Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

no, fuel jet cannot melt steel, or even dissemble the ones WTC was stabilized by.

Originally posted by SavedOne
as an architect I feel a need to set the record straight whenever I see someone imply that all architects and engineers back the conspiracy. The vast majority do not.

As a very intelligent and logically-thinking individual, I feel the need to set the record straight whenever I see someone give deliberately false information to others and try to profess it as truth.

It is absolutely incorrect to imply that the "vast majority" of architects and engineers do not back the alternate conspiracy. That's like saying that even though only 1/3 of the population of the U.S. voted in the presidential elections, the vast majority do not want the elected president to be president. Just because the majority have not voted, does not mean that vast majority would automatically have voted one way or the other. Therefore, you cannot claim that out of all the architects and engineers that have not publicly made a statement about 9/11, that they automatically believe the official conspiracy theory.

Out of the architects and engineers that have publicly made statements (voted) one way or the other concerning 9/11, there are more architects and engineers that believe there was an alternate conspiracy besides the official conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by SavedOne
And it should be noted that the petition is merely a statement that the signators believe a more in-depth investigation should be held, they're not saying that they agree with the conspiracy.

How do you presume to speak for the signatories? I know that if I wanted a new investigation, I would not sign a petition that calls for a new investigation that is on a website the proposes holograms or fake victims. I guarantee that if you were to personally ask the signatories whether they agree with AE911T's findings and evidence, almost all of them would say yes and that is why they signed the petition in the first place.

Originally posted by ProudBird
Since it is obvious that United 175 impacted a bit "off"....only correcting at the last few seconds, and nearly giving a "glancing blow", how does THAT fit in to the "pre-planned demolition theory"??

If the buildings were set up with explosives from top to bottom, then it wouldn't matter where the planes hit. The explosives could be started at any given location.

Originally posted by ProudBird
(A) severe lateral impact damage

Where did you get this information from? Using NIST's original numbers, only 15% of the structure in the impact zones was damaged. That's minimal damage to the structure, not "severe".

NIST claimed that 33 exterior columns (visible from images and videos) were damaged or severed on each tower. And they calculated (guessed) that 6 interior columns on one tower and 10 interior columns on the other tower were damaged or severed from the impacts. On the hardest hit floors, that's only 15% damage to the structure leaving 85% of the structure intact and undamaged.

As a pilot yourself, you should recognize how soft the aluminum is on planes. Birds can cause severe damage to the body of a plane depending on the size of the bird and the speed of the plane.

The interior columns of the towers were connected vertically, horizontally, and in many places diagonally. The interior cores of the towers were a fortress of steel, virtually impenetrable. The soft aluminum bodies of the planes would do little to no damage to the interior columns. The only parts of the jetliners that could do any significant damage to the cores were the engines and landing gear as those are the hardest and heaviest parts of a jetliner.

Once you put the above facts to use, NIST was pretty close on their calculations to the amount of damage each tower sustained during impact. Although, my calculations on the damage to the core columns is a little lower than NIST's, it's close enough.

Originally posted by ProudBird
What you, and many to this area, have been fooled by are the charlatans who compile disparate "eyewitness" reports, but fail to properly "timeline" them, to give the false impression of "detonations"

I don't know where you get your information from, or you may not be fully researched on the 9/11 subject, but there are many witnesses in the form of credible first responders, survivors, and by-standers that heard the demolition sequences of both towers.

Take about 3 minutes to watch my video below and listen to a few hand-picked witnesses that describe the detonation sequences:

www.youtube.com...

Furthermore, the detonation sequences for all three WTC buildings were recorded from about two miles away across the Hudson over in Hoboken in a documentary called "9/11 Eyewitness".

And, to add on top of that, several firefighters testified in the First Responder Oral Histories that they saw flashes of light going up, down and around the towers "like a belt", and the flashes had "popping or exploding sounds" associated with them. The flashes were also occurring at the lower and middle floors of the towers while the buildings were collapsing up above.


There are at least four distinct signs of a controlled demolition:

1.) Timed//synchronous explosions (booms).

2.) Multiple flashes of light from explosives being detonated.

3.) Isolated ejections of dust/debris due to high-powered exposives being detonated.

4.) The near-free-fall collapse of the building.

Now, I've already provided a video of a few witnesses to the (1.)timed/synchronous booms heard (there are many more), and the (2.)flashes seen, and you can easily time the collapses of the buildings to see that they all collapsed at (4.)near-free-fall.

