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 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

Our opinions on the data is worthless, we are not qualified. As for "Sometimes I like to add to my post". SURELY you mean, "Sometimes I like to go back and change things I've written to make me sound like I knew what I was talking about all along, because I'm dishonest"

Let me put it this way; I have worked in certain positions to know what is true, and what is not true in regards to 911 evidence. For an example, there were those who have said that molten steel was found at ground zero despite the fact the temperatures were far too low to melt steel, so one person decided to say that temperatures beneath the rubble could have been at such high temperatures to melt steel. What was the proof? A cherry red steel column that was pulled from beneath the rubble.

Using the temperature chart, cherry red color is an indication that temperature of the steel beam was not at the level needed to melt steel, but most of all, the steel beam was still in a solid state when pulled from the rubble which indicated that at no time did the temperature beneath the WTC rubble reached the melting point of steel.

Another posted provided a photo of an annealed piece of steel and once again, was not an indicator that piece of steel even reach level needed ot melt steel. At no time did that piece of steel show signs of melting and yet, that poster tried to convince me that the piece had melted.

One of my jobs as an airframe technician was the annealing of aircraft metals, so when I saw the photo, I knew he was incorrect from firsthand experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me put it this way; I have worked in certain positions to know what is true, and what is not true in regards to 911 evidence.

What positions, and how. What makes you qualified to 'know what is true'?

F

or an example, there were those who have said that molten steel was found at ground zero despite the fact the temperatures were far too low to melt steel, so one person decided to say that temperatures beneath the rubble could have been at such high temperatures to melt steel. What was the proof? A cherry red steel column that was pulled from beneath the rubble.

Here you go again. You feel you can no longer continue to argue your case with any credibility so you drag up a point no-one else is arguing or discussing in any way.

One of my jobs as an airframe technician was the annealing of aircraft metals, so when I saw the photo, I knew he was incorrect from firsthand experience.

OK, so your knowledge is useful in regards to details in one photo. Well done. In future reciprocate this courtesy by listening to expert testimony in other areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wheels on this Buss Keep going round& Round ! THere will be no proof from the Cheap seats on this subject ! We all can prove that ! Keep Reading there replies !

THe Towers were brought down by Two Aircraft Hitting them and the resultant Fires and structural colapses!

Yes indeed, but it seems they ignored the fact that all three WTC buildings had suffered major impact damage and that temperatures from the fires were high enough to weaken steel, but far too low to melt their steel structures.

They say that the WTC buildings fell at free fall speeds, but examination of collapse videos and photos show dust plumes and debris, which are falling at free fall speeds, outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings. Those were clear-cut indicators that the WTC buildings were not falling at free fall speeds at all, so is it any wonder why I have said that claims of conspiracy websites are ignorant-based? And yet, there are those who continue to use references from those 'ignorant-based' 911 conspiracy websites in their arguments. Simply amazing!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What positions, and how. What makes you qualified to 'know what is true'?

For one thing, as a pilot, I knew the so-called "Hani manuever" was not what conspiracist have said it was because I have performed similar maneuvers during flight training and doing so with less than 30 flying hours. The actual maneuver was very boring to say the least and did not require 'super-human' strength.

As a former military and defense contractor airframe technician, inspector and supervisor, I knew there was no way the airlines would have grounded their aircraft for months in order for someone to illegally modify their aircraft to fly under remote control, and remember, the B-757 and the B-767 are not 'fly-by-wire' aircraft. In addition, they say that the airliners were switched. How do you switch an airliner and not draw attention?! As I have said before, I can reveal a switched airliner, or should I say, airframe, in less than 30 minutes because no two aircraft are alike, even between the same models. Each aircraft has its own unique signature. At Travis AFB, we had over 30 C-5s and each aircraft was unique from one another. I like to say that each aircraft had its own unique personality.

As far as molten metal from WTC2 is concerned, I knew from observing past aircraft incidents involving fire at Travis AFB and at NKP, Royal Thai Air Force Base,Thailand, that the molten flow from WTC2 was aluminum, which would have been mixed with other materials within that building. The silvery droplets were also indicators the molten metal was NOT molten steel.

