Free Coffee and Free Donuts and a USA Today

a reply to: Informer1958

Fact, no 140 db sound waves of charges setting off from one of the most independently recorded tragedies in human history.

Fact, law enforcement was station to look for evidence.

Fact, law enforcement hand searched any given amount of debris for human remains, personal effects, and evidence three times by cycling the debris through conveyors.

Fact, around 19,000 identifiable human remains recovered. 6,000 which could fit in a test tube.

Fact, no demolitions shrapnel recovered with remains.

Fact, no evidence of fragments from demolitions blasting / shape charges.

Fact, detailed metallurgical analysis of columns and sheared floor connections held no evidence the crystalline structure of the steel was worked on by charges.


So sad you chose to only believe what you want with no real evidence and are dependent on hiding facts and taking items out of context.


Please list the evidence and make the case for controlled demolition by shape charges / blasting charges!

a reply to: Informer1958

Certain members of the truth movement like to play basement hero.

Let's act like you are the lead lawyer for AE911TRUTH on a preliminary hearing to open a criminal investigation for the WTC because you have evidence of CD by shape / blasting charges.

List the top 10 items of evidence for CD using explosives....... GO!

a reply to: neutronflux

Fact, law enforcement was station to look for evidence.

Not a fact.

Who gave the authorization to look for controlled demolition?

Are you suggesting that our government suspected demolition and order the police to search for blasting caps or remaining evidence from a demolition? If so, who gave such an order?

Fact, around 19,000 identifiable human remains recovered. 6,000 which could fit in a test tube.

Are you trying to convince us that our government has a super dooper sniffing D&A machine that can signal human D and A from millions of tons of ash and debris? Serously?

Fact, no demolitions shrapnel recovered with remains.

Not a fact.

You were not there to substantiate that claim, furthermore question one has not been confirmed either.

Fact, detailed metallurgical analysis of columns and sheared floor connections held no evidence the crystalline structure of the steel was worked on by charges.

Not a fact but your "opinion".

So sad you chose to only believe what you want with no real evidence and are dependent on hiding facts and taking items out of context.

So sad that my beliefs trouble you so much and making "false accusation" that I take items out of context, yet you have not showing to where I did.

Please list the evidence and make the case for controlled demolition by shape charges / blasting charges!

Please list the evidence that there was no evidence found supporting demolition from the WTC with credibal sources?

Please do not list 911 Myths as your source, it is a well known bais, yellow journalism, fake News website that only supports the OS narratives.

Certain members of the truth movement like to play basement hero.

More accusations, and assumption that I and many ATS'ers are part of a dead 911 Truth Movement.

We are all aware how fake mainstream media help destroyed the dead 911 movement by screaming "conspiracy theorist".

Let's act like you are the lead lawyer for AE911TRUTH on a preliminary hearing to open a criminal investigation for the WTC because you have evidence of CD by shape / blasting charges.

List the top 10 items of evidence for CD using explosives....... GO!

Let's act like you are the lead lawyer for for the OS narratives defending the corrupt Bush administration hearing to open a criminal investigation for the WTC because you have evidence the OS is true and there was no evidence of demolition.

List the top 10 items of evidence that there was no demolition........ GO!

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

Yes. Dogma and faith in the con-artists who are bilking the gullible. No demolitions. No dustification. Aircraft plus fire is the only evidence.

Yes, dogma and faith of the unproven OS that some dearly support as a religion.

Fire and an airplane brought down a 110 story building, because our government said so, and the mainstream fake media parroted most of the lies.

You talk about people who don't support the OS narratives as if we all are blind, stupid, have IQ below 70, while some put the OS on a pedestal as the holy grail of truth.

Some have the audacity to lump all non believers of the os narratives, believing in dogma and blind faith when in fact it is the os supporters who believe in blind faith and government dogma.

Dogma and blind faith?

Pot calling kettle.

The evidence says an airplane impact and the subsequent fire brought down a 110 story building. If you don't have evidence to the contrary [you don't] then all you have is dogma and faith in the A&E and other conspiracists. A&E supporters parrot the lies and misconceptions of A&E and think that they have the inside info; that is the drive for such folks.

a reply to: pteridine

The evidence says an airplane impact and the subsequent fire brought down a 110 story building. If you don't have evidence to the contrary [you don't] then all you have is dogma and faith in the A&E and other conspiracists. A&E supporters parrot the lies and misconceptions of A&E and think that they have the inside info; that is the drive for such folks.

Still supporting the OS narratives I see.

Yet there is no credible science that supports it. So sad.

a reply to: Informer1958

You are so entrenched in play fantasy conspiracy, you don't no fact from fantasy.

I have posted and cited sources for you repeatedly. It's your job to cite sources to disprove the facts. You cannot.

Fact, no recorded sound of shape charges / blasting from one of the most independently documented events in human history.

Fact, no witnesses heard a single crack at or over 140 db's that would indicate shape charges / blasting.

Fact, no injures to hearing from an over pressure event or to body from demolitions shrapnel.

Fact, no evidence of an over pressure event! No indication of shock waves.

