911 inside job - for what?

[skyeagle409]

Hence the reason I support the possibility of a demolition theory because frankly without it, all 3 of those towers would have possibly stood.

First of all, no one saw nor heard bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. Secondly, seismic monitors in the area did not detect bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. Thirdly, demolition experts in the area heard no bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, and lastly, no one found evidence in the rubble at ground zero that explosives were used.

In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were used.

[skyeagle409]

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

Yes indeed!

[Stundie]

First of all, no one saw nor heard bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

No one heard bomb explosions??..hahahahahahaha!!! ...

Is Neil deGrasse Tyson who witnessed the attacks on the twin towers from his apartment only six blocks away, "no one"??

"As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion."

"I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first."

Are husband and wife Sujo and Mini "no one"??

"So they escorted us thru the exit of World Trade 2 and I had just reached the revolving door of the building that I heard a loud explosion and the whole building collapsed. [...] When that explosion took place and the building was crumbling over me I could see the pics of my wife, my parents, grandmother loved ones flash thru my mind and now what a relief that we are alive."

So in the world of Skyeagle, no one equals more than one!! hahahahahahahahahaha!! What a joke!! lol

Is this like when you say thousands of demolition experts, you actually mean 2?? hahahahahahahaha!!! Hilarious!!

Secondly, seismic monitors in the area did not detect bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

Seismic monitors didn't not detect the bomb explosions back in 1993.

So if there are no seismic activity back in 1993 from the bombs, then the fact that there is no seismic activity on 9/11 somehow proves that bombs were not used?? hahahahahahahahaha!! Stunning logic failure!! lol

Thirdly, demolition experts in the area heard no bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, and lastly, no one found evidence in the rubble at ground zero that explosives were used.

You have no quotes from demolition experts, you have the word of one so called demolition expert. And of course no evidence was found because the NIST admit none were looked for.

The logic failure here is quite telling and more importantly highlights your delusions.....lol

In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were used.

Next post, why don't you just post...."lalalala!! No evidence...lalalala!!" because it contains more thought and logic than your entire post. hahahahahahaha!! lol

I'll await the mods to come and suspend me again for laughing at the complete stupidity of your post. lol

[Babe Ruth]

Stundie

To embrace the official story, one must be either grossly uninformed or deeply in denial of facts, and that's what Sky demonstrates with his insistence that there were no explosions.

Thanks for that from deGrasse Tyson--I had never heard his story before.

Explosions reported by numerous people, molten metal in the bowels for 3 months--these facts and many others are simply denied by those accepting the official story. Denying facts is the ONLY way the official story can be true.

[Stundie]

Stundie

To embrace the official story, one must be either grossly uninformed or deeply in denial of facts, and that's what Sky demonstrates with his insistence that there were no explosions.

Thanks for that from deGrasse Tyson--I had never heard his story before.

Explosions reported by numerous people, molten metal in the bowels for 3 months--these facts and many others are simply denied by those accepting the official story. Denying facts is the ONLY way the official story can be true.

Hi Babe Ruth,

I wouldn't say they are grossly uninformed because they can clearly disseminate facts when it suits them. It is obvious that denial is the key issue and tactic because it's easier to deny facts rather than having to face the fact that they are wrong. When that doesn't work, they go straight to ignorance and if that fails, they just lie.

So far I have been told by the pantomime debunkers.........

• That a picture of the WTC 7 showing lots of smoke with no visible flames is actually an inferno.
  
• That thousands of demolition experts who agree with the OCT is actually equal to 3.
  
• The people at GZ who said there was explosions heard something else, anything else, but they definitely did not hear explosives.
  
• The video of the fire fighters on the phone who react to an explosion was actually wind interference on the microphone.
  
• The explosion at the WTC in 93 which left no seismic activity proves that no explosives were used on 9/11 because there was no seismic activity.
  
• The people who said they saw molten steel at GZ including ironworkers are all wrong, they saw molten aluminium.
  
• That the metal pouring out from the WTC that looks just like molten steel, is actually molten aluminium at 1000c even though it would appear to be at a minimum of 1200c.
  
• That a still image from a video showing a thermite cutter charge exploding as it cuts steel is actually sparks.
  
