Melting steel?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Many of the WTC investigators do not work for the government either .

I know, thats why I believe them ..

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Many of the WTC investigators do not work for the government either .

I know, thats why I believe them ..

You do know the difference between "working for" and "funded by" right?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

That won't fly and as proof, you continue to stall at posting those video time lines

Only thing stalling here is you, I have posted much, everyone knows that, you fail, better get to that video..

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Many of the WTC investigators do not work for the government either .

I know, thats why I believe them ..

You do know the difference between "working for" and "funded by" right?

Yes I do.

a reply to: wildb

I know, thats why I believe them ..

Good!! Now, let's take a look at the numbers.

The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

There are123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

a reply to: wildb

That doesn't cut it. You cannot post the video time lines because you have no video time lines to post that depict demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapse.

You have no case.

Good!! Now, let's take a look at the numbers.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Stop posting propaganda , instead post facts..

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Many of the WTC investigators do not work for the government either .

I know, thats why I believe them ..

You do know the difference between "working for" and "funded by" right?

Yes I do.

I think we are on the same side?

The towers shouldn't have fallen into themselves according to the law of physics. Toppling should have happened at some point. Shifting momentum takes a very minimal force.

a reply to: wildb

Well, you did say that you supported what they say, and as the facts have it, the overwhelming majority of experts do not support claims of 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

That doesn't cut it. You cannot post the video time lines because you have no video time lines to post that depict demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapse.

You have no case.

I have, but dont need too, the evidence is in the video, not the sound...

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Many of the WTC investigators do not work for the government either .

I know, thats why I believe them ..

You do know the difference between "working for" and "funded by" right?

Yes I do.

I think we are on the same side?

The towers shouldn't have fallen into themselves according to the law of physics. Toppling should have happened at some point. Shifting momentum takes a very minimal force.

Yes I think we are..

a reply to: wildb

I have even posted statements from those who were operating seismic monitors who have stated for the record their seismic monitors did not detect demolition explosions at ground zero, which explains why no demolition explosions are heard in any WTC video.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Well, you did say that you supported what they say, and as the facts have it, the overwhelming majority of experts do not support claims of 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Well that is because conspiracy theorists come up with the most asinine ideas. There are a string of details that would give suspicion not to a controlled demo, but an ensuring of proper collapse, which would most certainly be unrecognizable in the amount of debris left over.

Way too many strings for it just to have happened as we are told.

a reply to: Vector99

Well that is because conspiracy theorists come up with the most asinine ideas.

Actually not!! As a pilot of 46 years and president of two aviation-related chapters, it was easy to debunk the false claims 9/11 conspiracy theorist. In fact, my Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 hit the building.

As an airframe technician as well, it was easy to debunk false claims in regard to the structures of the WTC buildings.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Does he have an explanation to what happened to the engines at the pentagon? I mean An aluminum tin can airframe punches a hole in the pentagon front to back but the most solid part of the plane, the engines, disintegrate and leave no mark at all?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99

Well that is because conspiracy theorists come up with the most asinine ideas.

Actually not!! As a pilot of 46 years and president of two aviation-related chapters, it was easy to debunk the false claims 9/11 conspiracy theorist. In fact, my Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 hit the building.

As an airframe technician as well, it was easy to debunk false claims in regard to the structures of the WTC buildings.

I have already asked you to post your credentials equal or better than john gross, you have failed, nuff said..

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: skyeagle409

Does he have an explanation to what happened to the engines at the pentagon? I mean An aluminum tin can airframe punches a hole in the pentagon front to back but the most solid part of the plane, the engines, disintegrate and leave no mark at all?

Where is the plane..

ws561ecf10.jpg[/pic]]

a reply to: wildb

Thank you, and I agree. The fact that he is claiming to be an airframe technician while also being able to be an architectural engineer says all I need to hear.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: wildb

Thank you, and I agree. The fact that he is claiming to be an airframe technician while also being able to be an architectural engineer says all I need to hear.

yeah

a reply to: wildb

That's been debunked as well because it does't show the rest of the area, which many 9/11 conspiracy theorist were aware of as well. After all, many eyewitnesses saw American 77 strike the Pentagon.