My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Melted 1400 vehichles up to a mile away? meanwhile leaving most people and buildings intact... OK. But that is not a characteristic of mini-nukes or directed energy weapons either, so why would you think that?

I said a HALF mile.... and you have to look at the patterns of those melted vehicles. Whichever of them was in the line of sight to the WTC were melted, but those blocked by other vehicles, or portions of the cars that were blocked, still had shiny paint jobs. Emergency vehicles and police cars with lots of electronic equipment inside exploded from the inside out and melting everything INSIDE the vehicles while leaving the OUTSIDE nice and shiny. One police car had the engine block catch on fire before anything else. I'm not a weapons expert but I am an electronic engineer, and I can tell you that some kind of electromagnetic spike ignited this equipment.

Besides that, I don't know what does this, but I do know what DOESN'T - and that would be jet fuel. Therefore, anything else that is postulated is irrelevant. 911 was an inside job.

edit on 5-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

It was obviously a phaser, speak to Capt Kirk about it. and it wasn't on stun that's for sure. Could have been a photon torpedo I suppose; again speak to Capt Kirk.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
I'm not a weapons expert but I am an electronic engineer

Oh, really now. Please tell us more about this mysterious event.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Oh, really now. Please tell us more about this mysterious event.

Like your buddy Alfie up there with his Captain Kirk nonsense, is this all you have left?

Are you incapable of googling "911 toasted cars"?

Am I supposed to do that for you Eugene?

reply to post by SimontheMagus

Are you incapable of googling "911 toasted cars"?

The cars were moved.

It is easy to look up, even on "Google", this fact.

where are the blasting caps and wire ? they survive the explosion and are always present in the rubble of a CD

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Oh, really now. Please tell us more about this mysterious event.

Like your buddy Alfie up there with his Captain Kirk nonsense, is this all you have left?

Are you incapable of googling "911 toasted cars"?

Am I supposed to do that for you Eugene?

You claimed to be an expert on the subject, Simon. I only asked you for more info because you claimed to be an electronics engineer. If that's true, and you have a clear understanding of what happened on 9/11, please tell us all about it in technical detail. Also explain what this mysterious event has to do with the towers' collapse.

-EF.

reply to post by Varemia

Here's a video to help you see what I see. I made the video a while ago, and the only error is one of the images I edited to point out what's there with an arrow accidentally backtracked the video about half a second, making the edge of the roof line reappear.

Thanks for the video. I don't post on many 9/11 videos on YouTube, but oddly, it seems that I commented on your video a year ago. 'CHIPSTERO7' is my pseudonym. That is strange, isn't it? That aside, sorry, but I don't really see what you see. I don't think the penthouse collapse automatically means that the complete left-side of structure from inside was collapsing, it could just have been the columns directly below the penthouse for all we know. I find this more likely personally, as the facade doesn't move at all and shows no appreciable signs of a massive structural failure from within. What this all comes down to is the assumption that we know what was happening inside the building, but of course, no-one really does. One thing is for sure though: the columns had to have failed simultaneously, or very close to simultaneously to allow for free-fall, as Pisk says across an area of 300 feet and I'm inclined to believe that fire cannot do that to a steel-framed building.

I would love to believe NIST. I really would. It would take a lot of worry off my shoulders. But as I have said, they have not provided any physical evidence to support their theory and, what's more, they have refused to release the parameters for their computer-simulation for independent analysis, under what I think is a rather spurious excuse. Releasing the parameters of NIST's computer-models is what matters because from that we can tell whether or not NIST's theory does accord with the established laws of physics. Numerous requests have been made to NIST by investigators for the parameters but none have been forthcoming. So its current status is that it remains unproven – at least to us and to the general public. If NIST have proven it to themselves they certainly are not letting on how they have proven it. Why should we accept it as valid in that case?

Really though, what NIST have done is not real science. In real science you start off with an observed phenomenon, conceive a theory to explain it, make your theory generate observable predictions of how the phenomenon should behave under different critical conditions and then you take observations of the phenomenon's actual behavior under those conditions to see how well your theory has predicted them. Then you write up your results, make all your data available, and publish them together with an intelligible account of how you got them so that everyone can debate them. Next you have to consider whether your theory needs revision and if it does you revise it and start all over again. In this cyclic manner you go where the science takes you. That's real science. What have NIST done instead? They have started off with a belief and a conviction – that WTC7 collapsed due to office fire – and have sought to gather evidence selectively to prove that conviction. That is not the way of scientists whose interest is only in finding out the truth. It is the way of tricky lawyers with court cases to win and corrupt politicians with populations to persuade and move in the directions that they want to move them. Since they did not have enough real evidence ready to hand to make their case compelling they set about manufacturing it with speculative models.

