911 inside job - for what?

[skyeagle409]

Well they should use fires because according to your logic, fires are much better at demolishing buildings than explosives.

The steel structure of the Windsor building collapsed due to fire that left only the concrete core standing, and the amazing thing about that is, the Windsor building wasn't struck by a B-767, whereas, the massive bomb failed to collapse WTC1 in 1993.

A classic case where fire initiated a collapse where explosives failed to do the same to WTC1, not to mention the steel frame Kader buildings in Thailand that collapsed solely to fire. So once again, you have proven that you are out of touch with reality.

[skyeagle409]

Other reports from GZ:

Maybe since workers at GZ heard what sounded like trains, we should also be looking for trains as the culprit as well.

Using your inability to understand analogies of course.

He has difficulty understanding that he has yet to provide viable evidence to support his case. In fact, he seems to think that molten aluminum is only silver in appearance despite the fact that this aluminum temperature chart says otherwise.

Perhaps, I should ask him what color is molten aluminum at 1100 degrees C., and see what he says.

[Stundie]

There we go again with the childish laughter of the self deluded.

You wrote "If I have never argued that jet fuel can not melt steel"

In English this is stating that you have always argued that jet fuel can melt steel.

Oh dear!! lol

I see why you would rather bring this down to semantic argument because frankly your debunking skills are about as useful as bottomless plastic bag! lol

"If I have never argued that jet fuel can not melt steel"

"If I have never argued that jet fuel can melt steel"

Are two completely different arguments and therefore not a double negative.

"If I have never argued..." then how do you translate that into "I have always argued..."

If I have never done something, that doesn't mean I always do something. hahahahahahahahaha!!! Are you getting this yet?? Of course not! lol

There is a hat with a big D written on it which is made especially for you, now go put it on and sit in that corner facing the wall.....lol

[Stundie]

Let's take a look.

Explain to us why that massive bomb was unable to destroy WTC1 in 1993. In fact, explain to us why multiple bomb and missile strikes on individual buildings in Iraq failed to collapse those buildings.

Now, let's take a look here.

And here;

[media=]

BREAKING NEWS!!

Skyeagle discovers that demolition doesn't always work......lol

That is probably because buildings tend to be very strong.

Maybe they should use fire in the future because according to your logic, its much faster and more effective than explosives! lol

Edited October 4, 2013 by Stundie

[Stundie]

Other reports from GZ:

Maybe since workers at GZ heard what sounded like trains, we should also be looking for trains as the culprit as well.

Using your inability to understand analogies of course.

Err!! So what you are saying is from your cherry picked quotes is that they heard explosions but they could be anything except explosions because they use analogies??

Sorry but these guys would disagree....

[Stundie]

The steel structure of the Windsor building collapsed due to fire that left only the concrete core standing, and the amazing thing about that is, the Windsor building wasn't struck by a B-767, whereas, the massive bomb failed to collapse WTC1 in 1993.

A classic case where fire initiated a collapse where explosives failed to do the same to WTC1, not to mention the steel frame Kader buildings in Thailand that collapsed solely to fire. So once again, you have proven that you are out of touch with reality.

Here are some other steel structures which had fires but didn't actually collapse.....lol

1. The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire
   
2. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
   
3. The First Interstate Bank Fire
   
4. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
   
5. Caracas Tower Fire - Structural damage to 10 floors but still stood!
   

All steel structures and some of them burned much longer than any of the WTC, yet they ALL still stood.

Here are some other buildings which were hit by planes....

1. 40 Wall Street Plane crash
   
2. Tampa plane crash
   
3. Tower plane crash
   
4. New York City plane crash
   
5. Empire State Building place crash
   
6. Al Rasheed Hotel Baghdad suicide plane crash
   
7. Tohid Town Residential plane crash
   

None of those collapsed either from the impacts or the subsequent fires.

Here are some other Skyscrapers which didn't collapse to the ground from fires.

