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

#3391    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 October 2013 - 01:34 AM

View PostStundie, on 25 October 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:


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.

Quote

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?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3392    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,031 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 27 October 2013 - 04:05 AM

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 ! :tu:

This is a Work in Progress!

#3393    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 October 2013 - 11:03 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 25 October 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

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 by Stundie, 30 October 2013 - 11:07 AM.

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

#3394    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 October 2013 - 11:07 AM

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

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

#3395    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 October 2013 - 11:10 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 October 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:

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!!!

View PostDONTEATUS, on 27 October 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

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 ! :tu:
Derp!!

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

#3396    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 30 October 2013 - 05:29 PM

View PostStundie, on 30 October 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

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 by skyeagle409, 30 October 2013 - 05:52 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3397    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 30 October 2013 - 05:35 PM

View PostStundie, on 30 October 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3398    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 30 October 2013 - 05:39 PM

View PostStundie, on 30 October 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

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.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3399    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 30 October 2013 - 06:06 PM

View PostStundie, on 30 October 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

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.

Quote


Posted Image


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.

Quote

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 by skyeagle409, 30 October 2013 - 06:21 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3400    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 October 2013 - 10:50 PM

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
  • 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.
  • Brent Blanchard - Who has never planned a demolition and owns a documentation company.
  • 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.  
  • Danny Jowenko - says that "WTC 7 was a definitely a controlled demolition."

  • 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."

  • 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."

  • 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."

  • 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."

  • 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."

  • 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  

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

#3401    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 October 2013 - 10:53 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 30 October 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

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.
Its the conclusion of 3 demolition experts, where as I have 7 which disagree with your experts.

Making your entire statement false. :yes:

So the conclusion shared amongst the majority of demolition experts who have spoken out is that the WTC were demolished by explosions.

Which is why after 12 years, you still can't explain how the towers collapsed without resorting to magic and ignorance. lol

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

#3402    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,031 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 31 October 2013 - 03:59 AM

THe best thing IS  ! To know not what you are told by these So Called experts ,In which I surely doubt any one Of them would testify in a court of Law that THey Indeed Know for a fact that the WTC Towers were actually brought down by explosives. But To Look at the Day unfold in real time,watch the towers come down,and Think for your self. One needs not to be a Demo-expert nor Engineer to Know that That Day Two Large Aircraft went into the upper floors,caused such damage,fire and impact weakened the structure,THen Gravity took over the rest of the work !
Please Quite calling this a Demolition !

This is a Work in Progress!

#3403    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 31 October 2013 - 04:59 AM

View PostStundie, on 30 October 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

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!!

On the contrary, tens of thousands of demolition experts do not support the 911 conspiracy theory. :no: And now, your own supporters are beginning to jump off your sinking ship, because after 12 years, not one single shred of evidence has ever been found that supports your demolition theory. :w00t:


Quote

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.

That doesn't work! The 911 conspiracy theory had nothing to do with it. :no:

Quote

Brent Blanchard - Who has never planned a demolition and owns a documentation company.

Well, according to his company, Brent Blanchard has been involved in well over a thousand demolition operations, which explains why he is considered one of the top demolition experts in the whole world and explains why demolition experts from around the world seek the advice and experience of, you guessed it, Brent Blanchard.

Quote

Mark Loizeaux - Who claims it wasn't a demolition but said he saw molten steel at the WTC.

He didn't see molten steel because investigators and cleanup crews found no such evidence at ground zero. :no:  

Quote

Now lets look at my demolition experts.  
Danny Jowenko - says that "WTC 7 was a definitely a controlled demolition."

If you had checked it out, Danny Jowenko had claimed that explosives were NOT responsible for the collapse of the WTC Towers.

Quote

  

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."

Looking at the videos, there are no explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. In fact, seismic monitors in the area did not record explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed nor was any evidence of explosives found in the rubble of the WTC buildings, and those facts simply debunks all of your so-called supporters. :yes:



Which explains why you have been unable to cough, cough, up any 911 conspiracy evidence after 12 years.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3404    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 31 October 2013 - 05:05 AM

View PostStundie, on 30 October 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

Its the conclusion of 3 demolition experts, where as I have 7 which disagree with your experts.

On the contrary, thousands of demolition experts around the world agree with the official story, and the evidence was all in the videos and the fact no evidence of explosives were found at ground zero, which explains why you have failed to provide that evidence I have asked you for.

Quote

So the conclusion shared amongst the majority of demolition experts who have spoken out is that the WTC were demolished by explosions.

On the contrary, the majority of demolition experts  support the official story. After all, there are no explosions evident in any video as the WTC buildings collapsed, which once again, explains why you have been unable to follow-up with me demand for you to provide evidence of explosives or a 911 conspiracy.

To sum it up, the idea of explosives at WTC ground zero was made up and you took the bait. :yes:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3405    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 31 October 2013 - 05:07 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 31 October 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

THe best thing IS  ! To know not what you are told by these So Called experts ,In which I surely doubt any one Of them would testify in a court of Law that THey Indeed Know for a fact that the WTC Towers were actually brought down by explosives. But To Look at the Day unfold in real time,watch the towers come down,and Think for your self. One needs not to be a Demo-expert nor Engineer to Know that That Day Two Large Aircraft went into the upper floors,caused such damage,fire and impact weakened the structure,THen Gravity took over the rest of the work !
Please Quite calling this a Demolition !

Amazing that as we watch the WTC videos, there is not one single piece of evidence of bomb explosions seen nor heard as WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 collapsed. Someone made up that false story and there are those who took the bait and ran off with it.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users