Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

a reply to: madenusa

The best (honest) scientists worldwide have shown that the top portions of the Main WTC buildings (1 & 2) both fell significantly faster than the laws of gravity allow

a reply to: wildb

Since no one found evidence of explosives, how many of those people actually claimed to have found evidence of bombs/explosives?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: madenusa

The best (honest) scientists worldwide have shown that the top portions of the Main WTC buildings (1 & 2) both fell significantly faster than the laws of gravity allow

BS on your video, the correct term is at near free fall speed, or as David Chandler put it 3/4 of free fall for the towers. But so what they came down really fast, just about 100 feet of building per second, there is the smoking gun, your video means nothing..

a reply to: skyeagle409
Pictures of smoke plumes (see arrows) from explosives detonating within WTC 2, below the falling top portion of steel building debris

a reply to: wildb

That won't fly because the video proved that at no time did the WTC building completely collapse at free fall speed, which was evident by the fact that debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are seen outpacing the collapse of the WTC Tower and striking the ground while the collapse is still in progress many stories above ground level, hence, the WTC Tower is not falling at free fall speed.

The following photo validates the video that I posted.

Photo: Debris and Dust Plumes Outpace WTC Tower Collapse

Notice that the collapse is not indicative of a controlled demolition implosion.

a reply to: madenusa

What you are looking at are low-velocity compressed air squibs, and nothing to do with explosives.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

That won't fly because the video proved that at no time did the WTC building completely collapse at free fall speed, which was evident by the fact that debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are seen outpacing the collapse of the WTC Tower and striking the ground while the collapse is still in progress many stories above ground level, hence, the WTC Tower is not falling at free fall speed.

The following photo validates the video that I posted.

Photo: Debris and Dust Plumes Outpace WTC Tower Collapse

Notice that the collapse is not indicative of a controlled demolition implosion.

So when I agree with you it's another case of it won't fly.. did you take your meds today..

a reply to: madenusa

Have you seen this ??

a reply to: wildb

Your video proved my point that debris and dust plumes, which was falling at free fall speed, are seen outpacing the collapse of the WTC Tower, which is still falling at less than free fall speed many stories above the ground. Furthermore, there are no sounds of explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

In other words, you have no case for explosives nor even explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: madenusa

What you are looking at are low-velocity compressed air squibs, and nothing to do with explosives.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Thermite

a reply to: madenusa

Apparently, your post is in conflict with that of wildb and other 9/11 conspiracy theorist who do not attribute the collapse of the WTC buildings to thermite.

Brent Blanchard: World Leading Demolition Expert

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: Since you already mentioned thermite, let's proceed with this topic. What do you think of thermite? Is it even vaguely possible to demolish the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center with thermite?

Brent Blanchard: No. In explosive demolitions thermite is never used.

The thermite assertion first came out three or four years after the event; there was no talk of thermite until 2004 or 2005. All of a sudden this new theory came out because all other theories were very easily proved impractical or impossible.

There was a professor over here in States that decided back then that thermite was his new theory, but the more you look into thermite the more you understand that the way it causes the metal to fail is not consistent with what happened. Then he changed his theory into nano-thermite and now he might even come out with double-nano-thermite. There are always variations that pop up about how thermite might have been used.

In order for thermite to work you have to have a release of the chemical and the chemical has to actually cause the steel to deteriorate. I don't how they think it can be done to an H-beam, or to any very thick steel beam. Thermite doesn't work horizontally, it works vertically. You can't cause thermite to cut horizontally through steel. You can't attach thermite to a bunch of columns, dozens and dozens of columns, and expect it to start cutting clean through all those columns at a predetermined time or especially finish at the same time. I don't understand how it can even theoretically occur. And it's never been articulately explained by the theorists.

Thermite folks just tend to assert that a bunch of guys went in there, put thermite on columns that happened to already be exposed, them somehow triggered it all, and the thermite somehow cut horizontally through a bunch of columns at the same time and caused the building to fail. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Undicisettembre: A question I heard recently is: if thermite had been used, would it have produced a lot of light that would have been clearly visible from outside?

