World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: Battlefresh

I hate hearing the same argument "steel melts at bla bla bla" over and over again. Steel doesn't have to MELT to fail.

That is correct. At temperatures generated by a typical office fire, exposed steel will fail.

But WTC7? I can't explain that one. Looks controlled IMO.

I disagree, especially when uncontrolled fires and massive impact damage on the south wall of WTC 7 are taken into consideration. The massive hole on the south wall helps explain why WTC 7 tilted toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Right and then they stopped and looked no further, thats why the report is junk...

It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, brought down the WTC buildings.

No it has not been proven because it can't be PROVEN..

a reply to: wildb

All it took was the invoke the law of physics and common sense.

a reply to: skyeagle409

All it took was the invoke the law of physics and common sense.

The fact is, The laws of physics do not work for the OS, and common sense tells us the OS is impossible.

Some office fires burning for an hour cannot bring down steal structures like that. If that was the case, then why do we need demolition to bring down buildings for?

You cant have it both ways, You claim office fires can bring a 110 story building down in 10 seconds in its own foot print while blowing all the concrete to dust.

The fact is, the WTC were not a natural collapse as the OS states. You are asking everyone to believe physic that does not exists.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Salander

Common Sense provide the evidence.

Which explains why after 14 years, not one piece of evidence support a 9/11 "false flag operation.

If you do not possess common sense, you will never be able to understand how the goal of propaganda is to influence and manipulate the public perception. TV is a most useful tool for manipulating the public perception.

You must mean how conspiracy websites have duped conspiracy theorist over the years. Case in point, conspiracy theorist claiming that United 93 landed at Cleveland Airport and that its passengers and crew were seen boarding a bus at the airport.

Now, for the rest of the story. Conspiracy theorist misidentified Delta 1989, a B-767, as United 93, a B-757 and mistaken scientist from a KC-135 as crew and passengers of United 93.

Such blunders is why the Truth Movement is a laughing stock that it is today.

That you yourself are in denial about the facts and evidence showing the official story to be false DOES NOT MEAN that those facts don't exist. It only means you are in denial about them.

Posting back and forth with you is like posting back and forth with a rock somehow. Every claim you make is unfounded or contradicted by the facts.

All the facts contradict the official story, from the NIST report to every other angle of the controversy.

a reply to: Informer1958

The fact is, The laws of physics do not work for the OS, and common sense tells us the OS is impossible.

It has been shown that the experts do not agree with you, which explains why after 14 years, no evidence of explosives, thermite, nor evidence of an inside job exist.

a reply to: Salander

That you yourself are in denial about the facts and evidence showing the official story to be false DOES NOT MEAN that those facts don't exist. It only means you are in denial about them.

That won't fly because I have given every opportunity for conspiracy theorist to prove me wrong with evidence and they come up empty-handed and instead, they post bogus videos that were debunked by experts years ago. In some cases when I asked for evidence, hoaxed videos were presented.

During a debate, conspiracy theorist claimed that a video proved that WTC 7 was taken down by demo explosives. Well, I decided to check the source of the video they posted in support of their argument and this is what I found. In case you missed it before, here is that video.



What I am to think when conspiracy theorist present their evidence in the form of hoaxed and bogus videos and photos?

a reply to: Informer1958

You cant have it both ways, You claim office fires can bring a 110 story building down in 10 seconds...

10 seconds? Let's take a look to see if you are right.

... in its own foot print...

Why does this photo debunk your claim that the WTC buildings fell within their own footprint?

Photo: Proof that the WTC Towers did not fall iwthin their footprints

...while blowing all the concrete to dust.

Which was expected, which has also been shown in videos during the Verinage demolition process, which doesn't require the use of explosives.

a reply to: skyeagle409

It has been shown that the experts do not agree with you, which explains why after 14 years, no evidence of explosives, thermite, nor evidence of an inside job exist.

Are you talking about the the government paid experts of NIST, or the debunked Popular Mechanic experts? Because other than that, the real experts who are not paid by our government says the government experts are lying.

These experts say the laws of physics do not work for the OS and are impossible. The fact is, these experts were able to prove NIST lied in their report by using real science.

One has to ask, why did NIST lie in their report?

Perhaps the government paid NIST to create a pseudo report to cover up the fact that demolition was used to bring down the WTC, which all scientific evidence confirms.

These so call experts that you make fun of do not work for the government and these same experts are willing to put their names on their science, risking their reputations and careers.

That is how strong the real evidence is. Real science trumps pseudo science in every single case. And you know that.

a reply to: Informer1958

Are you talking about the the government paid experts of NIST, or the debunked Popular Mechanic experts? Because other than that, the real experts who are not paid by our government says the government experts are lying.

That wont't fly. That is the typical 9/11 conspiracy theorist response when they are backed into a corner.

Which was expected, which has also been shown in videos during the Verinage demolition process, which doesn't require the use of explosives.

And is not used for steel framed buildings..

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Informer1958

Are you talking about the the government paid experts of NIST, or the debunked Popular Mechanic experts? Because other than that, the real experts who are not paid by our government says the government experts are lying.

That wont't fly. That is the typical 9/11 conspiracy theorist response when they are backed into a corner.

It sure does fly and makes sense..

Why does this photo debunk your claim that the WTC buildings fell within their own footprint?

Yeah, sure does help the CD theory, 10 ton beams tossed 600 feet away, yeah gravity did it...lol

a reply to: wildb

In that case, where is your evidence? After all, it has only been 14 years and still no such evidence to be seen.

a reply to: wildb

Yeah, sure does help the CD theory, 10 ton beams tossed 600 feet away, yeah gravity did it...lol

In that case, explain why a huge bomb failed to throw the steel columns of WTC 1 anywhere and notice that the steel columns are sitting within that huge bomb crater.

Photo: WTC 1 Steel Columns Sitting Within Huge Bomb Crater

Now, a simple lesson for you, which is something I knew since grade school.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

In that case, where is your evidence? After all, it has only been 14 years and still no such evidence to be seen.

It's right here.

upload.wikimedia.org...

In that case, explain why a huge bomb failed to throw the steel columns of WTC 1 anywhere and notice that the steel columns are sitting within that huge bomb crater.

It was a bomb, it was underground, it was indoors, your joking right?

a reply to: wildb

And is not used for steel framed buildings..

Well, let's take a look here and notice, that the steel structure of WTC 6 is taken down without explosives and jump to time line 1:46 in the following video.

Now, a simple lesson for you, which is something I knew since grade school.

Thats so lame I won't even comment..

Well, let's take a look here and notice, that the steel structure of WTC 6 is taken down without explosives and jump to time line 1:46 in the following video.

I am wondering if you have lost it, they pulled it down with cables, they did not use the Verinage demolition process. Time to stop posting sir..