911 inside job - for what?

[skyeagle409]

You've got one demolition expert and he hasn't provided any evidence either.....lol

Making your point, even more pointless........lol

On the contrary, demolition experts around the world concur with the fact that no explosives were used.

* No bomb explosions seen

* No bomb explosions heard

* No bomb explosions detected on seismic monitors in the area

* No bomb related hardware found within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

I guess you missed this as well.

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

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns.

The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

Question is, what gave you the idea that explosives were used @ ground ZERO when you have ZERO evidence to begin with?

Edited September 19, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

You've got one demolition expert and he hasn't provided any evidence either.....lol

On the contrary, in regard to the numbers I have provided earlier,

* 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report.

* 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Let me add these as well.

* 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

* 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

* 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report.

* 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

About that evidence @ ground zero.

Critical analysis of the collapse of wtc towers 1, 2 & 7

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

Edited September 19, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

You've got one demolition expert and he hasn't provided any evidence either.....lol

Oops, I forgot to add these numbers to my previous post.

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.

Add to the fact that none of your sources have come up with evidence to the contrary and after 12 years there is STILL no evidence implicating the U.S. government in the 911 attack, it is safe to say it's now time for you to delete your sources from your list.

You might want to go here and do a review where a demolition expert back-tracked after the evidence became evident that fire was responsible.

Notable Retractions

http://911research.w...ons/romero.html

Have you begun the deletion process on your list?

.

Edited September 19, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Oops, I forgot to add these numbers to my previous post.

Sorry but they are not demolition experts, so they are irrelevant to our discussion, which is you quoting thousands of demolition experts who apparently believe in the OCT.

Add to the fact that none of your sources have come up with evidence to the contrary and after 12 years there is STILL no evidence implicating the U.S. government in the 911 attack, it is safe to say it's now time for you to delete your sources from your list.

You might want to go here and do a review where a demolition expert back-tracked after the evidence became evident that fire was responsible.

Notable Retractions

http://911research.w...ons/romero.html

Have you begun the deletion process on your list?

.

WOW!! You've got yourself a 2nd expert, although this one did initially say that it was explosives and changed his tune a few days later. Nothing to do with the lobbying position he received or the $15 million they received for first responder courses.

You've got 2 demolition experts.

So where are the thousands of demolition experts you say believe in the OCT?? lol

2 V 7 means you are still losing. Although I'm expecting a backside kicking once you produce these thousands you say exist.....lol

Edited September 23, 2013 by Stundie

[Stundie]

123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report.

80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Even though it has been pointed out to you time and time again that you are arguing a logical fallacy, you clearly do not understand what a logical fallacy is or how dumb your argument is.

If ACSE and AIA do not question the NIST report, that must automatically mean ACSE and AIA support the NIST report.

If ACSE and AIA do not question the FEMA report, that must mean they automatically mean ACSE and AIA support the FEMA report.

If ACSE and AIA do not question the Koran, that must automatically mean ACSE and AIA support the Koran.

If ACSE and AIA do not question the Bible, that must mean they automatically mean ACSE and AIA support the Bible.

You clearly do not understand otherwise you wouldn't keep repeating these figures....So by your own argument, if the ACSE and AIA do not speak out about it, that must mean they support it.

Even though there are members of the AIA and ACSE in A&E 9/11 truth.......lol

Anyway, when are you going to post these thousands of demolition experts?? We are still waiting...lol

[Babe Ruth]

Don't forget Van Romero, an instructor in New Mexico, who commented early on that it appeared to be controlled demolition.

They eventually coerced him into retracting his statement. Peer pressure, one might say, to admire the Emperor's New Clothes, rather than point out that the Emperor is naked.

[Stundie]

Don't forget Van Romero, an instructor in New Mexico, who commented early on that it appeared to be controlled demolition.

They eventually coerced him into retracting his statement. Peer pressure, one might say, to admire the Emperor's New Clothes, rather than point out that the Emperor is naked.

There is also another demolition expert that Skyeagle could use, but he's clearly not bright enough to figure it out.

However, apparently there are thousands of demolition experts who agree with the OCT. So it shouldn't take him long to quote them or to come back and admit he is wrong.....lol

Edited September 23, 2013 by Stundie

[DONTEATUS]

OMG ! what part of "NO DEMOLITION" was used do you guys not Get? Did you not See with your own two eyes what Happened that Day?

OPEN YOUR EYES AND MINDS PLEASE.

[Phaeton80]

OMG ! what part of "NO DEMOLITION" was used do you guys not Get? Did you not See with your own two eyes what Happened that Day?

