Bush's connections and now a possible connection to controlled demo consulting and planning company

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Where are the WTC demo explosions? Now, let's do some real comparisons. First, WTC 1 collapse. You will also notice that falling debris debunks the claim that WTC 1 fell at free fall speed.



No demolition explosions in that WTC 1 video. Now, let's listen to the real sound of demolition explosions



Now, let's review the collapse of WTC 2.



No sound of demolition explosions during the collapse of WTC 2. Now, lets listen to another demolition operation.



That is what real demolition explosions sound like. Now, for WTC 7.



In case you have forgotten what real demolition explosions sound like, you can go here.

a reply to: skyeagle409



This video has been edited and LaBTop proves it.

The first few seconds where everyone can hear the explosions has been edited out.

I and many ATS posters asked you to stop posted fraudulent videos in your desprete attempts to fool everyone.

You have no case on your rebuttal.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

For every scientist who says "no", there's also one that says "yes"

Le'ts look at the real numbers.

There are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

The witnesses, video/audio evidence, and scientists that say "yes" are all in agreement that the buildings came down with explosives.

Apparently, you are incorrect.

Architects Shy From Truther 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.


WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

www.representativepress.org...


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

sites.google.com...


The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting

The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives".

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."


Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

To sum it up, you have no case.

a reply to: Informer1958

What he posted was structural failure, which had nothing to do with explosives. I've also posted a video of such a failure involving a crane to make my point clear on that fact.

a reply to: skyeagle409

What he posted was structural failure, which had nothing to do with explosives. I've also posted a video of such a failure involving a crane to make my point clear on that fact.

Now you are being dishonest again.

LaBTop post to you.

He is using about twenty times now in this thread, a deliberately butchered WTC-7 collapse video. One or two times is perhaps a mistake, not 20+ times, this was his latest one, READ it HERE, then read my following last and only explanation to him, with my time-lines regarding demolition explosions :

skyeagle409 his video follows, it begins as the east penthouse has already sunk away, clearly lacking the first 3 to 4 secs from my full video :

Below you can view MY posted video, with its first 3 extra seconds and that deep explosion sound in them, and after that there are no further sounds audible to human ears : sounds from the WHOLE further TOTAL collapse.
That deep explosion sound thus must have been one hell of an explosion, to be recorded by a news camera from some six-hundred meters away. That area was full of packed together, high buildings, which clearly muffled the full collapse sounds enough so that they were indistinguishable for the human ear from background noise, i.o.w. while the whole further collapse of a 47 story building doesn't deliver any clear audible sound after that first deep explosion sound is heard, which means that that deep sound was MUCH stronger and louder than the whole following 47 stories full of thick steel, thundering and crashing down, which was not picked up by the SAME camera microphone.
Start listening and watch that east penthouse at the 16 seconds position in this video posted by me in my OP, made by Ewing Smith, at the onset of its 18th second you hear that deep sound, which must have been much louder than the whole following global collapse, THEN, at the onset of the 19th second, you see the east penthouse roof start to fall down, and that's where the above butchered video STARTS, so that above one misses a full THREE SECONDS.
This is MY OP-posted full video :

These original first 3 seconds with that deep sound of a huge explosion have been cut off from his endlessly reposted butchered video.
And then he stubbornly keeps asking the readers to show him the time lines where we can hear demolition explosives in HIS butchered video.

While he knows very well of the existence in my OP of the original full video, and that my OPs show to the keen reader, that you have to combine all the explosive sounds in my OPs listed videos :

The Ashley Banfield video with 9 explosions in it (it starts at 2:00/9:56) :
www.youtube.com...

Then combine them with my below seismogram and then you see and have heard the clear WTC-7 demolition time line as laid out by me, multiple times already in this thread :

WTC-7 demolition time line : One big deep explosion sound 3 seconds (speed of sound +/- 333 m/s, distance 2 x that = 1+2 secs ) before the east penthouse started to sink down (a thermobaric bomb perhaps) to weaken the lower 8 floors, followed by 9 softer explosions, only audible in the Ashley Banfield video, during the 8.25 seconds that it took the first of the 9 explosions to let both penthouses sink below the WTC-7 its parapet roof line, and then the full 8 lower floors their load bearing capability suddenly gave way after those last few explosions from those 9 you hear in the Ashley Banfield video displaced the already cut, vertical steel from the last remaining intact columns in those 8 floors, and then the first 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration started, being the first few seconds of WTC-7 its global collapse of about 6 seconds total.

And every real physicist knows what 2.25 secs of FREE FALL ACCELERATION means :
NO resistance at all over the height of 8 floors, in other words :

a reply to: Informer1958

There is no evidence of demo explosions at ground zero in your presentations.

Demolition Experts and Ground Zero

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

sites.google.com...


