@FuriousJambi It was a new building, the fire was started by shooting class A fireworks on the lot adjacent to the building, it was vacant at the time. Top floor caught fire and, with no usable sprinklers at the time, the fire simply spread its way down one tier at a time. A new building was built on top of it without demolition because it was determined that "there were no structural damage."
"At 8:27 p.m. on 9 February 2009, the entire building caught fire on the last day of the festivities marking the Chinese new year and was put out six hours later."
@WonderfulDenmark cant understand logic? Hell thats what we are all about is LOGIC! It makes no logical sense that 3 buildings in one day fell due to fire when no other buildings in history have completely colapsed due to fire! It makes not logical sense that this building ablaze in front of you can stand being lit up like a camp fire and not collapse yet the wtcs do! It makes no logical sense how building 7 even fell! Building 7 defies the laws of physics! Coming down with no resistance? Hm..
@leetbh First off, there has been no claim of temperatures reaching 2800 (I assume Fahrenheit?). Secondly, what WAS building 7 actually hit by? Do you even know?
If an office fire burns hot enough, long enough, the steel building will weaken and can collapse. Look at the Windsor Tower fire. The problem is not just *that* WTC7 collapsed. The problem is *how* it collapsed. How do uneven fires cause a symmetrical collapse? All 3 buildings fell through the path of greatest resistance (the compressive strength of the core columns is massive). With enough weakening, a building could collapse from its own weight, but not straight down through the core columns.
@ClaytonsVids Thank you!!!!! Thank you!!! God someone who actually knows what the hell he or she is talking about! Please dont even start to argue with this cantonear1968 person because its like talking to a damn rock!
@ClaytonsVids Thank you!!!!! Thank you!!! God someone who actually knows what the hell he or she is talking about! Please dont even start to argue with this cantonear1968 person because its like talking to a damn rock!
@ClaytonsVids Thank you!!! Thank you!! Someone who actually knows what they are talking about! Please do not start to argue with this cantonear1968 person, because its like trying to talk to a rock.
@S33ker0f7ruth No it wasn't. There is nothing to say it was. Kevin Ryan never produced anything to say it was. His lawsuit against UL was thrown out at the preliminary hearing because he couldn't state a legal reason for his lawsuit let alone provide any evidence for his case.
@S33ker0f7ruth Not to mention this building was unfinished and hollow inside. As well as firefighters were on scene within an hour and quickly put water on it. And I'm not positive on this, but I believe the fire coating had a 3 hour rating. The fire coating for the WTCs had at least a 2 hour rating.
@S33ker0f7ruth "The shocking events of 9/11 challenged both industry and consumer perceptions of how safe tall buildings are. Since then, building owners, occupiers and developers have increasingly
called for building designs that are not only taller than ever before, but more robust as well.
The following three case [CCTV Bulding - Beijing] studies demonstrate Arup’s response to the new demands of this changing market."
@S33ker0f7ruth The WTCs were not small fires. At their peak, there were 8 floors on fire about an acre in size for each. How long it took the jet fuel to burn off is irrelevant, as there were literally tons of consumables to feed the fires in the buildings (you know; paper, desks, carpets, furniture, etc. Why don't you guys know that?)
The Bejing Tower was built post 9/11 with recommendations from the NISt report to avoid collapse ie a concrete core.
@cantonear1968 Im sorry next time I will get his resume from him before I post anything like that. Sorry, just saying he made some damn good points that you will always look past of course you being the mindless zombie you are.
Mtthw, you're the one who who highlighted "MIT Engineer" without thinking to find out what his engineering degree was in and if he was qualified to comment on the subject. You never thought to look past the claims that confirmed your bias, and you lapped it up like the poodle you are! In short, you mindlessly accepted King's unsubstantiated claims without once thinking to verify his facts, or lack there of!
Sorry. If this were Resident Evil, you'd be dead by now!
@cantonear1968 LOL, its not just that one youtube video or just that small amount of information that has me thinking and questioning what really happened on 9/11. I was just posting one of the many good videos exposing the truth about what can and cannot happen. It common sense shit we are talking about here. Good old thing called physics! I dont need anyone to tell me what happened on 9/11. I saw it and said to myself something just isnt right. Use common sense! Building 7? Seriously?
"I dont need anyone to tell me what happened on 9/11"
Where is the scientific merit in anything you said? Where is the critical thinking? Where is the process of the scientific method?
No where!
You go to you tube videos to have your biases confirmed! As you said" it's common sense!", meaning, you have already told yourself what happened and you search out those videos which support your preconceived notions!
@cantonear1968 You look over anything anyone says about 9/11 because you just go on what the gov't tells you. You need to look up educated pple like A. K. Dewdney, PhD, David L. Griscom, PhD, Harley Flanders, PhD, Jack Keller, PhD, PE, F.ASCE, Joel S. Hirschhorn, PhD, Hamid Mumin, Ph.D., P.Eng., P.Geo., Hugo Bachmann, PhD , Jörg Schneider, Dr hc, John Valleau, PhD, James R. Carr, PhD, PE, and many more on their educated thoughts and studies. These are not stupid pple,
@cantonear1968 you can either youtube some of these pple or google it or go to the library as some of these pple have books that you can read. Information can be found everywhere.
@MtthwSmmns Again, nice appeal to authority. Want me to just direct you to a few engineering papers and websites that debunk all of your "experts"? Will you accept that or are you feeling confident enough to present something yourself?
@cantonear1968 well yea, provide me your resources, but until I see something that actually follows the LAWS of PHYSICS, I will not believe it. Every resource that I have gotten my information from, well, follow the laws of physics! When something just isnt right, its just not right. You cannot say well the building fell at FREEFALL SPEED, because the jet fuel that BURN OFF ON IMPACT help the fires burn hotter! Sorry that just doesnt make sense. Many pple agree with me.
You clowns think you can just throw out "Laws of physics!!!" and that's all the argument you need!
LOL!
How didn't NIST "follows the LAWS of PHYSICS"? What was the collapse mechanism for the building?
NIST described the conditions that lead to free fall. What is incorrect with their conclusions? Do you know that only 30% of the jet fuel ignited on impact and the rest burned after about 15 mins AFTER igniting the tons of consumables in the building?
@cantonear1968 YES we do throw laws of physics out there because, well, ITS THE FUCKING LAWS OF PHYSICS WHICH EVERYTHING GOES BY! Not to mention the video evidence!!!!! The fucking building didnt fall from the left to right, it bowed in the middle and fell at freefall speed "again" EXACTLY like a control demo! And AGAIN FOR YOU RETARD, building 7 would be the 3rd building in history in one day to collapse completely from fire! I cannot argue with you because you are a complete dumbass!
@MtthwSmmns You are calling everyone else a retard when you don't even seem to know the information. Building 7 was built to be supported by the other buildings, it was wedged in between the others. However, its collapse was caused by structural damage from a number of causes (fire weakening the supports, some cases of serious debris damage from the collapse of another building, on top of the loss of support from another building and the stress from the quake of the other building's collapse).
@MtthwSmmns Actually, that can be explained by the fact that the circumstances for the other buildings were not the same. It's fairly simple, do you expect the same result for every building despite them being in different positions and having different build styles and issues?
@Pengalor you have a point there, but, it seems as if the conditions were just right for 3 buildings to completely collapse due to fire in history is just to much of a coincidence, 1 of which wasnt hit by a plane! I do not believe this for one second, sorry. Face it, the gov't lies and will always lie! The gov't has and will always pull this shit off. If you think they couldnt you are completely stupid and do not know your history.
@MtthwSmmns Like I say, it wasn't just fire that brought them down. There were many different factors that brought down 7 that didn't apply the same way to the other buildings. And I believe what I believe simply because our government can't even design a budget, I doubt they could have the foresight to plan anything of this kind of scale and even if they did it backfired so massively that it was a failure on their part anyway so good luck if they'd like to try again.
@Pengalor yea our gov't cannot manage a budget, but that doesnt mean they cannot manage something like this. If you can manage to invade another country or 2, then you can manage something like this with secret classification. They do it all the time. They are not always successful at it but they do do it. You need to google operation northwoods. All this attack was, was operation northwoods activated as it was suppose to be closed.
@Pengalor your obviously a dumbass too and I will not argue with you because how can you argue with someone that is in their own little world. You also didnt read anything else i put as well. I posted many sources of information explaining this and other things that have been debunked. You said that I provide no proof, yet, it seems that i am the only one in this argument that has provided sources of information.
@MtthwSmmns Who are you talking to lol? I never said anything about your 'proof' or sources. Also, I find it funny that someone would call me a dumbass when they can't even figure out how to use "your" and "you're" properly. I also find it funny that you judge other people for believing differently than you when you are just taking someone's word for it like everyone else is. You weren't there and there is no clearcut proof as to what happened so you can stop pretending like your answer is best.
@Pengalor Im talk to you now! Oh and the reason im not type You're, is because I dont know if you have noticed but you have to eliminate some useless text because we have a character limit dumbass!
@Pengalor oh yea and have you ever heard of typoes? I'm sorry I'm not typing an essay here so I'm not worried about how my text looks or if its in the proper format or not.
@MtthwSmmns Have you ever heard of reading what you type? Just trying to make you realize that you can't really call someone a dumbass or retard when you can hardly type a sentence.
@Pengalor oh, yea, so laughable that you just got such a strong urg to say something? Oh, look I forgot the e in urge. Better point that out real quick and tell pple how much of a moron i might be because of my e's and i's not being proper!
@MtthwSmmns So, this has become a tiresome exercise for me, because I am merely repeating myself over and over while you continue to respond with the same ignorant replies. Ignorance that for some inexplicable reason you seem either proud of or at least content with. I will ask again, and I expect an answer if you wish to continue:
What was the collapse mechanism for the WTC Towers? For WTC 7?
