Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

Sorry Fraudboy,...

I am sorry to hear that you cannot come up with evidence that refutes what I have been asserting. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry to hear that you cannot come up with evidence that refutes what I have been asserting. :lol:

Fraudboy, I'm still waiting for the evidence from these thousands of demolition experts you claimed agree with the official story.

I think you have confused 1000's with the number 1. A few zeros short by the looks of it. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fraudboy,

Fraudboy?! How amusing when you cannot even come up with evidence that has been asked of you that proves your point and I am STILL waiting for that evidence :yes:

!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fraudboy?! How amusing when you cannot even come up with evidence that has been asked of you that proves your point and I am STILL waiting for that evidence :yes:

!

And I've been waiting for your evidence. :rolleyes:

So far you've got 1....I still need another 999+ to make the thousands of demolition experts you say agree with you and your position.

I'll just wait for the other 999 to come or just wait until you concede that you are wrong. I'm sure neither will happen anytime soon......lol

It's a good job I'm patient......lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I've been waiting for your evidence.

Perhaps, you are talkng about this

#1425

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, you are talkng about this

#1425

No, no, no....I am talking the thousand of demolition experts you claim to exist.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no....I am talking the thousand of demolition experts you claim to exist.

But, they are the groups that consist of thousands of members who agreed with the OCT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I read everything passed my post and I have a gigantic grin on my face, Stundie you the man. Skyeagle the only reason this conversation is still going is because this is a skeptical and independent topic, every time you spew 'logic' you derail back to "you have no evidence". The collapse does not follow physics as a natural event, the fire had to little time to expand, aerated pockets gushed out as each floor collapsed on it self, Steel that is weakened by fire (even to a glow) will not collapse symmetrically as redundant un-damaged steel will effect it in SOME way and with a building as tall as the WTC's it would dramatically effect it's trajectory.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, they are the groups that consist of thousands of members who agreed with the OCT.

Oh no, no, no, no......lol ACSE members are not demolition experts/

You claimed there were thousand of demolition experts.

Go find them or otherwise, come back with your tail between your legs and admit that you only have 1 demolition expert who disagrees with the demolition theory.

Not thousands. Face it, you are wrong. lol

Edited by Stundie
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, no, no, no......lol ACSE members are not demolition experts/...

Since I have already posted the names of the demolition companies at ground zero who dismissed the demolition theory, the ACSE is just the icing on the cake. Remember, members of those demolition companies heard no demolition charges going off as the WTC buildings collapsed.

It was all right there in my post so I don't know how you missed it.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I read everything passed my post and I have a gigantic grin on my face, Stundie you the man. Skyeagle the only reason this conversation is still going is because this is a skeptical and independent topic, every time you spew 'logic' you derail back to "you have no evidence".

It is all very simple, evidence counts and there is no evidence that refutes what I have stated.

The collapse does not follow physics as a natural event,

Of course it does. The floors of the WTC buildings were tied between the inner core and the outer facade of the WTC buildings so in that respect, there was no other way for the buildings to fall and to backup my claim, I have poster and reposted closeup videos of WTC2 just before it collapsed and the buckling confirmed what I have asserted all along and that buckling debunks 911 conspiracy claims right off the bat. Simple to understand.

To sum that up, the buckling of the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 proved my case that fire, not explosives, were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Now, prove my wrong with viable evidence and if you are unable to do so, I will use you inability to provide such evidence to my advantage :yes: and highlight the fact that 911 truthers don't bother to do their homework or do it properly when they do. :no:

Now, where is the evidence the buckling was caused by explosives?

...the fire had to little time to expand,

It doesn't take very long to weaken steel with the fires that were raging within the WTC buildings that day. Where did you get that idea?

...aerated pockets gushed out as each floor collapsed on it self,

Which was expected considering that most of the interior of the WTC buildings was air, but it seems that you didn't know that. Where did you think all of that air had to go as the WTC buildings collapsed?

Do your homework and learn about the syringe effect and tall buildings. Simple law of science that I learned back in school, you understand, so all I did today was to enlighten you on what I learned in school decades ago because you didn't know, so now, you can't say that I never taught you anything.

Let's take a look.

ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE

Thus, based on the dimensions of each WTC tower, there were 10,000 m3 of “open space” per floor. The collapsing floor acted like a giant piston compressing the air occupying the open space between floor and ceiling.

Now, what was that you were saying? Do you see why I put those on notice for not doing their homework?

