To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a well known photo manipulated by truthers



It's burning paper

This is like debating with a religious type who sees images of jesus in everything

Manipulated when? Never seen the second picture online before it just appears out of nowhere, with a change in lighting?

I can see this is a steel piece, yes the paper is also burning

Overheal

Would seem very specious that paper and steel were both burning right there in the same color spectrum as one another. Like the book of the same name, paper burns at 451 degrees F. Steel's color/temp chart below

https://pmpaspeakingofprecision.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/heat-treat-colors-copy.jpg its a big photo

Now for fun and science, here's a paper studying the effect of heat on structural steel: https://fsel.engr.utexas.edu/pdfs/LEE_PhD_Dissertation_opt1.pdf I suggest if you buy into the conspiracies, you'll have no hesitation pouring over the science

Now you'll recall probably that jet fuel burns at, around 800 F up to 1500 F (~800 C). Look at the chart again.

Now go into the results in the paper. You can flip if you're being a casual to around page 91. You should be able to see that at even 600 C, the steel loses more than half its strength. By the time it gets up to 800 C, it might as well be wood plank.

Steel did not need to liquefy in the buildings for the structure to fail. At the heats discussed, steel loses over 90% of its original strength. Couple that with thermal expansion and local buckling it should come as a surprise to none that the buildings didn't exactly hold up.

storker

King Mob wrote: »

And again, the reason they did all this:
Destroy some paper work.

Best theory.

They should have gone to Oliver North for advice.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Would seem very specious that paper and steel were both burning right there in the same color spectrum as one another. Like the book of the same name, paper burns at 451 degrees F. Steel's color/temp chart below

https://pmpaspeakingofprecision.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/heat-treat-colors-copy.jpg its a big photo

Now for fun and science, here's a paper studying the effect of heat on structural steel: https://fsel.engr.utexas.edu/pdfs/LEE_PhD_Dissertation_opt1.pdf I suggest if you buy into the conspiracies, you'll have no hesitation pouring over the science

Now you'll recall probably that jet fuel burns at, around 800 F up to 1500 F (~800 C). Look at the chart again.

Now go into the results in the paper. You can flip if you're being a casual to around page 91. You should be able to see that at even 600 C, the steel loses more than half its strength. By the time it gets up to 800 C, it might as well be wood plank.

Steel did not need to liquefy in the buildings for the structure to fail. At the heats discussed, steel loses over 90% of its original strength. Couple that with thermal expansion and local buckling it should come as a surprise to none that the buildings didn't exactly hold up.

Well if you have not noticed the steel is sitting on a pile of debris. You can clearly see the edges of the steel sticking out. The steel was painted with red primer paint. Most of the hot spots you can see their steel there on top. Look at Dohnjoe photos again.

Going by the photos the fires are in the yellow zone ( unless your colour blind?)

You providing nothing worthwhile. History is on the side of the truthers. It not like fires have never touched steel in buildings before. How come these buildings never fully collapsed? You find plenty of examples online of steel framed buildings burning for a lot longer than WTC7 and none of them falls down.

How can a building just collapse at freefall speeds? Even if you are right steel sections collapsed in one part of the building at the top, the rest of the building is still supported by steel connections undamaged by a fire underneath. There should be a decline in speed when steel supports are buckling and breaking. What you saw on 9/11 defies physics.

NIST thermal expansion is based on lies and manipulation. Refusal to believe it does not matter, as its the truth. NIST removed construction fittings on the girder that failed at column 79. This is established factual information in 2019. We can't trust NIST to tell us the truth when they are doing this to suit their model. Their computer model of the collapse they released is based on lies.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Steel did not need to liquefy in the buildings for the structure to fail. At the heats discussed, steel loses over 90% of its original strength. Couple that with thermal expansion and local buckling it should come as a surprise to none that the buildings didn't exactly hold up.

It should not be happening at all. Instead what you find is steel melted in a debris pile. How does steel just evaporate like that? What are the conditions that caused it truly?

It more curious when NIST comes along and claims no steel melted. They claim on a video nobody reported finding molten steel in the debris and there no video or photos of it. This clearly wrong when you have videos of firefighters, clean up workers saying they were finding steel melted in the rubble.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

History is on the side of the truthers.

The Sandy Hook truthers? the Boston marathon bombing truthers? the Charlie Hebdo truthers?

Interesting how you pick one group and conveniently reject the rest as "crazy"

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The Sandy Hook truthers? the Boston marathon bombing truthers? the Charlie Hebdo truthers?

