Study concludes explosives used on 911

"Study concludes explosives used on 911"

I haven't seen anyone on this thread "debunk" the OP.

All I seen from the same debunkers is the same old rhetoric of redundant questions, clever questions that they know no one can answer.

Some in here demonstrate believing we cannot hear the explosions as millions of tons of debris was coming down, perhaps drowning out many explosions at the same time in my "opinion".

Because there is no evidence during the cleanup process, why is that? Because the fact is, no one was looking for it.

Another fact is NIST dismissed demolition from the very beginning, making the outlandish claims that there were no eyewitness or evidence to support such a claim.

The fact is the NIST Report was based on political science and not on real science, that is why it cannot ever be Peer Reviewed.

On the contrary, the videos in question do prove evidences of demolition. Another fact is only outside experts that have no political ties to US government are the only ones qualified to do a truthful investigation into the WTC demize.

Fact: 911 was never investigated by our government. Fact: Plenty of evidence supports a government coverup.

Is the official narratives of 911 true? We each have our own "opinions" it just depends on how much research one has done on the given topic.

I believe, there is nothing wrong in ignoring those that demonstrated repeatedly in their posting that they are the authority, of most 911 topics, and ridiculing is the only answers they can give.

originally posted by: Informer1958
"Study concludes explosives used on 911'

Some in here demonstrate believing we cannot hear the explosions as millions of tons of debris was coming down, perhaps drowning out many explosions at the same time in my "opinion".

One: Video after video of actual controlled demolition of buildings using explosives proves that detonation of explosives is clearly audible over building collapse.

Two: Please state the number of charges per tower needed floor by floor? Remember, it's the majority view of the movement collapse speed was only achieved by using a number of charges on each floor.

Three: Richard Gage states WTC charges were designed to fizzle with no flash, yet cause lateral ejection of columns with no pressure waves?

Four: What about the claims of persons witnessing explosions when only incendiary devices were used.

Five: There has never been a floor by floor demolition of a building using incendiaries.

Six: A controlled demolitions using charges has never been used to demolish a building over 50 floors.

Seven: A never before top down floor by floor demolition using incendiaries compromised by fire was allegedly carried out perfectly twice in one day?

Because there is no evidence during the cleanup process, why is that? Because the fact is, no one was looking for it.

This has been talked at length and debunked by persons at ATS in thread's. Actual links to videos of law enforce hand searching WTC debris for personal effects, remains, and evidence has been provided in the past.

Eight: The debris at the WTC site was examined by several different categories of experts and segregate by size a material.

Nine: Sites like Fresh Kills held facilities for hand searching WTC debris. About 19,000 human remains recovered. About 6,000 human remains could fit in a test tube.

Ten: 19,000 remains recovered. No remains contain pieces of shrapnel worked on by explosives. (Remember Gage said the explosives caused lateral ejection of columns?)

Eleven: Hand searching debris yielded no fragments of charges, blasting caps, igniters, nor remote detonators.

Another fact is NIST dismissed demolition from the very beginning, making the outlandish claims that there were no eyewitness or evidence to support such a claim.

The fact is the NIST Report was based on political science and not on real science, that is why it cannot ever be Peer Reviewed.

Twelve:. Speculation is not evidence. List examples.

On the contrary, the videos in question do prove evidences of demolition. Another fact is only outside experts that have no political ties to US government are the only ones qualified to do a truthful investigation into the WTC demize.

Thirteen: What videos? The ones Loose Change, Architects 911, and Pilots 911had eight years to archive and document but are now missing from the internet?

Fourteen: Your facts are just rants.

Fifteen: The movement claims the towers look just like a classic controlled demolition. What demolition of a 110 floor build has ever taken place from the top down using incendiaries?

Sixteen: ( In the context of lateral ejection of columns. In the context of persons in proximity to witness explosions.) No shrapnel worked on by explosives rained out of the towers. No shrapnel worked on by explosives recovered from surviving victims nor surrounding buildings.

You say NIST doesn't use peer review? Prove that different subjects of the NIST reports were never peer reviewed nor published in journals......

Who has time to go to college libraries to research scholarly journals when the pseudoscience of the movement's YouTube videos doesn't interfere with a person's world views.

From NIST

AT: www.nist.gov...

