Conclusive Evidence of Explosives, Petition to Re-Open 9/11 Investigation

a reply to: neutronflux


When neither you nor the Commission can prove the story, why should I believe it? When what evidence can be found contradicts the story, why should I believe it?


I have no obligation to go along with the gullible masses, sorry.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


When neither you nor the Commission can prove the story, why should I believe it? When what evidence can be found contradicts the story, why should I believe it?


I have no obligation to go along with the gullible masses, sorry.

False argument by you. Cite or quote I use the commission. I can go right to the collapse video.

Then cite a theory more credible than the WTC had deficient fire insulation, and did not have a traditional concrete core that saved other buildings in the past. Then the jet impacts cut outer and inner vertical columns. The only columns that held up the floor trusses. Only at the ends of floor trusses longer than normal building practice. With no mid support. Again, a building using less concrete than normal practice. The fires spread faster at an intensity not anticipated by building designers. The fires caused the steel to lose up to 60 percent of its ability to resist strain. The heat caused the floor trusses to try to expand. Being boxed in by remaining columns, the floor trusses still whole were forced to droop down. When the floor trusses cooled, they contracted. The contracting columns pulled in the columns in near silence at areas in relationship to the jet impacts. Impacts that would have knocked of fire insulation, and would have made any system of planted explosives usesless. The columns first bowed then buckeled. Again, in near silence. The buckling lead to collapse.

The mechanism is captured in the linked to thread below in a video clip.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Now you state a more credible theory to supersede inward bowing causing buckling lead to collapse.

a reply to: Salander

What theory are you going to pick?

Richard Gage and AE’s mythical fizzle no flash explosives? A group that didn’t let the 300,000 dollar WTC 7 Evaluation go to public comment, and failed to get a bought study published?

Steven Jones and his proven fraudulent theremite peer review paper? And the results of experiments that cannot be duplicated? And the promise of releasing results of future WTC dust testing never came to fruition?

Nuke weapons?

No jets with holograms?

Missiles?

Lasers?

Fire extinguisher bombs?

Self destructing buildings?

Rebar covered C4?

Dr. Wood and Dustification?

Please argue which theory I should find more credible than inward bowing causing buckling and leading to collapse from the video, audio, and physical evidence?

a reply to: neutronflux

I want to know more about the explosive fire extinguisher theory!

I mean I suppose you could totally build fire extinguishers that were a combination linear cutting charge (efp style) with a wicked ultrahigh density thermobaric Central core that uses the heavy ERA dual flyer plate effect to break up, aerosalize, and disperse your ultra compressed thermobaric material and fire off a secondary detonation train to ignite your aerosolized cloud of thermobarics.

You'd then get a whole bunch of structural damage from the linear efp cluster that the overpressure could take advantage of to really wreck the structure internally at key points.

Which combined with airliners would help make sure that the buildings came down.

It's still a crap theory though.

a reply to: roguetechie

I probably shouldn’t put the fire extinguisher bombs on the list. It’s not a very popular theory. It used to pop up as a pet theory here and there from a few individuals.

Could not find the roots of the theory with a quick search. I think it was an attempt to make the floor to floor CD systems seem legitimate to push the false narrative the towes fell at the rate of free fall.

a reply to: neutronflux

Ah... Yeah, but they didn't drop at free fall.

They went shockingly fast, but that really was at least mostly because of how they were built.

I might believe that a whole bunch of things should have been investigated, and other things handled much better than they were, but I still don't buy the theories truthers push.

a reply to: roguetechie

That is the sad thing, so many real issues that should be addressed.

How the terrorists entered the country, and were allowed to stay.

How the towers got build not totally to code, and not built to common practice to save on costs.

Were the towers built with substandard components?

The numerous failures of the military and intel community.