What laws of physics were broken and how by NIST's conclusions?
@MtthwSmmns If you cannot answer these questions then I do not see how you can possibly continue to make derogatory comments against the NIST reports!
@cantonear1968 I have answered you over and over and over again with videos, sources from well known pple, and with my own words, but for some reason you choose not to see my answers. I have argued against the NIST report many, many, times with you, but you cannot seem to understand logic! Pictures and videos can say more than words. I cannot explain the whole 10,000 page NIST report on here which is complete and total bullshit proven many, many, times by these creditable pple.
@cantonear1968 I have answered you over and over and over again with videos, sources from well known pple, and with my own words, but for some reason you choose not to see my answers. I have argued against the NIST report many, many, times with you, but you cannot seem to understand logic! Pictures and videos can say more than words. I cannot explain the whole 10,000 page NIST report on here which is complete and total bullshit proven many, many, times by these creditable pple.
@MtthwSmmns Matthew that's bullshit and you know it! You responses "with [your] own words] have been little more than buzz words you read off a trither website!
You've stated the NIST report is "propaganda". How is it propaganda?
You've stated the NIST report "breaks the laws of physics". How were the laws of physics broken?
You've given me a list of names who you state refute NIST. What have they said that refutes NIST?
Again, no substance to your responses, only avoidance.
@MtthwSmmns How are you going to answer these questions when you don't have a clue what is in the fucking report you are deluding yourself into thinking you have the qualifications to criticize?
Doesn't make sense? Well if you were to actually get the right information, it might start to!
Many people agree? Are they as seriously as limited in their scope of the subject as you?
@cantonear1968 ITS A 10,000 PAGE REPORT YOU DUMB ASS! WHICH IS ALSO NOT IN LAMENS TERMS FOR A REASON. If you read every page of that report it would take you 2 to 3 years to read it all. I'm sure you didnt read all of it either! It doesnt fucking matter what that report says, NO FUCKING BUILDING IN HISTORY HAS COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE! Did you understand that? In 1 day, 3 building collapsed due to "fire".What are the odds of that? There are physics behind this shit! 10 seconds = freefall speed.
@cantonear1968 ITS A 10,000 PAGE REPORT YOU DUMB ASS! WHICH IS ALSO NOT IN LAMENS TERMS FOR A REASON. If you read every page of that report it would take you 2 to 3 years to read it all. I'm sure you didnt read all of it either! It doesnt fucking matter what that report says, NO FUCKING BUILDING IN HISTORY HAS COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE! Did you understand that? In 1 day, 3 building collapsed due to "fire".What are the odds of that? No report can explain how physics dont apply in this situation.
@cantonear1968 ITS A 10,000 PAGE REPORT YOU DUMB ASS! WHICH IS ALSO NOT IN LAMENS TERMS FOR A REASON. If you read every page of that report it would take you 2 to 3 years to read it all. I'm sure you didnt read all of it either! It doesnt fucking matter what that report says, NO FUCKING BUILDING IN HISTORY HAS COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE! Did you understand that? In 1 day, 3 building collapsed due to "fire".What are the odds of that? No report can explain how physics dont apply in this situation.
@MtthwSmmns Do you honestly hear yourself talking? Your essentially stating that the report is too long and difficult to understand so you're not going to bother with it, but you don't believe it anyways!!??
Do you not understand that is the height of ignorance? Is this the sorry state the American education system (or arrogance) is in?
And yes, I have actually read a lot of this report. That's why I can talk about it and know what's in it. I wouldn't pretend to refute something I never read!
@MtthwSmmns So your personal incredulity aside, and your constant stream of buzz words (no steel building collapsed!; Free fall!; not hit by plane!; laws of physics!), what do you really know about any of this to offer an opinion? You are offering ZERO substance to your argument; you're just regurgitating catch phrases thinking that's enough! You state WTC 7 was "NOT HIT BY A PLANE", but ignore what WTC 7 WAS actually hit with! Do you even know?
@MtthwSmmns So while you are capable of offering buzz word replies to my questions (Free Fall!; Laws of Physics), you are offering ZERO substantive material to actually answer my questions or refute my claims! You quite loudly state that WTC 7 was "WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE", but you ignore what WTC 7 WAS actually hit with!
@cantonear1968 Yes dumbass! Everyone knows that it was hit with some debris from the north tower. One of the corners of building 7 was hit by it, but if you are smart and not a dumbass like yourself, you would understand that only that part of the building would have collapsed! Not the entire building from the middle out which is what happened! The fire from the SHIT report or NIST report explains it by saying the fires expanded across many of the middle floors causing the structure to weaken.
@MtthwSmmns And now, when caught again at something you don't know, you hand wave past it and state something else you can substantiate! If you knew WTC 7 was hit by WTC 1, why make a point of stating it "wasn't hit by a plane"? Did you think it spontaneously combusted? And, again, repeating myself, if you actually were to read the NIST report, you would know that your claim of "the fires expanded across many of the middle floors causing the structure to weaken" is utter bullshit! That's not ...
@MtthwSmmns ....what the report says at all! It is no way a summary of the collapse initiation as described by NIST! So it's extremely difficult to have a serious conversation with you when you continue to spew false information that you'd rather argue than what the report actually says! THAT you don't seem to be able to handle or refute!
So, for the 5th time, what was the collapse mechanism for WTC 7, as described by NIST and how does the report break the laws of physics?
@cantonear1968 Ok so what exactly does the NIST report say? It says in summary, the fire expanded across the middle floors because there were more combustible materials on those floors then the others. It explain saying that when the north tower fell it gutted or hollowed out wtc 7 and caused fires to race across the middle floors. Is this not what the NIST report in summary states? Im sure it is! Read it fucker! It also contradicts itself all through the fucking report!
Now, what, in anything I just wrote, can you refute with an actual scientific rebuttal instead of just your hand waving horse shit?
Now. Let's look at the FFA you seem so excited about:
As mentioned, the internal structure had collapsed before global collapse for 8 full floors. So the only structural resistance for the building is the perimeter columns. What do you think happens when they fail?
@cantonear1968 How does it break the laws of physics? Well, it breaks them by THE WHOLE FUCKING BUILDING COMING DOWN! If you would actually do some fucking research you would find that most buildings that collapse do not completely come down! They break off either in sections or huge chunks due to the resistance of the other parts of the structure and the foundation. If you look at wtc 7 when it comes down, it comes down from the middle out! A text book controlled demo! God what an idiot!
@cantonear1968 How does it break the laws of physics? It breaks the laws of physics by collapsing without any resistance of the other parts of the structure. When something is dropped, it falls at whats called freefall speed if not attached to something that would cause resistance like a string, crane, steel columns anchered in the ground. A building usually will collapse in pieces or chunks, not collapse entirely! Buildings are hard to take down completely without controlled demo. Learn it!
Matthew, you're arguing from a point of ignorance! You typing things that sound "sciencey", yet is not the conclusions of the NIST report on how the building fell, and then you're ridiculing your own post. That's called a straw man argument. It means you'd rather make something up and ridicule it than argue against what is actually said.
I mean, listen to yourself! I ask how the collapse broke the laws of physics and you answer "Because it fell down".
@cantonear1968 I didnt answer "Because it fell down." You are a fucking retard or something. Seriously are you even reading my post? I feel like im talking to a rock. I guess you just cant understand anything im saying. Maybe my intellectual words are too "sciencey" for you. Hell you dont even have an argument. All you do is ask questions and then when someone answers them, you are like "uh.... Duh...... well NIST.. cant be wrong.."
@cantonear1968 I didnt answer "Because it fell down." You are a fucking retard or something. Seriously are you even reading my post? I feel like im talking to a rock. I guess you just cant understand anything im saying. Maybe my intellectual words are too "sciencey" for you. Hell you dont even have an argument. All you do is ask questions and then when someone answers them, you are like "uh.... Duh...... well NIST.. cant be wrong.."
@cantonear1968 I didnt answer "Because it fell down." You are a fucking retard or something. Seriously are you even reading my post? I feel like im talking to a rock. I guess you just cant understand anything im saying. Maybe my intellectual words are too "sciencey" for you. Hell you dont even have an argument. All you do is ask questions and then when someone answers them, you are like "uh.... Duh...... well NIST.. cant be wrong.."
The fires caused a thermal expansion of the floor truss on floor 13. This caused floor 13 to walk off its connection to column 79. Floor 13 then fell onto floor 12, knocking that loose, and this caused a cascade of floors down to floor 5. Full 8 floors collapsed internally leaving column 79 with no lateral support for that full 8 floors. Unable to sustain any lateral loads, column 79 buckled and failed.
This is the eastern penthouse collapsing inside the building. With the collapse of column 79, it shifted the weight load to already weakened columns and a complete internal collapse progressed from east to west on the internal columns, essentially gutting the internal core structure, leaving only the perimeter columns to sustain the weight load of the whole building, something they were never designed to do. With the internal core gone, the perimeter columns buckled, and the ..
@MtthwSmmns This is the eastern penthouse collapsing inside the building. With the collapse of column 79, it shifted the weight load to already weakened columns and a complete internal collapse progressed from east to west on the internal columns, essentially gutting the internal core structure, leaving only the perimeter columns to sustain the weight load of the whole building, something they were never designed to do. With the internal core gone, the perimeter columns buckled, and the ..
@cantonear1968 Also, these buildings had fire protection coating on every column and Truss. These fires couldnt get hot enough for this fire protection unless somehow the 747's that impacted the towers somehow blew the fireprotection off of the wtc7 too. LOL man you just dont think do you? Yea just go by what the NIST report says because it makes so much sense. Damn man stop with the NIST report and look for other private reports that explain the truth.
