Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: Salander

Items smolder and produce heat days on end when they have limited amount of oxygen.

You have no idea how charcoal is manufactured?

You never seen a camp fire reignited itself off a night of rain?

Didn't know paper, books, binders, files, manuals, wall hangings, computers, electronics, plastics, boxes, chemicals all had fire ratings.

Didn't know office furniture covered in jet fuel and soot really keep their fire ratings?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

Are you joking? Horizontal displacement is a result of gravitational collapse? FYI, gravity works in only one direction, towards the center of the planet we're on. Pieces weighing many thousands of tons were hurled sideways with sufficient force to impale on adjacent buildings.

Office furniture that met the NYC fire code for certain resistance to flames and fire burned for 90 days and made steam when water was applied to it? Nonsense.

As the floors failed, the outer walls peeled away in sections. Imagine the bottoms of these sections are hinged and as they fall, they also move away from the building before they break at the hinge point. That is what seriously damaged building 7. You are trying to find evidence of explosives and there just isn't any.
Office furniture that met the NYC fire code does not mean that it is not combustible. Paper does not have to meet a code. Plastics in office equipment and wood furniture and burn. The contents, regardless of NYC fire codes, were fuel and did burn underground for weeks. There is no other explanation unless you would like to try to explain things.

This is funny in regards to the europhysic news article: 15 years later, on the physics of high-rise building collapse. (This is actually relevant to this thread! Who knew?)

Bet the quote below is not a link on the AE911TRUTH site!

www.europhysicsnews.org...

Therefore a 'Note from the editors' was added, stressing that the content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent an official position of EPN.

Since some controversy remains, even among more competent people in the field, we considered that the correct scientific way to settle this debate was to publish the manuscript and possibly trigger an open discussion leading to an undisputable truth based on solid arguments. Criticism and comments in the form of Letters to the Editor are welcome. It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views.

In future, prospective authors will be asked to provide an abstract of the proposed article, as well as an indication of other publications to allow the editors to better assess the content of the invited articles.

Richard Gauge put in his place again. Oh Richard, you are good for a laugh and a circulation boost, but lack substance.

a reply to: neutronflux

Often, facts are inconvenient for a certain story. In this case, the facts that massive pieces were displaced horizontally hundreds of feet contradict your claim that the collapses of the towers were "natural" in any sense of the word.

The energy of gravity works in only one direction on this planet--straight down towards the center. Therefore, whatever force that moved all the debris outwards from the center did not come from gravity, but from some explosive energy source.

Inconvenient facts destroy the official explanation, and there are far more inconvenient facts than that.

Charcoal? You must be kidding. Clearly offering charcoal as an example is a desperate move, but then you have chosen a desperate story to defend.

a reply to: pteridine

There is ample evidence of explosives, but for whatever reason, you choose to ignore and deny that evidence.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

There is ample evidence of explosives, but for whatever reason, you choose to ignore and deny that evidence.

Sal,
There is no evidence for explosives. You just keep saying there is and hope others believe it. Where is it?

a reply to: Salander

Please list evidence of explosives bullet point by bullet point. Or use a, b, c....

List something that is an actual observation.

Not a rant on your false notion that items cannot change course when they collide.

a reply to: pteridine

If you can really sit there and post that nobody reported explosions there that day, I must assume
that you are horribly uninformed on the subject, or very deeply in denial.

If you can sit there and pretend there was no lateral ejection of structural pieces and other debris, I must assume you are completely uninformed of the facts. Did you really miss that picture of the Amex Building with the large structural piece stuck in it?

Did you never see those pictures taken from above by the police helicopter?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

If you can really sit there and post that nobody reported explosions there that day, I must assume
that you are horribly uninformed on the subject, or very deeply in denial.

If you can sit there and pretend there was no lateral ejection of structural pieces and other debris, I must assume you are completely uninformed of the facts. Did you really miss that picture of the Amex Building with the large structural piece stuck in it?

Did you never see those pictures taken from above by the police helicopter?