It’s also sad how a bunch of con artists pushing no jets and planted explosives hijacked the truth movement with lies and innuendo. But people buy into the fantastical and sensational with nothing but innuendo. The no jets and planted explosives crowed are as bad as flat earthers? Is it just a game to them to see how many people they can get on the bandwagon? But AE does survive by selling the idea of implosion, and exploiting 9-11. Better to be a king in a cage by sacrificing your integrity vs a walk on part through an honest existence?

a reply to: roguetechie

I wonder if the likes of AE every asked NIST to participate in a debate? Or asked to meet to discuss how NIST came to their conclusions? Something meditated by an engineering college?

a reply to: neutronflux


You just don't get it. Neither you nor the Commission has made any sort of persuasive argument that your story is true, and that failure happened years ago now. The Commission was more honest than you are, declaring 63 times in its report that "it found no evidence" to support various claims made by the Bush administration.

I have studied enough of the facts and details that I totally understand the Commission's statement in that regard. No, there is no evidence to support any element of the grand story that you still defend.

It's nothing personal at all. It is just that the story you offer, after 16 years of analysis, is bankrupt. It failed years ago as all the evidence works against it.

a reply to: Salander

And you cannot answer a question directly like a politician?

What theory should I find more credible than contacting floor trusses caused the vertical columns to bow then buckle, initiating collapse in areas it was impossible for CD system to survive? Which is supported by video and audio evidence.

Richard Gage and AE’s mythical fizzle no flash explosives? A group that didn’t let the 300,000 dollar WTC 7 Evaluation go to public comment, and failed to get a bought study published?

Steven Jones and his proven fraudulent theremite peer review paper? And the results of experiments that cannot be duplicated? And the promise of releasing results of future WTC dust testing never came to fruition?

Nuke weapons?

No jets with holograms?

Missiles?

Lasers?

Fire extinguisher bombs?

Self destructing buildings?

Rebar covered C4?

Dr. Wood and Dustification?

Please argue which theory I should find more credible than inward bowing causing buckling and leading to collapse from the video, audio, and physical evidence?

a reply to: neutronflux

Those and a few other things are what I wish had been investigated too.

As far as the debate between NIST & AE moderated by an engineering school, there are so very few people equipped to deal with such a meeting that it just becomes one more round of dueling experts.

Most people that work in engineering even have no real ability to evaluate either of the two extremely complex pieces of engineering that collided.

Airliners are insanely complex, and the world trade center campus almost makes them look like tinker toys.

My other big question is how much did the first wtc bombing really affect everything?

I know the documentaries say, oh it got rebuilt better and stronger than before but I don't buy it.

Your point about flat earthers definitely has merit too considering that well over 90% of flatties I deal with tell me about 9/11 being their wakeup call etc etc.

a reply to: 727Sky

The best part is where it says expert analysis... explosions occurred prior to airplanes... So, apparently expoisons from incendiary devices couldn't take down the building either, they needed airplanes. Doesn't this destroy the controlled demo theory?

neutronflux Washington DC area is Western Magnetic declination meaning any deviation would be an increase. Magnetic North does not change where the plane was it just gave us an estimation where the plane was likely to be.

True North and True position is the true position of the plane.

I can see now why people place the plane South of the Navy Annex. On 60 degree true north course, + 10 or more that can place the plane on that side of the building.

But has the calculation been done to show 60 degrees is spot on for the South side of the Navy Annex? What this based on?

waypastve A standard compass would figure this out quickly. We just to have reconstructed the plane flight path on the South side and observe what the bearing is on the 360-degree compass. NE is 0 to 90. So if the compass read 60 degrees on Southside when the plane went past then it obvious the plane was on Southside, not the Northside.

Where 60 degrees is on the map in relation to the Navy Annex will tell us more.

neutronflux
In this thread, waypastvne posted 60 deg TRUE HEADING for flight 77?

But you have to be specific where do 60 degrees place the plane? 6O degrees could place the plane flying over the Navy Annex or on the North side? Do we have to see if the magnetic declination changed when flying on the North Side?

neutronflux Why do you find Nist credible they were already exposed by Aegis insurance? They left out shear studs to support their collapse model. Aegis insurance, while it did not agree with the truther stance about the collapse, did admit column 79 and 44 had shear stud connections in a court case. So two times at least NIST failed to recognise two important events free fall and the columns having shear stud connections.

