Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

a reply to: pteridine

About 1/3 of the rubble from 9/11 was sent to Fresh Kills Landfill for examination and sorting; not China. Parts of the USS New York were made from 9/11 steel. Search on "Fresh Kills Landfill" for details.

Incorrect, 0.03% of the steel was saved at Fresh Kills, look it up yourself if need be..

a reply to: pteridine

The NYFD had a transit on #7 and saw it beginning to move which is why they backed off. If it was a demolition, how did the plotters get the building to start leaning before the collapse?

Where are you getting your info, don't matter, my above post of what was observed is what matters..it is the smoking gun, cannot be dismissed because it is what it is..

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
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.

It is a fact that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found. Actively looking for something and discovering the unexpected are not the same thing. Was anyone supervising the cleanup?

If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible. Directed energy weapons from space that "dustify" metal and nuclear bombs are examples of things that did not happen.

The company named Controlled Demolition Inc., the market leader in the blow up and removal of multi-floor buildings, was chosen to remove the rubble from the WTC buildings. (Such as the twisted steel columns at the base of the structures) This carefully collected material (remember the police guards always surrounding the site for months?) was then ordered to be sent promptly to China where it was melted.

So what are you saying..

im saying nothing just what I read.... truth is treason these days on a public page

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

About 1/3 of the rubble from 9/11 was sent to Fresh Kills Landfill for examination and sorting; not China. Parts of the USS New York were made from 9/11 steel. Search on "Fresh Kills Landfill" for details.

Incorrect, 0.03% of the steel was saved at Fresh Kills, look it up yourself if need be..

Note that the word "rubble" is not the same as the word "steel". The steel was scrapped out but not immediately. www.greens.org... One reason was marketing; not many in the US wanted to handle the steel. Further, the contamination of the steel made the European market wary. India and China had no misgivings.

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
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.

It is a fact that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found. Actively looking for something and discovering the unexpected are not the same thing. Was anyone supervising the cleanup?

If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible. Directed energy weapons from space that "dustify" metal and nuclear bombs are examples of things that did not happen.

The company named Controlled Demolition Inc., the market leader in the blow up and removal of multi-floor buildings, was chosen to remove the rubble from the WTC buildings. (Such as the twisted steel columns at the base of the structures) This carefully collected material (remember the police guards always surrounding the site for months?) was then ordered to be sent promptly to China where it was melted.

So what are you saying..

im saying nothing just what I read.... truth is treason these days on a public page

Hum. Interesting statement..

a reply to: pteridine

Note that the word "rubble" is not the same as the word "steel". The steel was scrapped out but not immediately. www.greens.org... One reason was marketing; not many in the US wanted to handle the steel. Further, the contamination of the steel made the European market wary. India and China had no misgivings.

Ok fair, I'll have to look into it, but ok. please explain contamination, or is it in the link, I have not looked yet.

a reply to: pteridine

please explain contamination

Nevermind thanks for the info, I learned something.. thanks.

a reply to: wildbMayor Giuliani admits in a live interview with Peter Jennings that he got warning that the South Tower was about to collapse.

No steel framed building had ever collapsed from fire damage before in history. The event was unprecedented. To know the building was about to collapse would require inside knowledge of 'the 9/11 script


Why didn't the firemen who were rushing into the building get the same warning?

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

The NYFD had a transit on #7 and saw it beginning to move which is why they backed off. If it was a demolition, how did the plotters get the building to start leaning before the collapse?

Where are you getting your info, don't matter, my above post of what was observed is what matters..it is the smoking gun, cannot be dismissed because it is what it is..

We better start with WTC1 and 2 if you are unaware of the FDNY transit showing movement of the building. Note that loud noises are not indicative of demolitions. www.firehouse.com...

Chief Hayden describes bulge in the side of 7 and damage to the façade. He says the FDNY had a transit on the building and was sure by about 2pm that it would eventually collapse. It collapsed about 5.

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
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.

It is a fact that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found. Actively looking for something and discovering the unexpected are not the same thing. Was anyone supervising the cleanup?

If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible. Directed energy weapons from space that "dustify" metal and nuclear bombs are examples of things that did not happen.

The company named Controlled Demolition Inc., the market leader in the blow up and removal of multi-floor buildings, was chosen to remove the rubble from the WTC buildings. (Such as the twisted steel columns at the base of the structures) This carefully collected material (remember the police guards always surrounding the site for months?) was then ordered to be sent promptly to China where it was melted.

