Families, lawyers, AE911Truth, suing the FBI over 9/11 Omissions Report

a reply to: neutronflux

Its strange that you would say that.

Because heres an observation from a news reporter, Dan Rather, saying they look like controlled demolitions:


And an actual demolitions expert saying the same thing...

a reply to: gladtobehere

The old reminiscent of placed dynamite to knock it down. Care to state the last time dynamite was used in control demolition.

Ok, then where is the sound of dynamite setting off?

Or the ejection of demolitions shrapnel with pressure waves with the force to cut steel columns? From a building with no traps or water barrels to capture splintered steel. From a building that was not prepared for CD by removing glass and windows?

Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

www.canberratimes.com.au...
Seconds after the explosion on that Sunday afternoon, Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.

WTC 7 should be more extreme than the Royal Canberra Hospital implosion, is that a false statement.

Canberra Hospital Implosion 1997
m.youtube.com...

Please list the injured or human remains from the WTC that where found with injuries from splintered steel from cutting charges.

There are no flashing of explosives, no audio of detonations with the force to cut steel columns, no visible evidence of shock waves, no seismic evidence, no visible resultant shrapnel. The only thing similar is the building was pulled down by gravity once fire related thermal stress induced failure initiated the collapse.

Care to quote the fireman that had concerns WTC 7 was failing over time, and would collapse?

edit on 24-3-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

Ehh. I think the whole controlled demolition theory is bunk but it cant hurt to sit back and let them shake the tree and see if anything falls out. Probably wasn't controlled demolition but I'm still suspicious of 9/11. Just my gut.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Ehh. I think the whole controlled demolition theory is bunk but it cant hurt to sit back and let them shake the tree and see if anything falls out. Probably wasn't controlled demolition but I'm still suspicious of 9/11. Just my gut.

I am all for shaking the tree. But if they are really trying to pursue the CD angle with no credible evidence will probably just forced the lawsuit into frivolous and unfounded.

From the video in the opening post.

At 23:05 the claim of WTC 7 being a smoking gun and the BBC report. The only part of WTC 7 that fell at free fall speed was the WTC 7 facade for only part of its downward motion. Video of WTC 7 clearly shows a roof top penthouse completely falling below the roof line. WTC 7 underwent a east to west international progressive collapse as indicated by the penthouse disappearing below the roof line before the facade even starts its downward motion.

Why would the BBC be part of a supposed US false flag operation. The BBC was confused by the well documented account WTC 7 was failing, predicted to collapse, and a perimeter was established around WTC 7 to protect people from the impending collapse.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might cave to one side or "collapse".[32] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building and issued uncertain reports about damage in the basement.[33] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[34]

Around 23:40 the individual clearly states explosions were involved and how the builds go down.

There is no audio or evidence of shockwaves at the WTC of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

The cores of the twin towers fell slower than the rest of the building, ie the floor systems

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The lower portions of both buildings' cores (60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the initial collapse before they too collapsed.[44]

The blatant falsehoods of the truth movement......,

a reply to: neutronflux

Your original statement was:

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: gladtobehere

You can watch the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 from the video evidence. There is zero evidence of controlled demolitions.

I can probably find other videos and statements as well but from watching the videos, it is evident that they were controlled demolitions.

So in summary, youre wrong.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Can you create any intelligent rebuttal to what I have posted.

Zero evidence of any explosions with the force to cut steel columns.

Zero evidence of an audio signature from a detonation with the force to cut steel columns.

Zero evidence of seismic activity of an explosion with the force to cut steel columns.

The collapse initiation of WTC 1, 2, and 7 were initiated in relative quiet, with no audio or evidence of a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns, with no ejection of shrapnel from an explosion.

No splintered steel that should be the tell tale sign from the detention of cutting explosives that should have been prevalent and should have been recovered from near by buildings, the streets, cars, the injured, and with the human remains.

Zero chance a controlled demolition system would have survived the jet impacts to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 at the sites of the jet impacts.

There were zero columns cut by cutting charges.

There is zero evidence the WTC was brought down by pyrotechnics.

The inward bowing and buckling of WTC 1 and 2 that initiated their separate collapses is on video.

