WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: DarthFazer

Again you keep regurgitating the same contrived tripe. I feel like Bill Murray in ground hog day.

You post doesn't fly anymore than can a groundhog. Now, let's continue.

AE 911 Truth KEY EVIDENCE

* WTC7 Limited Damage to Adjacent Structures

Now, for the rest of the story.

Photo 1: WTC7 Damage

Photo 2: WTC7 Damage

a reply to: Flatcoat

Honestly, this is starting to get pretty tedious. You jump from thread to thread posting this garbage from NatGeo, until someone posts the Jonathan Cole video which indisputably shows what absolute morons NatGeo and Mythbusters are, and you disappear only to post the same rubbish on another thread. Why do you obstinately refuse to admit that you (and they) are wrong?

I am glad you mentioned Mythbusters. How many pounds of thermite was used on that vehicle? What was the result?

a reply to: skyeagle409

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?

You have made yourself very clear in many of your post that eyewitness did not hear explosions, but heard what you believe are gas lines blowing up or just the elevators falling.

Since there is over 500 eyewitness who went on record saying they saw explosions, they heard explosions and some eyewitness survived being in some of the explosions.

You are clearly stating these people are all lairs. You were not there. Yet you dismiss every single eyewitness who went on public record.

If you were really searching for the truth about what happened at the WTC you would take these credible eyewitness accounts seriously.

For you to deny all these wittiness is a slap in the faces of all the people that died that day. It is apparent, you are not interested in finding the truth, but only on here to defend the OS lies.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Flatcoat

Honestly, this is starting to get pretty tedious. You jump from thread to thread posting this garbage from NatGeo, until someone posts the Jonathan Cole video which indisputably shows what absolute morons NatGeo and Mythbusters are, and you disappear only to post the same rubbish on another thread. Why do you obstinately refuse to admit that you (and they) are wrong?

I am glad you mentioned Mythbusters. How many pounds of thermite was used on that vehicle? What was the result?

Now this is starting to get ridiculous....Mythbusters couldn't cut through the roof of a car with half a ton, yet J. Cole cut through a steel beam with 1 1/2 pounds...... so tell me, do you think Mythbusters are completely incompetent...or were they being dishonest?

a reply to: Informer1958

Since there is over 500 eyewitness who went on record saying they saw explosions, they heard explosions and some eyewitness survived being in some of the explosions.

Hearing explosions is not evidence that explosives were responsible, especially in the absence of hardware evidence.

Building explodes in NYC’s East Village

A thunderous gas explosion rocked the East Village on Thursday, causing four buildings to become engulfed in flames, with two collapsing and a third in danger of falling down.

nypost.com...

a reply to: Flatcoat

How would you like a challenge to prove me wrong with undeniable evidence?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Flatcoat

How would you like a challenge to prove me wrong with undeniable evidence?

Not quite sure what you mean....are you asking me to post the Jonathan Cole video? Again??

a reply to: Flatcoat

Not quite sure what you mean....are you asking me to post the Jonathan Cole video? Again??

On anything that I have posted in regard to 9/11. However, we can start with explosions people heard at ground zero. What evidence can you provide that the explosions were caused by explosives?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Flatcoat

Not quite sure what you mean....are you asking me to post the Jonathan Cole video? Again??

On anything that I have posted in regard to 9/11. However, we can start with explosions people heard at ground zero. What evidence can you provide that the explosions were caused by explosives?

Mate, I haven't once mentioned explosions. We were talking about whether or not thermite can cut through steel, and your continued posting of that blatantly dishonest hitpiece by NatGeo.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Hearing explosions is not evidence that explosives were responsible, especially in the absence of hardware evidence.

You were not there at the WTC on 911, You have a right to your own "opinions", however your "opinions" are not the facts.

We don't need the hardware, to prove that demolition brought down the WTC, we have the "science" and you have never been able to debunk it. But to only ridicule it at best.

a reply to: Informer1958

You were not there at the WTC on 911,...

