WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[Stundie]

You mean, there is orange color in that cup after all?? I rest my case.

Oh dear....hahahahahahahahahaha!!

And what happens when he pours it....

A ) Does it stay orange?? lol

or

B ) Does it change to silver the moment its left the heat source because as I've said all along, aluminium is rubbish at retaining it's heat...lol

[skyeagle409]

And what happens when he pours it....

You get silvery droplets like you see in this photo.

And, remember:

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

"The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color."

Stephen D. Chastain

[Stundie]

You get silvery droplets like you see in this photo.

And, remember:

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

"The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color."

Stephen D. Chastain

"The flow is likely...." is not evidence...lol It's a guess which is clearly wrong.

As I told you before, you clearly have a copy of this photo on your computer.

So crank up MSpaint or the Linux equivalent if you use that OS instead, point out these silver/grey droplets which you allude to and show us what we are talking about, because when you look at the video, all the hot sparks/drops fade to grey.

Come one Skyeagle, surely you can get use paint

[skyeagle409]

"The flow is likely...." is not evidence...lol It's a guess which is clearly wrong.

Of course it is evidence for molten aluminum, as you can plainly see the silvery aluminum droplets in the photo.

[skyeagle409]

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

The color means nothing. The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading, it means nothing as evidence. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed its color.

The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.

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

http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/spectroscopyhow.html

[Stundie]

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

The color means nothing. The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading, it means nothing as evidence. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed its color.

The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.

http://www.debunking...moltensteel.htm

http://outreach.atnf...roscopyhow.html

Posting links to pseudo pantomime debunking does you know favours and shows us that you can't formulate your own arguments and theories which when challenged, are shown to be exactly what they are, a load of nonsense. lol

Of course it is evidence for molten aluminum, as you can plainly see the silvery aluminum droplets in the photo.

If someone says "It is likely..." then it is not evidence, it's a guess!! lol

See what I mean, you can't differentiate between someone guessing and actual evidence! That is why it's a waste of time trying to engage in a serious conversation with you. If I said "It's likely you are a clever man", that is not evidence that you are a clever man, it means I am guessing you are. Although I am happy to admit I would be wrong about that one...lol

Well then, it should be very easy to point them out in MS Paint or GIMP or whatever paint package in on your computer.

Yet all we get is more spam....lol

Edited April 4, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

Posting links to pseudo pantomime debunking does you know favours and shows us that you can't formulate your own arguments and theories which when challenged, are shown to be exactly what they are, a load of nonsense.

On the contrary, the information came from experts in their field and look what you posted.

Molten Metal at Ground Zero

The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.

In the videos some of the falling drops appeared silver and turned orange briefly when they struck the facade and then turned back to silver. The orange glow in that case wasn't due to black body radiation. The material couldn't have heated and cooled that quickly if it had been black body radiation. One explanation is that molten aluminum, which is very reactive, interacted chemically with impurities on the facade and emitted spectra. The silver appearance is consistent with molten aluminum near its melting point.

http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/spectroscopyhow.html

The color means nothing. The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading, it means nothing as evidence. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed its color.

The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.

Stephen D. Chastain

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

[Stundie]

On the contrary, the information came from experts in their field and look what you posted.

Molten Metal at Ground Zero

The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.

In the videos some of the falling drops appeared silver and turned orange briefly when they struck the facade and then turned back to silver. The orange glow in that case wasn't due to black body radiation. The material couldn't have heated and cooled that quickly if it had been black body radiation. One explanation is that molten aluminum, which is very reactive, interacted chemically with impurities on the facade and emitted spectra. The silver appearance is consistent with molten aluminum near its melting point.

http://outreach.atnf...roscopyhow.html

The color means nothing. The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading, it means nothing as evidence. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed its color.

The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.

Stephen D. Chastain

http://www.debunking...moltensteel.htm

Repeating and posting the same links on the very next posts doesn't prove a god dam thing

The debunking website is pseudo nonsense.

