911 inside job - for what?

[skyeagle409]

WTC 7 was not hit by a B-767!!

It still suffered from serious impact damage and WTC5 suffered from internal collapse due to fire only. Now, where is your evidence that fire was NOT responsible for the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7?

[Stundie]

Neither suffered from huge impact damages suffered by WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7,

The Windors Building or the 3rd world toy factory neither suffered the huge impact damages.

Shall we dismiss those as well?? lol

And WTC 5 did suffer from much more impact damage than WTC1, 2 & 7!

Yet WTC 5 didn't collapse like WTC 1, 2 & 7 despite suffering bigger fires and more damage!

So where is your evidence that fire was NOT responsible for the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7?

Its hiding in the land of ignorance, a place where you take evidence which disproves your case by banishing it there cause you don't like it. lol Edited September 9, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

The Windors Building or the 3rd world toy factory neither suffered the huge impact damages.

But they collapsed due to fire only, now, how about their fire protections?

And WTC 5 did suffer from much more impact damage than WTC1, 2 & 7!

Not the same building as WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. Big differences.

Edited September 9, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

But they collapsed due to fire only, now, how about their fire protections?

But New York Plaza, Interstate Bank, Caracas Towers or the Bejing Mandarin didn't collapse due to fire only did they?

And they are all high rise steel framed structures, unlike the examples you have provided which are not steel frame and in the case of the toy factory, not even high rise. lol

Not the same building as WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

And I never said WTC5 was the same building as the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 did I??

But guess what?? The Windsor Building, toy factory and an overpass are not the same building as WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 are they??

I love how you point out the blatantly obvious once all your arguments have been highlighted for what they are...bunk! lol

Edited September 9, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

But New York Plaza, Interstate Bank, Caracas Towers or the Bejing Mandarin didn't collapse due to fire only did they?

What was the state of their fire protection? Were they building identical to WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7? Time for a recap.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and thecenter steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

[skyeagle409]

I love how you point out the blatantly obvious once all your arguments have been highlighted for what they are...bunk! lol

Well, let's take another avenue. You implied that explosives were used, so where is the evidence? BTW, explosives were used beneath WTC1 in 1993 and yet, the building remained standing.

[Stundie]

What was the state of their fire protection?

Read the reports as you would say...lol

Were they building identical to WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7?

I don't recall ever saying they were identical to the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7?

But hey, why let reality get in the way of a fantasised argument?? lol

Time for a recap.

Don't you mean time for spam?? lol

[Stundie]

Well, let's take another avenue. You implied that explosives were used, so where is the evidence? BTW, explosives were used beneath WTC1 in 1993 and yet, the building remained standing.

No, lets not take another avenue.

Let us get to a point of agreement which will save us time in the future arguing this point over and over again.

Do you agree that the other buildings which are all high rise steel structures didn't collapse from fires only?

Do you also agree that the WTC5 suffered much more impact damage and fires than WTC1, 2 & 7, yet it didn't collapse?

Do you also agree that despite planes hitting other such as the Empire States buildings and others such as....

2002 Tampa plane crash

2002 Pirelli Tower plane crash

2006 New York City plane crash

2010 Austin suicide attack

and the subsequent fires didn't collapse the buildings??

Edited September 9, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

Read the reports as you would say...

What report regarding the state of their fire protection?

I don't recall ever saying they were identical to the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7?

Well, what more is there to say except that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 collapsed due to fire. Time for a recap.

The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting

The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives".

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

Edited September 9, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

What report regarding the state of their fire protection?

Yes.

Well, what more is there to say except that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 collapsed due to fire.

Plenty more to say when you realise that WTC5 didn't collapse due to fires and that a whole heap of other high rise steel structures didn't collapse due to fires either.

Time for a recap.

You mean time for spam...again!

[skyeagle409]

Yes.

where is it?

Plenty more to say when you realise that WTC5 didn't collapse due to fires and that a whole heap of other high rise steel structures didn't collapse due to fires either.

