Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Ok. Explain the FDNY predicting the collapse of WTC7 because of the walls bowing out and explain how a planned demolition plot could have arranged that.

Start with your source, plenty of FDNY who support my case.. unless you look away, you have disappointed me much sir..

Read what the chief said. Fires not controlled. Walls bowing out. Dangerous situation. This building is coming down. Let's get out of here. That happened at 2pm. Three hours later, WTC7 collapsed.

How does a controlled demolition plot arrange bulging walls, scare off the firemen, and then wait three hours to bring down the building?

You buy into the script, not the science, you are now sky guy two, upsetting to say the least, ...but thats Ok, ..

The FDNY certainly heard explosions and loud noises. I once worked at a site where a CO2 fire extinguisher bottle exploded in a minor fire. A nice loud boom such that the head of the explosives section was called to check the magazines. Annoyed, he said that had even the small, ready magazine gone up, we would have known it by having to have window glass picked out of our selves and went back to reading a report.
I watched the Chandler video and it doesn't seem to distinguish between noises of collapse and demolitions. In fact, the sounds are not very demolition like as high brisance explosives sound quite different. Then, Chandler really blows it when he says that the reporter must have been told that the building was going to collapse. Right. The greatest conspiracy of the age and the perpetrators are going to tell a dimwit TV reporter what to look for so she can spill the beans and provide evidence for the Conspiracy crew to hang their hats on. Maybe she saw the penthouse collapse, Davey, and thought it was all coming down then. Maybe the low frequency noises were the inner support structure and penthouse collapsing before the cascade took the whole building.
Why don't you do what you agreed to do rather than dragging up these tired old videos and describe how it was done? What did they use? How much? Where did they place any charges or saw through the supports? Who did it?
You don't have to prove anything, just describe your theory in more detail than "It didn't look/feel right" as though this thing happens every day and everyone knows how it looks and feels.

a reply to: pteridine

Good of an emotional response ..I rest my case, good night sir..

a reply to: pteridine

It.;s your opinion, just like mine , round and round we go..

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Ok. Explain the FDNY predicting the collapse of WTC7 because of the walls bowing out and explain how a planned demolition plot could have arranged that.

Start with your source, plenty of FDNY who support my case.. unless you look away, you have disappointed me much sir..

Read what the chief said. Fires not controlled. Walls bowing out. Dangerous situation. This building is coming down. Let's get out of here. That happened at 2pm. Three hours later, WTC7 collapsed.

How does a controlled demolition plot arrange bulging walls, scare off the firemen, and then wait three hours to bring down the building?

You buy into the script, not the science, you are now sky guy two, upsetting to say the least, ...but thats Ok, ..

The FDNY certainly heard explosions and loud noises. I once worked at a site where a CO2 fire extinguisher bottle exploded in a minor fire. A nice loud boom such that the head of the explosives section was called to check the magazines. Annoyed, he said that had even the small, ready magazine gone up, we would have known it by having to have window glass picked out of our selves and went back to reading a report.
I watched the Chandler video and it doesn't seem to distinguish between noises of collapse and demolitions. In fact, the sounds are not very demolition like as high brisance explosives sound quite different. Then, Chandler really blows it when he says that the reporter must have been told that the building was going to collapse. Right. The greatest conspiracy of the age and the perpetrators are going to tell a dimwit TV reporter what to look for so she can spill the beans and provide evidence for the Conspiracy crew to hang their hats on. Maybe she saw the penthouse collapse, Davey, and thought it was all coming down then. Maybe the low frequency noises were the inner support structure and penthouse collapsing before the cascade took the whole building.
Why don't you do what you agreed to do rather than dragging up these tired old videos and describe how it was done? What did they use? How much? Where did they place any charges or saw through the supports? Who did it?
You don't have to prove anything, just describe your theory in more detail than "It didn't look/feel right" as though this thing happens every day and everyone knows how it looks and feels.

I

I had to reread this, but ok, tomorrow.

a reply to: wildb

More disinfo, the Physics tool kit is free and available to all, why don't you get it and plug in your own numbers and prove him wrong, until then you have no case..

First of all, demolition explosions make a lot of noise that can be heard over long distances and yet, there is not a peep of an explosion as WTC 7 collapsed Now, let's take a look here.









To sum it up, David Chandler has not been telling the truth.

Another thread about explosives?
I thought "melting steel' was about explosives.
I thought "RARE 911 WTC VIDEO - Multiple Explosions Heard Before and During Collapse." was about explosives.
I thought "Bush's connections and now a possible connection to controlled demo consulting and planning company" was about explosives.
I thought "The Core Comprises Steel Beams And Columns With Reinforced Concrete Infill Panels." was about explosives.

