It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 91
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 07:30 AM
a reply to: Informer1958

I am sure Richard Gage earns his money through his Architecture Firm and not from A&E.

He has no 'Architecture Firm'.
He used to works for Akol & Yoshii Architects & Engineers.
They specialize in schools and school 'add on' buildings.
Below are some of their biggest accomplishments.
2 story wood frame school
1 story school
1 story wood frame school
1 story wood frame theater

He has no experience in sky scrapers.

IMO in 2006 just before the crash, Akol & Yoshii business took a dive.
He saw the writing on the wall and Dyan Avery's first edition of Loose Change 2005.
The conspiracy activity and his credentials lead him to his now business.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 11:07 AM
It would seem that the A&E fans have left the building. We conclude that:

1. Gage gets paid by A&E and it is his full-time job
2. Gage is manipulative and won't stand for any questions by members of A&E
3. No evidence for demolition has ever been presented by A&E
4. Damage from falling debris and uncontrolled fires caused the collapse of WTC7

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 11:47 AM
a reply to: pteridine

It would seem that the A&E fans have left the building.

Odd how this thread just stopped after 90 pages.
Was it me?

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 11:50 AM
a reply to: pteridine

We conclude that

No, you conclude that...pretty presumptuous speaking for others mate.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 12:27 PM

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: pteridine

We conclude that

No, you conclude that...pretty presumptuous speaking for others mate.

The phraseology is typical of a scientific paper with more than one author. As there are several on this thread with the same conclusions, I wrote it as such. The supporters of Gage, et al. have disappeared after their claims were shown to be in error.
This is a typical response from so-called "truthers." When they cannot respond, they leave. They will undoubtedly start another thread making the same erroneous claims.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:48 PM
a reply to: pteridine

This is a typical response from so-called "truthers." When they cannot respond, they leave. They will undoubtedly start another thread making the same erroneous claims.

Your comments on Truthers is a fallacy.

Most of us including me left this thread because there is nothing more to discuss about 911.

The fact is the OP has already debunked you, and all of the OS supporters.

None of us believe you, and many of you OS supporters have failed miserably to prove the OS all true.

Many of the OS supporters "opinions" and "assumptions" are not facts. The only thing many of you can do at this point is ridicule Truthers, and the credible science which you sadly have just demonstrated.

OS supporters failed to disprove A&E science is wrong, but only attacked many of A&E scientists with false accusations and name calling.

Real Science doesn't lie.

So all the OS die hart supporters ( the very few that's on here ) can do is ridicule the facts because they have nothing else, not even any credible science to support any of their erroneous claims.

I believe there is only three OS supporters on this thread. The fact is the hundreds of ATSers do not support the OS and their posts are evidence of that.

Carry on trying to prove a fallacy is true, it is very entertaining.
edit on 9-10-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:07 PM
a reply to: Informer1958

Most of us including me left this thread because there is nothing more to discuss about 911.

That is understandable considering that after 14 years and counting, there is still no evidence that explosives and thermite were used to bring down the WTC buildings.

Real Science doesn't lie.

Real science has been used to make a mockery out of the Truth Movement.
edit on 9-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:15 PM
a reply to: Informer1958

It seems that your ideas about Gage were incorrect. You thought he was an architect that knew about large buildings and was still working as an architect. SamKent and I set you straight. Now you know he has a vested interest in keeping his minions paying into his organization.

When others finally realize that they have been duped, they will cease to support A&E and it will quietly fade away.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 12:14 AM
Skyeagle409, who are you trying to deceive?
The gullible, non educated masses? You failed miserable.

This repeatedly posted by you, mockery of a seismic diagram is the most childish and cheating example of Popular Mechanics alike, yellow journalism, I ever saw :

Anyone WITH some education can tell you what example of ten- to thirty-fold cheating YOU missed in your repeatedly posted picture.
I'll give you one clue : the word nano is in it.
The honest picture would need a lot more vertical space : 14.6 plus 28.0 times more vertical space.