Time for a recap.

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/

Edited September 9, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

where is it?

In the reports.

Time for a recap.

Spam doesn't equate to evidence...lol

Hilarious logical fallacy....

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

So because they do not question the NIST report, that must mean they all agree with it then?? lol

By that logic, they don't question the bible, so all 120,000 must be Christians too. lol

Edited September 9, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

In the reports.

Spam doesn't equate to evidence...

In other words, you cannot produce the report nor evidence I am requesting.

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

The evidence speaks for itself why there are not jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon. Time for another recap.

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

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

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

NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says (Update2)

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- 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.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

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

http://www.represent...xplosives2.html

[skyeagle409]

I'm just pointing out the flaw of your logic.

You seem to have forgotten that after 12 years, not one shred of evidence has surfaced that implicates the U.S. government in the 911 attack.

[Stundie]

In other words, you cannot produce the report nor evidence I am requesting.

I could produce the reports, but there was no structural damage to any of the other buildings from the fires.

The evidence speaks for itself why there are not jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon.

120,000 members do not question the bible, so that must mean they are all Christians...lol

Time for another recap.

You mean time for spam cause you can't address the issues I've raised! lol

[musicpenguin]

The demolition theory has been disproved. Although it is possible for explosives to do that, The planes could have to. Also that demolitions expert guy who said it was a bomb, He actually said it looked a lot LIKE a bomb and that a plane could do it also.

[Stundie]

You seem to have forgotten that after 12 years, not one shred of evidence has surfaced that implicates the U.S. government in the 911 attack.

You seem to have forgotten that after 12 years, not one shred of evidence has surfaced that implicates OBL in the 9/11 attack either.

[skyeagle409]

I could produce the reports, but there was no structural damage to any of the other buildings from the fires.

Where's the reports relating to the state of fire protection for the buildings you mentioned? Very important to produce those reports. Time for another recap.

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."

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

[Stundie]

The demolition theory has been disproved.

Has it??

Although it is possible for explosives to do that, The planes could have to.

You had better explain that to Skyeagle, cause he says its impossible for explosives to do that.

Could the planes which didn't hit the WTC 7 bring it down too? lol

Also that demolitions expert guy who said it was a bomb, He actually said it looked a lot LIKE a bomb and that a plane could do it also.

Which demolitions expert are you talking about??

[Stundie]

Where's the reports relating to the state of fire protection for the buildings you mentioned? Very important to produce those reports.

The reports are there if you look for them. But what's the point in reporting them to you? There was no structural damage to any of the other buildings after the fires making your entire point moot again.

Time for another recap.

You mean spam recrap! lol

[skyeagle409]

Has it??

That is correct.

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

I didn't see nor hear bomb explosions in the videos either.

You had better explain that to Skyeagle, cause he says its impossible for explosives to do that.

Let's take a look at buildings, some that were the target of multiple bomb strikes..

As you can see, the buildings remained standing.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Saru
Copyrighted images

[skyeagle409]

The reports are there if you look for them.

In other words you cannot produce those reports, and remember, I am not the person who should have to go out of my way to produce those reports which you should be providing.

[skyeagle409]

Sorry but the demolition experts that have spoken out or have given an opinion on the demolition theory have spoken in favour of it as opposed.

Actually, the demolition industry rejects the conspiracy claim that explosives were used during the 911 attack.

[Stundie]

In other words you cannot produce those reports, and remember, I am not the person who should have to go out of my way to produce those reports which you should be providing.

Oh here they are for you to ignore....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124052317417749965.html

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=908807

http://www.nfpa.org/ <--- You have to join to be able to read the Caracas' Parque Central fire reports.

Actually, the demolition industry rejects the conspiracy claim that explosives were used during the 911 attack.

Sorry but Brent Blanchard is not the demolition industry...lol

[skyeagle409]

Videos mics aren't the best equipment for picking up sounds

Let's take a look.

Did you hear that?