NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 [W:2152,2510]

[Bob0627]

if you can't grasp that the measured datapoint on the north curtain wall roof was moving in directions other than simply straight down and that particular spot was moving at a greater rate than other points on said same roof I just don't know what I can do.

I suggest you give it up and take the north curtain wall with you.

 

[Bob0627]

This is sort of one of those duh moments but since all of the imagery taken of 7 was from the north and the fires were on the south side,...

I thought it was an "inferno"?

 

[mike2810]

Huh? Are you trying to say fire and CD are mutually exclusive? So CD is impossible in a building that's been set on fire?

Uh, dodge much.

So you don't know of any case of a CD being done with the building on fire for hours , excluding 9/11.

Explain how CD is done when a building burns for hours. Please provide a case study for us to look at and compare to WTC7.

Are you saying fire and steel building destructions are mutually exclusive?

No bob, I am not saying that about CD. Some have made the case of no history of fire destroying a steel building, hence CD.

I am mearly asking what history is there of CD destroying a steel building that was on fire first and burned for hours.

Why do you avoid answering questions with a direct answer. It was clear what I asked.

 

[mike2810]

Can you get your head around the idea that the fires may have been staged in that the
only part actually burning was a fuel source near the windows and everything else in the
building wasn't burning. So the charges for CD would have been safe from the inferno.

Yes,
Now where is the proof of that?

Can you get your head around that the building was damaged from the fall of the towers and burned for hours.

There is proof for what I stated. Your playing the what if game.

 

[Fledermaus]

Huh? Are you trying to say fire and CD are mutually exclusive? So CD is impossible in a building that's been set on fire?

EXPLOSIVES 101.....

Explosives and fire don't mix.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Your research is flawed. Either that or you have found a magic steel in WTC7 that makes it impervious to fire.

Whether or not WTC7 was hit by a plane is a RED HERRING.

What does this have to do with the FACT that all the EVIDENCE points to Atta and his merry men?

The evidence for why the buildings collapsed does not point to Atta and his merry men. They could not have planted charges in the buildings and that is what the evidence points to as a reason for the collapses.

 

[Lethbridge]

Yes,
Now where is the proof of that?

Can you get your head around that the building was damaged from the fall of the towers and burned for hours.

There is proof for what I stated. Your playing the what if game.

There is proof that the building was destroyed by fire?
Tell me you are not depending on the NIST report as that proof?

The way that it would be possible to have explosives in the building
to accomplish a controlled demolition, would be to have the fires
simply a special effect in the theatrical production.

 

[Bob0627]

Uh, dodge much.

No, it was a straightforward question. You didn't make yourself clear.

So you don't know of any case of a CD being done with the building on fire for hours , excluding 9/11.

I don't know of any case of a CD being done with the building on fire for hours, INCLUDING 9/11. Do you? Everyone knows it takes weeks to plan and set up a CD. You know that right?

Explain how CD is done when a building burns for hours. Please provide a case study for us to look at and compare to WTC7.

Non sequtur, there is no such thing in the real world.

No bob, I am not saying that about CD. Some have made the case of no history of fire destroying a steel building, hence CD.

I am mearly asking what history is there of CD destroying a steel building that was on fire first and burned for hours.

Why do you avoid answering questions with a direct answer. It was clear what I asked.

You're (willfully?) confused. No building was set up for CD while it was on fire, OBVIOUSLY. All buildings that are CD'd are planned and set up weeks in advance. Do you actually believe anyone in his right mind is saying WTC7 was planned and wired all on 9/11?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

But since all of the columns were not removed simultaneously - a fact easily confirmed through simple observation and a very basic knowledge of the structure - that means you are missing something in your irrefutable logic.



Yeah I know I have explained many things that don't make sense to you. But I honestly don't know how to Fisher-Price most of them any more than I already have. I mean, if you can't grasp that the measured datapoint on the north curtain wall roof was moving in directions other than simply straight down and that particular spot was moving at a greater rate than other points on said same roof I just don't know what I can do.

Removing the twenty-four core columns in WTC 7 for eight stories would produce the collapse that was observed. There was no need to remove the exterior as they would be left unsupported for eight stories and become very slender, while also being pulled on by the falling core creating eccentricity which causes a propensity to buckle. In this situation they would fall with essentially no resistance.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

EXPLOSIVES 101.....

Explosives and fire don't mix.

There weren't fires on all 47 floors of WTC 7. In the Twin Towers the actual collapse initiations also happened above the aircraft impact damage.

 

[KokomoJojo]

There weren't fires on all 47 floors of WTC 7. In the Twin Towers the actual collapse initiations also happened above the aircraft impact damage.

as you can see debunkers are completely clueless how thermate cutter charges work and truth is like krytonite to them.

fireflies did it!





it was a really fast fire. each one only lasted milliseconds

 

[Sadling]

Wow. You may have heard of him. Mohammed Atta.

Wow. I asked you what Atta has to do with the NIST's fraudulent report on the collapse of WTC #7. Are you simply pretending to not understand the question?

 

[Fledermaus]

The evidence for why the buildings collapsed does not point to Atta and his merry men. They could not have planted charges in the buildings and that is what the evidence points to as a reason for the collapses.