My experience in aircraft metals also told me that they were wrong when they presented me with that photo depicting an annealed piece of steel, which was not, nor ever, in a molten state after the collapse of the WTC building, but they didn't know that because they lacked the knowledge to know the difference, which is why they posted that photo.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let these C.T`s just get on a plane and go to New York and tour the Place ! THen they can Go to Washington D.C. theres Lots of bits and pc`s from the towers,and planes on display.

Skyeagle We gotta get outta this Place ITs lowering our I.Q `s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Let these C.T`s just get on a plane and go to New York and tour the Place ! THen they can Go to Washington D.C. theres Lots of bits and pc`s from the towers,and planes on display.

Skyeagle We gotta get outta this Place ITs lowering our I.Q `s

It is amazing that that those flawed and misleading conspiracy websites are still be used as references. I can still remember when someone claimed that the aircraft which struck WTC2 didn't have passenger windows, so I posted this photo as a response.

3fc887f4576f.jpg

I guess it is safe to say that there are passenger windows in the photo, which brings into question, the claim that aircraft did not have passenger windows. This is what I have been encountering time after time after time. A few are now saying that a missile struck the Pentagon despite the fact that no missile wreckage of any kind was recovered on the grounds of the Pentagon.

I wouldn't be surprised if that false story was planted as well. I might add that the commander of my Wing was in the Pentagon when American 77 struck. I attended his going-away dinner recently. Afterward, I ran into another airman who was also in the Pentagon at that time.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the overwhelming evidence supports the official story proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, the official story is not the fairy tale you thought it was. .

Considering who investigated it, what else would they conclude?

They had all the steel on hand for analysis / investigation. The most critical pieces of steel at points of collapse/impact.

Do you know what they did with this critical steel?

Any idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They got rid of the steel, as was mentioned in the Fire Engineering magazine, back when it was happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait... I provide you with suggestions for the type of hypothetical evidence that could falsify the demolition theory, i.e. physical analysis of high fire temperatures in the steelwork, conspicuously ‘missed’ by the official investigation, despite their ‘best’ efforts... and you come back with this? Why not keep to the point and accept the fire collapse theory is shot full of more evidence holes than you proclaim even demolition is? At least we should expect to see evidence holes given a demolition (or any covert operation), whereas everyone should know that the competent investigation we are supposed to have demands evidence.

Q, your response to swan shifts my response a little. When you said 'specific to a fire-based collapse' I didn't necessarily interpret that as meaning 'exclusive to a fire-based collapse', which changes the argument slightly and makes more sense; I agree, verifiable evidence that shows an exclusively fire-based collapse would falsify the demolition, by definition. I disagree that any such evidence can reasonably exist short of videos from the core of WTC or the invention of time travel.

Of course, my real points to flyingswan are 1) that the demolition is falsifiable in theory, it’s just that no one is able to produce the evidence to achieve it, and 2) that hypothetical evidence to falsify the demolition is most likely just that, hypothetical, it does not exist to begin, otherwise why such the struggle to present its use for investigation. And I’m not simply talking about physical samples of steelwork here, but all manner of 9/11 questions that could and should have been answered.

You have this so monumentally backwards: the question is why the struggle to present some decent evidence for a demolition? You spent 4 years on this, it's 11 years after the fact, you haven't provided anything that is exclusive to a covert demolition-based collapse.

That really isn’t my problem, nor is it because the demolition theory is so boo-hoo-unfair-unfalsifiable as Swanny likes to fool himself.

Ha, nor is it mine. The burden of proof is on you to disprove the consensus expert opinion, or prove that the consensus does not care/is intimidated/whatever. Good luck with that.

