quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

The damage to the column was just one factor.

Damage to what column?  Got pictures?  Samples?  How do vertical columns get damaged by vertical falling debris?  Ever ask yourself that?  

You are still comparing it to another building where you have no idea if it was structurally the same. That is the flaw in that argument. Furthermore the damage done to each was not similar. Theorists have to move beyond simplistic comparisons. Only an expert could truly compare such things.

Well unless of course it is so obvious that a moron can see and understand it.  Do anyone need experts to tell them when a cock is in their mouth?   I dount it!  I bet people can figure that out all by themselves.

Its all a matter of what you know and who ya blow..

It was a combination of extensive damage and fire which if left unabaited would damage the annealing of the steel.

That is not the reason or criteria for damaging in your words the annealing of steal.

Aside from that who made the assessment?

There is no record of an assessment of the damage with an actual name that we can sue.  Go ahead and try and find who made the assessments and see if you find any certified accounting of the matter!  YOU WONT!  It does not exist.  shocking!

The whole damn investigation is assumption.

How would you like to go before a court and they assume you killed someone and then hung you!

Well that is what took place here!  Listen to the ploys NIST uses to avoid checking for explosives.  They are all traitors.


Steel buildings have collapsed due to fire. Here is one thirteen story building in Holland http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/105731/46ccb8cd/bouwkunde_gebouw_delft_stort_in_topic.html - the steel wasn't holding up nearly as much of a load.

The question is can you tell why wtc was done by explosives "just by looking at it"?  Can you tell the difference between a building brought down with explosives versus the one you posted in your example?  Its painfully obvious if you know what to look for.

For anyone who wants to hear a physics teacher rip em a new one here you go.  But you need to have a desire for truth, if you dont then dont waste your time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

Many compare WTC 7 with the Madrid building which is a steel framed building that was also on fire but again the comparison isn't at all commensurate: http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm - the steel structure of that building (not the concrete reinforced steel core) actually collapsed after a shorter time than WTC 7!

Ok if that was not good enough how about a spanish tv broadcast on the matter where they habe a 30 year demolition veteran weigh in on the matter!  

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2lcog_wtc-7-exploding_news

After reading your reply I have to say it seems that you don't look at the material with an open mind. Why would I say that? Well you are credulous when looking at the material from sites with an extremely dubious reputation like Prison Planet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
The damage to the column was just one factor.

Damage to what column?  Got pictures?  Samples?  How do vertical columns get damaged by vertical falling debris?  Ever ask yourself that?  

quote:


You are still comparing it to another building where you have no idea if it was structurally the same. That is the flaw in that argument. Furthermore the damage done to each was not similar. Theorists have to move beyond simplistic comparisons. Only an expert could truly compare such things.

Well unless of course it is so obvious that a moron can see and understand it.  Do anyone need experts to tell them when a cock is in their mouth?   I dount it!  I bet people can figure that out all by themselves.

Its all a matter of what you know and who ya blow..

quote:


It was a combination of extensive damage and fire which if left unabaited would damage the annealing of the steel.

That is not the reason or criteria for damaging in your words the annealing of steal.

Aside from that who made the assessment?

There is no record of an assessment of the damage with an actual name that we can sue.  Go ahead and try and find who made the assessments and see if you find any certified accounting of the matter!  YOU WONT!  It does not exist.  shocking!

The whole damn investigation is assumption.

How would you like to go before a court and they assume you killed someone and then hung you!

Well that is what took place here!  Listen to the ploys NIST uses to avoid checking for explosives.  They are all traitors.

quote:


Steel buildings have collapsed due to fire. Here is one thirteen story building in Holland http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/105731/46ccb8cd/bouwkunde_gebouw_delft_stort_in_topic.html - the steel wasn't holding up nearly as much of a load.

The question is can you tell why wtc was done by explosives "just by looking at it"?  Can you tell the difference between a building brought down with explosives versus the one you posted in your example?  Its painfully obvious if you know what to look for.

quote:


For anyone who wants to hear a physics teacher rip em a new one here you go.  But you need to have a desire for truth, if you dont then dont waste your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

quote:


Many compare WTC 7 with the Madrid building which is a steel framed building that was also on fire but again the comparison isn't at all commensurate: http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm - the steel structure of that building (not the concrete reinforced steel core) actually collapsed after a shorter time than WTC 7!

Ok if that was not good enough how about a spanish tv broadcast on the matter where they habe a 30 year demolition veteran weigh in on the matter!  

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2lcog_wtc-7-exploding_news

quote:

The structure was divided into two halves by a technical floor without windows. It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing. [...]

Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was detected on the 21st floor. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors;

quote:

quote:


After reading your reply I have to say it seems that you don't look at the material with an open mind. Why would I say that? Well you are credulous when looking at the material from sites with an extremely dubious reputation like Prison Planet.

I have news for you, when I was big on arguing this matter I always went to that debunker cite for some of the best ass kicking material on the web.  I have yet to see one entry they made that stands up to scinetific scrutiny.  Use it if you like but dont get pissed at me when you wind up eating it all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

How about some show and tell huh?   
Few people I am sure have
ever seen a jet punch in.