Interesting how you pick one group and conveniently reject the rest as "crazy"

Unrelated events and have nothing to do with 9/11.

Do you believe Bin Laden holed up in a cave in Afghanistan ran and controlled the operation? Do you believe it was just bin Laden and the 19 hijackers only who carried out the 9/11 attacks?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Unrelated events and have nothing to do with 9/11.

Truthers are the same across all of these "inside jobs". Quack logic, endless deflection, no critical thinking and an allergy to actually giving details of the conspiracy

Same fantasy, different terrorist event

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Truthers are the same across all of these "inside jobs". Quack logic, endless deflection, no critical thinking and an allergy to actually giving details of the conspiracy

Same fantasy, different terrorist event

Bin Laden denied he was involved. Since he the supposed mastermind behind the attacks why would he deny it? He should be celebrating it not denying it. And nobody has ever claimed it was not Bin Laden who issued the denial statement 6 days after 9/11. Jihadists denying involvement is suspicious yes or no?

Cheerful Spring

People have forgotten about the Anthrax attacks that occurred 6 days after 9/11. The preparators send weaponized anthrax through the mail to politicians. The jihadists were blamed letters were sent with anthrax. Death to Isreal death to America writings.

It later came out the weaponized anthrax was made in the US and came from a US high secretive military lab. They tried to pin the blame on a lone employee. The ruined his life. Senators even told FBI director Robert Muller they did not believe there one person involved in this attack and demanded answers. This event eventually just disappeared from the papers and media.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It should not be happening at all. Instead what you find is steel melted in a debris pile. How does steel just evaporate like that? What are the conditions that caused it truly?

It more curious when NIST comes along and claims no steel melted. They claim on a video nobody reported finding molten steel in the debris and there no video or photos of it. This clearly wrong when you have videos of firefighters, clean up workers saying they were finding steel melted in the rubble.

This does not mean what you think it means, do some research before trying to introduce new words into your vocabulary

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Bin Laden denied he was involved. Since he the supposed mastermind behind the attacks why would he deny it? He should be celebrating it not denying it. And nobody has ever claimed it was not Bin Laden who issued the denial statement 6 days after 9/11. Jihadists denying involvement is suspicious yes or no?

The truth-bending never ends, worse than a politician. Right so, you're claiming that Bin Laden wasn't involved in the planning but that Larry Silverstein was

Ready to actually answer some questions on it or are you going to weasel out of it again?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

People have forgotten about the Anthrax attacks that occurred 6 days after 9/11..

Wheres your evidence that people have forgotten about it?

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

Wheres your evidence that people have forgotten about it?

Indeed I remember it very well, a little overshadowed by previous events, but was pretty big news at the time

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Well if you have not noticed the steel is sitting on a pile of debris. You can clearly see the edges of the steel sticking out. The steel was painted with red primer paint. Most of the hot spots you can see their steel there on top. Look at Dohnjoe photos again.

Going by the photos the fires are in the yellow zone ( unless your colour blind?)

The implication there is that there is a heat source 2,500 F just a couple feet from the camera (and those papers) and they don't combust, there is no heat distortion effects, nothing?

You providing nothing worthwhile. History is on the side of the truthers. It not like fires have never touched steel in buildings before. How come these buildings never fully collapsed? You find plenty of examples online of steel framed buildings burning for a lot longer than WTC7 and none of them falls down.

Because jet fuel burns hotter than pretty much anything you will have seen in any of those blazes. By a lot.

How can a building just collapse at freefall speeds? Even if you are right steel sections collapsed in one part of the building at the top, the rest of the building is still supported by steel connections undamaged by a fire underneath. There should be a decline in speed when steel supports are buckling and breaking. What you saw on 9/11 defies physics.

The steel columns, beams, ties, and spans underneath are rated for vertically static loading. You're introducing a massive crushing momentum force. Take for instance a train car: it takes *lots* of force to get its wheels spinning, but once they are you can push it along by hand. That's because in that case static friction >>> dynamic friction. Same general principles apply to a static load vs. a dynamic load: steel can handle static loads many times greater than a bullet could apply to it, yet a bullet will still damage it, because there is still localized yielding.

What we see in the towers, while non-intuitive, is physics: at each time step, the unmolested steel structure underneath is experiencing a dynamic crushing load of a greater and greater and faster mass than the moment in time/a few inches of structure before it. Whereas at the first point of failure you had n number of floors falling upon structure of m floors at velocity v, you successively have n+1 floors acting on m-1 floors at a speed of v+g*t.