Steel that is weakened by fire (even to a glow) will not collapse symmetrically...

Of course it will and it has already happened. Follow the links.

#161

#184

Challenging September 11 conspiracy theories

Were the twin towers destroyed by controlled explosion?

The 9/11 Commission was set up in 2002 .It interviewed more than 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed more than 2.5 million pages of documents. It found 'no corroborating evidence' that the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition.

Expect to be tested should you decide to take on my challenge. :yes: In other words, you had better learn to do your homework and do it properly if you do.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I have already posted the names of the demolition companies at ground zero who dismissed the demolition theory, the ACSE is just the icing on the cake.

No, no, no Sigmund Fraud! You are getting your knickers in a twist.

You didn't say that ACSE and demolition companies at GZ dismissed the demolition theory, you said there was thousands of demolition experts to counter the 7 or 8 I posted.

So when your ready....You are on 1 so far, just 999 to go??

Or you could just concede and say I'm sorry Stundie, I got it wrong.

Remember, members of those demolition companies heard no demolition charges going off as the WTC buildings collapsed.
Other than the 1 so far, Brent Blanchard and Protec, would you be so kind as to quote them?? lol

You said there were thousands of demolition experts right? So I'm sure these thousands work for multiple demolition companies so you shouldn't have any problems providing names and quotes to back up your new assertion?? Along with the individuals?

1 demo expert and 1 company so far. Your not doing to well are you?? lol

It was all right there in my post so I don't know how you missed it.
Sorry but I didn't see a post where you named thousands of demo experts or the companies they worked for say that the collapse of the WTC were not a demolition.

I'll await the names or a retraction, whichever comes sooner....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle the only reason this conversation is still going is because this is a skeptical and independent topic, every time you spew 'logic' you derail back to "you have no evidence".

I wish to add that should you decide to participate in the debate you had better do your homework and do it right!! To simply say that fire cannot do this to a steel frame building or do that to a steel frame building because you don't understand how it can happen, just won't cut it.

The reason why I have asked 911 conspiracist to produce evidence is because I am putting them on the spot and know they have no such evidence to present, so I place them on a pedestal as an example of how 911 conspiracist pull things out of thin air and not understand a thing of what they are posting.

As a pilot and aircraft structural technician of over 40 years, I can relate to the things that occurred during the 911 attack. As a pilot, I can relate to what occurred in the air before and after the 911 were hijacked and eventually slammed into buildings and in the case at Shanksville, flown into the ground. As an airframe technician, I can relate to the airframes of the B-767 and the B-757 and knew there was no way those aircraft were modified to fly under remote control nor flown under remote control and to the structures of the WTC buildings. As a retired member of the Air Force, I can relate to events at the Pentagon and air intercepts. BTW, a former Wing commander of my unit was in the Pentagon when American 77 slammed into the building and he highlighted events that day during his going-away dinner which I attended. Since then, I ran into another Air Force member who was inside the Pentagon that day and confirmed what I have been telling readers for a very long time on these threads.

The altitude flight data should have told the 911 truthers that at no time during the flights were the aircraft flown under remote control, which was evident whenever the autopilot was turned off, but because many 911 truthers were unable to decipher the data, they concocted the remote control theory out of pure ignorance. In addition, the B-767 and the B-757 are not FBW aircraft, which should have been another hint that those aircraft could not have flown under remote control, especially since they belonged to American Airlines and United Airlines.

To modify the aircraft in such a manner would have required many months of planning, engineering redesign and extensive structural modifications and testing and furthermore, did they think the airlines would have grounded their aircraft to have them modified for the purpose of having them flown under remote control from the ground? I think not! I know the aircraft were not switched because it would take me less than 30 minutes to reveal a switched aircraft and remember, only a certain number of B-767-200s and B-757-200s were built and easy to trace, after all, it only took me a few minutes to trace the first aircraft I flew as a student pilot.

In the case of the tampered transponders, another theory was hatched because of pure ignorance and suggested that tampering with the transponders made the 911 aircraft invisible. I have to say that tampering with the transponder does not make an aircraft invisible to radar. The B-757 and the B-767 are not stealth aircraft so what made the 911 truthers think that tampering with the transponder would make an aircraft invisible to radar? Even the B-2 stealth bomber is not totally invisible to radar. Turning off the transponder just makes it that much more difficult to track, not make it invisible. Even though the transponder of American 77 was tampered with, ground controller were still able to track the aircraft but they lost basic information related to American 77, but the aircraft was still tracked, so once again, 911 truther hatched another unfound conspiracy out of shear ignorance of the facts.

