WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

It's never too late for the truth, we might be able to agree on that at least.

The truth is very simple in regard to 9/11.

* No demolition explosives

* No thermite

* No nukes

* No space beam weapons

* No pools of molten steel

* No remote controlled aircraft

* No 9/11 false flag operation

* Fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7

* Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible

originally posted by: matadoor

I knew this would happen. Trolls, who won't post a damned thing about what they bring as credentials, who are more than ready to pick apart someone else's.

Wrong again...

The wonder of the internet is that from day one people were pretending to be anything other than what they really are... In most cases people tend to go for what they would like to be seen as, or in this case what would validate their opinion.

Simply posting your credentials is not enough to establish identity.

This is one of the reasons I refuse to bother, not only do I have my immediate and future concerns to protect, but there would be little point as those who would care to know can simply say 'how do I know that's you?'

And I think your accusation of anyone being a Troll here is absolutely wrong. Thus far thankfully, even though we have had quite a heated debate with accusations flying left right and center... it has been a civil and on topic debate...

Can you bring yourself to at least concur with that?

a reply to: skyeagle409

No demolition explosives

Evidence especially video evidence of at the time of 9/11 will debunk your statement as well as Witness testimonies.

No thermite

Again as we have seen in lots and lots of videos and interviews there was Thermite.

No nukes No space beam weapons

I will agree with you on these 2.

No pools of molten steel

Sorry your wrong there. Pools of molten steel were under all 3 buildings and were being found for days after. As per satellite photos and witness testimonies!

No remote controlled aircraft

That's still a theory but the Pentagon was hit by a missile and the Shanksville story was just plain stupid!

No 9/11 false flag operation

Well of course it was.

Fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7

LMAO.......NOT

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible

Again no. Evidence does not support that theory. Ask the US authorities and Israel!

a reply to: Nova937

Evidence especially video evidence of at the time of 9/11 will debunk your statement as well as Witness testimonies.

Let's take a look and to see if you are correct, but first, let's hear what demo explosions sound like.



Now that you know what demo explosions sound like, please identify the time lines in this video where demo explosions are heard. First, let's take a look at WTC 1.



No explosions as WTC 1 collapsed. If you think you heard explosions, identify the time lines. Now, let's take a look at WTC 2.



No explosions as WTC 2 collapsed. If you think you heard explosions, indentify the time lines. Now, let's take a look at WTC 7.



No explosions as WTC 7 collapsed. If you think you heard explosions, identify the time lines, otherwise, I will conclude that the lack of explosions is proof that claims of demo explosions at ground zero were fabricated.

As far as witness testimony of explosions, that is not evidence that demo explosives were used and in fact, the sounds of explosions they heard had nothing to do with explosives. Check it out.

The Elevator Man's Tale

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind...What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.


Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.


Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.


Craig Carlsen

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

During an NBC news report, the reported had said that firefighters also reported exploding gas lines in the area. So as you can see, no one heard demo explosions at ground zero. Truthers didn't bother to do any homework to follow-up on such claims.

Again as we have seen in lots and lots of videos and interviews there was Thermite.

What videos? There are no videos depicting thermite and in addition, Steven Jones was caught lying about thermite and even the BYU and scientist and engineers dismissed the termite claim of Steven Jones, but you would have known that if you had done your homework. Check it out.

Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the (Steven Jones) paper

A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

Letter to the Editor (About Steven Jones)
April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

www.debunking911.com...

In other words, BYU and experts have dismissed thermite at ground zero.

originally posted by: Nova937
a reply to: skyeagle409

No demolition explosives

Evidence especially video evidence of at the time of 9/11 will debunk your statement as well as Witness testimonies.

Every video ever produced that is NOT altered by truthers, has absolutely no explosions. Period.

No thermite

Again as we have seen in lots and lots of videos and interviews there was Thermite.