And then there are the (3.) ejections of dust/debris:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fe5c6d1e9293.jpg[/atsimg]


The towers exhibited all four signs of controlled demolition as outlined above. But, I'm going to add a fifth sign: smoke coming off the ends of columns due to just being severed with explosives.

Here's an image from CDI of a massive crane that was demolished, and you can see the smoke coming off the ends of the steel beams:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/23cd53192a42.jpg[/atsimg]


Now in this next image, you can see smoke coming off of at least two core columns as the second tower is collapsing:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/813a9e14d6ee.jpg[/atsimg]

It is a little easier to see the streaming smoke from those columns in video, but I don't have a video link handy at this time.


That is now five (5.) signs of controlled demolition exhibited at the WTC. I've asked for years for someone to find a fire-induced collapse that exhibits the above signs, but nobody has been able to do so as of this date.

Originally posted by ProudBird
But, if you ask many a firefighter what he/she may hear, when on scene?? Many, many things within a building can explode, and some of them can even be heard.

True, but you're not going to have explosions at the lower or middle floors of a building where fires are burning way up above. And secondly, many firefighters reported being thrown around in stairwells "like pinballs" as explosions were going off. And these firefighters were no where near the impact zones or fires when they reported the explosions.

Originally posted by ProudBird
PLEASE understand the concept of progressive collapse

Most people don't understand the concept of progressive collapse. Mainly the fact that in a gravity-driven, progressive collapse, a building isn't going to collapse at or near free-fall through itself in the path of most resistance. In controlled demolitions, explosives take that resistance away.

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no evidence for demolition.

You forgot to add "in my opinion" to the above statement. Hundreds or even thousands of real experts who don't hide behind an anonymous internet name would disagree with you.

Originally posted by pteridine
The rest was gravity driven.

That is not likely with a massive steel-structured highrise.

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no hard evidence of demolition. There were no wires, blasting materials, beams showing linear charge cuts, undetonated charges, primacord, blasting machines, or anything else recovered.

There have been many-a-murder cases prosecuted and convicted without the hard, physical evidence of the murder weapon, or even in a few cases, the body.

Originally posted by pteridine
Does anyone in the video say what explosives were used, how much was used and where they were placed?

You're never going to get the exact logistics without those who actually planted the explosives coming forward (if they're even still alive).

Originally posted by pteridine
None can say where they would place the explosives and how big the charges would be. None can say how long it would take to place the charges, how the charges would be triggered, how the charges would be timed,

Again, all highly technical logistical information that only those that placed the explosives would know. Anyone can guess at how much, where, when, etc. But what's the point and who cares about the exact logistics?

Originally posted by pteridine
how anyone could predict where the planes hit

If the buildings were rigged from top to bottom, it wouldn't matter where the planes hit.

Originally posted by pteridine
or how the charges could survive

Locally, the charges probably wouldn't survive. Hence the explosions heard near the impact areas, and likely part of the cause of premature collapse of the buildings.

Originally posted by pteridine
None can say how a top down demolition can be controlled

Yet there are plenty of videos of top-down controlled demolitions available on the internet, so ask those companies that performed those top-down demolitions.

Originally posted by pteridine
or, once the collapse started, why explosives would be needed at all [they wouldn't.]

Such blatantly false information, it would almost be hilarious if it weren't about 9/11. In a steel-structured highrise, the buildings are wired from top to bottom because the steel structure provides a great deal of resistance that needs to be removed. Concrete buildings are not as concrete can easily be crushed down and broken into pieces. Steel structures cannot.

Originally posted by pteridine
These clowns don't have a clue about explosives

You are correct. There are many clowns that don't have a clue.

Originally posted by pteridine
As to the collapse times, not many had those correct, especially early on.

A 13- to 15-second collapse speed is very close to a 9-second free-fall collapse speed. That means the towers collapsed at near free-fall speeds. That can only be accomplished with explosives removing the resistance. Anything else goes against all available evidence.

Originally posted by pteridine
Explosive to completely clear each floor in the time required would have been more that the random noises heard on the videos.

Again, you're deliberately discounting the numerous witnesses that heard the timed/synchronous explosions as both towers collapsed. Your deliberate attempt at ignoring evidence has disqualified you as a credible debater time and time again.

Originally posted by pteridine
and the glazers union in Manhattan would still be replacing windows.

Now you're just over-exaggerating. Most buildings surrounding the towers had windows broken out.

Originally posted by pteridine
13-16 second times are not 'almost freefall' as has been claimed.