I wasn't in Syria either, but is it just an opinion that there is a war there?

a reply to: Informer1958

We don't need the hardware, to prove that demolition brought down the WTC,

Of course you do. Just ask any demolition expert.

An interview with explosives expert Brent Blanchard

Brent Blanchard is a demolition expert; he serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services, a world leader in engineering and vibration consulting for explosive demolition projects. He's also a senior writer and editor at the website Implosionworld.com.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...

a reply to: skyeagle409

This is what buildings look like when they collapse from fire. Nothing close to what happened to WTC 7


Structural collapse @ 9:01 and 9:41 from partial collapse



Another building collapse




And another



And I can post many many more. But they have plenty available on YouTube and none collapse like WTC 7 unless they are Demolition videos. You can quit now skyeagle , nobody is drinking your Kool Aid.

a reply to: DarthFazer

Could it be they are not steel frame buildings? Why do you think they apply fire protection on the steel columns of buildings?

And I can post many many more.

Go right ahead.

... But they have plenty available on YouTube and none collapse like WTC 7 unless they are Demolition videos.

Then explain why this 21-story steel frame building collapsed without the aid of explosives.

21-Story Steel Frame Building Collapse

a reply to: DarthFazer

You posted videos of buildings on fire, but let's take a look at what happened when a hangar caught fire after a small jet slammed into the building. The fire weakened the steel structure of the hangar until it collapsed on the jet.

Fire Weakened Steel Structure Until Collapse

Then explain why this 21-story steel frame building collapsed without the aid of explosives.

Are you serious, a poorly built building not designed for an earthquake, and you want to compare that to wtc 7

yeah, no explosives just a severe EARTHQUAKE..

a reply to: wildb

Are you serious, a poorly built building not designed for an earthquake, and you want to compare that to wtc 7

That is just another excuse and I have heard that one before. Now, let's take a look at the WTC Towers in the sunlight and understand they are not solid nor constructed in the manner of other steel frame buildings.

WTC Buildings in the Sunlight

In the case of WTC7, a huge hole was scooped out of its south side by debris from WTC1. WTC6 was pulled down by cables.

That is just another excuse and I have heard that one before. Now, let's take a look at the WTC Towers in the sunlight and understand they are not solid nor constructed in the manner of other steel frame buildings.

And your point is ? Nothing, you don't have to tell me how the towers were built, I have been to the deepest depths of the sub levels where the bedrock is exposed and I worked at the very top floor of the north tower. Which is not easy to get to because of the giant steel beams holding the broadcast tower up,, something that vanished btw.


And BTW your post of the pictures show how the pancake could never have happened... I believe you have a problem sir..

a reply to: skyeagle409

An interview with explosives expert Brent Blanchard

Brent Blanchard is a demolition expert; he serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services, a world leader in engineering and vibration consulting for explosive demolition projects. He's also a senior writer and editor at the website Implosionworld.com.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...

Yeah, and experts are not paid to lie either, like the Global warming experts.

The fact is Brent Blanchard is only giving his "opinions" to what he believes happened at the WTC he does not provide any science to his silly theory.

I would like to remind you how the government likes to use well known experts that seem credible as Shills to hide the truth. Most people have a price tag and can be bought.

I'll stick with the credible 500 eyewitness at ground zero and A&E science that no one has ever debunk.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Then explain why this 21-story steel frame building collapsed without the aid of explosives.

21-Story Steel Frame Building Collapse

The difference is steel frame has much more integrity than non-steel. And that is why NO steel frame building has collapsed ever from fire because they are built to stand. Because science says so.

Explain why it collapsed without the aid of explosives ?

Simple , it cant ! Because Science.

Not made of match sticks , this was the WTC 7 frame lower section during its construction.



Your opinion with copy a pasta of opinion vs hard science = this entire thread.

Since you are not receptive to the facts regarding WTC7 and A&E's findings and you refuse to deem them any credebility with the multitude of witnesses id like to hear your opinion on the Pilots for 911 truth. Are they also liars ? They pretty much destroy the OS as well.

patriotsquestion911.com...

pilotsfor911truth.org...