14. How did NIST derive the temperatures in the WTC towers and how valid are they?
Using all the visual and physical evidence available, NIST conducted simulations of the fires in each of the towers from the time of airplane impact to the collapses. The computational model used to simulate the fires was NIST's Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). This model had been validated in numerous experiments and fire recreations prior to the NIST WTC investigation. Additional large-scale experiments conducted during the investigation (NIST NCSTAR 1-5) provided further assurance of the validity of the model output. This output was in the form of maps of the air temperatures on each of the floors over the duration of the fires (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F).
In a following set of computations, the evolving temperatures of the concrete and steel structural components of the towers were calculated by exposing them to the mapped air temperatures (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5G).
Both sets of computations are based on the fundamental laws of combustion, heat transfer, and air flow. The methods have been documented extensively and have been successfully subjected to technical peer review and published in professional journals.

a reply to: Informer1958

Maybe this will help

From: tf.nist.gov...

The NIST Time and Frequency publication database allows you to freely access a total of 2852 publications, a comprehensive body of scientific literature that covers the period from 1914 to the present. The database includes conference papers, journal and magazine articles, government publications, books, and book chapters. We have tried to include every time and frequency related publication authored by NIST personnel (or by the personnel of its predecessor, NBS, the National Bureau of Standards) in this database. If you know of any NIST or NBS publication that is related to time and frequency and that isn't included, please let us know by sending an email. We'll research your request and add the missing publication to the database as quickly as possible.
You can search for publications by entering at least one search term in the submission form below, and then clicking the submit button. You only need to enter partial terms, such as the author's last name. Words can be entered as either upper or lower case. Multiple words entered on the same line are treated as if "AND" were between them, which narrows your search. After you click the submit button, a list of publications will be displayed. If a publication is available as a PDF file, the title will be underlined. Simply click on the title to access the publication. If you are interested in time and frequency but don't know what to search for, please visit our list of selected general interest time and frequency publications.

a reply to: neutronflux

This has been talked at length and debunked by persons at ATS. Actual links to videos of law enforce hand searching WTC debris for personal effects, remains, and evidence has been provided in the past.

You say this in all your post, yet you do not provide any evidence to support your "opinions".

Eight: The debris at the WTC site was examined by several different categories of experts and segregate by size a material.

But where they ordered to look for remaining explosive devices? No.

Nine: Sites like Fresh Kills held facilities for hand searching WTC debris. About 19,000 human remains recovered. About 6,000 human remains could fit in a test tube.

Only a demolition could cause 6,000 humans to fit in one test tube.

Ten: 19,000 remains recovered. No remains contain pieces of shrapnel worked on by explosives.

Of course not, most would have fit in a test tube. But we all know the government has a super, duper DNA machine that can sniff out DNA under millions of tons of debris, right?

Eleven: Hand searching debris yielded no fragments of charges, blasting caps, igniters, nor remote detonators.

Who says?

Who gave the order to look for blasting caps, igniters, or remote detonator, George Bush?

If the WTC were taken down by demolition and it was an inside job, don't you think the criminals would want their crimes covered up as credibal evidence support this?

Twelve:. Speculation is not evidence. List examples.

On the contrary it is already a proven fact and NOT speculation and you know that.

Fourteen: Your facts are just rants.

Fact are the facts, call it what you like.

Fifteen: The movement claims the towers look just like a classic controlled demolition. What demolition of a 110 floor build has ever taken place from the top down using incendiaries?

I wouldn't know, because I am not part of a movement. As for your second question: I did not make any claim that the WTC came down from top down. Again you assume what people think and you are wrong again.

Sixteen: ( In the context of lateral ejection of columns. In the context of persons in proximity to witness explosions.) No shrapnel worked on by explosives rained out of the towers. No shrapnel worked on by explosives recovered from surviving victims nor surrounding buildings.

How would you know? You were not there. More assumptions with no evidence to support your "opinions".

The fact is, the NIST Report has already been proven to be pseudoscience years ago and was done to support a political agenda. Case closed.

a reply to: Informer1958


youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...

originally posted by: Informer1958
The fact is, the NIST Report has already been proven to be pseudoscience years ago and was done to support a political agenda. Case closed.

Another rant with no fact stated for debate?

And you were wrong about peer review for NIST.

