911 inside job - for what?

[skyeagle409]

Quote us your thousands fraud boy??

You took last place in this one because you didn't bother to do your homework.

[Stundie]

How amusing considering that temperatures at ground zero did not reach the melting point of steel, which means that the molten metal was aluminum because the temperatures are far above the melting point of aluminum, but far too low to melt steel.

But the temperature chart and the many eyewitnesses who were at GZ and show otherwise I'm afraid. They were at GZ, you are a fraud sitting behind a keyboard...lol

Denial and ignorance can't change the facts I'm afraid.

Simple common sense logic you understand.

Common sense says that if everyone at GZ who refers to the metal as molten steel or refer to molten beam, then it must be aluminium? lol

Your common sense is defrauding you...lol

BTW, where is the melting point of steel on that chart? I see the melting point of aluminum, but none for steel. Apparently, you didn't even understand what you had posted!

Its a colour chart showing the temperatures of metals not their melting point.

You say the temperatures were never over 1000C, even though the molten metal at the WTC shows that the temperature was at the very minimum 1200c, you clearly don't have the capability to understand that you can't have it both ways. You are only defrauding yourself.

Now, using the above chart for aluminum you have posted, provide us with the temperatures of the molten aluminum you see in the following photos.

All of these are much lower than 1200c.

So what have we learned....

Well that you are a fraud is the first thing we learned, the second thing we learned is that none of the photos you have posted looks like the stuff pouring out of the WTC, the third thing we learned is that the colour chart shows us that the temperatures were much higher than 1000c and would be at the very minimum 1200c and possibly much higher, the fourth thing we learned is that none of the eyewitnesses refer to it as aluminium.

The final thing we learned is that it is definitely not aluminium.

And you have posted nothing at all which changes that fact!!

[Stundie]

You took last place in this one because you didn't bother to do your homework.

Erm! I thought you were going to quote us thousands of demolition experts?? lol

Oh what's that? You are lying again and you only have one expert.....well should we say one person cause Brent doesn't actually do demolition?? lol

See what I mean when I called you a fraud. lol

[Stundie]

That wasn't a shape charge explosion.

Well what was it then?? Wind interference with the mic!! lol

Did the WTC remain standing after that sound?

Well look at them covered in dust, that should answer your dumb yet simple question for you. lol

That was a dead give-away the sound was not from a shape-charge in the building.

Sorry but it sounds exactly like a shaped charge as the video suggests.

Your fraudulent denial doesn't change it I'm afraid. lol

[skyeagle409]

Erm! I thought you were going to quote us thousands of demolition experts??

I will do better than that.

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beans at any point during debris removal activities.'

http://www.jnani.org...911/king911.htm

The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineerspublished a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.

Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.

The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

http://www.historyco...ent_blanchard_1

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." - Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towersopposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tiltedas it came crashing down."

"The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."

Key findings include:

• Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
  
• Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.
  
• The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.
  

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=228139&st=180

[Stundie]

Now, just think what happened to over 100,000 pounds of aluminum from the facade of WTC2 and from the aluminum airframe of United 175 that was being melted in the corner of WTC2 that was on fire which exposed all of that aluminum to temperatures far above the melting point of aluminum, but far below the melting point of steel.

Totally untrue I'm afraid. We know that the temps according to the temperature chart were at the very least 1200c. Much hotter than you have been claiming and if it's 1200c at the very least, then it's probably much higher seeing as the colour after that doesn't really change.

Since that huge amount of molten aluminum did not just evaporate into the New York sky, where did you think all of that aluminum ended up?

In the rubble along with the molten steal and beam and other debris.

BTW, did you know that the molten flow from the corner of WTC2 was in fact, aluminum, most of which was from the airframe of United 175?

BTW, did you know that you were wrong??..lol

Of course not, you're a fraud!

[skyeagle409]

Well what was it then?? Wind interference with the mic!!

Definitely nothing to do with explosives. BTW, I am still waiting for your evidence, so where is it?

[Stundie]

I will do better than that.

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beans at any point during debris removal activities.'

http://www.jnani.org...911/king911.htm

The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineerspublished a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.

Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.

The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

http://www.historyco...ent_blanchard_1

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." - Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towersopposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tiltedas it came crashing down."

"The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."

Key findings include:

• Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
  
• Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.
  
• The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.
  

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

http://www.unexplain...c=228139&st=180

No...Sorry your spam articles won't do.

You said there was thousands of demolition experts......Bazant is not a demolition expert........so get quoting them.

I'll let you have Brent Blanchard even though I don't agree that he is an expert, but its looking desperate for you, so you have 1 so far.

I'll await the thousands that you seem to think exist who have said on record that the WTC was not a demolition.

Get to it fraud boy!

Definitely nothing to do with explosives. BTW, I am still waiting for your evidence, so where is it?

