Fox News Reports on Collapse of Building 7 Before It Happens


"The demolition contractor, Mark Loizeaux says the timing of when the explosions on the columns are set off is critical. He cannot see how thermite or any derivative of thermite could have been used to deliberately demolish Tower 7.

"I've never seen anyone use a material, which melts steel for demolition purposes. I don't see how you could possibly get all of the columns to melt through at the same time."

People who think thermite was used to demolish Tower 7 have also claimed that the one section of steel from the building that was kept reveals that it was melted by some strange substance. The half inch (1.3cm) steel beam has been entirely dissolved in parts. "

"Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.

However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says:

"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect." "
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Conspiracy Files | Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7

Here are the two experts credentials:
Mark Loizeaux
"Mark Loizeaux is a demolition expert, and his company, Controlled Demolition Inc. in Phoenix, Md., has taken down more than 7,000 structures around the world by imploding them with explosive charges."
Washington Technology

Richard Sisson
"Richard D. Sisson Jr., George F. Fuller Professor of mechanical engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) and director of WPI's Manufacturing Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering programs, has been named to the Academy of Engineering Excellence at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). Sisson received a B.S. in materials engineering from the Institute in 1969...After graduating from Virginia Tech, Sisson worked briefly in industry before earning a master's (1971) and a Ph.D. (1975) in metallurgical engineering from Purdue University. He then spent two years as a research metallurgist for E. I. DuPont at the Savannah River Laboratory in Aiken, S.C., where he developed plutonium dioxide that acted as a heat source for nuclear batteries. In 1976, he joined the WPI faculty as Morgan Distinguished Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering.

He returned to Virginia Tech in 1979 as assistant professor of materials engineering, conducting research in the Institute's environmental degradation of engineering materials laboratory. After two years, he headed north to take a position as staff engineer for Exxon Chemical Co. in Florham Park, N.J. A year later, deciding that he preferred the challenges and rewards of academia, he rejoined the WPI faculty, where he was named a full professor in 1986. In addition to directing the Manufacturing Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering programs, Sisson served as interim head of WPI's Mechanical Engineering Department from 1999 to 2000."
Metal Processing Institute - Richard Sisson Named to Virginia Tech Academy of Engineering Excellence
 
funny he cant see how all the columns could melt all at the same time yet believes that random low temperature fires could weaken them all at the same time...

He never said this.
and if the fire was rich in oxygen it would not be bellowing black smoke...
I have seen fully engaed building fires and there is very little black smoke

"While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke
indicates nothing meaningful."
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf
Black Smoke

"Large fires involving plastics produce copious quantities of black smoke.. "
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2004/hsl0414.pdf
Black Smoke
 
When you see black smoke it is an indication that a portion of the fuel is unburned. :eusa_whistle:

yet somehow hot enough to simultaneously weaken all columns and trusses to the point of failure

underwriters kevin ryan

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urs14eAaFcM]YouTube - A new Standard for Deception by NIST Part 1 of 6[/ame]
 
Last edited:
yet somehow hot enough to simultaneously weaken all columns and trusses to the point of failure

underwriters kevin ryan

YouTube - A new Standard for Deception by NIST Part 1 of 6

Not according to this article The Towers Lost and Beyond

This was edited by
Eduardo Kausel: Engineering professor at MIT
His credentials:
MIT - Faculty | Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, MIT

He is a professor at engineering at the top engineering school in the nation according to the following sites:
Top Ranked Engineering Colleges/Universities, Best Colleges Engineering
MIT 4th Best College, Top Engineering School

And the best engineering school in the world according to the following sites:
Latest University Rankings: World University Rankings - Engineering Schools - 2007
World's Top 10 Engineering Schools 2008/2009 | SKORCAREER

There you go, an engineering professor from the top engineering school in the world took part in that paper and he believes 9/11 was done by terrorists, not explosives planted by our government.
 
Last edited:
okay finally have a LITTLE time to post something now.I dont know why you even bother with Bid D EOTS.at first I thought he was interested in the truth but only wants to see his own point of view by the way he blatantly and arrogantly ignores ours points and how he ignored my posts on page 21 post number 10 and 11 and the first post on page 22.Those posts prove beyond a doubt that it was an inside job besides the videos I posted from the canadawantsthe truth link.anybody who watchs those videos and still says there is no evidence it was an inside job has either not read those posts I mentioned on page 21 and 22 and not watched those videos and is in denial or a complete idiot.Diva con we know is the latter cause of his name calling he engages in when losing a debate and how he said those points I brought up were not true which all have been from page 21 and 22,I'll give Big D the former as a benefit of the doubt. those posts i made on those pages and the videos from the candawants the truth link pretty much prove whatever these professors are saying as a bunch of lies which ends this debate.
 
