Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Salander

Considering that you have failed to post evidence that refutes what I have posted, you have no case. Now, where is your evidence that refutes my presentations?

The Collapse of World Trade Center Buildings 1 & 2

The unique structure of the WTC towers exaggerated the problems caused by the weakened steel. The towers had a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers, with 95% of the structure’s interior consisting of nothing but air (see Figure 1).6 Within this perimeter tube design there was a 27m by 40m core, designed to provide additional support to the tower.

Steel trusses, or joists, connected the outer beams to the core at each story, and provided much of the overall support to the weight of each floor. The impact and explosion of the airplane crashes probably knocked off most of the insulating material intended to fireproof the steel beams, considerably increasing their vulnerability to flames.

www.skeptic.com...

What you have presented here is spam, not evidence. You cannot, you have not, and neither has NIST proved that the towers came down the way you say they did. You allege that, but you have not proved that. Sorry.

Yes, and that will always be the case...

It never has been the case. Those that want a conspiracy will continue to ignore anything that shows that it happened because of two planes starting fires and weakening [not melting, as some ignoramuses insist] the steel structure. Note that the first collapse was on the second tower that was hit because it was hit lower and there was more structure above it to stress the lower half.
There was no demolition and no evidence that any demolition occurred. The collapse was gravitational as it was far to fast for small charges to precipitate. Thermite cannot be timed, as I have said many times before, which is why it is not used in commercial demolitions.
If there was any conspiracy, it was to cover up the incompetent actions of the dolts that the Bush dolt installed in his administration [search on FEMA/Hurricane/New Orleans for an example of cowboy appointments].

The so-called "truth" movement is a source of never-ending entertainment, much like the anti-evolutionists, in their contorted explanations of the events of the day.

Merry Christmas to all on ATS.

a reply to: pteridine

Thats your opinion, and your entitled to it...

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Not true at all. After all, experts have spoken when they said, fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Thats the OS and it does not hold water...

a reply to: wildb

The experts who have no ties with the government are those who have stated for the record that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible and one of the companies assisting in the clean-up at ground zero was operating seismic monitors when the WTC buildings collapsed and have stated their seismic machines did not detect demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

a reply to: pteridine

There was no demolition and no evidence that any demolition occurred. The collapse was gravitational as it was far to fast for small charges to precipitate. Thermite cannot be timed, as I have said many times before, which is why it is not used in commercial demolitions.

One of the world's top demolition expert has confirmed what you have just said.

Brent Blanchard: World Demolition Leader

Brent Blanchard: No. In explosive demolitions thermite is never used.

The thermite assertion first came out three or four years after the event; there was no talk of thermite until 2004 or 2005. All of a sudden this new theory came out because all other theories were very easily proved impractical or impossible.

There was a professor over here in States that decided back then that thermite was his new theory, but the more you look into thermite the more you understand that the way it causes the metal to fail is not consistent with what happened. Then he changed his theory into nano-thermite and now he might even come out with double-nano-thermite. There are always variations that pop up about how thermite might have been used.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...


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.


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says
Van Romero, vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

911research.wtc7.net...


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

The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center 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.

vincentdunn.com...

a reply to: skyeagle409

The experts who have no ties with the government are those who have stated for the record that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible

And others have said otherwise, since there was no investigation into the collapse itself we have nothing but opinions and speculation..

Except for #7 and the official report does not fit what was observed, and in that case the evidence we do have strongly supports controlled demo. So if they did one there is a good chance they did them all.

Furthermore in the case of the towers , buildings don't fall into the path of most resistance's with acceleration. It defies the laws of physics period. If your going to tell me otherwise you will be lying,

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: skyeagle409

The experts who have no ties with the government are those who have stated for the record that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible

And others have said otherwise, since there was no investigation into the collapse itself we have nothing but opinions and speculation..

Except for #7 and the official report does not fit what was observed, and in that case the evidence we do have strongly supports controlled demo. So if they did one there is a good chance they did them all.

Furthermore in the case of the towers , buildings don't fall into the path of most resistance's with acceleration. It defies the laws of physics period. If your going to tell me otherwise you will be lying,

Again with the "lying" accusations. I would have hoped that the 'truthers' would refrain from using that last resort response when they are in a corner. Apparently, they do not consider any other options as they remain focused on their predetermined conclusions. Do not accuse others of lying when you have no understanding of the physics. Did you expect the building to topple like a tree? It is not strong enough to remain a monolith. The "path of least resistance" arguments are wrong and no structural engineer will support them. Note that Gage is not a structural engineer and is only milking suckers and paying himself to do it.

a reply to: pteridine

He has been caught lying in the past. I am not in a corner. I have no interest in Gage , why did you bring it up..

