WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Would you care to elaborate why the fireproofing and big chunks of iron were found on top of the debris? With all that asbestos, of course.

Are you saying that no fireproofing and big chunks of iron were found deeper into the debris?
You are trying to build a case that explosives were used.
But no one has shown any of the classic signatures of explosives.
Loud booms.
Windows being blown out.
You can't hide those.

a reply to: samkent

You think a thick layer of dust full of asbestos, mineral wool and iron is not fishy enough? I'm not trying to build a case, the event did. Newtons Law dictates the obvious use of a counterforce, I'm just pointing out the presumptive evidence in said scientific findings.
If that's nothing for you we would've nothing to discuss. To mention windows at this point is slightly ridiculous, ever heard of the lobby destruction/ witnesses for explosions before impact?
No? Yes. Duh!
Dust-signature, chemical residues and seismic data prove their use just like various vids and witnesses for explosions. You've debunked nothing yet, all you've presented so far is outright denial. We don't need residues from explosives to add further proof to the claim. But I might have to explain that point next, how friggin boring.

Lame dis_crussion it is, innit? Next!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I fail to see how asbestos, mineral wool and iron is fishy?
IF the building came down as per the OS, what would YOU expect to find in the dust?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I fail to see how asbestos, mineral wool and iron is fishy?
IF the building came down as per the OS, what would YOU expect to find in the dust?

that's true those things would have been shot into the air whether the buildings came down due to controlled demolition or metal beams weakening due to heat where planes hit.

a reply to: samkent
a reply to: HorusChrist

Bollocks. Why should we find massive amounts of concrete instead, eh?

[...]
Much of the organic or polymeric content of the WTC Dust has been heat hydrolyzed and partially consumed or burned. Therefore, a residual vesicular type of carbonaceous component persists in the WTC Dust. In addition to the vesicular carbon components, the high heat exposure of the WTC Dust has also created other morphologically specific varieties of particulate matter including spherical metallic, vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components
[...]
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTCEvent, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).
[...]
Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in combination. However, it is worth noting that fly ash and partially combusted products can occur in trace concentrations in ordinary building dusts, but not in the concentrations observed in WTC Dust.
[...]
The presence of lead oxides on the surface of mineral wool indicates the exposure of high temperatures at which lead would have undergone vaporization, oxidation, and condensation on the surface of mineral wool. In addition to the trace amounts of lead, (Table 2) indicates the presence of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sodium, silicon, sulfur, chlorine and calcium on the surface of the mineral wool.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Could you guys elaborate on anything of this then?
Office fires and jet-fuel you say?
Be my guest, show me some evidence! I bet you can't.

Glad to be of service once again, obey a nice day!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You think a thick layer of dust full of asbestos, mineral wool and iron is not fishy enough?

Considering they were in abundance in building materials at ground zero, what so fishy about them?

Dust-signature,...

Dust samples for which the "RJ Lee Group" examined in detail and found no evidence of explosives nor thermite. Read its dust sample reports.

chemical residues...

Nothing to do with explosives nor thermite.

... and seismic data

Which, according to the folks who operated those seismic monitors, did not detect demo explosions.

...prove their use just like various vids and witnesses for explosions.

Explosions, which were not heard as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, and that also explains why 9/11 conspiracy theorist are unable to post demo explosion timelines in those WTC videos.

Explosions, which were not heard as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed

That is a lie, period..

a reply to: wildb

That is a lie, period..

Then, prove that it is a lie in front of everyone here by posting the timelines from these videos where demolition explosions are heard and if you fail to post those timelines, then the case will be made that explosives were NOT responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.



BTW, you will have noticed that falling debris are outpacing the collapse of WTC 1, which debunks the false claim of 9/11 conspiracy theorist that WTC 1 collapsed at free fall speed.





Now, if you don't know what demolition explosions sound like, you can go here.

a reply to: skyeagle409

This game and your repeated post are really getting boring, there all posted on page one of this thread, and elsewhere..

Stop posting lies and disinfo....

a reply to: wildb

Stop posting lies and disinfo...

Translation: You cannot provide the demo timelines in the WTC videos because no such explosive evidence exist.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Stop posting lies and disinfo...

Translation: You cannot provide the demo timelines in the WTC videos because no such explosive evidence exist.

Let me be like you..

This game and your repeated post are really getting boring, there all posted on page one of this thread, and elsewhere..

a reply to: wildb

In other words, you are unable to present demolition timelines in the WTC videos. Without such evidence, any claim that demolition explosives were used to destroy the WTC buildings are baseless.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

In other words, you are unable to present demolition timelines in the WTC videos. Without such evidence, any claim that demolition explosives were used to destroy the WTC buildings are baseless.

Let me be like you..again.lol

This game and your repeated post are really getting boring, there all posted on page one of this thread, and elsewhere..

a reply to: wildb

I have seen Sky post facts and excellent links to support his points.
What have you posted to support your points?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: wildb

I have seen Sky post facts and excellent links to support his points.
What have you posted to support your points?

Not much, I support others......

a reply to: wildb

This game and your repeated post are really getting boring, there all posted on page one of this thread, and elsewhere..

You have said that you and others have posted the demo timelines that I have requested, but I was unable to find such timelines that you spoke of, which is why I requested for you to post them for all to see, yet you've failed to do so.

You've made a claim and I am expecting you to back it up.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Stop posting lies and disinfo...

Translation: You cannot provide the demo timelines in the WTC videos because no such explosive evidence exist.

No, translation is that your reputation for mendacity here at ATS has been very well established. You are so deep in denial that you are the only person that doesn't understand your mendacity.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Stop posting lies and disinfo...

Translation: You cannot provide the demo timelines in the WTC videos because no such explosive evidence exist.

No, translation is that your reputation for mendacity here at ATS has been very well established. You are so deep in denial that you are the only person that doesn't understand your mendacity.

It's a catch 22. The evidence was destroyed and NIST didn't even look into the possibility of controlled demolition so star eagle asks us to prove it based on his own edited videos. Then he wins! Meanwhile he already admitted he works in the defense industry so why are we still taking him seriously.

a reply to: Salander

You are so deep in denial that you are the only person that doesn't understand your mendacity.

In that case, prove me wrong by posting those demo timelines that I have asked you to present. if you are unable to post those timelines, then the case will be made that explosives were not used to bring down the WTC buildings.

a reply to: HorusChrist

It's a catch 22. The evidence was destroyed and NIST didn't even look into the possibility of controlled demolition so star eagle asks us to prove it based on his own edited videos.

Well, we still have those WTC videos available today. Just to let you know that explosives, when detonated, make a lot of noise and yet, there is not a peep of demo explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed.

Secondly, the seismic data is still available for examination, which does not depict demo explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. In addition, we can go here.

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

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.

www.webcitation.org...