Study concludes explosives used on 911

There is no such thing as a Conspiracy theory.

People do not conspire to commit fraud, everyone knows that.

The official narratives of 911 are 100 % true, because our government said so.

At this point I am told that all scientist are corrupt except those that work for our government.

We knew there was used thermite years ago. Maybe the trade centers were set up to self destruct in case of an attack and they didn't tel anyone, that's my nice guess.

Saudi Arabia, anyone?

a reply to: Raggedyman

my issue is with a building, whatever number it was, just up and collapsing, no aero planes or fires or earthquakes, just a building collapsing for no apparent reason Eason

Which building was that ???

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Raggedyman

my issue is with a building, whatever number it was, just up and collapsing, no aero planes or fires or earthquakes, just a building collapsing for no apparent reason Eason

Which building was that ???

Unlucky number 7. No serious fires ....... and only a few hundred squibs.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Saudi Arabia, anyone?

No thank you.

The Pakistani ISI or the Saudis were at the outer periphery of 9/11.

You gotta look closer to home for the real perps. The perps that murdered several thousand Americans on 9/11 so they could rape and pillage the entire world ..... were Americans.

a reply to: CrapAsUsual

Absolutely right! Anybody who knows anything about aviation from the inside, having worked in it, knows some of the aeronautical maneuver required by the official narrative are simply impossible by those "hijackers" given their experience levels and poor reputations with those flight instructors who flew with them.

It is the most comical aspect of the whole sad story.

a reply to: Salander

Yes, I´ve been telling this for 15 years. Flying a modern airliner, has almost nothing to do with flying a smal single or multi engine or even a DC3 because these modern airliners rely heavily on electronics and systems to do anything, they have several safety measures that don´t allow the pilot to just do whatever he wants, but all can be disabled by someone who knows what is doing. Even so, when you have full control over that beast you have to "fly" it like a large ship, a large boat, it take time to respond and trajectories must be well calculated, it´s not just a mater of picking up the controls and let´s go there... It won´t happen.

At the time of 911 I happened to have 2 friends who were airliner pilots , I asked them both:

Is it possible to someone with no airliner flying experience to do a dive in a curve trajectory with a several miles radium and colide with a 50 meter wide building at 300 meter from ground at 500 miles per hour?

Both answered the definitely NO.

Then you have to be aware that when an airline company hires a pilot that pilot must have a license not only to fly commercial airplanes but also to fly specific types of airplanes, you can have a Boing 777, 767, whatever and not have a Boing 707, 737, 747 And the same happens with airbus planes.

Many times the airline companies pay these courses to their pilots, other times when a pilot has the certificate he may just to a refresh... All these certifications are done on multi million dollars simulators, usually owned by airline companies or manufacturers. Pilot schools don´t have this kind of equipment, at least 99% of them don´t have these simulators.

This to tell that airliners are all different from each other, the hijackers must have know what plane they were going to fly and must study its systems thoroughly, this means having a full cockpit layout, having all the manuals, understanding what you are reading which in this case may not be that easy, and even after all this you have to be lucky to get into a cockpit and do everything right.

The 911 twin towers stunt It´s almost impossible for unexperienced pilots.

You can also just see it plainly with your own eyes.

That's not a building "collapsing" but being blown up with explosives from the top down in some sort of top-down simulated "collapse".

a reply to: trace

No serious fires ....... and only a few hundred squibs.

Define squib.
If you mean the blasting cap initiator for the main charge then all of the main charges failed to go off because real explosives would have blow out ALL OF THE WINDOWS not just one.
Blasting caps don't have as much energy as you think.

a reply to: CrapAsUsual

when you have full control over that beast you have to "fly" it like a large ship, a large boat, it take time to respond and trajectories must be well calculated, it´s not just a mater of picking up the controls and let´s go there... It won´t happen.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
That's not a building "collapsing" but being blown up with explosives from the top down in some sort of top-down simulated "collapse".

No it is not.

It did not need explosives the weight distribution was way too great for the remaining structural connections to withstand.

The design specifications were greatly exceeded when the massive amount of weight combined with the kinetic energy overwhelmed the intact truss and beam connections. Therefore resulting in instantaneous massive failures.

Remember the trusses were connected to the beams with viscoelastic dampers, basically a rubber connection. This was emplimented to help contain a side to side sway, not a downwards or vertical movement. The connections were made with bolts, that as you should know have what's called a shear strength. This shear strength was exceeded with the massive amount of kinetic weight.

The dust was mostly drywall, aka sheetrock. These buildings had a massive amount of drywall, which you should also know turns to complete dust quite easily. Also to contribute to the dust was the fireproofing on the beams, trusses, and decking. This fireproofing is nothing more than a brittle dust like coating that is sprayed on the steel.

There is no reason to believe that there should be massive sections of concrete. This concrete is usually a maximum of 4 inches thick and can get thinner. The concrete used in the towers was a specialty concrete that supposed to be a little lighter but this contributed to it not being so robust as normal concrete. Concrete does crumble.

