An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T's List of Demolition Signs

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Here's the thing, I choose him from random on that list. The OP puts down all the people at that website & I was making the point that he doesn't know who he is putting down

reply to post by GenRadek

Originally posted by GenRadek


Also, recall Richard "Boxboy" Gage. He is one of the founders. Here is how he demonstrates the WTC collapse!

Yeah! A true expert there!

That video is the best evidence that Gage is a phony.

just was wondering what qualifications you have to back up your claims to refute any statements made by
AE9/11T site? what is your profession?
1 what does it matter what version Gage and Co. used to show the wtc7 fall? the fact is it fell!
2 were you there on the day of explosion? do you know what explosions sound like?
3 are you an expert in bringing down buildings and how they might fall?
4 you know personally that there were no demolition charges?
i could go on but i couldnt be bothered as to the rest of your argument seem flawed as far as im concerned have no real merit!

reply to post by Swills


I don't care if you chose him at random or not. Neither his personal statement, nor the petition he signed have anything to do with any of GenRadek's arguments. Therefore, they are utterly irrelevant to the thread.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

...it would have collapsed in the same fashion if there were office fires on any other day than 9/11.

Am I right?

Maybe so...

IF the fires were unfought, and the sprinkler systems were cut off, as they were on that day.

keep in mind that the fires burned for several hours.

Also, you should remember that steel is required to be fireproofed in tall office buildings for good reason!

edit on 1/26/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: fix quote

Was the building made out of wood or something?

The official story is rediculous. Some office fires wouldn't suddenly take a whole building down in a matter of seconds. If you showed video of WTC7 falling to anyone unknowing that this was footage from 9/11, they would probably say detonation, because that is exactly what it looks like.



There's just no way that is caused by fire damage.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Was the building made out of wood or something?

No.

Also, your personal incredulity counts for nothing as an argument.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Was the building made out of wood or something?

No.

Also, your personal incredulity counts for nothing as an argument.

I find that sometimes the best way to counter pure ignorance is with an aggressive stance. If a slap can knock someone back to their senses, then it is my obligation to deliver the textual equivalent in such a discussion.

WTC7 is the staplepoint of why the official 9/11 story is BS. If that building never came down, then I would be more inclined to believe the official story. However, this building did fall down in the same fashion as the other two, except that it was not hit by a plane. This is such a blatant muck up that it appears that some people simply cannot accept it for the obviously reality, thus they feel that they must justify the official series of events described to them by the very powers that stood to benefit from such an incident.

You know what would be really ironic? If it turned out that Flight 97 was set to crash into WTC7, but instead it turned away because the passengers fought back, only to be shot down by fighters so there would be no survivors to tell the tale. And then WTC7, which was set to be destroyed, was taken down anyway with some piss-poor story provided that a few office fires lead to the simultaneous collapse of a skyscraper. Now there's a conspiracy.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


WTC 7 was hit......fatally hit, as it turned out, b falling debris from WTC 1. [***] This blow was part of the destabilizing effect that served to comprise structural integrity. The un-contained fires did the rest.

This is not difficult to research, if one cares to check out ALL of the sources on it.

I think this thread has the references.....in the previous pages.

Too often, the lies and bluster and bravado that spew from the so-called "9/11 truth movement" have terribly clouded the fats, with their BS, over the last decade. Crap sticks to the wall, it is a vulgar analogy, but apt in the cases referring to many of these so-called "truth" sites and the claims made...unsubstantiated claims, all based on misinformation and a boatload of innuendo.......

[***] Maybe this photo will help to visualize the way that collapsing WTC 1 debris impacted and affected WTC 7:

reply to post by GenRadek

1. Rapid onset of collapse

That is false. Gage and Co. use a clipped version of the WTC7 collapse which snips off the penthouse collapse. That act alone should send up a red flag, as this is a blatant breach of honesty. Why is that?

I completely disagree with you and your opinions, again you are cherry picking quotes from what experts have already proven (Rapid onset.)
Since you are so eager to call A&E science a lie, perhaps you could bring some real science in this thread to prove that ALL of these technical papers and calculation from A&E are lies?
You certainly are entitle to your beliefs and “opinions” however people who are interested in Truth are not interested in a poster opinion who has a record of hand waving science because it doesn’t support their patriotic beliefs.
where are all the thousands of real scientists and experts from all over the world who are willing to put their reputation and careers on the line to support the pseudo-science that the government dreamed up, in explaining the demise of the WTC? Where are all these people? Most 911 researchers know NIST was a joke.
Most people on ATS know the OS is a lie and you continuing to reject A&E science, nothing new here, so why don’t you tell us what really brought down the WTC by providing science to back your claim? I don’t believe you can.

reply to post by GenRadek


What are your credentials that carry more weight than these architects and engineers?


Just what the internet needs... another thread by an imbecile with no common sense or logic.

on a side note... wasn't Gen Radek a "bad guy" in some movie? not even going to google it.. good choice tho.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Was the building made out of wood or something?

No.

Also, your personal incredulity counts for nothing as an argument.

