New 911 Evidence Solves Unanswered Questions

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Why are you so passionate about leading people to believe something is irrefutable when it is not?

because the demolition nonsense as a reason for why the towers came down is for idiotic brain dead morons who cannot think further than what YouTube tells them.

Thats false too considering i personally am not even a little bit manipulated by the BS you are spewing

Yes because I am not spewing BS about demolitions as those that keep on about it are either trying to pull wool over others eyes are are just too ignorant to realize they are being lead.

after so many years there is no need for anyone to actually be paid to obfuscate 9/11 conspiracies, the truth movement was created to do it and did it well.

a reply to: DebtSlave

If you seriously think this was all caused by jet fuel, watch September Clues and you will see that the planes were digital.

The dust (mushroom cloud) has nothing to do with jet fuel, its from tonnes and tonnes of concrete being pulverized.


September clues?

That is from when? 2006?

Have you just gotten into 9/11 conspiracies?

Sorry but videos like that do one thing, its like what candy does to your teeth only these videos have an effect on ones mind and if they are susceptible to information that will feed their ego and the path of discovery they have taken then its why you see so many threads on ATS and all over the net just parroting lines from these idiotic videos.

a reply to: DebtSlave

I can't find the clip, but there was testimony from one popular 911 witness who was a janitor in one of the twin towers, and the clip shows him making the argument that a bomb went off maybe 10 seconds before the first plane hit, followed by people coming up from the basement with their skin hanging off their bodies, exactly like what the victims of the Japan nuclear bombings experienced.

How many times has Willie Rodrigez changed his story though?

You obviously didn't watch any of the videos, for every one of your questions has been answered in them. The guy is a nuclear physicist. Here are your EMP blasts distorting the cameras:

are the cameras electronic?

distortion?

If you aren't going to watch the videos, then there is nothing I can do for you. Your questions have already been answered.

You could follow terms and conditions of the site.

People are asking about things you say are in the video,

many cannot view you tube videos,

please show you understand the video you want others to watch instead of telling others that they don't get it and haven't watched and explain what is in the video or just admit you are just parroting you-tube videos like toooooo many other truthers do.

2/3 of the buildings were dustified.

Um OK

Forget anything I said


Nothing can change hallucinations like this, dustified with about 3 or 4 stories of concrete rubble, how fine a dust are talking about, dust particles a few meters across?

a reply to: DebtSlave

There was the EMP blast that started the dustification of the building, and about 10 seconds later the weight from the top crushed the pulverized building, squirting packets of pulverized dust out various windows as the buildings crumbled.

How can an EMP cause dustification of anything?


You want posters to watch the videos but if you are getting your knowledge from videos like this and saying what you do just shows the level of intelligence you possess.

I don't think posters want to watch ignorant nonsense like that, that is what a few are saying, the info in the video is for people who just don't get it but are confident they do because of a feeling they have.

That's what I'm saying, I'm not a nuclear physicist, you are not a nuclear physicist, why not just watch the videos? I don't know how to explain this argument as well as the nuclear physicist. I'm not the expert.

So you don't understand it but you defend it and think others should see it?

Is it so they can explain to you or to confirm your belief in a youtube video?

To answer your second question, again, the mini nuke that went off left people with skin hanging off their bodies.. Conventional weapons can't do that!

seriously

if boiling water can do that to skin then I think many other things found in office building once burning could cause nasty burns.




EMP causing or beginning the dustification, 2 buildings being dustified, burns where ones skin falls off cannot happen with out nukes.


Are you trying to win a prize or something?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Why are you so passionate about leading people to believe something is irrefutable when it is not?

because the demolition nonsense as a reason for why the towers came down is for idiotic brain dead morons who cannot think further than what YouTube tells them.

Thats false too considering i personally am not even a little bit manipulated by the BS you are spewing

Yes because I am not spewing BS about demolitions as those that keep on about it are either trying to pull wool over others eyes are are just too ignorant to realize they are being lead.

after so many years there is no need for anyone to actually be paid to obfuscate 9/11 conspiracies, the truth movement was created to do it and did it well.

Explosives are the only explination that fits the visual evidence. There is no visual representation of the collapse the way you see it. Sorry, it just doesnt exist other than what you made up in your head.