You are either missing quite some necessary education, or intentionally posting misinformation, and I have come to the conclusion after reading 91 pages of your stubborn endless diatribe, that the latter is the case.

If you resize your diagram to honest comparable dimensions, the REAL TRUTH would stare you in the face....
That red square would be in its vertical dimension, 42.6 times as big as it is now.!

This graph below is a comparison between a huge explosion, its top graph, and a simple earthquake, its bottom graph.
Which bottom earthquake graph would be the effect of a normal, gravity-driven collapse of a building on the bedrock of Manhattan, without explosive charges utilized as in a demolition, as in the top graph.

Now, tell me, which one of these amplitude peaks on this seismogram does look like one of the above examples :

Take your time to compare and study this one also :

Do NOT miss my RED text under this seismogram of the collapse of the North Tower, notice the same cheating by LDEO as in your posted MOCKERY of honestly comparable seismic diagrams. You can't compare your 4 seismograms, they are far out of synchronization, look at the huge difference in seismogram sensitivities, the nanometers per second values.!!!

These are the real LDEO comparable 2 collapse seismograms to the 2 plane impact seismograms, both in 10 nm/s sensitivity :

North Tower collapse (10 nm/s instead of the original 100 nm/s), you see that the amplitudes RUN OFF the graph, evidence of explosives when checked to the real Manhattan times of origin, 17 secs earlier :

South Tower collapse (10 nm/s instead of the original 100 nm/s), you see that the amplitudes RUN OFF the graph, evidence of explosives when checked to the real Manhattan times of origin, 17 secs earlier :

This is the first North Tower its plane impact seismogram (original sensitivity in 10 nm/s), note the huge difference in amplitudes with both collapse seismograms :

This is the second, South Tower its plane impact seismogram (original sensitivity in 10 nm/s), note the huge difference in amplitudes with both collapse seismograms :

edit on 10/10/15 by LaBTop because: Corrected 14.6 to 28.0 times to 14.6 plus 28.0 times.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 12:24 AM
Then there is this too from your typing fingers:
Skyeagle409, posted on page 71 :

I want you to post the evidence that demo explosives were used and for a very specific reason.
To let you know, I contacted Protec Documentation Services, Inc. last year and I want you to post evidence that their seismic monitors detected demo detonations. I am not shy about contacting companies for references and clarifications.

Good work, to contact them.
Now follow up.! Show YOUR evidence.

Because I contacted the real demolition experts, PROTEC itself, the main firm, not their Public Relations firm PDS.
Brent Blanchard is simply a photographer and columnist at Implosion World, a monthly paper published by PROTEC.

Years ago I phoned PROTEC already, when I was in a vivid discussion with Brent Blanchard in this very 9/11-forum.
Which discussion btw can not be found back by ATS Search.
Inserting the terms " Brent Blanchard " in it, you get 5 pages with 48 post returns, which are mostly posts by skyeagle409 in this same thread...why not LaBTop's posts in this thread.? And LaBTop and BrentBlanchard posts in threads from years ago.?
Can anyone from Staff tell us why the ATS member name BrentBlanchard is gone...and all of his posts? Or any other possible written name he posted under?

And when I posted the RESULT of that PROTEC-contacting, Brent disappeared without ever reacting on my question to him, or anybody else here, to put his so called handhold seismograms made by PROTEC engineers in New York on the day of 9/11/2001, on the table here, which according to Brent's rants here in this same forum, he had SEEN and had still access to.
And which he was boasting about that they definitely did not show any signs of demolition charges. A real seismologist would be able to directly indicate the real explosion amplitudes in such handhold seismograms, recorded so near to Ground Zero.
That's why they never surfaced and are now disappeared from the PROTEC archives, as they told me on the phone in August 2006.

