Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

a reply to: wildb

I am right on the money because the seismic monitor operators have debunked the claim that their seismic monitors detected demolition explosions.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: wildb

Wrong, gravity was not enough, and I proved the OS false by applying the 2ed law..

I think the towers proved you wrong, hehe no matter what you say or think. The floors below looked rather solid and undisturbed until the collapsing floors affected them.

I would also apply Occam Razor to this in how many people and companies would be involved, how many timings would need to go off not just well but perfect and timed to jets hitting the towers WOW, how much time that anyone could easily be caught but didn't in prep of the buildings, and just what did they use to do it? After about 15 years and still clean, man they are good.

We had two planes that hit the towers at different times at unknowable location on the towers and everything was still perfect as both towers started their collapses right at where the planes hit...hmmm

At least we can agree two hijacked airliners hit the tower right?

No they don't , learn the 2ed law and you will see that, of course that disproves the OS, that is all , what was observed was very different.

Two planes hit the building, weather they were hijacked is another issue, of which I have no interest in..

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: madenusa

Apparently, the people whose seismic machines were used, have debunked claims their seismic monitors detected demolition explosions.

9/11 Seismic Recordings

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words:

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

Again weak argument, why don't you post a link to the equipment they used so we can look at its specs , until then you have no case..

Data from the Palisades, NY recording station, located 34 km north-north-east of
Manhattan, published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
(LDEO), provide the most detailed seismic waveforms for analysis, particularly for the
determination of the locations (surface or underground) and timing of the events that
created the seismic waves.add that to your 10 years of study let see what we can find ...
We will both have a virus dropped by air VI drone...... lol

a reply to: wildb

Evidence and the laws of physics have proven that fire was mainly responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Evidence and the laws of physics have proven that fire was mainly responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

www.journalof911studies.com...

a reply to: madenusa

Let's hear it from the operator of the seismic monitors.

9/11 Seismic Recordings

Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words: This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition.

That is backed by the evidence in the following video.



The lack of demolition explosions in that video explains why the seismic monitors did not detect demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Evidence and the laws of physics have proven that fire was mainly responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

So, all in all, there is a huge amount of doubt concerning the validity of the "official " story.
Assuming the Bush administration has nothing to hide, much of this doubt could be removed by allowing independent investigators to inspect the crash debris recovered ,and by allowing independent investigators access to the black boxes and voice recorders......

Since the Bush administration has refused any such access, one can only conclude that they are hiding something.

originally posted by: wildb

No they don't , learn the 2ed law and you will see that, of course that disproves the OS, that is all , what was observed was very different.

Two planes hit the building, weather they were hijacked is another issue, of which I have no interest in..

I see your second law and raise you with a 3rd..hehe

There is a lot going on there with gravity, pressure and weight, they are not solid bodies but mostly hollow shells etc. The second tower had many more floors (weight) pushing on basically the resistance of the failing floors, so it went first, or was that planned in the script. The massive pressure built up as the floors collapsed vaporized a lot of material including cement and pushed that in many direction as pressure seems to do.

I know people suggest that there would be equal force above and below so the collapse could not happen, but that is only if both were solid bodies. In this case the forces were not equal because the upper floors 15ish for tower 1 and 35ish for tower 2 only needed to match that upper force with the lower force of just one floor at a time not the whole tower to collapse every floor even though it was quick.

a reply to: Xtrozero
patriotsquestion911.com...

911proof.com...

www.opednews.com...

patriotsquestion911.com...

www.911truth.dk...

911proof.com...

All these people disagree and are still looking for answers .....

a reply to: madenusa

So, all in all, there is a huge amount of doubt concerning the validity of the "official " story.

Much of that is the result of those passing disinformation that has clouded facts and evidence of 9/11.

I knew all along that explosives and thermite were not responsible. While in Vietnam, I could hear explosions from B-52 strikes more than 20 miles away and yet, I heard nothing in the WTC videos that even remotely suggest the use of explosives.

