9/11 Fourteen Years Later

[fuji]

They certainly seem to be, "blow outs" going down the building during the collapse at floors WELL BEFORE any floors hit and meet

From the impact site. Not the ground. Which destroys the stupid kook claims at the start of the thread, and no, you don't get to make you new stupid kook claims every time your last stupid kook claim is disproven.

You had one chance, after which you and the bullshit artists you cite have no more credibility.

BTW, do you know how incredibly stupid your current post is? Of course the internal collapse preceded the caving of the outer walls. Duh.

P.S., I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting your claims. I make no comment on what you are, people will have to form their own opinions on that.

 

[TESLAMotors]

Fuji, you had one chance I suppose, until GP came in trying to save you, only to have me dig something up on NIST and that blew up in your face as you claimed that pancaking was the cause if the colors collapse of the towers, when NIST said it was the EFFECT and not the primary cause, pretty funny and ironic.
Your theory, which you probably just echoed what NIST originally said is incorrect and NIST says otherwise.
Care to retract? Lol

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Years-Later&p=5352272&viewfull=1#post5352272



Edit: technically all 3 buildings did fall on their own footprint, they didn't collapse on any angles, they fell straight down.
Again, semantics for Fuji.

Considering you thought a video titled WTC 7 was being presented as one of the twin towers. Lmao

 

[TESLAMotors]

These "blow outs" are well below the floors where there is any "panicking" taking place.
Odd.

 

[Titalian]

P.S., I'm not insulting you,

I'm sorry to say, you have insulted everyone on this board with KOOK IDIOT and what ever adjectives you use, just because they don't agree with you.
I believe you have a lot of growing up to do. You are in simple words an antagonist. With no substance.

 

[TESLAMotors]

And here's another for you, my brother in laws uncle and cousin are FF with the FDNY and were there for the collapse. I've spoken with them and members of their crew at their firehouse in downtown Manhattan. No one ever saw any molten lava or unexplained explosions. They are appalled when they hear internet fabrications to the contrary. So who do you believe ? The honourable men of the FDNY or some internet geeks?

You're right, I'm going to believe a 32yr old firefighter (fire marshall, ex-Vietname vet).

 

[Titalian]

You're right, I'm going to believe a 32yr old firefighter (fire marshall, ex-Vietname vet).

Tes why are you arguing with this troll. He has nothing to bring to this
Discussion other than wanting to be heard.

 

[TESLAMotors]

Just in case he misses it.

I'm not trying to convince them to see what we see, I'm simply showing all this to show how questionable the circumstances are and in turn, how silly these guys look. lol

 

[fuji]

Lots of bullshit and distraction but the winning point isn't even challenged: the buildings collapsed from the impact site totally contradicting your stupid kook conspiracy theory.

You don't get it, you have had no reply to that point which means no matter what blithering idiotic nonsense you post, I will just keep pointing that out.

You were finished off long ago in this thread.

P.S., you already provided to us proof that everybody and their dog knew WTC7 was going to collapse, that debate is over too. No conspiracy if it was obvious to the people in the ground that it was coming down.

 

[fuji]

I'm sorry to say, you have insulted everyone on this board with KOOK IDIOT and what ever adjectives you use, just because they don't agree with you.
I believe you have a lot of growing up to do. You are in simple words an antagonist. With no substance.

I'm sure that you are a very intelligent and thoughtful person, despite the things you post.

 

[TESLAMotors]

you have one building that the government agency claims was compromised with "thermal expansion" yet buildings do not ever in the history of the world weaken to the point of collapse, EVER.
Never, EVER, in the history of the world has that ever happened.
Then you have 1 column in the corner which was claimed to have been compromised adding to this miraculous mess of building #7.

So this opens Pandora's Box to a whole ton of questions in how towers 1 and 2 fell.

Just not Fuji's pancake theory. NIST rejects his theory and claims something else, to which they have not released a working model.


The end.
Poor Fuj'


That Koooky crazy basement dwelling little boy. lol :eyebrows:

 

[TESLAMotors]

fuji, basket, just humour us all, do these two buildings look similar in how they fall?
If they don't, please explain what you see that's different.
I don't see how it's a tough question, it's simple and to the point.

 

[fuji]

Have you disputed that the twin towers collapsed from the impact site, totally discrediting the conspiracy theory?

Nope.

Have you disputed that everybody and their dog expected WTC7 to collapse from the damage it suffered?

Nope.

You are just yammering about nothing.

 

[GPIDEAL]

GB three buildings in the span of eight hours, all belonging to one owner. THIS IS SCIENCE FICTION. On top of which who would gain from this. Turns out MANY !
Almost like the Kennedy assassination, or should I say Kennedyies the Son included. Can't you see what's going on here.

The WTC was attacked by terrorists who failed, years earlier, if you'll recall (by detonating a bomb in the underground parking garage).

Silverstein was the new owner, then he took out an insurance policy. What's the big mystery?

 

[GPIDEAL]

I'm surprised at you !! twizz bought up the answers. And no one bothered answering him. Who was against War Remember JFK !!! This is about the control of cheap OIL. Amongst other money making schemes !!

Just as Fidel Castro's revolution in Cuba was a pre-text for war by the CIA and military, albeit contrary to JFK's direction, so was the WTC attacks exploited by Bush and other power elites. Both of these events were the impetus for dubious foreign policy actions, but they were not fabricated by some super conspiracy, rather exploited later for their propaganda value.

 

[GPIDEAL]

We're talking about WTC #7 so no plane hit WTC #7 it was "fires" and one compromised INTERNAL CORNER column.
No fires in the history of the world according to that 32 year veteran firefighter have EVER brought down a building.

This is why they use them, because they require high temperatures to be compromised in any fashion.