Blanchard was never seen posting on this board again...He is a LIAR.
An obedient slave to the establishment. The fascist super-wealthy ones who really make the decisions in AMERICKA.
Not the US-Government, as most of the official story readers still believe.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 02:26 AM
And this is my post about the 09/03/2006 clarification-PDF by PROTEC, posted by me on Jan, 29 2008 :
Thread title : 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns'
My post :

Several seismologists and myself phoned PROTEC's head office in August 2006 to ask for copies of those 9/11 New York seismograms, which according to Brent Blanchard, were supposedly registered by PROTEC on 9/11/2001.
They said to me : "" All those seismograms are strangely missing from our repositories."" And it was not a case of them not wanting to give copies, they simply were ALL lost, they said to me.

Then this happened, PROTEC's swift public reaction, which skyeagle409 doesn't want to read, obviously, since he never even hinted at it, all these 90+ pages long, him boasting about Brent's handhold seismograms, giving hard evidence of no explosives used on 9/11/2001 :

PROTEC : Clarification posted 9/3/06
In attempting to simplify technical references, we described vibration monitoring activities in a manner that could benefit from further clarification to provide context and minimize confusion.
As our report states, Protec was engaged in vibration monitoring activities on private construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11.
Because these portable field seismographs were not physically installed and manned on the Ground Zero site, we do not feel it is appropriate, nor scientifically possible, to categorically state that data from these monitors alone can specifically prove or disprove the existence of an explosive catalyst.
In general, portable field seismographs are far less technologically advanced than permanently installed instrumentation such as the monitors at Columbia University’s Lamont-Dougherty Earth Observatory, which is why we chose to comment in detail on the Columbia University data before commenting on the Protec data.
For example, the Columbia seismographs can pinpoint a relatively accurate geographic location for a vibration event, (i.e., “this event likely occurred at or near Ground Zero”), whereas portable field seismographs do not possess this capability.

However, that said, the fact that the Protec monitors were activated and recording does appear to have some value in that they did not record vibration spikes that could be even remotely associated with explosive events during the timeframe in question.
Therefore, our specific clarification reads as follows;
a) The Columbia University vibration waveforms recorded on 9/11 do not appear to indicate that explosives were used,
b) To the contrary, our interpretation of these waveforms – and the interpretation of many other experts – is that they clearly indicate explosives were not used, and
c) Protec’s vibration data recorded during the same timeframe, while far less specific, does not show any vibration events that contradict the data recorded by Columbia University.

To this end, clarifying text modifications, not affecting our original conclusions, have
been made to Protec Experience Point #1, Protec Comment to Assertion #4, and Protec
Comment to Assertion #7, Point #3.

Well, when you, PROTEC were so sure that these handhold seismograms of yours did not show explosive spikes, why did you guys not PUBLISH them shortly after 9/11.???
Just as LDEO did with their PROFESSIONAL 9/11 seismograms.
A HUGE Public relations STUNT would that have been, with for sure lots of NEW CONTRACTS for PROTEC, from just as overly patriotic firms and government offices. What a missed chance for greedy PROTEC CEO's, ain't that so.???
Do YOU, reader, really suppose that PROTEC would have missed that huge opportunity.???

There was only one solution left for PROTEC's CEO's, probably after some shady agency threatened them to get rid of this annoying piece of crap, written by Blanchard.
Sure, nice try at damage control by PROTEC of that, popular in the 911Trusters corner, clear example of scientific cheating and BAMBOOZLE of the gullible, insufficiently educated masses, by Brent Blanchard's already on-line paper, which they couldn't retract anymore.!
They were blatantly licking the heels of eventual future government and big corporation contractors.

Thus, another appeal to skyeagle409 or some others who also get tired from his misinformation posts, to ask him to stop his excessive post-repeats.
One thing he succeeded in. My 2005 or 2006 post exchange with Brent Blanchard is successfully buried in the ATS Search engine, his posts are clogging all Search attempts by me, to find that IMPORTANT thread back by reading all threads returned by the ATS Search.
Where the reader could see how "they" operate, spreading half-lies and other on-line techniques to muddy the waters of real 9/11 investigation.
Luckily I found at least PROTEC's clarification back. Which shows crystal clear how "they" operate.

