CBS Report On 9/11: Ground Level Explosion Caused WTC To Collapse

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
You can pat yourself on the back as much as you want. The truth of 911 is the truth. Your espousing of fiction with your good buddy dave is nothing more than distracting fodder in the face of overwhelming evidence. But, go ahead, knock yourself out. You are not convincing anyone.

Thanks! I intend to continue posting whenever I am not too frustrated with repetition.

If you really think that what I believe in is so easily shown to be fiction, why not debate me? What have you got to lose?

it was a successful false flag mass murder staged by the state of israel, with full support and some participation by the military and neoconservatives in america, this authorship of this mass murder crime is well understood by educated people from around the world to be beyond doubt,


but that crimes success was short lived . today israel and the usa are understood to be "sick " states controlled by paranoid regimes by most reasonable thinkers who retain their ability to reason,free of psyop induced confusion and the continued efforts to mischaracterize this singular crime.

it matters little if a few sayanim here desperately attempt to continue to delibrately muddle and confuse history 10 years later , it is understandable , after all the demonization of muslims and the conversion of america into an easily manipulated police state to serve israels "security" needs and control domestic dissent is part of a continuing plan .

ive seen these glassy eyed types before , thay are a single type of dangerous being, be they frothing zionists, crazed christians,or psychotic muslims, whatever persuasion and degree of insanity , they are a painful burden to the rest of civilized humanity, who favor peace and cooperation.

america has cancer

reply to post by GenRadek


Thank you for pointing that out, some of what I read must of gotten lost in my translation, English is not my mother tongue.

reply to post by Fox Molder


Actually not a problem. Your english is pretty darn good while typing here on ATS! Better than some actual American's skills.

It happens sometimes, that things get lost in translation. That is understandable, and I'm happy to assist.
Its worse when people understand the language or speak it fluently, and still insist that it says something else. That is wrong.

Many firefighters said that they were being pulled out, as in being removed from WTC7, due to its instability. And yet, some people still insist that that is not what it means at all.

reply to post by Nathan-D


Oh gee, what a minute. I can go right now, and repost a whole host of firefighter accounts that talk about the structural instability of WTC7, the fires, damage, the knowledge that its going to come down due to fires and damage, etc, and thats not good enough to show the condition of the building.

But when firefighters mention hearing things go boom during a massive fire, with TWO airplanes burning inside TWO 110 story buildings, with about 15-30 floors each an acre in size, and then collapsed burying, crushing, burning hundreds of vehicles, people, and causing another 47 story building to go up in flames for 6 hours, then its, OMG they heard booms! We must then conclude and look for bombs, because only bombs make a boom sound, and nothing else.



Staccato explosions? You mean the sound of the building collapsing? I'm sure you are referring to the video of the firefighters describing the collapse. Yeah thats not proof of demolition explosives, or bombs. That is called, a comparison. Also known as similes, metaphors. Hearing a "kaboom" during a MASSIVE fire and collapse is not new. People describe hearing an explosion during train wrecks, tornadoes, and earthquakes. Should we instantly conclude that bombs were used?

As to why the building fell the way it did, refer to the design. Did you notice the large open area at the base? Those large transfer trusses over the ConEd substation? Yes the building was leaning. That is why FF didnt go in.Thats why when it collapsed, it still fell with a lean towards the south. Its not a solid block one piece. Its a web of steel columns and beams, which when they fail, they collapse. Its not going to fall over like a large concrete-steel reinforced box, or large concrete structures.

With all of the discussion about how these buildings were weakened or brought down due to fire. And with all of the evidence by the Osr's about 120,000 Phd's that agree with NIST, it occurred to me that the person we should be asking, the person who would have the most relevant information on bringing buildings down with fire would be an arsonist.

I would think that an arsonist; like a true end of the world, wants to watch it all burn, kind of arsonist would be able to tell us if a steel core building could be brought down by fires burning on a few floors or many floors. Of course, no one would ask an arsonist, because no one really wants to know the truth.

My thinking is that with the number of arsonists in mental institutions and within the prison system there would likely have been at least 1 that would have already burned down a steel core cement building with fire by now, especially if on one day, 3 buildings could suffer the same fire induced total destruction.

