Building 7 Collapsed Due to Fire on 9/11 - Syham Sunder, NIST

NISTs Syham Sunder may be telling the truth to veil a lie?

[video=youtube;_IkiLxdn-5Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IkiLxdn-5Q[/video]


thermite cutter charges that have been around since the early 80's



can be doped (with ptfe for instance) to produce the equivalent of an acetylene flame and cut through several inches of steel with only a small amount of actual thermite.

The cut time is determined by the thickness of the metal to be cut as we can see the different cut timings and demolition order prior and during the collapse and they are almost silent.



Of course while sunder may not be 100% lying with his catagorization of 'fire' he certainly is not telling the truth, and unquestionably falsely representing the matter to the public who are not educated or familiar with how these exotic devices work or how they can be used. Fortunately for truthers they forgot to cover the windows!

then again precisely timed, sequenced flashes in the building, exactly as one would expect to see if it were to be pulled by explosive demolition are probably just some freak coincidence?

.

 

now thats some pretty wild fire, its extremely bright only shines for a second or 2 then things come falling down and you can see it on nist's site too, wonder how long they will leave it there now that they are exposed.

 

There is a George Carlin bit
where as sort of a refrain to his routine
he sez " nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care"
Is AMERICA so numb that this stuff doesn't register for them?

 

Hey Koko, couple of questions.

How did you generate the gif images for that?

How do you know that those changes in lighting are not reflection changes of light via the windows as the facade tilted/moved during the collapse.

 

Is that why your "fire" cannot be seen through the windows that were broken out?

What you have shown is light reflections of the windows and how that facade moved/tilted due to structural failure.

Thanks for that.

 

are you suggesting they are the reflections of sunlight? Seriously?

 

sure it can just before the windows were blown out, are you trying to cheat us?


Again, you think thats reflections of the sun? seriously?

 

Good trufer editing. The less clear the image, the better. That's got to be a motto for trufer producers and authors.

WTC7 was both physically damaged from the debris of the twin towers during their collapse AND on fire afterwards. The structure was thus clearly compromised enough that it eventually came down.

And a vast majority of people with a relevant education would agree and could probably give you a more detailed analysis than that. That is, if the truth is of any interest to you, rather than some silly conspiracy agenda. Why not just focus on the fact that most of the alleged attackers were Saudi rather than Afghan or Iraqi, yet it's those latter two nations that Bush's USSA went charging into even while continuing to kiss Saudi buttocks? That interests me a lot more than these stupid inside job! BLARGH!! rantings and droolings based on faulty data and deceit.

 

Yeah, yet again, another BULSH claim from ignorance. Just more artifacts in enlarged, highly-contrasted, highly-compressed (of an already compressed video) distorted video.

Your trick and claims are old.

 

obviously you do not like the "9/11 was an inside job" faction.
oops!

Just my take on the whole bit, the towers & 7 could not
have "collapsed" as they did, without help, that is serious
help from either explosives, or weaponized ray-gun .... or?
and the concept that there could be 4 airliner crashes and
not only so little left behind, but so little accounting for the
alleged airliner bits. .... really people?
more than suspicious, its CRIMINAL!
the mainstream media lies!

 

I'll go REAL slow for you this time.

I can see your "fire" within the other windows RIGHT NEXT to the windows that were knocked out. The windows that were knocked out are black squares.

Explain this to me. If it was "fire" in the rooms BEHIND the windows, how does this "fire" show up in still intact windows right next to the knocked out windows, but happens to be missing in said knocked out windows? Let me guess. The wind, now able to get to the fires in the rooms behind the knocked out windows, blew the fire out?



You don't think this stuff through do you.

I also asked you another question. What parameters did you use to create that gif? Let me guess your answer for that one also. You didn't create it right. You've used that one before.

 

Hey look everyone! I can show "fire" in the windows too! Not to hard. Just use your favorite photo editor, convert the image to grayscale, the play with the brightness and contrast controls!!!!








Good job Koko!

 

I am sure you, do however I dont see anything flashing in those stills.


so you want to fool everyone by posting "still" pictures and comparing them to motion pictures that show the bursts of light?






See how easy it is to see demolition sequence in low light?


looks like a demo smells like a demo but its a debunker swimming pool is that it?

 

whats the problem? you said the knocked out windows were "blacked out" so you answered your own question.

Thanks for going so slow.

 

True to form. When Koko gets caught with his pants down, he spirals out of control.

Let's try again shall we?

If it is "fire" or "internal explosions of some kind", why do we not see the "fire" or "internal explosions of some kind" in the windows that were knocked out? Yet right next to them you can?

It's because the "fire" you think you see is just light reflections being enhanced by you messing around with the picture.

 

but I have already shown you thats not the case.

are you viewing my posts with your eyes closed again?




So what do you think about the light reflections above?

Did this building just happen to coincidentally twist just right to coincidentally give us perfectly sequenced light reflections coincidentally just like wtc 7 in your coincidental opinion? LOL




Of course reality has never been a debunker strong suit because the truth is like kryptonite to debunkers.

lowering contrast is one of several forensic methods for analysis when looking for explosions and gun flashes and the like.

How come you dont know that?

Why are you here if you dont know that?

your claim has the same zero value as crying fuzzy picture when its the same ones the government used LOL

 

I accept valid arguments based on engineering and physics.



a good eye can easily see the flashes however debunkers generally are quite blind and pretend that if they dont look at the kryptonite it cant weaken them.

 

What we can (not so) clearly make out is a change in apparent brightness. The rest is interpretation as to the cause.

 

I have news for you everything in life is a matter of interpretation, the brain is required to interpret everything in its environment through sight touch taste etc, so thats ridiculous thing say much less argue, hell identifying the cup of coffee you drink in the morning is subject to your interpretation that its coffee.

like it or not that blurry clip is the same clip NIST (the gubbermint) has on their site and used and still uses!

If its good enough for the gubmint why isnt it good enough for you?

How about the cause of this one:




debunkers out here would have people believe that it looks like an orange, smells like an orange, tastes like an orange so "clearly" its an apple

 

The really sick part of this whole thing is
the fact that the NIST gets to claim that
FIRE was responsible for the destruction
of WTC7 and that is that, the rank&file citizens
here do not have to think about it at all, no problem.
the experts have it all figured out .... go back to bed
AMERICA ..... your government is in control.

 

No, what's sick is that you just admitted in another thread that there is no evidence for either a controlled demolition or the "official story" yet you support the controlled demolition side hook, line, and sinker.

Explain that one to me.

 

I am telling you that the most probable & plausible explanation
is that WTC1, 2 & 7 were demolished in a controlled demolition.
The fact that you refuse to accept what is the most probable & plausible explanation, would appear to be a function of the psychological warfare that is on-going at this time.

 

What you're TRYING to tell me has no basis on fact or reason because you are basing this claim on nothing more than assumptions on your part. How can you argue AGAINST something when you have no clue about it?

That's crazy talk.

My question to you is, how do you KNOW controlled demolition is more plausible when you haven't the first clue as to how structures react to redistributed loads or anything else structural design related?

 

Tell that to the FBI who came up with the Pentagon video.

 

Open your mind to the possibilities, there are a multitude of different scenarios possible, and the one resulting in both towers "collapsing" right down to ground level is among the least likely. There are all sorts of modes of failure that would have the upper part tipping and therefore dumping mass over the side of the tower, and thus stopping the action.
The calculation that the tower mass contained sufficient energy to completely destroy the building is flawed because it fails to include the factor of focus, without focus, the energy has NO guarantee at all of doing anything.

what is probable matters here. do try to keep an open mind.