Who said anything about paid posters and that the truth movement was created to derail any opinion on what happened that day? I didnt say anything about that... that was you.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: toms54

And....

Still no audio, video, seismic evidence of detentions powerful enough to cut steel.

Didnt Labtop explain all this to you vividly in another thread and you conceeded that his evidence was too long and complicated and it was unfair to expect you to understand it? That was you right?

You mean the individual stop posting after calling their bluff and never providing a rebuttal to:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let’s review.

The historical seismic activity shows a building collapse is expected to transmit Rayleigh waves.

Rayleigh waves would change in amplitude as items with different masses with different kinetic energy hit the ground.

“Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves” which are not present in the WTC seismic data.

I have produced evidence a building not properly prepared for an implosion by explosives would eject shrapnel. Shrapnel that would have sprayed bystanders, the street, and adjacent buildings. There is no evidence of shrapnel being ejected while the towers under went inward bowing of columns resulting in buckling leading to collapse.

The 1993 WTC bombing of 1000 pounds of explosives blow out at least one wall and caused substantial structural damage, but did not cause detectable siesmic activity 15 kilometers at a former seismic station. But you claimed LEDO recorded seismic activity from detonations at the WTC 31 kilometers away, but there is no audio or video evidence of detonations powerful enough to cut steel columns from footage of the collapse of the WTC towers? No evidence of ejected shrapnel during the buckling of the vertical columns?

To remain relevant, the biggest pusher of controlled demolition, Architects and Engineers, abandoned the narrative of kinetic detentions brought down the towers in favor of thermal cuttting devices?

You cite a seismic narrative debunked, abandoned by the biggest group pushing WTC CD, and ridiculed by other conspiracists.

There is no seismic evidence of conventional implosions at the WTC. Get over it.

No, anyone that read that thread knows you got your a$$ handed to you and insted of taking it like a man you covered your ears and flapped your toungue around aimlessly.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

How is citing actual documentation like the floor connects where sheared my own crazy theory?

What experiments were done to recreate it? NIST?

Why do you need experiments when you have the actual collapse on video. With audio. With seismic data? With no evidence of a detention with the force to cut steel? With metallurgy showing the steel was not worked on by demolitions.

Again, what truth movement theory has more merit than impact damage, thermal stress, buckling which is caught on video, caused the collapse of the towers?

So what truth movement theory better supports the structures collapse from buckling columns, and sheared / stretched floor connects?

Richard Gauge / AE mythical fizzle no flash bombs.

Jones and discredited thermite?

Holograms with lasers and or missiles?

Dustification?

Nukes with no supporting radioactive, contamination, or evidence of a blast?

Did a miss a theory championed by the truth movement?

Other than the cheery picked and super-imposed image that you are referring to EVERYTHING else released shows the buildings being blown up. Are you covering your ears AND your eyes this time?

a reply to: DebtSlave
Welldone thnx
Honnestly I think we will never know for sure. But I admire the scientists and persons who are so much smarter than all the abovetopsecret so called believers and non believers together. Those persons put their lives and reputations at risk.
If I were them I would not dare to speak out.
greencrowasthecrowflies.blogspot.com...

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Ok, then explanation how explosives initiated the collapse of WTC 2 with inward bowing leading to buckling of the outer columns with no shockwave, no evidence of a detention with the power to cut steel, and no seismic evidence.

The video in the link below clearly shows the outerwalls and the columns of WTC 2 being drawn in to initiate collapse. With no shockwave traveling up the tower. Nothing being blasted out while the columns buckle, and the top of the tower falls into the building.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: toms54

And....

Still no audio, video, seismic evidence of detentions powerful enough to cut steel.

Didnt Labtop explain all this to you vividly in another thread and you conceeded that his evidence was too long and complicated and it was unfair to expect you to understand it? That was you right?

You mean the individual stop posting after calling their bluff and never providing a rebuttal to:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let’s review.

The historical seismic activity shows a building collapse is expected to transmit Rayleigh waves.

Rayleigh waves would change in amplitude as items with different masses with different kinetic energy hit the ground.

“Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves” which are not present in the WTC seismic data.