As a retired member of the Air Force, I knew the stories that Air Force fighters were diverted was false. First of all, the pilots did not receive orders to shoot down the 911 aircraft until after United 93 had crashed and secondly, they was mass confusion within the ATC system as to what was going on. Thirdly, how would a pilot know which aircraft was a threat or not. An off-course airliner is not evidence either and I can show you cases where aircraft were many miles off course as was the case of a TWA cargo jet that overflew its destination and ended out over the Pacific Ocean and there are other cases of off-course aircraft as well.

Another conspiracy theory revolves around our interceptors. NORAD has certain air defense protocols in place that F-16 pilots at Andrews AFB were not familiar with. In fact, they were not properly trained to conduct air intercepts but the 911 conspiracist didn't know that, so they hatched another unfounded conspiracy because they didn't know any better and that is another reason why I have asserted that 911 truther claims are simply ignorant-based and rightly so because they have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

They are also confusing "secure" with "heavily defended." A federal official once revealed that in one case, military jets could identify and intercept only about 40 percent of intruders in training drills. 911 conspiracist didn't know that so they hatched yet another unfounded conspiracy theory and once again, confirming my claim that 911 truther claims are ignorant-based.

Now, we come to molten metal issue. There is really no contest because the silvery molten droplets seen falling from the corner of WTC2 automatically dismissed the molten metal as steel. In addition, it was that corner of the building where a good portion of the airframe of United 175 came to rest and looking at the videos of that corner, you can see fires raging within that corner of the building and remember, ordinary officer fires can create temperatures high enough to melt aluminum, but too low to melt steel, which is simply common sense logic that should have told the 911 conspiracist that the molten flow was NOT steel by that very fact, but because 911 truther claims are ignorant-based, they didn't know any better so what did they do? They hatched yet another unfounded conspiracy theory out of pure ignorance.

Videos and photos of that corner of WTC2 shows silvery droplets falling from that section and because a poster didn't do his homework properly, he posted a video depicting someone pouring molten aluminum and silvery droplets can be seen as well. Well, guess what! You can also see silvery droplets falling from the corner of WTC2, which simply means that by posting that video he actually debunked his own case I posted an aluminum temperature chart and what did he do? He confused the aluminum chart and tried to apply the information to make his case for molten steel! Simply amazing!!

I hope you get the point that when 911 conspiracist post, they are being graded and at this point, they are receiving failing grades for not doing their homework or NOT doing it properly when they do.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't say that ACSE and demolition companies at GZ dismissed the demolition theory, you said there was thousands of demolition experts to counter the 7 or 8 I posted.

Where's you so-called evidence that refutes what I have been posting? Don't tell me you still don't have it.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the 1 so far, Brent Blanchard and Protec,...

Brent Blanchard, the world's LEADING authority on demolition implosions.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

http://toolateforregrets.tripod.com/photosshowbuckling.html

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=7075

And;

#2119

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent Blanchard, the world's LEADING authority on demolition implosions.

So lets start the count again. Remember you said thousands of demo experts agree with the OCT.

So that's 1 demo expert.....lol

Sorry but Vincent Dunn is a retired Firefighter Chief and not a demolition expert.

So that's still only 1 demolition expert.

Sorry but I can't find a name and tolateforregrets doesn't sound like a demolition company to me. Does it sound like a demolition company to you?? lol

So you still only have 1 demolition expert.

Again, see how you act fraudulently when you are exposed yet again.

This is not a demolition company and neither is the person writing the article a demolition expert.

So out of these thousands of demolition experts, you still only have 1 demolition expert and an ex FDNY chief who is not a demolition expert and 2 websites which are not companies and neither perform demolitions.

hahahahahahahahaha!!!! lol

Lets check the last one out....lol

Still on 1 remember..lol

And;

#2119

Care to point out these thousands of demolition experts in the spam you posted above?? lol

I had a look through but the only demo expert you mention is Brent Blanchard again.

So you still only have 1 demolition expert. Mentioning Brent Blanchard twice doesn't count as 2 demolition experts cause they are the same person. i.e. 1 expert!

I'll await for you to carry on with your list of thousands of demolition experts but why don't you save us all some time and instead of posting spam from non demolition experts, you actually try posting quote and names from demolition experts out of these thousands which you think exist? lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets start the count again. Remember you said thousands of demo experts agree with the OCT.