Again, where do I find the ATS member account from Brent Blanchard, who 100% sure was a member here and suddenly disappeared after I challenged him in this same forum to produce those handhold seismograms run by PROTEC on 9/11 in New York.

Because I and himself knew already both, he was a cheating liar, after I phoned his bosses at PROTEC.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 03:11 AM
Protec NEVER EVER publicized ANY of their seismic graphs from their 9/11 New York operated hand-held seismic devices, presumably recording on the day of 9/11.

So, skyeagle409, I challenge you NOW, to produce one or any of them here in this thread.
Or shut up with that excessive posting of MY much older links to Brent Blanchard's debacle.

You are clearly posting misinformation too, with your multiple immature post-repeats with that butchered video of the first seconds of the WTC-7 collapse sequence in it. I told you multiple times by now, that your video misses the first few seconds, in my posted video however, you clearly hear that deep explosion sound in the first second already.
YOUR butchered video starts 2 seconds later, when the east penthouse already starts to topple into WTC-7's roof area and the deep sound from 2 seconds earlier is cut off.
That's why it's so obvious you are a cheater.

Skyeagle409 strangely acts as such a newly developed programmed AI-Automaton Internet forum-poster would do.
Unleashed on the Internet by that notorious US Military Propaganda Unit. He starts posting very old links, long time ago already debunked, and then progresses slowly, while hijacking opponents their posted links to use them as if they were evidence for the official story crap, by simply stating that they are wrong, ad infinitum.
The interesting development in this new forum-thread, regarding skyeagle409's appearance here, is the fact that the usual OS defenders did not give him ONE STAR in 90 pages of 20 posts each, while that is their usual tactic with posts by members of their flock. They seem to mistrust him. The military must have failed to inform them through their forum minions here.
Only one post gets 7 stars suddenly, not earlier than one page back, on page 90, but that's no wonder, that's a hilarious, Dr. Judy Woods follower video-post, starred by her fanatic 7 followers in this forum. Which he tops off with his usual butchered WTC-7 collapse video, missing those essential 2 EXTRA first seconds with that deep sound in it.

There's btw only one perfect defense against suspected Internet forums investing military Auto-bots :
No one reading their comments should react anymore on their misinformation.

If however, readers agitated by his stubbornness, can't withstand the urge to react, knock yourself out, skyeagle409 is doing a great job, keeping this noteworthy thread alive, for so long already....

No human being can be so deaf and half blind to not hear and see the effects of the explosions on the bystanders in our posted videos, and stubbornly goes on posting his cheating piece of video-disinformation.
The by two starting-seconds butchered WTC-7 collapse video of skyeagle409.
Exactly missing the 2 seconds in which that deep explosion sound can be heard in its first second. So loud that the rest of the collapse does nearly not register as sound in the real FOIA freed NIST video.
This is skyeagle409's two secs cut-short cheating video :

Anyone can see, that that by skyeagle409 (too many times by now) posted video is intentionally cut 2 secs short, since the officially FOIA-freed WTC-7 video from NIST its video-repository is the one I posted in page 1, WITH those 2 secs extra in its collapse start footage, this full one :

That must have been an impressive explosion, if it would have been filmed closer by. If we had any even earlier filmed seconds of that above FOIA video, I posted already on page 1, then we would certainly hear even more explosions, since the Ashley Banfield video I also posted in page 1, has about 6 to 9 fast following explosion sounds in it, in the 8.5 seconds in which the WTC-7 penthouses start to topple.

edit on 10/10/15 by LaBTop because: Corrected : the 8.5 seconds before the WTC-7 penthouse starts to topple. ( ""before"" changed to ""in which"" )

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 03:22 AM

1. And then you read the paper of Dr. Andre Rousseau.... a real, lifelong seismologist :
Title : Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001? Written by Dr. André Rousseau, November 24, 2012 :

Dr. Rousseau : This text focuses on the study of the seismic signals from Palisades. The new interpretation presented here renders the assertions of the seismic analysis of the events at the WTC, as presented by the government in the NIST and other reports, null and void.
On the contrary, all the documented evidence points to explosions as the source of the recorded seismic signals.