And yes, this still applies even though the structure was rated to withstand lateral forces from an earthquake (probably around magnitude 4.0, but I'm not readily able to pull of that spec or what the requirement was in the 1970s NYC). The collapse itself triggered a pair of quakes magnitude 2.1 and 2.3, the plane strikes were mag 0.9 and 0.7. https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/seismology-911 the same source link suggests 'modern' NYC buildings have a typical safety up to 4.0 or 4.5 (the new Freedom Tower is rated up to 8.0 and expected to take up to a 9.0 before a directly catastrophic failure). This suggests the WTC which wasn't 'modern' had a less than 4.0 safety rating but I don't know. Again though that's lateral: a table leg is strong in compression but not if you kick the side of it. Inversely, a structure designed to support sudden lateral shifting is not necessarily designed to support 1/4th or more of its structure collapsing down on it at speed. And we haven't even discussed other potential failure points like assembly joints, nuts, bolts, trusses, spandrels, and the like. https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105 The towers were not engineered with computers.

NIST thermal expansion is based on lies and manipulation. Refusal to believe it does not matter, as its the truth. NIST removed construction fittings on the girder that failed at column 79. This is established factual information in 2019. We can't trust NIST to tell us the truth when they are doing this to suit their model. Their computer model of the collapse they released is based on lies.

I'm not going to bother trying to defend the NIST to a truther (because that's futile), but I will say in University (and I went to one of the best in the country) I had some very open minded liberal professors who were doctorates of heat transfer and metallurgy and ****, and they are not truthers, and they have taught and lectured and demonstrated how the science works, and how it applied to the WTC. There was even a fun in class activity at one point where we used the principle of heat transfer ourselves, to set up the problem, factor in the asbestos and the heat source and the steel and determine how long it would take to heat to its failure point (in the ballpark of 3 hours) which coincidentally enough, is about the same time-frame that the towers fell.

Your unwillingness to accept information is your prerogative but stop pretending you're open-minded and looking for 'truth' when you reject it out of hand. I didn't even quote or cite the NIST. I cited a dissertation from the University of Texas at Austin. If you're unable or unwilling to read or digest the information I can't help you.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It should not be happening at all. Instead what you find is steel melted in a debris pile. How does steel just evaporate like that? What are the conditions that caused it truly?

It more curious when NIST comes along and claims no steel melted. They claim on a video nobody reported finding molten steel in the debris and there no video or photos of it. This clearly wrong when you have videos of firefighters, clean up workers saying they were finding steel melted in the rubble.

It would be trivially easy to produce a sample of this melted steel, if it exists. Lots and lots of people found and recovered parts of the Space Shuttle Columbia when it disintegrated, but not one New Yorker found a piece of once-gloopy molten tower steel to take home? There should be *lots* of that, if the conspiracy is true, and with as many people that were in and around that site (and how far debris was flung from the site - blocks away) I am flummoxed to how there is none on eBay right now. Should be literally tons of misshapen samples. Where are they?

Overheal

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

This does not mean what you think it means, do some research before trying to introduce new words into your vocabulary

Seriously. Steel to become gas would essentially un-bond into its base elements (eg. Iron, Carbon and trace elements). Iron evaporates at 5,182 degrees F. Lava barely breaks north of 2,000 F. And for truthers following along: Thermite burns in the neighborhood 4000 F.....

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

It would be trivially easy to produce a sample of this melted steel, if it exists. Lots and lots of people found and recovered parts of the Space Shuttle Columbia when it disintegrated, but not one New Yorker found a piece of once-gloopy molten tower steel to take home? There should be *lots* of that, if the conspiracy is true, and with as many people that were in and around that site (and how far debris was flung from the site - blocks away) I am flummoxed to how there is none on eBay right now. Should be literally tons of misshapen samples. Where are they?

NIST claimed they were unable to recover any steel pieces from the collapse of WTC7. The authorties got rid of it in a hurry and did not keep steel to be looked at later by investigators and researchers.

Straight from their site. Their excuse. Senators even said it was a crime this happened during a Senate hearing. NIST was working blind if we believe them.

NIST
27. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?


"Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

We know FEMA investigators did recover some steel pieces and they found the steel had melted.

Example WTC7 steel. To start a melting process you need extreme heat to be present normally 1500 celsius.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

The implication there is that there is a heat source 2,500 F just a couple feet from the camera (and those papers) and they don't combust, there is no heat distortion effects, nothing?