1. Andraus Building São Paulo February 24, 1972
   
2. Rault Tower New Orleans November 29, 1972
   
3. Joelma Building São Paulo February 1, 1974
   
4. Campbell Shopping Complex Kuala Lumpur April 8, 1976 <---Burned for 30 hours!!
   
5. Bank Bumiputra Kuala Lumpur November 4, 1980
   
6. MGM Grand Hotel Las Vegas November 21, 1980
   
7. Las Vegas Hilton Las Vegas February 10, 1981
   
8. Northwestern National Bank Minneapolis November 25–26, 1982
   
9. KOMTAR Penang, Malaysia January 23, 1983
   
10. Dupont Plaza Hotel Condado, Puerto Rico December 31, 1986
    
11. UNITIC Twin Towers Sarajevo May 28, 1992
    
12. Bosnian Parliament Building Sarajevo May 28, 1992
    
13. Bijlmermeer Apartment Complex Amsterdam Zuidoost, Netherlands October 4, 1992
    
14. Tower 42, London, January 17, 1996
    
15. Garley building - Hong Kong November 20, 1996
    
16. Usce Tower Belgrade April 21, 1999
    
17. Immigration Tower Hong Kong August 2, 2000
    
18. Ostankino Tower Moscow August 27, 2000
    
19. Rasheed Hotel Baghdad December 26, 2003 <--The same building hit by a plane years earlier.
    
20. Transport Tower Astana, Kazakhstan May 30, 2006
    
21. Monte Carlo Resort and Casino Las Vegas January 25, 2008
    
22. Abraj Al Bait Towers Mecca October 28, 2008
    
23. Bashundhara City Tower Dhaka March 13, 2009
    

None of those building collapsed to the ground either.

So what have we learned??

That the only buildings you can point to which have collapsed due to fires is the Windsor Building which didn't collapse entirely and a third world toy factory! Where as I can point to many more steel structures and other skyscrapers which have been hit by planes and fires and just fires on their own and yet they have still stood.

Statistically speak, you are on shaky ground.

Oh and lets look at WTC5.

Even with all it's structural damage and subsequent fires which were much larger than those at WTC 7, the building didn't collapse to the ground.

So what tell us Skyeagle, what you learned?? Let me guess....NOTHING!! lol

I'll await your post to tell us stating the obvious which is that these structures were different to the WTC and that none of them were hit by a Boeing.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Stundie

[Stundie]

On the contrary, thousands of demolition experts do not adhere to your fantasy and to make that point clear, post the companies your sources work for and then, I will contact those companies to see if they support your sources.

So where are your thousands? Where are your quotes?? lol

Blanchard and Van Romero are 2 demolition experts.... ...they are not thousands.......hahahahahaha!!!

And I have given you their names and quoted them individually. If you wish to contact them, go ahead. Although i'm not sure why they would waste their time on a deluded pantomime debunker who still insists there are thousands of demolition experts who agree with the OCT but can only point to 2! hahahaha!!!

I'm going to help you out because you are truly struggling here champ! lol

There is actually a 3rd demolition expert who supports the OCT, a very famous demolition expert and yet you still haven't mentioning him. I thought he would be the first name because he is clearly much more experienced than Blanchard!

That would make it 3 V 7 but you would still lose with only 30%! lol

On the down side though! This demolition expert also claims to have seen pools of molten steel at GZ.... not aluminium!! lol

Let see if you can work out who this demolition expert is??

p.s. Here is more of a clue for you....he has been mentioned to you before back in 2012, but you clearly don't have much of a capacity for retaining information do you?? lol

Edited October 4, 2013 by Stundie

[Babe Ruth]

Stundie

Great picture there. Amazing what office furniture fires can do, eh?

Not sure I'm understanding the point about Van Romero, but his first statement to the public was that controlled demolition had brought the towers down.

Subsequently, peer pressure caused him to retract his statement. I'm not sure where he stands today.

[RaptorBites]

Err!! So what you are saying is from your cherry picked quotes is that they heard explosions but they could be anything except explosions because they use analogies??

Sorry but these guys would disagree....

Using your same reasoning and quote mining statements, some people heard what sounded like trains.

Ergo, a new investigation into trains should be in order.

Its only fair right?

[Stundie]

Using your same reasoning and quote mining statements, some people heard what sounded like trains.

Ergo, a new investigation into trains should be in order.

Its only fair right?