2. And thereafter the thorough debunking by Jim Hoffman of that on-line paper by would-be seismologist Brent Blanchard, at :
Reply to Protec's ""A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7."" :

Blanchard's treatment of the issues he addresses is anything but scientific. Blanchard:

---Provides no evidence to support most of his assertions.
---Repeatedly invokes a privileged body of evidence and ignores the vast body of public evidence.
---Excludes possibilities out of hand, cherry-picking a few issues to address.
---Relies on flat denials, such as his assertion that there is no evidence of explosives use.
---Exploits fallacies such as appeals to authority and appeals to prejudice.
---Promotes common misconceptions, such as that demolitions must proceed from the ground up.
As noted in the conclusion to my critique of NIST's report, the destruction of all three WTC towers exhibited six physical features unique to controlled demolitions. Blanchard simply ignores this evidence and the many arguments for controlled demolition they support, baldly asserting that there is "[no] evidence for explosives use." Implicit in his denial is a confusion of evidence for the use of specific explosives with evidence for controlled demolition.

3. (911 Research.WTC-7)
---- (published PAPERS)
---- (published REVIEWS)
---- (Search 9-11 Research)

4. (9-11 Review)

5. (Journal of 9/11 Studies) :
....Many ARTICLES.
....Many LETTERS, 2007 to 2014.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 03:37 AM
These are the challenges to you, skyeagle409, from other members regarding your above post at page 71, ( I suppose you made a typo ) :

wildb :

skyeagle409 : I want to post the evidence that demo explosives were used and for a very specific reason.

I can't wait, seems you are a bit frustrated.. I wonder why, hum....

PublicOpinion :

a reply to: skyeagle409
I want you to do so as well. Btw., did you ask RJ LeeGroup, Inc. for clarification regarding their dust-analysis or will you accept their work by now?

My Blanchard-linked big post at this same thread's page 2 :

The few best ATS-Searches results and a few more that are NOT picked up by the ATS Search.... :
REFERENCE POSTS about " Brent Blanchard " (about 41 to 46 results),

LaBTop, Jan, 30 2013 : I did some off-line investigation in August 2006 at PROTEC, and lo and behold, what a pity sir, but by some strange accident, all these handhold seismograms have been absent from our repository for a long time already.

REFERENCE POSTS about " Blanchard " (about 289 results),
REFERENCE POSTS about " Brent " (about 638 results),
REFERENCE POSTS about " BrentBlanchard " (about 47 results),
REFERENCE POSTS about " PROTEC " (about 64 results),
REFERENCE POSTS about " Protec " (about 65 results),
Proof of the Gash on WTC-7 ? page 5, LaBTop, May, 21 2007 :
AHA, found my post back for R. Mackey from's JREF forum (now ISF) :
AHA, also the next post by bsbray11, about the Cardington steel tests :
REFERENCE POSTS about " Protec 2006 " (about 18 results),
You'd expect my argumentation with Brent Blanchard to be in there somewhere :
--- (24 pages)
Or in this one :

A couple of little factoids just to set the record straight :

Blanchard is certainly no expert. He has very little explosives demolition knowledge. He is not an engineer. He just travels around to demolition sites to take pictures. He also sets seismographs up to record vibration. CDI doesn't even allow him to be around their projects. Look at his website. Notice the lack of CDI pictures as compared to other demolition companies? There was a special on ABC that called him and his partner the "Beavis and Butthead of Implosion".

Below, bsbray11's post about column oscillations after impact, and the 14 and 17 seconds discrepancy between plane impacts and radar times of those same impacts :

REFERENCE POSTS about " portable field seismographs " (about 27 results),

REFERENCE POSTS about " " (about 72 results) :
This is the earliest date : Aug, 25 2005, I found up to now, with a post with that link in it :

REFERENCE POSTS about " Blanchard's " (about 43 results),
Title : A look at Mr. Blanchard's .pdf, by bsbray11, Aug, 10 2006 : ( ?,not picked up)

Read this whole following post, it's pure logic at work : ( ?,not picked up by ATS Search, while it has the word Blanchard several times in it.! ) :

bsbray11 : Where are these handhold seismic records from Manhattan?
Only the 34 km away at Palisades based LDEO ones were ever released to the public, and they were not analyzed in any detail.

