WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

I can cherry pick to.

The sound of explosions is not evidence that explosives were responsible, especially in New York City, which experiences 2100 explosions per year, explosions that had nothing to do with explosives.

Oh did it go up a 100, I can see it now people getting blown up all over the place every day, 2100 x 365, your too funny man.. why don't we hear of this on the news every day, AND I DID SAY EVERY DAY,, your such a hoot.. LOL

a reply to: skyeagle409 It seems as though those who claim to be the most open minded are, in fact, the most close-minded. Those who claim that science supports their unsupported and predetermined conclusions have no idea of the science involved and merely parrot their sources without any comprehension.

Like the OS believers do.

a reply to: pteridine

It seems as though those who claim to be the most open minded are, in fact, the most close-minded. Those who claim that science supports their unsupported and predetermined conclusions have no idea of the science involved and merely parrot their sources without any comprehension.

DITTO!!! Exactly!

They have claimed that explosions from explosives were heard in the lobby, but when I posted testimony of those who were in the lobby who confirmed that crashing elevators were responsible for the wind and noise, the same folks came back later claiming that explosives were responsible.

When asked for evidence, they say it was the noise.

What your saying is that people who do not believe in the proven lies of the OS are idiots and have no education.

The only thing OS supporters can do at this point and it has just been demonstrated right here is to ridicule everyone that doesn't support the OS lies and pat each other backs.

originally posted by: Informer1958
Like the OS believers do.

It is those who support A&E and Gage who have little knowledge of science. They do not follow the evidence, they fabricate it.
If, however, you claim to be knowledgeable about science, you must be ready to argue the points of the Jones paper. If you are not knowledgeable, I will understand your reluctance to engage.

Now the truth has to be fabricated! By people who do not support the OS lies. Well said.


You were debunked over Jones science many years ago, I should know I was the one that you were dealing with. I watched you twist Jones science and twist his work and you made out right nasty negative remarks as you still do.

a reply to: Informer1958

Now the truth has to be fabricated! By people who do not support the OS lies. Well said.

Considering that you have yet to provide evidence of demo explosions and thermite, you have no case.

The fact is you have no case.

originally posted by: Informer1958
What your saying is that people who do not believe in the proven lies of the OS are idiots and have no education.

The only thing OS supporters can do at this point and it has just been demonstrated right here is to ridicule everyone that doesn't support the OS lies and pat each other backs.

I am saying that the people who support a demolition theory have no hard evidence and are unable to reach the conclusion that they have no evidence. Their close-mindedness cannot accept that fact, so they must fabricate "evidence" to keep their fantasies alive. They disparagingly dismiss reason and ridicule everyone that doesn't support their position. As is usual, they often call out those they disagree with as "liars" and often call anything that makes them uncomfortable a "lie."

a reply to: Informer1958

The only thing OS supporters can do at this point and it has just been demonstrated right here is to ridicule everyone that doesn't support the OS lies and pat each other backs.

The Truth Movement has been doing a great job of ridiculing itself over the years. The people who have been giving one another pats on the backs were the same people who've fed disinformation on the websites of conspiracy theorist knowing that conspiracy theorist would post that disinformation back on the Internet where it would be used to discredit the Truth Movement and it worked.

Disinformation Killed 9/11 “Truth”

By 2009, the 9/11 “Truth” Movement was so inundated with disinformation that it had become a laughingstock. The easily-discredited claims (lies) contaminated the greater issue and soiled dissenters across the board. “Turd blossom” was a Karl Rove phrase that could describe what the movement had devolved into.

The media, whether corporate or foundation-funded, could find people ranting about “the Jews” or the Illuminati, the Lizard People, the missiles, holograms, mini-nukes or space beam weapons vaporizing the Twin Towers.

www.911truth.org...

a reply to: Informer1958
I did debunk Jones "science" and you were a spectator as I disassembled his paper. You would not accept the facts as you were close minded then. If you would like, we can do it again. I will explain things so you can understand them.

a reply to: Informer1958

The fact is you have no case.

All you have to do is to prove it. After all, it has been 14 years and counting, and still no evidence supporting your case.

a reply to: Informer1958

You were debunked over Jones science many years ago, I should know I was the one that you were dealing with. I watched you twist Jones science and twist his work and you made out right nasty negative remarks as you still do.

Apparently, you missed the rest of the story about Steven Jones.

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."

www.debunking911.com...


Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

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

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

Let's not forget that Steven Jones claimed this photo depicted molten steel.

Steven Jones Claimed this Photo is Evidence of Molten Steel.

a reply to: pteridine

I am saying that the people who support a demolition theory have no hard evidence and are unable to reach the conclusion that they have no evidence. Their close-mindedness cannot accept that fact, so they must fabricate "evidence" to keep their fantasies alive.

You go tell that to the 500 credible eyewitness and many of them that survived some of the explosions before the WTC came down.

You go and tell them all that they are all lairs.
You go and tell them that they fabricated their testimonies so they could all live in a fantasy world.

You go tell them how close minded they are.

a reply to: Informer1958

You go tell that to the 500 credible eyewitness and many of them that survived some of the explosions before the WTC came down.