• Books only contain the opinions of other people.
  
• Larry Silverstein has lost money in the WTC attacks from his initial $14 million investment, even though he was paid over $4.5 billion in insurance.
  
• Buildings which are sometimes capable of withstanding demolition and even multiple missile attacks couldn't withstand the mighty destructive force that is fire.
  
• That a demolition isn't possible because there would be wires everywhere and wireless technology couldn't be used
  

And the worst part is I am suppose to argue with this logic and will probably be suspended for having the cheek to laugh at it....lol

Oh well!

Even if they admit to some of these facts, they could still believe in the OCT if they wanted to but they know by admitting to them, it weakens the OCT. And people with strong faith (Cause that is all it is!) can't have that.

Cheers

Stundie

[skyeagle409]

I wouldn't say they are grossly uninformed because they can clearly disseminate facts when it suits them. It is obvious that denial is the key issue and tactic because it's easier to deny facts rather than having to face the fact that they are wrong. When that doesn't work, they go straight to ignorance and if that fails, they just lie.

So far I have been told by the pantomime debunkers.........

• That a picture of the WTC 7 showing lots of smoke with no visible flames is actually an inferno.
  

Let's take a look at this video and go straight to time line 1:50, and explain to us why fire is shown inside WTC7 when you said there were no visible flames.

But, you have falsely claimed that there were no visible flames!!!

[skyeagle409]

And the worst part is I am suppose to argue with this logic and will probably be suspended for having the cheek to laugh at it....

* That thousands of demolition experts who agree with the OCT is actually equal to 3.

Let's take a look.

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."

There are:

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.

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

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

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"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. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "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.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

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

Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

Which once again, proves that you are wrong again.

The video of the fire fighters on the phone who react to an explosion was actually wind interference on the microphone.

According the MSNBC, during a playback of the orginal newscast, the firefighters reported the explosions they heard were the result of GAS LINE explosions. Let's take a look at what other firefighters reported.

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.

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

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.

As you can plainly see, the explosions that firefighters heard, were not attributed to explosives.

The explosion at the WTC in 93 which left no seismic activity proves that no explosives were used on 9/11 because there was no seismic activity.

The huge bomb was not attached to the structure of WTC1, otherwise, the explosion would have generated a signal that would have traveled from the steel column and into the ground, which once again, proved that no explosives were used during the 911 attack because in order for explosives to do their job on steel frame buildings, the buildings must be pre-weakened and explosives firmly attached to steel columns, and since no explosives were attached to the steel columns of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7, that is the reason why we have these seismic data readings which do not depict explosions.

The people who said they saw molten steel at GZ including ironworkers are all wrong, they saw molten aluminium.

On the contrary, it is now OFFICIAL, that the molten flow was molten aluminum from the aluminum airframe of United 175, where much of the wreckage came to rest.

The corner of WTC2 where the molten aluminum is flowing from, is where the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest and any planted devices would have been instantly rendered ineffective by the impact, which was severe enough to dislodge fire protection from the steel columns and yet you want us to bellieve that explosives and thermite were above to remain inplace and cause the collapase despite the fact there is no such evidence.

That the metal pouring out from the WTC that looks just like molten steel, is actually molten aluminium at 1000c even though it would appear to be at a minimum of 1200c.

False!! It has already been determined that molten flow is aluminum, as depicted by the silvery droplets and by the fact that is where the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest.

Molten aluminum and silvery droplets

That a still image from a video showing a thermite cutter charge exploding as it cuts steel is actually sparks.

Which has nothing to do with the molten aluminum flowing from WTC2. Now, where is that evidence I have been asking you for?

Edited October 25, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I wouldn't say they are grossly uninformed because they can clearly disseminate facts when it suits them. It is obvious that denial is the key issue and tactic because it's easier to deny facts rather than having to face the fact that they are wrong. When that doesn't work, they go straight to ignorance and if that fails, they just lie.

Larry Silverstein has lost money in the WTC attacks from his initial $14 million investment, even though he was paid over $4.5 billion in insurance.

You might want to read the following link, and afterward, you will have some explaining to do as to why you are wrong again.

