WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: Informer1958

Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story

Quite amusing! You have to understand that evidence is the name-of-the game, not the polls.

What would the polls have said 6oo years ago if people were asked if the earth was round or flat? What would the polls have said 600 years ago if people were asked if the earth was the center of the universe?

BTW, where are those time lines and seismic data I have been requesting from you?

a reply to: skyeagle409

Nope, you are still wrong.

Brent Blanchard is a sell out, and was only given his opinions, nothing more.

Where is Brent Blanchard science?

You are basing someone's "opinions" as facts Brent Blanchard has no evidence to support his silly theories.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Considering that after 14 years, the OS remains firm. Now, let's take another look at AE 911 Truth.

No you are wrong again. I was responding to your comment to me in the above quote, proven you Wong that the OS is not firm.

BTW, where are those time lines and seismic data I have been requesting from you?

You where showing the evidence yet you continue to "ignore" everything.

I have a time line, I have a time line, I have a time line, prove my time line, prove my time line, if you cant that means the OS is all true.

a reply to: Informer1958

Once again, I am correct on all counts. It is rather peculiar that you disagree with the demolition experts who were operating those seismic monitors who have stated for the record that their seismic monitors did not detect demo detonations.

With that, it is evident that you are pushing disinformation and nothing else.

a reply to: Informer1958

No you are wrong again. I was responding to your comment to me in the above quote, proven you Wong that the OS is not firm.

Another fabrication from you, and to prove my point, prove me wrong, but first, post those time lines and seismic data, otherwise, simply throw in the towel and admit that no demo detonations occurred at ground zero.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: DarthFazer

Nano-thermite was found in the remains so no you are wrong. Your sanitized version of the evidence does not work.

Let's take a look here.

AE911 Truth Evidence

10. Evidence of thermite incendiaries in steel samples.

Now, let's take a look at the response to AE911 Truth's claim.

Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite

www.metabunk.org...


Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis
Mircrospheres

They found nothing that you would not expect to be there. The most touted "evidence" is iron microspheres, which are formed both in fires, and in violent scraping of steel.

The collapses of the WTC towers (the dust from which covered WTC7) was guaranteed to produce these spheres. In fact investigators used iron microsphere as a "signature" when examining the extent of the spread of the WTC dust.

In addition, thermite is made from iron oxide and aluminum - vast amounts of were would be found in the towers, so obviously would also be found in the dust.

www.metabunk.org...

Now, let's see just how easy it is to produce such spheres.

You post that crappy excuse of a debunk-trial in every thread now? Well... that's an easy one. They 'somehow' forgot to mention, that the WTC-dust is composed of 20% mineral-wool and iron only. And we didn't talk about size and variations of spheres, fly-ash or portland-cement and office fires (your lighter) could never be accountable for their sheer abundancy. So... yes. A few good studies prove the use of Thermite or other explosives, indeed. There is even more to be found if we would take residues of various fishy chemicals into account.

I've explained this a few times now and you tend to ignore all points, rather consequently I guess. So let me ask you this: what exactly went wrong between us? Which of those findings were you able to debunk where and when? Did I miss anything or was that cop-out really your complete answer?

A piece of irony iron and a quarter star for you, spameagle! You either lie willingly or don't know what you are talking about. I expect the latter to be the case here, prove me wrong if you like!

Another fabrication from you, and to prove my point, prove me wrong, but first, post those time lines and seismic data, otherwise, simply throw in the towel and admit that no demo detonations occurred at ground zero.

Give it up, you are in denial , regardless of what happened we were lied to. If you want to argue that you are a fool.. don't be a fool...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Once again, I am correct on all counts.

In your own believe system, I believe that you believe you are right. However I don't, and I disagree with you on many accounts.

It is rather peculiar that you disagree with the demolition experts who were operating those seismic monitors who have stated for the record that their seismic monitors did not detect demo detonations.

That my friend is so true especially when you post Brent Blanchard "opinions".

