Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Q24

WTC7

2,000 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

skyeagle409

The Un-debunkable truth

[media=]

[/media]

:rolleyes:

I guess you didn't know that the video was faked! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
skyeagle409

That's because it was whisked away before anyone could find it.

How are you going to whisk away thousands upon thousands and thousands of feet of detonation wire and not draw attention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nathan Jones

How are you going to whisk away thousands upon thousands and thousands of feet of detonation wire and not draw attention?

Easy, they're the government they can just pay off anyone who sees it.

I guess you didn't know that the video was faked! :w00t:

Proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Easy, they're the government they can just pay off anyone who sees it.

Proof?

Not likely at all.

Easy, they're the government they can just pay off anyone who sees it.

Proof?

[media=]

[/media]

Just consider yourself another gullible victim.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nathan Jones

Not likely at all.

[media=]

[/media]

Just consider yourself another gullible victim.

How do you know that guy wasn't paid by the government to explain that the video showing flashes was faked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

How do you know that guy wasn't paid by the government to explain that the video showing flashes was faked?

He provided the indicators on the video that proved it was faked, but I guess you didn't notice the indicators so watch the video again and listen to what indicators he is telling you that the video is faked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nathan Jones

Whatever that doesn't prove anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Whatever that doesn't prove anything.

It proved that you were mislead because you didn't bother the check the indicators on the video that proved the video was faked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daughter of the Nine Moons

Thread cleaned, everyone stay on topic and cease the ad hom attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

Depends on a number of things. In the case of the WTC buildings, they suffered from impact damage and fires, and that was all it took.

I asked you...

Does random damage cause total collapse? Yes or no?

And you answered...

"Not in the case of the WTC buildings."

To sum up your answer - 'no, it does not cause total collapse'. At least, for the WTC buildings, it does not.

Thus, you are really saying the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions. If it was not random, as you said, then it means it was planned

Case closed.

If you can't admit it, that's fine by me. Perhaps you will, someday....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I asked you...

Does random damage cause total collapse? Yes or no?

And you answered...

"Not in the case of the WTC buildings."

To sum up your answer - 'no, it does not cause total collapse'. At least, for the WTC buildings, it does not.

Thus, you are really saying the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions. If it was not random, as you said, then it means it was planned

Case closed.

If you can't admit it, that's fine by me. Perhaps you will, someday....

Sorry, but facts and evidence do not support what you say. To underline my point, post evidence of controlled demolitions regarding the WTC buildings and if you are unable to do so, be prepared for a lasting argument on why you were unable to come up with evidence of explosives, and you must know that I will go into details to point out your flaws because I have seen many explosions during wars, and I saw nothing in the videos that represented the use of explosives.

Demolition experts on the scene have said they saw no evidence that explosives were used nor found evidence in the rubble, and they added that their monitors did not detect explosions, however, they detected and recorded the collapse of the WTC buildings, but they did not detect nor record any explosions.

It is all very simple;

* No evidence of bomb explosions seen on video nor heard on audio recorders

* No evidence of explosions on seismic detectors

* Demolition experts on the scene confirmed no evidence of explosive materials ( detonation cords, etc. ) found in the WTC rubble

* No evidence of bomb explosions found on the steel columns that were examined.

* No evidence of thermite cuts found on the steel columns.

With no evidence whatsoever that explosives were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, what made you think that explosives were used? Go ahead and post the 9/11 WTC videos and provide evidence of bomb explosions within those videos using the time line reference points. We can then stop the videos at those reference points and look for evidence of bomb explosions, and if there's no evidence to be found, be prepared to explain to us all, the problem of your claim regarding controlled demolitions and the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noldi400

and how do you explain the molten metal under all 3 towers?

Take tons of very hot steel - doesn't matter how it got hot, fire or absorbed kinetic energy - pile it together, cover it with pulverized concrete and gypsum, and it gets hotter and hotter because of the exothermic property of iron. So if there was molten metal, it would not be a big surprise. Ask any metallurgist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mr.United_Nations

I have seen a video of WTC7 on fire before it collapsed so that rules out demolition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

Take tons of very hot steel - doesn't matter how it got hot, fire or absorbed kinetic energy - pile it together, cover it with pulverized concrete and gypsum, and it gets hotter and hotter because of the exothermic property of iron. So if there was molten metal, it would not be a big surprise. Ask any metallurgist.

How does the steel get "very hot?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

How does the steel get "very hot?"

How about the use of a furnace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noldi400

How does the steel get "very hot?"

Well, there was the fire, although that affected a relatively small part of the structure,, and when that much falling mass comes to a sudden stop a lot of the kinetic energy is converted into heat energy.

In what way does the presence of molten metal support the notion of controlled demolition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

I see the molten steel suggestive of some sort of special process because the metal remained molten for several days. Thermal imaging from satellites showed 3 (as I recall) hot spots. That cannot come from friction or jetfuel. My guess is nuclear devices of the very modern variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations

If that was the case all of New York, New Jersey and other nearby states would of been contaminated by now. Am i right that nuclear does not make fires?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I see the molten steel suggestive of some sort of special process because the metal remained molten for several days. Thermal imaging from satellites showed 3 (as I recall) hot spots. That cannot come from friction or jetfuel. My guess is nuclear devices of the very modern variety.

In that case, there would have been no New York left afterward and contamination would have been widespread. Tell us, what is the temperature of a nuclear device at detonation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

Sky

I got out of the Army in 1971. Even in those old days there was such a thing as a 'tactical' (as opposed to strategic) nuclear weapon. Small, perhaps "suitcase" sized low-yield nuclear weapons.

My guess is that we have done serious weapons development since 1971.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Sky

I got out of the Army in 1971. Even in those old days there was such a thing as a 'tactical' (as opposed to strategic) nuclear weapon. Small, perhaps "suitcase" sized low-yield nuclear weapons.

My guess is that we have done serious weapons development since 1971.

If you were familiar with tactical nukes, then why did you suggest that a nuke could have been responsible? Anyone who is familiar with nukes would have known there was no way a nuke was detonated inside the WTC building. Not only have you shown a lack of knowledge on aviation issues, but a lack of knowledge of military weaponry as well.

Once again, what is the temperature created by a nuclear weapon at detonation?

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations

You still need to contain nuclear radiation no matter who big it is, it still would of covered a large area. If small area then you looking at radiation that is harmless. Same with any chemical or solid compound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

In 1945 nuclear weapons were quite large and primitive, airplanes could not go through the sound barrier, and Low Earth Orbit was only a theory.

My, my, what advances in technology we have seen in our lifetimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations

You do not need to be in the military to know about Nuclear power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
skyeagle409

In 1945 nuclear weapons were quite large and primitive,....

And yet, thousands of people died of radiation poisoning.

Environmental Consequences of Nuclear Weapons:

• Radioactive materials released from the testing or detonation of nuclear weapons remain

in the ecosystem for thousands of years;

• Drinking radioactive contaminated water over a long period of time is closely linked to

high cancer rates;

• Nuclear radiation, which results from the neutrons and gamma rays associated with

fission, is lethal in high doses, and has many lingering effects, including increased cancer

rates and organ damage. In addition to the 200,000 estimated deaths from the Hiroshima

and Nagasaki bombs, thousands of other civilians developed cancer and other diseases

form the high levels of radiation.

My, my, what advances in technology we have seen in our lifetimes.

In other words, you haven't a clue about how a nuclear bomb works.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.