1834 replies to this topic

[Stundie]

turbonium, on 02 February 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

It's a little-known fact that the WTC had elevators which exploded upon impact! And that's what everybody heard on 9/11. They sound just like high explosives,


So there's no need to look for explosives, because there's no evidence for it.

Of course, if NIST happened to trip over it by chance, they would know their employer is a mass murderer. They would expose these monsters instantly, despite the massive implications of doing so. Those NIST guys are a fearless bunch, yes indeed!!

Arturro Griffiths was in one of those elevators and judging from his account, it isn't a little known fact that the elevators exploded upon impact.

He definitely describes multiple explosions and being knocked back by one of the explosions.

So even though you think you know better and you think that is what everyone heard, i'll take the word of those who were there over some Internet debunkers who think they know better and suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance.

[Czero 101]

Stundie, on 02 February 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

No I don't. I was just wondering out of curiosity, do you write those awful jokes you get in christmas crackers? lol

No, however, there is no evidence of me writing those awful jokes you get in a Christmas cracker (whether you believe that or not is irrelevant since humour is very subjective).... however, almost every single post - and in some, every single point you make - contains strawmen arguments.

Perhaps its just that you don't know what a strawman argument is...? Personally I find that hard to believe, but I suppose its possible. It might be a good idea to educate yourself on that particular fallacy you are so, so fond of and stop using it. That would probably improve the quality of your argument from that of a ranting CT with no regard for fact or the other person's argument / position, to someone possibly worth listening to.






Cz

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 02 February 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

It's a little-known fact that the WTC had elevators which exploded upon impact! And that's what everybody heard on 9/11. They sound just like high explosives,

IN case you didn't know, the elevators were not loaded with explosives. The sound was made as they crashed, which had nothing to do with bomb explosives.

Quote

So there's no need to look for explosives, because there's no evidence for it.

Amusing that as the elevators crashed there was no evidence of a bomb explosion. BTW, more than 1000 pounds of explosive was used in the 1993 WTC1 bombing and yet the hugh bomb failed to destroy one single steel column despite the fact the steel columns were sitting in the bomb crater.

The claim of controlled demolitions is spread around by those who have allowed themselves to be duped.

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 February 2013 - 05:42 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 February 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

No they haven't and this is why there isn't a list of demolition experts, architects and engineers who support the official story.

There is and I have already posted them.

Quote

Experts like Brent who has demolished the grand total of 0 buildings or structures.

You might want to call his company so they can explain to you why Brent Blanchard is a LEADING WORLD AUTHORITY on building demolitions. In fact, demolition companies depend upoon Brent Blanchard for important information.

Quote

There are plenty of testimonies of people at GZ who heard, felt and saw explosions that were not elevators falling, bodies hitting the ground or other debunking memes which are usually any old crap, but not explosions.

They did not hear bomb explosions, and once again, there were no explosions evident in the videos, nor on audio nor detected by seismic monitors. In other words, no bombs.

Quote

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

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.

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


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


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

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

http://www.popularme...ld-trade-center


'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

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


Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm


ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.


American Society of Civil Engineers
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/


Structural and Civil Engineers against Controlled Demolition

Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

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

Fulton College of Engineering and Technology

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 February 2013 - 05:46 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 February 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

Arturro Griffiths was in one of those elevators and judging from his account, it isn't a little known fact that the elevators exploded upon impact.

He definitely describes multiple explosions and being knocked back by one of the explosions.

Ever heard of compressed air?

[Babe Ruth]

All pictures and graphs, and hardly any analytical skills.

Too bad about MID, but he's in a better place.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 02 February 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

All pictures and graphs, and hardly any analytical skills.

Typical knowledge of how temperature affects steel is all that is needed..

[Stundie]

Czero 101, on 02 February 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

No, however, there is no evidence of me writing those awful jokes you get in a Christmas cracker (whether you believe that or not is irrelevant since humour is very subjective)....

I just wondered with the poor joke about me living on a farm.

Czero 101, on 02 February 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

however, almost every single post - and in some, every single point you make - contains strawmen arguments.

Well complaining about them without actually pointing out my strawman argument, doesn't really support your case of my Wurzel Gummage-ness!

Czero 101, on 02 February 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

Perhaps its just that you don't know what a strawman argument is...? Personally I find that hard to believe, but I suppose its possible.