Here were the things that supposedly falsify your demolition:

  • Slow onset with large visible deformations
  • Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  • Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

As far as the deformations, you've already started walling this off in your response to swan by already stating that the deformations seen in WTC do not meet the criteria and demanding that we see deformations that are similar enough, by your measurement of course, to a fire-based collapse of a building with a different construction.. oh yes, this is really looking so eminently falsifiable. I don't even want to go into any more physics topics where you attack the loyalty, courage, impartiality, expertise, etc, of any expert that disagrees with you while you wrap the flag around the patriotic handful who do, and I know that you do not possess the expertise to provide your own scientific argument concerning the specifics of the physics of the collapse. As far as the last point above, let me jump to your next response to me:

I’ll just say you need to give me more credit than coming out with this sort of thing that is not reflective of either reality or my opinion.

Much like I said in what you are responding to, evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel is 100% consistent with a covert demolition. I'm unclear why some manner of explosive or chemical or thermite or whatever could not be used to make it appear that the fire temperatures got that hot anyway, it could be part of the deception, and as you have said many times, not many people suspected that fire could cause the collapse so our conspirators would need to compensate for that, they obviously knew there'd be an investigation. You have assembled in your mind these black-box encased thermite demolition charges based on 'these are just based on current technology' and asserted they actually existed, but they can't likewise put together something to provide this piece of evidence concerning the fire temperature that supposedly falsifies something? Regardless just because the fire reached that temperature it does not truly falsify a demolition, the fires could have been proven to you to have reached that temperature and the demolitions could have brought the towers down, nothing mutually exclusive there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we need to make a Thread that has Fluffy Clouds,and Rainbows with really soft L.Z`s for these people Skyeagle this way they will not get too hurt when the truth hits them in the face !

On your Six ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

First fail. I said, "specific to a fire based collapse", e.g. evidence which exclusively supports a fire based collapse. Simply the presence of fire in the building does not 1) indicate a structure will necessarily collapse, or 2) preclude the collapse through demolition. So of course it does not falsify the demolition based collapse – I'm surprised that needs explaining.

If you wanted exclusive, you should have asked for exclusive. My point is that your unfalsifiable approach spins all evidence into your covert demolition, so in your eyes there cannot be any evidence that excludes your hypothesis. However, in my eyes, the points I mentioned show that the collapse has features which are expected of a collapse due to impact/fire and make any form of demolition extremely implausible.
Next fail. The NIST impact and fire computer modelling shows a greater range where the towers will not collapse. You openly admit it – you didn't have much choice after I pinned you to that fact after pages of your denials. Anyhow, this finding is backed by the original WTC engineers and all known precedent. How in the world do you present it as exclusive evidence for the official theory? That showpiece official story evidence is actually if anything more in favour of demolition. It gets worse when we realise that NIST's collapse range was stretched right to the periphery of a measurement error of their choosing and also interjected with further tweaks specifically to induce collapse initiation in the model. It becomes altogether untenable when we know the result of that imparted more damage to the simulated models than was ever done to the towers in reality. That isn't science, it's fitting the 'right' answer on paper.

We've been through this all before. You have no appreciation of the probabilities involved. NIST got a collapse within measurement error, and this means that the collapse probability was considerable. You also have no appreciation of normal engineering techniques, which you mistakenly characterise as suspicious.
Third fail. There is nothing implausible about the demolition setup, neither are thermite or explosive based demolitions unknown. If you understood the possibilities presented for the setup, briefly researched and accepted historical precedent for tertiary explosives and thermite, then you wouldn't need to be putting forward such weak arguments.

You may think my arguments weak, but then again I think your proposed demolition process is completely at odds with reality. We are entitled to our opinions.
Of course, before you say it, the first point does not include a simple bulge or bowing which could be brought on by any manner of unbalancing a structure. Again, if it can be caused by demolition then it's no good. The point refers specifically to slow and large deformations as clearly caused by fire prior to the Windsor building partial collapse.

There is your unfalsifiable hypothesis working as expected. A large deformation would discredit your theory, so obviously you don't consider a wall 1.4 metres out of line to be a large deformation. I suggest you consult your nearest structural engineer on this. Similarly, you wave away the obviously asymmetric collapse initiations of all three buildings. I allow that no steel was identified with exposure to temperatures above 600 deg C, but then this is even more a drawback to your thermite theory which would have produced much higher temperatures.