Secondly, the demolition community does not use thermite to demolish tall steel frame buildings because thermite is not effective and in fact, 1/2 tons of thermite was unable to cut a SUV in half, so compare the size of a typical SUV with the size of WTC 1 and you should get the message as to why thermite is not used in such instances. However, thermite was used to drop a steel tower decades ago, but it took 1500 pounds of thermite just to burn through two of the legs that supported the tower and much of the work to place thermite on those legs was done at ground level.

Assuming the Bush administration has nothing to hide, much of this doubt could be removed by allowing independent investigators to inspect the crash debris recovered ,and by allowing independent investigators access to the black boxes and voice recorders......

My Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 struck and I have identified B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon in the colors of American Airlines.

Actually, black box and radar data and voice transcripts have already been released, which proved that at no time were the 9/11 aircraft switched. The aircraft were also tracked to their crash sites on radar and in fact, I even posted the altitude flight data for each of the 9/11 aircraft, which proved that at no time were those aircraft flown under remote control and you can even see in the data where the 9/11 hijackers were disengaging and reengaging the autopilot.

.

originally posted by: madenusa

All these people disagree and are still looking for answers .....

Yep I know and unfortunately they will never get those answers because the questions they ask can not be answered, and simple answers can never be believed or trusted.

We are talking from Micro explosives (not known to even exist) to 1000s of people involved, to government involved disappearance of airliners full of people, to other fake planes hitting the tower, to John Lear's (rest his soul) alien technology and lasers.

Pick your poison...hehe

a reply to: madenusa

Your links are why 9/11 is clouded with disinformation. For an example, let's take a look at a photo from your link that depicts the Windsor Building fire.

Photo: Windsor Building Fire

What they don't tell you is that the outer steel frame structure had collapsed during the fire, which left only the concrete structure of the building standing. Had the inner structure of the Windsor building been constructed of steel instead of concrete, the Windsor Building would have suffered a full collapse, but it was that concrete core that prevented full collapse.

In some photos you can see the outer steel frame lying on the concrete ledge in a heap of twisted and distorted steel beams.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: NWOwned

Now maybe mother nature puts iron micro-spheres in everything like we put fructose corn syrup in everything, I dunno, I'm just saying I don't think crop circles are created by explosives, thermite, fire or gravity.

Now, for a science lesson on how to create your own microspheres in your home and all it takes is a lighter and steel wool. Or, if you want to create microspheres in your backyard, all you need is a steel beam and a barrel of wood. Light the wood and after the fire out, count how many microspheres are in the mix.

Bottom line is, someone has done a fantastic job of taking 9/11 conspiracy theorist for a ride to the cleaners over microspheres and therrmite. Never mind that Richard Gage, Steven Jones and other 9/11 conspiracy theorist got caught lying about microspheres and thermite. Have you ever wondered why thermite is not used by the demolition community to demolish tall steel frame buildings? Think about it before you decide to ridicule something for which you are not knowledgeable enough to understand.

.

Perhaps you misunderstand me and my subtle logic creative word play, that, and/or you failed to watch in its entirety the video I posted.

I'm not concerned with thermite as a demolition method nor with Steven Jones' promotion of it.

Iron micro-spheres were found in the WTC dust no? I mean since there was apparent molten stuff pouring out the tower and there seemed to be fire present on some floors of two steel frame towers, and since you claim I can readily make iron micro-spheres myself with steel wool and a lighter then you must be telling me that yes indeed there were iron micro-spheres in the WTC 1&2 dust. Correct?

Now Jones has been claiming the spheres exist due to the dreaded thermite. In doing so he affirms at the very least that iron micro-spheres are present in the WTC dust. He seems to think that's because of thermite, but really, and even according to you, they'd be present for reasons even other than thermite. Isn't that correct?

Therefore it's possible that Jones is mistaken linking iron micro-spheres to thermite? Maybe there never was any thermite.

But there's iron micro-spheres right?

That's all I'm trying to establish.

I already agree with you it wasn't explosives or thermite for all the various reasons that you repeatedly cite.

a reply to: NWOwned

But there's iron micro-spheres right?

Iron rich, yes.
As shown here:
pubs.usgs.gov...

But steel does not have to melt in order for micro-spherules to be created.

a reply to: NWOwned

Iron micro-spheres were found in the WTC dust no? I

Not only found, but expected to be found under the laws of physics.