Now, what, in anything I just wrote, can you refute with an actual scientific rebuttal instead of just your hand waving horse shit?
Now. Let's look at the FFA you seem so excited about:
As mentioned, the internal structure had collapsed before global collapse for 8 full floors. So the only structural resistance for the building is the perimeter columns. What do you think happens when they fail?
@MtthwSmmns What happens when the structural resistance is remove?
You can say it!
Free Fall Acceleration!
For 8 full floors!!
Until the building met the upper portion that had not collapsed internally, and then the building collapsed decidedly longer than FFA. 40% longer in fact!
So now that I've educated you on something you should have fucking done yourself, please explain again how the laws of physics were broken?
See? I've actually read the report. So I'm not debating from ignorance.
@cantonear1968 LOL can you not see how much bullshit that is? NIST IS A FUCKING JOKE! Thats some amazing perfect conditions for 3 of some of the best built buildings to collapse in one day out of all of human history. The penthouse was on the east side of the building where most of the fucking fires were. You expect me to believe NIST with this bullshit? So wait the east side of the building was mainley effect yet, it first started to fall in the middle? LOL god retards will believe anything.
@MtthwSmmns Argument from incredulity logical fallacy. Also from ignorance.
In other words, not a rebuttal. Not a refutation.
But that's ok, Matthew, I don't expect more from you. You've already illustrated how little you know on this subject yet you feel an inordinate need to keep typing. No problem. This is incredibly easy for me. I haven't even broke a sweat yet!
If you would actually read what I write, you would know that I stated it was the eastern penthouse that collapsed first with the ..
@MtthwSmmns ...failure of column 79. Guess where this was?
You can say it!
The East Side Of The Building!
Correctamundo!
And fire protection does not make the steel impervious to sustain heat. It retards how fast the steel will heat up in a fire; thus the name fire RETARDANT! Before 9/11 the code called for a 2 hour rating: this means steel will increase in temperature 2 hours longer than if left unprotected.
@cantonear1968 no it doesnt make it impervious to sustain heat but again, please tell me this, How many buildings have (completely) collapse due to fire before 9/11? After all these years of tall sky scrapers, how many? There have been many fires like this in sky scrapers, but you know what? They didnt completely fail! Now in 1 day, 3 buildings fall due to fire. You really believe this? 3 buildings had the PERFECT conditions for total structural failure in one day after all these years?
@MtthwSmmns Ah! The standard truther meme of "It's never happened before so it can never happen"!
So are you saying that steel has never failed in a fire before? You may be mistaken on that front! And what have been the differences between these other buildings that didn't collapse and the Towers and WTC 7? Did you bother to look? In each case they were fought by the fire dept, keeping the temperatures cooler than the WTCs, and they had some sort of concrete reinforcing.
@cantonear1968 and again you prove yourself to be a dumbass. I didnt say steal has never failed. It does it all the time. Its just that when a building is built, there is something called building safety supports. There isnt just 1, 2, or even 3 depending on the buildings design. There are many. If one fails then where that one failed you would have a partial collapse, not a whole fucking collapse. God damn you do not understand.
@cantonear1968 You understand that column 79 was just one of many support columns right? Hence the #79. You understand that the girder between 79 and 44 would have only caused a partial structural failure right? Not a total collapse. If you really believe this then we might as well stop this because you are a fucking moron who doesnt understand the basics to structural failure. An idiot could tell you this. You are beyond an idiot man! The vid. evidence shows failure in the middle out!
@MtthwSmmns Column 79 was one of the 3 main transfer trusses in the building to support the building and make way for the Con Ed substation (you should really read the report sometime and you would know this stuff). With the buckling of Column 79 this over loaded columns 80 & 81, resulting in the buckling on the east side and then a progressive failure east to west.
@cantonear1968 but its funny because in the fucking video which everyone has seen, it doesnt go east to west when it collapses. It goes from the middle out dumbass! Damn, this is visual evidence!
@cantonear1968 so you really believe that column 79 failed and caused the WHOLE fucking building to come down, might I add from the middle out, even though column 79 was on the eastern side of the building? Do you not know how suspicious that sounds? It was even near the corner of the building. Not even anywhere close to the middle really. You keep on believing your NIST report.
See, you continue to argue from the stand point that NIST has been refuted. Nothing could be further from the truth. You have proven on several occasions that you haven't even read it. So obviously that refutation has not come from you. On your multiple pathetic attempts to cut and paste a response, I have handled easily. Your argument is little more than "NIST IS WRONG!" and then repeating it.
@cantonear1968 yea I have come to the conclusion that you are meant to be an idiot forever and god himself couldnt help you. You keep on believing your NIST report. As for us Truthers we will always do our research and find out what really happened as we always do, Thank you and enjoy living in your life of lies. If anyone else wants to vote on whose argument was the best please do so thank you. Bye Bye dumbass Cantonear1968 fuck!
@MtthwSmmns And again, if you read what I say, or better yet, read the NIST report, you would know what you are talking about and not sound like a dumb ass! The failure of column 79 was an internal failure and lead to an east to west collapse for the internal core columns. This left only the perimeter columns to support the whole building and failure there would be at its weakest point; east, west, middle, wherever the weakest columns was to start global collapse.
@MtthwSmmns Now, since you thought you knew something by checking a truther website:
"...the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor".
@cantonear1968 LOL got to hurt? Are you fucking stupid? Nope doesnt hurt at all actually. You are still going by the fucking NIST report. You must have thought FEMA did a great job during Katrina huh It being a federal agency and all? That god damn NISt report could say anything and you will be like "yep, that is what happened." If you are not a truther, than you are a lier! We truthers look for the truth! That is what we do. You just go by what the gov't tells you.
@cantonear1968 You havent broken a sweat huh? Of course you havent, most of your argument has been based on NIST. Obviously the only source of information you know. You go with NIST and nothing else. "OH, well NIST is right, because I like to suck dick and shout NIST, NIST, NIST." God man! Fucking do some actual research BESIDES NIST. Examine and compare! I hope you dont take your car to only one mechanic and take his word for it. You are getting fucked.
@Mt "Obviously the only source of information you know"
Ha!
Since it was NIST that actually conducted the investigation, and it has not suffered serious criticism or refutation, it's still the best source to go to!
It's sad you don't know that. You should read it sometime so then YOU would know what you are talking about!
I'm still waiting for you to offer anything to compare it to! When will you offer me a rebuttal? Don't tell me you're so ignorant on this you also don't know the rebuttals!
@cantonear1968 Have you not ever seen the oklahoma city building?? Are you stupid or something? This buidling was hit by a fucking bomb, and only half of it collapsed! Any idiot can tell you that WTC7 shouldnt have all collapse from that impact! Im guess your argument is that some of that jet fuel made its way from the northtower and into building 7, afterall this is the explanation on why the WTC collapsed in the first place. You are an idiot my friend.
@MtthwSmmns Why is it you'd rather debate every other subject than the one at hand? What does Oklahoma have to do with WTC 7? Does the NIST report state WTC 7 collapsed because it was knocked over?
@cantonear1968 Well, lets see how I can explain this to you from a intellectual standpoint. Ok, in order to understand one thing you must look at another similar to it. This is how scientist do something called "examine and compare", its the state of how to study something with almost the same outcome or results. Scientist do this all the time to understand how something works or how something should behave. In this case, its the collapsing of a building or buildings due to fire. Understand?
@MtthwSmmns And what I always love is your invocation of "Building 7?", as if that is some sort of argument ender! What about Building 7? What do you think you know about WTC 7 that proves inside job? Do you even know what the collapse mechanism was for WTC 7 or how it collapsed?
Let me repeat that:
Do you know what the collapse mechanism was for WTC 7 and how it collapsed?
If you are ready to defend yourself instead of spewing out buzz words I would love to hear your response.
@cantonear1968 please almighty knowledge of all, tell me what happened and the scientific bullshit that makes no sense. I know this, Building 7 was one of the buildings farthest away from the towers. There were buildings closer to the towers that did not fall. The towers pretty much fell on top of these but they still stood and somehow building 7 falls. I suppose jetfuel somehow made its way over to building 7 as well. Oh, and is the 3rd building to fall due to fire in history.
@MtthwSmmns You didn't answer MY question. I'm tired of you clowns thinking this is a one way street.
What was the collapse mechanism for the WTC Towers? For WTC 7? How can you possibly think you can criticize the work of NIST when you obviously have never read the reports which answer the question you ask?
@cantonear1968 NIST Report on WTC7 is propaganda. I will not believe anything they say. Another one, google or youtube NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed! I know about NIST you dumbass so stop telling me about not answering your question. Its propaganada and you need to understand this you gov't mindless zombie!
@MtthwSmmns "NIST Report on WTC7 is propaganda. I will not believe anything they say"
Again, are you prepared to back that up yourself, or are you satisfied just linking the already debunked and shoddy work of others? I keep hearing how you "won't believe NIST" bu I'm not hearing a lot of why!
@cantonear1968 LOL hell you havent provided anything! No links, no nothing. You know then you write a paper you have to provide resources from where you get your information. That is what im doing. Providing youtube videos for the most part because that is what is used for the most part on youtube. You know youtube CAN be a useful source of visual information. Ok, so you mean to tell me you do all your own shit instead of take it from NIST? Well thats hard to believe because all i hear is NIST.
@MtthwSmmns Are you mentally retarded? You're the one who is on here stating the "NIST Report on WTC7 is propaganda". I'm simply asking you to back that up!
Did you fucking forget why you were here?
I'm not the one throwing out the NIST report. A report, BTW, which has been shown that you have never read nor even know what they're conclusions are! So all I am asking of YOU is how you can have the BALLS to come on here and criticize a report when you don't even know what's in it!?