Well here are some kool pictures to
show you what it looks like when a
jet with all that fuel punches in.

First a word from the Oz Man!

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses

Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction

In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning

Death and hatred to mankind

Poisoning their brainwashed minds

Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away

They only started the war

Why should they go out to fight?

They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds

Making war just for fun

Treating people just like pawns in chess

Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!

Now in darkness world stops turning

Ashes where the bodies burning

No more war pigs have the power

Hand of God has struck the hour

Day of judgement, God is calling

On their knees the war pig's crawling

Begging mercy for their sins

Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh lord yeah!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHhVKLsVx5E

Ok this first image is a jet punching in.... 
They ALWAYS look like this when they
DIRECTLY slam into something as a
result of the fuel onboard!

First a big ball of fire then
jet black smoke as the fire resides.

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/mig.jpg[/image]

Now you do not see that on the wtc.
In fact you can see that video was even
darkened and even with the darkening
they smoke is still light grey.

The tell tale sign is that you see grey
smoke first and foremost and THEN
you see the fire second!  BACKWARDS!

That just means that something blew up
inside the building blasting outward.

See you dont need to be an expert,
all you need is to know wtf you are
looking at right under your noses.


[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/migwtc.jpg[/image]


Now for me this pic really says it all.

I call it big bodda focka boom!

I am not going to dig up the nbc clip bit you can see the corner on the left side already has the kink in it from being blown out as it started to tip.   If you want to see the explosion that caused the kink you will have to dig up that nbc clip on our own time.

Nothing to see here of course...


[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/wtc-southtowerbigbaddaboom-1.jpg[/image]


Now you have the big problem of getting your experts to explain why these building that had a raging fire in the all day did not collapse when they are not just damaged but gutted.  :P:


[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/911wtc6craterwestair971.jpg[/image]

Hey T, if you drop by play that oz clip man,
and anyone else who has invested in quality speakers.

See if you can hear him ping the bass at the very end,
never seen anyone do that before, sounds really kool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
<snip>
Here we go again with the amateur scientists sleuthing around because they have an agenda to deny. A vertical column is merely an upright column. The idea it couldn't be damaged by overhead material falling on it (which wasn't truly vertical BTW but was falling in a haphazzard fashion) is utterly absurd.
</snip>
Here is an excellent chance to fashion a realistic physical test. Let us stand Real on
any convienient place (vertically, as is the norm), and take a ton of iron I beam, which can be oriented in any direction (vertical, horizontal, or catywompus) and drop it on Reals head...

We shall then repeat this experiment re-orienting the beam in every concievable direction, re-dropping it on his head, and see if there is some combination of factors that would cause his vertical orientation to shift from its standard.

If there is no change, we can assume he knows what he is talking about.

This is the guy who claimed to be an ironworker for many years when he was doing his prison planet pictures out loud, did not know what dross was, and could not identify cutting torch cuts even when the fucking welder was in the picture, engaged in the act.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
The score thus far:

Rule - on top [;)]
RealOne - 8
Anaxagoras - 1
mnottertail - 0

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

The score thus far:

Rule - on top [;)]
RealOne - 8
Anaxagoras - 1
mnottertail - 0

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

Here we go again with the amateur scientists sleuthing around because they have an agenda to deny. A vertical column is merely an upright column. The idea it couldn't be damaged by overhead material falling on it (which wasn't truly vertical BTW but was falling in a haphazzard fashion) is utterly absurd.

Really?

Provide the evidence of this haphazard fall.  Usually objects fall down and down is vertical.

Anyone incapable of determining the facts by the evidence or lack thereof of and can only parrot web sites are merely blank check authority-dependents hence incapable of determining if the so called experts *cough* are correct or incorrect.

I repeat:

Damage to what columns?  Got pictures?  Samples?  How do vertical columns get damaged by vertical falling debris? 

Either put up the tests and assessment data used to make the determination that column was damaged to the point of failure, or all we have here is another expert-dependent EPIC FAIL.

Interesting example, which makes it seem you are a sucker of cock. Maybe you are dumb enough to think that comparing complex physically divergent structures is as simple as knowing when there is a cock in your mouth or not but few others would be as daft enough as to think that.

Explain what a physically divergent structure is, and please use  correct verbiage so us scientists are able to review it.

Oh never mind.

quote:


It was a combination of extensive damage and fire which if left unabaited would damage the annealing of the steel.

That is not the reason or criteria for damaging in your words the annealing of steal.

Aside from that who made the assessment?

There is no record of an assessment of the damage with an actual name that we can sue.  Go ahead and try and find who made the assessments and see if you find any certified accounting of the matter!  YOU WONT!  It does not exist.  shocking!

The whole damn investigation is assumption.

How would you like to go before a court and they assume you killed someone and then hung you!

Well that is what took place here!  Listen to the ploys NIST uses to avoid checking for explosives.  They are all traitors.