How the rest of the building not on fire collapse. What happened to the steel cores undamaged by fires? Why did a few floors collapse on one side and leave the rest of the building intact?

originally posted by: 727Sky
Full title of the article is: Citing “Conclusive Evidence” of Explosives, Families of Victims File Petition to Re-Open 9/11 Investigation

Maybe we will finally get some closure with the whole 911 story as a group of lawyers representing the victims and families of 911 have filed a petition with the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to restart an investigation into the crimes of 9/11. Notice they are saying crimes in the petition.. The petition claims:

The evidence that is put forward in the petition includes the following:

Independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries in the form of thermite or thermate.
Expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 prior to the airplane impacts on the WTC Towers, and prior to the building collapses.
Technical analysis of video evidence of the WTC building collapses.
Firefighter reports of explosions, and of seeing “molten iron like in a foundry.” The petition states that the presence of molten iron would require temperatures higher than jet fuel and building contents could create when burned, but consistent with the use of the high tech explosive and incendiary thermite or thermate.
The presence of previously molten iron microspheres, which have been established by electron microscope analysis of WTC dust samples, by both government and independent scientists, is another phenomenon that would be scientifically impossible based on the burning of jet fuel and office contents alone.
Video and eyewitness testimony of the ejection during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 of heavy steel elements laterally from the buildings which would not be possible from a gravity collapse.
Scientific analysis, eyewitness testimony, and government reports confirming sulfidation and high-temperature corrosion of the steel found in the rubble after the collapse of the WTC towers and WTC 7, a phenomenon not expected in a jet fuel fire and gravity collapse but consistent with the use of thermate and high explosives.

After the petition was delivered, the Lawyers’ Committee delivered a press conference outside of the New York District Court, along with families of the victims.

stuff we have all heard before but as usual there has not been hard substantial evidence to get a real investigation started.. Will this petition go forward ? Will there be an honest ending to all the rumors... I for one do hope so..

None of the evidence put forward in the petition was presented or considered in the “9/11 Commission,” which was initially appointed to investigate the collapse of the towers. In the years since the attacks, the Commission has been exposed as a fraud, with many of its own members speaking out against the official story.

According to a 2006 report from The Washington Post, most of the people who oversaw this commission believed they were being lied to, and even held a secret meeting about referring the matter to the Department of Justice.

That is something I did not know...

www.activistpost.com...[/qu ote]

Two words. Horse hockey. Complete and utter nonsense.

Fred..

a reply to: Jesushere

If you are right, did you plug the numbers in the cited websites that do the calculation for you?

Two, didn’t the flight recoder data also record the direction of flight 77’s heading as in true direction. As is direction not needed to be calculated? As in navigation aids like ground radio stations allowed flight 77’s flight computer to continuously accurately record flight 77 heading relative to true north? So, you need to cite the data you are referring to from the flight 77’s flight data recorder. And what instrument created that data. How it was captured.

There, you cannot cite one source that supports your argument flight recoder data shows NE path?

While there is this?

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011
www.journalof911studies.com...

What are people to believe with you just rambling off random numbers, cite no source where those numbers come from, you do not cite how those numbers where recorded by the flight recorder, and give no credit where the original arguments comes from. You give no credit to anyone or any source? Are you trying to post other people’s work as your own? Or do you know what ever arguments taken from someone else was debunked?

a reply to: Jesushere

If there is any credibility to you arguments, then why does googling flight 77’s northeast path result in nothing supporting your argument? Especially if it is such a “smoking gun”? Can you link to items found using google that supports your NE path?

You might want to understand the flight recorder data better, and what data is actually on the recorder? Then cite a source that actually lists the data? And references how the flight computer captured that data? What data is sent to the flight recorder?

a reply to: Jesushere

Is you argument a confusion of truth movement misinformation?

The Frustrating Fraud
the Hijacking of the 9/11 Truth Movement by the No-757-at-the-Pentagon Theory
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

Pentagon Flight Path Misinformation, Stand-Down, War Games, and the Three Mysterious Planes
arabesque911.blogspot.com...

Or arguments based without the last four seconds decoded?

The Pentagon Attack on 9/11:
A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis
Based on Analysis of the Flight Path

Or you confusing the narrative that flight 77 flew off to the north, after missing the pentagon?