Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

You rambled, present gossip, people handle remorse and shock differently, it's good first responders and reporters can function during events, you have only offered innuendo with no physical evidence, and it seems more about how you are going to be remembered than what is real? Seems like conspiracists are more about the role play of hero than facts. You brought it up, not me.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

You do realize it's been proven sections of the WTC towers hit the ground while good portions of buildings were still standing. If the buildings did not offer any resistance, and fell at free fall speed, then how did large sections of the towers hit the ground with any portion of remaining tower standing.


Looks like control demolition? Never heard a person say it sounds like controlled demolition.

Anyway, what controlled demolition starts top down. So you already contradicted yourself. Why would they want the buildings to fall into their own footprints? Wouldn't they want the towers to fall, and cause as much damage as possible.

a reply to: neutronflux

The physical evidence is the actual occurrence of the destruction of the buildings themselves, as it happened and the first hand accounts support the explosives hypothesis, some of whom were blown off their feet by explosions at varying levels of the building not near the plane impact areas. There was video of the lobby blown out in the north tower. Explosions.

I'm not happy about it, but I cannot make my eyes and my rudimentary knowledge of the laws of motion, to lie.

And no I'm not after a hero biscuit for simply reporting the painfully obvious truth. What I'm saying is that your distain is unfounded.

We don't LIKE sharing this information and knowledge (that 9/11 was an elaborate, high precision, military-grade, murderous and bloody hoax of historic proportion and significance).

And I have to presume that you and others who take the opposite viewpoint, which is the predominantly held view (for now and the foreseeable future), I'll give you that, are a decent and well-meaning lot. In fact, it's that fundamental sense of decency and faith in the impossibility of such an action that makes you a good person. It's VERY difficult to fathom, the notion of those buildings being destroyed with explosives, with people in them. It's just too much really to take and it pains me to no end to have to take a stand on behalf of reality and maybe even for the victims themselves if what we're saying took place (buildings blown up with explosives on their heads to make it look like they collapsed as a direct and sole result of the plane impacts).

I would appreciate it though if you refrain from trying to slander anyone personally, about their strongly held view, and I will do the same, because I like good and decent people like you and others who cannot allow themselves to even begin to seriously consider this alternative view and understanding about what really happened on September 11th, 2001 (9/11). It means you're good, and well-intentioned, but so am I. So please, save the insults if you could? Thank you.

Best regards,

Ankh

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the BIG LIE there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods (being decent people). It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

as it happened and the first hand accounts support the explosives hypothesis, some of whom were blown off their feet by explosions at varying levels of the building not near the plane impact areas.

As has been pointed out many times, explosions do not equal explosives.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I understand that the falling floors were compressing air spaces like a gaint air compressor or diesel engine. The people being thrown about was proof of collapsing airspaces and displacement of the air. The displaced air caused a pressure wave that was an explosion.

From: www.dictionary.com...
Explosion def:
an act or instance of exploding; a violent expansion or bursting with noise, as of gunpowder or a boiler (opposed to implosion ).

People get blown up everyday. It's sad, but not hard to fathom. What was explosions at the WTC was due to compressed air, who's prime mover was thousands of tons of floors collapsing, and the displaced air finding the path of least resistance. The compressed air blew out windows, walls, and doors. Had nothing to do with demolitions.

In fact, wouldn't people blown off their feet by demolitions setting off to cut columns have extensive body damage from shrapnel?

Be careful. The big lie can apply to any movement / group / institution / organization of people.

You think it's the same argument again and again. But I thought I would add this to my lack of evidence of demolitions evidence.

It's been pointed out that people at the WTC were blown off there feet. If explosives were cutting steel, wouldn't that make shrapnel.

Therefore, people blown off their feet from demolitions at the WTC should have deep body steel shrapnel injuries.

There is no evidence of the sounds of demolitions setting off in WTC videos. No physical evidence of shape charge fragments, no blasting cap fragments, no remains of wiring for demolitions, no fragments of remote devices to set off demolitions, no steel worked on by demolitions, no body injuries do to shrapnel. (Shrapnel from cut columns, shape charges, blasting caps.)

a reply to: neutronflux

Here is a fact, conspiracists produce as many sites based on pseudoscience as possible to bury the few sites based on science that debunk the conspiracists. The truth buried in a web of lies by those that make a profit off 911. More money in sensationalized narratives than facts.

Thanks for demonstrating how there are no conspiracy theories about 911 and all of the conspiracy theorist are all out to make money for personal gain.

I knew the official narratives of 911 were all true, because I know our government would never lie, or conspire against it's own people.

I agree with you, there is no conspiracy theories that are true when it come to 911. Our government would never commit such a crime, they are very honest people, and have nothing to gain from such an act.

People that think outside the social political box should never speak out, because it is wrong in America, it just shows how stupid people are when they exercise critical thinking, and I agree with you that is dangerous and stupid.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

Here is a fact, conspiracists produce as many sites based on pseudoscience as possible to bury the few sites based on science that debunk the conspiracists. The truth buried in a web of lies by those that make a profit off 911. More money in sensationalized narratives than facts.

Thanks for demonstrating how there are no conspiracy theories about 911 and all of the conspiracy theorist are all out to make money for personal gain.

I knew the official narratives of 911 were all true, because I know our government would never lie, or conspire against it's own people.

I agree with you, there is no conspiracy theories that are true when it come to 911. Our government would never commit such a crime, they are very honest people, and have nothing to gain from such an act.

People that think outside the social political box should never speak out, because it is wrong in America, it just shows how stupid people are when they exercise critical thinking, and I agree with you that is dangerous and stupid.

If that is you opinion, more power to you. But the EPA results on the health hazards of WTC dust was a sham as proven by a court of law. Still, the pay out was not big enough from the government.

I just hope we learned not to let anyone in the country without vetting, or because of inside political ties.

A country that ignores Intel based on political ties is a sitting duck.

Large groups of people can suffer from the evil acts of a few individuals.

Years of terrorists able to highjack jetliners lead to 911.

a reply to: DimensionalChange03

This was such a horrific day. I remember where I was when it happened and my jaw dropping to the floor when those buildings came tumbling down all over those poor people. I never believed the official story ever, not even 10% of it. Something happened, but the why and how and who is never going to be answered fully unfortunately. For me and my eyes, having witnessed many demolitions in person over the years, the need for a study to determine what happened to the buildings that fell that day is not necessary; there is no doubt in my mind that they were purposely demolished.

By what means, couldn't say, but explosives of some kind were evident. By whom? Couldn't say, but the terrorists angle doesn't and never will fit my version. There were, however, many that benefited from all aspects of this tragedy, from the shorts on stock options, the insurance paid out on the buildings, the need to "shock and awe" for weapons of mass destruction, the oil pipeline, the petro-dollar, the removal of freedom, the surveillance state, the creation of new legislation and departments for security, the cover up of lost money from the Pentagon, the SEC filings going up in flames, etc.

There is definitely a conspiracy in the cover up. They took way to long to investigate and by then much of the evidence had been demolished or buried or shipped over seas for scrap. They spent more on the Clinton investigation/impeachment then they did on the 9/11 tragedy. That right there is a huge red flag to me. The way the media reported it, the way Bush reacted, the list goes on and on, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell all had knowledge of the intricacies of the events that day. Security for the towers, Turner Construction, NORAD, F-16's leaving restricted airspace instead of shooting that plane out of the sky like they are supposed to if it gets anywhere near the Pentagon or Capitol or White House.

No. terrorists most certainly did not do this, unless you call factions within our own government terrorists, because when all is said and done, they are the only ones that could have pulled off the crimes that day, the crimes against humanity and the American people, they changed the course of history with their well placed "New Pearl Harbor" for their New World Order.

You do know the insurance companies fought the pay out for WTC 7. Might study the court case.

originally posted by: austincitylights
They spent more on the Clinton investigation/impeachment then they did on the 9/11 tragedy.

Want to back that up with some facts. How much money and time alone was spent one WTC 1 and 2's investigation. Inspection of steel and debris, and the effort to recover bodies and evidence to list a few costs.

Sorry what you witnessed. But that one statement shows you are not willing to convey actually facts to push a narrative to create a biased emotional reaction.

originally posted by: austincitylights
I never believed the official story ever, not even 10% of it.

