Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

a reply to: skyeagle409

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 you claim you've posted and the clock is ticking.

Boy your getting desperate, I did not and as proof ? the proof is I cannot go back and change my post, so again all one has to do is go back and look at them and see that I did post them.. It would seem to me you have 5 minutes to put your tail between your legs and run..

a reply to: wildb

Boy your getting desperate,

No video time line in your post, i see, which simply means that you were not telling the truth when you'd claimed that you'd posted the video time lines from the WTC videos that I have requested from you.

To sum it up, you've lost your case because you've never posted such time lines from those WTC videos, not to mention that you have been caught posting false information before.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Boy your getting desperate,

No video time line in your post, which simply means that you were not telling the truth when you claimed that you've posted the video time lines that I have requested from you.

To sum it up, you've lost your case.

Maybe you should start taking notes, this post or that, I and others have put the info out there, if you cannot keep track of it you should leave the conversation...

a reply to: wildb

Since you've failed to post those WTC video time lines, you lost your case and there is nothing more for you to add.

a reply to: pteridine

You need to get informed on the events of 911, based on your post I dont think you are. It takes years.. 911 is much more that two planes and three buildings..

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Since you've failed to post those WTC video time lines, you lost your case and there is nothing more for you to add.

Oh but there is.. so I'll say it again..


Boy your getting desperate, I did not and as proof ? the proof is I cannot go back and change my post, so again all one has to do is go back and look at them and see that I did post them.. It would seem to me you have 5 minutes to put your tail between your legs and run..

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

You need to get informed on the events of 911, based on your post I dont think you are. It takes years.. 911 is much more that two planes and three buildings..

What takes years? Finding hard evidence of demolition? There were many buildings damaged and destroyed. Still no evidence for demolition.

How much more do you think it was? What really precipitated the destruction?

a reply to: wildb

I've pointed out that you've made claims that have been proven to be false. In other words, there is no case for explosives.

a reply to: pteridine

How much more do you think it was?

Way more, the federal reserve, the gold, the put options, the war games, wtc 6, Clevland, marsh and mclennan..ect I could go on, if you don't know what i am talking about i have made my point..

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

I've pointed out that you've made claims that have been proven to be false. In other words, there is no case for explosives.

Thats your opinion....nothing more..

a reply to: pteridine

What takes years?

Learning all the events of 911..

a reply to: wildb

It's a fact, not an opinion, and the fact that you have failed to post those video time lines is that proof.

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

How much more do you think it was?

Way more, the federal reserve, the gold, the put options, the war games, wtc 6, Clevland, marsh and mclennan..ect I could go on, if you don't know what i am talking about i have made my point..

Of course I know what you are talking about. Based on your extensive knowledge, what precipitated the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2?

a reply to: pteridine

Of course I know what you are talking about.

Then address one or more of what I stated, you know so I know you know what your talking about..

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

It's a fact, not an opinion, and the fact that you have failed to post those video time lines is that proof.

Really short memory now ay..

Boy your getting desperate, I did not and as proof ? the proof is I cannot go back and change my post, so again all one has to do is go back and look at them and see that I did post them.. It would seem to me you have 5 minutes to put your tail between your legs and run..

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Of course I know what you are talking about.

Then address one or more of what I stated, you know so I know you know what your talking about..

This is the conspiracy theory about the missing Gold and Silver: 911research.wtc7.net...

Now, it is your turn to show hard physical evidence of demolition.

a reply to: pteridine

Google is your friend ay, not theory, fact.. no not my turn as you know I cannot do that, the on going dilemma of 911

See I am man enough to admit neither one of us can prove anything, however what is the most likely hypothesis.

a reply to: wildb

Really short memory now ay..

I've checked each of your previous post over the weeks and at no time did you post those video time lines from the WTC videos I'd presented and that explains why you have failed to post them now when requested. If you had posted them in the previous weeks, you would have had no problem posting them now.

Brent Blanchard Interview

Brent Blanchard is a demolition expert; he serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services, a world leader in engineering and vibration consulting for explosive demolition projects. He's also a senior writer and editor at the website Implosionworld.com.

Undicisettembre: Looking at the collapses, what tells you they were not controlled demolitions?

Brent Blanchard: Well, there are a few things right away. For instance most sections of each structure fall outward. Tall sections of the North Tower legged out very far to the East and to the North, while other large sections of the building sheared away. This is totally dissimilar to a controlled demolition.

Undicisettembre: What do you think about World Trade Center 7? Was its collapse a controlled demolition, in your opinion?

Brent Blanchard: No. Absolutely not. I know people who were on the site and they told me first hand they knew the building was about to collapse. And even if I didn't know those people you can look at the way the North Tower collapsed and how all the debris that fell to the north directly into WTC7 shearing huge chunks of building 7 on the South side, which is not the side that everyone watches on the YouTube videos. On the south side there was extensive damage all the way down. The entire load bearing mechanism is weakened when a towering structure more than twice the size of the subject structure literally falls on top of it.

It's not surprising to me that that building collapsed. I wasn't aware at that time of the gasoline storage or the damage to the south side of the building, but even without that knowledge you could see fires burning freely for hours. And if you let a fire burn freely in any structure, sooner or later that structure is going to collapse.

To me, the fact that it collapsed so many hours after the other towers tends to support evidence of the natural progression of the collapse rather than some sinister plot.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Google is your friend ay, not theory, fact.. no not my turn as you know I cannot do that, the on going dilemma of 911

See I am man enough to admit neither one of us can prove anything, however what is the most likely hypothesis.

There has been a great deal of speculation and outright fabrication regarding various demolition theories, all of which have been proved wrong. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the conclusion is that two airplanes brought down the Towers and their collapse led to the destruction of other buildings.
As I stated earlier, if you really need a conspiracy, look to coverups of incompetent leadership and apathy.

a reply to: pteridine

No, the official conclusion you cite, the one offered by the NIST guys and the 911 Commission, is not based on facts. Indeed, it is contradicted by the facts.

Modern steel high rises do not just collapse from fires. Actually, none have ever collapsed from fire EXCEPT for the 3 that day, all in the same spot. The fires were localized up on the 80th floor area, but the towers suffered total and complete collapse. Without assistance of some sort, that is impossible.