"Controlled Demolition at WTC 100% Impossible" Article by Jonathan Moseley

reply to post by yourignoranceisbliss

thank you very much for using your brains.people like you is what is needed.
there is just to many details that they have to explain ,officer ,this bag of weed in my hands, i just found it,the pipe in my pocket belongs to my granny,lol,my fingers are yellow do to them cheetos,and yes i didnt wash my mouth this morning,thats why it stinks so bad,lol,oh ok, go on then,thanks for explaining.

Just out of curiosity.How does this sockpuppet's bs thread get on frontpage?3 Flags isnt rly that amazing or popular imo

Sorry for offtopic mods

reply to post by AstroD


i think 9-11 will always be front page in infamy,no matter from what angle it comes to surface.

There are countless examples of the beams sheered off at the same angles as if charges were used...
I could post more but here's one example of concrete beams...not fractured but nice clean cuts as if set on purpose.





But a poster brought up a good point. As to how these threads are being presented..as front page news.

That's the entire purpose of this thread.....we are being corralled into BS threads on purpose in order to defuse the momentum gained by the 911 truth movement.

Research the DELPHI technique a systematic methodology used by COINTELPRO to sway public opinion.

Which in essence is the entire purpose of these threads....and apparently ATS in general.

You guys are doing the exact correct thing in not wasting time on these types of threads.

Their motives are very obvious.



Remember: The Truth Shall Set You Free

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


One word. WTC7

Should change the title to 99.9 percent. The WTC towers were not masonry construction like most of its predecessors. It was designed to be taken down by a CD. Somewhere there must be an architectural analysis of the support tubes under repeated stress loading from wind. I thought the original design was for 45 years but can't seem to find any links. This is the best NTP answer.

WOW SkepticAndBeliever your really gettin your a@* handed to you in here so let me help you out ?
GIVE UP !

They were CD's plain as day !
The original article in this thread is laughable !

I think the mods should do a Silverstien on this thread and.......

PULL IT !

reply to post by derst1988

Hey derst1988,

just wanted to let you know that I was in no way picking on you, and yes your point stands, and is "well met" by me...

I haven't posted here in about two years; when I had to come onboard to defend the Oathkeepers...

I just couldn't let pass this opportunity to help educate "the People", as I realize that time is growing short, for those who wish to live in a free and open scociety to take charge of their lives and replace the "spoiled children" and psychopathic murderers that are now incharge with some competent adults.

911 Investigation Now Please (for REAL)

Peace and

Back to the Ghost Dance

whoever wrote that was a idiot, i disciplined my way through half of that bullsh*t, just nonsense, talk about being vague, how ironic, he is either a liar or a moron, either way full of sh*t

disinformation agents here to try to turn the tide. I think any disinfo person here is wasting his/her time if the major hole in the official 9/11 story isn't addressed. Explain building 7?

The article makes two points:
1. The fuel fires from the airplanes would have ignited any explosives that were present.
2. The collapse of the buildings were not free-fall or the type of thing that one would expect from a controlled demolition.

Point 1 is incorrect because the ignition temperature for thermite is higher than the temperatures that can be reached by a fuel-air fire. From the wikipedia article on thermite, "Ignition of a thermite reaction normally requires only a simple child's sparkler or easily obtainable magnesium ribbon, but may require persistent efforts, as ignition can be unreliable and unpredictable. These temperatures cannot be reached with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, pyrotechnic initiators, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly."

Point 2 is incorrect as well, as documented by the thousands of qualified architects and engineers who have examined the matter and put their reputations on the line. Videos of the collapse of WTC1 released by NIST show an undeniable series of explosions occurring below the level reached by the collapsing floors. Eyewitness testimony from first responders also indicates that there were multiple explosions. Seismic measurements show an explosion occurred before the plane hit the tower. Unexploded thermitic residue was found in the dust, and independently confirmed in several disparate dust samples by independent researchers. This thermitic residue was not created by processes occurring during the collapse. Fire does not create matches.

The author of the article frequently insists that people who do not agree with him on the subject are stupid and irrational. This is not a sign of a calm and reasonable researcher.

another person denying the fact that WTC was taken down from inside. One more reason why I don't trust what people say.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


in all fairness, if I started a discussion with you and claimed that your thoughts were "absolutely ridiculous and preposterous", I don't think you would be too interested in my ideas.

the whole discussion over this event has degraded into a contest to see who can insult better.
The easiest conclusion to come to is that the official story is correct and we were just caught off guard.

The more difficult one is that some aspects of the official story don't seem to fit and if they were lied about, why?

I doubt that any of the conspiracy believers really want to have a government they cannot trust, or a series of events that they think they were lied to about, but unfortunately, some people feel that way. Most of them are simply asking questions to which they get generic canned answers. Not quite good enough.

A "truther" asking questions and digging for answers is not a bad thing. I think a society that blindly believes whatever it is told and does anything it is asked to, is a much greater threat.

Controlled demoltion or not, there are still a bunch of things from that day that I have a issue with. One of the biggest issues I have with the world trade center towers 1, 2, and 7 are the pools of molten metal under each building. Why is it, that the official story doesnt even explain the molten steel pools under the buildings which carried temperatures over 2000 degrees weeks after the attack. You say with 100% certainty that the building wasnt brought down by controlled demolition, I say look at the evidence and witness stories that tell a different story. You have workers from inside the WTC towers (basement level) who stated that there were bombs going off from inside the basement, you also have fire fighters/rescuers saying over the communication channels and post interviews that there were bombs located throughout the building itself....In my opinion, after listening to the witness testimony and than listening to experts discuss the molten pools of steel, its obvious that there were some sort of secondary explosions located within the buildings...Possibly thermite or thermate??? I think so...

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


Are you even aware of the military technologies out there. Wireless demolition and spray on explosives. Nano-Tech and Energetic Nanocomposites. To say that it would be impossible to plant explosives without anyone knowing is just baseless. And it serves only to direct people away from the truth.

I guess you believe its possible for buildings to fall that fast with the pancake theory? Let me guess...it didn't take 10 seconds it took 15 right? Open your eyes man come down to level and instead of protecting your ego, let it go.
Embrace the moments when you prove yourself wrong because it only makes you smarter.

This might be the #1 worst thread I've ever read on ATS. Mainly because the OP and the article therein is full of nonsense.

I'm beginning to think that Skeptic is Jon Moseley Perhaps not, but you sound like 2 peas in a pod (just read some his other propaganda). Is this a foreshadowing of what's to come for the 10 year 9/11 Disinfo anniversary ????

reply to post by joeym1991


Bad indeed... OP is clearly on an agenda to try debunk the controlled demolition theory, since it's the second time, at least, he's posting something on the exact same matter, with not much success.

Are you on Susstein's payroll, OP?

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


Detonator cords?

Look, I'm not an expert on explosives, but I'm thinking that if they wanted to pull off this whole illusion with explosives, they would've come up with a wireless, computer controlled & timed way of making all of the events unfold.

The reason conspiracy theorists don't go into specifics about what happen, and instead tear down the OS, is because if it was a conspiracy, the government would have the whole world's resources at it's disposal. Unlimited amounts of money, unlimited amounts of technology (black technology etc)..