Incidentally, the fire collapse theory is not unfalsifiable. Discovering the remains of your proposed massive thermite devices would do the job. After a normal demolition, the place is littered with evidence, but there are no reports of such from Ground Zero.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all factual points flyingswan,These C.T`s are a hearty Lot ! They will go on and On ! Until !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all factual points flyingswan,These C.T`s are a hearty Lot ! They will go on and On ! Until !

Yes indeed. At some point in time, perhaps they will come around to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all factual points flyingswan,These C.T`s are a hearty Lot ! They will go on and On ! Until !

And so does the cheer leading....lol
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all factual points flyingswan,These C.T`s are a hearty Lot ! They will go on and On ! Until !

Like that rabbit you see in TV commercials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe Key word there is Leading, Cheer`s !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe Key word there is Leading, Cheer`s !

The key word is "Cheer"...Leading is the easiest part. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we need to make a Thread that has Fluffy Clouds,and Rainbows with really soft L.Z`s for these people Skyeagle this way they will not get too hurt when the truth hits them in the face !

On your Six ! :tu:

I wonder if they can handle the truth. They have said that explosives were used in the WTC buildings and yet, they have presented no such evidence to backup that claim; no sound of bomb explosions, no bomb explosions seen on video, nor recorded on seismic monitors nor even evidence of explosives found at ground zero. In fact, there was no evidence of structural pre-weakening on the steel structures..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Fake Aircraft,and Drones !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's take a look.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_7QHekJeJs

The question was what happened to all of the most critical steel, at the impact/fire zones.

You just post a couple of clips from the Fresh Kills site? Sheesh..

Like Babe Ruth said, almost all of the most critical steel - in the impact/fire zones, to remind you - was quickly removed and shipped overseas.

NIST had a total of 236 pieces of steel inventoried from WTC 1 and 2. They had NO steel available from WTC 7, which is even more ridiculous.

Here's their report ..

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101430

Go to Chapter 4 - Structural Steel Elements of Special Importance

Figure 4-1 indicates the two core column sections recovered from WTC 1. Figure 4-2 shows the two core column pieces recovered from WTC 2.

They had a grand total of 4 core column pieces recovered for analysis from the most critical areas!! These pieces measured about 1-2 floors in length. These sections were from above the impact/fire zones, not within them.

Each tower had 47 core columns. The impact/fire zone was at least 6 floors in each tower, multiply by 47 (core columns), which makes 282 core column sections (each1 floor in length), or 141 sections (each 2 floors in length).

4 pieces were recovered from the most important areas of the towers, this is just criminal!! Cripes. their core samples never reached temperatures high enough to even weaken the steel!!

You don't see any problem with all of this, of course...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question was what happened to all of the most critical steel, at the impact/fire zones.

You just post a couple of clips from the Fresh Kills site? Sheesh..

That is more than enough.

Like Babe Ruth said, almost all of the most critical steel - in the impact/fire zones, to remind you - was quickly removed and shipped overseas.

What makes you think that a quick look wasn't conducted before the steel was shipped off?

NIST had a total of 236 pieces of steel inventoried from WTC 1 and 2. They had NO steel available from WTC 7, which is even more ridiculous.

The rubble of WTC7 was right there where WTC7 collapsed. The rubble of WTC7 didn't just get up and walk away.

Here's their report ..

http://www.nist.gov/...m?pub_id=101430

Go to Chapter 4 - Structural Steel Elements of Special Importance

Figure 4-1 indicates the two core column sections recovered from WTC 1. Figure 4-2 shows the two core column pieces recovered from WTC 2.

They had a grand total of 4 core column pieces recovered for analysis from the most critical areas!! These pieces measured about 1-2 floors in length. These sections were from above the impact/fire zones, not within them.

