WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Salander

A person struggling under certain delusions does not realize he is under delusions. That's rather the point. You actually believe what the mainstream media has to say, without any questions asked. I am quite the opposite.

What ever gave you the idea that I depend on the media, which in fact, I have the experience as a pilot and airframe structural technician to know when to hold 'em, and when to throw 'em? That is another reason why I have confronted the founder of "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" when I caught him and his group posting disinformation and in some cases, outright lies.

I have consistently corrected truthers whenever I caught them posting false and misleading information simply because they were posting things that didn't reflect reality in the real world of aviation.

I was on duty at Travis AFB during the 9/11 attack and my Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when it was struck by American 77, so it is amazing to me that there are those who actually believe that a missile struck the Pentagon. Never mind that I have identified wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon as wreckage from a B-757 in the colors of American Airlines.

The mainstream media is utterly corrupt and without conscience. It does not know right from wrong, and is far more interested in advancing an agenda, something other than the truth.

Truth?! What do truthers know about the truth? In two weeks, truthers hit me with a hoaxed video of WTC 7, the same hoaxed video that I posted a reference to in order to prove my case that truthers were posting hoaxed videos and photos. Simply amazing that truthers posted that hoaxed video after I posted a reference to that same video in order to prove my case!!

With that in mind, it is no secret why the Truth Movement is not taken seriously, except by those who allow themselves to be duped on a regular basis. After all, much of what truthers have been posting was planted disinformation, hoaxed videos and photos in order to discredit the Truth Movement, and it worked because truthers were too blind to see that what they were reposting was planted in order to discredit them.

In other words, truthers were handed ropes, which they used to hang themselves with.

Your arrogant appeal to authority is duly noted. I don't care how long you spent in the USAF good sir, you don't know when you've been deceived.

And in your short time here you have already admitted to having posted a hoaxed video. Are you, like, Hoax Man?

In the meantime you slander the architects and pilots and call them liars, as tho you are a source of truth. Classy debating style that is not. Tasteless name-calling it is.

What happened that day were staged events, a false flag operation meant to advance an agenda. The pilots and the architects both know that to one extent or the other. So do many others know--the official story cannot be proved, it is false. Your pictures and video prove nothing. Quoting Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld makes nothing true, and suggests you have had your head in the sand for quite a few years, unaware of things that have been discovered over the years.

a reply to: Salander

Your arrogant appeal to authority is duly noted. I don't care how long you spent in the USAF good sir, you don't know when you've been deceived.

On the contrary, you have been deceived, which can be proven by the fact that you continue to post disinformation that has been proven as such.

And in your short time here you have already admitted to having posted a hoaxed video. Are you, like, Hoax Man?

No, but I posted a reference before about that hoaxed video and look what happened next. Truthers threw that same hoaxed video back at me claiming that it was proof that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives. No wonder truthers have no credibility and why the Truth Movement is a laughing stock on the Internet.

In the meantime you slander the architects and pilots and call them liars,...

Whatever gave you the false impression that you had the support of architects and pilots? The overwhelming majority of architects, structural and civil engineers, and pilots, do not support the Truther Movement at all. In fact, architects have distanced themselves from the Truth Movement and I even posted reference to that fact, but it seems that you missed the boat.

What happened that day were staged events, a false flag operation meant to advance an agenda.

Your false flag claim was discredited years ago, which is why there is no such evidence after 14 years and why you cannot provide a shred of evidence of a 9/11 false flag operation.

a reply to: LaBTop
Once in a while you need to use google with some keywords and only select the last results. Yes that guy did an amazing compilation of work and also seems to have time and skills to do that. He is also aware of disinfo which makes it a genuine site imho.

Here's a good example of a point I was trying to make a few pages back: steel under intense stress will fail with a loud explosive bang.



More steel. More stress. Bigger bang.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
Here's a good example of a point I was trying to make a few pages back: steel under intense stress will fail with a loud explosive bang.

More steel. More stress. Bigger bang.

Well obviously explosives were used, as it made a loud noise!

a reply to: hellobruce

Lol.
That was obviously a good stress test of pretension cabling. Designed to cause it to fail. Seen that performed before, though I'll admit that the piece they were testing was really rather corroded for a normal test.
Of course, it could just as easily have been some other type of cable, not just a structural cable. Just my personal experience causing me to assume it's a pretension cable. But the point still stands, they are indeed noisy when they go.
Though, does that translate to girters or columns?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I asked the above question because what the bangs would have been caused by would have been a separate set of stressors in any of the WTC collapses. Mostly floor clip bolts failing, floor trusses shearing, and column steel buckling. Not saying that the bangs couldn't be accounted for by these, just pointing out that your video still leaves room for contention.

a reply to: pfishy

Not only that, but also whatever caused those "bangs" also managed to propel very large pieces of steel sideways, as far as 400 feet.

a reply to: Salander

Yeah, kinetic energy is quite the thing, isn't it? It makes noise. It's violent when released suddenly. It can even flash brightly.

a reply to: Salander

Not only that, but also whatever caused those "bangs" also managed to propel very large pieces of steel sideways, as far as 400 feet.