Hours and minutes before, and after the collapse of the WTC buildings doesn't cut it because that is not the way demo implosions work. Since none of the 500 witnesses produced evidence of explosives, the case is made that what they heard had nothing to do with explosives.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Hours and minutes before, and after the collapse of the WTC buildings doesn't cut it because that is not the way demo implosions work. Since none of the 500 witnesses produced evidence of explosives, the case is made that what they heard had nothing to do with explosives.

You have posted this statement probably over a hundred times in every 911 thread.
The same for you, you go tell of these 500 eyewitness that they are lairs. Tell them to their faces!

Go tell the ones that were burned in the explosions that survived, while losing their office buddies, and friends in the WTC that they are lairs. Go tell them the crap you talk on here to the ones that had 60 % burns all over their bodies and spent weeks in the hospitals.

Go tell the firemen, police officers, first respondents that went on record of witnessing explosions that they are all lairs to.

Because that is what you have been implying when you continue to span this thread that there was no explosions.

Go rub it in their faces and tell them how happy you are that no demolition debris where found at ground zero and that is proof enough to you that all these people told lies.

Tell them how happy you are about the 911 Commission Report and their investigation into WTC 7.
Tell them how happy you are about the phony NIST report and you stand behind their lies.

Tell them how delighted you are on how the Bush Administration handled the 911 investigation.

Tell all these WTC survivors that they are the enemy of truth by going on the written Record.

I am not the one spewing such hatred against truth as I have seen by two posters on here, it is disgusting.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

I am saying that the people who support a demolition theory have no hard evidence and are unable to reach the conclusion that they have no evidence. Their close-mindedness cannot accept that fact, so they must fabricate "evidence" to keep their fantasies alive.

You go tell that to the 500 credible eyewitness and many of them that survived some of the explosions before the WTC came down.

You go and tell them all that they are all lairs.
You go and tell them that they fabricated their testimonies so they could all live in a fantasy world.

You go tell them how close minded they are.

I do appreciate your emotional diatribe as that means you are running out of argument and must revert to this. I would never call them "lairs" (sic) as they reported what they heard at the time. [I find that those who continually call others liars usually resort to this when they find themselves in a losing position.] They heard loud noises and didn't know what they were. Some of them later discovered that the sounds were of the structural collapse. Certainly, closed containers bursting in the heat of the fires would be classified as explosions but all of this does not show demolition. None heard the series of sharp explosions that indicates a conventional building demolition. Remember that the first responders were unsure of the situation and made comments in the heat of the moment. A&E, and other such cults, have used these comments as proof of their conspiracy position(s), much to the dismay of those involved.
If there was a plot, why would the plotters risk exposure by using explosives? If their goal was to incite military action wouldn't the attack be enough? The planes were more destructive than any non-nuclear cruise missile and the horror of the public at the destruction and death of innocent victims was sufficient to accomplish any political motive. The accuracy and cleverness ascribed to the plotters by some should carry over to the plotters knowledge that the planes were sufficient to destroy the buildings or damage them beyond repair. The omniscient plotters wouldn't have to use nano-thermite that had been painted on the structure 30+ years before nano-thermite was invented. After all, according to Stevie, there was 10 tons of "highly engineered" unreacted thermitic material in the debris. I find that statement interesting and wonder why such a "highly engineered" material couldn't find a way to react.

In a previous post, you suggested that you were somehow involved with my critique of the Jones paper. This must have been in a previous life as you registered in 2013 and turbofan and I discussed this in 2010. Are you a reincarnation?

a reply to: Informer1958

The same for you, you go tell of these 500 eyewitness that they are lairs.

If they claim the explosions were caused by bombs, I will simply tell them to produce the evidence. After all, tens of thousands of people hear explosions in New York City each year which had nothing to do with explosives.

Go tell the firemen, police officers, first respondents that went on record of witnessing explosions that they are all lairs to.

Tell that to the demolition experts who were working on other projects who have stated they heard no demo explosions.

Brent Blanchard Interview

Undicisettembre: What do you think of the collapses of the Twin Towers? Were they controlled demolitions in your opinion?

Brent Blanchard: In my opinion we haven't seen any evidence to indicate that. What we go by is evidence. My opinion is always based on what we can prove, and I try to eliminate conjecture and obviously with this subject there's a lot of conjecture.

So my direct answer to that question is no. There is no evidence that we have ever seen that it was a controlled demolition.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...

The firefighters and police officers never produced evidence of explosives either because they indicated the explosions they heard had nothing to do with explosives and to prove my point, post evidence of explosives for us all. If you are unable to do so, you have no case for explosives.

I am not the one spewing such hatred against truth as I have seen by two posters on here, it is disgusting.

I am not spewing hatred against the Truth Movement. I am saying that the Truth Movement is guilty of spewing disinformation, some of which were planted in order to discredit the Truth Movement, and are a result, the Truth Movement too it upon itself to post that well-placed disinformation back onto the Internet and it doing so, has made a mockery of itself and that explains why the Truth Movement is the laughingstock that it is today.

Now, we have truthers claiming no aircraft struck the Pentagon despite many photos of aircraft wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon.

We have truthers claiming the aircraft that struck WTC2 was a military version of the B-767 because no passenger windows were seen on the aircraft. Let's take a look to see if they are correct.

Passenger Windows of United 175

As the photo proves, the CT folks are incorrect because passenger windows are clearly evident in the photo.