Most of the next seismic events go unexplained (labeled by FEMA simply as "further collapses" with no further analysis), and WTC7's seismic records show, again, that more energy was exerted before the building moved than during the global collapse. WTC7's records were also released later than the rest by LDEO, but I promise you it wasn't because the waves took longer to reach their lab. It was because they couldn't account for what had happened, and of course they never tried to analyze what was going on there.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 03:56 AM
AMAZED INQUIRY : Why can members NOT delete their posts after a few hours, but Brent Blanchard, who certainly was a member here, seemingly could do so.?
Where is the ATS thread where I challenged him on-line to produce those PROTEC seismograms from their hand-holds at Manhattan and New York during 9/11/2001.?
This defeats the whole basis of an Internet forum, if such behavior was possible, we for sure wouldn't post anymore in any forum on the Net.

I can't find my posts exchanges with him back in the ATS Search engine. Has it become too crappy to be of use for a decade old posts research, or was there pressure on the ATS owners, to remove his posts, in fact his whole account.???
Or is it, "there was a bug in the software, and then we lost some threads and posts".??? As you see, I offer the solutions on a silver platter.

Strange that it always seems to happen to very touchy subjects regarding the exposure of cheating or simply lying defenders of the crappy Official Story theory.
And how come ATS Search (in fact a site-wide Google Search) now has to be so specific in typing the exact words in the search terms windows?
Did this happen after your collision with Google's advertisements office? Which seems to be resolved again ( at what precious principles-costs? )
Google seems to be a staunch defender of the OS positions, and will take any chance to make the research of OS distrusters as difficult as possible, without becoming too obvious.

I know very well that keeping up a huge forum like ATS does, costs quite illustrious sums of money, and it seems to me ATS asks for donations so they can wrestle themselves out of the claws of Google, and be independent of those advertisement-income leaches at last.
I really hope you succeed in that and do not see it as an added source of income.
I even do understand that eventually. It's become normal behavior in such an extensively greedy society as the US one has deteriorated in.

Years ago, if I typed in "Blanchard", it would return posts with f.ex. "blanchard , Blanchard's, blanchart " in it, now not anymore, it also does not return posts with "Blanchard" in an external link windowframe, nor in a quotation windowframe. See the above bsbray11 post.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 05:03 AM

originally posted by: pteridine
A reply to: Informer1958

It seems that your ideas about Gage were incorrect. You thought he was an architect that knew about large buildings and was still working as an architect. SamKent and I set you straight. Now you know he has a vested interest in keeping his minions paying into his organization.

When others finally realize that they have been duped, they will cease to support A&E and it will quietly fade away.

Pteridine (one of the Voet brothers?), it seems such a tax exempt organization has to explain in detail, how they spend their members money.
As you and Sam proved already to be selective enough to post the negatives, perhaps you could do us the favor in return, to post the positives too. A&E former bookkeepers seem to have an heavy ax to grind with Gage.
I suppose A&E spend some money on organizing information campaigns in several global cities. Yes, I read the A&E bookkeeper explanations posts by you and Sam.
I would expect quite a bit to have been spend on FOIA lawyers too, they seem to be expensive.
Dr. Pepper certainly is.

It resulted at least in this gem, wrestled from the claws of NIST, again by FOIA request :
New consensus shows NIST ignored critical WTC 7 evidence: AE911Truth may launch suit :
The 46 Consensus Points :

I would like to see your take as a peer reviewer of the work of A&EforTruth on this piece :

I advise to include the name Tony Szamboti in your on-line searches for more details.
There is a lot more from him, I remember to have posted his video interviews about this subject lately, perhaps even in this thread.

NIST for sure doesn't give the impression to be for and from ""The People"".