So, again, just making sure, when was this Thermite installed and how did it evade being found, and then who set it off and why didn't they set it off in '93?

No nukes No space beam weapons

I will agree with you on these 2.

No pools of molten steel

Sorry your wrong there. Pools of molten steel were under all 3 buildings and were being found for days after. As per satellite photos and witness testimonies!

Show us proof from reliable sources, not "change history by posting your history here" websites.

No remote controlled aircraft

That's still a theory but the Pentagon was hit by a missile and the Shanksville story was just plain stupid!

Sorry, the Pentagon was hit by a plane, and a lot of people died, my niece was giving a presentation to a company in DC and watched the plane hit the Pentagon, so I have a DIRECT eye witness report.

No 9/11 false flag operation

Well of course it was.

Fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7

LMAO.......NOT

LMAO SO!!!!

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible

Again no. Evidence does not support that theory. Ask the US authorities and Israel!

Bin Laden claimed responsibility after he had denied it, because he feared what the US would do in response. When he thought he was safe from retaliation, he then claimed responsibility.

a reply to: matadoor

Show us proof from reliable sources, not "change history by posting your history here" websites.

Still riding that dead horse? And you really think you can get anywhere whith this? Why didn't you simply try to refute the information but decided to shoot the messenger instead?

Let me guess: you were unable to do so because the information turned out to be accurate?
Right, let's do this again with another example:

In July 1945, a B-25 Army bomber struck the Empire State Building, killing 14 people. [NEW YORK TIMES, 2/26/1981]

www.historycommons.org...

That's right, the original source is attached and I can't see how history was rewritten.
You make up this kind of bullsh!t all day to avoid serious discussions, do you?

a reply to: Nova937

Sorry your wrong there. Pools of molten steel were under all 3 buildings and were being found for days after. As per satellite photos and witness testimonies!

The satellite photos depicted temperatures that were far too low to melt steel, but they did indicate the temperature levels were above the melting point of aluminum, which was in abundance in the facade of WTC 1 and WTC 4 and in the airframes of the aircraft that struck those buildings.

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster

By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.

(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the morning of 9-11.

It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed from series 2000 aluminum alloys.

Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 C, for pure aluminum, to about 548  C for alloy 2024. This relatively low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse.

But is there any direct evidence for the presence of molten aluminum at the WTC site on 9-11? The answer to this question is an emphatic: “Yes!” The formation of molten aluminum in WTC 2 just prior to its collapse was discussed in the well known FEMA and NIST Reports on the performance of the WTC buildings during 9-11. Here are the pertinent references:
FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2.3, page 34:

“Just prior to the collapse (of WTC 2), a stream of molten metal- possibly aluminum from the airliner – was seen streaming out of a window opening at the northeast corner (near the 80th floor level).”
NIST: Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43:

“Starting around 9:52 a.m., a molten material began to pour from the top of window 80-256 on the north face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59 a.m. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.”

www.911myths.com...

The temperatures recorded at ground zero were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel, which simply means that the molten metal pools could not have been steel.

That's still a theory but the Pentagon...

There were no remote controlled airliners involved in the 9/11 attack because there were only cetain number of B-757-200 and B-767-200 series aircraft built and all are accountable. Secondly, did you really think that such aircraft could have been illegally modified under the noses of American Airlines and United Airlines for many months? The aircraft were not switched because it would take me less than 30 minutes to reveal a switched aircraft, it is that easy. How are you going to switch such aircraft and not attract a lot of attention from ATC and the airlines?

Apparently, American Airlines and United Airlines announced the loss of their aircraft.

Text: United Airlines Statement on Plane Crashes

Following is a statement issued by United Airlines on the crash of Flight 93 near Pittsburgh and Flight 175 in a location that was not immediately disclosed:
United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed.

— UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

— UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers on board, two pilots and seven flight attendants.

United has confirmed it will dispatch a team to Johnstown, Pa., as soon as possible to assist, in every way possible, with the investigation and to provide assistance to the family members.

