The WTC towers were not brought down with a controlled demolition. No there is not. There is not one single un-refuted claim. You can argue all you like that you have evidence about a CD, but when you simply ignore all rebuttal you are not accurately representing what happened. I would go through your evidence with you, point by point, but here we are on "molten steel" and you cannot even address one item on a totally relevant list.
how many times does this have to be explained to you? and as I have said, it’s not about steel distribution but weight distribution… get back to me when you understand the basics of google never mind high rise construction…
there is zero evidence of controlled demolition… I know, very simple claim but entirely true … like I have told you many times over the years Bob, there’s a major Pulitzer for anyone that can piece together the claims of the troofer community … not a single whistleblower after 22 years? … have you any clue? …
The trouble with physics problems is that time does not matter. If they are building skyscrapers 200 years from now and all of the 9/11 witnesses and perpetrators are dead the physics of holding up the building will be the same. I consider this to be a huge psychological ane educational issue. Imagine that we could prove that Einstein lied about something involving relativity. In many ways this is worse because it is much simpler physics. This side of the problem will still exist even if the court case is proven and perpetrators confess. It is not like physics and skyscrapers only work in the United States. A female architect at a University in Maryland responded to one of my posts on YouTube saying she was told to shut up about it by the administration. psikeyhackr 23h ago Now we have the eternal physics problem. Analyze the straight down collapse of a 1360 ft skyscraper without even asking about the distribution of steel and the distribution of concrete down the structure? Is this a joke? Why is the Eiffel Tower shaped like that? It is called exponential. (Thumbs Up) 4 ============================== Christine Quinn 1 hour ago Well said. I am a licensed Architect who was working at a University in Maryland when this happened. I also had many EXPERIENCED structural and civil engineer friends. Together we had been involved in observing several CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS of high rise buildings. We all knew that this ”straight down collapse" could not have occurred as we were being told. We also knew that WAFER THIN aluminum airplane wings could not cut through steel reinforced concrete they would have immediately sheared off. After voicing my professional opinions for several weeks I was eventually FORMALLY told by University officials to stop, and basically TOE THE PARTY LINE. That was a very disturbing experience, and I'm sure MANY other architects and engineers throughout the United States were given the same instructions
A truly bizarre post. You have been saying more or less the same meaningless thing for a decade or more. It's like lots of words typed in a sentence in such a way as to not actually mean anything. Hearsay. Is that what "she" told you? There is no problem. We have exponentially increasing kinetic energy. Works perfectly. You could probably have many times the load capability of each floor and it wouldn't stop that level of kinetic energy. Aesthetic reasons. Certainly not necessary in terms of load bearing. Triangles have great support capability. No, it is called "some guy designed it like that because he thought it looked good". So "she's" not a structural engineer then. Hmmm, not qualified to give that opinion. My own brand of hearsay, nobody in the academic circles I have been involved in are of that opinion. On the Pentagon that's what happened, on the WTC they didn't. Anybody who thinks this is either denying reality, a closet "no-planer" or rather clueless. Hearsay and speculation.
My eyes, my heart, my brain, the overwhelming evidence, eyewitnesses and dozens of experts in many appropriate fields who have done the research, analysis and written peer reviewed, papers have all concluded without a doubt there's no question 3 buildings were controlled demolished on 9/11. But you, Beta, Mick West and his cult followers and few other anonymous posters who have no credentials and standing all insist these were natural "collapses" as a result of the events of 9/11. Right, you have me convinced after years and 600+ posts into this thread and the dozens of other threads I started in this section of the forum. Yeah, you can't get much simpler. Go back to your day job, if you have one, comedy isn't working for you, trust me on this.
Expert witness testimony by Andre Rousseau, Seismic Geophysics expert: Another expert witness testimony by Mark Lillie, Explosives Expert & Chemical Engineer: These are recent video testimonies.
