WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Sure. Not. And this is Idiocracy.
Another piece of Irony Iron and a quarterstar for outrageous conspiracy-theory is awarded:

I wanted to add that the demolition expert who is used by 9/11 conspiracy theorist as their reference about WTC 7, was also the same demolition expert who has said that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were not demolished by explosives.

Who really cares? Or, I should say that I don't care. That is trivial, but what Jowenko said was the simple truth. It was the truth because it held some part of common sense. Even though he was an expert himself, what he said was simple common sense. Peter Jennings said it too, and the other guy Dan Rather--it looked like a demolition, and they were talking about it on TV.

Yet 14 years later you want me to believe that it was NOT a demolition. And you expect to be taken seriously? LOL sir, LOL.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

Do you have evidence of explosives or payoffs? Until you provide such, the only conclusion is that there were no demolitions used in the WTC collapses.

Do you have evidence that experts supporting the OS are not paid?

Yes, evidence was giving to you for many years proven explosions where in the WTC. The only conclusion is there was demolition.

You have the right to deny all the evidence that is your choice.

I have yet to see any credible evidence from you, that disproves demolition period.

I don't have to disprove demolition. Those that make the claim have to prove demolition.

Jones paper was debunked. The videos show no demolitions. Seismic data is not conclusive. Given the lack of any evidence, we can only conclude that there was no demolition.

a reply to: Salander

Yet 14 years later you want me to believe that it was NOT a demolition. And you expect to be taken seriously?

That is what the evidence proves. After all, there are no demolition explosions heard as the WTC buildings collapsed, which explains why demolition explosions were not detected by seismographs.

a reply to: Informer1958

Do you have evidence that experts supporting the OS are not paid?

Do you have any evidence that there were?

a reply to: pteridine

I don't have to disprove demolition. Those that make the claim have to prove demolition.

Yes you do, since you are the one claiming there was no explosions or demolition.

The problem here is you have absolutely no science that disproves demolition.

Furthermore you have no credible science to support the governments version of their claims.

NIST has been Debunked by A&E.

Jones paper was debunked.

That is false,

I have not seen a single credible paper that debunks Jones paper. However I will agree that Jones paper is not complete.

But Jones made that very clear that that the super Na-No thermite needed to be investigated.

Jones also stated that the super Na-No thermite was very rare and only the Military would have that kind of application.

The videos show no demolitions

Absolutely false.

My eyes do not lie to me period. What I see as the WTC are being demolished is excessive energy blasting materials, and thousands of tons steel beams over 600 feet up in the air.

If the WTC just fell down from a natural collapse there would be no energetic forces BLASTING thousands of tons of beams up into the air period.

The fact is all the debris would just fall straight down in it's lease resistance. You know that as well.

Seismic data is not conclusive.

That is false.



Apparently you didn't read the OP.

we can only conclude that there was no demolition.

No, that is you and Skyeagles conclusions, not ours. Remember you only speak for the OS supporters.

a reply to: Informer1958

No, that is you and Skyeagles conclusions, not ours.

Your conclusion has been found to be incorrect. BTW, the operators of those seismographs have stated that their seismographs did not detect demo explosions.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Your conclusion has been found to be incorrect. BTW, the operators of those seismographs have stated that their seismographs did not detect demo explosions.

Do you just make up this garbage as you go, and you claimed to be a grown up?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: skyeagle409

Your conclusion has been found to be incorrect. BTW, the operators of those seismographs have stated that their seismographs did not detect demo explosions.

Do you just make up this garbage as you go, and you claimed to be a grown up?

You are certainly in denial. Take heart in the fact that A&E is getting smaller as time goes on and you are one of the select few to keep the fantasy going.

a reply to: pteridine

You are certainly in denial. Take heart in the fact that A&E is getting smaller as time goes on and you are one of the select few to keep the fantasy going.

I can say the same for you. As more and more OS supporters are getting smaller and smaller as time goes on. Only a select few keep the OS fantasy going.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

You are certainly in denial. Take heart in the fact that A&E is getting smaller as time goes on and you are one of the select few to keep the fantasy going.