So what are you saying..

im saying nothing just what I read.... truth is treason these days on a public page

Hum. Interesting statement..

a reply to: pteridine

We better start with WTC1 and 2 if you are unaware of the FDNY transit showing movement of the building. Note that loud noises are not indicative of demolitions. www.firehouse.com...

No your sounding like sky guy, don't bate me, are you ? address what I have posted about 7 first, nist and Chandlers work, then we can move on..

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
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.

It is a fact that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found. Actively looking for something and discovering the unexpected are not the same thing. Was anyone supervising the cleanup?

If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible. Directed energy weapons from space that "dustify" metal and nuclear bombs are examples of things that did not happen.

The company named Controlled Demolition Inc., the market leader in the blow up and removal of multi-floor buildings, was chosen to remove the rubble from the WTC buildings. (Such as the twisted steel columns at the base of the structures) This carefully collected material (remember the police guards always surrounding the site for months?) was then ordered to be sent promptly to China where it was melted.

So what are you saying..

im saying nothing just what I read.... truth is treason these days on a public page

Hum. Interesting statement..

Seen that, and i would like an explanation.

a reply to: wildb

David Chandler has been debunked time after time.

When Will David Chandler Fix His Errors?

Chandler pops in and acknowledges the mistake, but fails to admit that once the error is adjusted for the supposedly suspicious behavior of the material being ejected horizontally is explained away:...

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

We better start with WTC1 and 2 if you are unaware of the FDNY transit showing movement of the building. Note that loud noises are not indicative of demolitions. www.firehouse.com...

No your sounding like sky guy, don't bate me, are you ? address what I have posted about 7 first, nist and Chandlers work, then we can move on..

Ok. Explain the FDNY predicting the collapse of WTC7 because of the walls bowing out and explain how a planned demolition plot could have arranged that.

a reply to: wildb it seems they do just what they want.
The date of the attack: 9/11 - 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.
After September 11th there are 111 days left to the end of the year.
September 11th is the 254th day of the year: 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
119 is the area code for Iraq/Iran. 1 + 1 + 9 = 11, 911 - 119 are opposites - enemies?
11 11 polarity.
Twin Towers - standing side by side, looks like the number 11.
The first plane to hit the towers was Flight 11.
State of New York - The 11th State added to the Union.
"New York City" has 11 letters.
"Afghanistan" - 11 letters.
"The Pentagon" - 11 letters.
"Ramzi Yousef" - 11 letters (convicted of orchestrating the attack on the WTC in 1993).
Flight 11 - 92 on board - 9 + 2 = 11.
Flight 11 had 11 crew members onboard.
Flight 77 - 65 on board - 6 + 5 = 11.
Good Night Merry Christmas.....

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

David Chandler has been debunked time after time.

When Will David Chandler Fix His Errors?

Chandler pops in and acknowledges the mistake, but fails to admit that once the error is adjusted for the supposedly suspicious behavior of the material being ejected horizontally is explained away:...

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

More disinfo, the Physics tool kit is free and available to all, why don't you get it and plug in your own numbers and prove him wrong, until then you have no case..

a reply to: pteridine

Ok. Explain the FDNY predicting the collapse of WTC7 because of the walls bowing out and explain how a planned demolition plot could have arranged that.

Start with your source, plenty of FDNY who support my case.. unless you look away, you have disappointed me much sir..

a reply to: pteridine

Ok. Explain the FDNY predicting the collapse of WTC7 because of the walls bowing out and explain how a planned demolition plot could have arranged that.

You are deflecting, I am most disappointed..

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Ok. Explain the FDNY predicting the collapse of WTC7 because of the walls bowing out and explain how a planned demolition plot could have arranged that.

Start with your source, plenty of FDNY who support my case.. unless you look away, you have disappointed me much sir..

Read what the chief said. Fires not controlled. Walls bowing out. Dangerous situation. This building is coming down. Let's get out of here. That happened at 2pm. Three hours later, WTC7 collapsed.

How does a controlled demolition plot arrange bulging walls, scare off the firemen, and then wait three hours to bring down the building?

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Ok. Explain the FDNY predicting the collapse of WTC7 because of the walls bowing out and explain how a planned demolition plot could have arranged that.

Start with your source, plenty of FDNY who support my case.. unless you look away, you have disappointed me much sir..

Read what the chief said. Fires not controlled. Walls bowing out. Dangerous situation. This building is coming down. Let's get out of here. That happened at 2pm. Three hours later, WTC7 collapsed.

How does a controlled demolition plot arrange bulging walls, scare off the firemen, and then wait three hours to bring down the building?

You buy into the script, not the science, you are now sky guy two, upsetting to say the least, ...but thats Ok, ..