“Our thoughts are with the passengers, employees and family members of those involved. Today’s events are a tragedy and our prayers are with everyone at this time,” said James E. Goodwin, United’s CEO.
Goodwin said United is working with all the relevant authorities involved in today’s events and will provide further information as soon as it is available.

www.washingtonpost.com...

As you can see, American Airlines and United Airlines had confirmed the loss of their aircraft, but you would have known that if you had bothered to do your homework.

....was hit by a missile and the Shanksville story was just plain stupid!

The Pentagon was not hit by a missile, and in fact, my Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 struck and he said nothing about a missile, but of an airliner in the colors of American Airlines. In addition, a cruise missile could not have caused the level of damage outside the Pentagon, (damaged generator and damaged light poles) and inside the Pentagon, (damaged steel columns).

Now, let's take a look here because these photos and you will notice that the wreckage at the Pentagon are not from a missile.

B-757 Wing Flaps at the Pentagon

B-757 Fuselage Wreckage at the Pentagon

Rolls Royce RB211-535 Engine Remains at the Pentagon


As you can plainly see, the Pentagon missile claim was a fabrication and you were duped by that very fact.

Well of course it was.

There was no false flag, especially since countries around the world had issued warnings that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would be responsible, not the United States.

They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11

www.historycommons.org...

Osama bin Laden Determined to Strike the United Sttates Report

Ask you can plainly see, you are incorrect on all counts because you didn't bother to do your homework.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: matadoor

Show us proof from reliable sources, not "change history by posting your history here" websites.

Still riding that dead horse? And you really think you can get anywhere whith this? Why didn't you simply try to refute the information but decided to shoot the messenger instead?

Let me guess: you were unable to do so because the information turned out to be accurate?
Right, let's do this again with another example:

In July 1945, a B-25 Army bomber struck the Empire State Building, killing 14 people. [NEW YORK TIMES, 2/26/1981]

www.historycommons.org...

That's right, the original source is attached and I can't see how history was rewritten.
You make up this kind of bullsh!t all day to avoid serious discussions, do you?

Oh, riding a dead horse, seemed to keep you up all night. Not such a dead horse after all.

No, I just want you to post real facts instead of truther bull#. I see you had to go back to 1945 to finally find something that matched reality on History Commons, that was my Dad's generation, and they were extremely factual in their reporting. Nice digging, must have taken all night, I was wondering where you were. See how hard it was to find something that actually matched reality? 1945, amazing, I can't hardly contain myself. Actually I'm laughing my ass off, truth be told.

I won't be around for a while, I have to actually pay the bills.

a reply to: Nova937

LMAO.......NOT

Let's ask the experts.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and thecenter steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

vincentdunn.com...


American Society of Civil Engineers

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

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.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

As you can see, the experts do not agree with what you say.

Again no. Evidence does not support that theory.

Let's take a look here.

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people.

www.foxnews.com...


Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

al-Qaeda Presents the 9/11 Hijackers


Al-Qaeda released martyr videos for most of the 9/11 hijackers

The Al Jazeera satellite network shows an hour-long video about al-Qaeda containing footage given to it from al-Qaeda of some of the 9/11 hijackers, including a martyr video from hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari (see September 9, 2002 and September 9, 2002).

A martyr video from hijacker Ahmed Alhaznawi was shown in April 2002. But this new hour-long video contains images of each of the hijacker teams that hijacked Flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 on September 11. These images show pictures of each hijacker in the team floating over a background.

al-Qaeda Presents the 9/11 Hijackers

To sum it up, you have been proven to be incorrect on all counts and in that case, it's case-close.

a reply to: matadoor

Every video ever produced that is NOT altered by truthers,

Are you accusing people searching for the truth of faking evidence? Do you know what you are saying?

Bin Laden claimed responsibility after he had denied it, because he feared what the US would do in response. When he thought he was safe from retaliation, he then claimed responsibility.

