Please post a link to a credible source that supports your claim.
Dubai Address hotel fire
- Thread starter FalseFlag
- Start date
Please post a link to a credible source that supports your claim.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Revisiting posts made weeks ago. Desperate for attention?
Funniest part. The post he responded to was my endorsement of them (AE) doing their own independent investigation.
Last edited:
Again, we all know your definition of "credible". If it doesn't agree with your prejudiced ideas, you'll reject it as not "credible". That's just one reason why your epistemology fails so blatantly.
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
Sorry, kiddo, I'm not going to do your homework for you. It's time for you to start to exercise those brain cells that have gone flabby from underuse.
But I will give you one hint: Start with the leaning of the upper sections that began the collapses. I could post the iconic photo of WTC 2, but I'm giving you a homework assignment, instead. Watch the Cindy Weil video. You can see it there. Watching it can't possibly do you any harm and you may emerge a little bit smarter.
From the tilt, you can figure the rest. If get stuck on something you don't understand, I suggest hiring a tutor. There's probably some entrepreneurial smart kid in your vicinity who makes a few shekels on the side by tutoring the slow kids. Don't be embarrassed to admit it when you don't understand something. If he gets frustrated with you, take comfort that it probably happens a lot.
Test me. Show me a credible expert and let's see what happens.
I have.
I see CD. Why? Because that is what happened. It's there. The video is proof. Anyone with two eyes can see what is there. It takes denial, delusions, cognitive dissonance, and fraud to block it all out.
If you want to know what was used and how they did it, then you need to support a new investigation.
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Umm no you don't, you just need to understand basic physics. Thankfully most on the planet do, for the few dolts who don't, oh well sucks to be them.
15 years of utter failure, what an embarrassing track record!
Been there, done that.
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
My two ears say no CD. The video is proof. Anyone with two ears can hear what is not there. It takes denial, delusions, cognitive dissonance and fraud to block out the obvious absence of CD.
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
First rule of Internet Argument: When a person says something like, "Anyone with two eyes can see what is there", it really means:
"Take a heroic dose of mescaline, followed by a pint of 80-proof, stare into the screen, and maybe you'll see what I see."
Second Rule of Internet Argument: When a person says something like, "It takes denial, delusions, cognitive dissonance, and fraud to block it all out", it really means,
"I can't respond to your arguments."
But by all means, FF - if you believe that the Cindy Weil video is irrefutable evidence of a controlled demolition, then you should be posting it far and wide.
You need to learn to think like a lawyer. A good lawyer presents his best evidence and doesn't dilute his case with iffy evidence. Assuming that you're right, the Truth Movement has been making a fatal mistake with its scattershot approach. Just show the Weil video, and you're home free!
You could start by joining some Facebook 9/11 pages, political/current events pages, etc. I guess I'm doing you a favor, since I post CW's video every chance I get. Oddly enough, the Truthers usually get upset with me or don't respond at all.
You're the first one to actually argue that it irrefutably demonstrates a controlled demolition. But I guess that you're sorta special.It's already posted. That's why the "misinformation police" exist.
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
Buckling observed on WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in the moments before they collapsed is a clear indication that fire, in relation to impact damage, was responsible for the buckling. The buckling process of each of those buildings disproves explosive theories.
Welcome to the forum.
All opinions are welcome. Facts are welcome, too. Would you like to try posting one?
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
In regards to the cause of the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible. That was clearly indicated when aircrews and witnesses on the ground saw each of the WTC buildings buckle moments before they collapse. In addition, the dislodging of fire protection exposed steel columns to the effects of the fires. I have bent and shaped steel at a temperature of only 900 degrees F., yet fires raging inside the WTC buildings were much hotter and the steel structures, which were handling increased structural loads due to structural load redistribution due to impact damage, is why the WTC buildings collapsed the way they did. It is easy for me to see that fact because of my many years working in the aircraft structural field, a knowledge which I can apply to structural steel of buildings. In addition, I am a pilot of over 46 years and that too, allowed me to apply my knowledge in order to debunk false claims surrounding the 9/11 aircraft.