So what was it then?

If you are so sure it was not a shaped charge, then tell us Mr Fraudulent Expert??

[skyeagle409]

Totally untrue I'm afraid. We know that the temps according to the temperature chart were at the very least 1200c. Much hotter than you have been claiming and if it's 1200c at the very least, then it's probably much higher seeing as the colour after that doesn't really change.

Let's see, the melting point of steel is around what temperature? 1370 degrees C. Now, looking at that chart you posted, 1200 degrees C. is too low to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum.

...In the rubble along with the molten steal and beam and other debris

Think for a minute. If a steel beam was pulled from the rubble, then it was NOT in a molten state. Simple common sense logic, you understand. On another note, that particular photo was found to be doctored and was in fact, reflectons from a flashlight, not molten steel..

No...Sorry your spam articles won't do.

You cannot rewrite the laws of physics from the comfort of your keyboard.

[skyeagle409]

I'll let you have Brent Blanchard even though I don't agree that he is an expert,

You should because Brent Blanchard is the world's leading authority on demolition implosions, which explains why demolition experts and companies around the world admire his expertise and knowledge and another reason why demolition companies around the world seek his advice and support.

[Stundie]

Let's see, the melting point of steel is around what temperature? 1370 degrees C. Now, looking at that chart you posted, 1200 degrees C. is too low to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum.

So tell us Mr Fraudulent Expert. What colour is steel at 1370c?? lol

Is it the same colour as steel at 1200c??

Think for a minute. If a steel beam was pulled from the rubble, then it was NOT in a molten state.

Oh dear fraudboy! Your expertise again is being exposed.

Think about this for a minute, if I stick end of a steal beam into a fire hot enough to melt steel and leave it there until the portion in direct contact with the fire melts the steel and lift it out, does that mean there was no molten steel?? Or that the end bit never melted away??

Simple common sense says that if someone pulls out a steel beam that is dripping molten steel, then it's still molten steel...lol

Simple common sense logic, you understand.

Again, your common sense is defrauding you...lol

On another note, that particular photo was found to be doctored and was in fact, reflectons from a flashlight, not molten steel.

Who cares?? lol Oh that's right, you and only you! lol

You cannot rewrite the laws of physics from the comfort of your keyboard.

the only one rewriting things is you. And I'm afraid you can't rewrite the accounts of the eyewitnesses who said the molten metal was steel unless you are a fraud?

You're not a fraud are you?? lol

You should because Brent Blanchard is the world's leading authority on demolition implosions, which explains why demolition experts and companies around the world admire his expertise and knowledge and another reason why demolition companies around the world seek his advice and support.

Brent Blanchard is not thousands is he? He's a 1 demo expert?

Now where those thousands you speak of Fraudboy?? lol

[skyeagle409]

So tell us Mr Fraudulent Expert. What colour is steel at 1370c??

Is it the same colour as steel at 1200c??

LOL!! You don't even understand what you have just said because 1200 degree C. is below the melting point of steel. You are posting from an aluminum chart. .

Brent Blanchard is not thousands is he? He's a 1 demo expert?

Thousands around the world depend upon his expertise in demolition implosions, which explains why he is one of the world's top leading demolition expert.

[Stundie]

LOL!! You don't even understand what you have just said because 1200 degree C. is below the melting point of steel.

What you don't realise is that it shows the temperature at a minimum of 1200c

You are posting from an aluminum chart. .

Oh dear. Now you are showing us again that you are a fraud because if you knew anything about metals, you will know that most molten metals have the same thermal glow colours!

All those years of expertise and you didn't know that! So this rank amateur is having to school you because you are being exposed as a fraud, yet again!! lol

Thousands around the world depend upon his expertise in demolition implosions, which explains why he is one of the world's top leading demolition expert.

So when you say thousand of demo experts agree that the WTC were not demolished....you actually mean Brent Blanchard?? lol

[skyeagle409]

What you don't realise is that it shows the temperature at a minimum of 1200c

And 1200 degrees C. is too low to melt steel.

So when you say thousand of demo experts agree that the WTC were not demolished....you actually mean Brent Blanchard?? lol

Brent Blanchard and demoliton experts and companies around the world. There were no bomb explosions in the WTC videos and no one found explosive hardware within the rubble of the WTC buildings and no one heard sounds of bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, not to mention no bomb explosions were detected on seismic monitors in the area.

Edited September 10, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

And 1200 degrees C. is too low to melt steel.

So you now that you have been schooled by a rank amateur and I have shown you how irrelevant it is to point out....that it's an aluminium chart...lol

I'm going to have to school you again Mr Fraudulent Expert........