Losing Money at the WTC?

http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_money_at_the_wtc_.html

Buildings which are sometimes capable of withstanding demolition and even multiple missile attacks couldn't withstand the mighty destructive force that is fire.

Well, let's take a look here, because the bowing of the WTC buildings before they collapse was prime evidence that fire was weakening their structures.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Why the second tower hit, was the first to go.

[skyeagle409]

Even if they admit to some of these facts, they could still believe in the OCT if they wanted to but they know by admitting to them, it weakens the OCT. And people with strong faith (Cause that is all it is!) can't have that.

Considering that after 12 years, you have failed to produce demolition evidence, what more is there to say, except, where is it?

[Babe Ruth]

STundie

Yes, it is a house of cards. I'm only just realizing how political the entire NIST report is, what with the head of it having just been appointed by the President a month before. That such a political document is held up as scientific and thorough brings it all to the level of farce.

[skyeagle409]

STundie

Yes, it is a house of cards.

Speaking of a 'house of cards, over the years since the 911 attacks, claims of the 911 truther movement have been falling like a house of cards. Let's do a short recap of their claims that have now bitten the dust.

1. United 93 landed at Cleveland Airport.

FACT: Aircraft was Delta 1989, a B-767, whereas, United 93 was a B-757. The passengers that 911 confused as passengers of United 93 boarding a bus, were scientist who disembarked earlier from a KC-135.

2. Molten flow seen flowing from the corner of WTC2, was molten steel.

FACT: The molten flow has now been determined to be a mix of molten aluminum from the airframe of United 175 and contents from within the cabin of the aircraft and from WTC2.

3. Turning off the transponder renders an aircraft invisible to radar

FACT: Turning off the transponder does not render an aircraft invisible to radar. Recently, at our chapter meeting, ATC personnel from Travis AFB presented images of their radar contacts and aircraft without transponders were depicted on their radar screens as blue images. Even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar and I might add that the B-767 and B-757 are not stealth aircraft.

3. A modified pod can be seen beneath United 175

FACT: No such pod was evident. 911 truthers confused aerodynamic fairings and MLG doors, which are standard on all B-767s, as a pod. Even the paint scheme was confused as a modified pod.

4. ACARS depicted the 911 airliners airborne after their reported crash times

FACT: Radar, which tracked the aircraft to their crash points, did not depict those aircraft airborne after their reported crash times. ACARS did not depict those aircraft airborne after their crash times and I might add that I spoke with the folks at ARINC, the ACARS experts, which furnished me with information that trashed that false claim of 911 truthers.

5. The WTC buildings fell at free fall speed, or near free fall speed

FACT: The evidence has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that at no time, the WTC buildings collapse at, or near, free fall speed

6. Explosives were used to demolish the WTC buildings

FACT: Video, audio and seismic data evidence depicted no such thing. Furthermore, investigators and cleanup crews found no such evidence in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

7. Nukes were used to demolish the WTC buildings

FACT: Same as the response at #6. No such evidence exist.

8. $2.3 trillion dollars missing at the Pentagon

FACT: The $2.3 trillion was not missing. The Pentagon was unable to handle that much cash with the outdated equipment on hand. Most of the money has since been accounted for.

9. American 77 passed north of the gas station

FACT: The path of destruction leading to, outside and inside the Pentagon, proved that American 77 passed south of the gas station

10. The Pentagon was struck by an anti-ship cruise missile.

FACT: Wreckage found inside and outside the Pentagon, was that of a B-757, not an anti-ship cruise missile

11. Two B-767s under the call sign of United 175, were cleared for takeoff within minutes of one another at Boston airport.

FACT: It was determined there was no such thing at Boston Airport.

12. The 911 aircraft were switched

FACT: No such switched occurred.

13. Thermite was used to demolish the WTC buildings.

FACT: No such evidence was ever found. Despite numerous examinations, no thermite cuts were found

14. The Hani maneuver required superhuman strength

FACT: The Hani maneuver was a very boring maneuver similar to what I have performed as a student pilot with less than 30 hours of total flight time. During the time of the Hani maneuver was conducted, I could have made a ham and cheese sandwich.

