Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: Phage

You have an overlord?

I never said that I had an overlord. You should check your "reading comprehension", I was making a statement of who really runs all the countries.

a reply to: neutronflux

Just asking for one item of pseudoscience from the NIST reports so it can be debated?

Do your own research, I am not being paid to do it for you. You have been given credibal sources that you continue to ignore, so why bother having this conversation with you.

You have a lot of reading to do, get back with me when you find all the NIST flaws and we can discuss them. This should take you a few days to respond.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Phage

You have an overlord?

I never said that I had an overlord. You should check your "reading comprehension", I was making a statement of who really runs all the countries.

You said this:

Do you really believe our overlords care about people?

Where did you exclude yourself from "our?"
Instead of criticizing my reading comprehension, maybe you should write better.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

Just asking for one item of pseudoscience from the NIST reports so it can be debated?

Do your own research, I am not being paid to do it for you. You have been given credibal sources that you continue to ignore, so why bother having this conversation with you.

You have a lot of reading to do, get back with me when you find all the NIST flaws and we can discuss them. This should take you a few days to respond.

Just giving you the chance to cherry pick the one smoking gun of pseudoscience from the NIST reports.

Why can you not just give one example? What's in those YouTube videos. Is that where the suggestive programing and brainwashing takes place to send Richard Gage and Steve Jones money. Like TV ministers.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Obviously, there would be no way a complicated floor by floor system of explosives, ignition systems, and detonation systems would maintain their usability after a building fire.

Also obvious, such a system would have rain very real and detectable shrapnel into adjacent buildings, cars, and people. You know fragments from fragmented columns, shap charges, and blasting caps.

No it isn't obvious. What is obvious is that a system of explosives would be set up so that if fires on several floors were to compromise the charges on those floors, it wouldn't compromise the floors yet untouched by fires or other damage. IF you really believe the official version then all I can say is you will need a lot of good luck to survive the future. So, good luck.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Survive what! And you still have no evidence!

And you are the one that miss leads the towers fell at free fall speed. Which is not true. And claim that each floor needed to be controlled demolitioned. Now you are saying each floor didn't need to be rigged to blow and cause the buildings to fall at free fall speed? Nice contradiction.

Which is it.

The WTC didn't need explosives to fall at free fall speed.

Or

The WTC didn't fall at free fall speed.

Still waiting on one cherry picked example of pseudoscience from the NIST reports?

a reply to: neutronflux

The entire NIST report is politically inspired pseudoscience. They start with a conclusion, and work backwards to "support" their conclusion. One must be gullible indeed to believe that nonsense. The political appointees of Bush were paying the piper for having been appointed. Bement and others.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

The entire NIST report is politically inspired pseudoscience. They start with a conclusion, and work backwards to "support" their conclusion. One must be gullible indeed to believe that nonsense. The political appointees of Bush were paying the piper for having been appointed. Bement and others.

And still waiting on an example from the NIST reports of pseudoscience to start a debate?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

No it isn't obvious. What is obvious is that a system of explosives would be set up so that if fires on several floors were to compromise the charges on those floors, it wouldn't compromise the floors yet untouched by fires or other damage. IF you really believe the official version then all I can say is you will need a lot of good luck to survive the future. So, good luck.

And we still have the conspiracists contradiction.

Explosives didn't need to be installed on a floor of the WTC for that floor to fall at free fall speed.

Or

The WTC didn't fall at free fall speed?

Which is it?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Davg80
is this true, has there been a study that proves that explosives were used to blow up the WTCs,

No, there has been many silly claims, but there is zero evidence explosives were used.

Except for the fact that the buildings are completely and totally destroyed !

originally posted by: neutronflux
The reason the truther movement is dwindling? Most people do not believe in the official narrative, but also do not believe the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. Again, pretty arrogant to think one must believe in controlled demolition to not believe the official narrative. To ignore that, is to put nails in the movement's coffin. Just giving you a helpful hint.

Dwindling ?

What movement are you talking about ?

What actually is happening is a whole lot of us are in a different mindset than you will ever know , or see......

A helpful hint, you aren't going to win this one.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Obviously, there would be no way a complicated floor by floor system of explosives, ignition systems, and detonation systems would maintain their usability after a building fire.

Also obvious, such a system would have rain very real and detectable shrapnel into adjacent buildings, cars, and people. You know fragments from fragmented columns, shap charges, and blasting caps.

And none of the mechanisms that we were told account for the incredible powderization of an entire building full of things that should not have pulverized.

What do you have to say for the fact that literally nothing of consequence is left of the building ?

