9/11 Fourteen Years Later
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
lmao Fuji, honestly, I thought you would have a little more sense than to come in here and post again.
Did you not read what I posted?
NIST, those guys at the government who you believe to be correct. The guys with "experts", well, they don't think/believe the "pancake" theory anymore.
So do you care to change your story on how this happened now? LOL
If the "youtube" experts are so bad, how would you grade NIST's experts?
How do you grade yourself? LOL
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi..._wtctowers.cfm
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram).
Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards.
Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
The GOVERNMENT agency which YOU profess to be correct had to change their story, because I suspect they realized many started questioning how a building could fall at near freefall speeds without resistance and were starting to believe it.
Which by the way, coincides with Newton's 3rd Law which you deemed to be "not relevant" in this case. lol
So in closing.
Fuji believes the buildings pancaked (as NIST initially concluded), however, now the agency says that's not what we believe to have happened anymore.
(well timed on NIST's part, 5 years later, ppl won't give a shit anymore at this point and they haven't given a model as to their new theory........how strange)
Until you change your personal mind and theory of the building giving way to pancaking, don't bother posting Fuji.
Because even your beloved NIST says you're wrong.
As I said, you put your foot in your ass, then into your mouth.
Fuji, honestly, if this topic ever comes up again, don't post in it.
It'd be pretty bold on your part when you just put your foot in your ass, only to follow it up with putting it in your mouth.
Calling this thread and issue over with at 9:40AM.
You know that either way the building didn't collapse from the ground floor right, proving you and your YouTube experts to be bullshit artists.
Your conspiracy theory required the building to collapse from the ground, and is dead.
How many pages of thread since your theory died? Note you are trying to argue about anything just to look like you are debating while your theory lies dead.
How upset are you by your pancaking debate point going right out the window by NIST years ago and you still held that belief?
I just discovered it last night and was arguing that it wouldn't make sense based on what others have said.
Yet you STILL insisted on it.
1 - being not stupid
10 - being I feel incredibly stupid
Where are you on the scale? lol
Btw, I did point out this video here below, go to 0:46, an EXPERT says that the buildings looked to have been progressively blown from the top down.
I'm open to that suggestion, he's the expert, not me.
Unlike you who still held onto that pancake theory for how long now? LOL.....and NIST moved on YEARS ago.
I know you're butt hurt, understandably so. But time to let it go, no more pancakes for you.
0:46 watch and listen.
Fuji, it's okay to be wrong in life. I admit when I'm wrong, I stop and ask for directions. You'll never learn anything if you pretend to know everything.
Look at NIST. Okay, Pancake Man?
I just discovered it last night and was arguing that it wouldn't make sense based on what others have said.
Yet you STILL insisted on it.
1 - being not stupid
10 - being I feel incredibly stupid
Where are you on the scale? lol
Btw, I did point out this video here below, go to 0:46, an EXPERT says that the buildings looked to have been progressively blown from the top down.
I'm open to that suggestion, he's the expert, not me.
Unlike you who still held onto that pancake theory for how long now? LOL.....and NIST moved on YEARS ago.
I know you're butt hurt, understandably so. But time to let it go, no more pancakes for you.
0:46 watch and listen.
Fuji, it's okay to be wrong in life. I admit when I'm wrong, I stop and ask for directions. You'll never learn anything if you pretend to know everything.
Look at NIST. Okay, Pancake Man?
For everyone's benefit, the JFK Assassination conspiracy didn't involve thousands, HOWEVER, there were many UNWITTING persons who followed orders in the cover-up. Actual shooters, IMO, were at least 3 (aside: photos seem to show another person on the 6th floor, and the HSCA says boxes moved during the time that Oswald allegedly descended below, therefore, someone OTHER than Oswald was there when he wasn't supposed to be, if indeed Oswald was the lone assassin up there shooting) from, 1. grassy knoll, 2. TSBD and 3. Dal Tax building. An ex-CSI opines that the GK shooter was actually from the opposite side hidden in some storm sewer grate AT the overpass.
Last edited:
@ Tesla, these links debunk squibs and better explain the pancaking effect as well as incorporates the update on the pancaking theory which he says, did NOT cause the collapse, but was a result of the collapse:
On Squibs => http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm
On the Collapse & Pancaking => http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
On Squibs => http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm
On the Collapse & Pancaking => http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
So you admit you were wrong about the building being blown up in a controlled demolition, given that it visibly collapsed from the impact site and not the ground floor?How upset are you by your pancaking debate point going right out the window by NIST years ago and you still held that belief?