600+ posts of hot air Bob … that and cherry picked “experts” to back up your delusions… no controlled demos Bobby …
You keep saying the same thing, over and over and over again. But meh witnesses, but meh experts. There is zero evidence that is "overwhelming", what peer reviewed analysis are you talking about!? KINDLY ANSWER THIS. Perhaps you think "peers" that are fiends who have posted similar, or are co-authors are some sort of validation!? I created a thread that detailed exactly how the collapses would occur, you ignored it. I have listed many reasons against this "molten steel" hogwash and you have ignored that as well. Once again, this is you claiming YOUR small group supersede the far larger more technically adept group they critique! Witnesses to noises are meaningless in a building that is substantial and on fire! Witnesses to "pools of lava" mean nothing, especially when you can't even answer any of the relevant points about it! Mick West's "cult followers" is an ad hominem - you have no idea whatsoever about any of their qualifications. You have no idea about my or anyone else's credentials, though you yourself have admitted you have none of note. Add NIST and the 99% of architects and engineers not in the tiny list and numerous people who have performed their own analyses, hundreds and hundreds of websites, hundreds and hundreds of people on every forum that discusses 911, every physicist I know and pretty much every scientist bar a few fringe "rebels". Bob, just stop right there. NOBODY is trying to convince YOU of anything. You are elevating your own importance. I am posting for independent visitors to see how wrong your claims are. Regardless of whether you are even capable of this, others can see the things you are clearly ignoring.
You're in the wrong section of the forum, let me help you: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?forums/humor-satire.19/
You and your humor Bob, that was most amusing. Have you ever considered a career as a comedian? Still got no rebuttal to my 100% relevant list? No? Why's that? Try and stay on topic Bob. The independent viewers can see the list and can see you avoiding it when it basically sums up your complete failure on one small side issue. They see you claiming to be looking for truth and justice but not entertaining any actual truth that goes against this very fixed belief you have developed. How bizarre. You are citing a seismologist who claims explosions occurred underground. How does this help your claim of controlled demolition. Bottom first demolitions always tend to look like bottom first, not progressive collapse. It doesn't actually fit.
pretty weak reply Bob … you have never answered my questions and now you completely ignore Beta’s very detailed examination of the the facts and flap your hands in bluster … care to take it one question at a time? … the molten “steel” claims stand out right now …
Yeah Bob; This is the problem with "experts". We need to get the people who will allow their brains to work to understand the simple physics for themselves. That does mean getting them to wonder why "experts" can spend Two Decades not talking about how the steel held up the buildings. This "experts" versus "experts" is just emotional nonsense to people who are Not Experts.
I think I already noted I'm not interested in participating in his denial games or yours. Very little he posts has anything to do with facts or science, same as you. No they actually stood out in the days and weeks following 9/11. Regardless, they are multiple documented corroborated eyewitness claims which hopefully will be preserved for the historical record and I don't believe anything is ever going to change those claims. If you need a refresher though, feel free to peruse this thread. They are also now part of a permanent legal record, thanks to the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry. Even YouTube can't censor those eyewitness claims.
That's arm waving hogwash. There's no denial in any of that list, no games and perfectly rational scientific observation. I have no idea what motivates you to be this evasive and illogical but it could be just your fear of admitting you are wrong. There is no way any human being can look at orange metal in a molten or semi-molten state and insist it is steel. It is absurd for you to suggest that numbers of witnesses making this same deduction means it must be accurate. It is absurd for you to disregard the effects of trapped combustible material that is perfectly aerated and thus creating perfect conditions for a forge-like environment. It is absurd for you to disregard the more lily possibility that it is any number of other lower melting-point metals, particularly aluminum! It is absurd for you to suggest that this substance is from "thermite" that has magically congregated together and kept active for such a long period of time. It's all so very obvious Bob and people that examine things properly can actually see this.
Testimony of retired Capt. Richard Patterson, FDNY. Excerpts: He was told WTC7 will be coming down around 5 PM. He encountered men with rifles turning him and other firefighters away. He heard multiple explosions. No reason for WTC7 to collapse.
The gish-gallup. We were discussing the molten metal at ground zero and the blatant refusal to respond to valid points. This is fundamentally not very impressive. I see no way that Bob will admit a single thing that contradicts what he believes, but luckily others will be able to read this quite clearly. I am probably going to compile a single thread with all the direct rebuttal being made that is not being addressed.. So Bob, we are now being dragged on to building 7 and the issues I previously raised that you also ignored: In the pre-planted demolition scenario - How could they guarantee anything hitting WTC7, fires subsequently starting and thus a "legitimate" reason to demolish it? Also, how could they guarantee survival of any demolition charges, wiring etc, given all the fires all over the building? This is a major point, because without justification, any collapse would have been REALLY obvious, as opposed to "obvious to only 911-truthers". Why do they even need to demolish this building? Insurance-wise it is already a write-off. If the objective was to erase/destroy sensitive material, let the fires burn etc. Demolishing WTC7 and scattering all the paper around Manhattan is hardly secure. If the decision to demolish it came later in the day after hours of fires, WHY keep it a secret? The building was badly damaged in one corner and fire-ravaged. Nobody would have been at all surprised if they took a safety decision to bring it down. It all just makes no sense at all. Bob is not going to answer any of that, but I put it to any viewer - does any of that make any sense? Is this really what any US secret committee/group would plan to happen? So this video and the fire chief. Interested viewers will note the way the interview is chopped straight after "significant" statements. Let's put this into a pretty rational perspective. No "denial", just facts: These fire teams had just seen two enormous towers collapse and all their colleagues working within killed. The WTC7 had been hit with numerous debris including a large chunk out of one corner of the building. Numerous fires ensued on at least 10 floors. Sprinkler systems were severely hampered by water pressure issues and water supply. To any reasonable person, restricting the level of firefighting carried out on this building in the circumstances was very much a safety consideration. FEMA 403 -- Chapter 5 Now that is a section of the FEMA report. We are left with a number of simple conclusions as a result of this very detailed report. The experts compiling this have been somehow coerced into falsifying their conclusions - needlessly adding people to the huge numbers "in on it". The experts compiling this are doing so in good faith. This includes not only the 4 men who put this together but also to a certain extent the validity of their sources. Quite clearly there are a significant number of completely unknown factors involved in the collapse. This makes any subsequent analysis of causes to be essentially informed guesswork at best.
I decided I'm going to respond. I'm quite sure you are not going to like my response(s) but I personally don't give a rat's ass. The response is not for you, it's just for the sake of responding to your nonsense as I see fit because I believe it's worthwhile. I may or may not continue this line of "discussion" also as I see fit. First, this thread is about NIST's scam and that is a settled matter as described throughout this thread in multiple ways by multiple expert sources. There are however many associated issues that have been discussed here as well. Second the objective of most of the posts written by self-described "debunkers" is illegitimate. They serve to defend and support every single aspect of the official 9/11 narrative, question none of it and attack and insult everyone who challenges or questions this nonsensical narrative, including all experts who have done the research and written peer reviewed papers. And they also criticize and insult 9/11 eyewitnesses and their accounts as if these people are all mistaken or don't know what they actually witnessed (if it challenges the official 9/11 narrative and/or their worldview of the events of 9/11). Eyewitness accounts, whatever they may be, are courtroom level evidence. That is not to say they can't be challenged. However, multiple corroborating eyewitness accounts supported by other evidence and especially expert witness testimony are usually taken as undisputed fact, especially if undisputed by conflicting eyewitness and/or expert witness testimony. So on to the nonsense: There are no "valid points" because what you're doing is disputing eyewitness claims without having been an eyewitness yourself and without having the background and standing that would qualify you and without any valid purpose, other to deny and dismiss eyewitness claims. That is not a legitimate objective. Irrelevant. Irrelevant question in terms of what actually happened. The fact is WTC7 was a controlled demolition regardless of who, how and why. This is indisputable. A 47-story 1 acre wide high rise tower cannot come down in its entirety at free fall into its own massive structure absent a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition. In order for a building of such magnitude to be controlled demolished to near perfection, the controlled demolition had to planned and rigged weeks or months in advance. The only computer model that legitimately shows how such an event is possible was determined by removing all 82 columns of the building nearly simultaneously below the 17th floor. Dr. Leroy Hulsey