If you think an investigation in to trains is the right thing to do, then go ahead and campaign for it but these guys mention nothing about trains.

They said there was an explosion and on the third explosion the lobby came down, they also said there were secondary explosions.

Mind you, I suppose it could be wind interference with the mic. lol

[Stundie]

Stundie

Great picture there.

Thanks Babe Ruth.

Amazing what office furniture fires can do, eh?

Isn't it just? lol

What surprises me most, is that these pantomime debunkers say that it would take tons of explosives to bring down the WTC, yet in the same breath without any irony what so ever, they believe that none were needed because the WTC collapsed from fires without the aid of explosives.

Otherwise known as double think! lol

Not sure I'm understanding the point about Van Romero, but his first statement to the public was that controlled demolition had brought the towers down.

Subsequently, peer pressure caused him to retract his statement. I'm not sure where he stands today.

I'm not sure where he stands either and it's strange that this was his initial belief which changed a few days later. However, I can't add him to my list because he doesn't now support the CD theory.

I have to give Sky a fighting chance don't I?? So I'll let him have it! lol Don't worry it's still 2 v 7 and I have given him the opportunity to add another one which has already been mentioned to him, yet he hasn't figured it out yet. So it might be 3 v 7!

However, I'm sure he'll crush me with this thousands of demolition experts who support the OCT sometime soon. lol

Cheers

Stundie

[stereologist]

Oh dear!! lol

I see why you would rather bring this down to semantic argument because frankly your debunking skills are about as useful as bottomless plastic bag! lol

"If I have never argued that jet fuel can not melt steel"

"If I have never argued that jet fuel can melt steel"

Are two completely different arguments and therefore not a double negative.

"If I have never argued..." then how do you translate that into "I have always argued..."

If I have never done something, that doesn't mean I always do something. hahahahahahahahaha!!! Are you getting this yet?? Of course not! lol

There is a hat with a big D written on it which is made especially for you, now go put it on and sit in that corner facing the wall.....lol

Simply more childish banter. You can't even understand basic English. Your second sentence is not related to the first. But only a truther would write so foolishly.

A sixth grader knows how to translate your double negative statement into a proper English statement. Can you ever do that?

[stereologist]

Here are some other buildings which were hit by planes....

1. 40 Wall Street Plane crash
   
2. Tampa plane crash
   
3. Tower plane crash
   
4. New York City plane crash
   
5. Empire State Building place crash
   
6. Al Rasheed Hotel Baghdad suicide plane crash
   
7. Tohid Town Residential plane crash
   

None of those collapsed either from the impacts or the subsequent fires.

You have to laugh at the stupid lies posted by truthers. These lies are so stupid.

What mutton-headed website did you cut and paste from without providing the link?

For instance the Tampa plane was a wee Cessna that hardly penetrated the building and there was no fire.

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/01/06/TampaBay/Plane_hits_skyscraper.shtml

There was no fire from the 1946 crash. No one in the building or street was injured.

http://www.airboyd.tv/2011/08/03/plane-crash-at-40-wall-street-1946/

Milan crash - no fire. This time 2 killed in the building. This was again a small plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Pirelli_Tower_plane_crash

The Al Rasheed was struck by an F-4. A fighter, not a large plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Rasheed_Hotel

It seems that truthers point to irrelevant cases in which there were no fires and the panes were much,much smaller.

I would expect no less from truthers - they are not truthful.

[Stundie]

Simply more childish banter. You can't even understand basic English. Your second sentence is not related to the first. But only a truther would write so foolishly.

A sixth grader knows how to translate your double negative statement into a proper English statement. Can you ever do that?

"I have never argued that jet fuel can not melt steel" <--Stundie statement

"I have never argued that jet fuel can melt steel" <-- The opposite statement.

So are you saying that both of these statements are double negatives?? lol

Even though If I have never argued something.....that must mean I have always argued something?? lol

I suppose if I said I have never bungee jumped, that must mean I always bungee jump! hahahahaha!!

Tis the season of Pantomime! lol

[RaptorBites]

If you think an investigation in to trains is the right thing to do, then go ahead and campaign for it but these guys mention nothing about trains.

They said there was an explosion and on the third explosion the lobby came down, they also said there were secondary explosions.

