Building 7 . . .

camlok · Sep 13, 2017

Helix said:
quoting the post twice doesn't strengthen your argument; nor does it make the narrative work. a skyscraper fell on WTC7, it caught on fire, and then it collapsed.

But it shows that you are willing to ignore crucial evidence, all the while providing absolutely none of your own uninformed opinions, to wit,

"a skyscraper fell on WTC7, it caught on fire, and then it collapsed."

In fact, this time you have dishonestly and shamelessly embellished your uninformed opinion, suggesting the entire WTC1 fell on Seven. It was a football field away. Science know how much damage occurred and agrees it was not significant.

Ignoring, skyscrapers fell on WTCs 5 & 6, causing massive damage, they burned for hours, all of both encompassed in flame yet they didn't collapse.

Maybe you, and others, can at least see just how powerful and controlling is USA propaganda.

Helix · Sep 13, 2017

camlok said:
But it shows that you are willing to ignore crucial evidence, all the while providing absolutely none of your own uninformed opinions, to wit,

"a skyscraper fell on WTC7, it caught on fire, and then it collapsed."

In fact, this time you have dishonestly and shamelessly embellished your uninformed opinion, suggesting the entire WTC1 fell on Seven. It was a football field away. Science know how much damage occurred and agrees it was not significant.

Ignoring, skyscrapers fell on WTCs 5 & 6, causing massive damage, they burned for hours, all of both encompassed in flame yet they didn't collapse.

Maybe you, and others, can at least see just how powerful and controlling is USA propaganda.

burning buildings that don't collapse aren't structurally compromised in a way that would lead to their collapse. WTC7 was.

camlok · Sep 13, 2017

Helix said:
burning buildings that don't collapse aren't structurally compromised in a way that would lead to their collapse. WTC7 was.

No evidence for your opinion. Ignoring the impossibilities, 1) molten/vaporized steel 2) iron microspheres 3) symmetrical collapse 4) ... 5) ... ...

Helix · Sep 13, 2017

camlok said:
No evidence for your opinion. Ignoring the impossibilities, 1) molten/vaporized steel 2) iron microspheres 3) symmetrical collapse 4) ... 5) ... ...

no mini-nukes, no thermite, and no working narrative for CT.

cuban smokes · Sep 13, 2017

mike2810 said:
Please provide your sources to your statements regarding what Silverstein meant by "pull or pull it"

I have 30 years experience in fire (wildland). I can tell you the term pull or pull it has been used to mean cancel the fire operations and withdraw. It is also used in structural firefighting.

Here is a site with other fire quotes from 9/11 regarding pull.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/"pull"=withdrawfirefightersfromdanger

Here is one dealing with pulling a building down for demolition because of damage. Like WTC 6
WTC7 Pulled

Amazing how many sites basically disagree with you
https://www.google.com/search?q=wtc...paPWAhXni1QKHX3lBk8Q1QIIZygA&biw=1344&bih=720

What I see you posting has been around for years. If you have something new to discuss regarding the CD explanation please post it.
While your at it, please provide a link to the one concise CD explanation regarding WTC7. Would like to know how they protected the explosives for all the hours the building burned. Of course I would like links to the evidence and not just well the charges were protected.

The first link you posted has 34 examples of using the two words 'pull' and 'pulled.'

Not a single example uses the term 'pull it' ........... this is the term Silverstein used.

The word 'it' would typically apply to a singular, and inanimate object.

Silverstein uses the term 'pull it.' If what you are saying is true, which it is not, then the word 'it' would have to apply to multiple persons aka the fire fighters that were ordered to evacuate the WTC 7 area at 3:30 PM, 1 hour & 50 minutes before the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM.

WHY would Silverstein use the term 'pull it' to describe multiple/animate objects (the fire fighters) when the word 'it' typically applies to a singular, inanimate object?

We all know what Silverstein meant when he said, "so we made the decision to pull it" and so does Silverstein.