explains: Note Dr. Hulsey does not identify the near simultaneously removal of all 82 columns as a controlled demolition for professional reasons. However, it is inconceivable that any cause other than controlled demolition could cause such an event. The above question is only relevant to a criminal investigation. Irrelevant question in terms of what actually happened. See first response for reference. No it isn't. The rest of the comment is fundamentally irrelevant and wholly insulting. Irrelevant question in terms of what actually happened. See first response for reference. There are several theories but they are irrelevant for the purpose of this thread. Irrelevant and silly in terms of the mass murder of over 3,000 people. Security is never a consideration for a mass murder. Irrelevant question in terms of what actually happened. See first response for reference. It was never a secret since "predictions" of the demise of WTC7 were made for hours prior to its demise. NIST claimed the "collapse" of WTC7 was a "new phenomenon", yet it was "predicted" by many. Irrelevant comment in terms of what actually happened. See first response for reference. First, NIST claims in their FAQ that there was no structural damage to WTC7 and that the cause of its collapse had nothing to do with any damage. Second, there was no possible way to bring down WTC7 other than a controlled demolition which would require weeks of planning and preparation. An impossible scenario in less than one day, especially given a burning building. Irrelevant comment in terms of what actually happened. See first response for reference. What really makes no sense is the official 9/11 narrative, especially NIST's impossible hypotheses and believing WTC7 actually collapsed due to simple office fires causing thermal expansion and "progressive collapse". The rest of the post is essentially the same irrelevance so I won't bother with it.
Hogwash. I asked you refused. I ask again - WHAT PEER REVIEW papers?! Fellow 911-truthers and co-authors are not peers! Hogwash again. They aren't eyewitnesses, most of them are ear-witnesses! In terms of seeing molten material you are just in denial. There is not a single case to make from an opinion on what is seen, when better evidence fits the scenario. You ignored every single item, I don't care whether you think it is not impressive. Totally false! https://www.psychologicalscience.or...s-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html There was ZERO expert witnesses who tested the molten material. Period. It wouldn't even get to court! Arm waving of the worst kind. Every point I made was 100% valid and you are simply in full denial. Got to love the purest form of circular logic. People disputing this crap with legitimate reasons and alternative explanations that better fit the scenario all irrelevant because it's indisputable. That is completely false and a very deceptive statement. ALL my questions become highly relevant. It is absurd to spend months rigging a budding for demolition, then "hoping for the best" that something gave reasons to push the button! How the hell do they guarantee all the "carefully rigged" explosives and wiring survive the fires? And yet NIST shows this to be false and the other study I pointed you to defended the building itself and explained it totally down to fires!. So not "indisputable" very disputed indeed. You then arm waved away every question as irrelevant without actually answering it properly. That is just pure evasion. One of Patterson's transcript excerpts, adding in cut piecs: "So and then of course from the roofer five yes, indeed, seven is burning. There are a number of what I have always long since called findable fires actually fought more severe High Rise fires then any one of the particular number of those on the various floors and seven had we the forces on hand and allowed access to the building. Of course as I mentioned we had no water main system under the footprint of trade centre the building collapses broke all the mains subsequent in the operation Fireboats pump water through large diameter hoses for firefighting operations but we certainly could have put out the number of fires that were in seven but it's actually a blessing that we were not allowed access to seven because it would have been another 150 guys when that thing came down I guess"
Interesting! I didnt know fire blew the hell out everything! LMAO Oh say can you see....beams bursting in air...we knew through that the night the flag was still there!! Fire doesnt blow the hell out of a building 20 floors below the flying beams.
Thats a no brainer. For anyone that does not have the ability to comprehend such a simple concept, that this is what happens when they do not simultaneously remove all the columns. it tips over sideways. wtc 7 did not tip over. dont even need a high school education to know that. I assume they had late firing or miss fired det charges but then on the other hand the evidence points to a show demo, cuz when the top section came to an almost complete pause they literally disintegrated the whole top section which gives me the feeling they did it for show.
I don't actually have any idea what point you are making, You state twice about fire not blowing the hell out of anything. Which did not occur on WTC7.Quite clearly the penthouse area starts to collapse first, indicating areas below it were failing. Well it's a real no brainer that it is a totally different building design. Do you agree? Since none of the 3 buildings did that, I have no idea what you are talking about. FEMA 403 -- Chapter 5