The official story is 4 planes were hijacked, 2 hit WTC 1 & 2, one hit the Pentagon and one crashed in Shanksville.

The damage to WTC 1 & 2 by the aircraft and unchecked fires resulted in the collapse of those buildings, tthese collapsed buildings also resulted in the destruction of several other buildings.

So you ddo not believe 10% of that?

Were 4 planes hijacked?
Did 2 planes hit WTC 1 & 2?
Did a plane hit the Pentagon?
Did a plane crash at Shanksville?

the insurance paid out on the buildings,

Why don't you believe insurance was paid out?

the cover up of lost money from the Pentagon,

Exactly what "lost money" was that?

F-16's leaving restricted airspace instead of shooting that plane out of the sky like they are supposed to if it gets anywhere near the Pentagon or Capitol or White House.

Your evidence for that is what exactly? What "restricted airspace" did F-16's leave?

a reply to: neutronflux

Some of the bodies were turned into shrapnel..

Over 750 bone fragments, including those of firefighters, were found on top of the Deutsche Bank Building


The Deutsche Bank Building at 130 Liberty Street was heavily damaged after being blasted by the avalanche of debris, ash, dust, and asbestos.  In September 2005 human remains were found on the roof, and again in March 2006, construction workers found more bone fragments. In 2006, between April 7 to April 14, more than 700 human bone fragments were discovered in the ballast gravel on the roof.

A search in 2010 found 76 more fragments of remains on the roof of the 40-story Deutsche Bank building 250 feet from the South Tower.

In total, over 800 tiny human bone fragments, all less than a half-inch long, were collected from this roof.

originally posted by: DimensionalChange03
www.europhysicsnews.org...

A study of the attacks on September 11th, recently published in Europhysics Magazine, concluded that there's much evidence to indicate explosives were used to cause the collapse of the buildings.

For whatever it's worth, Europhysics news isn't exactly a heavily cited journal.

The H5-index is 6 and the H5-median is 8.

The h-index is basically a metric that attempts to measure the productivity and citation impact of scientific publications.

To compare, a top journal like Nature has 379 (h5-index) and 560 (h5-median) while Science has 312 (h5-index) and 464 (h5-median).

Fringe research is often published in lower circulated journals if none of the bigger publications will accept the paper to give the work a small air of respectability.

The Journal of Scientific Exploration, for example, basically only publishes anomalistic research and has an 8 (h5-index) and a 9 (h5-median). I love the journal personally, but very few folks with credentials take it seriously.

Doesn't mean the information isn't good, just that it isn't exactly a major journal. 6/8 is pretty small potatoes, really.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Sory you don't get it. Prove there was shrapnel from the cutting of steel by demolitions, shrapnel from shape charges, and shrapnel from blasting caps. Otherwise, I don't know what you are implying. There was no metal mentioned as part of the debris. I am not saying there was hydrocarbon present, but you need to understand the energy compressed air contains, the heat of compression, and diesel effect.

Somebody also showed pictures of dust shooting out vents lower than the collapsed floors. This is very possible and explain by fluid dynamics. Yes, air is a fluid. If at a constant pressure, the velocity of a fluid will increase as duct / pipe size decreases. That is how compressed air laden with dust and debris travelled at a higher velocity than the collapsing floors through the ventilation ducts.

a reply to: neutronflux

Large groups of people can suffer from the evil acts of a few individuals.

But only according to what you are told to believe by them?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Otherwise, I don't know what you are implying.

Do I need to spell it out?

a reply to: austincitylights

F-16's leaving restricted airspace instead of shooting that plane out of the sky like they are supposed to if it gets anywhere near the Pentagon or Capitol or White House

I have to assume you don't know that civilian airliners fly over the Pentagon at less than 2000 feet every few minutes.
Do a Google maps of the Pentagon and look 3000 feet to the south east.

a reply to: pteridine

Actually I have 2 "technical guy" friends in my social circles, both engineers. One aeronautical and one civil.

Both agree with the laymen--the damage observed there at WTC could not possibly have been caused by office fires burning on the 80th floor or whatever it was, the damage from the aircraft impact notwithstanding.