Once again, what you are posting is false. In this video, nothing is being blown laterally by explosives and you will notice that dust plumes and debris are outpacing the collapse which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the WTC building is not collapsing at free fall speed.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Three times in one day we see three buildings perform their own
perfect demolition. TC7 was one of those buildings, but for some
reason decided to be a little stubborn that day. The buildings alone
were able to acheive what took man as a skill years to hone.
And to this date months of careful planning using perfectly placed
explosives. The two towers dwarfed everything else in New York
city and just about anything built by man.
But the OS asks us to believe this. Spoon bending aviators, ask us to
believe this. Without any idea why, well written blog site owners
ask iron workers to just believe this. Well, most of us won't even
go so far as to lie and say we believe this. Does patriotism have
to be blind or something? Did I miss that part? Today we see more
and more people many dignitaries skeptical to the max of how
ridiculous the whole debacle is.
And it seems to me that anyone who isn't SKEPTICAL of the OS?
Invites our rulers to just perform any old lie in the future. And that
just looks like a bunch of greedy idiots, leading the blind. Everyday I've
stood on the iron since 911. This is what goes thru my mind.

a reply to: randyvs

Skeptical to the max...
Ah, children of the 80's always out themselves eventually.

(Grody to the max popped into my head when I read it. Remember that one?)

I would have to say, though, even after all this time, enough people believe at least the core structure of the OS to make them a majority. Maybe they don't buy it part and parcel, but as far as the mechanics behind the buildings falling, probably so.
Take that however you like. I'm not arguing the point either way. Just saying that I think those folks are still the majority.

a reply to: pfishy

Ah, children of the 80's always out themselves eventually.

That must have been popularized by my crew in the seventies then.

Just saying that I think those folks are still the majority.

I have no argument citing the amount of actual knowledge possessed
by that majority and the comfort offered to blind believers.

a reply to: randyvs

Considering that the overwhelming majority of architects, demolition experts, structural and civil engineers, and firefighters support the conclusion that fire, in conjunciton with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, and of course, fire alone for the internal collapse of WTC 5, what more is there to say?

a reply to: skyeagle409

Then have them prove it. And I don't mean with any silly ass
falsifiable data or flawed studies or demonstrations on video.
Show us how the whole trade of explosive demolition is just
a farce and buildings fall in their own foot print with perfect
symmetry when ever they choose. It can't be done not once
not ever.

a reply to: randyvs

Then have them prove it.

They already have and if you had been paying attenition, you would have noticed the evidence that I have been providing.

falsifiable data or flawed studies or demonstrations on video.

Nothing falsified on my part, unlike the hoaxed video you posted.

Show us how the whole trade of explosive demolition is just a farce and buildings fall in their own foot print with perfect
symmetry when ever they choose. It can't be done not once not ever.

To prove that you have been ignoring my presentations, explain to us why these buildings are falling down in their own footprints without explosives.



Why did this 21-story steel frame building fall straight down without explosives?

Photo: Totallly Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Building

Now, what was that you were saying when you said, "It can't be done not once not ever?"

a reply to: skyeagle409

Where's the fire and airplane ?

a reply to: randyvs

No fires, no airplanes and not in it's own footprint, of course.
Your argument stands, as usual.

When the magnitude and duration of the quake are considered, the performance as a whole of the one million structures in the city was very good.

911research.wtc7.net...

Bending spoons with awesome comparisons, side is hurting again.

a reply to: Salander

Are we talking about a steel beam from the core? And in case we are, what are the odds for such a piece to make it's way through the exterior/ debris into an adjacent building? Care to elaborate?

a reply to: randyvs

Where's the fire and airplane ?

In regards to WTC 2, we can take a look here and notice the fire at the exact location where much of the wreckage of United 175 came to rest.



We know that United 175 crashed into WTC 2 and we have not only radar data, but we have videos as well.



And of course, we have wreckage of United 175.

Photo 1: United 175 Wreckage

Photo 2: United 175 Engine

And of course, we have this.

WTC Aircraft Impacts