Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

Just like NIST did....HA !!

a reply to: wildb

The experts have spoken and rejected claims that explosives and thermite were responsible, which is understandable considering that there are no demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, which is confirmed by the fact that seismic monitors did not detect demolition explosions as those buildings collapsed.

If demolition explosives were firmly attached to the steel columns of the WTC buildings and detonated, shock signals would have been transmitted through the steel columns and into the ground where the signals would have been detected and yet, no such signals were detected as the WTC buildings collapsed, which effectively proves that no demolition explosives were used. If you pound a steel beam with a large hammer at one end, a person at the opposite end of that steel beam whose ear is firmly pressed against that steel beam will definitely hear the sound. Seismic monitors detected signals generated by the impacts and collapse of the WTC buildings, but no demolition explosion signals just prior nor during the collapse of those buildings.

Putting the WTC controlled demolition theory in perspective, a person bangs on a steel beam at one end while a person with their ear pressed on the opposite end of that steel beam hears nothing. Not only do structural and civil engineers, firefighters and architects reject the WTC demolition theory, but demolition experts reject the WTC demolition theory as well.

I might add that the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 did not share hallmarks of real demolition implosions and demolition implosion operations do not fling huge steel beams hundreds of feet. The only thing the collapse of those buildings share with demolition implosions lies in the fact they collapsed with the aid of gravity.

a reply to: pteridine

The collapsing floors above don't lose significant mass; loads on the successive floors keep increasing by the weight of each additional floor. Even if the floors are crushed one-for-one, their weight still remains, flatter but just as heavy.

And just what does this have to do with the towers, nothing. Let me quote sky guy.

What was observed was falling debris damaging surrounding buildings

What was observed were debris and dust plumes outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings

Right there, no weight, no pile driver, all of the building being ejected away from the building. Evident from the damage done to the buildings near by and even some 600 feet away. So where was the energy coming from to keep the collapse going, not from the building itself, That being the case since thats what was observed something else was going on..buildings don't disintegrate as observed by them selves...


upload.wikimedia.org...

a reply to: wildb

Right there, no weight, no pile driver, all of the building being ejected away from the building. Evident from the damage done to the buildings near by and even some 600 feet away.

Which proves that explosives had nothing to do with it. Have you ever seen demoltion implosions where huge steel beams are flung 600 feet? Explain why the steel columns WTC 1 remained standing within a huge bomb crater after the 1993 bombing.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Right there, no weight, no pile driver, all of the building being ejected away from the building. Evident from the damage done to the buildings near by and even some 600 feet away.

Which proves that explosives had nothing to do with it. Have you ever seen demoltion implosions where huge steel beams are flung 600 feet? Explain why the steel columns WTC 1 remained standing within a huge bomb crater after the 1993 bombing.

It amazes me how you like to compare apples to peanuts..

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Right there, no weight, no pile driver, all of the building being ejected away from the building. Evident from the damage done to the buildings near by and even some 600 feet away.

Which proves that explosives had nothing to do with it. Have you ever seen demoltion implosions where huge steel beams are flung 600 feet? Explain why the steel columns WTC 1 remained standing within a huge bomb crater after the 1993 bombing.

Critical thinking skills absent..

a reply to: skyeagle409

If demolition explosives were firmly attached to the steel columns of the WTC

You seem to have no ability to think outside of the box...

a reply to: wildb

To make it simple, you cannot debunk real evidence, which is why after 14 years, there is no evidence of explosive or thermite.

a reply to: wildb

That is how it is done in the real world of demolition implosions, otherwise, the blast waves will simply flow around steel beams like wind flowing around a flag pole, as was the case during the 1993 WTC 1 bombing.

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

The collapsing floors above don't lose significant mass; loads on the successive floors keep increasing by the weight of each additional floor. Even if the floors are crushed one-for-one, their weight still remains, flatter but just as heavy.

And just what does this have to do with the towers, nothing. Let me quote sky guy.

What was observed was falling debris damaging surrounding buildings

What was observed were debris and dust plumes outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings

Right there, no weight, no pile driver, all of the building being ejected away from the building. Evident from the damage done to the buildings near by and even some 600 feet away. So where was the energy coming from to keep the collapse going, not from the building itself, That being the case since thats what was observed something else was going on..buildings don't disintegrate as observed by them selves...


upload.wikimedia.org...