Brent Blanchard: It would have created a whole lot of light. It would have created a lot of fire, a lot of flame, of glow, smoke, all prior to the collapse. It didn’t, because there was no thermite.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...

It was later determined that Richard Gage and Steven Jones had lied about thermite at ground zero. On another note, were you aware of an experiment where 1/2 tons of thermite failed to cut a SUV in two parts?

a reply to: madenusa

Thermite

There were 9/11 conspiracy theorist who'd claimed that these photos are evidence that thermite was used to demolish the WTC buildings.

Photo 1: Truther Evidence of Thermite Cuts at Ground Zero

Photo 2: Truther Evidence of Thermite Cuts at Ground Zero

Now, for the rest of the story as to how those cuts at ground zero were truly made.

Photo: Worker Cutting Steel at Ground Zero

a reply to: madenusa

Apparently, your post is in conflict with that of wildb and other 9/11 conspiracy theorist who do not attribute the collapse of the WTC buildings to thermite.

a reply to: wildb

David Chandler has been discredited after he was caught spewing disinformation.

When Will David Chandler Fix His Errors?

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: madenusa

What you are looking at are low-velocity compressed air squibs, and nothing to do with explosives.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Thermite

Good post..

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: madenusa

Thermite

There were 9/11 conspiracy theorist who'd claimed that these photos are evidence that thermite was used to demolish the WTC buildings.

Photo 1: Truther Evidence of Thermite Cuts at Ground Zero

Photo 2: Truther Evidence of Thermite Cuts at Ground Zero

Now, for the rest of the story as to how those cuts at ground zero were truly made.

Photo: Worker Cutting Steel at Ground Zero

FEMA Photog saw the very same thing before the clean up crews showed up, regardless moot point.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

David Chandler has been discredited after he was caught spewing disinformation.

When Will David Chandler Fix His Errors?

I saw the videos, another opinion, misinfo hit piece.. You think he is a fraud, stupid man, well he forced NIST to change there story, nuff said.

The political engines and major events in today's world,this idea of a governmental well-planned and perfectly pulled off "inside job" is not outlandish.... and seems even more plausible than the "safer" story generated from Washington D.C
No steel framed building had ever collapsed from fire damage before in history.
Souls who ready or not had to face their Maker on September 11th blood cries for truth and proper justice

a reply to: wildb

Apparently, you are unaware that structural and civil engineers, firefighters, demolition experts, and even architects, do not agree with David Chandler.

Now, there are 9/11 conspiracy theorist who are having second thoughts about David Chandler now that he has been changing over time and seems to support the official story at the Pentagon.

.

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Remember that you do not have to prove anything. All you are asked to do is describe how it could have been done so we can examine the possibilities. Explosives used? Quantities? Placement? Stemming? Mechanism of dem

For the towers I think non conventional means were used..

First, you wanted to discuss WTC 7 but now you want the towers. OK, the Towers it is. What non-conventional means were used? Death rays from space? Hack saws? Sears socket sets? Die grinders? Magic?

Obviously, you really have no idea about demolition of anything which is consistent with all the other truthers on this board. Your conclusion that "non conventional means were used" is a typical response of those who are indoctrinated to cut and paste what they read on 9/11 conspiracy sites without any attempt at critical thought. They desperately want a conspiracy so that they can feel they know something that others don't and accept virtually anything that lets them believe such. "Non conventional means" claims allow for conspiracy ad-nauseum without requiring knowledge of any aspect of building demolition, energetic materials, building construction, or physics. That same physics whose laws truthers claim are violated by the collapses and whose knowledge of such consists of the spelling of "physics."
Here are a few tips on demolition.
"Blowing things up" is a misnomer. Using enough explosive to launch things into the air is wasteful and really dangerous for those nearby. The way it is done is to kick the supports out sideways and let gravity take the structure down. Use of minimal explosive to do such is considered good form.
There are different techniques for different purposes. If I want to deny a group the use of a bridge for a while, say until my group gets there, and then use it again, I would destroy the bridge deck, which I can replace relatively quickly. If I want to deny the group the use of a bridge and don't plan to use it, I would destroy key supports and drop the entire bridge into whatever it was spanning.