One million New Yorkers to see Building 7 fall (AE911truth)

Apparently, it's impossible for a skyscraper to fall from fire because no other building has ever fell from fires, and yet a plot to sneak in and destroy an occupied building without anyone noticing or leaving any evidence behind is plausible despite it never happening before in all of recorded human history.

The problem is, NIST haven't come up with any evidence to support their theory of thermal expansion, apart from computer models (which aren't evidence) and WTC7's collapse looks very, very similar to a controlled demolition and it has none of the characteristics one would associate with a fire-induced collapsed, such things as, extensive visible deformation of the structure, asymmetrical collapse, etc. If NIST offered some hard empirical evidence, I would believe that WTC7 collapsed from fire, but all they have are computer models (models which they still refuse to be released for independent testing, because it might, wait for it... jeopardize public safety). Have you audited NIST's computer models yourself to check their authenticity? Here's the bottom line: WTC7 collapsed in a way that mimics a controlled demolition, so the burden of proof is on you to convince us it wasn't a controlled demolition and we need more than computer models. Can you provide that evidence? Can you succeed where NIST failed? Unlikely, but give it a go.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


wow what the hell are you talking about we are lieing you are sick.

im done bein nice and tryin to discuss a real event with psuedo scientists and god help me you people whove created this crapola should find a parent of a victim and spout your drivle enjoy the broken the nose you receive

reply to post by triplescorpio


I gave you a star for the hilarious irony of your post.

Many of the victims and family of the victims, including firefighters, police officers and medics who were there, are also calling for re-investigation and/or believe there were bombs in the buildings. You're going to have a lot of faces to punch. How many you think you could get away with before someone whips you back?

You'll have to go punch FDNY John Schroeder in the face. He was there too, inside the towers experiencing the explosions first-hand. He doesn't believe the government bull and wants a real investigation too.

Or maybe you should go punch NYPD Craig Bartmer in the face. He was at WTC7 when it collapsed, said explosions ripped out from the lobby of the building when it started "collapsing" and that there's no way in hell it happened from fires and pieces of debris hitting it.

Both of those guys have video interviews on YouTube describing what exactly they heard and saw to lead them to their conclusions. Maybe you can go watch and size them up to prepare for your confrontation.


9/11 victim families speaking out publicly against the official investigations:




There are a few more people for you to go punch, victims of the attack. Though I suspect in an environment like that you'd have a lot of people ready to punch back if you went in swinging. So you might want to hold off and catch these victims while they're alone.

Go show these sick people what for, scorpio!

[edit on 24-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


i can only say this good luck your going to be doing this for a long time.

keep up the good fight

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


and since your twisting words that dont exsist i never said i would hit anyone but continue on with your bottomless conspiracy cant wait to hear what you come up with next more LIES!

reply to post by beebs


Thank you so much for posting these videos. I had thought I'd seen them all - but obviously I was wrong!

I had seen fragments of those films - never knew where they came from.

I wish I could shake all the non-believers and ask them why are they so ignorant. With so many 'strange facts' how can it not be true? It's all for money. What good is money? You can't take it with you when your dead.

Originally posted by triplescorpio
and since your twisting words that dont exsist i never said i would hit anyone

Sorry, I assumed you were projecting when you were saying somebody was going to get a broken nose for realizing this stuff.


Btw did you even watch that video of the family members, considering that you've apparently taken it upon yourself to represent them? You might want to listen to what they're actually saying about 9/11, if you actually give a damn about them.

I don't suppose the 9/11 victims will be punching themselves in the face anytime soon.


[edit on 24-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

Originally posted by Nathan-D
I would believe that WTC7 collapsed from fire, but all they have are computer models (models which they still refuse to be released for independent testing, because it might, wait for it... jeopardize public safety). Have you audited NIST's computer models yourself to check their authenticity?

No I didn't becuase a) I'm not a materials engineer so I don't have the technical background to know what steel of quality X would do vs steel of quality Y, b) I'm also not an architect so when I look at a building schematic all I see are lines, and c) I'm not a fire expert so I don't know what flames should do given one source of flammable material vs another source of flammable material.