@cantonear1968 No you are fucking retarded! Even if the damn jet fuel was burning for 15 minutes it still doesnt explain how the fucking structure fucking collapse at freefall speed without any resistance from the below structure! Also, do you not understand that building 7 WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE? No jet fuel there! It falls but buildings closer to it doesnt???? Are you fucking stupid? Obviously you are! Just go on believing the fucking NIST report which is a joke! Just like FEMA!
@cantonear1968 No you are fucking retarded! Even if the damn jet fuel was burning for 15 minutes it still doesnt explain how the fucking structure fucking collapse at freefall speed without any resistance from the below structure! Also, do you not understand that building 7 WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE? No jet fuel there! It falls but buildings closer to it doesnt???? Are you fucking stupid? Obviously you are! Just go on believing the fucking NIST report which is a joke! Just like FEMA!
@cantonear1968 I cant answer your question on here because NIST report on WTC 7 is 10,000+ pages long. We only have like 400 Character limit Pretty much in a sum, Nist says that building 7 caught on fire due to shit falling from buildings 1 and 2. Nist says its the way the fire moved through the building which caused it to collapse. This is pretty much a short and quick summary as I am running out of char. Do I believe this shit from nist? No!
@MtthwSmmns Well, I can sum up and debunk your claims in 500 characters or less. Why can't you? You actually made a good attempt, but I asked for the collapse mechanism of the building. In other words, what was the initiation factor that induced collapse. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't fire melting columns.
So again, how is it you feel capable of criticizing and dismissing a 3 year engineering report, investigated by 200 qualified professionals, without knowing what is in it?
@MtthwSmmns Well, I can sum up and debunk your claims in 500 characters or less. Why can't you? You actually made a good attempt, but I asked for the collapse mechanism of the building. In other words, what was the initiating factor that induced collapse. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't fire melting columns.
So again, how is it you feel capable of criticizing and dismissing a 3 year engineering report, investigated by 200 qualified professionals, without knowing what is in it?
Why "theBBC"or Faux&friends didn't use that nice inferno footage as WTC7 "pre-collaps"footage.?!::
What convinced me wasn't only the coverage on the networks but "Lets
Roll..that CALL soo inside connected spiritualy -deep stuff .
Truthers or "Twoofers(LOL).. have only physics, science,history,look-see,action/reaction,pre-confession of somekillers..than TV appearances by most awkward" film and dance" crew ever to document that "Event" to spin their kooky(!) Conspiracy theories..PM!DebunkED!..
@kawasakikx250ff It was Chinese New Year...they were apparently shooting fireworks off from the roof...clearly not a good idea...and I guess some of them hadn't gone off yet.
The B-25 Empire State Building crash was a 1945 aircraft accident in which a B-25 Mitchell piloted in thick fog crashed into the Empire State Building. While the structural integrity of the building was not compromised, THATS RIGHT IT DIDN'T FALL !!!!
IN 1945 A MILITARY PLANE CRASHED INTO THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING.
if you want to know what happen with the 911 attack look me up on facebook.i put enough detail there under advocating my right to live.you people can think whatever you want but know that the police in toronto are evil and they really do not have a internal affairs. they have no problem as authority putting guns to my head,collapsing my lung confining me,threaten to bbq my children like my cousin was and a lot more.
com/watch?v=VVAA-KG57q0 this is what happens to a building when it burns for 24 hrs. no free fall here. the world needs to wake up befor its to late for man kind.
@glennirish Thank you! Its so damn obvious about building 7 yet dumbasses like Cantonear1968 is so brainwashed that he cannot see building 7 for what really happened to it. It doesnt take an idiot to see that it was controlled! A damn 2 year old can look at any of the footage and tell it was pulled! When we say there is no reason for the towers to have fell, pple always counter it with they were hit by a plane, ok, building 7 wasnt hit by a plane and it fell. "OH, well that was fire." LOL damn.
Can we stop calling advocates of the official conspiracy "debunkers". I think we can start referring to them as "Official conspiracy nuts" and move on. I love hearing them justify things like this. For all you official conspiracy nuts, that sinking feeling in your stomach is a good thing, it's letting you know there's something wrong here. Wake up and smell reality, the world stinks I know but if we can all learn to tolerate the stench we might be able to clean this place up.
@MasterofDisaster2012 You are dreaming. Wake up. Fire didn't bring down WTC 7. Explosives did. Who rigged explosives in a burning building? If they were rigged before the building caught fire then it is beyond any measure of reasonable doubt that it was a pre-planned, pre-meditated act involving at least two people. One of them being the owner of the building and the others being the riggers. Ipso facto : CONSPIRACY! Pre-planned, pre-meditated murder and insurance fraud.
ok so if this building can withstand a massive actual flaming fire for 20 hours, how come the wtc only stood for 19 minutes? the fire in the wtc wasnt even really flaming, you can tell because their is black smoke, which means that is smoldering, not flaming. AND IT ONLY LASTED FOR 19 MINUTES!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To all those people trying to point that this dissproves the governments explanation of 9-11, different buildings are built differently, all this proves is that this building had better structural integrety.
also the WTC's fell because the aircraft cutting into it destroyed several of the major support to the building, just like 'demolitons' would.
Simple reasoning can tell a person that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. Why would a government want to kill 2000 people!? It wouldn't make sense.
@Prophsmag Oh we have investigated...Our government has been taken over by the illuminatti and is currently dismanteling America, stripping people of their rights daily. The Federal Reserve is a scam and they are devaluing our dollar, exported our jobs, They have purchased our land with fake fiat money know as the paper dollar. They used 911 as a way to go to war and sell tanks and airplanes, guns and billion dollar drone airplanes..They have even made it illegal to collect rainwater to use.
Agreed, and the best part of this is you can hear what sounds like explosions, which was also heard in the WTCs and has been noted by truthers numerously as some evidence for controlled demolition. So I can only assume that the US government planted explosives in this building to make explosions seem like a normal sound for burning buildings.
This is supposed to be viewed in relation to building 7; the one which collapsed as a result of fire alone. No plane hit building seven.
This doesn't prove anything, just like the unscathed passports of the terrorists being found at ground zero doesn't prove they were planted, it just makes you think...
@e105b5 Nothing need be proven absolutely. The burden of evidence must prove beyond reasonable doubt. I think you and your buddies are fucked. good luck. I hope you aren't a Jew and embarrass the whole tribe for your complictness to murder and fraud.
Nevermind that it did not collapse, how did they manage to light it the f. up like that q.q ?
cassius969 3 weeks ago
did this building collapse? it was way hotter then twins or 7 even all three combined
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 No it did not 'collapse' - buildings do NOT collapse do to fire
defmanz 2 months ago
@defmanz i know, and that was my point exactly :) or at least that was the point i was trying to make
sh9683 2 months ago
@FuriousJambi One firefighter died from smoke inhalation. The building was new and hadn't opened yet, so there was no one inside.
SpartanAstronaut 3 months ago
Incredible. Does anybody know how many people died in this?
FuriousJambi 3 months ago
@FuriousJambi It was a new building, the fire was started by shooting class A fireworks on the lot adjacent to the building, it was vacant at the time. Top floor caught fire and, with no usable sprinklers at the time, the fire simply spread its way down one tier at a time. A new building was built on top of it without demolition because it was determined that "there were no structural damage."
R5H4D0W 3 months ago
@FuriousJambi I think one or none.
cassius969 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"At 8:27 p.m. on 9 February 2009, the entire building caught fire on the last day of the festivities marking the Chinese new year and was put out six hours later."
This was going on for 6 hours not 14....
batistaker123 4 months ago
Dumbass truthers. Cant understand simple fucking logic.
WonderfulDenmark 4 months ago
@WonderfulDenmark cant understand logic? Hell thats what we are all about is LOGIC! It makes no logical sense that 3 buildings in one day fell due to fire when no other buildings in history have completely colapsed due to fire! It makes not logical sense that this building ablaze in front of you can stand being lit up like a camp fire and not collapse yet the wtcs do! It makes no logical sense how building 7 even fell! Building 7 defies the laws of physics! Coming down with no resistance? Hm..
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS A SHEEPLE
Megatrousers 4 months ago
@leetbh First off, there has been no claim of temperatures reaching 2800 (I assume Fahrenheit?). Secondly, what WAS building 7 actually hit by? Do you even know?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
WTF? I couldnt light up such a building even if I tried. What is their paint based on? kerosin?
cassius969 5 months ago
cantonear is a known 9/11 shill!!
wellifthemediasaysit 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wellifthemediasaysit that would explain it
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
I wouldn't want to be a firefighter that night... O.O
vukashin88 6 months ago
This was in that Dark Knight Rises footage.
LIGHTALY 7 months ago
If an office fire burns hot enough, long enough, the steel building will weaken and can collapse. Look at the Windsor Tower fire. The problem is not just *that* WTC7 collapsed. The problem is *how* it collapsed. How do uneven fires cause a symmetrical collapse? All 3 buildings fell through the path of greatest resistance (the compressive strength of the core columns is massive). With enough weakening, a building could collapse from its own weight, but not straight down through the core columns.
ClaytonsVids 7 months ago 3
@ClaytonsVids Thank you!!!!! Thank you!!! God someone who actually knows what the hell he or she is talking about! Please dont even start to argue with this cantonear1968 person because its like talking to a damn rock!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@ClaytonsVids Thank you!!!!! Thank you!!! God someone who actually knows what the hell he or she is talking about! Please dont even start to argue with this cantonear1968 person because its like talking to a damn rock!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@ClaytonsVids Thank you!!! Thank you!! Someone who actually knows what they are talking about! Please do not start to argue with this cantonear1968 person, because its like trying to talk to a rock.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
Wow...I'd have thought this building would have collapsed to the ground in about ....maybe....9.2 seconds?
amzuel420 8 months ago
@S33ker0f7ruth No it wasn't. There is nothing to say it was. Kevin Ryan never produced anything to say it was. His lawsuit against UL was thrown out at the preliminary hearing because he couldn't state a legal reason for his lawsuit let alone provide any evidence for his case.
cantonear1968 9 months ago
@cantonear1968 oh god you are on here as well shill??? your all over 9/11 threads peddling the official lie, and your here too??
wellifthemediasaysit 6 months ago
@wellifthemediasaysit
Yup. I get paid by the NWO per site!