I have even gone head-to-head with Rob Balsamo of 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' after I repeatedly caught him posting false and misleading information that only a pilot with my many years of flight experience and airframe knowledge would have known.
In regards to structural fires, we saw the same effects where multiple steel frame buildings in Thailand collapsed in a short period of time due to fire because the buildings lacked fire protection, which allowed fire to weaken their steel structures to the point of failure. That incident was the Kader Toy factory fire. If you leave a railroad track on a wood fire for an hour, you can actually bend the railroad track by hand. That was demonstrated during the Civil War and soldiers uprooted railroad tracks and placed them over a fire and then, wrapped them around trees. The bent railroad tracks were called; "Sherman's Bow Ties."
Anyway, other steel frame buildings survived fires because their fire protection remained intact unlike the WTC buildings. However, a steel frame hangar in California had collapsed due to fire after it was rammed by a business jet after it ran off the runway. In Oakland, CA., a section of an overpass collapsed after fire from an overturned tanker weaken the steel structure to the point of failure.
To sum it up, there is no 9/11 conspiracy and no explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Negatory. They actually show the opposite. It is when viewers lack the rudimentary analytical thinking required to make proper inferences that they "prove CD"
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
Brent Blanchard
Brent L. Blanchard currently serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services Inc., Rancocas Woods, New Jersey. The firm performs vibration consulting, structural survey and photographic work for contractors throughout the United States and abroad.
In addition, Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. His team's work is also regularly published in various periodicals such as The Journal of Explosives Engineering (ISEE-USA), Explosives Engineering (IEE-UK), Demolition Magazine, Demolition & Recycling International, Constructioneer and Construction News.
Over the past 24 years, Mr. Blanchard's photographic images depicting demolition projects have won numerous national and international awards, and collections of his team's work have been showcased in The Philadelphia Museum of Art and The Franklin Institute Science Museum, among other prestigious venues.
He has also appeared on internationally broadcast television documentaries such as Demolition Day (CBS News), Demolition (NBC/Dateline), Blastmasters (The Learning Channel) and The Art & Science of Blasting (Discovery Channel) as an authority on the explosive demolition industry.
http://www.implosionworld.com/history4.htm
A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint
By Brent Blanchard
August 6, 2006
"for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the initial violent explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or B) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.
"The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely."
August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader
Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=brent_blanchard_1
Brent Blanchard Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgGOlAWqHIg
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says
Van Romero, vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.
Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.
Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
Thank you!
Yes, I would like to post some facts, and that is, WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were not brought down by demolition explosives and that the 9/11 aircraft were not modified to fly under remote control.
In addition, the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was not a missile, but an American Airlines B-757. My Wing commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 hit the building and I have identified B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon based on photos that I have reviewed.
I have been in war to know that the WTC buildings were not brought down by explosives. One fact is, explosives make a lot of noise and I have heard explosions on many occasions, some from B-52 strikes from well over 20 miles away.
I am also familiar with what it takes to bring down a steel frame building with explosives and I can safely say there was no way that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 could have been brought down by explosives and not attract a lot of attention during structural weakening and demolition explosive placement preparations. You cannot just place explosives inside a steel frame building and expect the building to collapse. For an example, I could have placed 1 ton of explosives on each floor level of WTC 1 and detonate the explosives at the same time, which will blow out windows and walls, but leave the steel structure intact because if explosives are not firmly attached to steel columns, the blast waves will simply flow around the steel columns like wind flowing around a flag pole.
To sum it up, I can base those facts on my own experience as a pilot and as an aircraft structural expert.
Last edited:
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
I have also told Truthers that there is no evidence of explosives, neither heard nor seen on video nor found within the rubble of the WTC buildings.
Last edited: