"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" It's not rocket science-COMMON SENSE!! VS DENIAL!!

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. 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.

Really, like all these people read the full report? And if they did there all a bunch of dummy's...

Still the same people defending the same OS crapola on here after all these years? Give it up already will you? Your evidence and proof have just become a joke , I can't believe none of you have moved on to better jobs by now. Oh my you do look silly trying to defend a ridiculous story that defies physics and logic

Hard to believe but it is true.... also very sad.....

After 14 years, still no evidence of demo explosives nor thermite.

There is plenty, it has been put forth to you but you refuse to see it

Yes lets look at the facts.

120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report

I would like to see all 120,000 member statements that they do not question the NIST Report, where is it?

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

Where on the internet is 370,000 members (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report, where is their statements?

There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report

Where is the AICHE statements claiming they do not question the NIST Reports? I would like to see each and everyone of their claims?

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

Where is the AIAA statments that they do not question the NIST Reports?

The OS supporters who make false claims of who doesn't questions NIST Reports are based on "assumptions" and we all know "assumptions" are not facts.

Where is all this evidence that you claim?

After 14 years, still no evidence of demo explosives nor thermite.

This is the biggest fallacy yet.

The fact is, Science trumped the OS narratives to pieces. Science proves the WTC came down by demolition. The OS of the WTC is a laughing joke and falls apart when science is applied.

After 14 years, evidence from science proves without dispute the WTC were destroyed by demolition and nothing else.

OS supporters run when they see A&E and their credentials and these people risked everything by putting their names to their science.
OS supporters only has NIST Report and that fell apart when the real experts applied real science to the NIST pseudo report.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: zerozero00

Still the same people defending the same OS crapola on here after all these years?

After 14 years, still no evidence of demo explosives nor thermite.

And this is what you base your religion on?

And no real evidence Bin Laden was behind it either, yet you expect me to believe it was him

a reply to: wildb

Really, like all these people read the full report? And if they did there all a bunch of dummy's...

I am very sure that many of them read the report and I am very sure that some of them were present at ground zero and have stated for the record that they heard no demo explosions, and in fact, the Protec Co., which is a group of demo experts, had seismic monitors in the area.

We can go here.

Civil & structural engineers on wtc collapse
Demolition Expert Confirms No Demo Explosives at Ground Zero

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

I am very sure that many of them read the report and I am very sure that some of them were present at ground zero and have stated for the record that they heard no demo explosions

You are very sure? I am very sure you have failed to pony up proof of any of this as requested by another member.. I think it is safe to say we are all still waiting..

a reply to: zerozero00

And this is what you base your religion on?

My own experience as a pilot of 46 years to debunk false claims about 9/11 aircraft, an airframe technician (a.k.a., aircraft structural technician) of 48 years to identify aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon, Shanksville and at ground zero and to understand the WTC structures and knowledge to know that ordinary office fires can weaken steel to the point of failure.

After all, I have annealed (soften) steel at just 1000 degrees F., in order to form them into complex aircraft parts with tight radius. That is how I debunked those who claimed that a particular photo of a piece of steel proved that the steel had melted when in fact, the steel in question was never in a molten state at ground zero and I pointed out what annealed steel is, which can be place in such a condition at temperatures below the melting point of aluminum, which is far too low to melt steel. In other words, my long years working with aerospace metals as an airframe technician to debunk claims of molten steel at ground zero.

And of course, my time in war zones to know what explosives are all about.

The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level.

This is pure BS, there was no pile driver, there were no floors above once the demo started to crush the rest of the building down to the ground. The video is clear, the building was being ejected everywhere but down. See this again, over and over until you get it.

a reply to: Informer1958

The fact is, Science trumped the OS narratives to pieces. Science proves the WTC came down by demolition.

The fact that you have been unable to provide a single time line of explosives in the videos of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 proves that you are in error at best.

Now, when we can expect you to provide those time lines?

My own experience as a pilot of 46 years to debunk false claims about 9/11 aircraft, an airframe technician (a.k.a., aircraft structural technician) of 48 years to identify aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon, Shanksville and at ground zero and to understand the WTC structures and knowledge to know that ordinary office fires can weaken steel to the point of failure. After all, I have annealed (soften) steel at just 1000 degrees F., in order to form them into complex aircraft parts with tight radius. That is how I debunked those who claimed that a particular photo of a piece of steel proved that the steel had melted when in fact, the steel in question was never in a molten state at ground zero and I pointed out what annealed steel is, which can be place in such a condition at temperatures below the melting point of aluminum, which is far too low to melt steel. In other words, my long years working with aerospace metals as an airframe technician to debunk claims of molten steel at ground zero. And of course, my time in war zones to know what explosives are

Really ,, please post your resume.. you know, to back up your claim .....

The fact that you have been unable to provide a single time line of explosives in the videos of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 proves that you are in error at best. Now, when we can expect you to provide those time lines?

Ok, you must do this for fun of some sort, repeating yourself over and over ... you have been giving time lines, when will you look at them ?

a reply to: wildb

This is pure BS, there was no pile driver, there were no floors above once the demo started to crush the rest of the building down to the ground.

That video has been debunked. Now, let's listen to the collapse of WTC1 on audio.



The reason why no demo explosions are heard is because no demo explosive were responsible for the collapse of WTC1.