Mind you, I suppose it could be wind interference with the mic. lol

What people have been attempting to tell you along along is that the sounds of explosions are not exclusive to bombs/explosives, even though you seem to want to make it out to be.

I just proved that GZ workers are providing analogies to what they experienced.

Tbh, I am just using your own reasoning to justify why trains are a possibility.

People heard what sounded like trains, ergo trains are a possibility. Much like your "people heard explosions, ergo bombs/explosives".

[skyeagle409]

Oh dear!!

I see why you would rather bring this down to semantic argument because frankly your debunking skills are about as useful as bottomless plastic bag!

"If I have never argued that jet fuel can not melt steel"

"If I have never argued that jet fuel can melt steel"

So what you are telling us, you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.

[skyeagle409]

BREAKING NEWS!!

Skyeagle discovers that demolition doesn't always work......

****BREAKING NEWS!!****

Demolition photos and videos have shown that Stundie's demolition claims have been blown to pieces and gone up in smoke.

Edited October 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Err!! So what you are saying is from your cherry picked quotes is that they heard explosions but they could be anything except explosions because they use analogies??

Sorry but these guys would disagree....

Well, let's take a look at what were reported by firefighters.

Explosions

"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go.The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down."

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

http://www.debunking.../explosions.htm

Well he could be mistaken?? No of course not! Just like those who said they were explosives, they are wrong, he is correct, right? lol

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

So does this person now discount everyone elses account and reports of explosions?? lol

If so, why do you hold this person to a much higher authority in what you believe??

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dominick Derubbio

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.

So something blew out a floor, but again he said it looked like an explosion, but it wasn't an explosion and then doesn't explain what blew out the windows/floor.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://www.911myths....uote_abuse.html

Nothing there attributing the sound of explosions that firefighters heard to bombs, which of course, proves that you are incorrect, wrong, and not right, again!! Not to mention the MSNBC news coverage which also reported that other firefighters reported the sound of explosions they heard were from gas line explosions. In other words, you are still on the wrong road.

Now the real question: Where is your evidence of explosives at ground zero?

Edited October 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

What surprises me most, is that these pantomime debunkers say that it would take tons of explosives to bring down the WTC, yet in the same breath without any irony what so ever, they believe that none were needed because the WTC collapsed from fires without the aid of explosives.

First of all, you have to provide evidence of explosions at ground zero, which you have failed to do, so let's do a recap.

* No explosions seen as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No sound of explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed

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

* No explosive hardware found at ground zero

* Demolition experts in the area, reported hearing no explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

Which all simply means that you and Babe Ruth have struck out. Now, where is your explosive evidence that I have asked for?

Edited October 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Here are some other steel structures which had fires but didn't actually collapse.....

1. The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire
   
2. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
   
3. The First Interstate Bank Fire
   
4. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
   
5. Caracas Tower Fire - Structural damage to 10 floors but still stood!
   

All steel structures and some of them burned much longer than any of the WTC, yet they ALL still stood.

Here are some other buildings which were hit by planes....

1. 40 Wall Street Plane crash
   
2. Tampa plane crash
   
3. Tower plane crash
   
4. New York City plane crash
   
5. Empire State Building place crash
   
6. Al Rasheed Hotel Baghdad suicide plane crash
   
7. Tohid Town Residential plane crash
   

None of those buildings suffered the level of massive impact damage inflicted on WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 and in fact, none of those buildings were constructed in the same manner as the WTC buildings, so once again, you have struck out.

I might also add that the aircraft that struck the buildings you posted are not nearly the size of a B-767. All you did was to compare a VW bug with a Mack truck. You also failed to differentiate between the type of construction between your buildings and the WTC buildings. To sum that up, if you are going to post something, at least understand what you are posting.

Now, where is that evidence I have been asking for?

Edited October 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

So where are your thousands? Where are your quotes??

They are working for the demolition companies around the world. Have you made any phone calls yet? I did! You can now begin to scratch off you sources as credible.

Now, where is your evidence that explosives were used at ground zero?

[skyeagle409]

Stundie

Great picture there. Amazing what office furniture fires can do, eh?

Let's take a look.