Please post a video of a single WTC column being cut to initiate the collapse of WTC 1, 2, or WTC 7.

a reply to: neutronflux

The main reason you don't hear the explosions is because the news footage was taken a fair distance away using telephoto gear the microphones would not pick the sound from that distance also in amateur footage taken closer most of the sound is obscured by people yelling and screaming. However listening to first responders whom I'm sure know what an explosion sounds like reported hearing boom boom boom boom as the towers collapsed . Also explain witness accounts of the lobby and how all Windows were shattered keeping in mind they were at least double glazed fixtures hanging down. The case of the maintenance guy getting knocked off his feet in the basement. How the towers were reassured a couple of weeks before for an extremely inflation value And the footage of Larry Silverstein the owner of the complex actually saying in regard to building 7 and I quote we had to make the decision to pull it "pull it" being the term used by demolition contractors when referring 2 a controlled demolition. Another anomalies that defies logic considering the initial explosion how did they find a paper passport down on the pavement of one of the alleged hijackers the same hijackers that couldn't fly a single engine Cessna also explain why so many first responders have since passed away cause of death been mainly respiratory type cancers or diseases also are you aware was required to turn concrete into dust and last but not least my favourite it has been proved virtually impossible by experienced Pilots 4 a plane of that size to fly a few feet off the ground going at full speed basically what they tell us happened at the Pentagon there are too many anomalies contradictions and covers for this not to have been an inside job and last but not least my favourite it is been proved virtually impossible by experienced pilots for a jet of that size to fly a few feet off the ground traveling at full speed without the plane being torn to shreds and how was there still molten Steel in the basement sections of the World Trade Centre still bubbling away 2 months after the alleged attack

a reply to: colang

Whst a load of BS.
Videos of CD posted online are taken from a distance with no problem of hearing the very distinct and powerful detonations. Detonations that echo about. With many videos posted from amateurs.

A real CD

Second Tallest Building ever imploded
m.youtube.com...

Is it true in the above video you can here the echoes ring about the city? And over the sound of a helicopter!

I would even say most of the cameras used have directional microphones.

The lobby explosions were from the fire balls propagating down the elevator shafts from the jet impacts. I think it was only one tower the incident occurred. people were injured from the incident with no injuries from the distinct shrapnel of a cutting charge. Metal that would have a washed appearance. How many minutes before the lobby incident to when building collapse was initiated?

Ok, a jet cannot fly that fast close to the ground which is a lie by Pilots for 9/11 Truth in the jest was in a constant descent until the very end.

Since it couldn’t fly that fast and that close to the ground, it crashed into the pentagon.

Your logic is total BS or blatant falsehoods.

My Final Word To The Skeptic's........ The ones that will not accept anyone's opinion on 9/11. The ones who unquestionably believe the government's official story. The official story was brought too you by the exact same people that told us beyond any doubt and there was proof to back it up that Saddam Hussein was harbouring weapons of mass destruction which was the basis of attacking Iraq and killing thousands of innocent people all based on another false flag I rest my case

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: gladtobehere

You can watch the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 from the video evidence. There is zero evidence of controlled demolitions.

Except, of course, all the evidence that it couldn't have been anything but...

Like basic physics.

I guess I'll go back to the WTC7 tower footage and watch carefully where the plane hit...

If you look really, really carefully you might see where the 1000ft high skyscraper hit

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Lumenari

Can you form an actual example and argument.

Or do you mean impossible as it it would be impossible for controlled demolition systems to survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse of each twin tower at the sites of the jet impacts.

It's rather easy to give you an actual example.

As to how the demolition was accomplished. That is by taking out the outer core columns every third floor and the corners of the perimeter.

The molten metal found in the rubble was probably from use of thermite in the fire affected areas, used to initiate the collapses. After the collapses started explosives would have been used on the core columns to break the welds to ensure the collapse continued reliably and the sounds would be masked by the collapse itself. Most of the discharges would have been contained within the perimeter and those that weren't would be masked by the debris falling outside. However, it wasn't a perfect job and we do see some ejections.