That's why I rely on the materials engineers, architects, and fire experts in NIST, because a) it wasn't just one guy who came up with the report- it was a bunch of people who came up with the report, and it's absurd to say that every single person in NIST is involved in this supposedly "secret" coverup and b) the gigantic majority of people who dispute the NIST report are people who aren't any more qualified to analyze the raw material than I am I.E. people who overinflate their background like Richard Gage or outright BS artists like Dylan Avery. When Gage and Avery can explain how much heat burning carpets, desks, and computers give off, and the properties of thermal expansion in structural steel, then I'll take them seriously.

Here's the bottom line: WTC7 collapsed in a way that mimics a controlled demolition, so the burden of proof is on you to convince us it wasn't a controlled demolition and we need more than computer models. Can you provide that evidence? Can you succeed where NIST failed? Unlikely, but give it a go.

Well, that's the problem right there. Once the conspiray people get the idea that "it looked like a controlled demolitions" they take it upon themselves to insist it WAS controlled demolitions regardless of what the evidence actually shows it was. YEah, I can say that a zebra looks like a horse with stripes painted on it too, but it's absurd to insist that zebras are really horses with stripes painted on it and it's a conspiracy to trick us into believing they're a whole other animal. Don't insist there was a conspiracy first and then try to force the evidence to conform to it. You need to look at the evidence and try to come up with a scenario the evidence supports.

First, if it really was controlled demeolitions, the explosives wouldn't just such the wreckage into a black hole- the destroyed steel would have been lying all over the place and it'd be blatantly visible to the work crews as well as the thousand photos taken of the steel at ground zero. Here's a bit of trivia those damned fool 9/11 conspiracy web sites never tell you: many of the people working at ground zero clearing out the wreckage were the same steelworkers who built the thing to begin with, so they'd be the most qualified people on the planet to spot anythign that was out of place. You know as well as I do that they didn't.

So rather than my havign to prove it wasn't controlled demolitions, YOU need to prove why you're right and all the hordes of steel workers, materials engineers, fire experts, photographs, etc are all wrong. If you want to insist there was a conspiracy, fine, but at least give us a credible conspiracy, not some outrageous fantasia that needs 10,000 boogeymen to pull off.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
How do you figure it, "Dave"?

Please review the findings of James Quintiere. Ironically it's the conspiracy mongers who introduced his findings to me, but in typical conspiracy monger fashion they falsify and misrepresent what he's saying like everyone else to suit their purposes. Don't listen to them for their predigested verson of what he's saying becuase it'll be false- go to him directly and get it from him in his own words

Dr. Quintiere is a NIST fire expert who refuted the findings of NIST. While NIST said the firreproofing was damaged by the impact of the planes, he's stating the buildings never had sufficient fireproofing to begin with. He agrees wthat the fires and the irregual thermal expansion of the steel is what caused the collapse, but he just disagrees with the level of protection against fire the steel originally had.

Here's his bio, and you can contact him directly if you'd like:

Biography page of Dr. James Quintiere

I invite you to send him and email and accuse him of being a secret agent involved in the coverup. I triple dog dare you.

b) the gigantic majority of people who dispute the NIST report are people
not some outrageous fantasia that needs 10,000 boogeymen to pull off.
and all the hordes of steel workers, materials engineers, fire experts, photographs,
eleventeen gazillionth generation thermonuclear

dave you use the logical fallacy of appealing to the invisible crowd

the fact that WTC 7 stood for over 30 years and
then how did the same ironworkers who built WTC7 also remove the debris?
What we had 70 and 80 year old men removing the debris? LOL

Dave your exaggerations border on deciet.
is a zebra a horse

Answer
Yes, it is.
Kingdom:
Animalia
Phylum:
Chordata
Class:
Mammalia
Order:
Perissodactyla
Family:
Equidae
Genus:
Equus
if it looks like a horse, acts like a horse it is a horse
if it looks like CD, acts like CD it is CD

Originally posted by slugger9787
the fact that WTC 7 stood for over 30 years and
then how did the same ironworkers who built WTC7 also remove the debris?
What we had 70 and 80 year old men removing the debris? LOL

The fact that many of the people at ground zero were also the steelworkers who built the WTC to begin with is not for debate. Joel Meyerowitz interviewed and even photographed some of them in his ground zero documentary book, "Aftermath", and he was there at ground zero right alongside them. If you are stating there weren't then you are lying unrepentently though your teeth.