I know what strawman arguments are but I love how you focus on me and my supposed strawman, while another poster (Whose name we won't mention!) spams the forum with nothing but strawman, yet I'm not seeing you complain about them?

Bias perhaps?? Probably, but it's OK, I still love ya and forgive ya!

Czero 101, on 02 February 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

It might be a good idea to educate yourself on that particular fallacy you are so, so fond of and stop using it.

Well i thought my post made some valid points but if you think they are made of straw, you could point them out to me and I'll retract my statement.

Czero 101, on 02 February 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

That would probably improve the quality of your argument from that of a ranting CT with no regard for fact or the other person's argument / position, to someone possibly worth listening to.

Well isn't your opinion about the quality of my arguments subjective? Maybe you could suggest some ways I could improve the quality of my argument if they are that bad.

Cheers

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 02 February 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

You might want to call his company so they can explain to you why Brent Blanchard is a LEADING WORLD AUTHORITY on building demolitions. In fact, demolition companies depend upoon Brent Blanchard for important information.

Why would I ring him?? lol

This is the company that Brent Blanchard runs? They are not going to say he is not a world leading authority on building demolitions? lol

I know all I need to know about him, hes has witnessed lots of demolitions but he's got no personal experience of demolition a building cause his company don't do the demolition. Maybe you should ring him and advise him to corner the fire demolition market though?

skyeagle409, on 02 February 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

They did not hear bomb explosions,

I never said they heard bombs, they heard EXPLOSIONS, it's their own words and they were the witnessing it.

skyeagle409, on 02 February 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

and once again, there were no explosions evident in the videos,

Except the videos showing explosions

skyeagle409, on 02 February 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

nor on audio

Except the video of the explosions before WTC7 collapses and the people there saying it was explosions.

skyeagle409, on 02 February 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

nor detected by seismic monitors.In other words, no bombs.

The bombs were not picked up by seismic equipment over 16km away in back in the WTC in 1993.

Making that point invalid. In other words, you are wrong.

Edited by Stundie, 02 February 2013 - 10:53 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 February 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

Why would I ring him?? lol

To find out how many buildings he has demolished.

Quote

This is the company that Brent Blanchard runs? They are not going to say he is not a world leading authority on building demolitions? lol

Why of course they will. After all  Brent Blanchard is a world leading authority on demolition implosions, which is why demolition companies around the world depend upon Brent Blanchard and his company.

Quote

I know all I need to know about him, hes has witnessed lots of demolitions but he's got no personal experience of demolition a building cause his company don't do the demolition.

On the contrary, Brent Blandchard has many, many years of experience in the field of demolition implosions, which is another reason why he is a leading  world authority on demolition implosions.

Quote

Maybe you should ring him and advise him to corner the fire demolition market though?

Why should I? He already knows that fire will cause failure of steel structures of buildings as was the case with the WTC buildings, the collapse of those steel frame buildings in Thailand, Spain, the collapse of the steel structure on that overpass just to name a few.

Quote

I never said they heard bombs, they heard EXPLOSIONS, it's their own words and they were the witnessing it.

You can't back out now!!!! You implied that bombs were responsible and since you've made your bed, you must now sleep in it.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 February 2013 - 12:21 AM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 02 February 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

To find out how many buildings he has demolished.

Why would I ask him that when we know the answer?

I'll give you some clues shall I? It's less than 1 but its not a negative number.

skyeagle409, on 02 February 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

Why of course they will.

Of course they won't say he is not a leading authority on implosions because its his company.

skyeagle409, on 02 February 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

After all  Brent Blanchard is a world leading authority on demolition implosions, which is why demolition companies around the world depend upon Brent Blanchard and his company.

No he isn't seeing as he has never demolished a building.

You are giving me his marketing spiel from his company website but you are struggling to differentiate that from the actual facts.

skyeagle409, on 02 February 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

On the contrary, Brent Blandchard has many, many years of experience in the field of demolition implosions, which is another reason why he is a leading  world authority on demolition implosions.

So you are disagreeing with me and you think his company ACTUALLY do demolitions?  

Excuse me but...........lol

Could you show me, to the contrary, where Protec actually say they do the actual demolition?

skyeagle409, on 02 February 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

Why should I? He already knows that fire will cause failure of steel structures of buildings as was the case with the WTC buildings, the collapse of those steel frame buildings in Thailand, Spain, the collapse of the steel structure on that overpass just to name a few.

