9/11 Bombshell: Methodical Deception -- Rebekah Roth

a reply to: skyeagle409

And your explanation (since you have one for everything it seems lol) for the presence of the metal thermite microspheres present in the dust and air? The presence of which is the cause of the huge amounts of white smoke as opposed to the normal black/grey of structural fires and which kept the fires burning for months afterwards, fires that were created by the thermite which couldn't put put out even by chemical fire supressants. These are facts not theories. Three independant companies reviewed and analysed the dust and confirmed the presence of thermite spheres of metal. This same thermite riddled dust that has been found in first responders and clean up crews lungs. All evidence relating to the presence of thermite has been scientifically analysed and peer reviewed.

However, I'm sure if you browse around 911truth long enough you'll find suitable answers to debunk

Skyeagle I suggest you read the final NIST report before commenting on the subject

I suggest you stay clear from ad hominen attacks and just read the report

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

And your explanation (since you have one for everything it seems lol) for the presence of the metal thermite microspheres present in the dust and air?

Such spheres were created by the welding process during construction. You can even create such sphere with a lighter and steel wool. In fact, if you place a 3-foot section of a steel beam in a 50 gallon barrel and add some wood and light the wood, the same spheres will be created.

This is proof the debunkers dont know anything really. You can ridicule them with their own official evidence

a reply to: AsherLewin11

I don't need to read the NIST report because I know from experience that was false what you posted.

Now, tell us why over 1000 pounds of explosives failed to bring down WTC1 in 1993. Here is the photo and you will notice that the steel columns of WTC1 are standing within the huge bomb crater.

Photo: Steel Columns of WTC1 Standing within Huge Bomb Crater

That photo alone proves my case.

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.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

a reply to: AsherLewin11

This is proof the debunkers dont know anything really. You can ridicule them with their own official evidence

You haven't explain to us why over 1000 pounds of explosives failed to bring down WTC1 in 1993.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I don't have to explain anything to you as you have just proven your ignorance concerning the final NIST report concerning building 7.

NIST report concerning the collapse of building 7 has determined that only 9lbs of RDX is all it would of taken to take building 7 down undetected. -Nist report

Again Skyeagle I suggest you research these topics before commenting. It may save you more future embarrassment .

a reply to: AsherLewin11

I don't have to explain anything to you...

Why of course, and you would dare because I am known for challenges and for challenging truthers to come up with scientific evidence. Looking at the record, truthers tend to back down as in your case.

a reply to: skyeagle409

There are many ways to do it, quite easily also when safety is foresaken, even without demolitions.

To give examples I would have to look over the structural drawings in detail to know what the easiest way would be. Otherwise I would be making educated guesses and given the topic and passion many have for this, don't want to go down that path here now without that info in front of me.

Columns are removed, replaced and relocated often enough for a variety of reasons but due to insurance and cost usually other alternatives are always considered. Structural engineers can easily become specialized demolition experts for the discipline is the same, just with opposite goals. Any person familiar with this building including firefighters know where the weaknesses are and how to exploit them.

Personally I don't know how or why they felt the need to pull this building, but it has all the signatures of a nearly precise demolition. It's something that's never been witnessed even to this day, such as in the explosion in China.

If I can get a good look at the structural details and some time I'll post again.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Lol you were proven false yet again. I'll walk all over you with facts all day long.

You have proven that you are ignorant in the subject of building 7 and don't have any knowledge of the NIST report. Just for the record Skyeagle you are far from an authority on subjects as serious as these.

Rookie mistake?

The melting point of steel is 2800f airplane fuel fires burn at 1700f max and as can be seen in many places all over the net in videos photographs and reports, the jet fuel was burned up extremely quickly as evidence by the huge fireballs that erupted and thereafter the black smoke which indicated oxygen starved fires which could not possibly have been burning at anywhere near the temperature required to melt ALL the steel beams and trusses at once to enable such a pancake collapse. It is indefensible to say that jet fuel caused the collapse..it flies in the face of physics & science.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: AsherLewin11

Nope, NIST has claimed in their final report on trade center 7 that it would of took 9lbs of RDX to bring down building 7 undetected.

Now, you got it down to 9 lbs. Do you think you can cut it down another 2 lbs?

Just to let you know that i have encountered people posing as truthers posting the most ridicules things imaginable in order to discredit the Turth Movement.

Can I safely assume that you are a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Rookie attack. Do you want me to link the NIST report that validates your ignorance on the subject or I can give you sometime to read the NIST report and you can come back and apologize. I forgive you for your ignorance on the subject.

a reply to: AnteBellum

There are many ways to do it, quite easily also when safety is foresaken, even without demolitions.

Cables were used to pull down WTC6.

o give examples I would have to look over the structural drawings in detail to know what the easiest way would be. Otherwise I would be making educated guesses and given the topic and passion many have for this, don't want to go down that path here now without that info in front of me.

Columns are removed, replaced and relocated often enough for a variety of reasons but due to insurance and cost usually other alternatives are always considered.

How heavy are those steel columns? How are steel columns placed?

Structural engineers can easily become specialized demolition experts for the discipline is the same, just with opposite goals. Any person familiar with this building including firefighters know where the weaknesses are and how to exploit them.

If I can get a good look at the structural details and some time I'll post again.

After you analyze the structural details, you can then explain why the WTC Tower will not collapse even if I cut through every major steel column above the 70th floor in zero wind conditions

a reply to: AsherLewin11

Rookie attack. Do you want me to link the NIST report...

No! I want you to provide the time lines where explosions are heard in this video.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Building 7 has nothing to do with the WTC which were brought down ultimately by the fireproofing being blown off the steel trusses causing them to bend in prolonged exposure to heat, pulling in on the exterior columns connected to them enough and ending with structural failure.

I explained this a few pages back somewhere.

And your right with your example but it's true for almost every single structure in the world also. The basis for expansion/contraction joints is just that, which every single structure needs to avoid damage due to freeze/thaw.

a reply to: skyeagle409

First of all, we warned the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden unconditionally, but the Taliban failed to do so and the rest is history.

The truth about the Taliban not turning over Bin Laden was they had a deal with the US government. The Taliban said they would turn over Bin Laden if the US could prove Bin Laden had anything to do with 911. It was in all the News and News paper at the time. However the US could not give any proof that Bin Laden did the 911 attacks so the Taliban let him go.

Bombshell: Newly Released CIA Documents Prove Bush Could have Killed Bin Laden; Prevented 911

We also know that the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to U.S. authorities if they could simply demonstrate his complicity with 911, back when all of this began.

It didn't happen, Bush rejected the plan, he never cared about catching bin Laden and he said as much; he cared about using the man's name and image to start a new round of the crusades and with this bloody idea, Bush had great success.

salem-news.com...

Dear God skyeagle is still trying ?



I just , umm dont get it ? Im embarrassed for even arguing with you in this thread smh

clearly you are not here to seek truth but push propaganda. You demonstrated being dishonest and deceptive what else is there to say ? Arguing for the sake of arguing. And getting nowhere fast.

Skyeagle if I give you a quarter will you go back under the bridge ?

Just staahhhp

-DF

a reply to: DarthFazer

Oh yes! lol
I think he's rifling through 911 Truth atm for his next argument

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport With you quote mining. That is where it leaves us.