As for how the workers dismantled the wreckage, take a guess how they'd do it. Your first guess will probably be right.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df9db6a9be34.jpg[/atsimg]

G.O.D.
Here is a list of 1260 Professional architects and engineers who do not believe the OS.

www.patriotsquestion911.com...

You take Bill Clintons word for it over theirs?
Bill cannot even tell the truth about a small blow job, much less a big one.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by slugger9787]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Have you audited NIST's computer models yourself to check their authenticity?

No I didn't becuase a) I'm not a materials engineer so I don't have the technical background to know what steel of quality X would do vs steel of quality Y, b) I'm also not an architect so when I look at a building schematic all I see are lines, and c) I'm not a fire expert so I don't know what flames should do given one source of flammable material vs another source of flammable material.

Sorry "Dave" but your transparent attempt to obfuscate is being checked once again.

The proper response shouldn't have been "No, I didn't because I'm not an engineer."

The proper response should have been, "No, I didn't because NIST didn't even release the parameters for public scrutiny in the first place."


Nice try though.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
How do you figure it, "Dave"?

Please review the findings of James Quintiere. ...

Dr. Quintiere is a NIST fire expert who refuted the findings of NIST. While NIST said the firreproofing was damaged by the impact of the planes

You are deflecting even more blatantly in this post.

I was referring to WTC7, not the Towers.

Let me refresh your awful memory:

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If you refute the NIST report's explanation, that's fine, but whatever did cause the collapse, it was necessarily due to a problem caused by WTC 1 falling on it.

How do you figure that?

WTC1 fell onto the towers and caused them to collapse? Come on "Dave" I know you're not that dense.


You said WTC7's "collapse" was "necessarily" caused by WTC1 falling on it.


That is exactly what I want you to explain to me. I want you to explain this "necessity."

Originally posted by slugger9787
Bill cannot even tell the truth about a small blow job, much less a big one.

That's priceless. Thanks for the laugh.

Maybe I should make that my signature.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


I bet even G.O.D. laughs about that as well.

BTW exaggeration by GOD is equal to lie.

Appealing to audience is a logical fallacy, but 1260 A&E's is impressive.

The 1260 though human carry lots more weight than G.O.D.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

WTC1 fell onto the towers and caused them to collapse? Come on "Dave" I know you're not that dense.

You said WTC7's "collapse" was "necessarily" caused by WTC1 falling on it.

That is exactly what I want you to explain to me. I want you to explain this "necessity."

All right, I didn't intend to go back and explain this becuase I presumed you weren't lying through your teeth and you actually read the NIST report, and I likewise presumed you could figure out the tenth grade physics on your own that when building A falls onto building B, bad things are necessarily going to happen to building B. If you genuinely need me to spell the chain of events out, all right I will.

A) The north tower collapsed, spilling wreckage all over the place, and becuase the tower was just so flipping huge, there was huge amounts of wreckage, and it crushed WTC 6 and smashed up WTC 7

B) The wreckage smashing up WTC 7 caused fires to start on multiple floors at once, and the office contents (carpets, cubicle walls, plastics, etc) caught fire.

C)A ccording to NIST, the fires caused column 79 to overheat and expand, and becuase the steel was vertical and couldn't expand up or down, it expanded sideways, pushing the horizontal girder between columns 79 and 44 and causing floor 13 to collapse. The NIST report go into all of that so I'm not going to waste my time repeating it here to satisfy this weird little game playing of yours.

D) THEREFORE, If WTC 1 didn't collapse, then fires probably wouldn't have started. If fires weren't started, the office contents wouldn't have burned. If the office contents didn't burn, the structural columns would have been overheated. If the columns weren't overheated, they wouldn't have buckled and caused structural faulure in the floor braces. If the floor braces didn't give, the floors wouldn't have fallen. If the floors didn't fall, then the WTC 7 wouldn't have collapsed. So, yes, WTC1 fell onto WTC 7 and caused it to collapse.