People can keep lying to themselves; I really don't give a **** ..............

camlok · Sep 13, 2017

Helix said:
no mini-nukes, no thermite, and no working narrative for CT.

mike likes that you headed off on a tangent like a speeding meteor, like the USGOC theorists always do.

Patent dishonesty, Helix, from your second post or third post.

Did you know that it is nearly impossible to guide a minority toward truth when the majority continue to lie to themselves?

Helix · Sep 13, 2017

camlok said:
mike likes that you headed off on a tangent like a speeding meteor, like the USGOC theorists always do.

Patent dishonesty, Helix, from your second post or third post.

Did you know that it is nearly impossible to guide a minority toward truth when the majority continue to lie to themselves?

why wasn't at least one patsy hijacker from Iraq? why were most of the hijackers from Saudi Arabia? why didn't the US government, allegedly capable of carrying out a false flag attack of this scale, plant at least one nuclear weapon in Iraq in order to justify the reason for going to war? the CT narrative does not add up.

camlok · Sep 13, 2017

Helix said:
why wasn't at least one patsy hijacker from Iraq? why were most of the hijackers from Saudi Arabia? why didn't the US government, allegedly capable of carrying out a false flag attack of this scale, plant at least one nuclear weapon in Iraq in order to justify the reason for going to war? the CT narrative does not add up.

It's the USGOCT that does not add up. It's the folks like you who deny stark reality, deny absolute impossibilities and offer uninformed personal opinions that are not reality based, and the rest of the US CTers sit silent, just happy that someone is creating diversions and distractions.

The US government is capable of doing this, that's part of the huge disconnect from reality that you guys have. The science, the facts, ..., the lack of evidence for the USGOCT illustrate clearly that the 19 Arab hijackers did not carry out this attack.

mike2810 · Sep 13, 2017

cuban smokes said:
People can keep lying to themselves; I really don't give a **** ..............

Yep, you seem to be doing that.

Personal experience must mean nothing to you unless it supports your view.

Helix · Sep 13, 2017

camlok said:
It's the USGOCT that does not add up. It's the folks like you who deny stark reality, deny absolute impossibilities and offer uninformed personal opinions that are not reality based, and the rest of the US CTers sit silent, just happy that someone is creating diversions and distractions.

The US government is capable of doing this, that's part of the huge disconnect from reality that you guys have. The science, the facts, ..., the lack of evidence for the USGOCT illustrate clearly that the 19 Arab hijackers did not carry out this attack.

this is not an adequate response. start with your explanation concerning the alleged origins of the "patsy" hijackers. why weren't at least a few of them from Iraq?

camlok · Sep 13, 2017

Helix said:
this is not an adequate response. start with your explanation concerning the alleged origins of the "patsy" hijackers. why weren't at least a few of them from Iraq?

It's amazing the gall you folks have. You deniers of stark realities, you deniers of science, you folks who won't face these realities or the science, and your empty posts show all this clearly. Your, all of your responses have been terribly inadequate, meaning you all say absolutely nothing of any significance.

It doesn't matter where you think the real perpetrators of 911 should have pretended they were from because there is no evidence to show they actually exist. A few tiny hints for you - Arab hijackers cannot melt/vaporize steel, they had no access to US military nanothermite, some are still alive, the US government lied about OBL, about everything actually, but, and this is the craziest thing of all, you guys still believe the liars!

And see, I'm not even pulling one of the famous USGOCT supporters favorite diversions screaming you are off topic.

camlok · Sep 13, 2017

MaggieD said:
I just watched the footage of Bldg 7's collapse, the third tower to go down on 9/11.

Ive never looked into the conspiracy theory except to know there is one. Can those who are familiar please tell us what conventional wisdom says about this collapse? Do they postulate it was from damage done to it from ground vibration caused by the other two towers coming down? That's what logic tells me.

Had you forgotten this third tower fell? I had...

Here's a dandy example, Maggie, of all that was quickly hidden by day two from the American people, the world. Bush and Cheney accusing OBL when he wasn't involved. The reports of bombs, explosions, the white smoke at the base of the towers, white smoke is indicative of thermitic reactions, nanothermite cutting thru steel.

