Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: SilentBob86

I will ask again when do YOU think you should start to time the collapse of the building

Or in simple terms how long did the collapse really take.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Former NIST Employee Speaks Out, Says Building 7 Investigation Bogus, Govt ‘Denied Evidence’

The root problem with the WTC Building 7 report is that NIST could not perform a definitive study under common standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) because it lacked the physical evidence. Most of the structural steel was removed and melted down beginning within days after September 11, and some beams were stolen as reported by Telegraph. NIST only had access to about 150 smaller pieces of steel, called coupons, cut from the whole sections of structural steel beams.

“The NIST I knew was intellectually open, non-defensive, and willing to consider competing explanations. The more I investigated, the more apparent it became that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence. Among the most egregious examples is the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 as an elaborate sequence of unlikely events culminating in the almost symmetrical total collapse of a steel-frame building into its own footprint at freefall acceleration,” Ketcham wrote.

thefreethoughtproject.com...

That noise you here, are the tables turning.

Now we have an NIST insider finally telling the truth, it's about time.

Fact: NIST WTC 7 Report is based on pseudoscience and anyone who believes the NIST Report is true, apparently has not read how governments pay scientis to write pseudo reports to cover up crimes and make money.

a reply to: Informer1958

Why so evasive answer the question when do YOU consider the collapse to have started ?

a reply to: wmd_2008
Well, i would probably say you start the timer when the building begins to fall into its own footprint...when you see the center of the roof give in, and then the rest of the roof follows it.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: wmd_2008

Former NIST Employee Speaks Out, Says Building 7 Investigation Bogus, Govt ‘Denied Evidence’

The root problem with the WTC Building 7 report is that NIST could not perform a definitive study under common standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) because it lacked the physical evidence. Most of the structural steel was removed and melted down beginning within days after September 11, and some beams were stolen as reported by Telegraph. NIST only had access to about 150 smaller pieces of steel, called coupons, cut from the whole sections of structural steel beams.

“The NIST I knew was intellectually open, non-defensive, and willing to consider competing explanations. The more I investigated, the more apparent it became that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence. Among the most egregious examples is the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 as an elaborate sequence of unlikely events culminating in the almost symmetrical total collapse of a steel-frame building into its own footprint at freefall acceleration,” Ketcham wrote.

thefreethoughtproject.com...

That noise you here, are the tables turning.

Now we have an NIST insider finally telling the truth, it's about time.

Fact: NIST WTC 7 Report is based on pseudoscience and anyone who believes the NIST Report is true, apparently has not read how governments pay scientis to write pseudo reports to cover up crimes and make money.

I see you are back, Informer. Are you ready to discuss the pseudo science of Jones' paper yet? I think that we were going to discuss the DSC data and then move on to the thermodynamics of the thermite reaction.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: face23785

Soundcheck. One... two... three... anyone listening?

Don't forget to mention the firemen you experts like to ignore so much. Wait... you're way better informed and their opinion is simply redundant for the spin. 15 years of embraced ignorance, that's at least some foundation after all. I feel ya.

Carry on, folks! You keep pushing a very good OP and who am I not to applaud you for that. Any further questions for the grandkids?

You mean the firemen who when asked later said those quotes were completely taken out of context? Just like you guys talk about explosions in the lobby, when everyone knows that happened well before the collapses, at the times the planes hit, and were just the jet fuel exploding out of the elevators. It's hard for me to believe you're dumb enough to actually believe this crap.

a reply to: SilentBob86

This reminds me of the movie JFK when they were saying it was impossible to fire the Carcano 3 times in 5.6 seconds, and in their demonstration to "prove" this, he fired the rifle 3 times in 5.6 seconds.

When you actually time the collapse and do the calculation it did not fall at freefall speed. My favorite is the tower collapse videos with the timers trying to show it fell at freefall to "prove" it was controlled demo, and at the same time after the smoke starts to clear you can see sections of the building still standing, proving it wasn't controlled demo lol

Everything here is well-sourced, unlike the garbage being spread by "truthers"

Oh these guys are so adorable.

a reply to: face23785

When you actually time the collapse and do the calculation it did not fall at freefall speed. My favorite is the tower collapse videos with the timers trying to show it fell at freefall to "prove" it was controlled demo, and at the same time after the smoke starts to clear you can see sections of the building still standing, proving it wasn't controlled demo lol

I like how "opinions" are the facts and everything else is ignored.

The OS narratives of what happened to the WTC told by the PTB is a great big fat lie.

People are not as stupid as some would like to think. If you want to push the OS narratives properganda, start a thread on it to why you believe our government authority and fake stream media are honest and never lie. This I would love to participate in.

a reply to: face23785

Not to derail thread

This reminds me of the movie JFK when they were saying it was impossible to fire the Carcano 3 times in 5.6 seconds, and in their demonstration to "prove" this, he fired the rifle 3 times in 5.6 seconds.

Later tests and by studying film and pictures taken at time estimate Oswald had 8 seconds and possibly as long as 10
seconds to fire all the shots.

First shot missed and struck curb in front of JFK limo = this shot glanced off pole support street sign in front of building

a reply to: Informer1958

Want to explain how when the towers fell wall panels from the top section went past the collapsing floors if it was all falling at free fall

When do YOU start to time the collapse of WTC 7 as the penthouse collapsed that shows supporting steel work had given way with NO evidence of explosive shock waves or noise. Also all videos are from one side so when don't see what happens to the side damaged by the North Tower collapse.