Maybe in your fantasy world of denial and disbelief, but a few seconds from free-fall is near free-fall whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by Reheat
So what we have here is the proverbial "Hush-a-Boom" that leaves no evidence at all. No loud sounds even remotely similar to those necessary for a demolition and it was all secret.

You're being deliberately dishonest to perpetuate some fantasy version of events. Many videos and witnesses have already proven you wrong, so I don't know why you continue to peddle this disinformation. I've shown five (5) signs of controlled demolition in my post here:

Originally posted by Reheat
Of course there were explosions as one would expect in a building that size. However, there were NONE even remotely resembling those required for a demolition.... Not even close = NO DEMOLITION

False. Again, see my post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by malcr
If so how can a controlled explosion remove all the floors without showing any "blow out" through windows. Not one single window on any floor shows any sign of their being an explosion on that floor.

There were ejections from all four sides:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fe5c6d1e9293.jpg[/atsimg]

There were flashes, timed/synchronous booms. Every sign of controlled demolition was present at the towers. Also if you watch some of the collapse videos, you can see the entire mechanical floors being blown out all the way across as those were the strongest floors in the towers consisting of steel beams instead of trusses.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Just because someone is a fireman or policeman they are now experts on the sounds of explosions

Firefighters fight fires every single day, and they go through rigorous training. I'm sure they get their share of building fires where there are explosions. But had you read any of the Oral Histories, or watched any of the videos of firefighter interviews, you would know that some of them got thrown around from the massive explosions that were nowhere near the fire zones.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
and their testimony is enough to convince you of something?

Police, fire, and EMS personnel are called into court every day as credible witnesses in court cases.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Be weary of eye witness testimony,

When it's one or two witnesses, then you can be "weary". But when it's dozens or hundreds of witnesses that are first responders, survivors, and by-standers all hearing the same thing? That makes what they heard a fact, not hearsay.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Explosions heard at the WTC were few, random, variable in loudness and preceded collapse.

Absolutely, 100% totally fabricated fiction. I have proven otherwise in my previous post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Alfie1
The American Society of Civil Engineers, over 140,000 membership, does not subscribe to controlled demolition

Wow, gotta love that attempt at deliberate disinformation. From the link you posted:

The views, opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in the following interviews are those of the individual speakers, are not given or endorsed by the employers of the individual speakers and do not necessarily reflect the positions of or the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Nowhere on that page does it state that the ASCE does not subscribe to the CD theory. This is deliberate and blatant dishonesty to perpetuate a false claim.


And on top of that, there are only 5 individuals that gave their "opinions" on that page. One of which is Dr. Sunder who works for NIST, the organization that got it all wrong concerning the collapses of three WTC buildings.

Then there's Leslie Robertson, the right-hand or "assistant" engineer that worked on the WTC project, who is a laughing stock and incompetent in my opinion.



It's so hilarious that trusters claim truthers are "making stuff up", but as you can see, it is the trusters that are doing a fine job of making stuff up to perpetuate an unprovable fairytale.

one question i have is why did they get rid of all the rubble in record pace? if this is the biggest attack in american soil, wouldn't you want to have a thorough investigation rather than try to get rid of the evidence? anyone know where they took the rubble and what they did to it?

Text You guys must all be Feds or something, because most of you disagree with basic vital evidence that the WTC was detonated and a control demolition style inside job. Go back to the Alien, and UFO forum Nerds

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Per your request:

.......you should recognize how soft the aluminum is on planes. Birds can cause severe damage to the body of a plane depending on the size of the bird and the speed of the plane.

Bird strikes? A logical fallacy. And a diversion.

The airplanes themselves were projectiles....even can think of them as massive missiles. Just their physical size caused immense damage to the buildings.....the explosions from the fuel they contained contributed to more damage.

It was, simply, a fatal blow to the integrity of the structures. After that (and the added distortions from the heat of the fires, and further weakening of critical areas) gravity took over.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


BoneZ, this is video taken in the North Tower as the South Tower collapses :-

www.youtube.com...

Where are your "timed/synchronous booms" ? All I hear is the growing rumble .

Originally posted by mileslong54
Holy 9/11, great work putting all this together, best 9/11 thread ever I would say - sadly I heard someone say yesterday "What, a third building went down that day, I've never heard that"

at first, my family actually laughed at me and called me crazy when i said three towers collapsed that day, not two. they called me crazy.

in the end, it wasn't evidence that convinced them i was right (they were in a state of denial), but when they went to tell other family friends how "crazy" my ideas were, they found out that their support of the official story was a minority view.

persistance will have the whole world knowing the truth.

reply to post by Stryc9nine

Originally posted by Stryc9nine
one question i have is why did they get rid of all the rubble in record pace? if this is the biggest attack in american soil, wouldn't you want to have a thorough investigation rather than try to get rid of the evidence? anyone know where they took the rubble and what they did to it?

