13th year of failure for 911 truth. That sums up the video. Great video for a failed movement based on lies.

The simulator was funny, a pilot for truth failed pilot can't hit the Pentagon in the safety of a simulator, but the terrorists did. Kind of bragging the wrong way.

Can't find anything to help 911 truth in this video, zero evidence, zero reality.

13 years and no Pulitzer? Did all the newspapers turn down 911 truth. yep

is like London without the Gherkin

Wonder why they left her out of their excellent video?

Almost everyone has seen the first clip of Ms. Standley announcing the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes early.

But few have seen her encore appearance 3 hours later:



Who wrote the words she read on the air at 5PM ?
Why did her feed cut out twice within 3 hours when no other reporters from the BBC were similarly affected?

Did the BBC talk to fire fighters who had cleared the area because WTC 7 was going to collapse. It is no surprise to the firefighters on the scene WTC 7 could collapse, it burned all during the day. Fire destroys steel.

And not the first time the news got it wrong. The cool part of this nonsenses of WTC 7 falling early got wrong by the BBC, it means nothing which is why it is a red flag of woo when 911 truth uses this to support their silly fantasy of CD, thermite and some inside job they can't define or prove after 13 years of failure.

911 truth with lies and dumbed down claims fails to take action with zero evidence - that makes sense. 911 truth, a NAZI like name for a movement of lies based on ignorance and fantasy. They would not have the date right if it was not for their name.

Sounds like you didn't read the Official Report©. Did you?

Why didn't fire "destroy" this steel?





Or this steel?





The Beijing Television Cultural Center after the fire-that didn't "destroy steel" (rofl)



If "Fire destroys steel" then surely you can find another example of a steel framed building that has been "destroyed" by fire-and you'd be famous! TIA



So Truth is now a derogatory word. Orwell loves you! You sound like an angry bloke. You do realise that rantings like that only further motivate those that seek the truth, don't you? Calm down. Take a big breath. You and your kind will never stop anyone from doing anything.

However, every time we go down this road the goalposts keep getting moved.

Oh, and the Windsor was a combination structural steel and concrete design. The steel failed in the fire; the concrete didn't.

Hilarious. Make up your mind. Either NIST is to be believed or it is not.
You can't have it both ways. See the first paragraph?

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610



Please provide examples of "plenty of steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fires." I want to send them to NIST straight away.

"Goalposts" ! ROFL you aren't even on the same field, sport.

It didn't take you long. I didn't even have to provide any examples to get you started nitpicking.

Last edited Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

What it destroyed was the structural integrity. NIST's simulations found that the "probable cause" of WTC7's collapse was that thermal expansion pushed a girder off its seat because it had only been designed to withstand the gravity load, with only a few bolts resisting lateral movement. That floor collapsed onto the floor below, and the impact caused that floor to break away from the column, too. The progressive floor collapse that followed left column 79 with insufficient lateral restraint to resist buckling. When 79 buckled, the collapse propagated through the building because almost all of the interior column connections were also designed to carry only the gravity loads, not the bending "moment" caused by the other end of the beams falling.

Comparing WTC7 to other building fires is fallacious because that "probable cause" is based on both the asymmetric layout of the floor girders around column 79 and the specific details of the connections at that column.

Although we don't have enough data to say with certainty that that was the exact sequence of events, that explanation is widely accepted as being plausible by structural engineers who understand that when a structure loses integrity, all bets are off. With the floor beams gone, the columns couldn't stand on their own.

On the other side of the argument, we have "I don't understand that" and "I don't believe that could happen." That is far, far short of what it would take to replace NIST's "probable cause" with a better explanation. I doubt that many engineers would bet their next paycheck that NIST was 100% correct about the exact sequence, but any number of possible sequences are still far, far more plausible than silent explosives or precisely timed thermite cutting.

Structural engineers do know how to design a structure that can withstand very high fire temperatures, if that is a design requirement (as it would be for a self-cleaning oven). They don't do that however, because it is not a typical design requirement, and going beyond building code requirements would increase the cost of the structure beyond what the typical owner is willing to pay. That is the issue addressed by NIST's proposed code changes.

You supported the "official story", using NIST as your illogical defense for fire destruction or something. Fire did destroy WTC 7, unless it was one of your self cleaning ovens gone wild.

WTC 7 fires were not hot according to 911 truth ... step right in.

Not hot fires. Fire good for 911 truth can't destroy buildings... oops thermal expansion, heat from fire, destroys building. oops


Sagging floors, thermal expansion, seen before in other buildings.

If WTC 7 had not collapsed, it would be unusable, destroyed, taken apart for scrape like One Meridian Plaza, in the photo. This is what WTC 7 would look like but worse, because WTC 7 was unique and had longer spans. Cherry picking NIST backed fired, and by using NIST you debunk 911 truth's silent explosives, and no product fantasy thermite scams. Was that your intention, to support the official story, and you did it very good, you said thermal expansion destroyed WTC 7, the heat supplied by fire; thus fire destroyed WTC 7.

lol, the Windsor Building is where? LOL, fire destroyed the steel's ability to hold up the building, even though it was in concrete which held up the remains.

Where is the building now in your first photo? In the dump, it was destroyed by fire. You posted proof fire destroys the strength of steel, the building had to be torn down due to fire. The only reason Windsor did not collapse, concrete, and Windsor was failing in an hour or two, and the fire was fought. Do some research before self-debunking, please.

Then you post a hollow building, and fires at night. Fires at night look big, fires in day, look small. The WTC tower fires were bigger, but you failed to calculate the heat from the WTC fires.



The steel only frame destroyed by fire, and the entire building gutted. Means the building was destroyed, buy fire.
You claim fire can't destroy steel, and post a photo like this where the steel is bent by fire and laying in a pile. The only reason the rest of the steel frame part remained, they poured water on it all night. Better find out where the building is before you present a building as survived fire, the building was never used again. Totaled by fire.



One Meridian Plaza, destroyed by fire, fires fought. oops, another building destroyed by fire.
Never used again, destroyed by fire.