The 2nd link now debunks your own chart which you posted by stating that the colour means nothing.....

See what I mean, you are a hypocrite and it's a waste of time trying to have a serious debate with you when one minute you are posting a temperature colour chart to prove your theory when in the next, you post a man who says that the colour means nothing...lol

Then he goes on to theories about how it could be....spectra generated by chemical reactions....which again you think is evidence.

Proving that you can't disseminate the difference between something that "could be" and something that actually "is." In otherwords the man is guessing...lol...cause it also "could not be"...lol

Truly pathetic...lol

Debunked in less than a few minutes if you bothered to read and understand the context...lol

Edited April 4, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

Repeating and posting the same links on the very next posts doesn't prove a god dam thing

But, where's the evidence money??? You make a claim of wealth and fame, so you are going to have to prove it. Anyone can claim themselves as a millionaire, but it is the evidence money that counts.

[Stundie]

But, where's the evidence money??? You make a claim of wealth and fame, so you are going to have to prove it. Anyone can claim themselves as a millionaire, but it is the evidence money that counts.

When someone who thinks eyewitnesses who claim they saw/felt/heard explosions is not evidence, but then in next breath, presents eyewitnesses who claims they saw/heard or were told that it was an elevator falling.

It would be like playing a game of pool with a twiglet....lol

Edited April 4, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

When someone who thinks eyewitnesses who claim they saw/felt/heard explosions is not evidence,...

Which did not occur during the collapse of the WTC buildings and here's proof.

No sounds of explosions as the buildings collapsed.

[Stundie]

Which did not occur during the collapse of the WTC buildings and here's proof.

No sounds of explosions as the buildings collapsed.

An explosion occurring before WTC7...and here is the proof.

[media=]

About 1:33 in, same clip as you posted but small explosion heard just before Penthouse collapses.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

An explosion occurring before WTC7...and here is the proof.

[media=]

About 1:33 in, same clip as you posted but small explosion heard just before Penthouse collapses.

A very important point you failed to understand regarding those videos. You didn't hear explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed and the sounds they heard is not proof of explosions because failing steel structures make noises similar to explosions.

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

About 1:30 a.m., Jolanta Haney , 57, awoke to a loud crash when a pecan tree crashed through her bedroom ceiling.

"It sounded like a bomb," the Uptown resident said. "The whole house was shaking. I was thinking, 'God save us.' "

http://www.ohsep.lou...ithoutpower.htm [broken]

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

Several callers to The Straits Times said they heard an explosion, while others reported blackouts. Though some eyewitnesses said they saw flames flash across Nicoll Highway, the LTA said it had no evidence of an explosion.

When leaking gas was detected, Power Gas shut off the supply to the severed pipe, said Mr Rajan Krishnan, LTA’s director of projects, at a news conference last night. The loud sound of the collapsing wall ‘might have sounded like an explosion’, he said.

The huge boom which sounded at 3.30pm sent many office workers scurrying to their windows, to be stunned by what they saw.

...Mr Vincent Chan, 28, said he heard a loud sound ‘like a huge aircraft approaching the building’.

Ms Sirirat... heard a loud bang. ‘I saw many women running out of their shops,’ she said. ‘They said: ‘Gas explosion! Run for your life’. So I followed them. I thought it was a bomb.’

http://www.electricr...4_0417-0423.php

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

"We were having a dinner party one night and we heard what sounded like explosions in front of the house. It turned out to be nothing more than eggs hurled at our front windows, but it sounded terrifying and we all jumped under the table.

http://www.newyorker.../?020513fa_FACT

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

Suddenly, Oaks looked around to see her living room on fire and the apartment filling up with smoke. She went to her bedroom, smashed through the glass of the window with her right hand, now wrapped in bandages. She perched on the window frame.

As she jumped, she heard the smoke alarm blare...