The more sites I am on, the more I am paid in baby seals!
Do you have any idea what baby seal pelt goes for these days? I make a killing (pun intended!!!) with the NWO!
Anyway, do you have anything to counter my words, or is this just a drive-by truthing?
cantonear1968 6 months ago
@S33ker0f7ruth Not to mention this building was unfinished and hollow inside. As well as firefighters were on scene within an hour and quickly put water on it. And I'm not positive on this, but I believe the fire coating had a 3 hour rating. The fire coating for the WTCs had at least a 2 hour rating.
cantonear1968 9 months ago
@S33ker0f7ruth "The shocking events of 9/11 challenged both industry and consumer perceptions of how safe tall buildings are. Since then, building owners, occupiers and developers have increasingly
called for building designs that are not only taller than ever before, but more robust as well.
The following three case [CCTV Bulding - Beijing] studies demonstrate Arup’s response to the new demands of this changing market."
arup. com/_ assets/_ download/ download582. pdf
cantonear1968 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cantonear1968 STFU, you sock puppet
blite13 7 months ago
@S33 So you agree the WTCs were a big fire. Good!
So you agree there was more to burn than jet fuel. Excellent! Rare for a truther.
cantonear1968 9 months ago
@S33ker0f7ruth The WTCs were not small fires. At their peak, there were 8 floors on fire about an acre in size for each. How long it took the jet fuel to burn off is irrelevant, as there were literally tons of consumables to feed the fires in the buildings (you know; paper, desks, carpets, furniture, etc. Why don't you guys know that?)
The Bejing Tower was built post 9/11 with recommendations from the NISt report to avoid collapse ie a concrete core.
So...good try, but please try again.
cantonear1968 9 months ago
@cantonear1968 MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns What was Jeff King's engineering degree in and what has been his profession for the past 30 years?
You should really know this before attempting your appeal to authority logical fallacy.
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 Im sorry next time I will get his resume from him before I post anything like that. Sorry, just saying he made some damn good points that you will always look past of course you being the mindless zombie you are.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Mindless Zombie?
Mtthw, you're the one who who highlighted "MIT Engineer" without thinking to find out what his engineering degree was in and if he was qualified to comment on the subject. You never thought to look past the claims that confirmed your bias, and you lapped it up like the poodle you are! In short, you mindlessly accepted King's unsubstantiated claims without once thinking to verify his facts, or lack there of!
Sorry. If this were Resident Evil, you'd be dead by now!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 LOL, its not just that one youtube video or just that small amount of information that has me thinking and questioning what really happened on 9/11. I was just posting one of the many good videos exposing the truth about what can and cannot happen. It common sense shit we are talking about here. Good old thing called physics! I dont need anyone to tell me what happened on 9/11. I saw it and said to myself something just isnt right. Use common sense! Building 7? Seriously?
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Do you even hear yourself?
"one of the many good videos"
"It common sense"
"I dont need anyone to tell me what happened on 9/11"
Where is the scientific merit in anything you said? Where is the critical thinking? Where is the process of the scientific method?
No where!
You go to you tube videos to have your biases confirmed! As you said" it's common sense!", meaning, you have already told yourself what happened and you search out those videos which support your preconceived notions!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 You look over anything anyone says about 9/11 because you just go on what the gov't tells you. You need to look up educated pple like A. K. Dewdney, PhD, David L. Griscom, PhD, Harley Flanders, PhD, Jack Keller, PhD, PE, F.ASCE, Joel S. Hirschhorn, PhD, Hamid Mumin, Ph.D., P.Eng., P.Geo., Hugo Bachmann, PhD , Jörg Schneider, Dr hc, John Valleau, PhD, James R. Carr, PhD, PE, and many more on their educated thoughts and studies. These are not stupid pple,
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Nice appeal to authority logical fallacy. Now, tell me; where can I find the work of these "not stupid ppl"? Let me guess: You Tube!?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 you can either youtube some of these pple or google it or go to the library as some of these pple have books that you can read. Information can be found everywhere.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Again, nice appeal to authority. Want me to just direct you to a few engineering papers and websites that debunk all of your "experts"? Will you accept that or are you feeling confident enough to present something yourself?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 well yea, provide me your resources, but until I see something that actually follows the LAWS of PHYSICS, I will not believe it. Every resource that I have gotten my information from, well, follow the laws of physics! When something just isnt right, its just not right. You cannot say well the building fell at FREEFALL SPEED, because the jet fuel that BURN OFF ON IMPACT help the fires burn hotter! Sorry that just doesnt make sense. Many pple agree with me.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns And still more!!!!!!!!
You clowns think you can just throw out "Laws of physics!!!" and that's all the argument you need!
LOL!
How didn't NIST "follows the LAWS of PHYSICS"? What was the collapse mechanism for the building?
NIST described the conditions that lead to free fall. What is incorrect with their conclusions? Do you know that only 30% of the jet fuel ignited on impact and the rest burned after about 15 mins AFTER igniting the tons of consumables in the building?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 YES we do throw laws of physics out there because, well, ITS THE FUCKING LAWS OF PHYSICS WHICH EVERYTHING GOES BY! Not to mention the video evidence!!!!! The fucking building didnt fall from the left to right, it bowed in the middle and fell at freefall speed "again" EXACTLY like a control demo! And AGAIN FOR YOU RETARD, building 7 would be the 3rd building in history in one day to collapse completely from fire! I cannot argue with you because you are a complete dumbass!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns You are calling everyone else a retard when you don't even seem to know the information. Building 7 was built to be supported by the other buildings, it was wedged in between the others. However, its collapse was caused by structural damage from a number of causes (fire weakening the supports, some cases of serious debris damage from the collapse of another building, on top of the loss of support from another building and the stress from the quake of the other building's collapse).
Pengalor 4 months ago
@Pengalor Yea that would explain why the other buildings didnt fall that were closer to towers 1 and 2.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Actually, that can be explained by the fact that the circumstances for the other buildings were not the same. It's fairly simple, do you expect the same result for every building despite them being in different positions and having different build styles and issues?
Pengalor 4 months ago
@Pengalor you have a point there, but, it seems as if the conditions were just right for 3 buildings to completely collapse due to fire in history is just to much of a coincidence, 1 of which wasnt hit by a plane! I do not believe this for one second, sorry. Face it, the gov't lies and will always lie! The gov't has and will always pull this shit off. If you think they couldnt you are completely stupid and do not know your history.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Like I say, it wasn't just fire that brought them down. There were many different factors that brought down 7 that didn't apply the same way to the other buildings. And I believe what I believe simply because our government can't even design a budget, I doubt they could have the foresight to plan anything of this kind of scale and even if they did it backfired so massively that it was a failure on their part anyway so good luck if they'd like to try again.
Pengalor 4 months ago
@Pengalor yea our gov't cannot manage a budget, but that doesnt mean they cannot manage something like this. If you can manage to invade another country or 2, then you can manage something like this with secret classification. They do it all the time. They are not always successful at it but they do do it. You need to google operation northwoods. All this attack was, was operation northwoods activated as it was suppose to be closed.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@Pengalor your obviously a dumbass too and I will not argue with you because how can you argue with someone that is in their own little world. You also didnt read anything else i put as well. I posted many sources of information explaining this and other things that have been debunked. You said that I provide no proof, yet, it seems that i am the only one in this argument that has provided sources of information.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Who are you talking to lol? I never said anything about your 'proof' or sources. Also, I find it funny that someone would call me a dumbass when they can't even figure out how to use "your" and "you're" properly. I also find it funny that you judge other people for believing differently than you when you are just taking someone's word for it like everyone else is. You weren't there and there is no clearcut proof as to what happened so you can stop pretending like your answer is best.
Pengalor 4 months ago
@Pengalor Im talk to you now! Oh and the reason im not type You're, is because I dont know if you have noticed but you have to eliminate some useless text because we have a character limit dumbass!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@Pengalor oh yea and have you ever heard of typoes? I'm sorry I'm not typing an essay here so I'm not worried about how my text looks or if its in the proper format or not.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Have you ever heard of reading what you type? Just trying to make you realize that you can't really call someone a dumbass or retard when you can hardly type a sentence.
Pengalor 4 months ago
@Pengalor ye i did tat to pis u off
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Then you failed, doesn't piss me off at all. It's more laughable than anything.
Pengalor 4 months ago
@Pengalor oh, yea, so laughable that you just got such a strong urg to say something? Oh, look I forgot the e in urge. Better point that out real quick and tell pple how much of a moron i might be because of my e's and i's not being proper!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns LOL you are the one calling everyone stupid, not me. It's not my fault you are a raging hypocrite.
Pengalor 4 months ago
@Pengalor I call it like i see it man!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns So, this has become a tiresome exercise for me, because I am merely repeating myself over and over while you continue to respond with the same ignorant replies. Ignorance that for some inexplicable reason you seem either proud of or at least content with. I will ask again, and I expect an answer if you wish to continue:
What was the collapse mechanism for the WTC Towers? For WTC 7?
