911 inside job - for what?

[skyeagle409]

Of course they were not explosions in the videos.

Glad you cleared that up because no evidence of explosives were found at ground zero, which helps to explain why you don't see explosions in the videos.

Protec have never shown us these seismic records they claim to have!

They should! After all, It was their monitors that recorded the events.

[skyeagle409]

Protec have never shown us these seismic records they claim to have!

They should! After all, it was their equipment that recorded the events that day.

[skyeagle409]

• he saw a couple of elevators on fire which caused an explosion.
  

Out of all of these, there is only one fact which supports your assertion...lol..But what you fail to understand is that others there are plenty of others who witnesses explosions who were not near any lifts. lol

No evidence was found because none was looked for.

No one heard any bomb explosions.

The sounds of explosions came from many different places.

Not from bombs

[Stundie]

You should thank me for this.

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

Utter nonsense. Maybe you should try reading Ross and Furlongs paper which shows you how and why the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory orignally showed that the seismic activity was recorded 14 and 17 seconds earlier, until it was revised by the NIST.

[Stundie]

Glad you cleared that up because no evidence of explosives were found at ground zero, which helps to explain why you don't see explosions in the videos.

You do not get irony do you?? lol

Because everyone at GZ was just suffering from mass hallucination hey Skyeagle....

They should! After all, It was their monitors that recorded the events.

Yes they should, shouldn't they. Otherwise it's is nothing more than hearsay.

I love the double standards in your application of what constitues as evidence. Eyewitnesses are not evidence, yet someone who tells a eyewitness what they saw is evidence or better still, telling us seismic equipment didn't record any activity while not releasing the data is rock, solid evidence.

[Stundie]

No one heard any bomb explosions.

Sorry but there were people at GZ who would disagree with you. Like those firefighters in the videos I posted who swore blind they were explosives going off as they climbed the stairs.

Not from bombs

Sorry but seeing as you were not there at GZ and you have no fricking idea, I will take that statement with a pinch of salt. lol

[skyeagle409]

Jim Hoffmans critque of Blanchard is perfectly founded and the fact that Blanchard has not responded to his criticisms shows us all that he suffers from the same problems as you...lol

On the contrary, investigators, civil and structural engneers have sided with Brent Blanchard.

Utter nonsense.

How amusing. There is nothing in that seismic data that even remotely suggest the use of explosives and look what you posted.

[skyeagle409]

You do not get irony do you??

1. No evidence of explosions in the videos

2. No sound of explosions during the collapase of the WTC buildings

3. No seismic data depicting bomb explosions at ground zero

That's three strikes.

[skyeagle409]

Sorry but there were people at GZ who would disagree with you.

Considering that no evidence of explosives of any kind was ever recovered at ground zero, nor even presented to the media, then GZ agrees with me, not you.

[skyeagle409]

I love the double standards in your application of what constitues as evidence. E

Show us evidence of explosives at ground zero. If you are unable to do so, then you have no case.

[Stundie]

On the contrary, investigators, civil and structural engneers have sided with Brent Blanchard.

No they haven't...lol

How amusing. There is nothing in that seismic data that even remotely suggest the use of explosives and look what you posted.

Except a seismic event happening 14 and 17 seconds before either plane hits the towers...lol

[skyeagle409]

No they haven't..

On yes they have!! Present the evidence to the contrary. What did the Society of Civil Engineers and American Institute of Architects conclude? They have sided with Brent Blanchard and look what you posted.

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/

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.

http://www.architect...y-theory_2.aspx

Edited March 26, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Except a seismic event happening 14 and 17 seconds before either plane hits the towers...lol

I think you misunderstood, There is no evidence anywhere in that seismic data indicates bomb explosions. You were duped again!

Edited March 26, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

1. No evidence of explosions in the videos

Except for this one...and numerous other too..lol

[media=]

[/media]

2. No sound of explosions during the collapase of the WTC buildings

Except for...

"I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out." [Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.)]

"That's when [the North Tower] went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down." [Frank Campagna -- Firefighter]

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last." - NBC Reporter

"Basically I was outside when that third explosion occurred ... the whole area turned pitch black when that third explosion happened ... this is the safest place to be right now because when when everyone was outside there were three explosions ... I'm completely covered in white smoke from that third explosion." - CNBC Maria Bartiromo

3. No seismic data depicting bomb explosions at ground zero

Sorry but it appears you are wrong.

http://www.journalof...longAndRoss.pdf

That's three strikes.