Oaks heard what sounded like explosions, and windows blew out apartments several doors away.

http://cms.firehouse...nId=46&id=45132

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

A raging fire swept through the upper levels of an empty, 32-story office building in downtown Madrid early Sunday, causing no serious injuries but collapsing the top floors in a shower of flaming debris...

The fire started around 11:30 p.m. Saturday and was still burning out of control several hours later. At least nine upper stories were on fire and muffled explosions could be heard in the building.

The cause of the blaze was not immediately known, but emergency services spokesman Javier Ayuso said it might have been a short circuit, informs the Guardian...

http://newsfromrussi...2/13/58231.html

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

Nothing there that indicated explosives. But one very important note to remember, if you are going to blow up a building illegally, you don't announce it on national TV.

Edited April 5, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

A very important point you failed to understand regarding those videos. You didn't hear explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed and the sounds they heard is not proof of explosions because failing steel structures make noises similar to explosions.

But one very important note to remember, if you are going to blow up a building illegally, you don't announce it on national TV.

You do not have to hear explosions while the building collapses.....remember you posted the verinage demolition which requires no explosives....lol

And besides, thermite which we know is capable of cutting steel and demolishing steel structures would explain that away.

Naturally occurring thermite of course from the plane and rust.....lol

[skyeagle409]

You do not have to hear explosions while the building collapses.....

There were no sounds of explosions as the WTC buildings collapse,, which was evident in the videos. A further point to ponder, you cannot tell us the source of that sound nor can you tell us if the sound was popping structural rivets, which also sound like explosions or detacted steel columns, which also sound like explosions. so without evidence, you have no case.

Edited April 5, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

A very important point you failed to understand regarding those videos. You didn't hear explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed and the sounds they heard is not proof of explosions because failing steel structures make noises similar to explosions.

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

About 1:30 a.m., Jolanta Haney , 57, awoke to a loud crash when a pecan tree crashed through her bedroom ceiling.

"It sounded like a bomb," the Uptown resident said. "The whole house was shaking. I was thinking, 'God save us.' "

http://www.ohsep.lou...ithoutpower.htm [broken]

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

Several callers to The Straits Times said they heard an explosion, while others reported blackouts. Though some eyewitnesses said they saw flames flash across Nicoll Highway, the LTA said it had no evidence of an explosion.

When leaking gas was detected, Power Gas shut off the supply to the severed pipe, said Mr Rajan Krishnan, LTA’s director of projects, at a news conference last night. The loud sound of the collapsing wall ‘might have sounded like an explosion’, he said.

The huge boom which sounded at 3.30pm sent many office workers scurrying to their windows, to be stunned by what they saw.

...Mr Vincent Chan, 28, said he heard a loud sound ‘like a huge aircraft approaching the building’.

Ms Sirirat... heard a loud bang. ‘I saw many women running out of their shops,’ she said. ‘They said: ‘Gas explosion! Run for your life’. So I followed them. I thought it was a bomb.’

http://www.electricr...4_0417-0423.php

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

"We were having a dinner party one night and we heard what sounded like explosions in front of the house. It turned out to be nothing more than eggs hurled at our front windows, but it sounded terrifying and we all jumped under the table.

http://www.newyorker.../?020513fa_FACT

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

Suddenly, Oaks looked around to see her living room on fire and the apartment filling up with smoke. She went to her bedroom, smashed through the glass of the window with her right hand, now wrapped in bandages. She perched on the window frame.

As she jumped, she heard the smoke alarm blare...

Oaks heard what sounded like explosions, and windows blew out apartments several doors away.

http://cms.firehouse...nId=46&id=45132

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

A raging fire swept through the upper levels of an empty, 32-story office building in downtown Madrid early Sunday, causing no serious injuries but collapsing the top floors in a shower of flaming debris...

The fire started around 11:30 p.m. Saturday and was still burning out of control several hours later. At least nine upper stories were on fire and muffled explosions could be heard in the building.