I have produced evidence a building not properly prepared for an implosion by explosives would eject shrapnel. Shrapnel that would have sprayed bystanders, the street, and adjacent buildings. There is no evidence of shrapnel being ejected while the towers under went inward bowing of columns resulting in buckling leading to collapse.

The 1993 WTC bombing of 1000 pounds of explosives blow out at least one wall and caused substantial structural damage, but did not cause detectable siesmic activity 15 kilometers at a former seismic station. But you claimed LEDO recorded seismic activity from detonations at the WTC 31 kilometers away, but there is no audio or video evidence of detonations powerful enough to cut steel columns from footage of the collapse of the WTC towers? No evidence of ejected shrapnel during the buckling of the vertical columns?

To remain relevant, the biggest pusher of controlled demolition, Architects and Engineers, abandoned the narrative of kinetic detentions brought down the towers in favor of thermal cuttting devices?

You cite a seismic narrative debunked, abandoned by the biggest group pushing WTC CD, and ridiculed by other conspiracists.

There is no seismic evidence of conventional implosions at the WTC. Get over it.

No, anyone that read that thread knows you got your a$$ handed to you and insted of taking it like a man you covered your ears and flapped your toungue around aimlessly.

Then quote the rebuttal to the post you quoted?

And explain the individual using the seismic narrative that has been repeatedly debunked, abandoned by the biggest group pushing WTC CD which is AE, and ridiculed by other conspiracists.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

How is citing actual documentation like the floor connects where sheared my own crazy theory?

What experiments were done to recreate it? NIST?

Why do you need experiments when you have the actual collapse on video. With audio. With seismic data? With no evidence of a detention with the force to cut steel? With metallurgy showing the steel was not worked on by demolitions.

Again, what truth movement theory has more merit than impact damage, thermal stress, buckling which is caught on video, caused the collapse of the towers?

So what truth movement theory better supports the structures collapse from buckling columns, and sheared / stretched floor connects?

Richard Gauge / AE mythical fizzle no flash bombs.

Jones and discredited thermite?

Holograms with lasers and or missiles?

Dustification?

Nukes with no supporting radioactive, contamination, or evidence of a blast?

Did a miss a theory championed by the truth movement?

Other than the cheery picked and super-imposed image that you are referring to EVERYTHING else released shows the buildings being blown up. Are you covering your ears AND your eyes this time?

Then post the video and audio that is evidence of supposed detentions with the power to cut steel that initiated the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Detentions that should have injured numerous people.

This for example.

Royal Canberra Hospital implosion: 20 years on the lessons are still relevant, family rep says

mobile.abc.net.au...

On July 13, 1997, about 100,000 Canberrans were encouraged to gather on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin to witness the demolition of the Royal Canberra Hospital.

The reinforced building was to be demolished by explosives that would cause an implosion, felling the building in on itself.

But immediately after the charges were fired, there was confusion and tragedy as concrete and metal rained down on spectators up to 1 kilometre from the blast.

Katie Bender, 12, was on the other side of the lake, watching the show with her family when a chunk of metal sliced through her head, killing her instantly.

Break

Insufficient safety zones in place
The spot where Katie Bender was struck is almost half-a-kilometre from the site of the old hospital, now occupied by the National Museum of Australia.

For the demolition a mere 50 metre safety zone was imposed.

WTC 1,2, and 7 were not rigged with any kind of tarps, traps, or water barrels to catch demolitions shrapnel? Yet, nobody was hit from the shrapnel by CD systems that supposedly had to take out the resistance of each floor? No distinctive shrapnel with an eroded or washed out shape from the pressure of a cutting blast, with edges almost like an axe?

While the inward bowing of the outer columns occurred, were is there evidence of a detention with the force to cut steel? Why is there not shrapnel being ejected while the outer columns began to buckle?

a reply to: Spacespider

Nukes, not likely, but I think after the 93 attack, which was aimed to take both towers down like dominos, falling over lower Manhattan, some genius put "Scuttling Charges" into those two towers. In a warship, it don't make any difference whether she goes down by the bows or her stern. But trying to scuttle two skyscrapers into falling directly into their footprints on the ground, means that once the fires damaged the det. wires, then those same scuttling charges would indeed do what the 93 attack was trying to do. So someone pulled the plug, and pushed the big Red Button, and tanked the second tower before the scuttling charges could misfire. And they did it before the firefighters could be warned to evacuate the grounds.