Agreed. This is the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. If you destroy evidence before any investigation then that investigation is worthless and certainly not scientific. The Lynn Margulis video summed it up nicely.

Thanks Tupac for a great thread.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


“Even thousands of real experts?” If they are not hiding behind an internet name as you say, you should be able to list them. In your world, is David Ray Griffin a “real expert” in something other than the power of prayer?

"There have been many-a-murder cases prosecuted and convicted without the hard, physical evidence of the murder weapon, or even in a few cases, the body."
Then why haven’t there been prosecutions and convictions? No evidence.

The times were about 1.5 times that of freefall but you claimed the collapse times were "very close to a 9-second free-fall collapse speed." You say that if something takes 1.5 times as long it is very close. If I run the 100 meter dash in 15 seconds, I should be very close to a world record 9.25 seconds and Usain Bolt should worry about his records? Not even close. You might want to rethink your position on this and state the facts rather than the fantasy.

I only asked for a possible demolition plan to test the theory that it could have been done and that your 'experts' were actually experts. If they are experts they could say “4 ounces of C-4 at every exterior floor truss joint” and describe how they would place and wire such. Then, we could determine the total amount of explosives needed, how the wiring could have been done, when the charges could have been placed, and how many people it would take to do it in a given timeframe. So far, none of the 'experts' has come up with a proposed plan. What are the 'experts' doing other than producing more inane videos to take money from people and perpetuate their celebrity? Why are you helping them do so instead of asking them to show a possible demolition plan?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


This is also per request:

Most people don't understand the concept of progressive collapse. Mainly the fact that in a gravity-driven, progressive collapse, a building isn't going to collapse at or near free-fall through itself in the path of most resistance. In controlled demolitions, explosives take that resistance away.

No, the explosives in a controlled demo don't "take that resistance away".

What the explosives in a controlled demo can do is cause weaknesses in the structure at critical points, to ensure the direction of collapse. That is what "controlled" means.

The huge Twin Towers, sadly, were just victims of gravity.......after the fatal wound was inflicted, the mas above could not be supported.....and THAT mass is what caused the rest of the progressive collapse.

Bit by bit by bit by bit.....piece by piece by piece.....over and over and over again.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

This is also per request:

Most people don't understand the concept of progressive collapse. Mainly the fact that in a gravity-driven, progressive collapse, a building isn't going to collapse at or near free-fall through itself in the path of most resistance. In controlled demolitions, explosives take that resistance away.

No, the explosives in a controlled demo don't "take that resistance away".

What the explosives in a controlled demo can do is cause weaknesses in the structure at critical points, to ensure the direction of collapse. That is what "controlled" means.

The huge Twin Towers, sadly, were just victims of gravity.......after the fatal wound was inflicted, the mas above could not be supported.....and THAT mass is what caused the rest of the progressive collapse.

Bit by bit by bit by bit.....piece by piece by piece.....over and over and over again.

didnt the planes hit the top of the bldg?
how did the rest of the Structure below it fail? and dont say fire jet fuel fires dont melt steel.

and BLDG 7 was not damaged structurally by any planes so???

the damage to all of the BLDGs was localized and the towers were built to stand up to fires like this they needed help just as controlled Demos. need help to keep them under control.

it really is too bad they got the countdown wrong on BLDG 7 saying it collapsed while the building is standing right behind you (EPIC facepalm)

reply to post by -W1LL


No, they really didn't just hit the "tops" of the Towers.

There was a huge amount of mass contained in the upper floors above the impact zones.....and you have to keep in mind that the buildings were not solid masses below the impact zones.....they are constructed of individual pieces.....and the connections that those pieces had, when they were assembled, is what failed.

Fire doesn't "melt" steel, but it DOES weaken it, and also causes expansion and buckling.

The connections, the millions of them, that every individual piece of the structure had to connect to the other piece....those failed, because they were subjected to loads outside their intended design parameters.

"Progressive collapse" refers to the sequential failure after failure after failure, all in a very fast succession, and all driven by the force of gravity.

Originally posted by ExistanceIsResistance
no, fuel jet cannot melt steel, or even dissemble the ones WTC was stabilized by.

No it can't BUT (if you read the physics) it can soften the steel making it unable support the loads it was designed for.