Not sure I'm understanding the point about Van Romero, but his first statement to the public was that controlled demolition had brought the towers down.

Let's take a look at what happened since then.

Van Romero

New Mexico demolitions expert Van Romero said on the day of the attack that he believed the building collapses were "too methodical" to have been a result of the collisions, and that he thought "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." His remarks were published in the Albuquerque Journal.

Ten days later the same newspaper printed a retraction, in which Romero is quoted as saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."

Edited October 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

What people have been attempting to tell you along along is that the sounds of explosions are not exclusive to bombs/explosives, even though you seem to want to make it out to be.

I just proved that GZ workers are providing analogies to what they experienced.

Tbh, I am just using your own reasoning to justify why trains are a possibility.

People heard what sounded like trains, ergo trains are a possibility. Much like your "people heard explosions, ergo bombs/explosives".

Just goes to show that Stundie is out of touch with reality. MSNBC, recently played back news coverage of that day and it was reported to their news reporter that the sound of explosions that firefighters heard have been attributed to gas line explosions. Other firefighters reported the sounds of explosions they heard were from collapsing floors and things that had nothing to do with explosives.

It goes to show that 911 Truthers have been distorting 911 facts over the years.

[DONTEATUS]

Breaking NEws ! "Jets Bring Towers down after Crashing Into them And the Real World Of Physics took the rest over !"

[Stundie]

What people have been attempting to tell you along along is that the sounds of explosions are not exclusive to bombs/explosives, even though you seem to want to make it out to be.

Maybe you should actually try reading my posts instead of interpreting them......incorrectly!!

Hence the reason I support the possibility of a demolition theory because frankly without it, all 3 of those towers would have possibly stood. - http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=3814574

Therefore the possibility of explosives being used cannot be ruled out until a coherent collapse theory which matches the evidence and explains most of the mysteries questions is answered .... - http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=3877027

We know that explosives were never tested for by the NIST, so therefore the possibility of explosives can't be ruled out. - http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4053763

But there were explosions!! So that proves the possibility, unless you have source for them, you can't rule out the possibility. - http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4210351

I'm not backtracking, if explosions were heard, then that means there is a possibility there were explosives. - http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4212702

I have evidence of explosions at the WTC7, so therefore a case which shows the possibility. - http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4213542

Sorry but that is not true, there is evidence showing the possibility as there are plenty of explosions caught on camera and heard by witnesses. - http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4225113

I have said it is possible they were used on 9/11 and provided evidence to show that possibility such as reports and videos of explosions before the collapse. - http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4246822

It is evidence showing they (Explosives!) were possibly used. - http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4246854

How do the videos I posted which capture the explosions and news reports from various reporters witnessing explosions disprove the possibility that explosives were used?? - http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4248300

Of course, the fact that explosions were heard doesn't prove anything other than there were probably explosions of some sort, it could have been explosives as I seem to think, it could have been something else, anything else. Until there is a source for the explosions that people heard and were recorded, then all I am saying is that this doesn't rule out the possibility that explosives could have been used. - http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4267319

Now where did I say these sounds are exclusively explosions?? Oh that's right...I didn't! lol But hey why let that get in the way of a good ole fashioned debunker fantasy! lol

What I have stated all along is that the explosions could be absolutely anything.....and that includes explosions.

It is your argument and that of your fellow panto debunkers which categorically says that these sounds were not explosives!! lol

And that is where you are wrong! lol

I just proved that GZ workers are providing analogies to what they experienced.

And guess what? They are going to provide analogies because they wouldn't be expecting to hear explosions.

And although you panto debunkers love pointing out the analogies, you fail to ignore the people who do not use analogies.

Tbh, I am just using your own reasoning to justify why trains are a possibility.

You are not, you are using illogical reasoning to deny the possibility that explosives could have been used.

People heard what sounded like trains, ergo trains are a possibility. Much like your "people heard explosions, ergo bombs/explosives".

People could have heard trains as they stated, so lets use something called the process of elimination to help you out.

Are trains often heard where there are no trains or train tracks??

Was any of these eyewitnesses near a train or near tracks at the time of the event??

Did any of these eyewitnesses see a train??

That should help you solve the train mystery.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Stundie