With that, it is evident that you are pushing disinformation and nothing else.

LOL, care to prove that? If any one on here is posting disinformation it is you my friend and you have been caught doing it many times on the 911 threads and the fact is many posters have called you out on it including me.

I have never posted disinformation on any 911 thread and if I had people would be screaming about it.

You lose in your support in the OS and I do not see anyone supporting you.

a reply to: Informer1958

In your own believe system,...

Why of course, and the system works by the fact that you have yet to post those time lines and seismic data that prove me wrong.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Another fabrication from you, and to prove my point, prove me wrong, but first, post those time lines and seismic data, otherwise, simply throw in the towel and admit that no demo detonations occurred at ground zero.

If anyone on this thread is fabricating anything here it is you.

You need to find a hobby or get a life and simply throw in the towel because you will never fool me to believe the OS of the WTC is true.

You are so desperate at this point that you now call me a lair without proving it. How interesting.

I am convince you have a driven agenda on here and you are failing miserably.

a reply to: wildb

Give it up, you are in denial ...

Sorry, but that is not the way I work. Let's just say that I am energized, and until you post those time lines and seismic data depicting demo explosions in the WTC videos in question that proves me wrong, I will continue to be energized by your inability to prove me wrong.

Now, where are those time lines and seismic data? It is 14 years and counting.

If anyone on this thread is fabricating anything here it is you. You need to find a hobby or get a life and simply throw in the towel because you will never fool me to believe the OS of the WTC is true. You are so desperate at this point that you now call me a lair without proving it. How interesting. I am convince you have a driven agenda on here and you are failing miserably.

Well put , and he just admitted it..lol

Sorry, but that is not the way I work. Let's just say that I am energized, and until you post those time lines and seismic data depicting demo explosions in the WTC videos in question that proves me wrong, I will continued to be energized.

a reply to: Informer1958

If anyone on this thread is fabricating anything here it is you.

Sorry, but that is not reality, but the reality is, you are keeping me waiting for those time lines and seismic data. BTW, do you know how much Richard Gage has made in misleading truthers?

a reply to: skyeagle409

Why of course, and the system works by the fact that you have yet to post those time lines and seismic data that prove me wrong.

I have a time line, I have a time line, I have a time line, prove my time line, prove my time line, if you cant that means the OS is all true.

Just because your "silly" time line cannot be proven does not make the OS true.

A&E has proved you wrong and if you call that science disinformation you better be able to prove with real science that they are wrong. And no, "opinions" do not count as scientific facts.

a reply to: Informer1958

I have a time line, I have a time line, I have a time line, prove my time line, prove my time line, if you cant that means the OS is all true.

Post those time lines for all to see, along with the seismic data so we can match them up, otherwise, you have no case.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Sorry, but that is not reality, but the reality is, you are keeping me waiting for those time lines and seismic data. BTW, do you know how much Richard Gage has made in misleading truthers?

No I don't know how much money Richard Gage has made and I really don't care.

Do you know how much money NIST made? How about $3 million dollars to fool you and many others.

Post those time lines for all to see, along with the seismic data, otherwise, you have no case.

Note: For the 97th time.......

a reply to: skyeagle409

Post those time lines for all to see, along with the seismic data so we can match them up, otherwise, you have no case.

Your silly time line does not prove your case. Even if it cannot be proven.

You lose my friend in this debate, throw in the towel before you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

a reply to: Informer1958

No I don't know how much money Richard Gage has made and I really don't care.

He has made thousands misleading people. Let's take an example of many how he has done so.

Photo 1: AE 9/11 Truth Evidence of Molten Steel

Photo 2: AE 9/11 Truth Evidence of Molten Steel

It is evident that the steel you see in the photos was never in a molten state at ground zero. This is what solidified molten steel looks like.

Photo: Solidified Molten Steel

a reply to: skyeagle409

Yet you just ignored the very fact that I just posted to you, that NIST made millions of dollars to fool you.