Because jet fuel burns hotter than pretty much anything you will have seen in any of those blazes. By a lot.



The steel columns, beams, ties, and spans underneath are rated for vertically static loading. You're introducing a massive crushing momentum force. Take for instance a train car: it takes *lots* of force to get its wheels spinning, but once they are you can push it along by hand. That's because in that case static friction >>> dynamic friction. Same general principles apply to a static load vs. a dynamic load: steel can handle static loads many times greater than a bullet could apply to it, yet a bullet will still damage it, because there is still localized yielding.

What we see in the towers, while non-intuitive, is physics: at each time step, the unmolested steel structure underneath is experiencing a dynamic crushing load of a greater and greater and faster mass than the moment in time/a few inches of structure before it. Whereas at the first point of failure you had n number of floors falling upon structure of m floors at velocity v, you successively have n+1 floors acting on m-1 floors at a speed of v+g*t.

And yes, this still applies even though the structure was rated to withstand lateral forces from an earthquake (probably around magnitude 4.0, but I'm not readily able to pull of that spec or what the requirement was in the 1970s NYC). The collapse itself triggered a pair of quakes magnitude 2.1 and 2.3, the plane strikes were mag 0.9 and 0.7. https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/seismology-911 the same source link suggests 'modern' NYC buildings have a typical safety up to 4.0 or 4.5 (the new Freedom Tower is rated up to 8.0 and expected to take up to a 9.0 before a directly catastrophic failure). This suggests the WTC which wasn't 'modern' had a less than 4.0 safety rating but I don't know. Again though that's lateral: a table leg is strong in compression but not if you kick the side of it. Inversely, a structure designed to support sudden lateral shifting is not necessarily designed to support 1/4th or more of its structure collapsing down on it at speed. And we haven't even discussed other potential failure points like assembly joints, nuts, bolts, trusses, spandrels, and the like. https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105 The towers were not engineered with computers.


I'm not going to bother trying to defend the NIST to a truther (because that's futile), but I will say in University (and I went to one of the best in the country) I had some very open minded liberal professors who were doctorates of heat transfer and metallurgy and ****, and they are not truthers, and they have taught and lectured and demonstrated how the science works, and how it applied to the WTC. There was even a fun in class activity at one point where we used the principle of heat transfer ourselves, to set up the problem, factor in the asbestos and the heat source and the steel and determine how long it would take to heat to its failure point (in the ballpark of 3 hours) which coincidentally enough, is about the same time-frame that the towers fell.

Your unwillingness to accept information is your prerogative but stop pretending you're open-minded and looking for 'truth' when you reject it out of hand. I didn't even quote or cite the NIST. I cited a dissertation from the University of Texas at Austin. If you're unable or unwilling to read or digest the information I can't help you.

Even NIST states the jet fuel was gone in 10 minutes it burned up. The big fireball you saw on TV is most of the jet fuel igniting when the planes crashed.

Truthers often mistake black smoke for an oxygen starved fire. In actual reality, white and grey smoke particularly is a fire running out of combustibles to burn.

Those are the reports from ground zero. They were unable to put out the fires or extinguish the heat pockets till 100 days. Persons on the ground said the heat was above 2000c. What can cause this?

NIST will not tell you this. Twin tower steel was graded to resist 2000c temp

Information from the web the lengths they went to cover this up.
Kevin Ryan is the former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time.

The reason he was fired. He disputed what they said about the steel.
UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, the steel's performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories.

NIST then claims the fireproofing was knocked off by the plane. Fireproofing protects the steel for hours. This is why they believe the steel got hot and broke and buckled. They ignore the fireproofing may have got burned off in the rubble sitting there for days or got blown away during the collapse (possible other scenarios)

Cheerful Spring

Never mind after six years of study by 200 researchers at NIST they still did know WTC7 had fallen at freefall speeds.

They even said freefall cannot happen during a natural progressive collapse. When David Chandler exposed them. They rewrote their own study in three months and then they pretended they knew all along the building collapsed at freefall.

Overheal please watch this and highlight where I misquoted NIST and did not understand them.
#

King Mob

Cheerful, you are stealing untrue factoids from other conspiracy theorists again. You are providing no links to your claims because they aren't true.

You are a liar and a fraud. No one is stupid enough to believe you.