Cause you and him could use fires as a demolition method.

Fires brought down the WTC 1,2 & 7. So it should be able to bring down any building in about 7 hours from start to finish by your logic.

skyeagle409, on 02 February 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

You can't back out now!!!! You implied that bombs were responsible and since you've made your bed, you must now sleep in it.

I'm not backing out of anything sonshine! I said explosions and still standby it.

Was it bombs? Of course it's possible it was bombs, so there is nothing wrong with the bed I've made or am lying in, it's quite comfortable thanks.

However your bed is a mess! You said they never heard explosions and now you appear to be the one changing from they didn't hear explosions, to they didn't hear bombs, based on the evidence that you think you are so smart, you know better than the people at GZ.

But wait, there was no seismic evidence of bombs at GZ, even though you didn't realise that there was no seismic evidence of bombs back in 1993. I mean why did you feel the need to bring that up as a valid point? Dont you realise that you just debunked yourself. Hahahaha!

[Babe Ruth]

Thank you Stundie, for an exposition of the sophistry of Skyeagle.  Cognitive Dissonance cannot be rational behavior.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 03 February 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

Why would I ask him that when we know the answer? I'll give you some clues shall I? It's less than 1 but its not a negative number.

How about in the thousands?

Quote

No he isn't seeing as he has never demolished a building.

How about in the thousands?! Ever wondered why Brent Blandchard is a leading world authority in demolition implosions? Check it out.

Quote

Brent Blanchard
Background

Employment History

• Photographer
  
  Professional Demolition International
  
• Director of Field Operations
  
  Protec Documentation Services Inc
  
• Operations Manager
  
  Protec Documentation Services Inc
  
• Implosion Expert
  
  Protec Documentation Services Inc
  
• Senior Editor
  
  Implosion World
  
• Senior Writer
  
  Implosion World
  
• Implosion Columnist
  
  Implosion World

Listening to the video, how many buildings has Brent Blanchard demolished. Why do demolition companies around the world come to Brent Blanchard for advice and information on demolition imiplosions?

Quote

However your bed is a mess! You said they never heard explosions and now you appear to be the one changing from they didn't hear explosions, to they didn't hear bombs, based on the evidence that you think you are so smart, you know better than the people at GZ.

They did not hear explosions that were attributed to explosives and figure out why I posted the fact there were no explosions detected by seismic monitors in the area and think for a minute, what that means? I know the answer because I have seen, heard, and felt the blast waves of real explosions.

Quote

But wait, there was no seismic evidence of bombs at GZ, even though you didn't realise that there was no seismic evidence of bombs back in 1993.

Were explosives attached to the steel columns of WTC1 in 1993? No! Were explosives attached to the steel columns of WTC1 and WTC2 in 2001? No! Since explosives were not attached to the steel columns of WTC1 in 1993, figure out what that means. And, if you look at a photo of the steel columns in the 1993 blast, not one steel column was destroyed by the huge bomb. How many monitors did Protec. Inc. have in the general area in 1993?

Quote

I mean why did you feel the need to bring that up as a valid point? Dont you realise that you just debunked yourself. Hahahaha!

Nope, because you debunked yourself by the very fact you failed to follow-up on the rest of the story regarding explosive blast waves and Brent Blanchard's bio.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 February 2013 - 09:34 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 03 February 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

Thank you Stundie, for an exposition of the sophistry of Skyeagle.  Cognitive Dissonance cannot be rational behavior.

Irrational behavior involves the act of trying to convince people that no Boeing struck the Pentagon despite the overwhelming evidence and then, substitute an P-700 anti-ship missile for which there was no evidence, in addition to claiming that no Boeing crashed near Shanksville despite overwhelming photo evidence,and confirmations from radar data, investigators, clean-up crews, coroner Wally Miller, and United Airlines.

Irrational behavior involves the act of trying to convince people that nukes were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings despite the lack of evidence of any type related to a nuclear detonation.

Irrational behavior involves the act of trying to convince people that American 77 passed north of the gas station when in fact, physical evidence proved otherwise, and then, trying to convince people that explosives knocked down the light poles leading to the Pentagon when in fact, evidence proved the light poles suffered from impact damage that had nothing to do with explosives, and  list goes on and on..

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 February 2013 - 09:23 PM.

[skyeagle409]

CRT Thermite Debunked