That is complete and utter BOLLOCKS! The videos released by the CIA of OBL admitting 9/11 were Fake!

Christ! OS'ers!!!

Sorry, the Pentagon was hit by a plane, and a lot of people died, my niece was giving a presentation to a company in DC and watched the plane hit the Pentagon, so I have a DIRECT eye witness report.

Really? And I have to take your word for it? Your word against the Hundreds of Experts that say NO plane hit the Pentagon, your word against the witnesses that walked out of the 16 foot wide hole who testified to not seeing an aircraft or parts?

Don't think so.

Hundreds of University Professors, Engineers, Architects, Pilots, Military and Intelligence Personnel say no plane hit the Pentagon yet you say your niece says otherwise!!

Hmmmmm

a reply to: matadoor

Man, you are hilarious. I do have some trouble to imagine how you refute anything on historycommons, but go ahead and prove me wrong! Show me one entry, that has no source attached and/or proliferates disinfo, just one. Should be easy as pie if you would be right on the money here, which you don't.

Copping-out again, thought you have this week off?

Well... have a nice obeyday then!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

The B-25 is much smaller, slower and did not carry the fuel capacity of a B-767. Secondly, the Empire State Building does not share identical construction techniques of the WTC buildings.

a reply to: Nova937

Now that it is has been proven that you are incorrect on a regular basis, there is not much you can say about the 9/11 attack unless you are determined to continue posting disinformation and lies.

a reply to: Nova937

Really? And I have to take your word for it? Your word against the Hundreds of Experts that say NO plane hit the Pentagon,...

That is false. My Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when Amerrican 77 struck. The witnesses described an airliner, not a missile, which proves that what you are posting is false.

...
your word against the witnesses that walked out of the 16 foot wide hole who testified to not seeing an aircraft or parts?

Let's take a look at the hole on the side of the Empire State Building that was struck by a B-25 bomber.

Impact Hole of that B-25 Bomber

Let's take a look because these B-757 flaps did not come from a missile.

B-757 Wing Flaps at the Pentagon

And neither did the landing gear, wheel assembly and engine components.

B-757 Wreckage at the Pentagon

What better way to discredit truthers than to let them do it themselves.

a reply to: Nova937

There are far more people who watched Flight 77 approach/impact the Pentagon, than there are "experts" who were NOT there who say there was no aircraft. Now, if you want to discuss April Gallop and her claims, I will point out that she sued American Airlines because Flight 77 hit the Pentagon....not to mention, she has been caught lying more than once.

a reply to: Nova937

Hundreds of University Professors, Engineers, Architects, Pilots, Military and Intelligence Personnel say no plane hit the Pentagon...

They are all lying and here's more proof.

a reply to: Nova937

That is complete and utter BOLLOCKS! The videos released by the CIA of OBL admitting 9/11 were Fake!

Let's take a look here.

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people.

Injecting himself into the campaign four days ahead of the presidential election, bin Laden said the United States can avoid another Sept. 11-style attack if it stops threatening the security of Muslims.

www.foxnews.com...


Al-Qaeda released martyr videos for most of the 9/11 hijackers

The Al Jazeera satellite network shows an hour-long video about al-Qaeda containing footage given to it from al-Qaeda of some of the 9/11 hijackers, including a martyr video from hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari (see September 9, 2002 and September 9, 2002).

And, who was Head of al-Qaeda?! Osama bin Laden.

What better way to discredit truthers than to let them do it themselves.

a reply to: matadoor

Truthers have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no credibility.

a reply to: matadoor

I'm one of the smallest Libertarians in the country, but even I understand that when a person accepts at face value the statements of known liars, that person is not acting in a rational manner.

a reply to: Salander

We have proven the truthers are not only conveyors of disinformation, hoaxed and bogus videos and doctored photos, but are also known for not telling the truth.