People did indeed report explosions, when the planes hit and jet fuel exploded out of the elevators in the lobby. This was like an hour before the buildings collapsed. Are you purporting that there were some super secret bombs detonated at the same time as the impacts, and the structure continued to stand until an hour later? A number of people did describe hearing things that sounds LIKE explosions while the buildings were collapsing. That doesn't mean they actually heard bombs being detonated. There's witnesses that said no planes hit the towers. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. The dozens of videos of the collapse do not contain any sounds of explosives at the time of the collapse. The only person in deep denial here is you.

100 controlled demolitions

You'll notice none of these features large chunks of the building being thrown hundreds of feet out to the side. That is simply not a feature of a controlled demolition. So every time you point out that pieces of the structure flew out to the side, you are proving it wasn't a controlled demolition. Gravity collapse looks a lot different than controlled demo, which conveniently explains why the 9/11 collapses looked nothing like a controlled demo. You'll also notice there's not one instance where the building collapses without any sounds of explosions. The explosions are always audible on the video, even when the camera is very far away. The 9/11 collapses were filmed from various distances, some almost right next to the building as it started to come down, and no explosions are audible. Stop being stupid.

a reply to: Salander

I asked for specific facts and evidence, but you only offered up another rant....

I know, the old hush boom or fizzle no flash bombs?

The truth movement is a joke!

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

If you can really sit there and post that nobody reported explosions there that day, I must assume
that you are horribly uninformed on the subject, or very deeply in denial.

If you can sit there and pretend there was no lateral ejection of structural pieces and other debris, I must assume you are completely uninformed of the facts. Did you really miss that picture of the Amex Building with the large structural piece stuck in it?

Did you never see those pictures taken from above by the police helicopter?

People reported all sorts of bangs. That doesn't mean explosives, does it? Slam two books together by a sleeping spouse and the explosion will not be the books hitting one another.
There was lateral collapse as segments of the outer wall flee away. Didn't we discuss this already or are you just testing my memory?

a reply to: pteridine

Yes the easiest eay to describe a loud noise it sounded like an explosion.

On my thread about truther physics one of the workers in the Empire State Building crash said when the impact happened they thought s bomb had gone off.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Often, facts are inconvenient for a certain story. In this case, the facts that massive pieces were displaced horizontally hundreds of feet contradict your claim that the collapses of the towers were "natural" in any sense of the word.

The energy of gravity works in only one direction on this planet--straight down towards the center. Therefore, whatever force that moved all the debris outwards from the center did not come from gravity, but from some explosive energy source.

Inconvenient facts destroy the official explanation, and there are far more inconvenient facts than that.

Charcoal? You must be kidding. Clearly offering charcoal as an example is a desperate move, but then you have chosen a desperate story to defend.

You can't believe that the force of the collapsing building could have ejected material laterally?

a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah, it's such a joke that several government types have suggested "cognitive infiltration" of the truth movement. LOL

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah, it's such a joke that several government types have suggested "cognitive infiltration" of the truth movement. LOL

"Suggested" is the key word. The Feds watch many fruitcake organizations because every so often, they collect a dangerous member who may have a "really good idea" about settling a grudge or getting their attention.

I am already suspicious of several on these boards who could be agents, Sal.

a reply to: pteridine

That was a convenient little side-tangent for him to go on to avoid dealing with any of our posts.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: pteridine

That was a convenient little side-tangent for him to go on to avoid dealing with any of our posts.

Standard tactic. When cornered, change the subject and hope no one notices. Next may be the Pentagon video or the "too-small" crater in Shanksville. Predictable.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Not when I'm told that it was a "natural collapse". Not when it came down at very near free fall speeds. Not when I read the NIST explanation. Not when I consider all the other facts and evidence related to this story, the so-called "big picture."


Not when I'm told the story by men and organizations notorious for their depraved deceptions, no.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah, it's such a joke that several government types have suggested "cognitive infiltration" of the truth movement. LOL

"Suggested" is the key word. The Feds watch many fruitcake organizations because every so often, they collect a dangerous member who may have a "really good idea" about settling a grudge or getting their attention.

I am already suspicious of several on these boards who could be agents, Sal.

I am suspicious of groups and individuals who suppress, hide, and otherwise reject those who seek truth.

I am suspicious of groups and organizations with a reputation for mendacity.

a reply to: Salander

Near free fall important word NEAR want to explain rubble from above collapse OVERTAKING the collapsing floors.