Here's a good video of WTC7 I stumbled on a few hours ago from A&E 9/11 Truth. It was posted only yesterday. I thought it was pretty awesome stuff, myself.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
You claimed to be an expert on the subject, Simon. I only asked you for more info because you claimed to be an electronics engineer. If that's true, and you have a clear understanding of what happened on 9/11, please tell us all about it in technical detail. Also explain what this mysterious event has to do with the towers' collapse.

-EF.

How is being an electronic engineer "claiming to be an expert on the subject" of what happened to the towers? I told you what it could NOT have been, and that would be jet fuel.... and as for Wingbird up there ^^ claiming that 1400 vehicles were moved, which is absolutely ridiculous and an easily provable lie simply because of, as I mentioned earlier, the pattern of the melted areas on the vehicles, even if they were right under the buildings, it still doesn't explain how the jet fuel melted them.

By the way, not that I need to prove anything to you, I graduated from DeVry with a BA in 1981 and I have 35 years experience on mainframes and electronic laser printing systems. I was doing most of my work in the WTC in the years leading up to 911 and I personally knew many that died.

You guys are really hilarious and I'm really enjoying how you're showing you're slimy underhanded tactics for all to see.

You lose.

Get a real job like I did.

reply to post by SimontheMagus


This is interesting:

I was doing most of my work in the WTC in the years leading up to 911 and I personally knew many that died.

What is your stance on the MANY threads, perpetrated here on ATS, that there were "NO" victims, on 9/11?

It's not hard to find these claims.

Just search the term "VicSims".....you will find hits.

Since you know victims (sorry for your losses)....how does this other aspect of the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" make you feel?

Originally posted by ProudBird
What is your stance on the MANY threads, perpetrated here on ATS, that there were "NO" victims, on 9/11?

It's not hard to find these claims.

Just search the term "VicSims".....you will find hits.

Since you know victims (sorry for your losses)....how does this other aspect of the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" make you feel?

Thank you. They were mostly key operators at Fiduciary Trust, on the 104th floor of the South Tower and at Cantor Fitzgerald on 103 of the North Tower. I also had accounts at Marsh McLennan, Swiss Bank, American Bureau of Shipping and Lehman Brothers. I was on the midnight shift and had I worked overtime that morning I probably wouldn't be typing this right now.

The entire issue of 911 and the disinfo wars that have ensued is very frustrating and saddening for me. I've come across a few people who say there were no flights and no passengers, but my God, we have videos of people jumping from the buildings. There have been worse crimes, in my opinion, than 911. Relatively speaking, 3,000 murders is nothing compared to what Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot did, but the murderous agenda that it kicked off is where the real atrocity lies.

It really doesn't help anyone's cause for people to willfully use deception except for that of the perpetrators. The more we war with each other the more they are empowered to continue with the agenda that 911 enabled. If we don't defeat them, the end result is really ugly for us all.

reply to post by SimontheMagus


You didn't answer my direct question:

WHAT do you think about those in the supposed "9/11 truth movement" who claim that there were "NO" victims??

Simple question.

Please respond.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

You didn't answer my direct question:

WHAT do you think about those in the supposed "9/11 truth movement" who claim that there were "NO" victims??

Simple question.

Please respond.

I think they're as blind, nuts, or complicit as those who believe the official story....

...OR....

They're coming from the same camp as the shills to discredit the people trying to expose these atrocities.

I'll have to sign off until at least Monday so I'm not dodging further questions.... I have a hot date tonight and it may not end until after the weekend

Originally posted by SimontheMagus I am an electronic engineer, and I can tell you that some kind of electromagnetic spike ignited this equipment

I'd like to know more about how it is you know that an electromagnetic spike caused the fires that you described. Something better than taking you at your word, please.

Your credentials (if real) don't scare me. I have a real job, and a real degree, thanks very much.

