Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: kwakakev

DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF COLUMNS CUT BY PLANTED PYROTECHNICS FROM THE VIDEO, AUDIO, SEISMIC EVIDENCE?

Or you have faith when AE tells you what to believe because you are biased?

a reply to: neutronflux

I have reviewed, trust and agree with the work by AE. Out of all the 9/11 evidence presented over the years in reviewing this matter, this group of professionals have provided the most well reasoned arguments in understanding the evidence that is available.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I have reviewed, trust and agree with the work by AE. Out of all the 9/11 evidence presented over the years in reviewing this matter, this group of professionals have provided the most well reasoned arguments in understanding the evidence that is available.

And that work has mostly been debunked.

Starting with Richard Gages claim the twin towers fell through the path of greatest resistance.

The core columns fell last in long lengths. They were not cut first in short segments to initiate collapse.

Richard Gabe is either wrong, or lying.

a reply to: neutronflux
The towers fell through the path of least resistance.

Pretty much free fall as far as I saw.
Building 7 looked exactly like a planned and controlled demolition.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

You

Pretty much free fall as far as I saw.

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

www.skeptic.com...

Funny nobody cared about WTC 7 until Richard Gage messed up the twin tower theory conspiracy fantasy with proven falsehoods...

WTC7.......


You should read this before you put your foot in your mouth “ WTC7: Determining the Accelerations involved - Methods and Accuracy www.metabunk.org...”

a reply to: neutronflux

And that work has mostly been debunked.

I know you have continually called it debunked. You have repeatedly to fail to address many of the questions posed about it through out this thread. You have failed to reasonably state your case for what parts specifically AE is wrong about.

Your only consistent response to challenging the work of AE is to call it debunked or truther lies. Your lack of non biased judgment to even acknowledge that AE has gotten at least one thing right puts your integrity in question.

I understand this is a difficult situation as many troubling issues are raised to fully understand the implications of what a controlled demolition on 9/11 means. There has been a huge psychological operation used against the population and understand that we do need to keep moving as best we can through its ongoing issues.

a reply to: kwakakev

What are you going on about. Richard Gage has been repeatedly and soundly debunked.

Now..

DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF COLUMNS CUT BY PLANTED PYROTECHNICS FROM THE VIDEO, AUDIO, SEISMIC EVIDENCE?

Do you still see the core columns standing in the pictures below after the complete collapse of the floor system?





Two pictures showing Richard Gage is wrong or a lair.

You just look sad and ignorant at this

a reply to: neutronflux

What are you going on about. Richard Gage has been repeatedly and soundly debunked.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then.

I know there are many others that do not want to let go the official story go either. I can understand it. Perhaps in time as more evidence comes out things will become clearer for you and many others still struggling with those remaining questions.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

How can Neutronflux call posters trolls but I cannot call Neutronflux out as a shill?

Neutronflux is trying, he is allowed is own views and opinions. If you want to debate then attack the evidence, not the man.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: Itisnowagain

How can Neutronflux call posters trolls but I cannot call Neutronflux out as a shill?

Neutronflux is trying, he is allowed is own views and opinions. If you want to debate then attack the evidence, not the man.

It’s a fact Richard Gage has been proven wrong. Over and over.

What is Richard Gage’s best evidence the twin tower columns were cut by planted pyrotechnics?

I bet you will not cite anything knowing Richard Gage lies or is wrong.

a reply to: neutronflux

What is Richard Gage’s best evidence the twin tower columns were cut by planted pyrotechnics?

The high concentrations of iron micro spheres found in the dust is strong evidence of the steel undergoing a very high temperature and pressure event.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

What is Richard Gage’s best evidence the twin tower columns were cut by planted pyrotechnics?

The high concentrations of iron micro spheres found in the dust is strong evidence of the steel undergoing a very high temperature and pressure event.

Really. You sure you want to go with that...

Iron Micro Spheres are made by many process that were at the WTC. Welding, grinding. And can be made at lower temperatures. Like iron contaminates in mineral wool insulation being exposed to normal office fires.

And AE truth has repeatedly claimed the fires at the WTC were never hotter than normal office fires. I guess that rules out hundreds of thermite fueled fires from planted pyrotechnics.

So. Truth movement dishonesty and contraction. With no proof of cut columns. All for a system of triggering that would not have survived building damage and fires to actuate.

Easily debunked. Nice try kid.

a reply to: neutronflux

Dismissing the estimated number and size of these micro spheres to some work by a grinder or welder is unrealistic and dishonest. The steel framing is the source of these iron micro spheres, not the insulation.

And AE truth has repeatedly claimed the fire at the WTC were never hotter than normal office fires.

This is dishonest and demonstrates your failure in properly researching the material by AE.

a reply to: kwakakev

Oh, and too bad the AE ack analysis was never verified by a independent third party.

a reply to: kwakakev

Whole thread here...

Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite
www.metabunk.org...

Proving the truth movement argument is the dishonest one concerning micro iron spheres.

a reply to: kwakakev

And you still cannot get pass that a controlled demolition ignition system would not survive being hit by the collapse of the twin towers and hours of wide spread fires to actuate as needed for the WTC 7 CD fantasy.

Sorry.

a reply to: neutronflux

too bad the AE analysis was never verified by a independent third party.

What do you mean? It has been verified by more than 3,000 architects and engineers that have signed the petition. There are many others that support these conclusions.

How much verification has metabunk got?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

too bad the AE analysis was never verified by a independent third party.

What do you mean? It has been verified by more than 3,000 architects and engineers that have signed the petition. There are many others that support these conclusions.

How much verification has metabunk got?

And how many professionals are sued each year because of professional malpractice.

And then you have this...

Other WTC7 Investigations: Aegis Insurance v. 7 World Trade Company Expert Reports

www.metabunk.org...

Court submitted engineering studies under deposition that WTC 7’s root cause for collapse was fire related.

How many AE studies were submitted as singed depositions?


Please. By all means cite were the WTC samples were submitted to an independent third part for verification to verify Jones’s work? Without that. Any finding is meaningless.