Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

No, the official conclusion you cite, the one offered by the NIST guys and the 911 Commission, is not based on facts. Indeed, it is contradicted by the facts.

Modern steel high rises do not just collapse from fires. Actually, none have ever collapsed from fire EXCEPT for the 3 that day, all in the same spot. The fires were localized up on the 80th floor area, but the towers suffered total and complete collapse. Without assistance of some sort, that is impossible.

That sums it up pretty well, but for some its to hard to accept on an emotional level. The others who push the OS relentlessly , well we know what there about...

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Really short memory now ay..

I've checked each of your previous post over the weeks and at no time did you post those video time lines from the WTC videos I'd presented and that explains why you have failed to post them now when requested. If you had posted them in the previous weeks, you would have had no problem posting them now.

Brent Blanchard Interview

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: Looking at the collapses, what tells you they were not controlled demolitions?

Brent Blanchard: Well, there are a few things right away. For instance most sections of each structure fall outward. Tall sections of the North Tower legged out very far to the East and to the North, while other large sections of the building sheared away. This is totally dissimilar to a controlled demolition.

Undicisettembre: What do you think about World Trade Center 7? Was its collapse a controlled demolition, in your opinion?

Brent Blanchard: No. Absolutely not. I know people who were on the site and they told me first hand they knew the building was about to collapse. And even if I didn't know those people you can look at the way the North Tower collapsed and how all the debris that fell to the north directly into WTC7 shearing huge chunks of building 7 on the South side, which is not the side that everyone watches on the YouTube videos. On the south side there was extensive damage all the way down. The entire load bearing mechanism is weakened when a towering structure more than twice the size of the subject structure literally falls on top of it.

It's not surprising to me that that building collapsed. I wasn't aware at that time of the gasoline storage or the damage to the south side of the building, but even without that knowledge you could see fires burning freely for hours. And if you let a fire burn freely in any structure, sooner or later that structure is going to collapse.

To me, the fact that it collapsed so many hours after the other towers tends to support evidence of the natural progression of the collapse rather than some sinister plot.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...

Enough with your time lines, and denial , the fact is the evidence is in the video, what is observed is not natural, it could never happen in the real world, therefor it had help, there is no other answer.

Post all the opinions, propaganda and disinfo you want, it will not change what was observed and the evidence it provides.

a reply to: wildb

Enough with your time lines, and denial...

Denial based on the fact that I looked at each of your post from when I first made the request to you and at no time did you post any of the video time lines I've requested from you.

To sum it up, there is absolutely no evidence the WTC buildings were brought down by explosions and the proof can be found in the WTC videos that have been posted.

We can also take a look here.

Brent Blanchard Interview

Undicisettembre: Talking about the three collapses that occurred on 9/11, are conspiracy theories that claim they were controlled demolitions even vaguely reliable?

Brent Blanchard: No. There's no evidence. We see the same material being presented year after year, over and over. We are not judge and jury but we do work in the industry and we see it all the time. We do see telltale signs of what to look for, we did work on the cleanup, I was personally on the 9/11 site later in the fall because we were documenting the clean-up effort by multiple demolition crews.

My engineering company is not tied to any political organization, we are not even tied to those demolition teams. We are just a contractor, and that was one of our jobs. We have a trained eye and none of us saw any indication of wiring, or cuts, or pre burning or any of the things we see hundreds of times a year on explosive demolition sites. Given the amount of time we worked there, if we had seen some of it we would have taken note of it.

Undicisettembre: Is there anything else I did not ask you that you want to add?

Brent Blanchard: One thing I would add is that there are vibration recordings from the site. The seismograph readings that were recorded on 9/11, as they are every day worldwide, recorded the impacts of the planes and the actual collapses of the structures.

You can see in those waveforms and in that data that there was no sudden catalyst at 10:06 or any other time; there was no explosive event. So in order for an explosive detonation to be hidden, folks at those laboratories, actual scientists at Columbia University and other places, would also have needed to be part of the conspiracy.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...

And that explains why you've failed to post the time lines I've requested from you because you had no such time lines to post.

a reply to: Salander

Modern steel high rises do not just collapse from fires. Actually, none have ever collapsed from fire EXCEPT for the 3 that day, all in the same spot.

The fires were localized up on the 80th floor area, but the towers suffered total and complete collapse. Without assistance of some sort, that is impossible.

Let's take a look here and understand no explosives were involved during the collapse.

Photo: 21-story steel frame building collapse due to an earthquake

Kader Toy Factory Fire

The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed...Fire-fighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40pm, to find Building One about to collapse.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures.

en.wikipedia.org...

Prime examples where steel frame buildings collapsed without the aid of explosives or thermite.

Brent Blanchard Interview

Undicisettembre: So do you think the time it took the Towers to collapse on 9/11 indicates anything mysterious?