Each tower had 47 core columns. The impact/fire zone was at least 6 floors in each tower, multiply by 47 (core columns), which makes 282 core column sections (each1 floor in length), or 141 sections (each 2 floors in length).

4 pieces were recovered from the most important areas of the towers, this is just criminal!! Cripes. their core samples never reached temperatures high enough to even weaken the steel!!

You don't see any problem with all of this, of course...

Nope! Since you are not a regular here, let me show you what you have been missing..

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

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

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

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

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

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

Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

* Each aircraft severed perimeter columns, damaged interior core columns and knocked off fireproofing from steel as the planes penetrated the buildings. The weight carried by the severed columns was distributed to other columns. * Subsequently, fires began that were initiated by the aircraft’s jet fuel but were fed for the most part by the building contents and the air supply resulting from breached walls and fire-induced window breakage. * These fires, in combination with the dislodged fireproofing, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads. * The floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns.

* Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings. * Collapse then ensued.

http://www.scienceda...50411122017.htm

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

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

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

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

Buckling Steel.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder.

If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." - Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

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

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tiltedas it came crashing down."

"The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."

Key findings include:

Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.

Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.

The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.

Read more here: Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

I endured many months of bomb explosions in war and I didn't see a shred of evidence in the WTC videos of bomb explosions and I didn't see any secondaries as the aircraft struck the WTC towers, which would have been an indication of planted explosives, but there were no secondaries anywhere in those videos and I didn't hear bomb explosions from close-up videos either as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed, which brings up the question: who duped 911 truthers into thinking that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings in the first place when there was no evidence of explosives to begin with?

Simply hearing what sound like explosions is not real evidence when there are objects that produce similar sounds that have nothing to do with explosives. For an example, New York City is known for its manhole cover and electrical explosions and failing structural rivets produce similar sounds, and yes, even falling elevators produce sounds similar to explosions. So the point is, simply hearing what sounded like explosions is not evidence that explosives were used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waist of time Sky ! Remember theres no place like Home ! No Place like Home. The Skeptics and C/T`s love to real you in ! Time to cut them Loose ! THat Dog dont hunt any more !

We need to move on to Getting or Space program back on track ! Not the Stupidity of this,Afterall ITs all in the way one Looks at things,9/11 was just as it was shown Live on the T.V that Day ! You really have to be a dense person not to see that ! Two Large Aircraft went in,Two Great Towers came down ! Nuff Said ! :tu:

On your Six mate !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is more than enough.

More than enough for what? To prove their so-called 'investigation' was a complete farce?!!

To claim that it was more than enough steel to conduct a proper, thorough investigation is simply absurd.

What makes you think that a quick look wasn't conducted before the steel was shipped off?

What makes you think "a quick look" is considered valid scientific analysis?!?!

Wow! I never knew that was part of an investigation!!

Does the NIST report mention anything about "a quick look" at all this steel, or did you just make it up?

The rubble of WTC7 was right there where WTC7 collapsed. The rubble of WTC7 didn't just get up and walk away.

Yes, it was right there. Then, it was all shipped away to Asia! Did.that help to convince you it was a legitimate investigation? :w00t:

Nope! Since you are not a regular here, let me show you what you have been missing..

I've seen it all before, with none of it being relevant to the issue of WTC steel. Steel that was fully understood to be crucial evidence for an investigation, which they deliberately ignored and quickly disposed of, which is a criminal act in itself. . ...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than enough for what? To prove their so-called 'investigation' was a complete farce?!!

The even non-government experts concurred with the investigations. Show us the evidence that prove otherwise.

To claim that it was more than enough steel to conduct a proper, thorough investigation is simply absurd.

Wrong again!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_7QHekJeJs

WTC Steel Data Collection

WTC steel data collection efforts were undertaken by the Building Performance Study (BPS) Team and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) to identify significant steel pieces from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7 for further study. The methods used to identify and document steel pieces are presented, as well as a spreadsheet that documents the data for steel pieces inspected at various sites from October 2001 through March 2002.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.