Stop the amateur hour already. Here is an Architectural FACT, In the HISTORY of ARCHITECTURE NO STEEL STRUCTURE BUILDING HAS EVER FALLEN OR FELL DUE TO FIRE. That is a fact until sept 11 2001. That means that the tens of thousands of steel structured buildings that have been built around the world have never fallen due to FIRE. Yet on sept 11 THREE STEEL STRUCTURED BUILDINGS COLLAPSED THAT DAY DUE TO FIRE?. By the way einsteins fire does not turn steel,glass, concrete, chairs ,phones, and people to DUST in the BASEMENT OF A BUILDING WHEN THE FIRE IS LOCATED ON THE 85th floor. FACT they found over 600 different bone fragments of dna of 600 different victims in the" dust filtration filters "of the duetch bank. FACT yoursogullible to believe that fire brought down any of the wtc complex buildings. It is a MATHMATICAL IMPROBABILITY.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by SimontheMagus I am an electronic engineer, and I can tell you that some kind of electromagnetic spike ignited this equipment

I'd like to know more about how it is you know that an electromagnetic spike caused the fires that you described. Something better than taking you at your word, please.

Your credentials (if real) don't scare me. I have a real job, and a real degree, thanks very much.

I'm not trying to scare anyone. You insinuated I was lying about my education and I responded accordingly.

You're obfuscating again....same MO as always. Go to this site, and explain to me how jet fuel did this to all these vehicles, no matter where they were parked.

drjudywood.com...

See you Monday. Ciao Bella.....

reply to post by SimontheMagus


Yeah, well...whatever......

I think they're as blind, nuts, or complicit as those who believe the official story....

HERE'S the deal!

From an AVIATION standpoint, as one VERY familiar with the airplanes used in the 9/11 attacks....I CAN SEE HOW IT HAPPENED!!!

Especially, back then....we were NOT all that concerned, per our constant annual "re-current training" that some sort of "suicidal pilot" would wish to storm in, and take over! It just WAS NOT in our consciousness, then!!

Now, of course...it is.

Oddly......and I have related this story before, here on ATS.....in 2008 I was in Europe, on a 'domestic' flight (LHR) to Copenhagen (CPH) on KLM Airlines. In 2008!!!, mind you!!! And I observed what to those of us in the USA to be a 'breach of protocol' as it applies to cockpit safety......the cockpit door (I was in Business Class, on this flight, and had a clear view) ...the Flight Deck door was open for SEVERAL minutes...unattended in any way!!!

As the Flight Attendant brought the juice, coffee and breakfast to the pilots, as part of her duties. THIS is the "normal" scenario, on airline....always has been, and before 9/11 in the USA, was very, very routine. NOW, of course, in the USA, the "routine" is different.

BUT.....this was in 2008, on a domestic flight in EUROPE!! I saw very LAX cockpit discipline, in terms of entry, or "forced entry" protocols.....

Just THINK about that, for two minutes!!!

Originally posted by yoursogullible
It is a MATHMATICAL IMPROBABILITY.

I think you meant IMPOSSIBILITY....

And thanks... have a good weekend.

reply to post by SimontheMagus


"Dr." Judy Wood???

LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!

Oh, my!

Dont try and argue with the fairytaleres, for them steel can turn liquorice with jet fuel on an open fire. The rest is not really needed to count on.

Remember those at the BBC knowing-reporting it beforehand?
That must have been quite a moment for the hotheads watching it happen.

reply to post by yoursogullible

Originally posted by yoursogullible
Stop the amateur hour already. Here is an Architectural FACT, In the HISTORY of ARCHITECTURE NO STEEL STRUCTURE BUILDING HAS EVER FALLEN OR FELL DUE TO FIRE. That is a fact until sept 11 2001. That means that the tens of thousands of steel structured buildings that have been built around the world have never fallen due to FIRE. Yet on sept 11 THREE STEEL STRUCTURED BUILDINGS COLLAPSED THAT DAY DUE TO FIRE?. By the that fire brought down any of the wtc complex buildings. It is a MATHMATICAL IMPROBABILITY.

You’re right of course, yourssogullible. But I think that argument is a bit too simple for our dull-minded trolls to be able to grasp. They would have to unlearn too much of the illogical non-science that their minds are clogged up with before they could get it. LOL.