9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts speak out.

reply to post by pteridine

Shall I explain the errors in the energy calculations, again? After all, it is the Jones' mumbo jumbo that you've come to know and love.

Don’t bother; after all, you cannot give us any science to support your assumptions of energy calculations.

reply to post by impressme


I use Jones' data, so you may be correct about the lack of science on Jones' part.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme

 

Shall I explain the errors in the energy calculations, again? After all, it is the Jones' mumbo jumbo that you've come to know and love.

No. Your thoughts on Jone's paper just aren't worth wasting our time on again.

What we would really like is for you to show us an example of a global collapse of a steel frame building without Controlled Demolition. Before or after 911.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
No. Your thoughts on Jone's paper just aren't worth wasting our time on again.

What we would really like is for you to show us an example of a global collapse of a steel frame building without Controlled Demolition. Before or after 911.

"OUR time?" Who else do you speak for? Do you have a tapeworm? I know that you don't understand technical details, so an explanation for you would be a waste of my time.
As to the good old global collapse comment, I think you should rephrase it to say "example of a global collapse of a steel frame building without controlled demolition or high-speed jetliner impact."

reply to post by pteridine


Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. Fell almost as fast as a block of lead. Even if it had massive damage it would fall over if anything. Show us a building.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by pteridine

 

Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. Fell almost as fast as a block of lead. Even if it had massive damage it would fall over if anything. Show us a building.

Building seven was hit by pieces of another building. Edit my suggestion to include that. How you think it would collapse is speculation. Maybe you watch too many disaster movies.
There is no evidence for demolition, only "gut feelings."

Let’s embrace ignorance!

Building seven was hit by pieces of another building.

There was no proof of this, again more of your opinions that you want to pass on as facts.

There is no evidence for demolition, only "gut feelings."

Same as many of your OS defenders "gut feelings.” of pieces from another building allegedly hit WTC 7.

We all know the OS that many of you defend by hart.

We are in here to deny ignorance “not” to embrace it.

Originally posted by impressme
Let’s embrace ignorance!

It appears you really are.

There was no proof of this, again more of your opinions that you want to pass on as facts.

Same as many of your OS defenders "gut feelings.” of pieces from another building allegedly hit WTC 7.

Hmmm, no proof? These are only gut feelings? Let's see...take a long look at the pictures here - www.911myths.com...

Let's look at what some of the eyewitnesses have to say about your claim that pieces from another building hit WTC7 were only "gut feelings" :

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.

Wow, that right there already tears your claim to pieces!

Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

Hmmm, eyewitnesses AND pictures of the damage? Looks like you're wrong. If I were you I would retract your bogus statement.

We are in here to deny ignorance “not” to embrace it.

If you really believe this, then please STOP spreading the ignorance!

reply to post by Soloist

Hmmm, no proof? These are only gut feelings? Let's see...take a long look at the pictures here - www.911myths.com...

Hmmm, www.911myths.com was absolutely proven to be a disinformation website no wonder you believe in the OS. 911myths is mostly the author’s opinions, opinions base on the author’s beliefs, and nothing more.

If you really believe this, then please STOP spreading the ignorance!

So, all you have is hearsay information, how interesting, yet with all of the hundreds or perhaps thousands of photos take that day there is not one single photo that supports you and your witness. Funny how the government was able to show all sides of “all” the WTC except for WTC 7.

It’s been proven that our government is corrupt to the core. Yet, many of you 911 OS defenders take our government word at face value, that is what I call “spreading ignorance” Defending the OS of 911 is “spreading ignorance.”
The OS of 911 has been proven a lie, so why do you defend it?

reply to post by impressme


Riiiiight.

So, you obviously have your head buried in the sand and refuse to look at the photo's that prove your statement above 100% false. Include statements from firefighters who were on site that day and witnessed exactly what the pictures show and your little "conspiracy" falls completely apart.

You want this to be an inside job so bad that you're not even coming across as rational in any way, shape, or form.

We can see right through you.

reply to post by Soloist


Oh no you don't!
Those pictures show nothing conclusive. Superficial damage at best. They don't show a 10 story gouge in the building.
Interesting that you then fall back on witness statements as gospel but have no trouble discounting the likes of Barry Jennings and others who reported bombes going off.
I'm afraid its you who has your head in the sand.

reply to post by OllyP


What would the difference in collapse of WTC7 be between a CD and a collapse as explained by the NIST report?

reply to post by Soloist

The OS of 911 has been proven a lie, so why do you defend it?