The cause of the blaze was not immediately known, but emergency services spokesman Javier Ayuso said it might have been a short circuit, informs the Guardian...

http://newsfromrussi...2/13/58231.html

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

Nothing there that indicated explosives. But one very important note to remember, if you are going to blow up a building illegally, you don't announce it on national TV.

So your evidence is other things sounds like explosions, therefore whatever the people heard, they were something else, like a tree falling, eggs being hurled at a window...lol

That is not evidence which disproves what those the witnesses at GZ said they saw or heard and felt.

"I was almost out. I got down to the lobby, right near the Border’s book store. And then there was this explosion. I don’t know, I just got thrown to the ground and all this stuff fell on top of me." <---Popping rivets? Eggs being thrown at a window, maybe a tree falling...yeah you are good at this debunking aren't you...lol

These guys definitely heard.,...Popping rivets? Eggs being thrown at a window, maybe a tree falling....lol

Jesus Christ, your debunking is truly sad and pathetic...lol

[Stundie]

There were no sounds of explosions as the WTC buildings collapse,,

That does not mean it was not demolished with explosives/thermite or combination of both.

which was evident in the videos.

Not in all the videos and not by all the eyewitness accounts.

A further point to ponder, you cannot tell us the source of that sound nor can you tell us if the sound was popping structural rivets, which also sound like explosions or detacted steel columns, which also sound like explosions. so without evidence, you have no case.

Because popping rivets often create smoke and such a loud noise that it can knock lights off and stall the elevators on the 24th floor...lol

Lou Cacchioli, Firefighter in WTC 1: At that point, Cacchioli found one of the only functioning elevators, one only going as high as the 24th floor ... "Tommy Hetzel was with me and everybody else also gets out of the elevator when it stops on the 24th floor," said Cacchioli, "There was a huge amount of smoke. Tommy and I had to go back down the elevator for tools and no sooner did the elevators close behind us, we heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.

Its like a debunking masterclass in failure...lol

[skyeagle409]

So your evidence is other things sounds like explosions, therefore whatever the people heard, they were something else, like a tree falling, eggs being hurled at a window...lol

That is not evidence which disproves what those the witnesses at GZ said they saw or heard and felt.

"I was almost out. I got down to the lobby, right near the Border’s book store. And then there was this explosion. I don’t know, I just got thrown to the ground and all this stuff fell on top of me." <---Popping rivets? Eggs being thrown at a window, maybe a tree falling...yeah you are good at this debunking aren't you..

That doesn't work. As I have said before, you have to provide evidence.

These guys definitely heard.,...Popping rivets? Eggs being thrown at a window, maybe a tree falling...

They cannot tell us the source of that noise they heard. Remember the accounts of firefighters who claimed they heard explosions in the basement and later, change their story to reflect the fact that what they heard was the sounds of elevators crashing at the bottom of the shafts?

Now, where's the evidence that bombs were used? Just because someone says they heard an explosion doesn't mean that a bomb was responsible. Here is photo evidence that a bomb was used and notice the HUGE bomb crater, which is not what was found in the WTC buildings after the 911 attacks.

You will also note that WTC1 remained standing despite the bomb blast.

[Stundie]

That doesn't work. As I have said before, you have to provide evidence.

I have provided evidence, from people who were actually at GZ...lol

They cannot tell us the source of that noise they heard.

Yes they can. They were explosives or bombs.

Remember the accounts of firefighters who claimed they heard explosions in the basement and later, change their story to reflect the fact that what they heard was the sounds of elevators crashing at the bottom of the shafts?

Yes, but that doesn't discount everyone elses account.

Do the firefighters in the video sound like they heard/saw/felt an elevator falling??

Quick, ignore them and don't bother address their accounts because they are urinating on your theory again......lol

Now, where's the evidence that bombs were used?

You do not understand possibilities do you...lol

Just because someone says they heard an explosion doesn't mean that a bomb was responsible.

And it doesn't mean they heard popping rivets, eggs being thrown at a window, or a tree falling either.