Last edited:
Okay now that it has been laid to rest that those vidoes of Bin Laden saying he did it are fake after i proved he said he didnt do it,now to move on to something really quick i wanted to post.In reality,the US government spent more money investigating Bill Clintons sexual escapades than it did investigating 9/11.That seems fundamentally wrong from any perspective.the fact they spent more time and money investigating Bill Clintons blow job he recieved from monica lewinsky than 9/11 proves what a joke of an investigation it was from the 9/11 coverup commission.
 
okay Now That It Has Been Laid To Rest That Those Vidoes Of Bin Laden Saying He Did It Are Fake After I Proved He Said He Didnt Do It,now To Move On To Something Really Quick I Wanted To Post.in Reality,the Us Government Spent More Money Investigating Bill Clintons Sexual Escapades Than It Did Investigating 9/11.that Seems Fundamentally Wrong From Any Perspective.the Fact They Spent More Time And Money Investigating Bill Clintons Blow Job He Recieved From Monica Lewinsky Than 9/11 Proves What A Joke Of An Investigation It Was From The 9/11 Coverup Commission.
Wrong
 
this is why I wont go any further in this debate.i have posted this before but I'll post it again. all you got to do to see the overwhelming evidence that it was an inside job is just look at these videos here at
Canada 9/11 Truth - Videos
its all there in black and white it proves it all.like i said anybody who has watched those videos and STILL defends the official version would have to be a complete idiot in denial.
 
Last edited:
this is why I wont go any further in this debate.i have posted this before but I'll post it again. all you got to do to see the overwhelming evidence that it was an inside job is just look at these videos here at
Canada 9/11 Truth - Videos
its all there in black and white it proves it all.like i said anybody who has watched those videos and STILL defends the official version would have to be a complete idiot in denial.
you have already proven you are a moron
your links have also been exposed as bullshit
why should i bother to follow any link you post?
 
you have already proven you are a moron
your links have also been exposed as bullshit
why should i bother to follow any link you post?

Common tactic of these fucking loons is to just claim they have proven beyond a doubt It was an inside job. Then they say if you watch these videos you have to agree with me.

Then when a bunch of people watch them, and not all of them agree with them, they label all those who do not agree as stupid, or maybe in on it :)
 
Common tactic of these fucking loons is to just claim they have proven beyond a doubt It was an inside job. Then they say if you watch these videos you have to agree with me.

Then when a bunch of people watch them, and not all of them agree with them, they label all those who do not agree as stupid, or maybe in on it :)
oh yeah, i have already been accused of being a part of it

LOL
and i have seen several others as well
 
okay finally have a LITTLE time to post something now.I dont know why you even bother with Bid D EOTS.at first I thought he was interested in the truth but only wants to see his own point of view by the way he blatantly and arrogantly ignores ours points and how he ignored my posts on page 21 post number 10 and 11 and the first post on page 22. Those posts prove beyond a doubt that it was an inside job besides the videos I posted from the canadawantsthe truth link.anybody who watchs those videos and still says there is no evidence it was an inside job has either not read those posts I mentioned on page 21 and 22 and not watched those videos and is in denial or a complete idiot.

I keep getting the impression that I am ignoring your side of the argument because because you dont have many points left that haven't been refuted. Again, you ASSUME I am ignoring those points because when I go to the links that you say proves 9/11 is an inside job and still am not convinced, it ruins your argument. I don't know why you are complaining that I am ignoring your points when I have asked you to back up your statement that you have made in post number 144 of this thread when you state that Dr. Bažant's paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf) was laughable. This is the article that passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division, yet somehow it is laughable. I have since asked you to back up your statement and you have not. That was over a MONTH ago and I still have not got a response.

Your posts in you are referring to did not prove anything why the buildings fell. Again, Dr. Bažant's paper showed why the buildings collapsed and since you have not responded to it, then I prove you cannot.
Also, the following is an article about the demolition of the former J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit: Controlled Demolition, Inc. | Press Release According to this article, "In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure." There you go, it took them 24 days to place the explosives on a empty building. Yet, somehow the govt could have placed explosives along the WTC buildings without anyone noticing. If it took them 24 days to plant the explosives along an empty 33 story building then how long would you think it would have taken them to plant the explosives on two 110 story buildings? No matter how long you think that it would have taken wouldn't you think that it would have noticed this happening?

Here is another expert that says why demolition could not have been used:
""There were a lot of broken windows mainly through impact debris. But I didn't see windows broken on the backs of building, only where debris falling from the Towers struck it...They were shielded from debris falling. If explosives of the magnitude necessary to cut the columns in a big building, were detonated the windows all the way round would have been shattered. No way round it.""
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Conspiracy Files | Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7
-Mark Loizeaux
His credentials: Survival Guide: Mark Loizeaux, demolition expert -- Washington Technology

Again, I have asked you questions about your belief that you did not touch and it weakens your argument even more. Just one example of this is when you stated that in the London times had an article that stated that the first emergency phone call on 9/11 was made by Guilaini. According to you, this also occurred one hour after the BBC reported the attacks. I promptly went on the London Times website and couldn't find this article in their archives. DiveCon then asks you to find the article on google via their archive newspaper search. We have not heard back from you on the subject.


Diva con we know is the latter cause of his name calling he engages in when losing a debate and how he said those points I brought up were not true which all have been from page 21 and 22,I'll give Big D the former as a benefit of the doubt. those posts i made on those pages and the videos from the candawants the truth link pretty much prove whatever these professors are saying as a bunch of lies which ends this debate.

Again, you have decided to insult us rather than defend your opinion. Not a good path to take if you are trying to convince someone of your beliefs. You state that I only want to hear from my point of view when you state right here that websites links that could have came from anyone are more credible than the engineering profess that I have used that show why the buildings collapsed. Again, it wasn’t through demolition. That doesn’t make any sense.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top