I asked you a question and I am still waiting for your answer

refuse to look at the photo's that prove your statement above 100% false.

Your statement is completely false.

Include statements from firefighters who were on site that day and witnessed exactly what the pictures show and your little "conspiracy" falls completely apart.

Perhaps a few of you feel twisting the facts will help in supporting the OS of 911, however that is the only way one can support the OS of 911 is to tell fallacies because most of the OS is a lie. You cannot defend a lie with truth, because if you did then the OS falls apart.

Are you telling me and everyone on ATS that all the firemen police officers, first responders who went on public record in the oral report that the FBI hide from the public and New York Times had to sue the government of NYC to release these reports are all lairs. There are over 500 hundred eyewitness who went on record, many of these firemen and police offices saw flashes going around the WTC and multiple explosions, not only did they witness them some of them were in them. So are you saying they are all liars?
and the government who were not there in NYC on 911 are telling the truth?

You want this to be an inside job so bad that you're not even coming across as rational in any way, shape, or form.

Some of you want this 911 story to be the OS so bad “that you are not coming across as rational in any way, shape, or form,” and that’s clearly a fact.

Perhaps, it is you who’s head is buried in the sand, how does that work for you?

reply to post by pteridine

What would the difference in collapse of WTC7 be between a CD and a collapse as explained by the NIST report?

There is no comparison; NIST was proven a fraud a long time ago
Are you telling everyone you do not know the different in a proven fraudulent report and a classic demolition? Yet you tell everyone that you are a scientist? Wow!

Let me explain this so a child should be able to comprehend. If you take a chair and break out a leg the chair will fall over to the side of weakness (if anything). Not Break the other legs, and fall straight through itself at almost free fall acceleration.

Even a Wrecking ball repeatably slammed into the side of the building would not cause a global collapse. No example exists other than controlled demolition.

No excuses. Show me a building.

Originally posted by OllyP
reply to post by Soloist

 

Oh no you don't!
Those pictures show nothing conclusive. Superficial damage at best. They don't show a 10 story gouge in the building.

Oh yes I will!

If you were to have read the actual statement I was replying to, you would understand. Do those pictures show that WTC7 was damaged by the collapse? Yes! Do the witness statements support those pictures? Yes!

According to cashlink, this was all a bunch of "alleged pieces of the building hitting the building". Sorry, but that won't fly around here.

However, if you're judgment is clouded by the pre-determination that this was an inside job then it doesn't matter.

CL was caught lying, and then refused to look at the evidence. It's no surprise really, typical behavior around here.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Soloist
I asked you a question and I am still waiting for your answer

LOL. This will be easy... ohhhh CL, you make me laugh...

First of all ask a legitimate question, then MAYBE you will get an answer. Nothing was a "proven lie" , except maybe to truthers. As far as defending the "OS", my post was to point to the actual evidence of the tower collapsing on WTC7. Nothing more, nothing less.

refuse to look at the photo's that prove your statement above 100% false.

Your statement is completely false.

So, you're now saying that you looked at them? And saw the damage caused by the building that you claim "allegedly" happened? Let's hear it! Either you admit you were wrong, OR you are embracing that ignorance you claim we should all be denying!

Perhaps a few of you feel twisting the facts will help in supporting the OS of 911...SNIP

Are you telling me and everyone on ATS that all the firemen police officers, first responders who went on public record in the oral report that the FBI hide from the public and New York Times had to sue the government of NYC to release these reports are all lairs. SNIP

So are you saying they are all liars?
and the government who were not there in NYC on 911 are telling the truth?

Wow, how desperate you are getting over all this now, eh?

This had to do with ONE event, yet you are trying (And failing) to twist my words into making it about the whole "OS".

Stay on topic CL.

The firemen who were there said they saw it happen. The pictures support their statements. End of story, unless YOU want to be the one calling them liars and the photo's doctored?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

What would the difference in collapse of WTC7 be between a CD and a collapse as explained by the NIST report?

There is no comparison; NIST was proven a fraud a long time ago
Are you telling everyone you do not know the different in a proven fraudulent report and a classic demolition? Yet you tell everyone that you are a scientist? Wow!

Problems with NIST report.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Another excellent video Debunking NIST.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Doctor Smith


I can see your knowledge of enginering is as extensive as your knowledge of chemistry. You should consider borrowing Gage's cardboard box collection so you can be an "expert" just like those in the original post.

What building would you like to see? As far as I know, only two were hit by a jetliner and one was struck by pieces of those, so there is only three that would qualify.