Also patently obvious is your side puts absolutely NO thought into what you actually see to consider options YOU miss so much it has become a joke

a reply to: SilentBob86

Well for the penthouse to collapse steelwork below has failed so thats when the collapse has started.

No plane ever hit the Pentagon. It was a painted cruise missile. Even the debris was the wrong color and lettering. No footage ever released CLEARLY showing a plane striking the building. Mine you that the Pentagon has the highest number of CCTV cameras of any building in the world.

originally posted by: Oannes
It was a painted cruise missile.

That was a hoax....

Even the debris was the wrong color and lettering.

According to who? Care to show evidence for that claim?

Why do you ignore 911research.wtc7.net..., which shows the fuselage parts match a AA 757?

Mine you that the Pentagon has the highest number of CCTV cameras of any building in the world.

Again, please show some evidence for that claim, unless......

In the 15 years I've been looking into this event, I've never seen this before.




Semtex:

Semtex is a general-purpose plastic explosive containing RDX and PETN.[1] It is used in commercial blasting, demolition, and in certain military applications. Semtex became notoriously popular with terrorists because it was, until recently, extremely difficult to detect,[2] as in the case of Pan Am Flight 103.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: face23785

When you actually time the collapse and do the calculation it did not fall at freefall speed. My favorite is the tower collapse videos with the timers trying to show it fell at freefall to "prove" it was controlled demo, and at the same time after the smoke starts to clear you can see sections of the building still standing, proving it wasn't controlled demo lol

I like how "opinions" are the facts and everything else is ignored.

The OS narratives of what happened to the WTC told by the PTB is a great big fat lie.

People are not as stupid as some would like to think. If you want to push the OS narratives properganda, start a thread on it to why you believe our government authority and fake stream media are honest and never lie. This I would love to participate in.

Would you also love to participate in a discussion of the paper by Jones, et al.? You remember -- the non-peer reviewed, non-rigorous bit of conclusion driven nonsense on the pay-to-publish vanity site. Why did he run the DSC in a stream of air? I'm guessing sheer incompetence but I could be convinced of deliberate fraud. Then, we can go on to compare his results with those of Henryco and talk about the thermodynamics of the thermite reaction. I really like energetic materials.

I think that you are avoiding the issue because you know you have no argument. Silence gives consent.

originally posted by: Human_Alien
In the 15 years I've been looking into this event, I've never seen this before.

Semtex:

Semtex is a general-purpose plastic explosive containing RDX and PETN.[1] It is used in commercial blasting, demolition, and in certain military applications. Semtex became notoriously popular with terrorists because it was, until recently, extremely difficult to detect,[2] as in the case of Pan Am Flight 103.
en.wikipedia.org...

Do you expect a blob of undetonated Semtex to be sticking on the side of the framework of the WTC after the collapse? Do you think this may be a fraud?
Semtex is made from two brisant explosives that, when detonated, have distinct sound signatures. The recorded gravitational collapses of the WTC's displayed no evidence of such a signature and, at

originally posted by: Oannes
No plane ever hit the Pentagon. It was a painted cruise missile. Even the debris was the wrong color and lettering. No footage ever released CLEARLY showing a plane striking the building. Mine you that the Pentagon has the highest number of CCTV cameras of any building in the world.

Here have a read some QUOTES from Pentagon staff and first responders plenty more including pictures if you want to seem them just ask

Lt. Kevin Schaeffer from the Navy Command Center recalled that "on a service road that circled the Pentagon between the B and C rings, a chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear lay on the pavement a few feet away, resting against the B Ring wall."

Or how about this

"The nose of the plane just barely jutted out into A/E Drive (the street that runs around the inside of the building). It made a perfectly round, 5-foot hole in the wall. There was one set of landing gear (presumably from the nose) out in A/E Drive. But most of the plane's skin was in pieces not much bigger than a piece of notebook paper."

Or this

"I thought it was a terrorist bomb. . . .But then I saw the landing gear. It was on the ground in the alley between the B and C rings. When I saw it there, not only did I realize an airplane had struck the Pentagon but it was clear that the plane had come through the E, D, and C buildings to get there." (Paul K. Carlton, Jr., U.S. Air Force surgeon general,

a reply to: face23785



Taken out of context you say? I don't think so, take a look for yourself and deny what you need to deny.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: face23785

Taken out of context you say? I don't think so, take a look for yourself and deny what you need to deny.

As Informer would say, this is just opinion. No hard evidence was ever found.

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: face23785

Not to derail thread

This reminds me of the movie JFK when they were saying it was impossible to fire the Carcano 3 times in 5.6 seconds, and in their demonstration to "prove" this, he fired the rifle 3 times in 5.6 seconds.

Later tests and by studying film and pictures taken at time estimate Oswald had 8 seconds and possibly as long as 10
seconds to fire all the shots.

First shot missed and struck curb in front of JFK limo = this shot glanced off pole support street sign in front of building

Fair enough, I was just making the point that in trying to prove it couldn't be done in 5.6 seconds, they actually proved that it was not only possible but could be done faster.