AE911 Engineer does for Free what NIST (Feds) couldn't do with Millions

page: 5
133
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jeddun
 


A disinfo agent is anyone who disagrees with the truthers . If you have a different opinion , you are disinfo .

If you provide facts that contradict a truther's stance , you are disinfo .

If a truther says the sky is falling and you say no it isn't , you are a disinfo agent who works for the government .

If you were there (and I believe you when you say you were) and claim to have seen it all with your own eyes , you are a disinfo agent / government schill .

Bottom line : If you are not a truther , you work for the government .

They even go so far as to make lists and put your username on them and post them on the internet . I'm on the list .

But , disregard all I have posted because I am a disinfo agent and you can't believe anything I say . You can't even believe that either .

[edit on 19-8-2010 by okbmd]




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Someone mentioned scalar weapon?Watch 4 seconds in on the lower left hand side of the tower.Watch the white light cut across the tower.Could be paper but it seems to go upward into the smoke and is too straight to be paper floating around.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



"..., every single central beam/column was intact from the underground foundations, to the tip top. "

Do we have any way of knowing this to be a fact ? It was/is my understanding that debris from one of the towers crashed into building 7 .


Well think about it in your minds eye... and just look at pictures of WTC 7.

In order for one of the central columns to be severed/compromised, the 'debris' would have had to cut through the outer layers of the building to get there... in other words it would be readily apparent because of the damage such 'debris' would have done to the exterior structure.

And, even if such debris had penetrated that far into the structure, you have to consider each beam and joint on every floor separately. These buildings were a 3-D matrix of steel and hard-to-bring-down materials.

They are connected horizontally and vertically to each other.

I can't prove that there wasn't any particular isolated sections that did get compromised, but the nature of the construction would require consecutive failures across many areas simultaneously in order for the building to come straight down into its own footprint at such close approximations to the speed of gravity.

In order to have those consecutive failures in the central columns, this 'debris' would have completely wrecked the entire exterior of the WTC 7 before it could collapse.

And, that 'debris' would have had to compromise all the columns on every floor consecutively for the building to come down so smooth.

I'm not sure I can explain it any better... hope that answers your question.




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



A disinfo agent is anyone who disagrees with the truthers . If you have a different opinion , you are disinfo .

If you provide facts that contradict a truther's stance , you are disinfo .

If a truther says the sky is falling and you say no it isn't , you are a disinfo agent who works for the government .

If you were there (and I believe you when you say you were) and claim to have seen it all with your own eyes , you are a disinfo agent / government schill .

Bottom line : If you are not a truther , you work for the government .

They even go so far as to make lists and put your name on them and post them on the internet . I'm on the list .

But , disregard all I have posted because I am a disinfo agent and you can't believe anything I say . You can't even believe that either .


Actually, I think those that say 'disinfo' are referring to these bits of information:

Cognitive Infiltration

Megaphone




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


wow...that's disturbing...cant we all have a different opinion? Jeez that is REALLY scary that line of thinking...seems fascist to me....seems to me, that whilst the people are trying to convince me of their theories they at the same time dismiss my POV and claim my opinion lacks merit , to be a type of bullying.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jeddun
reply to post by bigyin
 


Hmn...i fail to see why, one, you refer to my post as a rant and not others whom agree with your POV...and two, why would the government be SO concerned with building 7 as to construct some farsical controversial conspiracy?!?? what the HELL is so damn special about bldg 7?



Ok I apologise for calling your post(s) a rant but I counted 8 separate posts in a thread about holes in steel from wtc 7 and none of your posts went anyway to explaining how those holes got there.

The video posted by the OP does a good job of explaining how the holes didn't get there and that is the method the OS wants us to believe.

This thread is about wtc 7, not hit by a plane, with no jet fuel, where solid steel beams developed holes which weakened it.

Now your experience of witnessing planes flying into the other towers is interesting but nothing to do with this thread.

I would ask you to stop derailing the thread and muddying the waters with irrelevant information.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Oh well my apologies...seems i missed some central scrutinizer swearing in ceremony...my sincerest apologies your majesty. I'll be sure to submit myself to the majority henceforth as to not impinge upon the freedom of speech clause.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jeddun
reply to post by bigyin
 


Oh well my apologies...seems i missed some central scrutinizer swearing in ceremony...my sincerest apologies your majesty. I'll be sure to submit myself to the majority henceforth as to not impinge upon the freedom of speech clause.


I'm not a moderator, but I think you will find there are rules about derailing threads and posting off topic.

I don't mind being addressed as 'your majesty' however.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

There is only one I-beam, so the heat can't dissipate. Moreover, they use a pool of jet fuel, therefore the temperature is very high. The conditions were very different in the WTC towers.
And it doesn't explain how building 7 fell...

[edit on 19/8/2010 by jeanne75018]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Hehe that video was pretty funny.

but hey if that is considered science, then this video should prove a lot more:



Wow! Look at that! A steel beam failed from fire alone! Quickly too!



Wow, could you be anymore disingenuous? I think not since your esteemed video has to do strictly with the effects of jet fuel.

Considering, that this thread has to do with WTC 7, your video is a complete FAIL!

But it is completely obvious that you already knew this, so FYI, KARMA is a bitch.

Also, thanks for providing a National Geographic video, pretty much ZERO credibility since it is owned by none other than FOX, you know FAUX, FAKE, unfair and unbalanced.