15. American 77 overlew the Pentagon and landed at National Airport.

FACT: There was no way that American 77 could have landed at National Airport under the noses of ATC. I might add that American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Company confirmed the wreckage at the Pentagon as that of American 77. The conversion formulas for the FDR of American 77 they presented applied ONLY to the airframe of American 77, and no other aircraft.

16. Firefighters heard bombs exploding

FACT: According to that MSNBC playback of its newscast, firefighters reported the sound of explosions were attributed to gas line explosions, and nothing to do with bombs. Other firefighters reported the sound of explosions they heard were attributed to things other than explosives. No evidence of explosives were found at WTC ground zero.

Just a few examples where the 'house of cards' of 911 truthers have fallen over the years.

.

.

.

Edited October 25, 2013 by skyeagle409

[DONTEATUS]

I wonder what the world record for Insane Over Hyped Post are ? Looks like this maybe a True Weener !

Edited October 25, 2013 by DONTEATUS

[skyeagle409]

I wonder what the world record for Insane Over Hyped Post are ? Looks like this maybe a True Weener !

Had Stundie done some homework, he would have determined he was actually supporting my case. A case in point, he posted, on multiple occasions, a video of a person pouring molten aluminum. That video not only depicted silvery droplets from the flow, which were similar to the silvery droplets seen from the corner of WTC2 in photos and videos, but I also pointed out to him the orange color of the material inside the container of molten aluminum.

Apparently, he missed the boat on his own video. He has posted that thousands of demolition experts said that demolition explosives, and did so without evidence.

Perhaps, Stundie should take note that much of what 911 truthers have posted, was nothing more than planted disinformation, misinformation and outright lies.

[skyeagle409]

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.c...kyscraper.shtml

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

http://www.airboyd.t...ll-street-1946/

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

http://en.wikipedia....wer_plane_crash

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

http://en.wikipedia....l_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.

Goes to show how far 911 truthers are willing to go to display their high level of ignorance for everyone to see.

[skyeagle409]

To embrace the official story, one must be either grossly uninformed or deeply in denial of facts, and that's what Sky demonstrates with his insistence that there were no explosions.

Well, let's take another look.

No WTC ground zero bomb explosions in that video.

Explosions reported by numerous people,...

According to MSNBC, firefighters reported that the explosions were attributed to gas line explosions. Other firefighters attributed the explosions to things other than from explosives.

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

Dominick Derubbio

It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

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.

Nothing there about finding evidence of bombs.

...molten metal in the bowels for 3 months

Molten metal does not mean molten steel. Since temperatures did not reach the melting point of steel, but far exceeded the melting point of aluminum, simply rules out molten steel.

Iron Burns

Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation.That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

http://www.debunking...m/ironburns.htm

Burned buildings in Hinton could smolder for days

HINTON, W.Va. -- Hinton Fire Chief Ray Pivont says five apartment buildings destroyed by a fire could smolder for days.

http://www.dailymail...fs/201302280030

Packing shed fire will continue to smolder for next few days

The fire that broke out earlier this week at the Bruce Church produce packing sheds will continue to smolder for the next couple of days and produce some light smoke, but there are no longer any flames coming from the site.

http://www.yumasun.c...l#ixzz2NXkjtmIV

Fires have been known to smolder for weeks and months, but it seems that you were unaware of that fact.

--these facts and many others are simply denied by those accepting the official story. Denying facts is the ONLY way the official story can be true.

I have another for you.

"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY) – who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards – found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse."

[skyeagle409]

I wouldn't say they are grossly uninformed because they can clearly disseminate facts when it suits them. It is obvious that denial is the key issue and tactic because it's easier to deny facts rather than having to face the fact that they are wrong. When that doesn't work, they go straight to ignorance and if that fails, they just lie.

So far I have been told by the pantomime debunkers.........

• That thousands of demolition experts who agree with the OCT is actually equal to 3.
  

Let's take another look.

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."

Now, where is that evidence that explosives were used?

[DONTEATUS]

Key word there Skyeagle is Van Romero`s statement "HE Thought" meaning in fact He knew not what actually what happened ! But the Whole Planet Knows !

