Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#2971    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:16 PM

View PostStundie, on 10 September 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

Apparently Brent Blanchard, a demolition expert who has never planned a demolition in his life, thinks the none of the towers were demolished.

Its a shame that those other demolition experts who have spoken out actually disagree with him.

Is that the best you can come up with when there are thousands of others who agree with the fact that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings???

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2972    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:18 PM

View PostStundie, on 10 September 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Looks like molten steel to me...


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

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

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

Edited by Saru, 10 September 2013 - 09:20 PM.
Copyrighted images

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2973    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:24 PM

View PostStundie, on 10 September 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Must have been something in the towers to melt the steel....Lets take a look at the experts say about the molten metal underground.

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

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

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

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 September 2013 - 06:40 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2974    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:42 PM

View PostStundie, on 10 September 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

Hmm....Sounds like an explosion to me. Lets compare shall we....lol


That wasn't a shape charge explosion. Did the WTC remain standing after that sound? That was a dead give-away the sound was not from a shape-charge in the building.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2975    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:33 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

Is that the best you can come up with when there are thousands of others who agree with the fact that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings???
Quote us your thousands fraud boy?? lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2976    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:36 PM

View PostStundie, on 10 September 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Quote us your thousands fraud boy??

You took last place in this one because you didn't bother to do your homework. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2977    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:49 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

How amusing considering that temperatures at ground zero did not reach the melting point of steel, which means that the molten metal was aluminum because the temperatures are far above the melting point of aluminum, but far too low to melt steel.
But the temperature chart and the many eyewitnesses who were at GZ and show otherwise I'm afraid. They were at GZ, you are a fraud sitting behind a keyboard...lol

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

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

Simple common sense logic you understand.
Common sense says that if everyone at GZ who refers to the metal as molten steel or refer to molten beam, then it must be aluminium? :blink: lol


Your common sense is defrauding you...lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

BTW, where is the melting point of steel on that chart? I see the melting point of aluminum, but none for steel. Apparently, you didn't even understand what you had posted!
Its a colour chart showing the temperatures of metals not their melting point.


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

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

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


All of these are much lower than 1200c.

So what have we learned....

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

The final thing we learned is that it is definitely not aluminium.  :w00t:

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

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2978    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:52 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

You took last place in this one because you didn't bother to do your homework. :no:
Erm! I thought you were going to quote us thousands of demolition experts?? lol

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

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

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2979    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:58 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

That wasn't a shape charge explosion.
Well what was it then?? Wind interference with the mic!! lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

Did the WTC remain standing after that sound?
Well look at them covered in dust, that should answer your dumb yet simple question for you. lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

That was a dead give-away the sound was not from a shape-charge in the building.
Sorry but it sounds exactly like a shaped charge as the video suggests.

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

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2980    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:00 PM

View PostStundie, on 10 September 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:

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

I will do better than that.

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

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

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




The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

http://www.historyco...ent_blanchard_1

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tiltedas it came crashing down."
"The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."

Key findings include:
  • Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
  • Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.
  • The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.
Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001


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


KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2981    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:01 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

Now, just think what happened to over 100,000 pounds of aluminum from the facade of WTC2 and from the aluminum airframe of United 175 that was being melted in the corner of WTC2 that was on fire which exposed all of that aluminum to temperatures far above the melting point of aluminum, but far below the melting point of steel.
Totally untrue I'm afraid. We know that the temps according to the temperature chart were at the very least 1200c. Much hotter than you have been claiming and if it's 1200c at the very least, then it's probably much higher seeing as the colour after that doesn't really change.


View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

Since that huge amount of molten aluminum did not just evaporate into the New York sky, where did you think all of that aluminum ended up?
In the rubble along with the molten steal and beam and other debris.

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

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

Of course not, you're a fraud!

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2982    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:01 PM

View PostStundie, on 10 September 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

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


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

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2983    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:05 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

I will do better than that.

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

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

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




The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

http://www.historyco...ent_blanchard_1

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tiltedas it came crashing down."
"The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."

Key findings include:
  • Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
  • Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.
  • The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.
Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001


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

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

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

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

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

Get to it fraud boy!

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 September 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

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

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

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2984    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:09 PM

View PostStundie, on 10 September 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

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

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


Quote

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

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

View PostStundie, on 10 September 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:


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

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

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2985    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:16 PM

View PostStundie, on 10 September 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:


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

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

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users