Fact, steel inspections, site inspections, and metallurgy revealed no evidence of steel worked on by shape charges / blasting.

Now, cite sources proving the above wrong.
Not your opinion.

Still waiting on 10 items that indicate CD by shape charges / blasting. You had 15 years to cherry pick talking points and create a logical case! Or you going to fail at that too!

a reply to: Informer1958

The way I have to phrase this simple point just shows how dogmatic you are, and how you hide the simplest of facts!

One: Prove no metallurgical analysis of WTC steel and failed floor connections ever took place.

Two: Prove from the metallurgy samples, CD by shape charges / blasting was missed.

Three: Prove the metallurgically analysis used would have missed the samples being worked on by shape charges / blasting.

Four: Prove the results of the various metallurgy analysis conducted on the WTC steel and floor connections were wrong!

Cite sources please!

(Hint, a detailed analysis of why floor connections failed was conducted.)

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

The evidence says an airplane impact and the subsequent fire brought down a 110 story building. If you don't have evidence to the contrary [you don't] then all you have is dogma and faith in the A&E and other conspiracists. A&E supporters parrot the lies and misconceptions of A&E and think that they have the inside info; that is the drive for such folks.

Still supporting the OS narratives I see.

Yet there is no credible science that supports it. So sad.

Still supporting the A&E narratives I see. Yet there is no credible science that supports them. So sad.


You wouldn't understand credible science if it bit you.

a reply to: Informer1958

Oh, I hate to burst your bubble. But the real world does not work on published peer review for known technologies!

Something major at work fails or breaks. You call an engineering firm, an expert, or/ and the vender.

An investigation in conducted. The more serious investigations are called a Root Cause Investigation.

The experts work with site staff, and a report is finally created that lists the cause of the failure and recommendations.

The report is reviewed and worked out between the experts and site staff.

If OSHA or the EPA is involved, the may conduct their own investigation. That investigation may dictate changes, causes, and fines. The company can appeal the findings.

There is never a published peered reviewed article!

You don't even know how the EPA, OSHA, and industry works.

You hire experts because they are knowledgeable about all the known mechanisms of steel failure for example. You don't hire people that are clueless and want to treat each item as a newly discovered science project!

a reply to: neutronflux

You are so entrenched in play fantasy conspiracy, you don't no fact from fantasy.

Pot calling kettle again.

Who cares to what I believe?

Your facts are your "opinions and nothing more.

Furthermore the OP is not about me.

a reply to: pteridine

You wouldn't understand credible science if it bit you.

Is that the best you have? I see you still demonstrate that you are above everyone on here, hows that working out for you?

I see you're still defending NIST pseudoscience as the holy grail of truth. To bad no one believes it.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Informer1958

The way I have to phrase this simple point just shows how dogmatic you are, and how you hide the simplest of facts!

One: Prove no metallurgical analysis of WTC steel and failed floor connections ever took place.

Two: Prove from the metallurgy samples, CD by shape charges / blasting was missed.

Three: Prove the metallurgically analysis used would have missed the samples being worked on by shape charges / blasting.

Four: Prove the results of the various metallurgy analysis conducted on the WTC steel and floor connections were wrong!

Cite sources please!

(Hint, a detailed analysis of why floor connections failed was conducted.)

Just going to keep ignoring the WTC steel was analyzed and ignore the results? You just going to keep ignoring facts. Its not my opinion!

Please cite the results of the WTC metallurgical analysis.

Please cite how the analysis is wrong.

Please cite how the analysis of failed steel components would miss CD blasting?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

You wouldn't understand credible science if it bit you.

Is that the best you have? I see you still demonstrate that you are above everyone on here, hows that working out for you?

I see you're still defending NIST pseudoscience as the holy grail of truth. To bad no one believes it.

So you and a few other people think that A&E's collection of dolts are more knowledgeable than the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)?

Immediately following the attacks, a building performance study (BPS) team of engineering specialists was formed by the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The BPS team issued its report in May 2002, finding that the aircraft impacts caused "extensive structural damage, including localized collapse" and that the resulting fires "further weakened the steel-framed structures, eventually leading to total collapse". en.wikipedia.org...

Link to the executive summary www.fema.gov...

In addition to not understanding structural engineering, A&E have expanded the scope of their ignorance and fraud into demolitions. They proudly show that they have absolutely no clue about demolitions, chemistry of energetic materials, thermodynamics, analytical chemistry protocols, instrumental analysis, and the scientific method.

You should begin to think on your own and not parrot A&E.

a reply to: Informer1958

This whole thing of didn't look for CD by shape charges is BS.

You never go into an analysis trying to predetermined a cause.

You go into an analysis to find the specific cause.

Huge difference between predetermined cause vs find / determine the cause!

It's a flow chart.

One, was the failure mechanical, chemical, or a combination..... mechanical.

Mechanical. Two, does the failure exhibit cracking and fragmentation, or ductile fracturing? (Cracked apart vs necked ( Pulled apart))

Ductile fracturing with no signs of burning or chemical attack at the exsposed edges.