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
can someone tell me why anyone would care about bldg 7??? seems that this is a straw grabbing attempt at at least finding SOMETHING fishy about the WTC attack. Why would the govt be concerned with lvling that building? Shouldnt the focus be on the actual towers and not the incidentals?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by jpmail
 



You critize the experiment without pointing out the flawes you feel are in it and you proved no counter arugment. Try again in a constructive manner and your input might actually help solve the debate


Really? Good lord where do you even start? How about a written abstract that describes the experiment, the controls, the objectives, some backgound on the persons who designed and are conducting the experiment. 10 minute youtibe videos are not "experiments"! They may be a reference, but you need to describe in exacting detail what it is your expecting to observe and why you are expecting it.

In so far as the bonfire demonstration is concerned - don't even know what that is attempting to achieve. Is the bonfire supposed to be replicating the conditions at the collapse site? How so? What are you presuming with regard to those conditions and how does the bonfire compare precisely?

The whole thing is scientifically backwards anyway. We have an observation - the next step would be to reproduce what was observed, not try to replicate something that was not observed (which is the process that contrubuted to the condition of the two steel samples).

Lets also not forget, as FEMA points out, these conditions were NOT universally found throughtout the steel remains of the WTC buildings, but were found in only two samples and even those samples were from undetermined location THOUGHT to be WTC 1,2, or 7. But who really knows for sure?


I am glad you replyed I was worried my post might come across as confrontational. I liked your post and even starred it because you said exactly what was wrong with the experiment and even added more info to fuel the debate. Thanks



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jeddun
 



can someone tell me why anyone would care about bldg 7??? seems that this is a straw grabbing attempt at at least finding SOMETHING fishy about the WTC attack. Why would the govt be concerned with lvling that building? Shouldnt the focus be on the actual towers and not the incidentals?


... What?!


I think you should research 9/11 a little bit more...

I care about WTC 7 because there is no reason that that building came down in the evening, many hours after WTC 1 and 2 came down. I care, because I had no idea about that building until 2008 even though I watched towers 1 and 2 come down in my classroom.


Why would the govt be concerned with lvling that building?


I'm astonished you would ask such a question, and yet argue so vehemently for the OS.

The point is: It was leveled.

Why?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


UGH point missed entirely, which seems to be the culture here with all this arguing. All i am saying IS why lvl bldg 7 and risk exposure?? i mean what the hell WAS bldg 7 anyway? I'm not trivializing what happened...i only have a few short sentences to get a point across.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
"Why care about building 7"?

Wow.Besides it not being hit by a plane,falling from fire at free fall speed in it's own footprint(just like a controlled demo)and the witnesses to the explosions and the explosions caught in tape like it shows here?
www.youtube.com...

Steel and concrete buildings don't just fall like a sack of bricks from fire.If this were the case then all the demolition companies would be out of business.Np need for months of planning,explosives and paying people to set them up when all you have to do is sprinkle some jet fuel and light a match...and voila a couple of hours the building is down.....I don't think so.

Don't people understand that all the supports would have to fail simultaneously to get the building to fall like that.Fire cannot do this.Even if you set fire to all the supports at the same time it still wouldn't happen.If this were the case they wouldn't build them that big.

It was a controlled demo.There is no other way to make a building fall like that.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by OnTheFelt
 


Oh I get it, so fires dont have an effect on steel then?


Well gee I guess those 7 hours of fires in WTC7 did absolutely nothing then right? I mean come now, steel exposed to fire, failing? psh!
And this little video of a steel beam exposed to just jet fuel burning (which every single TMer out there swears that jet fuel burns not even hot enough to affect steel) that failed within a few minutes was just hocus-pocus right?
as if the evil Fox news controlling National Geographic bent the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, etc, to make this solid steel fail from fire alone, using black magic right? And the fires in WTC7 burned office supplies, and so do these fires also burn at much too low a temperature to affect steel?


Ladies and gentlemen, apparently steel cannot fail from fire. Not from jet fuel burning, not from an entire contents of an office building, not from burning for 6-7 hours. Simply stunning. I wonder why then did Windsor Tower's steel fail within two hours of exposure to fire. How did the steel beam in the NG video fail so fast then? Come on now OnTheFelt, you must surely have some idea as to how the evil Fox Media Corporation managed to make a steel beam fail from just exposure to a jet fuel fire. Well out with it. Unless your huge personal incredulity trumps facts. Please the floor is yours, explain how Fox purposly made the steel beam fail from jet fuel fires alone. I'm waiting. Black magic? Pixy Dust? Hushaboom tech. Please answer.

You guys are a laugh riot.


[edit on 8/19/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Typical....you spouted off a boat load of useless gribble but again failed to say anything of any relevance.


One more time for the cheap seats:

YOUR VIDEO IS AN EXPERIMENT TO TEST THE EFFECTS OF JET FUEL!

Any additional speculation on your part is completely irrelevant because this discussion is about WTC 7.

*SNIP*

Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny.

[edit on Thu Aug 19 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
well that just kinda shows you how pathetic our federal government is glad some people are doing experiments themselves just to get the truth out



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OnTheFelt
 


oh temper temper OnTheFelt. I almost forgot that questioning ones deep faith can provoke such anger.

You see, the TM was squaking like hell about how jet fuel is not hot enough to affect steel. This video shows that wrong.

WTC7 burned for hours and the steel failed from fires alone as well. Steel can and always will be affected by fires, be they jet fueled or "office supplies" burning. WTC7 showed it. Windsor Tower showed it.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


hmmm where to start
the test on the beam was to see if would get the holes in it from the combo of different chemicals present in office building burning
yes steel will be affected by fire but it will not melt period, especially at the rate showed by the video the steel was pouring out of the building

if you can prove that it can please get it on video so i can see it melting in large quantities





top topics
 
133
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join