[Stundie]

STundie

Yes, it is a house of cards. I'm only just realizing how political the entire NIST report is, what with the head of it having just been appointed by the President a month before. That such a political document is held up as scientific and thorough brings it all to the level of farce.

Its not just the political aspect but also the financial aspect too. When you look at how much was spent on investigating the Clintons and the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, it pales to insignificant. Is it any wonder they don't actually explain how the buildings collapse and tell us that it was inevitable.

What is even more laughable is that the NIST took almost 7 years to produce their report on WTC7, yet only give the scientific community 3 weeks to critique and comment the report, which they ignored anyway.

You will be hard pressed to find an architect or engineer that stands behind the report, the only names I have seen are usually those who were involved in the report like Dr Shyam Sunder, hence the ones that have read it usually speak out or join groups like A&E9/11.

Cheers

Stundie

Edited October 30, 2013 by Stundie

[Stundie]

WOW! Skyeagle floods the forum with spam while ignoring all the points I have raised with his silly plane/building analogy...lol

Nothing new......lol

[Stundie]

Let's take another look.

Now, where is that evidence that explosives were used?

Sorry but the score is..

You have 3 demolition experts who have spoken out in favour of the NIST reports. Not thousands as you hilariously claimed!! lol

I have 7 demolition experts who have spoken out in favour of the CD theory.

So you lose!! 3 V 7!!

Crying about it doesn't change the FACTS!! hahahahahahaha!!!

Key word there Skyeagle is Van Romero`s statement "HE Thought" meaning in fact He knew not what actually what happened ! But the Whole Planet Knows !

Derp!!

[skyeagle409]

What is even more laughable is that the NIST took almost 7 years to produce their report on WTC7, yet only give the scientific community 3 weeks to critique and comment the report, which they ignored anyway.

Crying about it doesn't change the FACTS!!

Which explains why after 12 years since the 911 attack, still no evidence debunking the official story. Now, where is that evidence I have asked you for?

Edited October 30, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

WOW! Skyeagle floods the forum with spam while ignoring all the points I have raised with his silly plane/building analogy..

It is all very simple to understand. The aircraft struck the WTC buildings which damaged steel columns to where the structural loads were redistributed whereas fire protection was dislodged by the impacts which exposed the steel structures to temperatures high enough to weaken the steel, which is why we have this assessment.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Nothing difficult to understand.

[skyeagle409]

Sorry but the score is..

You have 3 demolition experts who have spoken out in favour of the NIST reports. Not thousands as you hilariously claimed!!

On the contrary, the conclusion shared among demolition experts is that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, which explains why after 12 years, you have failed to provide evidence to the contrary.

[skyeagle409]

You will be hard pressed to find an architect or engineer that stands behind the report, the only names I have seen are usually those who were involved in the report like Dr Shyam Sunder, hence the ones that have read it usually speak out or join groups like A&E9/11.

Let's take another look because I think you missed something.

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

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

Now, taking a look at a demolition expert you thought was a 911 conspiracy supporter.

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

http://www.southernc...org/41/9-11.htm

Edited October 30, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Sorry but you can post all the spam you like, it doesn't change the fact that you only have 3 demolition experts. Not thousands!! lol

1. Van Romero - Who initially claimed it was a demolition then changed his mind later on and manage to secure his school with around $56 million.
   
2. Brent Blanchard - Who has never planned a demolition and owns a documentation company.
   
3. Mark Loizeaux - Who claims it wasn't a demolition but said he saw molten steel at the WTC.
   

So that's 3 to Skyeagle.....lol

Now lets look at my demolition experts.

1. Danny Jowenko - says that "WTC 7 was a definitely a controlled demolition."
   
2. Tom Sullivan - A demolition loader for the world’s top demolition company - "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."
   
3. 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 honour 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."
   
4. 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."
   
5. 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."
   
6. Tim Erney - A & P. A.S. Aviation Maintenance Technology. Bio: Licensed A & P mechanic. U.S. Army Reserve, Combat Engineer, Specialized in Demolitions, Honourable 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."
   
7. 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."
   

So that's 7 for Stundie!

All of them have direct experience in handling explosives and demolitions and none of them changed their minds.

So unless you have these thousands which I have been asking for, you still lose, by 4 demolition experts. lol