..Ex

Originally posted by GenRadek
Staccato explosions? You mean the sound of the building collapsing? I'm sure you are referring to the video of the firefighters describing the collapse. Yeah thats not proof of demolition explosives, or bombs. That is called, a comparison. Also known as similes, metaphors. Hearing a "kaboom" during a MASSIVE fire and collapse is not new. People describe hearing an explosion during train wrecks, tornadoes, and earthquakes. Should we instantly conclude that bombs were used?

Not to mention, that the footage of the WTC 7 collapse...which the conspiracy people are notorious for snipping off...shows the penthouse collapsed into the interior of WTC 7 some ten seconds before the entire building collapsed. The reason why the conspiracy people snip it off is self-evident- they can then turn around and claim "witnesses heard mysterious explosions in WTC 7 moments before it collapsed". Of *course* people are going to hear what they think are explosions; the building was being turning inside out. How can they not hear this?

Although technically the truth, their deliberately concealing the blatantly obvious reason for the "mysterious" explosions is outright deception. There's no way they can be manipulating the facts out of context like this accidentally.

reply to post by GenRadek

Yes the building was leaning. That is why FF didnt go in. That’s why when it collapsed, it still fell with a lean towards the south.

Sure, WTC7 leaned ever so slightly, but is that evidence against a controlled demolition? It's not uncommon for buildings that are demolished to collapse unevenly and damage neighbouring buildings in close proximity. As far as controlled demolitions are concerned, you probably won't see many more as symmetrical as WTC7. To illustrate my point take a look at the video below of a controlled demolition. Does it collapse perfectly symmetrically? Nope.
What made WTC7 lean? Damage, who knows? It's irrelevant anyway though, because what matters above all else, is the period of freefall acceleration, which, as you know, can only occur if there are "no structural components underneath the falling section of the building", which means all structural components must have been synchronistically removed within a split second of one another.

Understand this: freefall is the rate at which an object falls through thin air with 0% resistance. Correct? So, how did all of the structural components underneath the falling section of the building buckle before the falling section even encountered them, to allow for freefall? I can tell you to save you the pain of having to think: the columns were forcibly removed ahead of time.

As long as you're willing to believe WTC7 was a fire-induced collapse when it is practically indistinguishable to a controlled demolition then you need evidence to back up your claim, objective evidence, as opposed to invocating fireman. Show me real-world evidence for your extraordinary claim, the claim that WTC7 was the first building in history to collapse globally, spontaneously and symmetrically, from fire alone, and I'll believe you, but until you can get over quoting fireman, don't expect anyone with the critical thinking skills of a 5 year old to take you seriously.

You mean the sound of the building collapsing? I'm sure you are referring to the video of the firefighters describing the collapse. Yeah thats not proof of demolition explosives, or bombs.

I never said that it was proof of anything, I just said that we should give these witnesses some credit and not just brush their testimonies off as meaningless piffle. You seem quite happy to accept all the testimonies of WTC7 leaning (even though it's not objective evidence), but when presented with witnesses saying, they unmistakably heard explosions happing concurrently to the buildings collapse and moments before its demise, not just for WTC7, but for WTC1 and 2 too, then you can't ignore that as nonsense. You can't just pick and choose eye-witnesses, especially when we have dozens of eye-witnesses all attesting to the same thing and when the collapses of all three buildings on 9/11 share unmistakable, striking similarities to controlled demolitions.

Its a web of steel columns and beams, which when they fail, they collapse. Its not going to fall over like a large concrete-steel reinforced box, or large concrete structures.

You do realise that all objects invariably fall to the path of least resistance?

reply to post by GenRadek


Merci beaucoups de comprendre, c'est gentil ! = Thank you for understanding, your are kind.

It's not always easy for me to translate although I have been writing, speaking English for a long time, my mother tongue is still French Canadian.....I specify French Canadian because it is a far cry from Parisian French in Europe. Ours is much more crewed when spoken with "church words" as swearing but when written is is often a cut above Parisian because we do not use any Anglicization of words such as; parking or "WC" used for washroom WC is an abbreviation of Water Closet.

Anyhoo...Back to the subject at hand.LOL

thats it people, lets criticize alex jones and forget about the video