I would think the movement would be all about facts and transparency?

a reply to: Informer1958

I am sorry that you can only rant against the fact dedicated experts as in fighters, fire investigators, law enforcement, law enforcement bomb squads, engineers, medical personnel, and autopsy doctors upon examination and sampling could not find steel worked on by explosives, recover shrapnel worked on by explosives, shape charges fragments, blasting caps fragments, remote detonators, ignition systems, nor drilled holes in columns indicative of attaching demolition charges.

a reply to: Informer1958

Again, how many charges needed per floor per tower?

The witnesses that saw explosions from charges that only fizzled with no flash? Richard Gage claims?

The cutting charges that some how caused later ejection? Silent pressure waves?

Millions of pounds of falling debris would not pulverize a human body? Just being bumped by a forklift will shatter bones. Look up OSHA accounts.

Some how a system of charges, deranged by fire, could carry out the first top down floor by floor demolition using incendiaries of a building over 50 floors perfectly twice in one day. I think this is the bigger fairytale....

a reply to: Informer1958

If charges were not used on each floor, how was tower collapse speed achieved?

a reply to: neutronflux

I am sorry that you can only rant against the fact dedicated experts as in fighters, fire investigators, law enforcement, law enforcement bomb squads, engineers, medical personnel, and autopsy doctors upon examination and sampling could not find steel worked on by explosives, recover shrapnel worked on by explosives, shape charges fragments, blasting caps fragments, remote detonators, ignition systems, not drilled holes in columns indicative of attaching demolition charges.

I do not know what you are trying to prove to everyone including me, you give all these "opinions" that no such thing happened and you are basing your "opinions" on the government 911 report and nothing else.

Everyone knows by now the government lied to the American folks about 911, except you. Good luck pushing the official narratives on ATS.

a reply to: Informer1958

Just a simple metallurgical examination of the steel at points of failure will reveal if the failure was mechanical related, heat related, chemical related, explosive initiated.


Point? There is no proof of explosives at the WTC.

In the false narrative of demolitions at the WTC, you will not state how they were applied for debate.

You will not state your believed examples of false NIST claims for debate.

You only speculate in terms of vauge opinions and act as they are fact.

a reply to: Informer1958

What does no evidence of explosives / cutting charges used at the towers have to do with questioning the official narrative?

a reply to: Informer1958

More NIST and peer review.

m.reddit.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

You've avoided the facts like a dirty dog avoids soapwater, let's try something new now.

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue... The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission. Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report. Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes. Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies

Probably the 'lost' GIANT KILLER tapes he was referring to.
And our infowarriors may like this one:

January 14, 2008 – Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story. The officers’ statements appear below, listed alphabetically.

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11

Have some fun with that and thanks for bumping the topic, it's an awesome read by now.

a reply to: neutronflux

I'm certain it won't satisfy you, but yes, I'll list several of those videos.


The news videos from the 2 different helicopters, news type, that flew over the site in Pennsylvania, complete with audio. They clearly showed that there was no wrecked 757 in that field or nearby. I viewed it dozens of times, and then one day it was gone.


Pretty similar situation regarding the other site where there was no crashed airliner, the Pentagon.


Another was a video camera at a parking lot near WTC. In the background, the camera showed most of the side of the north tower, and it showed the actual impact into the wall. It was drastically different than the notorious Naudet Brothers video.

a reply to: Salander

So you IGNORE all the reports by first responders to the Pentagon then

a reply to: Salander

Ok, if solid proof, why didn't groups of the
movement archive them and document them? Or are the magical scrubbed videos not authentic?

How does any of this prove explosives / incendiaries devices was used at the WTC.

Especially when the movement Ignores the extensive hand searching of WTC for evidence and tries to put forth a false narrative.

When the movement Ignores the NIST WTC work was peer reviewed, and tries to put forth a false narrative.

When the metallurgy and crystalline structure of the steel columns exhibited no characteristics of failure by demolitions / cutting charges.

How are people to trust the movement when they wast time on false narratives?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: neutronflux

You've avoided the facts like a dirty dog avoids soapwater, let's try something new now.

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue... The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission. Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report. Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes. Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies

Probably the 'lost' GIANT KILLER tapes he was referring to.
And our infowarriors may like this one:

January 14, 2008 – Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story. The officers’ statements appear below, listed alphabetically.

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11

Have some fun with that and thanks for bumping the topic, it's an awesome read by now.