This same white smoke was seen with the molten iron seen pouring out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up.

Why would those who had a rock solid case against 19 Arab hijackers feel the need to hide anything from anyone? It makes no sense at all to hide things when you are supposedly telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Remember, pretty much all the things you will hear in this video were categorically denied by NIST and other US government entities as never having happened.

Why were there FBI agents whisking people away who were talking to reporters?

camlok · Sep 13, 2017

Another dandy example of the lies by omission from NIST.

Iron particles/iron spherules found by RJLee Group and the USGS are one of the by products of thermitic reactions. Nanothermite was found and described by a number of independent scientists who published a paper on this.

Nanothermite is a proprietary US super explosive developed by US military labs in the 1990s. It had no legal/legitimate reason to be in WTC dust.

Arab hijackers had absolutely no chance of ever obtaining nanothermite, making nanothermite or bringing nanothermite to WTC.

NIST was highly involved in the development of these new super explosives and they knew full well of their existence and their abilities.

The vaporized lead oxide coated mentioned in the 2003 RJLee report needs 3,180F to accomplish this. The maximum WTC twin towers temperatures from jet fuel and office furnishings can only reach, at most, about 1,500F.

Where did the extra 1,680 F come from to vaporize this lead?

mike2810 · Sep 14, 2017

There are some who do not want people to actually see what RJLee stated about the dust.

Note what the last paragraph states.

NMSR 9-11 'Truth' Resources

cuban smokes · Sep 14, 2017

camlok said:
Here's a dandy example, Maggie, of all that was quickly hidden by day two from the American people, the world. Bush and Cheney accusing OBL when he wasn't involved. The reports of bombs, explosions, the white smoke at the base of the towers, white smoke is indicative of thermitic reactions, nanothermite cutting thru steel.

This same white smoke was seen with the molten iron seen pouring out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up.

Why would those who had a rock solid case against 19 Arab hijackers feel the need to hide anything from anyone? It makes no sense at all to hide things when you are supposedly telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Remember, pretty much all the things you will hear in this video were categorically denied by NIST and other US government entities as never having happened.

Why were there FBI agents whisking people away who were talking to reporters?

The video you posted is interesting. It reminds me of the many hours of NYC fire fighter interviews I have watched & listened to over the years, interviews that are from fire fighters that were on scene at the WTC complex. These NYC fire fighters were each individually an actual real time eyewitness to the events of 9/11 on location.

Everyone loves fire fighters; they truly are heroes. They rush to any scene to save lives putting their own lives at risk, every time they are called to duty. That is their job. Again, everyone loves fire fighters.

Many of these NYC fire fighters commented on "explosions" just as many other citizens on the scene commented on.

Why the Hell would anyone believe a word any of these NYC fire fighters that were on scene the morning of 9/11 believe a damn word any of them said about anything, especially concerning 'explosions?'

zyzygy · Sep 14, 2017

cuban smokes said:
The video you posted is interesting. It reminds me of the many hours of NYC fire fighter interviews I have watched & listened to over the years, interviews that are from fire fighters that were on scene at the WTC complex. These NYC fire fighters were each individually an actual real time eyewitness to the events of 9/11 on location.

Everyone loves fire fighters; they truly are heroes. They rush to any scene to save lives putting their own lives at risk, every time they are called to duty. That is their job. Again, everyone loves fire fighters.

Many of these NYC fire fighters commented on "explosions" just as many other citizens on the scene commented on.

Why the Hell would anyone believe a word any of these NYC fire fighters that were on scene the morning of 9/11 believe a damn word any of them said about anything, especially concerning 'explosions?'

Have you ever seen a building burning down? There are often explosions.

camlok · Sep 14, 2017

zyzygy said:
Have you ever seen a building burning down? There are often explosions.

Direct diversion/distraction, zyzygy, with zero evidence, as always. These firemen knew that these were secondary explosions which were not building related but you would have to read the myriad testimonies from these firefighters or watch videos of them describing the explosions and bombs, also described by reporters on the scene, news anchors, many eyewitnesses, also described by GW Bush.