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

911research.wtc7.net...

In addition, Protec Documentary Services< Inc. and Columbia Universtiy's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, at Palisades, New York, were operating seismographs, which captured the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, and they have confirmed that their seismographs did not detect demolition explosions during the collapse of those buildings.

You can read all about it here.

Report: Seismographs did not Detect Demolition Explosions at Grond Zero

In other words, claims that seismographs depicted signs of demolition explosions during the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, are false according to those who were operating seismographs that recorded the events that day at ground zero.

a reply to: Informer1958

And every real physicist knows what 2.25 secs of FREE FALL ACCELERATION means :
NO resistance at all over the height of 8 floors, in other words :

The sound in your WTC 7 video is not the sound a demo explosions. Now, let's take a look at the collapse of WTC 7 and notice how long it took for the total collapse to occur.



17 seconds for WTC 7 to collapse is not free fall speed and helps explain why seismographs did not detect demolition explosions as WTC 7 collapsed.

In regards to David Chandler's comments in one of your videos, David Chandler got busted for pushing false and misleading information on WTC 7. You can hear all about it here.



From your reference.

That deep explosion sound thus must have been one hell of an explosion, to be recorded by a news camera from some six-hundred meters away.

He says one hell of an explosion when no one else heard demolition explosions as WTC 7 collapsed and the fact that no detection of demo explosions recorded on seismographs in the area?

To sum that up, he's pushing disinformation as well because the facts and data evidence do not support his flawed statement. Now, let's take a look here.

a reply to: skyeagle409

There is no evidence of demo explosions at ground zero in your presentations.

That wont work.

The experts disagree with you and so does everyone on ATS.

a reply to: skyeagle409

And every real physicist knows what 2.25 secs of FREE FALL ACCELERATION means :
NO resistance at all over the height of 8 floors, in other words :

Funny you don't address this issue. You just posted this to me calling it no sounds of explosions?

The 2.25 secs is now a proven fact and A&E forced NIST to change their stance in their Report.

How is your OS conspiracy theory helping you now?

The 2.25 secs is now a proven fact and A&E forced NIST to change their stance in their Report.

I have to correct you good sir, it was David Chandler who called them on that, so they changed the report but still lied about it..

a reply to: Informer1958

It already has.

a reply to: Informer1958

To sum it up, WTC 7 collapsed in 17 seconds, which is not free fall speed nor were demo explosions heard during the collapse of that building, which also explains why seismographs did not detect demo explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed.

a reply to: Informer1958

The experts disagree with you and so does everyone on ATS.

Let's take a look to see if you are correct.

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and thecenter steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."


WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory


The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting

The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."


Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core

Proves once again that you are incorrect.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Informer1958

To sum it up, WTC 7 collapsed in 17 seconds, which is not free fall speed nor were demo explosions heard during the collapse of that building, which also explains why seismographs did not detect demo explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed.

Nist admitted it fell at free fall for the first 100 feet, thats what matters, the 17 seconds if true means nothing. Many heard the explosions , you haven't because you have a hearing problem.

a reply to: wildb

Nist admitted it fell at free fall for the first 100 feet, thats what matters, the 17 seconds if true means nothing.

Even structural failure can cause a building to fall in such a manner. Case in point; the 21-steel frame building that collapsed during an earthquake.

Photo: 21-Story Steel Frame Building Collapse During Earthquake

a reply to: skyeagle409

To sum it up, WTC 7 collapsed in 17 seconds, which is not free fall speed nor were demo explosions heard during the collapse of that building, which also explains why seismographs did not detect demo explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed.

Your old conspiracy theory has been DEBUNKED to death years ago, only you cling to a false doctrine of the debunked pancake conspiracy theories.

Your false seismographs has also been debunked years ago and again by LaBTop.

Science has ripped your "opinions" apart and the OS disinformation as well. You cannot argue with outside science that is not controlled by our government, and as for the rest of the OS so call science in every case it is all proven incomplete.

a reply to: Informer1958

That won't fly! As you can plainly see from the experts, your claim has crashed in flames.

a reply to: skyeagle409

That won't fly! As you can plainly see from the experts, your claim has crashed in flames.

Hey it's ok with me if you want to deny all the giving facts and science.

You are not fooling anyone, anymore.

a reply to: Informer1958

Apparently, when you have folks like Veterans Today, Hardcore 9/11 conspiracy theorist, "OS" folks, and then, have support workers jumping ship of "AE 911 Truth," what more is there to say?

a reply to: skyeagle409

To sum it up, WTC 7 collapsed in 17 seconds, which is not free fall speed nor were demo explosions heard during the collapse of that building, which also explains why seismographs did not detect demo explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed.

To sum it up you are wrong on all accounts as you have been seriously debunked in this thread.