Brent Blanchard: No, I see nothing mysterious about it. I see them collapsing exactly at the rate they would if they were to fail at the points that they did where the plane struck. They met a certain amount of resistance while coming down, and some other areas that did not resist peeled outward, and those elements legged into other buildings.

That is a very important distinction when you try to explain why this didn't look like a building implosion.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...

In other words, the collapse of the WTC buildings was not indicated of actual explosive implosions. That was evident by the fact that nearby buildings were seriously damaged during their collapse and the fact the collapse initiated at the aircraft impact points, not at ground level.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Denial based on the fact that I looked at each of your post from when I first made the request to you and at no time did you post any of the video time lines I've requested from you.

You know thats an outright lie, question is are you lying to yourself or other members..

To sum it up, there is absolutely no evidence the WTC buildings were brought down by explosions and the proof can be found in the WTC videos that have been posted.

Wrong, there is plenty, the method used is in question..

And that explains why you've failed to post the time lines I've requested from you because you had no such time lines to post.

Tel a lie often and soon it becomes the truth, true but not here..

Prime examples where steel frame buildings collapsed without the aid of explosives or thermite.

And completely irrelevant to what was observed on 911..

a reply to: wildb

You have no case for explosive and that was underlined by the fact you've failed to post those video time lines that you said, depicted explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, which wasn't true at all.

a reply to: wildb

It is relevant because the collapse of each of the WTC buildings was not indicative of demolition implosions, so once again, you have no case for explosives.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

You have no case for explosive and that was underlined by the fact you've failed to post those video time lines that you said, depicted explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, which wasn't true at all.

My name must be Bill Murry...and I'm in a movie..

a reply to: wildb

Perhaps so, and that might explain why you came up empty-handed last night.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

It is relevant because the collapse of each of the WTC buildings was not indicative of demolition implosions, so once again, you have no case for explosives.

The factory was poorly designed and built

So much for that, and an earthquake in mexico, another poorly built building, which is a good example of a building pancaking, that of which we did not see on 911.


So no, in both cases it is not relevant..

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Perhaps so, and that might explain why you came up empty-handed last night.

Only for you sky, I have many supporters, you have what three..

a reply to: wildb

Doesn't matter, fire brought down those Kader buildings as was the case in Santa Monica where fire weakened the steel structure of a hangar, which caused it to collapse.

Small jet in "unsurvivable" crash into hangar at Santa Monica Airport

SANTA MONICA, CALIF. A small jet that took off from Idaho ran off the runway and into a storage hangar at a Southern California airport on Sunday night, causing the hangar to collapse in flames around it, officials said.

www.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: wildb

It is relevant because in both cases, the steel frame buildings collapsed without the aid of explosives.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Doesn't matter, fire brought down those Kader buildings as was the case in Santa Monica where fire weakened the steel structure of a hangar, which caused it to collapse.

Small jet in "unsurvivable" crash into hangar at Santa Monica Airport

SANTA MONICA, CALIF. A small jet that took off from Idaho ran off the runway and into a storage hangar at a Southern California airport on Sunday night, causing the hangar to collapse in flames around it, officials said.

www.nbcnews.com...

We all know about the hanger, you have posted it 100 times now, it is even more irrelevant than the last two.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

No, the official conclusion you cite, the one offered by the NIST guys and the 911 Commission, is not based on facts. Indeed, it is contradicted by the facts.

Modern steel high rises do not just collapse from fires. Actually, none have ever collapsed from fire EXCEPT for the 3 that day, all in the same spot. The fires were localized up on the 80th floor area, but the towers suffered total and complete collapse. Without assistance of some sort, that is impossible.

What assistance and of what sort do you suggest?

Note that the NIST conclusion is based on facts in that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found. Your phrase "Modern steel high rises do not just collapse from fires" is nothing but an observation and should read "Modern steel high rises have not been observed to collapse from fires." Smaller, steel framed structures have collapsed from fire. If that is so, why should large steel framed buildings be exempt from collapse by fire, especially with the increased loads of more massive structure above the steel weakened by fire?

a reply to: wildb

That incident in Santa Monica, CA., is an example of what fire can do to unprotected steel structures of buildings.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

It is relevant because in both cases, the steel frame buildings collapsed without the aid of explosives.

Sure a good comparison to a 1300 foot building, what ever makes you happy sky..

a reply to: pteridine

Note that the NIST conclusion is based on facts in that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found

Thats based on the fact they did not look for any, you do know that ? well you do now.

a reply to: pteridine

If that is so, why should large steel framed buildings be exempt from collapse by fire, especially with the increased loads of more massive structure above the steel weakened by fire?

Have you studied the video of the towers coming down ? I mean really looked at them close ?