And I stand by my statement...

Furthermore in the case of the towers , buildings don't fall into the path of most resistance's with acceleration. It defies the laws of physics period. If your going to tell me otherwise you will be lying,

a reply to: pteridine

The "path of least resistance" arguments are wrong and no structural engineer will support them.

Are you even reading my post, not least, most... got that.

a reply to: pteridine

Apparently, they do not consider any other options as they remain focused on their predetermined conclusions

Just like the NIST report.. thank you for making that point..

a reply to: pteridine

Note that Gage is not a structural engineer and is only milking suckers and paying himself to do it.

Could very well be true,, but irrelevant ...

a reply to: wildb

He has been caught lying in the past.

That is false and i have challenged 9/11 conspiracy theorist to prove me wrong with facts and evidence, whereas, they post hoaxed and and debunked videos and provide references from websites that are well-known for spreading disinformation.

I have repeatedly asked you to post video time lines were explosions are heard as the WTC buildings collapsed and you have consistently failed to provide those video time lines.

Furthermore in the case of the towers , buildings don't fall into the path of most resistance's with acceleration. It defies the laws of physics period. If your going to tell me otherwise you will be lying,

You can find similar collapses in the following video that has nothing to do with explosives.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

He has been caught lying in the past.

That is false and i have challenged 9/11 conspiracy theorist to prove me wrong with facts and evidence, whereas, they post hoaxed and and debunked videos and provide references from websites that are well-known for spreading disinformation.

.

Sure it is, I called you on it just two days ago.. "they" are not me, you take the cake on disinfo..

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

The "path of least resistance" arguments are wrong and no structural engineer will support them.

Are you even reading my post, not least, most... got that.

I am reading your posts. Least and most are two sides of the same argument. Think about it.

a reply to: wildb

And others have said otherwise, since there was no investigation into the collapse itself we have nothing but opinions and speculation..

Such as Richard Gage and Steven Jones, AE911 Truth, VA Today,Loose Change, Pilots for 911 Truth, none of whom have provided evidence that back their claims. Another star reference of 9/11 conspiracy theorist is Danny Jowenko, who has stated for the record that explosives did not bring down the WTC buildings.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I have repeatedly asked you to post video time lines were explosions are heard as the WTC buildings collapsed and you have consistently failed to provide those video time lines.

More memory problems again sky, you were giving what you asked for but still say you were not, all anyone has to do is review the threads to see that is not the case..

a reply to: skyeagle409

Such as Richard Gage and Steven Jones, AE911 Truth, VA Today,Loose Change, Pilots for 911 Truth, none of whom have provided evidence that back their claims. Another star reference of 9/11 conspiracy theorist is Danny Jowenko, who has stated for the record that explosives did not bring down the WTC buildings.

So lets see, when Jowenko said wtc 7 was a CD he was wrong and a fraud, but when he said the towers were not CD he was right.. cherry picking again..

a reply to: wildb

Sure it is, I called you on it just two days ago..

You did not and as proof, post those video time lines right now. If you fail to do so within the next 5 minutes, my case will be proven that you did not post a single video time line from the videos that I requested from you.

You have 5 minutes to post those video time lines that you claimed you've posted and right now, the clock is ticking.

a reply to: wildb

That's right, he was wrong because as is the case with the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2, there was no sound of demolition explosions as WTC 7 collapsed and operators of seismic monitors in the area have stated that their seismic monitors did not detect demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Apparently, they do not consider any other options as they remain focused on their predetermined conclusions

Just like the NIST report.. thank you for making that point..

Not at all like the NIST report. The NIST report was based on evidence. Where is the physical evidence of demolition? All we have is people saying that they don't think that it could have happened the way it did and then ignore all the evidence that says it did. Anyone who disagrees with them is then called a "liar." What I find entertaining is how the theory du jour cycles around and debunked theories are reanimated again and again in a never ending cycle.

Show hard evidence for demolition. This doesn't mean that "it didn't look right" or it "couldn't happen that way" or "I have a feeling." It means unexploded demolitions, Det cord or wiring remains or forensic evidence of explosives.