The first tower to fall, and I was watching the T.V. feeds, in all probability, did give way from the fires and the impact, which buckled those big outside structural steel members. Our local radio station's D.J.'s mother was working on the 91st floor, and she had also been through the 93 attack. So she and one friend, told their boss to buzz off, and took off down the stairwells, with flashlights, which they religiously kept fresh batteries in. They said it was a cake walk, compared to the terrible smoke and gases from 1993. The lights stayed on, and they were over a block away when the second plane hit their tower. Their boss and 48 co-workers followed the building security's orders, and sheltered in place. These "sheltered" employees, and one dumba#$ manager, all perished, in the falling tower. There was no reason for all those souls to die in the North Tower. Even if the security a#$es had only told everyone on the upper floors to go down the stairwells, to a point beneath the city's skyline, below where a jet could sneak in through the other buildings. The D.J.'s mother gave a radio show interview, after communication was re-established in a few days. But her job went up in smoke, all the same. These two ladies, were the only two old hands, to survive, and they did, because they both had to walk down through the cruddy explosive's smoke in the 1993 stairwells. Never Again!

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

How is citing actual documentation like the floor connects where sheared my own crazy theory?

What experiments were done to recreate it? NIST?

Why do you need experiments when you have the actual collapse on video. With audio. With seismic data? With no evidence of a detention with the force to cut steel? With metallurgy showing the steel was not worked on by demolitions.

Again, what truth movement theory has more merit than impact damage, thermal stress, buckling which is caught on video, caused the collapse of the towers?

So what truth movement theory better supports the structures collapse from buckling columns, and sheared / stretched floor connects?

Richard Gauge / AE mythical fizzle no flash bombs.

Jones and discredited thermite?

Holograms with lasers and or missiles?

Dustification?

Nukes with no supporting radioactive, contamination, or evidence of a blast?

Did a miss a theory championed by the truth movement?

Other than the cheery picked and super-imposed image that you are referring to EVERYTHING else released shows the buildings being blown up. Are you covering your ears AND your eyes this time?

Then post the video and audio that is evidence of supposed detentions with the power to cut steel that initiated the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Detentions that should have injured numerous people.

This for example.

Royal Canberra Hospital implosion: 20 years on the lessons are still relevant, family rep says

mobile.abc.net.au...

On July 13, 1997, about 100,000 Canberrans were encouraged to gather on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin to witness the demolition of the Royal Canberra Hospital.

The reinforced building was to be demolished by explosives that would cause an implosion, felling the building in on itself.

But immediately after the charges were fired, there was confusion and tragedy as concrete and metal rained down on spectators up to 1 kilometre from the blast.

Katie Bender, 12, was on the other side of the lake, watching the show with her family when a chunk of metal sliced through her head, killing her instantly.

Break

Insufficient safety zones in place
The spot where Katie Bender was struck is almost half-a-kilometre from the site of the old hospital, now occupied by the National Museum of Australia.

For the demolition a mere 50 metre safety zone was imposed.

WTC 1,2, and 7 were not rigged with any kind of tarps, traps, or water barrels to catch demolitions shrapnel? Yet, nobody was hit from the shrapnel by CD systems that supposedly had to take out the resistance of each floor? No distinctive shrapnel with an eroded or washed out shape from the pressure of a cutting blast, with edges almost like an axe?

While the inward bowing of the outer columns occurred, were is there evidence of a detention with the force to cut steel? Why is there not shrapnel being ejected while the outer columns began to buckle?

ALL the video shows the building blowing outward. EVERY... one of them. Your wrong... as usual.

Nice obfuscation with your story-telling.



Nobody was injurred from that? And it didnt make a sound?

Okay...

originally posted by: DebtSlave
a reply to: Salander

That's what I'm saying, I'm not a nuclear physicist, you are not a nuclear physicist, why not just watch the videos? I don't know how to explain this argument as well as the nuclear physicist. I'm not the expert. I can't get all the terminology right.

