High Rise Building "Experts Speak Out" about 9/11

I have NO doubt those whackadoodles will find their deserved place in history...right next to PT Barnum

 

YES. They are going to look like idiots because they did not understand kindergarten level physics. Do what you want. If I was in your shoes, then I would let my bosses know that being on the side of 9/11 liars is the wrong side of history. Your choice.

 

Its almost 2014, and these guys are still thinking their "victory" is just around the corner.

wow. talk about blind.

 

LOL. Well see if you are still making such stupid statements a few years from now. Everyone who believes the official theory about 9/11 in 2013 is fooling themselves.

 

What stops it falling if the column is no longer there?

 

the statements I make today are the exact same statements I made back in 2005.

nothing has changed.

oh yeah, 9-11 Truth has died a sad death since then.

 

If there was never a column there then nothing stops anything. I do not understand your question.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the funniest statement of all. The truth movement is growing no matter what you think. More and more people are understanding what happened on 9/11. Sticking your head in the sand will not change that fact.

 

I don't know where you live, but here...where 9-11 happened.....9-11 Truth has died a sad death.

these guys are nowhere to be found. gone, and forgotten.

good riddance as they were not welcome here.

 

I did not say "never there" I said "If is no longer there"

Whats happens to the mass and weight?

 

Attention ~

Focus on the thread topic. Stop the baiting (veiled insults). If anyone feels they are unable to contribute to the thread minus the baiting, I suggest they scroll on to another of more interest.

 

NIST did not report on building 7 in their initial report. The NIST report on WTC building 7 come out in 2008. They lied in their report about the specific column 79 they claimed failed and caused the collapse. Then NIST resisted supplying their data until a Freedom of Information Act was filed and won in 2012. It was finally proven that NIST committed fraud in their report and that news is finally getting out to the public. It is still going to take some time before building professionals around the world understand what happened but the truth movement can finally grow worldwide now because we have the proof that office fires did not cause building 7 to collapse. This is significant because it also proves some people in positions of power had prior knowledge and fraud was committed to cover it up.

 

prior knowledge of what?

 

As far as I can tell, very little beyond the dates in that account is actually true. For example, it's always a sign of gratuitous spin when somebody accuses a government entity of resisting a release of information "until a Freedom of Information Act was filed and won." FOIA requests are the specific process provided by law for requesting information from a federal agency. They are neither "won nor lost" since the process for release is administrative not adversarial. And when the FOIA request was filed, NIST complied.

More to the point, no actual fraud can be found anywhere in any version the NIST reports, and truther claims of fraud always depend first on paraphrasing the reports rather than actually quoting them in context, and then offering drastic reinterpretations of the content. The fact that truthers "don't buy it" is expected, since the truther agenda is driven by prejudice. No fraud is necessary for truthers to disagree. It is what they do... often without forethought or informed consideration of the counter arguments they offer.

Let's be brutally honest. The truther starting position is that the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the relevant scientific community is a fraud. They do not conclude that. It is their opening premise. They understand themselves to be the sole arbiters of honesty and goodness, engaged in a moral crusade against the overpowering forces of darkness. And since most truthers are completely unqualified to offer substantive opinions regarding the actual science, they default to the sort of florid and emotional character assassination that is the stock and trade of conspiracy theorists of all stripes.

It is simply true that after all these years, the truther movement primarily remains a mutual admiration society comprised by ultracrepidarian exemplars of the Dunning Kruger Effect. And they impress only themselves.

 

The WTC building 7 controlled demolition proves that people in positions of power had prior knowledge of at least some of the events surrounding 9/11.

 

Yet WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition, so your theory is unfounded.

 

there is no physical evidence of any explosives at WTC 7.

 

The REAL experts, these guys, know the truth about 9-11:

the Structural Engineers Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, American Institute of Steel Construction, American Concrete Institute, the National Fire Protection Association, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the Structural Engineers Association of New York.

..and they all think 9-11 Twoof is crap.

 

WTC7 was the most obvious example of a preplanned event. Obviously one and two were as well but, seven reeks of the obvious.

 

so how come it didn't look anything like a controlled demolition?

how come there were no sounds of explosions before or during the collapse?

how come there are no witnesses to folks placing explosives in the building?

how come there is no physical evidence of any explosives in the rubble of WTC 7?


I'm just asking questions.

 

It looked exactly like a controlled demolition. What collapse were you looking at?

 

it looks nothing like a CD

it sounds nothing like a CD

controlled demolitions don't have a small top portion collapse...and then the rest of the building collapse.

controlled demolitions have lots of loud BANGS before the building goes, and then more bangs as it goes.

WTC 7 had none of these things.

 

Again, I don't know what you were looking at but, I know what I saw.

 

Yeah - forget the evidence, you know what you saw.

 

what you've seen are videos that ignore the beginning of the collapse, which was of the penthouse.

you also ignore the lack of sharp bangs before and during the collapse.

why do you ignore these things? because to acknowledge them would ruin your pre-conceived notion of truth.

 

It's just like a dog watching TV. They know what they're seeing. They just don't understand it.