Perhaps a core member of A&EforTruth could explain the positive expenses here for us curious ones.?

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 05:08 AM
EVIDENCE of Molten metal in the multiple WTC debris piles, by eyewitnesses :
This is to help all members who are in any kind of argument with any kind of 9/11 Truth seekers or suppressors, about showing them proof of molten metal in the debris heaps from WTC 1, 2 and 7. I copied it a long time ago :

The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up.
-- Richard Riggs, Debris Removal Specialist in “World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an American Icon,” THC, 2002. (Watch at — His name and title shows at video run time 51:26. The quote is from vrt 54:00.)

…NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains….
--Kathy Dawkins, NY Dept. of Sanitation spokeswoman: (Tom R. Arterburn, “D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers’ Challenge of a Lifetime” Apr. 1, 2002 at )

Turner himself crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam–but found no signs of life.
– Marci McDonald, “They came to help at Ground Zero. What they experienced they can’t forget”

Now let’s hear from the only real journalist given unrestricted access to Ground Zero for the duration of the cleanup. He was below the surface of “the pile,” exploring with engineers on more than one occasion.

…the rattle of cascading debris, the ominous groaning of weakened structures overhead, or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.
-- William Langewiesche, American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center, North Point Press, New York, 2002, p. 32.

Tully said that there were hot spots where he observed ‘literally molten steel.’ Asked about what could have caused such intense heat, Tully said, ‘Think about the jet fuel.’
- Christopher Bollyn, “Foreign Firms Destroyed Crucial Evidence,” August 14, 2002, online at
Peter Tully of Tully Construction was the contractor responsible for the eastern quadrant of the pile– the South Tower, WTC 4 and 5, and the 425,000 square foot underground mall.

I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.
– Structural Engineer Abolhassan Astaneh at

‘It’s still cooking,’ said Thomas O’Connor, who manages the construction and engineering work at the site for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the buildings and arranged for the tour through the basement.

In the days after the collapse of the towers two months ago, the tangled steel was still so hot that it glowed like charcoal briquets in the unlighted basement, Mr. O’Connor said, adding, ‘For seven weeks it was surreal down here.’
-- James Glanz, “Below Rubble, a Tour of a Still-Burning Hell,” NY Times, Nov. 15, 2001, New York Edition p. B1. Online at (See the same article to hear this: “A three-foot stalagmite of steel, which looks for all the world like a drip candle, sits next to one of the immense steel columns that held up the north face of the tower.”)

In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,
-- Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc., maker of the GlobalPoint Global Positioning System receiver used to track debris and/or human remains recovery locations in the pile. (Trudy Walsh, “Handheld App Eased Recovery Tasks,” Government Computer News, Vol. 21 No. 27 a, 9/11/2002. Archived at )

...seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. ‘It was dripping from the molten steel,’ he said.
--Joe “Toolie” O’Toole, Bronx firefighter and recovery worker. (Jennifer Lin, “Recovery Worker Reflects On Months Spent At Ground Zero,” Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 29, 2002. Archived at )

It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat.
- Herb Trimpe, “The Chaplain’s Tale,” transcript of audio interview at, archived at

‘Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense,’ reports Alison Geyh, PhD. ‘In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.’
--Rod Graham, “Mobilizing Public Health,” Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, Late Fall, 2001. Online at

A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods [to] Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. ‘Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s [sic] and the thousands who fled that disaster,’ he said.
Francesca Lyman, “Messages In the Dust,” National Environmental Health Association, Sept. 2003. Online at (Ron Burger was “a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived in New York to help September 11.”)

Describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer who worked on the World Trade Center), at the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations 9th Annual Conference, one source wrote the following:

As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.
(James Williams, “SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah,” October 2001, p. 3. Source file expired: Articles quoting this source include: and )

You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel– molten steel running down the channelways, like you were in a foundry– like lava.
--Firefighter Captain Philip Ruvolo

Source is Etienne Sauret’s film “Collateral Damages” (2003).


posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 05:11 AM
A review of of Etienne Sauret’s documentary “Collateral Damage” describes firemen recalling:

heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.
(Lumenick, Lou, “Unflinching Look Among the Ruins,” New York Post, March 3, 2004.)

