Conclusive Evidence of Explosives, Petition to Re-Open 9/11 Investigation

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Asktheanimals

One, there was no lack of rubble at the WTC. As documented by the loads of rubble taken to the lay down yards. Or the rubble pulled out of WTC basements.

Two, why would explosives make to little material. As in noticeable. That is more along the lines of Wood’s Dustification.

Three, where are all the loud booms from explosives indicative of explosions powerful enough to cut columns and throw beams?

Four, any demolitions shrapnel recovered from the WTC? The injured? Or with the human remains?

Have you not listened to the first responders accounts regarding the sound of bombs ? How were the lobbies windows blown out and people with there skin hanging off in the lobby ...... do I need mention free fall speed collapse..... then the elephant in the room wtc7 office fires so paper and furnature fires bring a building down ?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: colang
Seriously if anyone thinks that Arab Terrorists hijacked 4 planes and NONE were intercepted and shot down and that they found a paper passport on the sidewalk in NY .. then im giving Santa my xmas list after I catch the Easter Bunny

So? Guess you cannot cite a credible study proving thermite? Or any evidence of explosives from the WTC video? A supposed floor to floor CD system?

science is a wonderful thing explain to me then if there were no explosives how was free fall speed achieved

Lets recount what happened.

First plane hits the north tower head on, delivering almost all the fuel inside the building.
Second plane hits the south tower 17 minutes later. It does not hit head on as the first plane did, dispersing most of the jet fuel OUTSIDE the building, which is clearly visible on numerous photos/videos, here is one:



So, now the north tower technically should be a total blaze from all that jet fuel, weaking the steel tremendously.
If you had to bet on which tower would collapse first, which one would you choose ?

If you pick the north tower, you would be wrong.
How does the logic work here, considering it was the jet fuel that brought down the towers?

Building 7.. According to NIST :

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

source

So ok... debris flew 370 feet, igniting fires in wtc7. Ok the sprinklers were out and the city's water system was damaged due to the collapse of the towers.
Somehow the firefigthers didn't think about pumping sea water from the very nearby ocean to extinguish the "uncontrolled fires" on the lower floors in wtc7. Why ? Was it because the decision "to pull", was already made, and any attempt to save the building was ignored from then on. Yea, who cares.. just let it burn... why?

Ahh, but NIST knows what happened:

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

But in their attempt to reproduce the collapse in a computer simulation seemed to defy that explanation. In fact the simulation was very different of what was really observed. But then some parameters where changed for the computer simulation, and they almost got a credible result.
Of course these changes in parameters was classified (not sure they still are). Why ?

In the future there will be better computer simulations and more computing power to prove this fairytale is totally absurd!

a reply to: colang

For the Towers? The force of the ignited fuel from the ruptured elevator shafts during impact.

Produce one video of an audible explosion from the WTC with evidence of a pressure wave with the energy to cut steel. A detention with the energy to cut steel should be heard at least a quarter of a mile away. Now produce evidence of a floor to floor CD system during collapse.

What does your narrative of ground floor events explained by the jet impacts 45 minutes before collapse have to do with the towers ultimate demise. The towers began there collapse at isolated points because of columns bowing and buckling in areas relative to the jet impacts.

Is it false office fires burn at temperatures hot enough to cause steel to loose 60 of its strength and buckle under load?

originally posted by: colang

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: colang
Seriously if anyone thinks that Arab Terrorists hijacked 4 planes and NONE were intercepted and shot down and that they found a paper passport on the sidewalk in NY .. then im giving Santa my xmas list after I catch the Easter Bunny

So? Guess you cannot cite a credible study proving thermite? Or any evidence of explosives from the WTC video? A supposed floor to floor CD system?

science is a wonderful thing explain to me then if there were no explosives how was free fall speed achieved

Because it’s a truth movement lie. The videos from the towers clearly shows rubble from the building hitting the ground while the towers are collapsing.

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

a reply to: 727Sky

For me the 'conclusive evidence' is the time taken to enact the Patriot Act and invade Afghanistan after the event and the lack of acknowledgement regarding Tower 7 in the commission report.....and the BBC having a John Titor moment.

Come 26 days later, the bipartisan agreement to warpig was overwhelming and with the benefit of hindsight, the weapons/oil&gas/pharma/money lending industries reaped massive profits even before round 2 in 2003.

Also, the US got the poppy fields - that's where some of the black-ops/ATS programs money comes from. The TVs are not giving us the truth about what happened / is going on and history has shown us that we cannot trust what the TVs are saying because they are all owned and operated by those who reaped all of the aforementioned benefits.