There are plenty of people who said they heard/saw/felt bombs and explosives, I do not need evidence to back up their claims, they witnessed it, they were there. You and I wasn't, so if you think they are wrong, then it is you that needs to provide the evidence they are wrong.

Something again which you fail to understand and why I can't take you seriously....lol

Here is photo evidence that a bomb was used and notice the HUGE bomb crater, which is not what was found in the WTC buildings after the 911 attacks.

You will also note that WTC1 remained standing despite the bomb blast.

It is hard to tell if there was a crater when there is 110 floors of debris falling down on top of it.

Jesus, your arguments are so silly, that they debunk themselves.

Cause there was no craters = proofs that there was no explosive...lol

Totally absurd, but you do not realise how daft you sound..lol

[skyeagle409]

I have provided evidence, from people who were actually at GZ..

I can provide evidence and reports from demolition experts, investigators and structural engineers at ground zero and at the salvage yards who have dismissed explosives. So once again, you have to provide evidence, and without evidence, you have no case.

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

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.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

Several minutes before the WTC buildings collapsed, the structures of the buildings were clearly failing and the exterior steel columns could be seen buckling. This simply would not be happening if explosives caused the collapse because explosives don't go off in slow motion for several minutes. Explosives don't slowly buckle steel columns over several minutes.

Obviously, the way an actual controlled explosion happens is the explosives all go off in a matter of seconds. There simply would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would of course just suddenly happen. But that is not what happened, the buildings did notsuddenly collapse without any indications that they would. Instead, the fires were compromising the structural integrity of the buildings and the buildings' support structures failed.

Exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.

"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."

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

Edited April 5, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

I can provide evidence and reports from investigators and structural engineers at ground zero and at the salvage yards who have dismissed explosives.

Can't be dismissed if they were never looked for or tested for...lol

So once again, you have to provide evidence, and without evidence, you have no case.

Eyewitnesses are evidence, but you think you can dismiss them as evidence when they do not support what you want to believe...lol

Sorry but real life doesn't work your way, it's more a b****...lol

[skyeagle409]

Yes they can. They were explosives or bombs.

Apparently, demolition experts, structural engineers and investigators who were at ground zero have disagreed with your flawed assessment. Show us the money, or should I say, show us the bomb crater. If you are unable to provide such evidence, then you have no case.

[skyeagle409]

Can't be dismissed if they were never looked for or tested for..

That doesn't work either because investigators, demolition experts and structural engineers at ground zero found no evidence of explosives in the WTC rubble.

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

Another demolition expert who worked at Ground Zero also finds no trouble debunking the claim of explosives."Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event," says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com.

"You just can't clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can't see how it happened that way."

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

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

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

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

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

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

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

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

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

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

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

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac

Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

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

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.

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

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:14 AM

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/

Edited April 5, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Totally absurd, but you do not realise how daft you sound..lol

Then, where's your evidence that explosives were used? No evidence simply means you have no case.

[Stundie]

That doesn't work either because investigators, demolition experts and structural engineers at ground zero found no evidence of explosives in the WTC rubble.

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

Another demolition expert who worked at Ground Zero also finds no trouble debunking the claim of explosives."Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event," says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com.

"You just can't clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can't see how it happened that way."

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

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

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

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

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

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

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

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

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

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

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

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac

Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

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

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.

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

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:14 AM

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/

Brent Blanchard...a demolition expert who has demolished........ZERO buildings...lol

Again using the old logical fallacy of saying that because 123,000 members of ASCE have not questioned the NIST report, they therefore agree with it. Argument Ad Populum I think you'll find that logical fallacy is called, but you are obviously too daft to realise it hence you trot it out...lol

Although I doubt you know what a logical fallacy is to be honest....lol

Then, where's your evidence that explosives were used? No evidence simply means you have no case.

Eyewitnesses are evidence....lol

Because they do not conform to your beliefs, doesn't mean there is no evidence.

So it looks like I have a case matey....lol