I can say the same for you. As more and more OS supporters are getting smaller and smaller as time goes on. Only a select few keep the OS fantasy going.

Most don't bother to explain things, anymore, and have moved on. There was more uncertainty immediately after 9/11 but after 14 years of no evidence to the contrary, all but a few have concluded that the planes were the sole cause of the WTC destruction.
Calls for reinvestigation and search for explosives will not be heeded. One reason is that there is no evidence to investigate. Another is that it will be never ending. I had asked at one time on ATS what if the re-investigation showed no explosives. The consensus was that if that was the case, more investigation would be needed. We would have to investigate until we found the desired answer. then there was the problem of who would investigate.
It is important that the non-technical readers are not duped into believing hearsay and innuendo perpetrated by those who would profit from such [Gage] or want to be important [Jones, et al.even to a fringe element.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Salander

Yet 14 years later you want me to believe that it was NOT a demolition. And you expect to be taken seriously?

That is what the evidence proves. After all, there are no demolition explosions heard as the WTC buildings collapsed, which explains why demolition explosions were not detected by seismographs.

Nonsense. It is impossible to take you seriously.

a reply to: pteridine

A grossly unfactual post you make.

a reply to: Informer1958

To put it simply, you have no case and it is cystal-clear that you have been duped by Richard Gage and the discredited "AE 911 Truth."

a reply to: Salander

The fact that 9/11 conspiracy theorist have failed to post demolition explosion timelines from the WTC videos proves that explosives were not responsible, and the fact that seismograph data did not detect demolition explosives underlines that fact.

a reply to: Informer1958

You've presented a seismic chart that you think, depicts evidence of demo explosions, but let's hear it from one of the operators of those seismograph machines during 9/11.

Seismic Spikes

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

In other words, 9/11 conspiracy theorist deliberately lied that seismograph machines depicted demolition explosions. Let's continue.

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.

www.popularmechanics.com...

In other words, you've posted more disinformation, this time, regarding seismic data that does not depict demolition explosions as you've claimed.

Protec Documentary Services, Inc., another operator of seismographs in use during 9/11, also disputes the 9/11 conspiracy theorist claim that their seismographs depicted demolition explosions.

Brent Blanchard: Leading Demolition Expert

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

www.historycommons.org...

To sum it up, seismograph machines in use by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Protec Documentation Services, Inc., did not detect demolition explosions during the collapse of the WTC buildings.

a reply to: Informer1958

Yes you do, since you are the one claiming there was no explosions or demolition.

The problem here is you have absolutely no science that disproves demolition.

You are getting to the point of being absurd.

Abraham Lincoln was killed by a dwarf hiding under the seat.
If you don't have any science to prove Booth did it then I must be right.

a reply to: samkent

You are getting to the point of being absurd.

This thread is not about YOU or your "opinions" of what you think about Truthers.

As usual you bring nothing for the OP of this Topic.

It is apparent now the OS supporters have no scientific facts to back up their OS, so most of you are left with ridiculing just as you demonstrated.

a reply to: skyeagle409



The facts are right here, however closing your eyes don't help your case.

In other words, you've posted more disinformation, this time, regarding seismic data that does not depict demolition explosions as you've claimed.

That is a great big fat fallacy.

You have spent more time trying to tear down my creditably, telling fallacies, twisting my words, than trying to debunk the OS post.

I must be a threat to you and the OS that you desperately support.

a reply to: Informer1958

Apparently, the folks who were operating seismographs during 9/11, Protec Documentation Services, Inc., and Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, have debunked claims that their seismographs depicted demolition explosions.

To sum it up, there is no case nor evidence for demolition explosions at ground zero.

a reply to: Informer1958

The facts are right here, however closing your eyes don't help your case.

Time to do a review since you missed it the first time around.

Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Seismic Data

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

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.

Now, let's do a review here.

Brent Blanchard: Leading Demolition Expert

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

In others words, the operators of those seismographs have debunked your seismic data claim, which simply means that your attempt to push disinformation has failed.