Thousands of demolition workers of companies that support the OCT, Which is to be expected considering that no explosive evidence was ever found at ground zero and it has now been twelve years and here is what we got.

* No explosions seen as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No bomb explosions heard as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No bomb explosions detected on the seismic monitors used by Brent Blanchard's company

* No explosive hardware found at ground zero

Add to the fact that none of those people you've mentioned has ever produced explosive evidence which is why after 12 years, no explosive evidence exist. In other words, your references offered nothing to backup 911 truther claims that explosives were used.

Now, to the get down to the specifics, the buckling of the WTC buildings was proof that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Simple laws of physics surrounding high temperatures and confined metals, physical laws governing metals which seems that your people are unaware of. In other words, common sense logic says that since confined steel exposed to high temperatures is not allowed to expand, it will buckle and what did we see just prior to the collapse of the WTC buildings? Buckling, which was witnesses by firefighters, police officers and many others in the area.

I have shown that if exposed steel is subject to temperatures of 1500 degrees, it will lose a good portion of its strength and unable to support structural loads. Now, where is your evidence that fire was NOT responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings?

I might add that if you desire, contact each of those you have named and bring them to this thread and I will debate each one of them on explosives and structural steel. Care to face up to that challenge of bringing them into the fryer? I will be waiting for them should you decide to accept my challenge.

****Breaking News!!****

It has just been reported during a rerun of the MSNBC coverage of events of 911, reporter Pat Dodson reported at 11:57 AM, local time, that he was told by firefighters that the explosions they were hearing at ground zero were from ****EXPLODING GAS LINES.****

Time after time, 911 truthers have claimed that the sound of explosions at ground zero was evidence of explosives. I have repeatedly told 911 truthers that the sound of explosions at ground zero was not evidence of explosives and now, that MSNBC news report has NOW confirmed what I have been correctly asserting for a very long time.

And just another example of 911 truthers failing to do their homework that resulted in another unfounded conspiracy theory.

Thanks, MSNBC,because another 911 truther claim regarding the sound of explosions at ground zero has now crashed in flames.

To say "I told you so," just doesn't seem to say it enough.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a nice recap youre going to love..

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phaeton

That is an excellent summation, with just the right amount of humor. I had seen an earlier version, but this one including Abbottabad is even better! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a nice recap youre going to love..

That video has been debunked. First of all, Osama bin Laden's own doctor confirmed that bin Laden did not suffer from kidney problems, but the 911 truthers didn't know that because they failed to do their homework, so they concocted an unfounded conspiracy theory out of ignorance.

In regard to the Pentagon's $2.3 trillion, the money wasn't missing because the system of the Pentagon couldn't handle that much money however, much of the money has been accounted for, but the 911 truthers did not know that because they failed to do their homework and concocted an unfounded conspiracy theory out of ignorance.

The Hani maneuver was a very boring maneuver similar to what I performed as a student pilot with less than 30 total flight hours. Hani initiated his maneuver from around 7000 feet and it took him around 3 minutes to drop down to 2000 feet, which is well within the flight envelope of the B-757, but the 911 truthers didn't know that because they failed to do their homework, so they concocted another unfounded conspiracy theory out of ignorance.

At Travis AFB, their C-5s and C-17s, conduct tactical landing maneuvers from 10,000 feet and down to the runway with descent rates from 5000 feet per minute and cleared to descent rates as high as 10,000 feet per minute, which is posted in the Travis AFB information pamphlet, but Hani's average rate of descent to ground level was only between 2000 and 3000 feet per minute.

At no time did he exceed G limitations on the airframe, but the 911 truthers didn't know that because they failed to do their homework, so they concocted another unfounded conspiracy theory out of ignorance.

Taking a closer look at Hani, he had roughly 250 flying hours and held not only a commercial pilots license, but a type rating in the B-737 as well, but the 911 truthers didn't know that because they failed to do their homework and concocted another conspiracy theory out of ignorance. He didn't even have to takeoff or land the aircraft, just slam it into a building which doesn't take much skill by any means.

Regarding the lack of interception of the 911 airliners by Air Force aircraft, as noted in your video between time line 0:30 and 0:40, F-16 pilots at Andrews AFB, a base where I was once sent TDY, were not familiar with air defense intercept protocol of NORAD and during training exercises, only 40% of their targets, were successfully intercepted, but the 911 truthers didn't know that because they failed to do their homework and concocted an unfounded conspiracy theory out of ignorance.