Really? That is not what the people who investigated determined.

 

[Mark F]

Removing the twenty-four core columns in WTC 7 for eight stories would produce the collapse that was observed. There was no need to remove the exterior as they would be left unsupported for eight stories and become very slender, while also being pulled on by the falling core creating eccentricity which causes a propensity to buckle. In this situation they would fall with essentially no resistance.

Free-fall (actually over-G but why quibble over details) was measured on the exterior, which as you are acknowledging fell last. So free-fall has nothing to do with what caused the collapse. It is merely an artifact of the structural design.

 

[Fledermaus]

Wow. I asked you what Atta has to do with the NIST's fraudulent report on the collapse of WTC #7. Are you simply pretending to not understand the question?

Have an intelligent question to ask?

The ENTIRE WTC destruction was due to Atta and his men. All of it. All. In totality. Completely. In toto.

 

[Sadling]

What does this have to do with the FACT that all the EVIDENCE points to Atta and his merry men?

This thread isn't about Atta. It's about NIST's fraudulent report on the collapse of WTC #7. So, what does Atta have to do with the topic: The NIST Report?

 

[Fledermaus]

This thread isn't about Atta. It's about NIST's fraudulent report on the collapse of WTC #7. So, what does Atta have to do with the topic: The NIST Report?

Atta is the one and only cause for the NIST report. You comprende, right?

 

[mike2810]

There is proof that the building was destroyed by fire?
Tell me you are not depending on the NIST report as that proof?

The way that it would be possible to have explosives in the building
to accomplish a controlled demolition, would be to have the fires
simply a special effect in the theatrical production.

Why throw the debate back at me. I am waiting for you to lay out your special effects for fire theory. The NIST report has been debated for years.
Lay out your theory and the evidence.

Care to provide your sources for your theory?
What evidence do you know of that the fires were special effects?

 

[Bob0627]

free-fall has nothing to do with what caused the collapse. It is merely an artifact of the structural design.

So in your world buildings are designed to free fall in their own footprint when they collapse?

 

[mike2810]

No, it was a straightforward question. You didn't make yourself clear.



I don't know of any case of a CD being done with the building on fire for hours, INCLUDING 9/11. Do you? Everyone knows it takes weeks to plan and set up a CD. You know that right?



Non sequtur, there is no such thing in the real world.



You're (willfully?) confused. No building was set up for CD while it was on fire, OBVIOUSLY. All buildings that are CD'd are planned and set up weeks in advance. Do you actually believe anyone in his right mind is saying WTC7 was planned and wired all on 9/11?

Bob you give the such poor excuses.

It is almost sad the way you try and twist around what people post.

What is clear is you don't know how WTC7 was brought down. It is clear you are just playing the word game.

Do you believe WTC7 was brought down by Controlled Demolition (Yes/No).

If you do not accept it was brought down by fire, then do you believe brought it down? You must have an opinion.

 

[Sadling]

Atta is the one and only cause for the NIST report. You comprende, right?

No, the persons who make up the National Institute of Standards and Technology are the ones responsible for that report. That's why it's called the NIST Report. You don't comprende, do you?

 

[mike2810]

No, it was a straightforward question. You didn't make yourself clear.



I don't know of any case of a CD being done with the building on fire for hours, INCLUDING 9/11. Do you? Everyone knows it takes weeks to plan and set up a CD. You know that right?



Non sequtur, there is no such thing in the real world.



You're (willfully?) confused. No building was set up for CD while it was on fire, OBVIOUSLY. All buildings that are CD'd are planned and set up weeks in advance. Do you actually believe anyone in his right mind is saying WTC7 was planned and wired all on 9/11?

You give such poor responses. "What we have hear is a failure to communicate", or you really have no evidence to back up your posts.

Explain what brought down WTC7.

 

[Fledermaus]

No, the persons who make up the National Institute of Standards and Technology are the ones responsible for that report. That's why it's called the NIST Report. You don't comprende, do you?

No Atta... NO NIST REPORT....

The would be NOTHING for NIST to report on.

And NIST gave a PROBABLE collapse theory. Where is the FRAUD?

 

[Bob0627]

Bob you give the such poor excuses.

It is almost sad the way you try and twist around what people post.

What are you talking about? Make YOURSELF clear, then perhaps you'll be understood. You're thoroughly confused or your post is.

What is clear is you don't know how WTC7 was brought down.

No one knows how WTC7 was brought down. That's why we need a real investigation, to find out who, what and how it was brought down.

Do you believe WTC7 was brought down by Controlled Demolition (Yes/No).

Nothing else makes sense. It doesn't mean I know who, what and how it was brought down.

 

[Bob0627]

"What we have hear is a failure to communicate"

What YOU have is a failure to communicate. Make yourself clear.

Explain what brought down WTC7.

1. No one knows what brought WTC7 down so why would you expect me to know?
2. Why on earth do you want me to explain it to you anyway? I'm just an anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous discussion forum. If I told you would you believe me?

I told you I want to know who, how and what brought it down. That's the point of a real investigation. Get it yet?