The colour of the metal pouring out of the WTC indicates a MINIMUM temperature of 1200c. hahahahahaha!! You are spectacularly stupid...lol

Now I know that with your many years of fraudulent experience you are not going to understand this, but if it shows us a minimum of 1200c, then the temperature could also be much HIGHER seeing as the colour doesn't change.

Even high enough to melt steel......lol

Brent Blanchard and demoliton experts and companies around the world. There were no bomb explosions in the WTC videos and no one found explosive hardware within the rubble of the WTC buildings and no one heard sounds of bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, not to mention no bomb explosions were detected on seismic monitors in the area.

So what you are saying is....

"Stundie, I lied to you again cause I'm fraudulent....There are not thousands of demolition experts who say that the WTC were not demolished, I only have 1 expert!

But I think this expert is the bees knees!!" ......lol

Still waiting for the quotes from the 999+ demo experts who say the WTC were not demolished??

Edited September 10, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

So you now that you have been schooled by a rank amateur and I have shown you how irrelevant it is to point out....that it's an aluminium chart...lol

I'm going to have to school you again Mr Fraudulent Expert........

How amusing considering that Brent Blandchard is a world leader in the demolition industry. Goes to show that you are not up-to-speed on the facts.

The colour of the metal pouring out of the WTC indicates a MINIMUM temperature of 1200c.

Which proved that the molten metal was aluminum, not steel and the silver droplets proved that. I guess you forgot about your own video of molten aluminum depicting the silver droplets. Don't get on my case about that video depicting the silvery droplets, which were IDENTICAL to the silvery droplets captured on video and in photographs, after all, it was you who posted that video in the first place!!

Once again, you have shown us all, that you are not up-to-speed on the facts.

Now I know that with your many years of...,

How amusing considering that you have been proven wrong,, incorrect, not right and everthing else that did not include truth and real evidence.

The fact that you wrongly used an aluminum temperature identification chart that reached on 1200 degrees C. and tried to used it in a false argument in regard to steel, also shows that you are not up-to-speed on the facts.

In addition, the recorded temperatures at ground zero did not reach the level needed to melt steel which further slams the door on your claim because the recorded temperatures exceeded by far, the melting point of aluminum.

I might add that there was a reason why I posted that aluminum chart ONLY!! I wanted to prove that you had no idea what you were talking about in regards to that chart and molten metals and it worked!! The chart pertained only to aluminum, not steel and look what you posted!

Now, who is one of the top leaders in the demolition industry, worldwide?

Answer: Brent Blanchard, Demolition Industry Leader

#1101

http://911-engineers...-blanchard.html

http://www.implosion...d.com/about.htm

Who is the person that demolition companies and experts depend upon?

Answer: Brent Blancahard, Demolition Industry Leader

http://www.implosionworld.com/

#1423

Edited September 11, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

How amusing considering that Brent Blandchard is a world leader in the demolition industry.

Yes but you said you had thousands when the reality is you 1.

Unless you think by mentioning Brent 1000 times equals 1000 demolition expert....lol

Goes to show that you are not up-to-speed on the facts.

Looks like you can't get up to speed because you haven't got these thousands of demolition experts you said you had Mr Fraudulent? lol

Which proved that the molten metal was aluminum, not steel. Once again, you have shown us all, that you are not up-to-speed on the facts.

A colour temperature chart shows us that the temp was a minimum of 1200c, not the 1000c which said was the maximum temp.

How amusing considering that you have been proven wrong,, incorrect, not right and everthing else that did not include truth and real evidence.

When you have produced these thousands of demolition expert, then come back and brag about it/.

Otherwise you just look like a bigger moron than you already are...lol

The fact that you wrongly used an aluminum temperature identification chart that reached on 1200 degrees C. and tried to used it in a false argument in regard to steel, also shows that you are not up-to-speed on the facts.

So the colour chart of steel is different is it? hahahahahahahahaha!!

Pure stupidity from Mr Fraudulent Expert.......lol

I might add that there was a reason why I posted that aluminum chart ONLY!! I wanted to prove that you had no idea what you were talking about and it worked!! The chart pertained only to aluminum, not steel and look what you posted!

Sorry but you clearly do not understand that most metals have the same temperature colour glow.

It's not my fault your to simple to understand this.

Now, who is one of the top leaders in the demolition industry, worldwide?

Probably one of these guys who actually have first hand experience in performing a demolition. lol

A top European expert on controlled demolition, Danny Jowenko says that "WTC 7 was a definitely a controlled demolition."

A demolition loader for the world’s top demolition company Tom Sullivan says "I have professional experience with implosions and CDI (a quoted expert) and have no doubt that this was a timed explosive implosion event and certainly not due to fire as reported".

Harry G. Robinson, III – Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two major national architectural organizations – National Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam – says: "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did"

Torin Wolf - A building construction contractor, certified structural welder, certified asbestos and hazardous materials worker, demolitions expert with long experience says that "WTC7 was demolished."

