WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: wildb No. An idiot is using video he recorded from an NBC story about the frames released by DoD from a camera that recorded Flight 77. What the idiot does not realize is that the camera in question, took a photo every few seconds. It wasn't a video camera. So, he is taking the NBC video, which was based on five photos, and trying to say there are frames missing. Now, either he is a complete moron and does not know it was basically a still camera and is making an honest (but really stupid) mistake or, he is yet another individual intentionally lying in attempts to garner himself some creds with the "truther" community.

a reply to: Informer1958

o are all these credible people lairs?

Question: Why would all these creditable people lie? I would like an answer to this question.

They heard explosions, but they were mistaken about explosives because the evidence does not support the use of demo explosives and why no explosions are seen or heard in any video.

From your link.

Eyewitnesses Recalled Explosions, No Alarms or Sprinklers

The collapses of the Twin Towers were witnessed firsthand by scores of people, most of them emergency responders.

So your link says that most of them were responding emergency personnel, so now, its time for a review.

Craig Carlsen

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions...At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.


FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.


Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

As you can see, the sound of explosions they heard were later attributed to things that had nothing to do with explosives. It has already been proven that demo explosives were not responsible. In a playback of an NBC News report, firefighters reported that the explosions they heard were from exploding gas lines.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Since when were fire fighters able to differentiate the sound of exploding gas lines and demolitions ? That in no way proves anything. That is an opinion. Some firefighters assumptions do not speak for all fire fighters.

Still waiting for your "proof"

a reply to: DarthFazer

Since when were fire fighters able to differentiate the sound of exploding gas lines and demolitions ? That in no way proves anything. That is an opinion. Some firefighters assumptions do not speak for all fire fighters.that is a logical fallacie.

It's all in New York City, so they would have known. After all, there were over 2000 explosions in New York City alone just last year and well over 1000 explosions in New York City this year. That is well over 3000 explosions in New York City in less than 2 years. In fact, explosions in New York City are very common.

There have been cases where the explosions caught vehicles on fire. That is why I have said that the sound of explosions does not mean that explosives were involved.

Still waiting for your "proof"

Proof of what?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: skyeagle409

Why would they be testing for such residue when no one heard demo explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed? Why would they be testing for explosive residue when seismic monitors failed to detect demo explosions?

Now let's go here.

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

Your comment is a fallacy. There were over five hundred eyewitness that went on record all stating the saw, heard and some were in some of the explosions.

When are you going to stop posting fallacies.

Question: Are all five hundred eyewitness lairs? If so I want to see your evidence? I will stay on this question until you answer it.

Exactly , I thought his thread fizzled out by now. But the cognitive dissodance is far stronger than I imagined. Skyeagle and the OS shillers seem to think reguritating the same vomit will sway us away from truth smh.

Its just mental masturbation at this juncture imo

A&E put the nail in the coffin and solidified the fact the OS is a big fat lie period





The horse is dead

a reply to: skyeagle409

They heard explosions, but they were mistaken about explosives because the evidence does not support the use of demo explosives and why no explosions are seen or heard in any video.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Now you have admitted all these people did hear explosions. But now they are mistaken?

Question: what are they mistaken about? Are you saying all these people are stupid? Firemen? police officers? First respondents?

Or are you trying to say these explosions were very special explosions?

As you can see, the sound of explosions they heard were later attributed to things that had nothing to do with explosives.

Yes, I agree that some explosions were something else, however I can cherry pick eyewitness accounts that do not support the explosions that was something else, as you just demonstrated.

So you picked three eyewitness, what about the rest of the 500 eyewitness?

It has already been proven that demo explosives were not responsible.

That is untrue, the very fact we have over 500 eyewitness and science confirming explosions.

In a playback of an NBC News report, firefighters reported that the explosions they heard were from exploding gas lines.

Perhaps, however I don't see how that can be, since the gas was turned off before the WTC came down.

a reply to: skyeagle409


Maybe its Venus

maybe its just swamp gas

I get it

a reply to: DarthFazer

A&E put the nail in the coffin and solidified the fact the OS is a big fat lie period

A&E is a laughing stock. They couldn't even figure why photos and videos debunked their free fall claim.

Let's take another look at A&E.

* Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph

Why didn't they bother to do there homework to figure out that explosives had nothing to do with it. I posted bombed out buildings where their steel columns remained standing and in the case of WTC1, its steel columns remained standing within that huge bomb crater.

Seems to me those folks at A&E don't have it upstairs.

a reply to: DarthFazer

Maybe its Venus maybe its just swamp gas

They would be a better answer considering there's no evidence of demo explosives.

a reply to: Informer1958

Now you have admitted all these people did hear explosions. But now they are mistaken?

Admitted! I have never denied they heard explosions. I said that the explosions they heard had nothing to do with explosives.

Question: what are they mistaken about? Are you saying all these people are stupid? Firemen? police officers? First respondents?

I am not implying they are stupid, but I am saying that if they say that explosives were responsible for the explosions they heard, then they are mistaken because there is no evidence of explosives.

That is untrue, the very fact we have over 500 eyewitness and science confirming explosions.

The sound of explosions is not evidence that explosives were responsible especially since New York City experienced over 2000 explosions last year and over 1000 explosions this year and none had anything to do with explosives..

Perhaps, however I don't see how that can be, since the gas was turned off before the WTC came down.

You can turn off the gas, but gas will remain in the lines. The CT folks didn't know that, it seems. BTW, was there gas in the fuel tanks of vehicles that were on fire? Tell that to the firefighters who confirmed the exploding gas lines to an NBC News reporter.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Admitted! I have never denied they heard explosions. I said that the explosions they heard had nothing to do with explosives.

Yes you have denied all these eyewitness heard no explosions many times. In fact you are still denying it.

You were not there, so you are not in any position to make ridiculous claims that all these people did not hear explosions or demo charges going off. as many eyewitness saw flashes going around the WTC.

Those flashes going around the WTC could only be detonations and nothing else.

Are you going to say that all these eyewitness are lairs? Firemen saw some of the flashes, are they lairs to?

I am not implying they are stupid, but I am saying that if they say that explosives were responsible for the explosions they heard, then they are mistaken because there is no evidence of explosives.

These credible people are not mistaken, you are mistaken, why? Because it does not fit the OS now, does it?

The sound of explosions is not evidence that explosives were responsible especially since New York City experienced over 2000 explosions last year and over 1000 explosions this year and none had anything to do with explosives..

So what! You mean to tell me that Firemen can not tell the different from a car blowing up or a back firing from a truck, or a pot hole blowing up.

What you are saying is all these people are idiots, or just stupid. Go tell them that to their faces and I guarantee they will knock out your teeth.

You were not there, and your "opinion" is ridiculous.

Perhaps, however I don't see how that can be, since the gas was turned off before the WTC came down.

You can turn off the gas, but there gas will remain in the lines. The CT folks didn't know that, it seems.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your comment is, by saying it was just some gas lines blowing up, that is what all those people heard. yep.

You were not there in the WTC or at ground zero on 911, yet you are going to determining what all these eyewitness saw and heard.

How interesting.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: skyeagle409

Admitted! I have never denied they heard explosions. I said that the explosions they heard had nothing to do with explosives.

Yes you have denied all these eyewitness heard no explosions many times. In fact you are still denying it.

How interesting.

Interesting indeed.

The most interesting fact about Skyeagle's analysis is the simple denial that all the evidence points to the OS being insufficient as a description of what happened.

Regardless of what you may believe, that in itself to a normal rational person is need enough to call for a thorough and impartial re-investigation into the events.

I like the sketch below.. because Arguing with these shill types is very much like it...

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: DarthFazer

A&E put the nail in the coffin and solidified the fact the OS is a big fat lie period

A&E is a laughing stock. They couldn't even figure why photos and videos debunked their free fall claim.

Let's take another look at A&E.

* Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph

Why didn't they bother to do there homework to figure out that explosives had nothing to do with it. I posted bombed out buildings where their steel columns remained standing and in the case of WTC1, its steel columns remained standing within that huge bomb crater.

Seems to me those folks at A&E don't have it upstairs.

A&E is concentrated on WTC 7 and debunked NIST , not WTC 1 or 2. Like I said waaay back in this thread WTC 7 is the meat and potatos of it all. Anyone with a brain stem can see WTC 7 collapsed at it's base without resistance at free fall. Your fire theory can no longer apply. Let me reiterate , the building would have partial collapse. We always see that with wood houses in house fires once the frame gives way. Same priciple here. Buildings dont just collapse with the base support giving out simultaniously without intervention.

Who are you kidding ?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: DarthFazer

Maybe its Venus maybe its just swamp gas

They would be a better answer considering there's no evidence of demo explosives.

Wait , you mean to tell me you believe hearsay when someone sees UFO's yet hundreds of eye witnesses at ground zero are moot in this case ?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its just a weather balloon.

originally posted by: DarthFazer

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: DarthFazer

A&E put the nail in the coffin and solidified the fact the OS is a big fat lie period

A&E is a laughing stock. They couldn't even figure why photos and videos debunked their free fall claim.

Let's take another look at A&E.

* Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph

Why didn't they bother to do there homework to figure out that explosives had nothing to do with it. I posted bombed out buildings where their steel columns remained standing and in the case of WTC1, its steel columns remained standing within that huge bomb crater.

Seems to me those folks at A&E don't have it upstairs.

To my knowledge A&E was concentrated on WTC 7 and debunked NIST , not WTC 1 or 2. Like I said waaay back in this thread WTC 7 is the meat and potatos of it all. Even a person with cognitive impairment can see WTC 7 collapsed at it's base without resistance at free fall. Your fire theory dies not apply. Let me reiterate , the building would have partial collapse. We see that with wood houses in house fires. They dont just collapse with the base support giving out simultaniously.

Who are you kidding ?

As I mentioned earlier with results like this from fire.... Who needs Demolition companies....

a reply to: Korg Trinity

What a great idea !

How about we go in to the demolition business together using a can of gasoline and some matches.

What were all those demolition crews thinking all these years pssst !

Who needs shape charges ?

a reply to: DarthFazer

A&E is concentrated on WTC 7 and debunked NIST

So why don't they publish a paper for peer review ?
I'll tell you why.
911 is a money machine for Richard Gage.
Without it Gage has no income as no one will hire him.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: DarthFazer

A&E is concentrated on WTC 7 and debunked NIST

So why don't they publish a paper for peer review ?
I'll tell you why.
911 is a money machine for Richard Gage.
Without it Gage has no income as no one will hire him.

Same regurgitated rubbish...



you do understand what non profitable organisation means don't you??

The twin towers did not fall with g that's true, the North tower has been measured to fall with about (2/3)g in the beginning.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: DarthFazer

A&E is concentrated on WTC 7 and debunked NIST

So why don't they publish a paper for peer review ?
I'll tell you why.
911 is a money machine for Richard Gage.
Without it Gage has no income as no one will hire him.

Same regurgitated rubbish...

you do understand what non profitable organisation means don't you??

By using your logic professors at MIT could not publish papers.
Yet they do all the time.

Simply put if Gage could prove his theory on 911 he could get a job at any firm he wanted.
He could write a books about triumph against the main stream.
His name would be on all the news outlets.
He would be in demand for paid speaking appearances all over the world.

But he knows he can't because his science is wrong.
The best he can do is bilk money from suckers at his dog and pony shows.
No one would ever consider hiring him now.
But he can't and he knows it.

originally posted by: samkent

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: DarthFazer

A&E is concentrated on WTC 7 and debunked NIST

So why don't they publish a paper for peer review ?
I'll tell you why.
911 is a money machine for Richard Gage.
Without it Gage has no income as no one will hire him.

Same regurgitated rubbish...

you do understand what non profitable organisation means don't you??

By using your logic professors at MIT could not publish papers.
Yet they do all the time.

Simply put if Gage could prove his theory on 911 he could get a job at any firm he wanted.
He could write a books about triumph against the main stream.
His name would be on all the news outlets.
He would be in demand for paid speaking appearances all over the world.

But he knows he can't because his science is wrong.
The best he can do is bilk money from suckers at his dog and pony shows.
No one would ever consider hiring him now.
But he can't and he knows it.

What's the matter? Lost your logical train of thought?



You said that Richard Gage was using 911 as a means to make money... I pointed out that his organisation is a non profit organisation...

And the science is not wrong... There are thousands upon thousands of Aviation experts / Engineers and Scientists that have all willingly signed the petition and contributed to the huge growing body of material.... all pointing to the OS as an inaccurate explanation as to the events leading up to, on, and preceding 9/11/2001.

You can deny it all you like but here have a look yourself...

EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE II

EVIDENCE III