So far, thanks to your video on explosiveless demolition, we have determined that a collapse straight down is the rule rather than the exception. So much for the "Path of resistance" arguments. We have also seen compressed air mimicking the so-called "squibs" in the explosiveless demolition. So much for that argument. No explosives = Straight down, "squibs" are just compressed air from the collapse. It looks like a match to the towers to me.

Now we have to consider the mass of the floors. You claim that every floor, above and below collapse initiation points [impact points of aircraft and office fires] completely disappears during the collapse and that because there is no mass collecting during the collapse, external forces are at work.

Now all you need is evidence that everything was thrown clear and that the top caps also disintegrated on the way down.

a reply to: wildb

Critical thinking skills absent..

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 9/11 conspiracy theories do not fit what occurred during 9/11.

Let's remember how conspiracy theorist misidentified compacted floors as molten concrete whereas, some photos depict un-burned paper and carpet material embedded within the so-called, meteorite."

a reply to: pteridine

Now all you need is evidence that everything was thrown clear and that the top caps also disintegrated on the way down.

Here ya go..

upload.wikimedia.org...

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Critical thinking skills absent..

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 9/11 conspiracy theories do not fit what occurred during 9/11.

Let's remember how conspiracy theorist misidentified compacted floors as molten concrete whereas, some photos depict un-burned paper and carpet material embedded within the so-called, meteorite."

Thanks for your opinion.

a reply to: wildb

Notice the widespread damage incurred which is not indicative of the way demolition implosions are carried out by the demolition community.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Notice the widespread damage incurred which is not indicative of the way demolition implosions are carried out by the demolition community.

show us any other skyscraper building that came down like all three of the WTC's, IN THE WORLD, AND IN HISTORY, that came down like they did...without demolition....

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Now all you need is evidence that everything was thrown clear and that the top caps also disintegrated on the way down.

Here ya go..

upload.wikimedia.org...

This does not show the distribution of the rubble, by mass. Actually, it seems as though most of the rubble didn't move far off of vertical. Further, there is a lack of evidence of any external forces, which is central to your theory.

a reply to: wildb

Let me post my photo opinion that depicts carpet material and paper embedded within the so-called WTC "Meteor."

Photo: WTC Meteor

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Critical thinking skills absent..

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 9/11 conspiracy theories do not fit what occurred during 9/11.

Let's remember how conspiracy theorist misidentified compacted floors as molten concrete whereas, some photos depict un-burned paper and carpet material embedded within the so-called, meteorite."

9/11 conspiracy theories is a nice way of describing first degree murder....we have a witness on every topic firemen, police and a confession www.youtube.com... its out of the box a little but can you see how the buildings all collapsed all the same pattern , same uniform collapse...
what's the odds the fires burning at the same pattern for all three building so they would collapse perfectly in three neat piles.....The power of the internet will set us free

a reply to: jimmyx

show us any other skyscraper building that came down like all three of the WTC's, IN THE WORLD, AND IN HISTORY, that came down like they did...without demolition....

I can post this photo of a 21-story steel frame building that collapsed without the aid of explosives, and let's not forget other steel frame building that collapsed due to fire. BTW, none of those buildings were struck by high speed B-767's.

Photo: 21-Story Steel Frame Building Collapse

We can't forget the Windsor Building where the steel structure collapsed leaving only the concrete structure standing. The photo depicts only concrete structure standing while the outer steel frame of the building lies in heap of twisted steel on the ledge of the concrete structure. Had the internal structure of the Windsor Building been constructed of steel rather than concrete, the whole building would have collapsed.

Photo: Concrete Remains of the Windsor Building

a reply to: madenusa

9/11 conspiracy theories is a nice way of describing first degree murder....we have a witness on every topic firemen, police and a confession

Have you read their reports? They confirmed that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

its out of the box a little but can you see how the buildings all collapsed all the same pattern , same uniform collapse...

They were constructed of steel and concrete and you should have also noticed that when they collapsed, there was not a sound of demolition explosions. That fact alone debunks the demolition theory, which is backed by the fact no demolition explosions were depicted within the seismic data and it is all underlined by the fact that no demolition hardware was ever found within the WTC rubble.