Office fires do not reach those temperatures.

You think debris falling on a roof of a building + fires (which can't melt the frame of the building to begin with) can equate to a perfect symmetrical collapse?
Think about this, office fires + random debris = compromised structure = PERFECT fall straight down?

Are you serious?

The Meridian Building was NOT damaged by any collision of planes or other heavy and large objects (like falling buildings). I repeat, the Meridian Building was NOT damaged by any collision of planes or other heavy and large objects (like falling buildings).

Read this link again please and study the videos. You'll see the chunks of the North Tower crashing down into WTC 7. => http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Also, here's what one Fire Chief on the scene had to say:



Update:

Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

In pure conspiracy theorist form, the second paragraph on this page has been taken out of context. Yes, building 7 fires were unfought but that doesn't mean there wasn't firemen on the scene, does it? Daniel Nigro said there were RESCUE OPERATIONS that were ongoing. He also says it was HE and not Silverstein who ordered the firemen out.

I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. Chief Nigro

There is more than enough evidence that there were firemen around Building 7 to "Pull" from the area.

We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. Chief Hayden

What part of this is difficult for the people who purport to be scholars? While my grammar is admittedly poor, the conspiracy theorists reading comprehension seems to be worse. Or is it? I think they're hoping everyone else has poor reading comprehension. For those who are reading comprehensionally challenged let me clear this up for you.

The firemen started search and rescue operations for people who may have been trapped or hurt in Building 7. By 2:00PM they knew the building was going to collapse and PULLED them away. These are the firemen saying this. Not me, not Bush, but the firemen.

What about just listening? Do the conspiracy theorists know how to listen?

 

[GPIDEAL]

This is an intense fire.

NIST and truss(t)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/index.html
NIST advances a theory that the entire "collapse" was caused by a beam disconnecting itself from its column supports through thermal expansion, nothing about "a huge section of the North Tower" hitting it as you're claiming.
In fact, NIST tries to minimize the theory of debris causing the collapse of WTC #7 in its 2008 report - the latest and last one.
"In the new Report, NIST quietly drops the theory promoted by since 2001 by the New York Times and FEMA, that diesel fuel was responsible for the collapse, and minimizes the role of purportedly extensive damage from the fallout of the North Tower. "



Sure it's possible, but not visible in any videos of the collapse.
In this case, it looks like it came down from the bottom up, not from the top down.


If you have evidence of this, I would honestly like to see it. Link?
Seen the video above that you posted and while it was non-explosive, it was also VERY controlled with wires. Not random and chaotic with debris and office fires (which cannot melt/compromise structural beams).



So you believe one internal CORNER column gets compromised out of 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns + some fires that aren't intense (as one can see in the videos) and that's all it takes for this building to come straight down symmetrically?


To play the percentiles game just for fun

1 column out of 58 perimeter columns = 1.7% of the perimeter columns.
1 column out of 58 perimeter + 25 core coumns = 4% of the total columns.

Man, the WTC complex was incredibly unlucky that day.




It's a good thing Larry Silverstein took out a new insurance policy for $7 billion weeks before the attacks. lol

You're taking my response out of context.

The various points was meant to address both Twin Towers and WTC 7.

The top part of that building demolished without explosives came crashing down just like the top parts of WTC 1 and 2. Proven.

Secondly, every controlled-demolitions involves a multitude of explosive charges being set off in a sequential pattern. This is not at all evident prior to the collapse of WTC 7. You don't even see flashes of light. What are you suggesting? Invisible and silent explosive charges?


Excerpt from Debunking911's Q & A page on Building 7:

Building 7 only had a few small fires.

Building 7's south side was covered by smoke for most of the event.
Firefighters said the building's south side showed fires on multiple floors
Firemen said the building was "fully involved"
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Building 7 had no or little structural damage

The firefighters put a transit on the building and concluded the building was going to collapse
There was a very large gash in the building which ran from the top floor to at least the tenth floor
Firemen said there was a 10 story hole in the middle of the building
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

 

[GPIDEAL]

Yes, but it's still CONTROLLED. WTC 7 was apparently chaotic and random, not controlled, if we're to believe the mainstream media and "government bureaucrats" as that firefighter stated.
Now in this case, they used power equipment to weaken the top part of a building.


Which NIST (government agency) claims was not the main cause of the collapse, their new (and probably not final report LOL) claims "thermal expansion".


Again, according to NIST, the "thermal expansion" is what was the main cause, not the debris.



What's more interesting is how 2% of a building's structure is compromised by debris, but somehow office fires compromise the metal in a building and bring it down perfectly straight down.
If fires go from one area............................... to....another ....................area...................the structures will.....................not............heat up ................evenly ...............as the fire travels.............across.................the..................floors.

Let alone that fires in buildings have never brought down buildings in the history of the world (which I will look up later this week to make sure) and to do so in a way to compromise the entire structure perfectly to bring an entire 47 story building straight down?
LOL Come on GP.

Here's another one from his Q & A section:

It's the first time in history a steel frame high-rise collapsed

It is not the first time a steel structure collapsed by fire
It's also the first time in history an airliner rammed into a steel hi-rise building built like the towers (Tube in a Tube design)
It's the first time in history a steel framed building built like Building 7 (Con Ed substation in the lower floors and a cantilever column core) was hit by another steel framed building.
unprotected steel collapsed within 2 1/2 hours in Madrid fire without being hit by anything
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

 

[Titalian]

 

[Titalian]

 

[Titalian]

And if you truly believe, that those planes entered those buildings like a hot knife through butter. You have no clue about true physics.
Think about it, thin aluminium hollow craft slicing through these buildings of steel, that's even more absurd than the one bullet theory.