You guys are taking the wrong tact by trying to argue evidence and reality.
He will simply reject reality and dream up whatever claim he wants.
There's no point trying to explain anything to him or to answer his questions as he is unwilling and unable to understand them.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Never mind after six years of study by 200 researchers at NIST they still did know WTC7 had fallen at freefall speeds.

They even said freefall cannot happen during a natural progressive collapse. When David Chandler exposed them. They rewrote their own study in three months and then they pretended they knew all along the building collapsed at freefall.

But you still don't know what freefall is.
You've shown that many times over.
Repeating your claims just reminds people of your embarrassments.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Never mind after six years of study by 200 researchers at NIST they still did know WTC7 had fallen at freefall speeds.

You keep falling back on stuff that you don't understand or misrepresent or distort as evidence of some massive conspiracy

I don't understand the physics behind neutron stars, it doesn't mean they don't exist

In order to avoid this "circular technique" this thread is created for people to provide evidence of how the building alternatively fell (you have taken it over and are treating it as some sort of meandering blog)

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

The more you avoid and dodge these questions the more I am going to ask

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You keep falling back on stuff that you don't understand or misrepresent or distort as evidence of some massive conspiracy

I don't understand the physics behind neutron stars, it doesn't mean they don't exist

In order to avoid this "circular technique" this thread is created for people to provide evidence of how the building alternatively fell (you have taken it over and are treating it as some sort of meandering blog)

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

The more you avoid and dodge these questions the more I am going to ask

We have the video of them denying freefall at their own technical press conference. Now you denying their own words and thoughts about Freefall.

They ruled out freefall and gave four reasons

There was still structural support when the building collapsed
The fall was slower never reached freefall speeds.
Freefall was not possible there needed to be a progression of failures first
Failures were not instantaneous they took time.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We have the video of them denying freefall at their own technical press conference. Now you denying their own words and thoughts about Freefall.

They ruled out freefall and gave four reasons

There was still structural support when the building collapsed
The fall was slower never reached freefall speeds.
Freefall was not possible there needed to be a progression of failures first
Failures were not instantaneous they took time.

And you don't understand it as you have no idea what you are talking about.

You also dodged Dohnjoe's question.
I think that from here out, everyone responding to you should just repeat the questions to you and stop allowing you to deflect from the original point of the thread.


1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We have the video of them denying freefall at their own technical press conference. Now you denying their own words and thoughts about Freefall.

They ruled out freefall and gave four reasons

There was still structural support when the building collapsed
The fall was slower never reached freefall speeds.
Freefall was not possible there needed to be a progression of failures first
Failures were not instantaneous they took time.

In order to avoid this "circular technique" this thread is created for people to provide evidence of how the building alternatively fell (you have taken it over and are treating it as some sort of meandering blog)

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

The more you avoid and dodge these questions the more I am going to ask

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We have the video of them denying freefall at their own technical press conference. Now you denying their own words and thoughts about Freefall.

They ruled out freefall and gave four reasons

There was still structural support when the building collapsed
The fall was slower never reached freefall speeds.
Freefall was not possible there needed to be a progression of failures first
Failures were not instantaneous they took time.

Well yeah, that’s because by any rational definition it wasn’t freefall: freefall would imply there was no structure underneath it’s trajectory. As we established, the building imploded ie. Crushed itself under its own weight, which accumulated mass and speed as it destroyed more and more floors on the top of the building’s way to the ground. So they’re 100% correct.


I think that from here out, everyone responding to you should just repeat the questions to you and stop allowing you to deflect from the original point of the thread.


1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Well yeah, that’s because by any rational definition it wasn’t freefall: freefall would imply there was no structure underneath it’s trajectory. As we established, the building imploded ie. Crushed itself under its own weight, which accumulated mass and speed as it destroyed more and more floors on the top of the building’s way to the ground. So they’re 100% correct.


I think that from here out, everyone responding to you should just repeat the questions to you and stop allowing you to deflect from the original point of the thread.


1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

You not noticing the issue. NIST updated their WTC7 study three months later and claimed freefall did occur. Did you not watch the video provided?

Explain NIST logic of denying freefall at their own technical press conference in Aug 2008? This was their final draft of the report it was completed.

In Nov they released a new revision and claimed freefall had occurred during 2.25 seconds of the 5-second collapse.

Do you not see the issue?

King Mob

More pathetic deflection.

Cheerful Spring

It embarrassing a moderator ignores the evidence provided. NIST denying freefall at their own press conference and then changing their mind three months later. It not like I have not provided the evidence in video format.