Your paranoia has clearly got the better of you. NIST used a very large number of leading investigators which for exampleare listed from pages iii to xii of the final report http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf - the number of experts and investigators goes into three figures. The credentials of the leaders of the investigation are listed on the NIST website http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/ as well which shows them to be notable individuals in their respective fields.

I dont give a flying fuck if they hired every scumbag on the planet.  Stop dodging the question with bullshit responses.

The position of the official "story" is an EPIC FAIL. 

So provide me with the data and assessment of the decibel level of the explosions to prove that they were in fact not loud enough.

I want a NAME, I want to know who to sue!  I want to know who was there to take those measurements and why they were there with a sound meter in the first place.

Another EPIC FAIL and more proof that so-called experts are lying and people that believe them are fucking suckers.

Now post that data or go down in flames.  *again*

The contention that virtually all conspiracists make is that no steel framed buildings have collapsed as a result of fire. This is untrue like so many of their other assertions but if the lie is repeated enough it becomes a truism.

Sort of like the osama bin laden lie?  On tv no less than 20 times per day for 5 years.

However I did not make that analogy did I?  You did!  I dont give a fuck what every bozo on the planet says, stick to the points.

WTC 7 does not compare with buildings brought down in a controlled demolition as many conspiracists claim. They keep claiming it fell in free fall but it took twice as long according to the video that exists. Neither did it neatly implode.

Even NIST acknowledged that the building free fell.  The video posted shows a side by side comparison. People that hang around on parrot debunker sites get shit on face.  The question is why would anyone out here deny the truth like this?.

quote:


For anyone who wants to hear a physics teacher rip em a new one here you go.  But you need to have a desire for truth, if you dont then dont waste your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

That link is by high school physics teacher David Chandler http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-chandler.html who has got a lot wrong. For example he claimed to show proof of a charge blowing a corner column on the WTC North Tower but made an error in his calculations and inadvertently did an excellent job of proving that in fact the speed of the descending block is equal to the speed of the ejected material
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/when-will-david-chandler-fix-his-errors.html - he is perhaps best known for claiming NIST lied about the timing of the fall of WTC 7 but this is incorrect. He deceitfully measured from the West side of the building, not the East side where the first penthouse collapsed and the first signs of significant movement took place leading to collapse from that side of the building: here is a video that measured the fall in real time on video software: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA

So you are again claiming the speed of the fall is not freefall when NIST acknowledged it and changed their report to reflect it?

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

another official EPIC FAIL!

Like using sound level this is one MORE of many availiable examples of how the gubafia is FUCKING you all and fucking this country by fraud!

quote:


Many compare WTC 7 with the Madrid building which is a steel framed building that was also on fire but again the comparison isn't at all commensurate: http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm - the steel structure of that building (not the concrete reinforced steel core) actually collapsed after a shorter time than WTC 7!

Many may, I did not.  So why bring it in?  Some people think aliens and moonbeams and yet others are foolish enough to think planes and fire did it.

Madrid has nothing to do with this.

Now pay attention:.

Ok if that was not good enough how about a spanish tv broadcast on the matter where they have a 30 year demolition veteran weigh in on the matter!  

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2lcog_wtc-7-exploding_news

The clip doesn't work.

It works just fine fix your computer.

The fact remains that the Madrid building was a different type of structure with a tough inner core and a steel outer frame that collapsed within a fraction of the time of WTC 7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid)


The fact still remains that I did not bring madrid in you did.  Madrid is irrelevant and a red herring.

quote:


After reading your reply I have to say it seems that you don't look at the material with an open mind. Why would I say that? Well you are credulous when looking at the material from sites with an extremely dubious reputation like Prison Planet.

One HUGE line of bullshit. 

I rarely look at alex, I do not use  conspiracy sites to form my opinion. 

Claims that I do is a lame attempt to paint me in with those of you who are academically and experiencially disadvantaged "expert-dependent" and or koolaid drinking retards is purely bullshit with no basis in fact no different than name calling.  you aint no daisy.

Once again official liars go down in flames.

I have news for you, when I was big on arguing this matter I always went to that debunker cite for some of the best ass kicking material on the web.  I have yet to see one entry they made that stands up to scinetific scrutiny.  Use it if you like but dont get pissed at me when you wind up eating it all.

quote:


In the fields the bodies burning

As the war machine keeps turning

Death and hatred to mankind

Poisoning their brainwashed minds

Oh lord yeah!

quote:

No more war pigs have the power

Hand of God has struck the hour

Day of judgement, God is calling

On their knees the war pig's crawling

Begging mercy for their sins

Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh lord yeah!

quote:

free fall or free-fall (fr[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif[/image][image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/image]fôl[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/image])n.1. The fall of a body within the atmosphere without a drag-producing device such as a parachute.2. The ideal falling motion of a body that is subject only to the earth's gravitational field.3. Rapid uncontrolled decline: "The markets threatened to go into free fall and we came within an eyelash of ... an uncontrollable panic" (Felix Rohatyn).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

I really hope all of this is just a joke. Otherwise this is the biggest disrespect  and insult I have ever seen on this site to date.

Sadly Rule is serious. He and a few others on here are convinced 9/11 was all a conspiracy.