The amount of explosive needed to provide a concussion powerful enough to break the welds on the core columns is significantly less than that needed to cut through them. These charges could have been tamped to cause most of the energy to go into the column and reduce the noise level.

The arguments made by debunkers like Mark Roberts, that the sound levels would be much higher if explosives were used, are simply bare assertions. Roberts and others like him do not consider methods like tamping and breaking the welds to accomplish the demolition. They don't do the calculations which show it is feasible to minimize the percussive noise to a level consistent with that of the collapsing material, while still generating more than enough force to remove the column by breaking the weld.

That's how you take down buildings that size to fall into their own footprint. You shear off the columns with thermite at regular intervals.

The base of the columns would look like this...

Picture from WTC1 ground zero.

In your world an airplane caused that.

Nope. In the real world the clean up crew did that weeks after the collapse

a reply to: Lumenari

Looks like you just killed your credibility. One of the longest going falsehoods of the truth movement used by AE 9/11 Truth.

More at the link below.

www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-wtc-9-11-angle-cut-column-not-thermite-cut-later.t9469/

www.metabunk.org...

This photo from Oct 29, 2001 shows the angle cut column after it has been cut. It also shows the adjacent column as it falls to the ground, having just been cut.

What other right out lies of the truth movement are you willing to post.....

originally posted by: colang
My Final Word To The Skeptic's........ The ones that will not accept anyone's opinion on 9/11. The ones who unquestionably believe the government's official story. The official story was brought too you by the exact same people that told us beyond any doubt and there was proof to back it up that Saddam Hussein was harbouring weapons of mass destruction which was the basis of attacking Iraq and killing thousands of innocent people all based on another false flag I rest my case

It has nothing to do with the official narrative. It has everything to do with the truth movement uses right out lies of WTC planted Pyrotechnics. Its has everything to do with the video, audio, seismic, physical evidence does not support CD at the WTC.

Please cite the most credible evidence of WTC controlled demolitions.

a reply to: Lumenari

I guess I'll go back to the WTC7 tower footage and watch carefully where the plane hit...

idiotic statements like this is why it no point arguing with such ignorance and just let it be.

Who ever said a plane hit it or it came down from a plane strike and not from damage sustained from the collapse of the towers?

Picture from WTC1 ground zero. In your world an airplane caused that.

and now you even show evidence of the ignorance.

You do know that picture was taken after those columns were cut by steel workers?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: colang
My Final Word To The Skeptic's........ The ones that will not accept anyone's opinion on 9/11. The ones who unquestionably believe the government's official story. The official story was brought too you by the exact same people that told us beyond any doubt and there was proof to back it up that Saddam Hussein was harbouring weapons of mass destruction which was the basis of attacking Iraq and killing thousands of innocent people all based on another false flag I rest my case

It has nothing to do with the official narrative. It has everything to do with the truth movement uses right out lies of WTC planted Pyrotechnics. Its has everything to do with the video, audio, seismic, physical evidence does not support CD at the WTC.

Please cite the most credible evidence of WTC controlled demolitions.

#

False. It is obvious to some people WTC7 came down by controlled demolition. You can't find another building example in history and can compare to the collapse of WTC7 on 9/11. You don't understand historical precedent and fire records matter!

WTC7 came down by random fires according to NIST and there was a new scenario which had to occur to see the floors and columns collapse across the width of the building. Aside from the fact, their scenario is flawed when they even said they left off the girder connections in their infinite element modelling of column 79. Real world scenario testing you have to test unsecured and secured to verify the connection failures during a fire.

Plus NIST own modelling of collapse using computer graphics showed the building started to crumble in the final stage of descending. The building did not crumble the side perimeter walls came straight down. NIST, by the way, ruled out freefall in Aug 2008 during a technical briefing and truthers had to inform NIST by questions and answers the building fell and descended a freefall speeds. NIST said freefall did not occur because the collapses inside the building were not instantaneous and there was a progression of failures that needed to happen first. NIST then went away realising they messed up, produced a newly updated revision of their report three months later and now claimed freefall was consistent with their earlier findings. Ridiculous lies and only the truthers caught NIST lies about this. For freefall to occur across the width of the building 84 columns had to be gone for the building to come down uncrushed and undeformed.

a reply to: colang

The ones who unquestionably believe the government's official story.

are there any on ATS?