What laws of physics were broken and how by NIST's conclusions?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns If you cannot answer these questions then I do not see how you can possibly continue to make derogatory comments against the NIST reports!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 I have answered you over and over and over again with videos, sources from well known pple, and with my own words, but for some reason you choose not to see my answers. I have argued against the NIST report many, many, times with you, but you cannot seem to understand logic! Pictures and videos can say more than words. I cannot explain the whole 10,000 page NIST report on here which is complete and total bullshit proven many, many, times by these creditable pple.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 I have answered you over and over and over again with videos, sources from well known pple, and with my own words, but for some reason you choose not to see my answers. I have argued against the NIST report many, many, times with you, but you cannot seem to understand logic! Pictures and videos can say more than words. I cannot explain the whole 10,000 page NIST report on here which is complete and total bullshit proven many, many, times by these creditable pple.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Matthew that's bullshit and you know it! You responses "with [your] own words] have been little more than buzz words you read off a trither website!
You've stated the NIST report is "propaganda". How is it propaganda?
You've stated the NIST report "breaks the laws of physics". How were the laws of physics broken?
You've given me a list of names who you state refute NIST. What have they said that refutes NIST?
Again, no substance to your responses, only avoidance.
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns How are you going to answer these questions when you don't have a clue what is in the fucking report you are deluding yourself into thinking you have the qualifications to criticize?
Doesn't make sense? Well if you were to actually get the right information, it might start to!
Many people agree? Are they as seriously as limited in their scope of the subject as you?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 ITS A 10,000 PAGE REPORT YOU DUMB ASS! WHICH IS ALSO NOT IN LAMENS TERMS FOR A REASON. If you read every page of that report it would take you 2 to 3 years to read it all. I'm sure you didnt read all of it either! It doesnt fucking matter what that report says, NO FUCKING BUILDING IN HISTORY HAS COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE! Did you understand that? In 1 day, 3 building collapsed due to "fire".What are the odds of that? There are physics behind this shit! 10 seconds = freefall speed.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 ITS A 10,000 PAGE REPORT YOU DUMB ASS! WHICH IS ALSO NOT IN LAMENS TERMS FOR A REASON. If you read every page of that report it would take you 2 to 3 years to read it all. I'm sure you didnt read all of it either! It doesnt fucking matter what that report says, NO FUCKING BUILDING IN HISTORY HAS COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE! Did you understand that? In 1 day, 3 building collapsed due to "fire".What are the odds of that? No report can explain how physics dont apply in this situation.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 ITS A 10,000 PAGE REPORT YOU DUMB ASS! WHICH IS ALSO NOT IN LAMENS TERMS FOR A REASON. If you read every page of that report it would take you 2 to 3 years to read it all. I'm sure you didnt read all of it either! It doesnt fucking matter what that report says, NO FUCKING BUILDING IN HISTORY HAS COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE! Did you understand that? In 1 day, 3 building collapsed due to "fire".What are the odds of that? No report can explain how physics dont apply in this situation.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Do you honestly hear yourself talking? Your essentially stating that the report is too long and difficult to understand so you're not going to bother with it, but you don't believe it anyways!!??
Do you not understand that is the height of ignorance? Is this the sorry state the American education system (or arrogance) is in?
And yes, I have actually read a lot of this report. That's why I can talk about it and know what's in it. I wouldn't pretend to refute something I never read!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns So your personal incredulity aside, and your constant stream of buzz words (no steel building collapsed!; Free fall!; not hit by plane!; laws of physics!), what do you really know about any of this to offer an opinion? You are offering ZERO substance to your argument; you're just regurgitating catch phrases thinking that's enough! You state WTC 7 was "NOT HIT BY A PLANE", but ignore what WTC 7 WAS actually hit with! Do you even know?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns So while you are capable of offering buzz word replies to my questions (Free Fall!; Laws of Physics), you are offering ZERO substantive material to actually answer my questions or refute my claims! You quite loudly state that WTC 7 was "WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE", but you ignore what WTC 7 WAS actually hit with!
Do you even know?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 Yes dumbass! Everyone knows that it was hit with some debris from the north tower. One of the corners of building 7 was hit by it, but if you are smart and not a dumbass like yourself, you would understand that only that part of the building would have collapsed! Not the entire building from the middle out which is what happened! The fire from the SHIT report or NIST report explains it by saying the fires expanded across many of the middle floors causing the structure to weaken.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns And now, when caught again at something you don't know, you hand wave past it and state something else you can substantiate! If you knew WTC 7 was hit by WTC 1, why make a point of stating it "wasn't hit by a plane"? Did you think it spontaneously combusted? And, again, repeating myself, if you actually were to read the NIST report, you would know that your claim of "the fires expanded across many of the middle floors causing the structure to weaken" is utter bullshit! That's not ...
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns ....what the report says at all! It is no way a summary of the collapse initiation as described by NIST! So it's extremely difficult to have a serious conversation with you when you continue to spew false information that you'd rather argue than what the report actually says! THAT you don't seem to be able to handle or refute!
So, for the 5th time, what was the collapse mechanism for WTC 7, as described by NIST and how does the report break the laws of physics?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 Ok so what exactly does the NIST report say? It says in summary, the fire expanded across the middle floors because there were more combustible materials on those floors then the others. It explain saying that when the north tower fell it gutted or hollowed out wtc 7 and caused fires to race across the middle floors. Is this not what the NIST report in summary states? Im sure it is! Read it fucker! It also contradicts itself all through the fucking report!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns ....building collapsed globally.
Now, what, in anything I just wrote, can you refute with an actual scientific rebuttal instead of just your hand waving horse shit?
Now. Let's look at the FFA you seem so excited about:
As mentioned, the internal structure had collapsed before global collapse for 8 full floors. So the only structural resistance for the building is the perimeter columns. What do you think happens when they fail?
Right!!
The buildings structural resistance is removed!!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 How does it break the laws of physics? Well, it breaks them by THE WHOLE FUCKING BUILDING COMING DOWN! If you would actually do some fucking research you would find that most buildings that collapse do not completely come down! They break off either in sections or huge chunks due to the resistance of the other parts of the structure and the foundation. If you look at wtc 7 when it comes down, it comes down from the middle out! A text book controlled demo! God what an idiot!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 How does it break the laws of physics? It breaks the laws of physics by collapsing without any resistance of the other parts of the structure. When something is dropped, it falls at whats called freefall speed if not attached to something that would cause resistance like a string, crane, steel columns anchered in the ground. A building usually will collapse in pieces or chunks, not collapse entirely! Buildings are hard to take down completely without controlled demo. Learn it!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns And round & round we go!
Matthew, you're arguing from a point of ignorance! You typing things that sound "sciencey", yet is not the conclusions of the NIST report on how the building fell, and then you're ridiculing your own post. That's called a straw man argument. It means you'd rather make something up and ridicule it than argue against what is actually said.
I mean, listen to yourself! I ask how the collapse broke the laws of physics and you answer "Because it fell down".
Ha!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 I didnt answer "Because it fell down." You are a fucking retard or something. Seriously are you even reading my post? I feel like im talking to a rock. I guess you just cant understand anything im saying. Maybe my intellectual words are too "sciencey" for you. Hell you dont even have an argument. All you do is ask questions and then when someone answers them, you are like "uh.... Duh...... well NIST.. cant be wrong.."
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 I didnt answer "Because it fell down." You are a fucking retard or something. Seriously are you even reading my post? I feel like im talking to a rock. I guess you just cant understand anything im saying. Maybe my intellectual words are too "sciencey" for you. Hell you dont even have an argument. All you do is ask questions and then when someone answers them, you are like "uh.... Duh...... well NIST.. cant be wrong.."
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cantonear1968 I didnt answer "Because it fell down." You are a fucking retard or something. Seriously are you even reading my post? I feel like im talking to a rock. I guess you just cant understand anything im saying. Maybe my intellectual words are too "sciencey" for you. Hell you dont even have an argument. All you do is ask questions and then when someone answers them, you are like "uh.... Duh...... well NIST.. cant be wrong.."
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Are you kidding me with this?
Here. Let me give you a little education:
The fires caused a thermal expansion of the floor truss on floor 13. This caused floor 13 to walk off its connection to column 79. Floor 13 then fell onto floor 12, knocking that loose, and this caused a cascade of floors down to floor 5. Full 8 floors collapsed internally leaving column 79 with no lateral support for that full 8 floors. Unable to sustain any lateral loads, column 79 buckled and failed.
....
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns .....
This is the eastern penthouse collapsing inside the building. With the collapse of column 79, it shifted the weight load to already weakened columns and a complete internal collapse progressed from east to west on the internal columns, essentially gutting the internal core structure, leaving only the perimeter columns to sustain the weight load of the whole building, something they were never designed to do. With the internal core gone, the perimeter columns buckled, and the ..
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns This is the eastern penthouse collapsing inside the building. With the collapse of column 79, it shifted the weight load to already weakened columns and a complete internal collapse progressed from east to west on the internal columns, essentially gutting the internal core structure, leaving only the perimeter columns to sustain the weight load of the whole building, something they were never designed to do. With the internal core gone, the perimeter columns buckled, and the ..
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 Also, these buildings had fire protection coating on every column and Truss. These fires couldnt get hot enough for this fire protection unless somehow the 747's that impacted the towers somehow blew the fireprotection off of the wtc7 too. LOL man you just dont think do you? Yea just go by what the NIST report says because it makes so much sense. Damn man stop with the NIST report and look for other private reports that explain the truth.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MtthwSmmns ....building collapsed globally.
Now, what, in anything I just wrote, can you refute with an actual scientific rebuttal instead of just your hand waving horse shit?
Now. Let's look at the FFA you seem so excited about:
As mentioned, the internal structure had collapsed before global collapse for 8 full floors. So the only structural resistance for the building is the perimeter columns. What do you think happens when they fail?