OPEN YOUR EYES AND MINDS PLEASE.

'lol'

[skyeagle409]

Sorry but they are not demolition experts, so they are irrelevant to our discussion, which is you quoting thousands of demolition experts who apparently believe in the OCT.

WOW!! You've got yourself a 2nd expert,...

An expert that was originally on your side until he examined the evidence, which debunked demolition claims, which is why after 12 years, no such evidence has been found. At to the fact that none of your sources presented evidence supporting demolition detonations at ground zero.

See how simply that was?

[skyeagle409]

There is also another demolition expert that Skyeagle could use,

On the contrary, these numbers are more than enough.

* 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report.

* 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

* 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

* 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

* 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report.

* 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

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

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

* 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts

* 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.

Question is: Where's your evidence that explosives were used? Don't tell me you are still empty-handed! I might add that another one of your demolition experts has now debunked demolition charges in the WTC towers.

Edited September 23, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

OMG ! what part of "NO DEMOLITION" was used do you guys not Get? Did you not See with your own two eyes what Happened that Day?

OPEN YOUR EYES AND MI

NDS PLEASE.

It is amazing they claim explosives were used and yet, demolition experts, firefighters and investigators have debunked their false claims which explains why after 12 years, not one shred of explosive evidence has surfaced. Perhaps, these are the same folks who've claim the earth is flat.

Don't forget Van Romero, an instructor in New Mexico, who commented early on that it appeared to be controlled demolition.

You mean the guy who was once on your side that has now trashed the 911 demolition theory, who along with another demolition expert of yours who has also trashed the WTC Tower demolition theory? Expect your list to shrink even further.

Edited September 23, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

However, apparently there are thousands of demolition experts who agree with the OCT.

DITTO!!!

Not to forget:

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.

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."

Edited September 23, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

An expert that was originally on your side until he examined the evidence, which debunked demolition claims, which is why after 12 years, no such evidence has been found. At to the fact that none of your sources presented evidence supporting demolition detonations at ground zero.

See how simply that was?

All the experts on my side were originally on your side until they examined the evidence, which debunked OCT claims.

Now where are all these thousands of demolition experts that you claimed support the OCT? 2 so far isn't a thousands........lol

DITTO!!!

Not to forget:

[/size]

The structural engineering community is not the demolition community.

So what you are saying is that you don't have thousands, you have 2!! lol

[Stundie]

* 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report.

* 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

* 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

* 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

* 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report.

* 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

[/qu

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

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

* 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts

* 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.

Question is: Where's your evidence that explosives were used? Don't tell me you are still empty-handed! I might add that another one of your demolition experts has now debunked demolition charges in the WTC towers.

Sorry but none of them are demolition experts, you claimed you had thousands of them, yet you have posted 2....lol

Shall we call that a fail then??

[skyeagle409]

All the experts on my side were originally on your side...

Nope! First of all, your sources have not provided evidence of explosives, which is a big difference between my sources, who have provided evidence that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings while on the other hand, your sources have yet to provide any evidence of explosives, which is understandable considering that:

* No explosions seen as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No explosions heard as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No explosions detected on seismic monitors in the area as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No explosive hardware found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Those facts alone have trashed all of your sources.

Edited September 24, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Sorry but none of them are demolition experts,...

On the contrary, they are. In addition to these experts.

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

All reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse..."We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

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

"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."

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

As I have said, no one heard bomb explosions nor recovered bomb-related hardware from ground zero.

Edited September 24, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Likely Guy]

I hate to say it, but this discussion has gone nowhere over the last few days.

[DecoNoir]

I hate to say it, but this discussion has gone nowhere over the last few days.

This discussion hasn't gone anywhere in 12 years.

[Likely Guy]

This discussion hasn't gone anywhere in 12 years.

Oh, I agree! I just meant 'this particular discussion'. It used to have some entertainment value.

[skyeagle409]

This discussion hasn't gone anywhere in 12 years.

Yes indeed, and after 12 years, 911 Truthers have been unable to produce evidence implicating the U.S. government in the 911 attack, much less produce evidence that explosives were used.

[skyeagle409]

Oh, I agree! I just meant 'this particular discussion'. It used to have some entertainment value.

I agree! It is amazing that some references that 911 Truthers have used in their arguments was actually false misleading information planted to discredit their movement. They have claimed the sound of explosions was evidence of bombs but a playback of news coverage of 2001 shows that firefighters reported those sounds were the result of gas line explosions and nothing to do with explosives. It goes to show that 911 Truthers have been distorting the facts over those years.