And so on.

a reply to: pteridine

You should begin to think on your own and not parrot A&E.

Like some on here parroting the OS narratives?

In addition to not understanding structural engineering, (SEI/ASCE) have expanded the scope of their ignorance and fraud into demolitions. They proudly show that they have absolutely no clue about demolitions, chemistry of energetic materials, thermodynamics, analytical chemistry protocols, instrumental analysis, and the scientific method as they demonstrated in their desprete support of the pseudoscience of the NIST Report, because many of SEI/ASCE have government contracts which also proves a conflict of interests.

There nothing like paid science to fool the mass, just like the global warming science, just like the tobacco industries, and the Monsanto's pseudoscience.

So you and a few other people think that A&E's collection of dolts are more knowledgeable than the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)?

No one has made that claim but you.

The fact is, The US government does not admit the possibility that the towers were brought down with explosives. The government has authorized three investigations, all of which attempt to explain the collapses as due solely to the combined effects of the plane impacts and the resultant fires.
None of the reports examines the question of whether "controlled demolition" might better fit the observations. None of the reports provides a satisfactory explanation for the collapse of building 7, which was not hit by a plane. This is an undeniable fact that cannot be ignored by outside scientific community that are not associated with our government.

a reply to: Informer1958


Going to lay out a case and evidence of CD shape charges / blasting at the towers, or just keep ranting?

Again, just asking for your 10 cherry picked points proving CD at the towers after 15 years of you researching?

a reply to: Informer1958

Pseudoscience and bought science. Can you cite examples and site peer reviewed proof.
Or is that just your opinion? Or the material you cite just bought by Gauge, Jones, Wood, and AE911TRUTH.

Sad AE911TRUTH is guilty of deceit.

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Salander

Did you know that the "wreckage" of the various airplanes involved are kept away from public view in Iron Mountain?

The wreckage from United 93 belongs to the airline - it was returned to them after the investigators were done
examining it

As for "public display" - what purpose would it serve ?? United, and most of the public have no desire in viewing the
remains of the aircraft where their fellow citizens were murdered

So what is your purpose to display the wreckage? Vast majority of the public do not wish having bunch of loons
pawing through the remains of United 93 voicing their idiotic and macabre "theories"

The purpose it would serve would be to inform the public about the veracity of government claims, or lack thereof.

If the government has nothing to hide about this famous story, why is it hiding so much?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

You should begin to think on your own and not parrot A&E.

Like some on here parroting the OS narratives?

In addition to not understanding structural engineering, (SEI/ASCE) have expanded the scope of their ignorance and fraud into demolitions. They proudly show that they have absolutely no clue about demolitions, chemistry of energetic materials, thermodynamics, analytical chemistry protocols, instrumental analysis, and the scientific method as they demonstrated in their desprete support of the pseudoscience of the NIST Report, because many of SEI/ASCE have government contracts which also proves a conflict of interests.

There nothing like paid science to fool the mass, just like the global warming science, just like the tobacco industries, and the Monsanto's pseudoscience.

So you and a few other people think that A&E's collection of dolts are more knowledgeable than the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)?

No one has made that claim but you.

The fact is, The US government does not admit the possibility that the towers were brought down with explosives. The government has authorized three investigations, all of which attempt to explain the collapses as due solely to the combined effects of the plane impacts and the resultant fires.
None of the reports examines the question of whether "controlled demolition" might better fit the observations. None of the reports provides a satisfactory explanation for the collapse of building 7, which was not hit by a plane. This is an undeniable fact that cannot be ignored by outside scientific community that are not associated with our government.

Since you are unaware of how science works, I'll give you a short tutorial. If you set out to prove something specifically, you've already failed. Say, for example, you state that "I will show that the earth is round." This statement presumes that the earth is round and you are already biased. What you should say is that "I will find out the shape of the earth." It could be any shape so with this statement you are not biased.



The government has authorized three investigations, all of which explain the collapses as due solely to the combined effects of the plane impacts and the resultant fires. No evidence was found for any other cause so, in fact, there is nothing more to investigate. What would you have them do? Reinvestigate and come to the same conclusion because....get ready......there is no evidence for any other cause.
The question of whether "controlled demolition" might better fit the observations is moot; there is no evidence for such, just as there is no evidence for nuclear demolitions, energy rays from space, or flying monkeys with wrenches and hacksaws. Undoubtedly, there are some conspiracists who think the latter but no monkey fur, monkey wing parts, socket sets, or hacksaw blades were discovered, so there is no reason to examine the debris further for such items. Outraged conspiracists are demanding another investigation hoping for some bit of flying monkey evidence. If none is found, yet another investigation will be called for with the same hopes and the same result.

For building 7, hit by debris from WTC collapse and set afire, there is no other evidence to suggest any other cause than serious structural damage and fire. The common theme is structural damage followed by overwhelming fire. Do you see that yet?

The phraseology of your last post is greatly improved, at least, even if the contents are not.

a reply to: Informer1958

Again, please cherry pick 10 points of evidence that should have lead to an investigation into CD by blasting. After 15 years, put up or shut up.