Right!!
The building's structural resistance is removed!!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns What happens when the structural resistance is remove?
You can say it!
Free Fall Acceleration!
For 8 full floors!!
Until the building met the upper portion that had not collapsed internally, and then the building collapsed decidedly longer than FFA. 40% longer in fact!
So now that I've educated you on something you should have fucking done yourself, please explain again how the laws of physics were broken?
See? I've actually read the report. So I'm not debating from ignorance.
You?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 LOL can you not see how much bullshit that is? NIST IS A FUCKING JOKE! Thats some amazing perfect conditions for 3 of some of the best built buildings to collapse in one day out of all of human history. The penthouse was on the east side of the building where most of the fucking fires were. You expect me to believe NIST with this bullshit? So wait the east side of the building was mainley effect yet, it first started to fall in the middle? LOL god retards will believe anything.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Argument from incredulity logical fallacy. Also from ignorance.
In other words, not a rebuttal. Not a refutation.
But that's ok, Matthew, I don't expect more from you. You've already illustrated how little you know on this subject yet you feel an inordinate need to keep typing. No problem. This is incredibly easy for me. I haven't even broke a sweat yet!
If you would actually read what I write, you would know that I stated it was the eastern penthouse that collapsed first with the ..
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns ...failure of column 79. Guess where this was?
You can say it!
The East Side Of The Building!
Correctamundo!
And fire protection does not make the steel impervious to sustain heat. It retards how fast the steel will heat up in a fire; thus the name fire RETARDANT! Before 9/11 the code called for a 2 hour rating: this means steel will increase in temperature 2 hours longer than if left unprotected.
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 "does not make the steel impervious to sustain heat"
That should say "sustained" heat. Or continued high temperatures from an office fire. It may be confusing otherwise.
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 no it doesnt make it impervious to sustain heat but again, please tell me this, How many buildings have (completely) collapse due to fire before 9/11? After all these years of tall sky scrapers, how many? There have been many fires like this in sky scrapers, but you know what? They didnt completely fail! Now in 1 day, 3 buildings fall due to fire. You really believe this? 3 buildings had the PERFECT conditions for total structural failure in one day after all these years?
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Ah! The standard truther meme of "It's never happened before so it can never happen"!
So are you saying that steel has never failed in a fire before? You may be mistaken on that front! And what have been the differences between these other buildings that didn't collapse and the Towers and WTC 7? Did you bother to look? In each case they were fought by the fire dept, keeping the temperatures cooler than the WTCs, and they had some sort of concrete reinforcing.
Still educating you!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 and again you prove yourself to be a dumbass. I didnt say steal has never failed. It does it all the time. Its just that when a building is built, there is something called building safety supports. There isnt just 1, 2, or even 3 depending on the buildings design. There are many. If one fails then where that one failed you would have a partial collapse, not a whole fucking collapse. God damn you do not understand.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 You understand that column 79 was just one of many support columns right? Hence the #79. You understand that the girder between 79 and 44 would have only caused a partial structural failure right? Not a total collapse. If you really believe this then we might as well stop this because you are a fucking moron who doesnt understand the basics to structural failure. An idiot could tell you this. You are beyond an idiot man! The vid. evidence shows failure in the middle out!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Column 79 was one of the 3 main transfer trusses in the building to support the building and make way for the Con Ed substation (you should really read the report sometime and you would know this stuff). With the buckling of Column 79 this over loaded columns 80 & 81, resulting in the buckling on the east side and then a progressive failure east to west.
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 but its funny because in the fucking video which everyone has seen, it doesnt go east to west when it collapses. It goes from the middle out dumbass! Damn, this is visual evidence!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 so you really believe that column 79 failed and caused the WHOLE fucking building to come down, might I add from the middle out, even though column 79 was on the eastern side of the building? Do you not know how suspicious that sounds? It was even near the corner of the building. Not even anywhere close to the middle really. You keep on believing your NIST report.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns It's still easy, Matthew!
See, you continue to argue from the stand point that NIST has been refuted. Nothing could be further from the truth. You have proven on several occasions that you haven't even read it. So obviously that refutation has not come from you. On your multiple pathetic attempts to cut and paste a response, I have handled easily. Your argument is little more than "NIST IS WRONG!" and then repeating it.
Woefully inadequate!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 yea I have come to the conclusion that you are meant to be an idiot forever and god himself couldnt help you. You keep on believing your NIST report. As for us Truthers we will always do our research and find out what really happened as we always do, Thank you and enjoy living in your life of lies. If anyone else wants to vote on whose argument was the best please do so thank you. Bye Bye dumbass Cantonear1968 fuck!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns "I have come to the conclusion that you are meant to be an idiot forever"
The response of the truly defeated!
"You keep on believing your NIST report."
Until it os proven incorrect, I will!
"As for us Truthers we will always do our [best to ignore evidence in front of us]"
Fixed that for you!
"If anyone else wants to vote on whose argument was the best please do so thank you"
Yes! Please do! Remember, "NIST is Bullshit" is not actually a debate!
Enjoy your delusion!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns And again, if you read what I say, or better yet, read the NIST report, you would know what you are talking about and not sound like a dumb ass! The failure of column 79 was an internal failure and lead to an east to west collapse for the internal core columns. This left only the perimeter columns to support the whole building and failure there would be at its weakest point; east, west, middle, wherever the weakest columns was to start global collapse.
Still easy Matthew. Still easy.
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Now, since you thought you knew something by checking a truther website:
"...the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor".
NIST WTC 7 Final Report pg 22
Ouch! That's got to hurt!
Still easy Matthew!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 LOL got to hurt? Are you fucking stupid? Nope doesnt hurt at all actually. You are still going by the fucking NIST report. You must have thought FEMA did a great job during Katrina huh It being a federal agency and all? That god damn NISt report could say anything and you will be like "yep, that is what happened." If you are not a truther, than you are a lier! We truthers look for the truth! That is what we do. You just go by what the gov't tells you.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 You havent broken a sweat huh? Of course you havent, most of your argument has been based on NIST. Obviously the only source of information you know. You go with NIST and nothing else. "OH, well NIST is right, because I like to suck dick and shout NIST, NIST, NIST." God man! Fucking do some actual research BESIDES NIST. Examine and compare! I hope you dont take your car to only one mechanic and take his word for it. You are getting fucked.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@Mt "Obviously the only source of information you know"
Ha!
Since it was NIST that actually conducted the investigation, and it has not suffered serious criticism or refutation, it's still the best source to go to!
It's sad you don't know that. You should read it sometime so then YOU would know what you are talking about!
I'm still waiting for you to offer anything to compare it to! When will you offer me a rebuttal? Don't tell me you're so ignorant on this you also don't know the rebuttals!
Ha!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns But I actually give you credit for attempting independent thinking for the first time!
But it's just too bad that, as usual, you're wrong because you simply son't know what you are talking about!
LOL!
Haven't broken a sweat yet, Matthew!
This is incredibly easy for me!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 Have you not ever seen the oklahoma city building?? Are you stupid or something? This buidling was hit by a fucking bomb, and only half of it collapsed! Any idiot can tell you that WTC7 shouldnt have all collapse from that impact! Im guess your argument is that some of that jet fuel made its way from the northtower and into building 7, afterall this is the explanation on why the WTC collapsed in the first place. You are an idiot my friend.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Why is it you'd rather debate every other subject than the one at hand? What does Oklahoma have to do with WTC 7? Does the NIST report state WTC 7 collapsed because it was knocked over?
Oh that's right! How would you know!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 Well, lets see how I can explain this to you from a intellectual standpoint. Ok, in order to understand one thing you must look at another similar to it. This is how scientist do something called "examine and compare", its the state of how to study something with almost the same outcome or results. Scientist do this all the time to understand how something works or how something should behave. In this case, its the collapsing of a building or buildings due to fire. Understand?
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns And what I always love is your invocation of "Building 7?", as if that is some sort of argument ender! What about Building 7? What do you think you know about WTC 7 that proves inside job? Do you even know what the collapse mechanism was for WTC 7 or how it collapsed?
Let me repeat that:
Do you know what the collapse mechanism was for WTC 7 and how it collapsed?
If you are ready to defend yourself instead of spewing out buzz words I would love to hear your response.
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 please almighty knowledge of all, tell me what happened and the scientific bullshit that makes no sense. I know this, Building 7 was one of the buildings farthest away from the towers. There were buildings closer to the towers that did not fall. The towers pretty much fell on top of these but they still stood and somehow building 7 falls. I suppose jetfuel somehow made its way over to building 7 as well. Oh, and is the 3rd building to fall due to fire in history.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns You didn't answer MY question. I'm tired of you clowns thinking this is a one way street.
What was the collapse mechanism for the WTC Towers? For WTC 7? How can you possibly think you can criticize the work of NIST when you obviously have never read the reports which answer the question you ask?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 NIST Report on WTC7 is propaganda. I will not believe anything they say. Another one, google or youtube NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed! I know about NIST you dumbass so stop telling me about not answering your question. Its propaganada and you need to understand this you gov't mindless zombie!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns "NIST Report on WTC7 is propaganda. I will not believe anything they say"
Again, are you prepared to back that up yourself, or are you satisfied just linking the already debunked and shoddy work of others? I keep hearing how you "won't believe NIST" bu I'm not hearing a lot of why!
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 LOL hell you havent provided anything! No links, no nothing. You know then you write a paper you have to provide resources from where you get your information. That is what im doing. Providing youtube videos for the most part because that is what is used for the most part on youtube. You know youtube CAN be a useful source of visual information. Ok, so you mean to tell me you do all your own shit instead of take it from NIST? Well thats hard to believe because all i hear is NIST.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Are you mentally retarded? You're the one who is on here stating the "NIST Report on WTC7 is propaganda". I'm simply asking you to back that up!
