Support a new investigation, and you might get the answers you seek.
I found the missing Jolt.
- Thread starter Crazy Chainsaw
- Start date
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Richard Gage doesn't want to support a New InvestigationTM, so why should anyone else?
Please post a link to a credible source that supports your claim.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
I don't have one.
Maybe you can ask someone in London for one. Or Paris. Or Madrid. Or Hamburg. Or Frankfurt. Or Sydney. Or Singapore. Or...
ozeco41
Philosopher
I do - see this post which explains why.
And this previous post in this thread which explains why I wouldn't call FF as a witness.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
I support your support of a new investigation based upon further consideration of your sound reasoning.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I only skimmed that thread. Did FF or TSz support your call for a new investigation?
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
Why? I am knowledgeable enough to know what it takes to prepare a tall steel frame building for demolition and I knew that it was not possible to properly prepare the WTC buildings with explosives in secret in order to bring them down.
Many months of structural pre-weakening would have been required even before the first cutter charges and explosives are attached to the steel columns. As I'd mentioned before, I could have placed 1 ton of explosives on each floor level of the WTC buildings and detonate the explosives all at once, the result would have been blown windows and walls, but their steel structures would have remained intact.
After structural pre-weakening is completed, explosives must be FIRMLY attached to steel columns in order for explosives to be effective and when detonated, the explosions would send shock signals through the steel columns and into the ground where the signals will be detected by seismic monitors, but as the seismic data proved, no such shock signals were detected as WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 collapsed.
Let's look at it this way, you strike a steel beam with extreme force with a steel hammer at one end of a steel beam and person #2 is listening for that distinctive sound at the other end of the steel beam. If person #2 does not hear a sound, it simply means that you did not strike the steel beam with extreme force. In other words, no evidence that you struck the steel beam with extreme force.
If structural pre-weakening is not properly performed on a steel building and explosives are not firmly attached to structural steel, this will be the result.
https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2004/03/04/bombedbuilding.jpg
http://www.jadaliyya.com/content_images/3/Aftermathpic1.jpg
To sum it up, seismic monitors did not detect the tell-tale CD shock signals as WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 collapsed, which is proof that the collapse of those buildings was not the result of explosives.
I want to add that no new investigation is warranted, but that is just my opinion.
Last edited:
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
Let's take a look here.
Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee.
That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/
Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment
After the 767 jet liner crashed into the world trade center building creating the worst terror attack in history, a fire burned for 56 minutes inside the World Trade Center building number two. The top 20 floors of the building collapsed on the 90 floors below. The entire one hundred and ten-story building collapsed in 8 seconds... After a fire burned inside WTC tower number one for 102 minutes, the top 30 floors collapsed on the lower 80 floors. And the entire one hundred and ten stories of this building collapsed in 10 seconds.
You can say the reason they collapsed was they were struck with a 185 ton jet airliner and the 24,000 gallons of jet fuel caused a fire of 1500 to 2000 degrees F which weakened the steel and cause the collapse.
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
And here where the problems begin.
FF will not accept as "verified experts" anyone who holds a ME, SE, CE Degree from a University, nor any PE who is affiliated with NSPE, nor anyone who has designed, constructed, or even serviced a high-rise, unless they agree with his world vision, excepting AE911t (Who need no credentials)
Proof?
Proof?
Proof?
Proof? Also, please prove that your claim above is correct as applied to WTC1, 2 and 7.
Please provide a link to a credible source that puts a concise definition on "extreme force" as it applies to structural engineering.
Is that a steel-framed building? If so, please provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim.
Proof? How can we know what the shock signals should have been if we don't know what explosives were used and how?
Wow. You can do it. I politely suggest that you add this line at the end of every sentence you have posted.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Point is he vacations around the world on the cash he gets handed over from suckers who truly believe he wants to do something other than make a living off imbeciles.
Nonsense.
This is absolute nonsense. Ask 100 real experts with any one of those degrees to participate in this debate. Let me know what responses you get. They will laugh at you, or they just won't respond. No credible expert is going to support the official story, or your fantasies, unless they are on the payroll of the people trying to suppress the truth.
Go ahead, prove me wrong. You can't. Credible experts won't support the fantasy you call the official story.
And, yes, every expert who does support the official story is either a paid shill, or the government has something on them and they are being blackmailed.
Yes, that is also my opinion, but it's an informed opinion, and I'm confident it is the truth. You can not get intelligent, educated, reasonable people to defend a lie unless you pay them or blackmail them. It's that simple.
I appreciate your opinion. You still have not posted any facts to support your claim.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
It's self evident.
If the Gage really wants an investigation, he'd use his resources to work toward that end. But he doesn't.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Point made.
I know for a fact that at least 4 of the people here laughing at the idiocy you spout are PE's, and at least 10 have MS degrees from Universities.
And None of us have received a paycheck for shilling yet!
ozeco41
Philosopher
Thank you - that makes three of us maybe 4 If Crazy Chainsaw has decided to join.I support your support of a new investigation based upon further consideration of your sound reasoning.
I do need a "tongue in cheek" smilie if anyone has access to one.
So far no explicit support.
Bear in mind that I am supporting THEIR demands for a "New Investigation" - so their option is to cease supporting it OR agree with me.
THEN I simply pointed out some obvious consequences of a "New Investigation" that is run with subpoena powers and para-legal process. Within the provisions of "rule of law" and due process under the US Constitution.
I am not a US citizen but I admire the US Constitutional setup. Must be unique in its "bottom up empowerment" - Government of the people as permitted by the people.*
If they disagree with the U S Constitution there is nothing I - as a UK born citizen of AU - can do about it.
* I've been studying US Constitutional Law since getting involved in Forums - my interest raised from moderating the "Same Sex Marriage" emancipation moves esp in CA.
.... I especially like the 2nd Amendment provision - giving the people the right to bear arms to shoot the Government if it gets out of hand. Haven't seen it interpreted in its original literal meaning in recent years tho'.
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Proof?
There are almost 100,000 of experts who accept that 9-11 went down the way it did. Show me a pay-stub. Who is paying them, the US Government? From what account?
Blackmail? Why?
How is faking an attack on the World Trade Center, but then hiding the use of explosives on the inside of three buildings intellectually consistent when their use would have certainly amplified government response?
Why can't you think it through?