WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

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

Have you bothered to look at the BIO's of those signatories?

Just on the first page they have:
IT engineer
Civil engineer
Electrical engineer
Waste Water engineer
BS Computer engineer
Bio Medical engineer
Doctor computer science
Mining engineering
Logic design engineer
Engineer at Intel corp
Psychology Researcher
Field engineer degree in automatics
Engineer in French Caterpillar
Chemical engineer

Now which of those could stand up to cross examination by any first year law student?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Korg Trinity

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

Have you bothered to look at the BIO's of those signatories?

Just on the first page they have:
IT engineer
Civil engineer
Electrical engineer
Waste Water engineer
BS Computer engineer
Bio Medical engineer
Doctor computer science
Mining engineering
Logic design engineer
Engineer at Intel corp
Psychology Researcher
Field engineer degree in automatics
Engineer in French Caterpillar
Chemical engineer

Now which of those could stand up to cross examination by any first year law student?

Hmmmmm let me think...



So let me get this straight....

You conclude that because these people are professional engineers on a wide range of subjects... their testimony should be thrown out as inadmissible... because what.... they are professionals??

a reply to: Korg Trinity

You conclude that because these people are professional engineers on a wide range of subjects... their testimony should be thrown out as inadmissible... because what.... they are professionals??

You really need to read the profiles listed for these 'professionals'.

I am an ASE Master Auto Mechanic. I graduated from the University of Texas at Austin in 1992 with a degree in Electrical Engineering. At that time, a lack of job offers and a love of fixing things motivated me to learn to fix automobiles.

An auto mechanic ? Ooo he knows everything about building demo.

Well-rounded engineering career, specializing in electronics, instruments, control and computers.

Yep he's an expert. Just not for anything 911 related.

As senior Engineer: Planning and construction supervision in Turkey and overseas for Irrigation schemes, Water supply and Wastewater Treatment Plants.

Waste water? How does that qualify him for . . .

These are all on one page.
And I haven't gone through every bio on the page.
I'm sure I can find more jokesters among the experts.

a reply to: Informer1958

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

The challenge for you is to post EXACTLY, where I have denied they heard explosions. You must know that I will take advantage of your failure to post where I specifically said that they heard no explosions. I said the explosions they heard had nothing to do with explosives.

Now, the ball is now in your court and the clock is ticking. How long must I wait?

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. After all, there were over 2000 explosions in New York City last year and over 1000 explosions in New York City this year, in other words, over 3000 explosions in New York City in a period of less than two years.

originally posted by: drommelsboef
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.

Oh so instead of disproving A&E's scientfic findings you attack a single person's character in the org with unfounded claims. And if it were true "and Korg just illustrated that it is not" how does that take away from the work of over 1000 architects and engineers ?

Your red herring fallacy is invalid

a reply to: DarthFazer

Oh so instead of disproving A&E's scientfic findings you attack a single person's character in the org with unfounded claims.

The A&E has been discredited and debunked. It committed errors that even a high school student could have figured out.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: DarthFazer

Oh so instead of disproving A&E's scientfic findings you attack a single person's character in the org with unfounded claims.

The A&E has been discredited and debunked. It committed errors that even a high school student could have figured out.

Debunked now ? Well then prove it.

The proof is in the pudding.

No more psuedoscience and hearsay please.

Your whole entire argument thus far explained

The sound of explosions is not evidence that explosives were responsible. After all, there were over 2000 explosions in New York City last year and over 1000 explosions in New York City this year, in other words, over 3000 explosions in New York City in a period of less than two years.

Anything but explosions , its not evidence - check

But the sound of explosions are gas lines exploding ? - check

Yet you present the sound of gas lines by a few witnesses as your evidence

Cool story bro

a reply to: Korg Trinity

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.

Well, considering that I have the backing of structural and civil engineers, demolition experts, architects, and firefighters, simply means that you are in the business of fabrication.

I have challenged the truthers to point out the time lines in the WTC videos where demo explosions are heard and they back off from the challenge each time and fabricate lame excuses to not taking on that challenge.