Just how many threads about explosives and thermite are we going to have?

a reply to: samkent

For once I agree Sam.

Everybody knows CD of some sort took them down. The finer points don't matter if one analyzes the big picture.

I want to know what the Zadroga Bill actually means.

a reply to: Salander

Everybody knows CD of some sort took them down. The finer points don't matter if one analyzes the big picture.

That is false because the overwhelming number of experts do not support the WTC demolition theory. Add to the fact the manner of which the WTC buildings broke up during the collapse is not indicative of explosive demolitions, which was evident by the fact that surrounding buildings were seriously damaged and once again, explosive detonations make a lot of noise and yet, there is no sound of demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, which is confirmed by the fact seismic monitors in the area did not detect demolition explosions.

Seems some people who were there disagree with you..

a reply to: wildb

You have been made well-aware on many occasions that the squibs you see were the result of compressed air, not explosives. Once again, you are caught posting disinformation.

Photo: Compressed Air Squibs

Your second and third videos have been debunked as well and as proof, no explosions were heard as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collaped and no explosions were detected on seismic monitors and furthermore, no explosive hardware was ever found within the rubble of the WTC buildings, hence, no case for explosives at ground zero.

Brent Blanchard: World Leading Demolition Expert

In the end there is absolutely no scientific evidence that there were explosions in any of those three buildings,...

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...

You have made well-aware that the squibs you see were the result of compressed air, not explosives.

Only an Idiot would believe that.....

a reply to: wildb

Only a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who didn't understand his high school science lesson on compressed air would believe otherwise.

"Squibs"

During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space.

There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could.

According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...

www.debunking911.com...

Brent Blanchard: World Leading Demolition Expert

Undicisettembre: Since you already mentioned air moving, what do you think of the air puffs that can be seen during the collapses?

Brent Blanchard: Well, folks tend to say, “We saw a lot of puffs of smoke coming out down the building and then the building collapsed”. What we say to them is that if you look more closely what you see is that the building begins to collapse first and then you see those air puffs. It's a very subtle difference but if you are looking for it you can absolutely see this difference.

If you had seen air puffs first it could have been a catalyst for the building to collapse, but when you see them secondary that means that air is being compressed down, because the collapse mechanism has started, and as this air is compressed it has to escape out of those windows and out of those sides of the building. There's no other way for it to go.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...

a reply to: wildb

a reply to: skyeagle409

Only a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who didn't understand his high school science lesson on compressed air would believe otherwise.

I will not for one second believe air with debris is breaking very strong windows to exit the building 6,7 and 800 feet below the demolition wave. That is just plain stupid, furthermore if that was the case they would be random, but they were not. I stand by my statement..

a reply to: pteridine

Then, Chandler really blows it when he says that the reporter must have been told that the building was going to collapse. Right

He blew nothing, if you watched the video in full you would know why she knew as she said why in the video. Everyone seemed to know but who told them it collapse before it did, that is the question..

a reply to: wildb

I will not for one second believe air with debris is breaking very strong windows to exit the building 6,7 and 800 feet below the demolition wave.

The laws of physics and experts have made it quite clear the squibs were the product of compressed air and nothing else.

Squibs of Compressed Air Inside the WTC Buildings

Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”

Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”

www.debunking911.com...

a reply to: wildb

There is nothing in your videos that provides evidence of explosives. Hearsay is not physical evidence for which none exist for explosives at ground zero and proven by the fact that no explosions are heard on video as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapse and no explosions detected as those buildings collapsed and no explosive hardware found within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

To sum it up, there is absolutely no case for explosives at ground zero.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

www.representativepress.org...

a reply to: pteridine

I watched the Chandler video and it doesn't seem to distinguish between noises of collapse and demolitions. In fact, the sounds are not very demolition like as high brisance explosives sound quite different

How can you make this statement under this circumstance.. First of all it was in the caverns of NYC, sounds can change quite a bit bouncing off the buildings. Plus it is always noise in the city, And they were pretty far away. Add to that it was a news crew not a film crew recording the event.

She was using a stick mic, one that drowns out ambient sound, she how she has to put the mic so close to her guest mouth to get a good signal ,, The fact that the mic picked up the sound at all shows how loud it had to be..

a reply to: wildb

She was using a stick mic, one that drowns out ambient sound, she how she has to put the mic so close to her guest mouth to get a good signal ,, The fact that the mic picked up the sound at all shows how loud it had to be..

Would you like to take a guess as to how many times that claim has been used to discredit the truth movement in light of the fact that there is no evidence of explosions in that video?