...since you claim I can readily make iron micro-spheres myself with steel wool and a lighter then you must be telling me that yes indeed there were iron micro-spheres in the WTC 1&2 dust. Correct?

Yes. In fact, you can also create microspheres using wood, fire, and a steel beam.

He seems to think that's because of thermite, but really, and even according to you, they'd be present for reasons even other than thermite. Isn't that correct?

That is correct.

Therefore it's possible that Jones is mistaken linking iron micro-spheres to thermite? Maybe there never was any thermite.

That is correct and in fact, chances are, you have the basic components of thermite in your own home.

But there's iron micro-spheres right?

That's right.

.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Good. Good. Now we're really getting somewhere!

But I just want to summarize and clarify because I want to be really clear about what you are saying.

Ok, so you don't think it was explosives that destroyed the towers because the videos have no characteristic loud distinctive booms going on, the seismic readings don't detect big explosions and anyway, how could any group wire or wirelessly up both buildings without them or explosives being seen. Is that correct?

One thing I am curious about though are the various video and visual evidence, in that I mean you are comfortable with them as presented? Like you are taking the videos at face value not concerned that loud explosive evidence was somehow edited out?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

With regards to what someone said earlier in the thread about people failing to ask questions because it would be thought of as "distasteful" or "disrespectful". That is exactly what they are relying on. They knew that the immediate reaction of the grieving families would be knee jerk to anyone who dared question the official history. Anyone who dared raise an eyebrow or asked a "why" would immediately be labelled thoughtless, disgusting and insensitive to the memory of the more than 3000 people who died that day, and with this being an event of such an historical magnitude, the nay sayers would be shut up from the start.

However, with time, as more families have started to ask questions, that trick doesn't work anymore.

a reply to: NWOwned

Good. Good. Now we're really getting somewhere!

But I just want to summarize and clarify because I want to be really clear about what you are saying.

Ok, so you don't think it was explosives that destroyed the towers because the videos have no characteristic loud distinctive booms going on, the seismic readings don't detect big explosions and anyway, how could any group wire or wirelessly up both buildings without them or explosives being seen. Is that correct?

That is correct. In addition, proper preparation would not have gone unnoticed and the WTC buildings did not fall at free fall speed nor fell within their footprints. Had the collapse of the WTC buildings been a legitimate demolition operation, the demolition company and its insurance companies would have gone out of business because of the massive damage incurred to surrounding buildings.

One thing I am curious about though are the various video and visual evidence, in that I mean you are comfortable with them as presented? Like you are taking the videos at face value not concerned that loud explosive evidence was somehow edited out?

The explosions were not edited out and I have posted other videos, including those from news agencies, where explosions are not heard. In addition, demolition experts in the area who working on other projects have also stated that they did not hear demolition explosions, which coincides with lack of seismic data and lack of demolition hardware evidence. If demolition explosives are properly placed, the detonations will transmit shock signals through the steel columns and into the ground where the signals will be detected. If explosives are not properly placed, the shockwaves will simply flow around the steel columns and do nothing but blow out walls and windows and mainly leave the steel structure intact as was the case in 1993 when terrorist bombed WTC 1.

The collapse of the WTC Towers initiated at the impact points and any explosives planted at those locations would have revealed themselves in the form of secondary explosions, but what are the chances of the 9/11 hijackers striking WTC 1 and WTC 2 at the exact locations where explosives were planted? Why use aircraft when explosives would have been in used?

It would have taken almost a year to properly prepare each WTC building for demolition. After all, it took many months just to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas for explosive demolition and the preparation process for that bridge was nothing compared to what it would have taken to prepare the WTC buildings for demolition.

.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Evidence and the laws of physics have proven that fire was mainly responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

Yeah, just like the Dubai tower last week destroyed its surrounding area. LOL Reality has proven your ancient claims to be inaccurate.

originally posted by: Salander
Yeah, just like the Dubai tower last week destroyed its surrounding area. LOL Reality has proven your ancient claims to be inaccurate.

Let's not add new lies into the mix.

The fire at the Dubai Address Hotel was mostly limited to the flammable external cladding on the building. It was a very different kind of fire.