Should you change your mind, I will be more than happy to present you with that challenge once again.

a reply to: DarthFazer

Debunked now ? Well then prove it.

Simple. We can start here.

AE 911 Truth KEY EVIDENCE

* Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,

Now, for the reality.

Photo Proof WTC Building not Falling at free Fall Speed

Debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are outpacing the collapse of the building as the collapse is still in progress many stories above ground level. Verdict: The WTC building is not falling at free fall speed.

Now, let's take a look at the numbers.



There are many more examples debunking A&E as well.

a reply to: DarthFazer

A&E is concentrated on WTC 7 and debunked NIST , not WTC 1 or 2.

Well, A&E found itself in a very difficult situation when structural and civil engineers, demolition experts, architects and firefighters debunked the findings of A&E with evidence. Now, for the numbers since it seems that you have been missing my references before.

The Numbers

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.

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.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

a reply to: skyeagle409

You posted that drivel several times all ready

So all these people are just lying ?

911research.wtc7.net...

Yes
No

Choose one

a reply to: DarthFazer

So all these people are just lying ?

Sure they heard something, but what they heard had nothing to do with explosives and here is the proof once again.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: DarthFazer

A&E is concentrated on WTC 7 and debunked NIST , not WTC 1 or 2.

Well, A&E found itself in a very difficult situation when structural and civil engineers, demolition experts, architects and firefighters debunked the findings of A&E with evidence. Now, for the numbers since it seems that you have been missing my references before.

The Numbers

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.

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.

Refuting the Hollow Arguments of the So-called 9/11 Debunkers
911-engineers.blogspot.com...

Your debunk attempt of 911 has all ready been debunked

911debunkers.blogspot.com...

Let me know when you are ready to eat crow

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: DarthFazer

So all these people are just lying ?

Sure they heard something, but what they heard had nothing to do with explosives and here is the proof once again.

Ahh the good ol "you didnt hear what you thought you heard" method

Should I look in to the flash thingy now ?

a reply to: Korg Trinity

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

Considering the widespread damage that occurred as WTC1 WT2 and WTC7 collapsed due to fire and impact damage, why would anyone use fire to demolish tall steel frame buildings knowing that to do so would spread death and destruction to surrounding buildings?

a reply to: DarthFazer

Ahh the good ol "you didnt hear what you thought you heard" method

Yes indeed, and you will notice that as WTC7 collapses, the sound in the following video is what you don't hear in the WTC7 video.



Now, are you prepared to point out the time lines where you say, demo explosions are heard in the WTC7 video?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Korg Trinity

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

Considering the widespread damage that occurred as WTC1 WT2 and WTC7 collapsed due to fire and impact damage, why would anyone use fire to demolish tall steel frame buildings knowing that to do so would spread death and destruction to surrounding buildings?

The debris could not in any way have affected the base of the building. Fire fighters were in that building for hours mind you. From what seen it caused some minor damage to the face of the building not the structure itself. It is really a matter of common sense.

If it had damaged the side facing WTC 1 and 2 you would see partial collapse. But that did not happen. The base gave out simultaniously. Hence why it fell in its own foot print instead of toppling over.

Your straw man argument is insulting to my intelligence.

Adolf Hitler
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”


― Adolf Hitler

Your argument would make Joeseph Goebbels blush

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Same regurgitated rubbish... you do understand what non profitable organisation means don't you??

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention to what has been posted in the past, so let's do a review.

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.


Architects Shy From Trutherism

he AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,”...

www.architectmagazine.com...

a reply to: DarthFazer

The debris could not in any way have affected the base of the building.

it is apparent that you do not understand the process. Let' me explain it to you again. The debris, which is the product of the collapse and falling at free fall speed. is outpacing the collapse and striking the ground as the collapse remains in progress many stories above the ground.

In other words, the WTC building is not collapsing at free fall speed, and the proof is there in the videos and photos for all to see.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I certainly understand.

Your description is consistent with explosives being detonated inside WTC

"Explodine outward"

Exactly

Thank you for proving my point