Originally posted by BigC2012
The building FAILED and the media arent bothered, even though most of them work in sky scrapers!!!???

A paper fire could collapse your building yes within 7 seconds the building can be dust with plain old fire. A fire can now destroy a sky scraper like it couldn't before 2001.

Yes, but this was a fire in 2001, that's much different than a fire started in the early 1970s, 80s or years of the past. Fires have become more deadly over the years. They re-engineered fire to take down steel buildings starting in 2001. Man, do some research.

Fire has come a long way since the stone ages. I'll provide some proof within the next 6 years.

Troy

Pro NIST crowd attack people. Why they choose not to expose the Real crimes from that fateful day is truly sickening. What is there to be afraid of? Is it that the truth would put you close to a psychotic break? It would appear so. The denial of physics with pedestrian points are laughable at best and demonstrate a real dangerous disconnect with reality. So go ahead and make fun of the patriots asking questions. Keep your head in the sand and cling to your "my Gov't would never lie or do anything bad" mentality. Running down the street with your hands over your ears and eyes screaming "I won't believe it...I can't believe it" will avail you nothing except a real hard hit or fall when reality comes home to roost.

I would give real money to see a demolition crew set fire to a building to bring it down citing the Building Seven Report and its fantastical conclusions. Do you think they would ever get hired again?

Can anyone believe that NORAD failed to find 4 planes in the sky over a period of hour or so? If that organization is such a failure we better be careful that the Russians just don't bomb us.

And I'd still like to see the evidence of a 757 that supposedly hit the pentagon.

I'll say it again because evil sub-humans (Larry "Pull It" Silverstein) need to be exposed to the light.

Originally posted by BelowGovtThumbs

#1 High Temps=Thermal
#2 An explosion creates a shock wave=Expansion




Well by that definition they didn't really lie to us this time.

My faith in our insanely hideous government has been restored...

I can only hope that Larry "Pull It" Silverstein's head suffers from some thermal expansion in the very near future...

[edit on 21-8-2008 by TaZCoN]

Originally posted by cashlink
They did not investigate explosion. NIST claim they did not hear explosions.
So they didn’t feel the need to do a study on it .

You didn't read the report or read the Q&A's

Don't feel bad...you are like 90% of the posters in here.

And 100% of the ones that DID read it....can not find one error in the paper.

inside job


no doubt in my mind






[edit on 21-8-2008 by Skipper1975]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
And 100% of the ones that DID read it....can not find one error in the paper.

How is it possible to find an error amongst fantastical claims?

As their disclaimer, NIST stated that they could not verify the building's construction.

If they can't verify that obviously important detail, then their entire collapse sequence is GUESSWORK.

They didn't collect steel for testing. All of their conjecture about what the steel frame did is GUESSWORK.

The paper is at best, based loosely on some known facts about the physical properties of steel and concrete and then heavily embellished with GUESSWORK.

Step Up Kiddies

4 pages ago I offered to send a letter to NIST with a list of errors contained in the most recent report.

Lets see what we have so far:

-Larry Silverstein did it.

-B.S.

-Build a replica and burn that down.

-No building has ever...

-The bridge with the truck on it didnt collapse

hmmm ...

Well guys, I will need more than that. Please, I encourage you all to post the errors you find.

Thank you

-TY-

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by cashlink
They did not investigate explosion. NIST claim they did not hear explosions.
So they didn’t feel the need to do a study on it .

You didn't read the report or read the Q&A's

Don't feel bad...you are like 90% of the posters in here.

And 100% of the ones that DID read it....can not find one error in the paper.

ThroatYogurt,

Did you view the YouTube video posted just moments ago? What is your explanation of why Silverstein said what he said?

Personally, I can't find one error in what Silverstein said. Can you?

That is a good video but why does nobody refer to the videos I posted on page 1 of BBC and CNN reports that WTC7 has/was going to collapse?

(this is 23 minutes before the building falls, page 1)

Very weird videos imo.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Techsnow]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
And 100% of the ones that DID read it....can not find one error in the paper.

I notice you avoided responding to FIVE posts in which Griff and myself found some of he most basic errors possible. Your 100% is way off. Please respond to at least ONE of my posts before you lump me in with "100%"

I have been fair enough to respond to your questions.

If anyone has doubt, I encourage them to watch the Offical NIST Press Conference on CSPAN like I just did, and if anyone wants to watch an extremely intelligent scientist squirm like a snake in front of ferocious reporters, you can watch the same footage

peace and love folks