Did anyone predict this election fiasco?

NIST has pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns.[17]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

 

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

 

Show me an example of when fire brought down a steel-structure high rise (or mid-rise even) building before 9/11.

Also, you ignore the fact that the buildings were designed to be struck by MULTIPLE jets of comparable size to 757s. Yet you keep brining up the planes. One of the people who helped design the buildings said that a plane hitting the building would be akin to a pencil piercing through a screen on a door. It would have little impact on the rest of the screen, much like the plane's impact would have little impact on the rest of the building. That's how the buildings were built.

You apparently don't understand that things can be made up. It would be nothing for a government organization like the NIST to come up with findings based on the government's version of what happened. The NIST is a govenment organization, so of course they're going to say fire brought the buildings down. These are the same people who were telling us what happened (and that bin Laden did it) within minutes of the buildings' collapsing.

So no, I don't care about what the NIST or FEMA or any of these other organizations have to say. I go based on my intuition and what I see, as have many people who have woken up to the reality of what really happened that day. I don't need the government to tell me.

 

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

 

It would appear to be a top to bottom collapse if the cores were taken out first. If you look at the north tower, you actually see the collapse start with the antenna on the building, which would indicate that the core (which supported the antenna) was taken out before the exostructure was blown to bits.

 

I don't want to read cut & paste bullshit, acga. Don't waste your time and energy.

 

it answers your questions, you asked what they had to say and i pasted it, get your head out of your asshole and actually read things with an open mind then make a decision

 

You should know with all the "research" you've done.

Here is the video I posted before:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deys8AxfVQw

 

Also, you ignore the fact that the buildings were designed to be struck by MULTIPLE jets of comparable size to 757s. Yet you keep brining up the planes. One of the people who helped design the buildings said that a plane hitting the building would be akin to a pencil piercing through a screen on a door. It would have little impact on the rest of the screen, much like the plane's impact would have little impact on the rest of the building. That's how the buildings were built. [/QUOTE]Okay, I just brought up (and posted, because that's how we back up our claims. With facts) an article detailing how the port authoirty had never rated the buildings for fire. Much less being hit by planes. I also brought up the fact that many of the things that occured on 9/11. And who is this person who said this? Show me their quote from source please. The idea that the kinetic energy from a 757 slamming into a bulding is not stucturally damaging is ludicrous and doesn't support your argument.

Nor have you proposed, and you will not, as I've mentioned, propose what happened, because you do not have any technical knowledge of demolitions or explosions.

Such as your faster then free fall claim.

The NIST reports I posted were from 2004. And haven't changed unlike the Thermite/fusion bomb wild claims you've made up.

And I've also posted NGO sources claming the same things, however rather then approach the data, you attack the source. That's a logical falicay buddy. You're wrong on facts and from a larger perspective, the logic you use just isn't there.

Truth isn't based on intuition or an individuals sight. Truth is permanent and immune from everything you say. I hope to bring all the lies which you have to light, and hopefully encouarge rational responses from educated people rather then your fear mongering.

 

Again, if you did your research you would know this. See, you only THINK you know everything:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy013UDjIKk

 

Yes, bombs were mentioned numerous times in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, with the immediate fear of losing your life, including in the media before the public knew what happened people saw things which may have plaid tricks on their eyes.

And many people reported seeing the devil in the smoke, which also doesn't make it true.

I'm not even going to adress the obvious fact that if bombs were planted all arond the corners of the buildings, it would require a vast amount of carefully laid explosive and numerous man hours to place all that explosive, which was somehow never seen by the workers, or security guards or anyone.

Everything you say is ridiculous. This is a joke to debate since you're not intrested in the science, only what your intution tells you.

i can't change your intution.

 

herrrrm

 

No, your truth is based on what government "experts" tell you to think.

 

I asked you to provide evidence of what you said. people do that in the rough and tumble world of reality.

Turns out he was wrong in what he said he thought, as it was the combination of the jetliner slamming into it, and the intense fire (mostly the fire) which weakened the steel trusses and caused progressive collapse under the weight of the building.

 

Fuck the government. Fuck politics. Things here change so slow if at all.. it's all an illusion, damnit. I seriously do not give a fuck. Talkings heads. Illusions of change. Fuck it.

 

Guarantee you only watched the first 15 seconds of the video. Yes, I am sure they were all just "imagining" it. But you, a 22 year old kid in Texas, has all the answers to everything. You know it all.

 

Okay, you trust your intution for understanding progressive collapses, and I'll trust my engineers over your intuition.

Good evening sir.

 

god wanted those people to die and they did
i love god for doing what he does

 

god?