Dennis A Thompson Commercial Blaster's License, Calif., General Lic: No. 2158 (Rtrd), Eureka, CA

"Having participated in many blasting operations in the past, from less than 1 lb. to many thousands of lbs. I have cut steel and concrete with explosives and I know how well explosives work. I believe now as I did when I first saw the event live on TV the day it happened, that the WTC collapse was due to Controlled Detonation."

Tim Erney A & P. A.S. Aviation Maintenance Technology. Bio: Licensed A & P mechanic. U.S. Army Reserve, Combat Engineer, Specialized in Demolitions, Honorable Discharge.

"In the Army Reserves I was trained in demolitions so I know what it takes to bring down a building in a controlled symmetrical fashion and what it looks like when it happens. As an aircraft mechanic, my knowledge of the properties of fuels, specifically Jet fuel (or highly refined kerosene), brings the conclusion that fires couldn't be hot enough to cause symmetrical structural collapse. Based on what I know, looking at it from various disciplines, it's obvious that all three WTC buildings collapsed due to pre-planned, well placed, precisely timed controlled demolitions."

John Suffoletta: Journeymen Operating Engineer

"I have worked in the construction and demolition industry for 23 years. I run heavy equipment and help in the planning of demolition of building and factories around the country and in Buffalo, NY. I know what it takes to bring a building down, I am a 20 year member of local #17 of the Operating Engineers and often work for a national demolition company. I have worked at several nuclear facilities around the country including Connecticut Yankee, West Valley Demonstration Project and Rocky Flats.

I am 100% sure the official story is a planned made up fantasy! There is no way any of those buildings fell because of fires, it would take a lot bigger fires and a lot more time to drop one of those buildings -- like "days" not hours then when they did fall they would have dropped and contorted, not imploded. This was a planned demolition in all aspects, the planes were just a nice diversion from the "truth" and that is what these people fear the most."

Who the the person that demolition companies and experts depend upon?

http://www.implosionworld.com/

#1423

So your thousand of experts equals 1?? lol

Do you have problems with numbers?? Where's these thousands you said existed? Did you make them up and invent them because you're a fraud? lol

[skyeagle409]

Oh dear. Now you are showing us again that you are a fraud because if you knew anything about metals, you will know that most molten metals have the same thermal glow colours!

You posted the aluminum chart that was pertained to aluminum, which I first supplied some time ago for a particularly good reason and you fell for it because you didn't know any better.

[skyeagle409]

Yes but you said you had thousands when the reality is you 1.

It's not my fault your to simple to understand this.

Do you have problems with numbers?? Where's these thousands you said existed? Did you make them up and invent them because you're a

How amusing that you failed to post all of the demolition companies present at ground zero that dismissed controlled demolitions.

Now, where is your evidence that fire was NOT responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings? After all, I have been waiting for a very long time now and you are failing to measure up to the challenge.

Edited September 11, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

You posted the aluminum chart that was pertained to aluminum, which I first supplied some time ago for a particularly good reason and you fell for it because you didn't know any better.

You obviously are such an expert that you forgot that it doesn't matter if you think it pertains to aluminium because steel will still be at the same colour at the same temperature as the chart. lol

Making you look like a moron and highlighting how foolish you...yet again!! lol

[skyeagle409]

You obviously are such an expert that y

What??? Still no evidence to back up what you say?! Why am I not surprised that you cannot come up with any evidence to refute my claims.]

[Stundie]

How amusing that you failed to post all of the demolition companies present at ground zero that dismissed controlled demolition.

How amusing that you still can't produce these thousands of experts you claimed said that the WTC were not demolished?

Unless you have edited your post to remove the reference like you did in the other thread......hahahahahahahaha!!

Still waiting?? What's taking you so long?

[Stundie]

What??? Still no evidence to back up what you say?! Why am I not surprised that you cannot come up with any evidence to refute my claims.]

You claimed you had thousands of demolition experts and I'm still waiting.

I can't refute you until you back up what you claimed...lol

So far, you've failed.

Although I'm still waiting for the thousands of demolition experts who say the WTC were not demolished....lol

[skyeagle409]

How amusing that you still can't produce these thousands of experts you claimed said that the WTC were not demolished?

Unless you have edited your post to remove the reference like you did in the other thread....

Go ahead and list the demolition companies who were present at ground zero that dismissed controlled demolitions there. I am waiting!

[Stundie]

Go ahead and list the demolition companies who were present at ground zero that dismissed controlled demolitions there. I am waiting!

Sorry Fraudboy, it's not my job to list the thousands of demolition experts who you claim that have gone on record to dismiss the controlled demolition of the WTC.

That's your job and I'm still waiting....lol