I am sitting here typing this because I have spent many hours upon hours of research on the towers. I have successfully completed, with outstanding grades, a two year collegiate welding technologies program that also covered structural steel. I have sat and talked with my instructor many a times. I am now a journeyman sheetmetal worker that is at the moment working on a six story hospital. I am in the construction industry every single day, breathing fire proofing that easily flakes off of the decking and beams. I have a pretty good knowledge and boots on the ground experience of buildings.

A building is a complex mass of thousands, if not millions of connections that all have to work according to their design specifications. If any part or connections of a structure is asubjected to forces outside of their design specifications, they can and will fail.

a reply to: liejunkie01

Here's the problem though (if you can't see the explosive demolition or refuse to see it).

The laws of motion.

The difference between the destruction time and the time of absolute freefall in nothing but air, was about 3 seconds.

Therefore it's within that 3 second difference (between a fall through nothing, but air, and through the remaining structure) wherein every weld and joint would have to break, but for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, and what we see there isn't cumulative weight loading, but just the opposite, as the bulk of the building mass was explosively ejected laterally from the top down, resulting in increasing weight UNloading, and yet, the explosively ejecting debris wave, as seen, continued on down to the ground without any appreciable loss of momentum of any kind whatsoever and to within a few seconds of absolute freefall in nothing but air. one, two, three.

Absent the use of explosives to sequentially remove the structure just below the ejecting debris wave, and what are we looking at, the invisible foot of God hypothesis?

Your description is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest and absurd, and it's clearly not what actually happened, in reality.

Don't be self-deluded. You can actually SEE it, what actually took place, which is something that the NIST Report didn't even address simply referring to what ensued after the hypothetical point of collapse initiation was reached as "inevitable" and automatic, not based on what is SEEN to have actually taken place, but based on a hypothesis and set of assumptions already predetermined in advance ("it collapsed").

What I'm referring to is perfectly illustrated in the beginning stage of the north tower destruction (of the top block), which was like a mini-controlled demolition in and of itself, before the remainder of the building was further demolished from there, down. This again was intended to simulated the point of "collapse initiation", as a visual, but again, it violates the laws of motion and clearly reveals the presence of explosives.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Your description is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest and absurd, and it's clearly now what actually happened, in reality.

Don't be self-deluded.

I have been down this exact same path right here on ATS.

It is always exactly the same replies, answers, questions, and demeaning remarks.

You have it all figured out.

Enjoy and have a great day.

a reply to: liejunkie01
Sorry for getting snarky. I apologize.

Please see the additional edit I just made to help illustrate the truth of the matter, no matter how difficult to fathom or try to come to grips with.

Best to you also.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

It collapsed right where the damage was. Did you even take the time to evaluate just how much damage was sustained to the portion prior to collapse?

I am sorry friend but you need to look else where for answers than the architects and engineers for 911.

It is quite obvious to me that they are only focusing on the description and outcome that they want to adhere to.

There can be multiple reasons for a structural collapse without explosives.

The collapse happened at the impact point. The point where the exoskeleton was massively damaged. Just look at all of the damage. How can you honestly sit there and say that explosives were needed.

a reply to: liejunkie01

I was going to comment but deleted it cause I know how these threads always turn out. But he's right. Newton's 3rd law. It's inconceivable that the top block can destroy everything below. It should eventually slow down to a stop. All that energy is clearly exploding laterally, not a gravitational collapse. There's something else assisting there. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, there's no way that top portion 1/4 can crush 3/4 with almost 0 resistance. Those buildings were designed to stand not fall.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

I know how it goes also. I used to be a "shill", "government" cronie in the 911 forum. I guess that is what happens when my own research and knowledge leads me away from the truther pack.

I just typed up a big reply only to lose signal on my phone and lost the reply.

It's late and my pillow is calling. I'll reply tommorow.

Just wasted several minutes.

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
a reply to: liejunkie01

I was going to comment but deleted it cause I know how these threads always turn out. But he's right. Newton's 3rd law. It's inconceivable that the top block can destroy everything below. It should eventually slow down to a stop. All that energy is clearly exploding laterally, not a gravitational collapse. There's something else assisting there. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, there's no way that top portion 1/4 can crush 3/4 with almost 0 resistance. Those buildings were designed to stand not fall.

I just edited my post above to include this video which I'd previously left out by accident when editing.

There was no top block LEFT to crush the remainder of the intact structure even if it were deemed possible, so that argument (collapse) becomes utterly impossible, even as a faulty thought experiment about the downward acceleration overcoming all resistance, like an accordion-like "pancaking" "collapse" which as can be seen, did not actually take place.

That top block's downward acceleration was a mini-controlled demolition in and of itself, before the remainder of the building was sequentially destroyed from the top down (without any loss of momentum).

Someone else posted that it started around the impact area, and this is true, and that's how it was "sold", but clearly, it was accomplished by a whole array of explosives with the top block CD'd first, as seen in this analysis. Absent explosives, such a downward acceleration (amid the destruction of the top block) would be impossible. It too, absent the use of explosives, would violate the laws of motion.