It has now been determined that the molten metal was in fact, aluminum, but 911 Truthers claimed the molten metal was steel, but looking at the video, there is no steel being cut by anything, which goes to show how far 911 Truthers are willing to go to distort the facts.

Simply amazing!! The following from the investigative report.

21. Why does NIST state that a yellow stream of molten metal seen in some photographs pouring down the side of WTC2 was aluminum from the crashed plane, even though aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, as well as NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius (900 degrees Fahrenheit) and 640 degrees Celsius (1,200 degrees Fahrenheit)—depending on the particular alloy—well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

Edited September 24, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Oh, I agree! I just meant 'this particular discussion'. It used to have some entertainment value.

Exactly, this particular discussion.

In general, and consistent with human history, in the ensuing 12 years "the other conversation" has made pretty good progress. Things have been learned, and new facts discovered. True, many people have been in one state of denial or the other for 12 years, but many have discovered new facts and connected new dots.

[skyeagle409]

Exactly, this particular discussion.

In general, and consistent with human history, in the ensuing 12 years "the other conversation" has made pretty good progress. Since the 12 years, we have found that:

Things have been learned, and new facts discovered. True, many people have been in one state of denial or the other for 12 years, but many have discovered new facts and connected new dots.

Let's take a look at what has been leaned and confirmed over the past 12 years.

1. United 93 did not land at Cleveland Airport

911 Truthers confused Delta 1989 as United 93.

2. Passengers of United 93 were not seen at Cleveland Airport.

911 Truthers confused scientist who disembarked from a KC-135 as passengers of United 93.

3. United 93 crashed in Shanksville.

Confirmed by coroner Wally Miller, United Airlines, cleanup crews, and investigators

4. American 77 crashed into the Pentagon

Confirmed by the FDR, radar data, cleanup crews, witnesses, investigators, the Boeing Aircraft Company and American Airlines

5. The WTC Towers did not fall at free fall speed

As seen in videos where debris and dust plumes outpacing the collapse of those buildings.

6. ACARS did not depict 911 airliners airborne

As confirmed by radar data and aircraft wreckage

7. Turning off the transponder does not render an aircraft invisible to radar

Which is understandable considering the B-767 and the B-757 are not stealth aircraft and by the fact that even stealth aircraft are no totally invisible to radar

8. The Hani maneuver was very boring and well within the airframe limitations of American 77

9. No thermite used during the 911 attack

Which is understandable considering no such evidence was ever found

10. No explosives used during the 911 attack, which is understandable when considering:

* No explosions seen as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No explosions heard as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No explosions detected on seismic monitors as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No explosive hardware found in the rubble of the WTC building during cleanup operations

11. No mini-nukes used during the 911 attack, and understandable considering:

* No EMP generated

* No Blinding flash generated

* No shock wave generated

* No radioactive fallout generated

* No radioactive residue associated with nukes found at ground zero

* No blast of any kind detected on seismic monitors in the area

* No evidence of temperatures reaching millions of degrees at ground zero

12. Cleanup crews and investigators were not wearing appropriate protective clothing

Such clothing would be mandatory for anyone working within a radioactive contaminated site

13. The mini-nuke story is false by common sense alone

14. No P700 anti-ship missile struck the Pentagon

15. No missile struck the WTC Towers

16. No modified pod attached to United 175

911 Truthers confused aerodynamic fairings and gear doors, which are standard on all B-767s, as a pod

17. No missile fired from United 175 before it struck WTC2

No such evidence seen in the videos

18. No molten steel flowing from WTC2.

It has been determined the molten flow was aluminum mixed with contents from with United 175 and WTC2

19. No one heard bomb explosions

Firefighters told a MSNBC reporter the sound of explosions they heard were from exploding gas lines. Other firefighters attributed other such sounds to things that had nothing to do with explosives.

20. No death ray beam demolished the WTC buildings

21. No 911 airliner was switched

22. The 911 airliners were not capable nor modified to fly under remote control

The airlines would not have allowed their aircraft to be grounded for months in order to have them modified to fly under remote control. An examination of flight data and control inputs

have proven the aircraft were not flown under remote control

23. There were not two B-767s at Boston Airport with the desinations of Flight 175

Airport officials, servicing personnel, and United Airlines would have been made aware of a bogus B-767 under the United Airline colors, which would have been understandable

considering United Airlines would not have paid for the landing nor gate fee for a bogus B-767.

So yes, we learned much over the past 12 years that 911 Truthers were simply wrong

Edited September 24, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Such a guy, Sky.