WTC7 is the staplepoint of why the official 9/11 story is BS. If that building never came down, then I would be more inclined to believe the official story. However, this building did fall down in the same fashion as the other two, except that it was not hit by a plane. .

edit on 27-1-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

Actually the collapse of WTC 7 is clear evidence that controlled demolition at the WTC is nonsense.

It is commonly alleged that WTC 1,2&7 were all rigged for cd. However, in the cases of WTC 1&2, the perps went to enormous trouble to disguise the cd by having planes flown into them and then incredibly ingeniously having the collapses initiate at the impact points.

But what did they organize as a disguise for the cd of WTC 7 ? Absolutely nothing apparently. So, having gone to so much trouble over WTC 1 &2 what was the plan ? Just to blow up WTC 7 anyway and what the hell ?

It needs to be remembered that falling debris from the North Tower damaging WTC 7, setting fires and cutting off the water supplies to the sprinklers was pure chance. There is no way it could be part of a plan. So, we are left with the conclusion, if you believe in cd, that the plan must have been just to blow it up anyway as it stood there pristine in broad daylight. Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me, especially given the care lavished on the diguise of WTC 1&2.

For those who want to suggest that UA 93 was intended for WTC 7 you need to explain why the plane was on a bee-line for Washington when it came down. And, why the cd of WTC 7 was carried out hours after UA 93 crashed anyway.

BUILDING 7 WAS DEMOLOISHED WITH EXPLOSIVES
There is no way in hell that building fell due to the shock from the towers. There really is no common sense in this world anymore. OP you are the dumb rock.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

WTC7 is the staplepoint of why the official 9/11 story is BS. If that building never came down, then I would be more inclined to believe the official story. However, this building did fall down in the same fashion as the other two, except that it was not hit by a plane. This is such a blatant muck up that it appears that some people simply cannot accept it for the obviously reality, thus they feel that they must justify the official series of events described to them by the very powers that stood to benefit from such an incident.

WTC 3, the Marriott Hotel. was not struck by a plane either - yet it totally collapsed. Over 40 people died there

I dont here the nutters complaining about it.....

Or WTC 4 .....

Or WTC 5 .....

Or WTC 6 ....

WHY????

reply to post by PrecogPsychicSensitive

What are your credentials that carry more weight than these architects and engineers?

Why haven't these chosen 1500 presented any theories as to where the charges were placed? (floor/beam)
Why haven't they explained any details at all? Surely they have done the math based on the plans?
Why haven't they explained how much explosives were used?
Why haven’t they explained how they blew up each floor in succession?
Why haven’t they explained why the impact was strong enough to remove the insulation from the steel but it didn’t dislodge the charges?
Why haven’t they explained how the charges survived the fires for about an hour?

Couldn’t they put their 1500 expert heads together and come up with coherent details that explains the whole thing? So far all I have heard from them is “It couldn’t have happened by planes”.

Originally posted by thedman

WTC 3, the Marriott Hotel. was not struck by a plane either - yet it totally collapsed. Over 40 people died there

I dont here the nutters complaining about it.....

Or WTC 4 .....

Or WTC 5 .....

Or WTC 6 ....

WHY????

They didn't.
A little reasearch, a little common sense, and fewer lies would help the OS.

By the way, Check out the FIRE , ENGULFED.. didn't fall....Thanks for proving the OS is a LIE

Originally posted by CallYourBluff
BUILDING 7 WAS DEMOLOISHED WITH EXPLOSIVES
There is no way in hell that building fell due to the shock from the towers. There really is no common sense in this world anymore. OP you are the dumb rock.

Apparently, allcaps and a reference to building 7 is what it takes for a two star post from truthers.

reply to post by Tw0Sides

A little reasearch, a little common sense, and fewer lies would help the OS. [/ex[

Maybe should follow own advice....

WTC 5 sufferered internal collapses from fires

World Trade Center 5 (WTC 5) was a 9-story office and retail building at the World Trade Center complex in New York City, NY. On September 11, 2001, flaming debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers penetrated the roof of WTC 5, causing a fire that burned unchecked until the fuel from building contents was consumed (FEMA, 2002, p. 4-4). While impact damage over a portion of the building and an intense fire throughout are not surprising given the assault this building received, engineers inspecting the building after the event were not expecting to see an interior collapse, due entirely to the influence of the fire. The floors collapsed between the 8th and the 4th levels in the eastern section of the building, where there was no initial impact damage (Figure 1).

The major fire-induced collapse that occurred in WTC 5 involved the portion of the building that had Gerber framing (girder stubs welded to columns, and simply supported central girder spans with shear connections to the ends of the stubs (Figure 2)), but not other areas of the building where girders spanned the full distance between columns. This fact, and observations at the site suggesting that the failure was early in the fire, raised the possibility that this structure had a vulnerability that led to premature failure, perhaps during the heating phase of the fire.

reply to post by Tw0Sides

By the way, Check out the FIRE , ENGULFED.. didn't fall....Thanks for proving the OS is a LIE

And where is the impact point of a fully loaded jet on this building?

Originally posted by samkent

By the way, Check out the FIRE , ENGULFED.. didn't fall....Thanks for proving the OS is a LIE

And where is the impact point of a fully loaded jet on this building?

It was the same type of "Wonder Woman" craft that hit WTC7.
Maybe it wasn't, WTC7 fell.