it did not fall at gravitational free fall (well other than those 2.25 seconds)

the only mention and you glossed over it like it was totally unimportant...
And btw, any response to the video I posted above?