I just discovered it last night and was arguing that it wouldn't make sense based on what others have said.
Yet you STILL insisted on it.
1 - being not stupid
10 - being I feel incredibly stupid
Where are you on the scale? lol
Btw, I did point out this video here below, go to 0:46, an EXPERT says that the buildings looked to have been progressively blown from the top down.
I'm open to that suggestion, he's the expert, not me.
Unlike you who still held onto that pancake theory for how long now? LOL.....and NIST moved on YEARS ago.
I know you're butt hurt, understandably so. But time to let it go, no more pancakes for you.
0:46 watch and listen.
Fuji, it's okay to be wrong in life. I admit when I'm wrong, I stop and ask for directions. You'll never learn anything if you pretend to know everything.
Look at NIST. Okay, Pancake Man?
You showed a video you claimed was the best evidence you had, which purported to show the WTC collapsing like a controlled demolition. You claimed it was from a well regarded demolitions expert.
But it was a fraud that chose a camera angle with another building blocking the view of the impact site and below. An outright fraud.
And that was your best evidence...
Yet here you still are, why?
You don't get to reinvent your conspiracy theory around every hole. You lost.
Yes, people can see from your posts that based on the debris, the buildings did not fall 'symmetrically' straight down.
Now, do you care to enlighten us as to how the government could have made the debris fall only where they wanted it to?
To many unanswered questions, this here is a big question, what happened to these vehicles ?? Who weren't even near ground zero.
Bump.
This site explains how the floor trusses sagged, pulling in the exterior walls inward which exceeded their tensile strength and broke, causing the building collapse of top floors in one huge section. I can actually see that happening in the videos, which the site's author points out.
Last edited:
What ever you think GB, It still does not explain building 7 and how everything turned to dust.
It does destroy all the crazy kook claims about controlled demolition which in turn destroys the credibility of the crazy kook YouTube "experts".
After the kind of fraud that has been exposed here so far why on earth would you continue to trust those people?
There was a lot of dust, but not everything turned into dust. They had power equipment and dump trucks for months removing steel, etc.
In a nutshell, this is what happened to WTC 7:
1. WTC 7 was also a steel building, not reinforced concrete, with a unique design.
2. The twin towers were 1,300 feet high or more. Parts of these buildings rained down on other buildings, like WTC 7, which was only 350 feet away.
3. There were massive fires in Building 7. Even that white-shirted reporter in one of your videos above said many buildings were on fire and perhaps in danger of collapse.
4. The firefighters figured out from looking at the holes and fires of building 7, including the bulge on one side, that it was unsafe to enter and couldn't be saved, citing a structural integrity that seemed to be failing, and probably going to collapse.
Check out this link for a detailed explanation with various videos. It begins the explanation, but digresses into a long explanation of debunking the "pull" conspiracy theory, so go to about half way down and then it will resume its explanation on the mechanics of the Building 7 collapse, including diesel generators which also caught fire and exacerbated the damage.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Lastly, in ANY real controlled-demolition, you see FLASHES for the explosions of the multiple charges. We don't see that in WTC 7 OR the Twin Towers.
WTC 7 seems to come down without any visible explosions, just from structural failure weakened by both fires AND damage from the collision of heavy pieces from the North Tower. Key supporting trusses were damaged and created a sequence of collapse.
The debris field was 16 acres. If you look at site maps with a birds-eye view, you will see that entire area.
Falling debris which was on fire rained down and hit cars causing them to burn. There was also the radiant heat from ground zero and surrounding areas.
Fuji, you claimed it was "pancaking" that caused it.
NIST changed their theory to something different and the RESULT was pancaking.
You are/were still wrong this whole time.
You're done until you change your stance like NIST seems to have done a few times.
With their new theory they haven't provided a model to show what they think happened.
So, you yapped along like a little puppet talking about the "pancaking" being the cause, when NIST says otheriwse.
You really have balls (doubt it) to keep shooting your mouth off here. lol
Or you're just insanely stupid.
Regardless, done talking with you about it because NIST said the pancake was not the cause.
You even disregarded Newton's 3rd Law, which is FUNDAMENTAL even in the "pancake theory". Lmfao
So you're either being VERY INCREDIBLY INTENTIONALLY DISHONEST or you're just so fucking stupid, it's beyond human belief.
Either way, you were wrong.
Have a nice life, done debating this with you.