How do you explain the massive explosions in the main lobby of WTC1 which blew out all the thick plate glass windows, tore marble off the wall, killed people? I'm sure the lobby was full of all manner of things that would explode where there was no fire. The firemen reported explosions "heavy duty explosions" on floors where there were no fires.

Massive explosions were also reported by 36 people in the basement of WTC1 BEFORE the plane hit.

You have always shown that you and your fellow science deniers/deniers of reality are not willing to look at the evidence, hence your perpetual diversions/distractions.

camlok · Sep 14, 2017

mike2810 said:
There are some who do not want people to actually see what RJLee stated about the dust.

Note what the last paragraph states.

NMSR 9-11 'Truth' Resources

Not even Rich Lee believes that this process could create 6% of WTC dust. Rich Lee, and you, mike, are ignoring the nanothermite found in WTC dust, you are ignoring the molten/vaporized steel from not only WTCs 1 and 2 but also from WTC7.

You science deniers could be trusted if you were actually trying to get to the truth but your outright denials of so much stark evidence indicates that you folks are not interested in the truth, you only seek to cause distractions and diversions. You nitpick mostly about unrelated and finicky unimportant details, see zyzygy's post on this page two before this one.

camlok · Sep 14, 2017

mike2810 said:
There are some who do not want people to actually see what RJLee stated about the dust.

There are also some who can't and won't face up to the realities, such as the vaporized lead also found by RJLee, which I mentioned, mike.

"The vaporized lead oxide coated mentioned in the 2003 RJLee report needs 3,180F to accomplish this. The maximum WTC twin towers temperatures from jet fuel and office furnishings can only reach, at most, about 1,500F.

Where did the extra 1,680 F come from to vaporize this lead?"

There are also some who can't and won't face up to many other realities, such as the molten molybdenum also found by RJLee, which needs 4,753F to melt it. Where did the extra 3,253 F come from, mike?

Thoreau72 · Sep 14, 2017

beefheart said:
The conspiracy theorists have had 16 years to prove their nonsense, and of course they haven't because...conspiracy theorists...:lamo

The government and NIST apologists have had 16 years to prove their various claims and theories, and have failed at every turn.

They've had 16 years to prove that 93 was in Shanksville and 77 was at the Pentagon, but all they can deliver are forged FDR data and frequently edited passenger manifests.

Any legitimate leader with clean hands would have formed a panel to investigate what happened, but Dubya & Dick fought that for about 2 years, and then named Henry Kissinger to be the head of the panel. :lamo

And when the panel is finally formed, most members made public comments about how the commission was set up to fail.

Yet you and others hang your hat on the crazy idea that the government has proved anything at all except its malfeasance.

KevinKohler · Sep 14, 2017

camlok said:
There are also some who can't and won't face up to the realities, such as the vaporized lead also found by RJLee, which I mentioned, mike.

"The vaporized lead oxide coated mentioned in the 2003 RJLee report needs 3,180F to accomplish this. The maximum WTC twin towers temperatures from jet fuel and office furnishings can only reach, at most, about 1,500F.

Where did the extra 1,680 F come from to vaporize this lead?"

There are also some who can't and won't face up to many other realities, such as the molten molybdenum also found by RJLee, which needs 4,753F to melt it. Where did the extra 3,253 F come from, mike?

I have a fire pit in my back yard that I use to heat up and play around with glowing steal. Only thing I put in it is wood and air. I temped it with an IR gun one time, and it exceeded 1,500 degrees, by a decent amount. A little old fire pit. I routinely melt my beer bottles in it. I also routinely vaporize beer cans in it.

camlok · Sep 14, 2017

Here is an excellent overview of the total impossibilities as regards the molten metals found at WTC. It presents the US official story and the voluminous evidence against the impossible official story.

Remember, NIST denies the existence of all these molten metals even those that they actually admit to seeing and discussing, like the molten iron seen pouring out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up.

Even with all these impossibilities people still believe the serial liars, Bush, Cheney, ..., the actual serial liars who gave you this charade, this fiction, this utter and complete nonsense.