I have often stated that claims of 911 truthers are ignorant-based and you just happen to post a video with an ending message that says: "Ignorance is Strength." That message says much about the 911 truther movement.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R.I.P. All of our Lost Souls that Day ! We Know what Happened Stop this C.T Thread Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of demolition workers of companies that support the OCT, Which is to be expected considering that no explosive evidence was ever found at ground zero and it has now been twelve years and here is what we got.

spam snipped.....

Sorry Fraudster but your spam just doesn't cut it.

You are claiming that there are thousands of demolition workers or experts who support the OCT, yet the only one you can name is Brent Blanchard.

Now where are you thousands??

Lets get some name and some quotes instead of repeating Blanchard a thousand times!! lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you aware that a local neighbor of Osama bin Laden was providing details of the bin Laden raid on Twitter?

http://www.cnn.com/2...orts/index.html

My simple friend:

Just like the attacks at WTC, I do not deny that the Raid At Abbottabad happened. I understand that it did happen.

The point is Sky, just like WTC, it was a staged event. Yes, a raid happened and guns were fired and maybe somebody killed, but IT WAS NOT OSAMA.

It was a false flag, a trick. Capiche?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That video has been debunked. First of all, Osama bin Laden's own doctor confirmed that bin Laden did not suffer from kidney problems, but the 911 truthers didn't know that because they failed to do their homework, so they concocted an unfounded conspiracy theory out of ignorance.

In regard to the Pentagon's $2.3 trillion, the money wasn't missing because the system of the Pentagon couldn't handle that much money however, much of the money has been accounted for, but the 911 truthers did not know that because they failed to do their homework and concocted an unfounded conspiracy theory out of ignorance.

The Hani maneuver was a very boring maneuver similar to what I performed as a student pilot with less than 30 total flight hours. Hani initiated his maneuver from around 7000 feet and it took him around 3 minutes to drop down to 2000 feet, which is well within the flight envelope of the B-757, but the 911 truthers didn't know that because they failed to do their homework, so they concocted another unfounded conspiracy theory out of ignorance.

At Travis AFB, their C-5s and C-17s, conduct tactical landing maneuvers from 10,000 feet and down to the runway with descent rates from 5000 feet per minute and cleared to descent rates as high as 10,000 feet per minute, which is posted in the Travis AFB information pamphlet, but Hani's average rate of descent to ground level was only between 2000 and 3000 feet per minute.

At no time did he exceed G limitations on the airframe, but the 911 truthers didn't know that because they failed to do their homework, so they concocted another unfounded conspiracy theory out of ignorance.

Taking a closer look at Hani, he had roughly 250 flying hours and held not only a commercial pilots license, but a type rating in the B-737 as well, but the 911 truthers didn't know that because they failed to do their homework and concocted another conspiracy theory out of ignorance. He didn't even have to takeoff or land the aircraft, just slam it into a building which doesn't take much skill by any means.

Regarding the lack of interception of the 911 airliners by Air Force aircraft, as noted in your video between time line 0:30 and 0:40, F-16 pilots at Andrews AFB, a base where I was once sent TDY, were not familiar with air defense intercept protocol of NORAD and during training exercises, only 40% of their targets, were successfully intercepted, but the 911 truthers didn't know that because they failed to do their homework and concocted an unfounded conspiracy theory out of ignorance.

I have often stated that claims of 911 truthers are ignorant-based and you just happen to post a video with an ending message that says: "Ignorance is Strength." That message says much about the 911 truther movement.

Pressed the 'like button' instead of 'quote', thank G*d for the 'unlike' button (nothing personal).

Im always a bit hesitant to reply to your machine gunnery of mainstream meme's, given no amount of information or oddities will make you even remotely entertain the mere possibility this event was anything other than the official story.

Which, if true, would probably be the first in world history where the cause of a war ('War on Terror') would have been disclosed fully to the public at large. Because I hope you do realize at least this; that events being marked as a cause

of war always has deeper levels, is never known to the fullest extent by the civility. There is a structural schism between the public's reality, and that of those at the top o/t pyramid. Or is that 'conspiracy bs' in your eyes as well?

Anyway, back to your reply; and before I would adress your points in earnest: please, citations, references. Per point. It seems rather meaningless to scream such and such did not do their homework while bringing absolutely nothing to the table yourself.

In other words, put some basing to your statements, and well talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.