Now, let's take a look at another video and again, no sound of demo explosions, which underlines the fact that no demo epxlosives were responsible for the collapse.



In your video that you posted from David Chandler, that video proves my point that the WTC buildings did not collapse at free fall speed because you will notice that debris is outpacing the collapse of the WTC building and striking the ground while the collapse of the buildng is still in progress many stories above the ground.

In other words, you posted a video that debunked truther claims that the WTC building collapse at free fall speed.

a reply to: wildb

Ok, you must do this for fun of some sort, repeating yourself over and over ... you have been giving time lines, when will you look at them ?

You say I was given time lines, so why don't you post them in bold for all to see and then, we can go back and compare the time lines.

However, I expect that you will not post those time lines in bold because you know and I know, there were no demo explosions heard in the WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 videos.

a reply to: skyeagle409

The fact that you have been unable to provide a single time line of explosives in the videos of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 proves that you are in error at best.

Now, when we can expect you to provide those time lines?

Time line explosions, you hang your entire OS of the WTC on a simple time line.

The fact is no one has found a single video on the internet that has not been tampered with, especially the sound effects.
You really believe everyone going to agree with you because no one can prove your silly time line theory.

The hard cold fact is we have very credible science that proves demolition took down the WTC 1 2 & 7.

No one can prove a negative ( time line ) Everyone knows a negative can not be proven. So you lose in the fight for Truth.

You say I was given time lines, so why don't you post them in bold for all to see and then, we can go back and compare the time lines.

I did that, maybe on the other thread, however you want to compare time lines , where are yours?

originally posted by: wildb

Really ,, please post your resume.. you know, to back up your claim .....

Well, we can start here to understand who I am in aviation and military circles. I am Aubrey Matthews, USAF, Retired.

I am President of the Experimental Aircraft Association, 1230, whose members consist of commercial and military pilots, Instructor pilots, private pilots, student and sport pilots, FAA inspectors, FAA certified and military maintenance technicians, and military retirees.

I am also the Past President and current Historian of the Lee A. Archer, Jr. Chapter, Tuskegee Airmen, Inc., Travis Air Force Base, CA.

We can go here.

1. Who I Am

2. Who I Am

The people of the USS Lexington know me as well, since they supported me during my public exhibition on the USS Lexington in Corpus Christi, Texas in 2010.

Here is the announcement for my exhibition when I had my flying buddy, Lt. Col. James C. Warren flown from California to visit my exhibition.

The Announcement

edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Informer1958

ime line explosions, you hang your entire OS of the WTC on a simple time line.

The fact is no one has found a single video on the internet that has not been tampered with, especially the sound effects.

That won't work because seismic data does not depict demo explosions, which is why you don't hear demo explosions in the WTC videos and why you are unable to post those time lines as requested.

a reply to: skyeagle409

That won't work because seismic data does not depict demo explosions, which is why you don't hear demo explosions in the WTC videos and why you are unable to post those time lines as requested.

a reply to: skyeagle409

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
a reply to: skyeagle409

No, it was not. Scientists can look at data from a close seismograph station that is synchronized and timed to an atomic clock, calculate the wave propagation speeds, and tell within a fraction of a second EXACTLY what time an event originated with a pretty damn slim margin of error. And that slight error margin comes from uncertainties with slight variations in earth core models. Those earth models have been and are getting more accurate over years and years of seismic event analysis verifying previous events. And they are adjusted accordingly, on a regional basis where bedrock composition varies and thus produces different propagation speeds and distortion and reflection characteristics.

For NIST to come up with some arbitrary criteria based on sound is not only irresponsible and suspicious, it's absolutely unscientific and ludicrous.

You have been shown evidence and have heard from many experts in their field of expertise here on ATS.

I will Liston to them and form my own "opinions".

a reply to: Informer1958

You have been shown evidence and have heard from many experts in their field of expertise here on ATS.

You've got that right, so let's listen to what they had to say, but let's not forget Danny Jowenko, who said that no explosives were used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2.

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories: Brent Blanchard

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries. Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words:

www.jnani.org...


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

Bearing walls and Open floor design

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.

vincentdunn.com...


What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

It is nevertheless interesting to check the amount of explosives that would be required to produce all of the pulverized concrete dust found on the ground. Explosives are notoriously inefficient as a comminution tool. At most 10% of their explosive energy gets converted into the fracture energy of comminution, and only if the explosive charges are installed in small holesdrilled into the solid to be comminuted. Noting that 1 kg of TNT releases chemically about 4 MJ of energy, the total mass of TNT required to pulverize 14.6 × 107 kg concrete material into dust of the sizes found on the ground would be 316 tons. So, in order to achieve solely by explosives the documented degree of concrete pulverization, about 1.36 tons of TNT per story would have to be installed into small holes drilled into the concrete slab of each story, and then wired to explode in a precise time sequence to simulate free fall.

Given the uncertainty of input parameters, computer calculations have been run for the full range of their realistic values. In comparison with all these calculations, the claim that the observed fineness, extent and spread of pulverized dust could be explained only by planted explosives has been found to be absurd. Only gravity driven impact could have produced the concrete dust as found on the ground.

www.civil.northwestern.edu...&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf


'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

www.implosionworld.com...