WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: DarthFazer

Skyeagle seems to think the Ninja Turtles were doing battle during the events of 9-11.

Apparently, I have posted evidence that no demo explosions occurred, which is back by the fact that you have been unable to post time lines of demo explosions in the WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 videos.

Now, when can we expect you to post those time lines in the videos depicting demo detonations?

a reply to: skyeagle409

Of course it works

It only works for you.

Fact is It doesn't not work for the rest of us.

a reply to: Informer1958

It works based on the facts and evidence and to prove my point, where are those time lines depicting demo detonations in the videos in question?

If you are unable to post those time lines and the seismic data depicting demo detonations, then my point will have been made.

a reply to: DarthFazer

Skyeagle seems to think the Ninja Turtles were doing battle during the events of 9-11.

I know, right.

a reply to: Informer1958

Perhaps they were on TV during 9/11.

Now, have you found those time lines and seismic data that I have requested from you?

a reply to: skyeagle409

It works based on the facts and evidence and to prove my point, where are those time lines depicting demo detonations in the videos in question?

Those are your facts, however they are not the real facts and no one is buying into your OS.

a reply to: Informer1958

That won't fly. Can I take your comment as a message from you that you are now backing out of the challenge to post those time lines and seismic data?

a reply to: skyeagle409

That won't fly. Can I take your comment as a message from you that you are now backing out of the challenge to post those time lines and seismic data?

You were showing the seismic data by many posters including me and you ignored it. There's really nothing more to discuss with you. Your ignorance proceeds you.

WTC 7 was left out of the 9-11 commission report for a reason . NIST failed to explain what really happened and withheld evidence from the public until lawsuts were filed. NIST was then debunked by A&E given all the footage was then readily available. And here skyeagle still thinks the OS is the gospel of truth , denial is a powerful thing.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: DarthFazer

Skyeagle seems to think the Ninja Turtles were doing battle during the events of 9-11.

Apparently, I have posted evidence that no demo explosions occurred, which is back by the fact that you have been unable to post time lines of demo explosions in the WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 videos.

Now, when can we expect you to post those time lines in the videos depicting demo detonations?

Nano-thermite was found in the remains so no you are wrong. Your sanitized version of the evidence does not work. I posted several videos from A&E all ready and you brushed it off as being "debunked" by fringe science and opinion in turn a failure on your part, you have failed miserably in every attempt. I expect no less of you but thanks for trying.

You did not answer my question here www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pilots for 9-11 truth have shown the OS is a big fat LIE.

So ill ask again do you think they are liars along with the multitude of witnesses that day and the couple thousand professionals from A&E ? Im very curious since you are a pilot. Or claim to be. You just keep dancing around our questions and it would be nice if you stopped spamming the disinfo links. I dont know if ATS has a spam filter or not but its annoying.

originally posted by: DarthFazer

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: DarthFazer

Skyeagle seems to think the Ninja Turtles were doing battle during the events of 9-11.

Apparently, I have posted evidence that no demo explosions occurred, which is back by the fact that you have been unable to post time lines of demo explosions in the WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 videos.

Now, when can we expect you to post those time lines in the videos depicting demo detonations?

Nano-thermite was found in the remains so no you are wrong. Your sanitized version of the evidence does not work. I posted several videos from A&E all ready and you brushed it off as being "debunked" by fringe science and opinion in turn a failure on your part, you have failed miserably in every attempt. I expect no less of you but thanks for trying.

You did not answer my question here www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pilots for 9-11 truth have shown the OS is a big fat LIE.

So ill ask again do you think they are liars along with the multitude of witnesses that day and the couple thousand professionals from A&E ? Im very curious since you are a pilot. Or claim to be. You just keep dancing around our questions and it would be nice if you stopped spamming the disinfo links. I dont know if ATS has a spam filter or not but its annoying.

Nano thermite? There is no evidence for any kind of thermite. If you are speaking of the abysmal Jones paper, the paint samples were collected as dust after the collapse and there is no way of knowing which building the primer paint chips came from. Further, Jones failed to show the chips were reactive by running the DSC in air rather than under Argon, so he could not determine whether the results were simple combustion or reaction.

a reply to: Informer1958

You were showing the seismic data by many posters including me and you ignored it.

That won't fly either because demolition teams who were operating those seismic monitors have stated that their seismic monitors detected no demo detonations, which means that the seismic data depicted demo explosions was fabricated and one of the reasons why I posted the videos of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 was to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that no demo detonations occurred at ground zero.