While not a nuclear physicist, I do have some measure of common sense. Luck and common sense.

And what I know is that whatever happened at WTC, the cause offered by NIST--office fires and gravity--is not valid. From the pictures I saw taken by a FEMA photographer, it was perfectly clear by common sense standards that office fires and gravity did not cause what happened there. What few data measurements we have support that simple observation.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Nice false argument, like to post the picture of the inward bowing before the collapse initiation? Like to post a link to a video that holds the evidence of shockwaves and detonations with the force to cut steel? Like to post audio from the collapse of hundreds of detentions with the force to cut steel that supposedly had to remove the resistance of each floor?

Like to actual create a workable theory, or just post pictures out of context to create false narratives? Like to actual cite physical evidence of planted explosives, or just rant?

Sad the strongest argument you have is just a picture out of context, ignoring the inward bowing of outer columns that initiated the collapse with zero evidence of of planted charges.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: DebtSlave
a reply to: Salander

That's what I'm saying, I'm not a nuclear physicist, you are not a nuclear physicist, why not just watch the videos? I don't know how to explain this argument as well as the nuclear physicist. I'm not the expert. I can't get all the terminology right.

While not a nuclear physicist, I do have some measure of common sense. Luck and common sense.

And what I know is that whatever happened at WTC, the cause offered by NIST--office fires and gravity--is not valid. From the pictures I saw taken by a FEMA photographer, it was perfectly clear by common sense standards that office fires and gravity did not cause what happened there. What few data measurements we have support that simple observation.

“What few data measurements we have support that simple observation” it was nuclear bombs?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Nice false argument, like to post the picture of the inward bowing before the collapse initiation? Like to post a link to a video that holds the evidence of shockwaves and detonations with the force to cut steel? Like to post audio from the collapse of hundreds of detentions with the force to cut steel that supposedly had to remove the resistance of each floor?

Like to actual create a workable theory, or just post pictures out of context to create false narratives? Like to actual cite physical evidence of planted explosives, or just rant?

Sad the strongest argument you have is just a picture out of context, ignoring the inward bowing of outer columns that initiated the collapse with zero evidence of of planted charges.

Your theory is stupid and does not match the evidence. Go to the gray area where BS like this belongs. Your perpetuating a hoax. I am actually a little shocked that would be allowed but its not my site...

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The argument is who was hit up to one kilometer away with distinctive demolitions shrapnel that is very different that rubble? Recovered from the street? From adjacent buildings? From the injured? From the recovery of human remains? Video of it being ejected out? Two towers each 110 stories tall that the truth movement claims had to have planted changes on each floor? Two supposed CD’s with no traps, tarps, or water barrels to catch shrapnel like a normal CD? And no evidence of shrapnel from splinter steel columns?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The argument is who was hit up to one kilometer away with distinctive demolitions shrapnel that is very different that rubble? Recovered from the street? From adjacent buildings? From the injured? From the recovery of human remains? Video of it being ejected out? Two towers each 110 stories tall that the truth movement claims had to have planted changes on each floor? Two supposed CD’s with no traps, tarps, or water barrels to catch shrapnel like a normal CD? And no evidence of shrapnel from splinter steel columns?

So becuase you cant find any of the characteristics that are normally seen in a contracted controlled demolition, you have rulled out explosives all together?

Or are you just looking for any excuse to rule out explosives all together?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

For just you again....

Below is a link to a thread that shows the inward bowing of the outer columns that caused buckling, and initiated the collapse of WTC 2.

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

www.metabunk.org...

So, what evidence and logically argument do you have to outlined what caused the outer columns of WTC 2 to buckle inward in a narrow band around the circumference of the towers relative to jet impacts? Impacts and fires that made it impossible for a CD system to survive?

Drooping floor trusses contracted, pulling in on the outer columns. The bowing became great enough it became buckling. The building above the buckling collapsed into the tower. The falling mass stripped floor connects from the vertical columns. Video clearly shows whole sections of vertical columns standing after the complete collapse of the floor system. The remaining vertical columns shortly toppled because they lost lateral support.

The damage to the floor connections is documented in this:

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...