Melting steel?

a reply to: wildb

There is overwhelming evidence to disprove the OS, all one has to do is look at it with open ey

False! Investigators, demolition experts, structural and civil engineers, architects, and even firefighters, have stated for the record that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

Nothing in their reports about explosives or thermite as responsible.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Just to let you know there is no sound of demolition explosions as WTC 7 collapsed.

Sky give it up, you have already been shown where explosions were heard by people live on the news many blocks away.. your propaganda does not stand up, holds no water, all but a couple of your uninformed followers see right through you..

I find it very disturbing an air man like you would throw the victims of 911 under the bus. You support the perps who did this whoever they may be. You should be ashamed of your self for not asking questions and for not calling for a real investigation, if the OS is true you should have no problem with that, but you do so who's side are you really on..

a reply to: wildb

i know absolutely everything about 911. i use to be just like you 5 years ago. ive seen all the videos, all the interviews, and read all the threads.

you take small coincidences and events then add them up into a very flawed hypothesis with no real evidence, just speculation, assumption, and conspiracy.

a reply to: skyeagle409

False! Investigators, demolition experts, structural and civil engineers, architects, and even firefighters, have stated for the record that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

No True, all the above have said the opposite as well.. difference is your's works for the gov..

a reply to: wildb

Sky give it up, you have already been shown where explosions...

You have shown me no such thing, and in fact, I am still waiting for you to post those video time lines where you said, explosions were heard and I first asked you to provide those time lines and as of today, I am still waiting for you to do so.

The challenge is for you to show us those time lines and failing that, my point will be made that you have no such time lines to post.

... were heard by people live on the news many blocks away..

Nothing that involved demolition explosives.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: wildb

i know absolutely everything about 911. i use to be just like you 5 years ago. ive seen all the videos, all the interviews, and read all the threads.

you take small coincidences and events then add them up into a very flawed hypothesis with no real evidence, just speculation, assumption, and conspiracy.

Ok then, answer what I have put in front of you.. three events, tell me what they are / were....

a reply to: skyeagle409

You have shown me no such thing, and in fact, I am still waiting for you to post those video time lines where you said, explosions were heard and I first asked you to provide those time lines and as of today, I am still waiting for you to do so.

Delusional , or just that memory problem again, everyone reading these threads knows you were giving the video in question..

a reply to: wildb

No True, all the above have said the opposite as well..

Time for a review, so let's take a look.

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.


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal


ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.


Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

www.representativepress.org...


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

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

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 the center 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.


Van Romero

New Mexico demolitions expert Van Romero said on the day of the attack that he believed the building collapses were "too methodical" to have been a result of the collisions, and that he thought "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." His remarks were published in the Albuquerque Journal.

Ten days later the same newspaper printed a retraction, in which Romero is quoted as saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."

Ten days later the same newspaper printed a retraction, in which Romero is quoted as saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."

To sum it up, there was never a case for explosives at ground zero.

a reply to: wildb

You have no case and I am still waiting for those time lines you've claimed that you posted. In that case, you should have no problem re-posting those time lines, so I will wait for you to do so.

a reply to: skyeagle409

To sum it up, there was never a case for explosives at ground zero.

Your opinion carry's no weight, but thanks anyway..

a reply to: wildb

Your opinion carry's no weight, but thanks anyway..

It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact and as proof that I am correct, I am betting that you cannot post a single valid time line where demolition explosions are heard as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapse.

Are you up to the challenge to provide those video time lines for all to see or do I need to re-post those videos that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that no demolition explosions were heard?

The ball is now on your side of the court.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

You have no case and I am still waiting for those time lines you've claimed that you posted. In that case, you should have no problem re-posting those time lines, so I will wait for you to do so.

Unlike you I don't see the need to repost things over and over. This method of your's is a big fail, I don't need to defend myself because of your lack to acknowledge what has already been done.

You have become nothing but a broken record, you keep using the same old tactic over and over, it shows you are scraping the bottom of the barrel, you have nothing new, nothing to discredit anything, I will give you credit for enforcing my beliefs, when on rare occasion I think I could be wrong I look at you, then I know I have it right, not the effect you want ay.. hehe, you make me laugh..

a reply to: wildb

Sky give it up,...

Sorry, but that is not the way I am. I am expecting you provide us with real evidence, not hearsay and debunked videos.

a reply to: wildb

Just post the video time lines that you say, supports your claim, and then, I will stop. Failure to do so, will prove my point that your claim is a fabrication.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Just post the video time lines that you say, supports your claim, and then, I will stop. Failure to do so, will prove my point that your claim is a fabrication.

Do I really have to say this again..


Unlike you I don't see the need to repost things over and over. This method of your's is a big fail, I don't need to defend myself because of your lack to acknowledge what has already been done.

You have become nothing but a broken record, you keep using the same old tactic over and over, it shows you are scraping the bottom of the barrel, you have nothing new, nothing to discredit anything, I will give you credit for enforcing my beliefs, when on rare occasion I think I could be wrong I look at you, then I know I have it right, not the effect you want ay.. hehe, you make me laugh..

a reply to: wildb

In other words, you cannot produce a single video time line that supports your claim.

Now, let's go here.

9/11 conspiracy theories debunked

For the past 10 years 'truthers' have claimed 9/11 was part of a bigger conspiracy – but does the evidence stack up?

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Sorry, but that is not the way I am. I am expecting you provide us with real evidence, not hearsay and debunked videos.

I expect you to provide evidence the OS is true, you have not and can not do that.. see how this works, the difference is the video and everything else tells a different story, I may have an opinion but the events speak for themselves . You cannot say that for the OS,,

a reply to: skyeagle409

Just read.

No thanks, anything from the MSM is untrusted ..

a reply to: wildb

That''s easy. We have evidence that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 suffered massive impact damage and we have evidence of fires raging within those buildings before they collapsed.

What evidence we don't have is evidence for explosives.

a reply to: wildb

I think you will read what I have just posted.