I'll leave others to get bogged down in the scientific evidence - we can't even prove to some folks beyond a reasonable doubt that the planet is an oblate spheroid - no matter what scientific evidence you throw at it....and the same principle is evident in 9/11 lore - the only difference being that the 2 truths are evident - the earth is round, the OS surrounding the events of 9/11 are lies.

a reply to: kloejen

Well the Madrid Windsor did have a partial collapse above the 17th fool. A collapse stopped by a floor reinforced by concrete. Something the WTC buildings did not have.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

The WTC buildings did not have traditional concrete cores that saved other buildings. The towers minimized cost by using less concrete than normal practices.

The towers had long floor tresses with no mid support that is common practice.

The long drooping floor trusses cooled and contacted. This pulled in on the remaining columns at the impact points. The columns bowed and then buckeled leading to collapse.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760

www.metabunk.org...

No audio of explosions or evidence of pressure waves with the force to cut columns in the areas of the original isolated areas of buckling. In fact, the start of collapse is everything being pulled into the tower.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kloejen

Well the Madrid Windsor did have a partial collapse above the 17th fool. A collapse stopped by a floor reinforced by concrete. Something the WTC buildings did not have.

That is correct. The WTC buildings did not have a concrete core.

The WTC buildings did not have traditional concrete cores that saved other buildings. The towers minimized cost by using less concrete than normal practices.

The towers had long floor tresses with no mid support that is common practice.

The long drooping floor trusses cooled and contacted. This pulled in on the remaining columns at the impact points. The columns bowed and then buckeled leading to collapse.


the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760

www.metabunk.org...



No audio of explosions or evidence of pressure waves with the force to cut columns in the areas of the original isolated areas of buckling. In fact, the start of collapse is everything being pulled into the tower.

Nice try explaining the collapse of WTC building 7, by comparing it to the WTC Towers (2)

a reply to: SeaWorthy

How did they explain the premature BBC announcement? I never heard the explanations.

Want an explanation...??

Was being announced all afternoon that were anticipating collapse of WTC 7. By 2:30 could see 3 story bulge in one corner of the building. This lead to decision to create collapse zone around building at 300 pm . Somewhere along the
line report came out that WTC 7 had collapsed

BBC was quoting from Reuters, who in term had picked up story from local source

BBC later admitted had screwed up

All a matter of confusion and chaos and reporting something that you haven't confirmed .......

a reply to: kloejen

Here we go same old same old the fires you show guess what the steelwork failed due to the fire they had concrete cores unlike the towers they were not impacted by aircraft and floor design was different.

To some people a building is a building and a fire is a fire because they don't think of or don't know the differences

Used this before

I should be able to enter and win NASCAR with this



After all it has 4 wheels and an engine.

a reply to: colang

Even better the lack of any real wreckage in the one that went down in was it Pennsylvania (forgive my memory plus I'm in Australia) now that was a ripper excuse .... the plane " buried itself" now that's magic unicorn stuff right there

You mean some of the real wreckage like this ...??

WOW pieces of an aircraft

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

jet engine recovered at scene

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Debris scattered in wood

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

flight recorder

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

a reply to: kloejen

WTC 7 had fires burning for several hours and damage done by the North Tower collapse.

20 floor rip on elevation facing north tower and other damage seen on this video.

a reply to: kloejen

Nice try explaining the collapse of WTC building 7, by comparing it to the WTC Towers (2)

Quote were I said WTC 7 fell like the towers. And cite a source WTC 7 had a tradition concert core.

Nice false argument.

a reply to: 727Sky

I agree that there should be a more intense investigation and that all that we were told by the 911 Commission was total B.S. They created a group that would essentially ensure that the "insider" claim would be about as legit as Project Blue Book. After all this time, this has also ensured that most of the evidence would have been cleaned up and covered up, so that any future evidence would be almost impossible to investigate. That said, I didn't see anywhere in this text, who this expert investigative team was. I looked for that right away because, If I were to post this to, ...say...Facebook. That is the first thing that people would point out to me. They would ask who it was, and what were their credentials. Unfortunately, the only professionals that can get by with having absolutely no credentials, and doing no actual work in their field, and yet somehow still be ensured that the public would buy their diatribe as gospel regardless....is CNN and MSNBC. So, who did the investigation that found the answers that we already knew, but just couldn't prove?

a reply to: kloejen

So ok... debris flew 370 feet, igniting fires in wtc7. Ok the sprinklers were out and the city's water system was damaged due to the collapse of the towers.
Somehow the firefigthers didn't think about pumping sea water from the very nearby ocean to extinguish the "uncontrolled fires" on the lower floors in wtc7. Why ? Was it because the decision "to pull", was already made, and any attempt to save the building was ignored from then on. Yea, who cares.. just let it burn... why?
.