They showed us many fascinating slides” he continued, “ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster.
-- Dr. Keith Eaton at

Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.
– Guy Lounsbury of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing at

He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow — molten metal dripping from a beam — but found no signs of life.
– Lee Turner of The Boone County Firefighters at

Richard Garlock, a structural engineer for LERA said ‘Going below, it was smoky and really hot… The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.’

The steel was so hot from the jet fuel that, uh, it was literally steaming. Your boots would melt in certain areas. That’s how hot it was. The steel was coming out red in certain areas for the first couple weeks, at least.
-- Michael Casale, Project Supt., Mazzocchi Wrecking in Modern Marvels Demolition segment on WTC Ground Zero.

Vance Deisingnore, OSHA Officer at WTC, reported the following to Jim McKay, Post-Gazette Staff Writer, on September 11, 2002 ‘a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel.’

‘The [NYFD] people who called us had been killed,’ Atlas considered as she surveyed the tons and acres of wreckage. ‘Nobody’s going to be alive.’ Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.” – “K-9/11: Tracking the Rescuers’ Trauma,
Summer 2002, on Sarah Atlas of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue –

What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse....It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel.
-- Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho of Texas Task Force 1 Urban Search and Rescue,

The workers go through three pairs of rubber boots a day because they melt in the three-week-old fire of molten metal and jet fuel. The health hazards are everywhere: the fire, molten metal, the lack of breathable air and 3000+ decomposing bodies.

Each story has its differences. Some told of 10-hour car drives and arriving in the black of night, the same calendar day as the towers were hit. Others remembered taking military transport – a C- 141 in Deeds’ case – a few days later. Others remember molten metal still dripping under the Pile more than a week after the attack.

Some beams pulled from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F.

The ‘hot spots,’ where intensely burning debris generated temperatures in excess of 1300 degrees Fahrenheit, posed a significant danger to relief workers. NASA had an instrument that could provide information that would be useful to emergency responders. NASA’s Airborne Visible infrared Imaging Spectrometer (]AVIRIS) science instrument was capable of providing data that could be used to filter smoke and locate extreme hot spots.

The temperature at the core of ‘the pile,’ is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials.

Firefighters and other responders contended with intense heat associated with the super-heated steel for weeks; some were coming back from shifts with the bottoms of their boots melted.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts stated that, six weeks after 9/11, ‘There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red’ and ‘the blaze is so ‘far beyond a normal fire’ that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires.
- – also

Ground Zero at the World Trade Center was a search site like few others after a major disaster event. Multiple sources of hazards were everywhere. There were shards of steel piled on steel, a two-million-ton pile of debris, red hot steel beams still being pulled from the earth, crevasses, holes, unstable ground, still burning fires, possible asbestos exposure, and caustic fumes that may have contained mixtures of benzene, methane gas and other chemicals. (

The first indication of ‘Ground Zero’ is the smoke. It’s still smoking. Many of the beams are still red hot as they are uncovered, and start new fires as the oxygen reaches them.
– Congressman Pete Hoekstra

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

- James Glanz, “Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center,” NY Times, Nov. 29, 2001, at

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 05:13 AM
Are all of those above mentioned people liars?
Does anyone seriously believe that.?


Now do you trust the images of molten steel and the dozens of witness testimonies, or this guy? :

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 05:18 AM
Title : 9/11: Best Physical Evidence for Explosives (revised), by DavidChandler911.

That's a lecture of 1 hour, 48 minutes and 10 seconds of best physical evidence for explosions at the three WTC buildings on 9/11/2001, held at the Arizona State University by David Chandler.
Posted by David Chandler one year ago.

Title : 9 11 Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out Full Length

That's 2 hours, 15 minutes and 21 seconds of explosives used, evidenced on 9/11/2001.

top topics

<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in