In other words, there are no matches in the seismic data for demo detonations when used in conjunction with the WTC videos.

Now, when can we expect you to post those time lines so I can underline the fact that no demo detonations occurred at ground zero as the WTC buildings collapsed? After all, it has only been 14 years and still no evidence of demo detonations at ground zero.

a reply to: DarthFazer

NIST was then debunked by A&E given all the footage was then readily available.

A&E claimed that WTC7 fell within its own footprint but left out the fact that surrounding buildings were seriously damaged. Why would A&E disregard the fact that buildings surrounding WTC7 were damaged?

Photo: Surrounding Damage

a reply to: DarthFazer

Nano-thermite was found in the remains so no you are wrong. Your sanitized version of the evidence does not work.

Let's take a look here.

AE911 Truth Evidence

10. Evidence of thermite incendiaries in steel samples.

Now, let's take a look at the response to AE911 Truth's claim.

Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite

www.metabunk.org...


Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis
Mircrospheres

They found nothing that you would not expect to be there. The most touted "evidence" is iron microspheres, which are formed both in fires, and in violent scraping of steel.

The collapses of the WTC towers (the dust from which covered WTC7) was guaranteed to produce these spheres. In fact investigators used iron microsphere as a "signature" when examining the extent of the spread of the WTC dust.

In addition, thermite is made from iron oxide and aluminum - vast amounts of were would be found in the towers, so obviously would also be found in the dust.

www.metabunk.org...

Now, let's see just how easy it is to produce such spheres.

a reply to: skyeagle409

That wont work either.

It's right there. READ IT FOR YOURSELF.


Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New
York on September 11, 2001?

We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies. According to the nature of the recorded waves (body and surface waves), we can propose a location of each explosive source. According to the presence of shear waves or the presence of Rayleigh waves only, we hypothesize a subterranean or a subaerial explosion. The magnitude of an aerial explosion is insufficient to provide seismic waves at 34 km.

The new interpretation presented here renders the assertions of the seismic analysis of the events at the WTC, as presented by the government in the NIST and other reports, null and void. On the contrary, all the documented evidence points to explosions as the source of the recorded seismic signals.

www.journalof911studies.com...

You are wrong.

READ the data, READ the technical papers. Stop ignoring the real science.

a reply to: Informer1958

Those are your facts, however they are not the real facts and no one is buying into your OS.

Considering that after 14 years, the OS remains firm. Now, let's take another look at AE 911 Truth.

Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis

8. Pyroclastic-like Clouds of pulverized concrete

The response can be read here.

Does not even make any sense. Yes there was a huge clouds of dust when the building fell. This would be from concrete, but also the hundreds of tons of wallboard in the building, as well as smoke and ash from the fire. It is entirely expected. It looks exactly like the cloud of dust you get when building are collapsed either with or without explosives.

Calling it "pyroclastic" makes no sense at all.

The following shows a "pyroclastic" cloud from a much small building collapsed with NO explosives.

Verinage Explosiveless Demolition Produced Dust Plumes

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: Informer1958

Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?

Nope. According to demolition teams who were operating their seismic monitors have stated for the record their seismic monitors did not detect demo explosives.

a reply to: pteridine

Nano thermite? There is no evidence for any kind of thermite. If you are speaking of the abysmal Jones paper, the paint samples were collected as dust after the collapse and there is no way of knowing which building the primer paint chips came from. Further, Jones failed to show the chips were reactive by running the DSC in air rather than under Argon, so he could not determine whether the results were simple combustion or reaction.

No you are wrong, and you were debunked years ago about running the DSC in the air under Argon. You were showing it would not have made no different in the outcome of that particular test.
You are still claiming red paint chips was all that Jones found, yet to this day you have no scientific evidence to support your theory.

No one has every debunked Jones paper, weather it was Peer Reviewed or not. It doesn't matter now. We have A&E science that proves demolition was used to bring down the WTC and you have never debunked that either and no scientist on planet earth has debunked A&E science.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Considering that after 14 years, the OS remains firm. Now, let's take another look at AE 911 Truth.

FALSE.

Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story

According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

www.prisonplanet.com...

a reply to: Informer1958

No you are wrong,

Nope, I am right on the money. Case in point.

9/11 Seismic Recordings

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse.

None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse.

In his words:
This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

www.jnani.org...