I have been reading the forums for quite some time and no one unquestionably believe everything.

The main reason you don't hear the explosions is because the news footage was taken a fair distance away using telephoto gear the microphones would not pick the sound from that distance also in amateur footage taken closer most of the sound is obscured by people yelling and screaming.

Holy crap

there is ignorant and then there is very very to extremely ignorant things to say

I cant even begin gauge what you just said.

That takes talent to be that ignorant.

people yelling can drown out explosions?

Footage taken a distance wont be able to hear explosions but most footage of demolitions taken from a distance does but only on 9/11 like conspiracy theorists like to say things happened for the first time ever?

However listening to first responders whom I'm sure know what an explosion sounds like reported hearing boom boom boom boom as the towers collapsed .

exactly, not prior but as they were collapsing

what would make that noise?

it wouldn't be the floors of the building and all the compressed air created those sounds as the collapse is happening,

Nah, its demolition explosives but only for the first time ever they go off as the building is collapsing and not just prior like every other demolition.

Another anomalies that defies logic considering the initial explosion how did they find a paper passport down on the pavement

many plane crashes have happened over the years

many times passports and other items that one would assume has no chance of surviving a plane crash do survive.

your whole post is like someone put a dime into a robotic parrot to talk.

a reply to: Jesushere

It is obvious to some people WTC7 came down by controlled demolition.

Who would have thought,

of coarse its obvious, whats not obvious to those that find it so obvious is why they believe what they do and how they believe what they do.

You can't find another building example in history and can compare to the collapse of WTC7 on 9/11.

exactly

no other building has been damaged by another collapsing building to make the comparison.

WTC7 came down by random fires according to NIST

No mention what so ever of any other damage, just a few random office fires?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jesushere

It is obvious to some people WTC7 came down by controlled demolition.

Who would have thought,

of coarse its obvious, whats not obvious to those that find it so obvious is why they believe what they do and how they believe what they do.

You can't find another building example in history and can compare to the collapse of WTC7 on 9/11.

exactly

no other building has been damaged by another collapsing building to make the comparison.

WTC7 came down by random fires according to NIST

No mention what so ever of any other damage, just a few random office fires?

You are defending the official narrative then you should know NIST said the damage to the building on the south side was not a cause of the collapse. This damage occurred earlier in the morning just after 10pm. WTC7 did not fall till 5. 20pm. NIST said fire expanded a girder on floor 12 and 13 and' it slid off its seat ( the girder was seated and interlocked to an A36 steel beam) and then the concrete flooring after losing lateral support collapsed on the east side of the building. It's an interesting hypothesis- however, flawed when NIST claims the girder was unsupported and basically could move on its own unrestricted. The truthers got their hands on real construction drawings for building seven and what do you find 30 shear studs attachments, stiffeners and web plate that would stop the girder from moving and expanding to the east. NIST also wrongly stated the seat space was 5.5 inches, it was 6 inches.

a reply to: Jesushere

You going to rant, or spread innuendo.

Please provide actual physical evidence of CD.

The video specifically claimed explosions. Is that false?

Zero evidence of any explosions with the force to cut steel columns.

Zero evidence of an audio signature from a detonation with the force to cut steel columns.

Zero evidence of seismic activity of an explosion with the force to cut steel columns.

The collapse initiation of WTC 1, 2, and 7 were initiated in relative quiet, with no audio or evidence of a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns, with no ejection of shrapnel from an explosion.

No splintered steel that should be the tell tale sign from the detention of cutting explosives that should have been prevalent and should have been recovered from near by buildings, the streets, cars, the injured, and with the human remains.

Zero chance a controlled demolition system would have survived the jet impacts to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 at the sites of the jet impacts.

There were zero columns cut by cutting charges.

There is zero evidence the WTC was brought down by pyrotechnics.

The inward bowing and buckling of WTC 1 and 2 that initiated their separate collapses is on video.

Please post a video of a single WTC column being cut to initiate the collapse of WTC 1, 2, or WTC 7.


By all means post evidence of explosives actually working on steel columns to cut them.