Is this irefutably the way WTC 7 collapsed? Absolutely not. It's an educated guess, given the available facts from the wreckage, the video taken, and of eyewitness accounts, and I don't think even NIST is insisting this is the way it had to have occurred. However, to accuse everyone in NIST of being gov't disinformation agents lying to cover up secret controlled demolitions planted by Silverstein and the New York Fire Department is arrogant and childish.

There, now does that spell it out for you?

[edit on 27-8-2010 by GoodOlDave]

Originally posted by slugger9787
I bet even G.O.D. laughs about that as well.

I find humor is subjective. For example, a drug addicted comedy actor who beats his wife and got sent to rehab is a pathetic person...until he goes on record as believing the "controlled demlitions" stories, in which case he becomes a rock of Gibralter of credibility to you truthers. You take this seriously, but I think it's funny as hell.

BTW exaggeration by GOD is equal to lie.

And I will ask the same thing from you that I ask everyone else here- point one thing that I ever said here that was a lie.

Good to see you back DAVE.

232 c is the temp that wood, paper, chairs, desks etc burn at.

Here are the temps that other articles found in an office burn at, plastic, cloth

It depends on the type of plastic. Ignition temperatures range among any number of hundreds of degrees.
Plastic Melting Point Ignition Temperature
ABS 88°-125° 461
Acrylics 91°-125° 560
Cellulosics 49°-121° 475°-540° c
Nylons 160°-275° 424°-532° c
Polycarbonate 140°-150° 580
Polyesters 220°-268° 432°-488° c
Polyethylene ld 107°-124° 349° c
Polyethylene hd 122°-137° 349° c
Polypropylene 158°-168° 570° c
Polystyrene 100°-120° 488°-496° c
Polyurethanes 85°-121° 416° c
PTFE 327° 530° c
P.vinylideneclor 212° 454° c
PVC 75°-110° 435°-557° c
Wool Does not melt 228°-230° c
Cotton Does not melt 250° c
Rubber Does not melt 260°-316° c


STEEL


3. TEMPERATURE INDICATORS

3.1 STEEL Appearance Temperature
Yellow
320°
Brown
350°
Purple
400°
Blue
450°
* loses 50% of its structural strength and sags at 550°
* melt point of steel 1100°-1650°

So the hottest burning thing in WTC7 would have been the plastics at
580 and acrylics at 560.

And steel does not weaken until 550

There was not enough fuel in WTC7 to heat enough/all of the steel to cause it to weaken and collapse Dave.


Dave do this experiment:

Build a vey hot fire
take an empty tin can
place the tin can in the fire
build more fuel on top of the tin can
put sufficient fuel on the fire, old carpets, milk jugs, rubber tires, several boxes of plastic trash bags, diesel fuel, gasoline, more rubber tires, and let it burn

come back after all of the fire is out and tell me what the tin can looks like.

you can even sandwich the tin can between two heavy concrete bricks but it has to be standing vertically.

guess what Dave the tin can will look like a tin can.

Originally posted by slugger9787

Dave do this experiment:

Build a vey hot fire
take an empty tin can
place the tin can in the fire
build more fuel on top of the tin can
put sufficient fuel on the fire, old carpets, milk jugs, rubber tires, several boxes of plastic trash bags, diesel fuel, gasoline, more rubber tires, and let it burn

come back after all of the fire is out and tell me what the tin can looks like.

This experiment doens't even remotely simulate what happened in WTC 7. A more applicable experiment would be to take two folded sheets of metal upright inside of a metal box side by side, put a heavy weight on top of them, and build a fire only on side of one of the sheets. The enclosed space traps the heat and doesn't allow it to dissipate, and the one sided fire caused irregulal expansion of the metal from one section being exposed to higher temperatures than another section.

The condition of the sheets of metal after the fire is immaterial. It's whether or not the intact sheet of metal can still continue to hold the weight if the heated sheet of metal buckles. If not, your conspiracy argument gets thrown into the trash right there.