They did

Apparently you don't realize how long it take to lay thousands of feet of hose line through debris clogged streets from the river to WTC

The force of the explosions at the World Trade Center had ruptured virtually every water main in downtown Manhattan, leaving firefighters with no water, and no way to fight the fires raging in the buildings left standing in World Trade Plaza. Since the Fire Department had only two under-sized fireboats, and its fire engines were worthless, the Harvey was now an answer to a fireman’s prayer.
Pulling up to the seawall in North River, the closest proximity possible to the World Trade Center, the Harvey set up alongside the Fire Department’s other two fireboats to begin her work. Fire hoses were quickly run from the Harvey to the World Trade Center, and the firefighters were able to put down the remaining fires, saving everything but World Trade Center 7, which collapsed later that day.
The Harvey worked non-stop until Friday night, September 14, when water service to the City’s fire hydrants was restored.

FDNY Fire engines bought since 9/11 now carry 5 sections of hard suction hose to draft water from the Hudson and East rivers in case of disaster

All pumpers now have 2,000-gpm pumps with five lengths of hard flex suction hose and special intakes for drafting. This idea stemmed from the water main collapses that prevented firefighters from flowing water at Ground Zero. Now, every FDNY pumper ordered since 9/11 can draft water from any of the nearby rivers and supply other units on the scene.

In addition to the damage to the water mains the internal plumbing, the stairway standpipes were damaged.

It was this damage which lead the FDNY command staff to order all FDNY personnel out of the building

It was too dangerous with fire breaking out and no water to fight them or protect the crews

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

The topic of the thread is “Conclusive Evidence of Explosives, Petition to Re-Open 9/11 Investigation”. Can you cite credible evidence of explosives to warrant a totally new investigation into the WTC?

And what does the the way the towers fell have to do with there needs to be an investigation into the incompetence of the government concerning how the terrorists were able to carry out 9/11?

Great I've been telling our kids nineteen Arab hijackers, who couldn’t fly one-engined Cessnas, flew wide-bodied jets in a way that professional wide-bodied jet pilots have said they could never do......Santa ,now this, there not going to believe anything I say anymore..

originally posted by: madenusa
Great I've been telling our kids nineteen Arab hijackers, who couldn’t fly one-engined Cessnas, flew wide-bodied jets in a way that professional wide-bodied jet pilots have said they could never do......Santa ,now this, there not going to believe anything I say anymore..

What does this have to do with credible proof of explosives at the WTC


Stop using innuendo and false arguments.

who couldn’t fly one-engined Cessnas

Cite a source the pilots for the terrorists could not fly a Cessna? How much money and time did the terrorists spend on flight school? How much time and money spent on large commercial jet simulators? How much money and time did Middle Eastern interests spend on the terrorists?

Is it false to say some of the flight instructors that instructed the terrorists knew the terrorists could pilot a commercial jet once it was in the air?

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: kloejen

WTC 7 had fires burning for several hours and damage done by the North Tower collapse.

20 floor rip on elevation facing north tower and other damage seen on this video.

20 floor rip lol care to post a pic of that horrible damage...

Why would some small exterior damage bother anything.

How did part of the tower fly all the way over there anyways?

No fire or flames visible in ANY of the beams that were smoking into dust as they flew.

Amazing stuff.

a reply to: neutronflux

TBF ... Using the no one can cite where the WTC samples came from for the research thing is actually a MASSIVE point in favor of there being something very wrong with the official WTC story, because if you were being EVEN THE SLIGHTEST BIT HONEST you'd know exactly why that's the case and wouldn't bring it up because of just how damning that single fact alone truly is!

Could it be maybe because independent labs had to source debris from eBay, ground zero workers who had to surreptitiously gather it without getting caught, and et cetera because somehow precisely NO ONE was interested or even allowed to take proper samples of any kind?

It's not like they even sold the scrap to mobbed up companies who made it disappear like a Chris angel trick or something....

No it's not like any of these things at all!!!

And this is the problem right here... If you don't want there to be nagging questions in the mind of your populace over a very traumatic event like 9/11 you commit yourself to handling everything as above board and openly as possible so that it is beyond reproach!

The US government knew that too!

How could they not after JFK RFK MLK and etc!!!

The bottom line is that people are VERY JUSTIFIED in believing that there's something majorly wrong with the story wrt 9/11 for the reason of the inexcusably poor and completely asinine to try and excuse as the usual government incompetence in every part of the post 9/11 aftermath considering the iron clad consistency.

They did EXACTLY what they meant to do, and in their eyes and minds the only mistakes made was those few samples making it out to people who could test them!

The fact that the way it was handled is diametrically opposed to the way we handle every other mass casualty incident involving aircraft in this country etc isn't just something you get to shrug off.

The funny thing... I don't have an opinion one way or another on whether the planes themselves or something else caused the buildings to collapse, and frankly that to me is a petty sideshow to the incredible wrongness that is the big picture view of 9/11 and the "investigations" afterwards!

Even with my lack of an opinion either way though, I still get very angry when someone on ATS tries to S*** in my hand and call it a snickers bar like you just did with that comment.