=============

Point TT-6: The Claim that There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC
Point TT-6: Buildings
<< Previous Point, Next Point >>

Introduction
According to the official account, the Twin Towers were brought down by airplane impacts and fire, and in the case of WTC 7, by fire alone. One implication of this account is that the destruction would have produced no molten steel or molten iron (which is produced in a thermite reaction). Structural steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,482°C (2,700°F), and iron does not melt until it reaches 1,538°C (2,800°F). [1] The fires ignited by the plane crashes, even with the help of jet fuel, could not have been hotter than 1,000°C (1,832°F), meaning that they would have been at least 1000 degrees F. cooler than what would be necessary to melt steel/iron. The presence of molten steel or iron, therefore, would have implied that the building steel had been melted by something other than the airplane impacts and the resulting fires.

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

MaggieD · Sep 14, 2017

camlok said:
Not even Rich Lee believes that this process could create 6% of WTC dust. Rich Lee, and you, mike, are ignoring the nanothermite found in WTC dust, you are ignoring the molten/vaporized steel from not only WTCs 1 and 2 but also from WTC7.

You science deniers could be trusted if you were actually trying to get to the truth but your outright denials of so much stark evidence indicates that you folks are not interested in the truth, you only seek to cause distractions and diversions. You nitpick mostly about unrelated and finicky unimportant details, see zyzygy's post on this page two before this one.

Conspiracy theories have existed, probably, forever. It is very difficult to disprove them.

Big pharma is withholding cancer cures.
The oil industry paid billions to buy technology to obsolete fossil fuel and put it on a shelf.
JFK assassination was an inside job.
Fluoride is an attempt by the gvmt or communists to somebody else to control minds.
Chem trails same thing.
Princess Di was murdered by order of the Royal Palace.
The Pearl Harbor attack was known about in advance and allowed to proceed so the US could declare war.
Pan Air Flight 103.
Iraq was a war for oil.
The global warming conspiracy.
And more.

Conspiracy theories are very difficult to disprove. And humans love drama.

KevinKohler · Sep 14, 2017

camlok said:
Here is an excellent overview of the total impossibilities as regards the molten metals found at WTC. It presents the US official story and the voluminous evidence against the impossible official story.

Remember, NIST denies the existence of all these molten metals even those that they actually admit to seeing and discussing, like the molten iron seen pouring out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up.

Even with all these impossibilities people still believe the serial liars, Bush, Cheney, ..., the actual serial liars who gave you this charade, this fiction, this utter and complete nonsense.

=============

Point TT-6: The Claim that There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC
Point TT-6: Buildings
<< Previous Point, Next Point >>

Introduction
According to the official account, the Twin Towers were brought down by airplane impacts and fire, and in the case of WTC 7, by fire alone. One implication of this account is that the destruction would have produced no molten steel or molten iron (which is produced in a thermite reaction). Structural steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,482°C (2,700°F), and iron does not melt until it reaches 1,538°C (2,800°F). [1] The fires ignited by the plane crashes, even with the help of jet fuel, could not have been hotter than 1,000°C (1,832°F), meaning that they would have been at least 1000 degrees F. cooler than what would be necessary to melt steel/iron. The presence of molten steel or iron, therefore, would have implied that the building steel had been melted by something other than the airplane impacts and the resulting fires.

Point TT-6: The Claim That There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC Buildings | Consensus 911

How have the experts determine how hot the fire could have gotten?

camlok · Sep 14, 2017

KevinKohler said:
I have a fire pit in my back yard that I use to heat up and play around with glowing steal. Only thing I put in it is wood and air. I temped it with an IR gun one time, and it exceeded 1,500 degrees, by a decent amount. A little old fire pit. I routinely melt my beer bottles in it. I also routinely vaporize beer cans in it.

Kevin, you have to understand the science. Office fires, even with jet fuel added cannot melt or vaporize massive structural steel columns and beams. Nor can OFs melt molybdenum, 4,700F, vaporized lead, 3,180F.

These are absolute impossibilities.