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: Informer1958

I have done more research on this topic than porobably 80% of the posters on this page and site.

I have sat and had discussions with my instructor about the structure and connections themselves. I have sat and took the time to investigate the viscoelastic dampers that connect the trusses to the beams. I have sat and personally took the time to find the size and shear strength of the bolts that connect the beams and trusses. I took the time, and learned in class's how heat actually does weaken the atomic structure of steel. I have done my research friend. Independent from any government findings and I sure didn't use the NIST report.

So go ahead and explain to me how my research into this topic is pseudo science.

Go ahead and explain to me why it took so many years of re-educations instructors and they having to try and figure out how all of this "could" have happened ??

Because everyone of them at the time before it happened would say it is IMPOSSIBLE!

They had to talk from a mindset of TRYING to make it acceptable because no other option was allowed, under threat !!

a reply to: neutronflux

Still waiting on your post bullet point by bullet point the lies and pseudoscience of the NIST reports. Should be simple for you to list one from a "white washed" report.

One little simple fact after simple fact you are misleading. If not more than misleading?

Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report: A Study in Theoretical Adequacy

www.journalof911studies.com...

Here is a 20 page report that proves without out shadow of doubt that NIST fabricated many parts of their so call scientific Report.

Any 5th grader can understand this report. You will not be able to debunk the questions in this report, because NIST did not do many test to confirm their own science.

NIST admits many of their testing done on the floor trusses and controlled firers on NIST model did not result in the weakening of steel, so these model were never used in the explanation to support their hypothesis that firer was not hot enough to weakening the WTC steel.

Many tests where done on different pieces of steel and support beams of the WTC debris: Conclusion is NIST science does not conclusively prove office fire and jet fuel, however it does prove NIST used a lot of "assumptions", and "speculation" and because of these many flaws, NIST Report cannot and will not stand up to a scientific Peer Review.

Read the full report and you will see that I do not just make up this crap.

118 Witnesses: The Firefighter’s Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers

www.journalof911studies.com...

There is 60 pages of credibal eyewitness account that does not support the official narratives.

These eyewitness report are on record of historical accounts and should not be ignored.

originally posted by: Informer1958

NIST admits many of their testing done on the floor trusses and controlled firers on NIST model did not result in the weakening of steel, so these model were never used in the explanation to support their hypothesis that firer was not hot enough to weakening the WTC steel.

One, wasn't all the steel sent two China? So how was it tested. Also, the steel was in long sections with obvious bending, twisting, and bowing of steel from heat. Controlled demolition would have left columns cut into short sections about the length between each floor. You need to blow each floor for your imagined free fall speed, no? That means the majority of columns would have been in short, fragmented sections with no bending.

Two, how hot was the temperature for the model. By 1202 degrees Fahrenheit, structural steel losses fifty percent of the strength.

Three, are the models based on insulation damage protecting the steel?

Four, you used the term controlled fire? Why. Was that the only model ran? Controlled fire?

Five, you said pseudoscience? Scientific theories supported by available evidence to point to the most likely cause. That is a far cry from the claims of pseudoscience.

Six, the reports were not evaluated by a controlling person or persons as Editor? The reports were collaborated with how many persons who verified the data? That's more than Jones thermite paper who bypassed the editor and published in pay to play journal.

Finally. Controlled demolition is based on assumptions, speculation, and finally no evidence. By your own definition, controlled demolition is pseudoscience.

I would say the most damning lack of evidence against controlled demolition, other than no sounds of demolitions setting off in WTC videos. The claim the WTC towers would need blown floor by floor to achieve its speed of collapse. That would mean no long twisted columns from heat in the pile. The columns would have been in short, straight, fragmented sections. The whole area would have been covered in metal shrapnel with the signs of detonation. Numerous bits of shrapnel in the form of structural steel, shape charges, and blasting caps would have been removed from civilians, first responders, and human remains.

originally posted by: Informer1958
118 Witnesses: The Firefighter’s Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers

www.journalof911studies.com...

There is 60 pages of credibal eyewitness account that does not support the official narratives.

These eyewitness report are on record of historical accounts and should not be ignored.

For the thousandth time, explosions do not mean the detonation of charges. If first responders were that close, why were no fragments of shrapnel recovered from them or part of their injuries.

If you believe they were charges setting off, then in your mind that should rule out thermite.

And did Steven Jones ever retest for thermite in an oxygen free atmosphere?

And who was able to reproduce all of Jones work.

Finally, once debunked, Jones should have followed good form. He should have withdrawn his paper like a big boy. It's not customary, and it's a moot point, to publish a peer review paper on somebody being a trickster.