Not 3 strikes, but 3 explosions...lol Edited March 26, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

Except for this one...and numerous other too..lol

[media=]

[/media]

Except for...

"I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out." [Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.)]

"That's when [the North Tower] went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down." [Frank Campagna -- Firefighter]

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last." - NBC Reporter

"Basically I was outside when that third explosion occurred ... the whole area turned pitch black when that third explosion happened ... this is the safest place to be right now because when when everyone was outside there were three explosions ... I'm completely covered in white smoke from that third explosion." - CNBC Maria Bartiromo

Sorry but it appears you are wrong.

http://www.journalof...longAndRoss.pdf

Not 3 strikes, but 3 explosions...lol

That is not evidence of bomb explosions.

[skyeagle409]

Not 3 strikes, but 3 explosions...lol

Nothing to do with bombs.

[Stundie]

On yes they have!! Present the evidence to the contrary. What did the Society of Civil Engineers and American Institute of Architects conclude? They have sided with Brent Blanchard and look what you posted.

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/

So they deicded to agree with Brent Blanchard back in 2002, a full 4 years before Blanchard had even published his paper?? lol

How could they side with someone who didn't produce their report until 4 years later? Are they psychic?? lol

And a full 6 years before the NIST report into WTC7??

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.

http://www.architect...y-theory_2.aspx

So the FEMA report, the NIST report have been peer reviewed?? lol....By whom?? Themselves....hahahahahahahahahaha!!!

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

[Stundie]

That is not evidence of bomb explosions.

What consititues as evidence of bomb explosives?? lol

Eyewitnesses at GZ who heard, saw and felt explosions is not evidence that they were elevators crashing are they?? lol

Nothing to do with bombs.

Or strikes for that matter...lol

[skyeagle409]

What consititues as evidence of bomb explosives??

For one thing, the use of explosives

Eyewitnesses at GZ who heard, saw and felt explosions is not evidence that they were elevators crashing are they??

You haven't been paying attention. What other possible sources have I mentioned?

[skyeagle409]

So they deicded to agree with Brent Blanchard back in 2002, a full 4 years before Blanchard had even published his paper?? lol

How could they side with someone who didn't produce their report until 4 years later? Are they psychic?? lol

And a full 6 years before the NIST report into WTC7??

So the FEMA report, the NIST report have been peer reviewed?? lol....By whom?? Themselves....hahahahahahahahahaha!!!

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

http://www.opednews....ief_of_nist.htm

Structural and civil engineers and demolition companies have concluded that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings. After all, we have evidence of fires, but absolutely none for explosives.

[Stundie]

For one thing, the use of explosives

Hahahaha!! I suppose you think that explosives would be lying about everywhere with people tripping over them and fall over the god damn things...lol

You haven't been paying attention. What other possible sources have I mentioned?

Eyewitnesses, who are now evidence but eyewitnesses are not evidence when they witness explosions...lol

Its a mad paradox your worlds is...lol

[skyeagle409]

Hahahaha!! I suppose you think that explosives would be lying about everywhere with people tripping over them and fall over the god damn things...

Show us the 'explosives' money. If you are unable to do so, then consider yourself broke.

[Stundie]

Structural and civil engineers and demolition companies have concluded that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings. After all, we have evidence of fires, but absolutely none for explosives.

Not all structual and civil engineers and demolition companies have concluded that. lol

Like there are lots of Structural and civil engineers who disagree and have not concluded that fire down the WTC buildings.

There are demolition companies/experts who disagree and have not concluded that fire down the WTC buildings.

And yes, there is evidence of fires, but as we have seen in our comparisons, fires tend not to collapse high rise steel structures to the ground.

However, they are rather good at collapsing toy factories and over passes as you have shown us...lol

[Stundie]

Show us the 'explosives' money. If you are unable to do so, then consider yourself broke.

I can't show you explosives, because they were never looked for...lol

But I can show you plenty of people who witnessed explosions....lol

[skyeagle409]

Not all structual and civil engineers and demolition companies have concluded that.

Yes indeed! Apparently, you failed to read the conclusions in their reports.