Did you fucking forget why you were here?
I'm not the one throwing out the NIST report. A report, BTW, which has been shown that you have never read nor even know what they're conclusions are! So all I am asking of YOU is how you can have the BALLS to come on here and criticize a report when you don't even know what's in it!?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 No you are fucking retarded! Even if the damn jet fuel was burning for 15 minutes it still doesnt explain how the fucking structure fucking collapse at freefall speed without any resistance from the below structure! Also, do you not understand that building 7 WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE? No jet fuel there! It falls but buildings closer to it doesnt???? Are you fucking stupid? Obviously you are! Just go on believing the fucking NIST report which is a joke! Just like FEMA!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 No you are fucking retarded! Even if the damn jet fuel was burning for 15 minutes it still doesnt explain how the fucking structure fucking collapse at freefall speed without any resistance from the below structure! Also, do you not understand that building 7 WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE? No jet fuel there! It falls but buildings closer to it doesnt???? Are you fucking stupid? Obviously you are! Just go on believing the fucking NIST report which is a joke! Just like FEMA!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@cantonear1968 I cant answer your question on here because NIST report on WTC 7 is 10,000+ pages long. We only have like 400 Character limit Pretty much in a sum, Nist says that building 7 caught on fire due to shit falling from buildings 1 and 2. Nist says its the way the fire moved through the building which caused it to collapse. This is pretty much a short and quick summary as I am running out of char. Do I believe this shit from nist? No!
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
@MtthwSmmns Well, I can sum up and debunk your claims in 500 characters or less. Why can't you? You actually made a good attempt, but I asked for the collapse mechanism of the building. In other words, what was the initiation factor that induced collapse. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't fire melting columns.
So again, how is it you feel capable of criticizing and dismissing a 3 year engineering report, investigated by 200 qualified professionals, without knowing what is in it?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MtthwSmmns Well, I can sum up and debunk your claims in 500 characters or less. Why can't you? You actually made a good attempt, but I asked for the collapse mechanism of the building. In other words, what was the initiating factor that induced collapse. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't fire melting columns.
So again, how is it you feel capable of criticizing and dismissing a 3 year engineering report, investigated by 200 qualified professionals, without knowing what is in it?
cantonear1968 4 months ago
is there war there?
jugofan1 9 months ago
they did it on purpose so that we pick up our forks and kill the jews of this country
WavesOfTrolls 11 months ago
Why "theBBC"or Faux&friends didn't use that nice inferno footage as WTC7 "pre-collaps"footage.?!::
What convinced me wasn't only the coverage on the networks but "Lets
Roll..that CALL soo inside connected spiritualy -deep stuff .
Truthers or "Twoofers(LOL).. have only physics, science,history,look-see,action/reaction,pre-confession of somekillers..than TV appearances by most awkward" film and dance" crew ever to document that "Event" to spin their kooky(!) Conspiracy theories..PM!DebunkED!..
montyone 1 year ago
I bet Chinese set it on fire on purpose just to have a laugh at the US. LOL
z0nt21 1 year ago 12
よく燃えるなー
建築素材になにつかってんだろ
cookcook456 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
w w w BuildingWhat . O R G
Jaffsickle 1 year ago
Well at least the fire didn't put a damper on the Fireworks' fun...they were still goin'...
musicAL722 1 year ago
dame were them explosions going off in that building?
kawasakikx250ff 1 year ago
@kawasakikx250ff It was Chinese New Year...they were apparently shooting fireworks off from the roof...clearly not a good idea...and I guess some of them hadn't gone off yet.
musicAL722 1 year ago
The B-25 Empire State Building crash was a 1945 aircraft accident in which a B-25 Mitchell piloted in thick fog crashed into the Empire State Building. While the structural integrity of the building was not compromised, THATS RIGHT IT DIDN'T FALL !!!!
IN 1945 A MILITARY PLANE CRASHED INTO THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING.
LMAO0O0O0 1 year ago
if you want to know what happen with the 911 attack look me up on facebook.i put enough detail there under advocating my right to live.you people can think whatever you want but know that the police in toronto are evil and they really do not have a internal affairs. they have no problem as authority putting guns to my head,collapsing my lung confining me,threaten to bbq my children like my cousin was and a lot more.
ELLIVIOSS 1 year ago
com/watch?v=VVAA-KG57q0 this is what happens to a building when it burns for 24 hrs. no free fall here. the world needs to wake up befor its to late for man kind.
MrAnonymous2012 1 year ago
damn, this bin laden guy really hates tall buildings doesnt he
moses141 1 year ago
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! xD
OsamaBinLadinAccount 1 year ago 2
Amazing. And apparently there was no structural damage, according to wikipedia.
timtak1 1 year ago 2
Buildng 7 was pulled,,anyone who thinks if fell due to fire is an idiot
glennirish 1 year ago 14
@glennirish Thank you! Its so damn obvious about building 7 yet dumbasses like Cantonear1968 is so brainwashed that he cannot see building 7 for what really happened to it. It doesnt take an idiot to see that it was controlled! A damn 2 year old can look at any of the footage and tell it was pulled! When we say there is no reason for the towers to have fell, pple always counter it with they were hit by a plane, ok, building 7 wasnt hit by a plane and it fell. "OH, well that was fire." LOL damn.
MtthwSmmns 4 months ago
what was in that building all the popin?
CUZIIN 1 year ago
@CUZIIN chinese new year celebration... fireworks.
ALITL8 1 year ago
@ALITL8
haha that's the joke people always say.
newtonsecondlaw 1 year ago
Oooh that's gonna be coming out of some ones salary....if they have much of a salary in a prison camp :(
ReadmanJ 1 year ago
just went to beijing.. that building looks like SHIT ... funny how 71 people were charged
Tommypigeon 1 year ago
no it didnt fall....haahhhah imagine
jeff01050 1 year ago 2
so did the building fall
kingklick77 1 year ago
Thats a costly fireworks lol. I dont understand why they let them lit the fireworks at downtown area
baukiki 1 year ago
this is how China celebrate their Chinese New Year, can you beat that? ~
hotsou1 2 years ago
Calm down...the pops and explosion is fireworks
randyman67789 2 years ago
Can we stop calling advocates of the official conspiracy "debunkers". I think we can start referring to them as "Official conspiracy nuts" and move on. I love hearing them justify things like this. For all you official conspiracy nuts, that sinking feeling in your stomach is a good thing, it's letting you know there's something wrong here. Wake up and smell reality, the world stinks I know but if we can all learn to tolerate the stench we might be able to clean this place up.
dex13911 2 years ago
One more bit of evidence. We shall overcome!
Joba62Cy 2 years ago 6
Maybe the reason this building is still standing is that it has different construction methods and floor plans?
MasterofDisaster2012 2 years ago
@MasterofDisaster2012 You are dreaming. Wake up. Fire didn't bring down WTC 7. Explosives did. Who rigged explosives in a burning building? If they were rigged before the building caught fire then it is beyond any measure of reasonable doubt that it was a pre-planned, pre-meditated act involving at least two people. One of them being the owner of the building and the others being the riggers. Ipso facto : CONSPIRACY! Pre-planned, pre-meditated murder and insurance fraud.
dudemane666 1 year ago
ok so if this building can withstand a massive actual flaming fire for 20 hours, how come the wtc only stood for 19 minutes? the fire in the wtc wasnt even really flaming, you can tell because their is black smoke, which means that is smoldering, not flaming. AND IT ONLY LASTED FOR 19 MINUTES!
emersondavis 2 years ago 4
That was indeed very strange.
JoseProkof 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To all those people trying to point that this dissproves the governments explanation of 9-11, different buildings are built differently, all this proves is that this building had better structural integrety.
also the WTC's fell because the aircraft cutting into it destroyed several of the major support to the building, just like 'demolitons' would.
Simple reasoning can tell a person that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. Why would a government want to kill 2000 people!? It wouldn't make sense.
depholade 2 years ago
Because of money, money equals power. Do you know your goverment?
And blow up that buildings were a lot cheaper than dismantle.
Please investigate if you can't make a sense.
Prophsmag 2 years ago 32
@Prophsmag Oh we have investigated...Our government has been taken over by the illuminatti and is currently dismanteling America, stripping people of their rights daily. The Federal Reserve is a scam and they are devaluing our dollar, exported our jobs, They have purchased our land with fake fiat money know as the paper dollar. They used 911 as a way to go to war and sell tanks and airplanes, guns and billion dollar drone airplanes..They have even made it illegal to collect rainwater to use.
17seventySIX 1 year ago
So how do you explain WTC 7?
casba 2 years ago 3
Boom Boom Boom boom BOOM BOOM BOOM! LOL
snlker 2 years ago
to depholade
Agreed, and the best part of this is you can hear what sounds like explosions, which was also heard in the WTCs and has been noted by truthers numerously as some evidence for controlled demolition. So I can only assume that the US government planted explosives in this building to make explosions seem like a normal sound for burning buildings.
Blacktoe 2 years ago
we are comparing this to building 7
mjc1377 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
your a dam retard go see 9/11 loose change and alex jones endgame
nwodoom 2 years ago
@depholade
This is supposed to be viewed in relation to building 7; the one which collapsed as a result of fire alone. No plane hit building seven.
This doesn't prove anything, just like the unscathed passports of the terrorists being found at ground zero doesn't prove they were planted, it just makes you think...
e105b5 2 years ago 3
@e105b5 Nothing need be proven absolutely. The burden of evidence must prove beyond reasonable doubt. I think you and your buddies are fucked. good luck. I hope you aren't a Jew and embarrass the whole tribe for your complictness to murder and fraud.