How people respond to 9/11 evidence counter to the official conspiracy theory

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

What does you rant have to do with there is no evidence of planted explosives.

Colleges and universities have research into the towes also concludes impact / fire / thermal stress damage as the root cause of collapse? Is that false?

If the government was the mastermind of 9/11, why would you state

Other than that, the only government sponcered report on what happened is the Commision report.

Cause I don’t trust the government. But I do trust many of the first responders.

There are at least two other studies in to WTC 7 that concluded fire / thermal stress as the root cause of its collapse. Research and conclusions submitted as depositions in law suits as sworn testimony. Is that false?


Especially for WTC 7, to say only the government has only formally looked into the WTC is another false statement by you.

That vast majority of professional criticism of NIST is not that they find fault with the conclusions, but aggravated that NIST mostly focused on the actual event of collapse. Not spending time on things like if the towers were properly insulated.

What you need to do is make a credible case using the actual collapse on what brought down the towers. Not somebody said pull it, classic conspiracist innuendo with out of context quote with a term not used to set off charges.

The only thing you are doing is throwing a tantrum there is no credible proof the towers were brought down by planted explosives, planted nukes, missiles, lasers, nor Dustification. The actual physics of the collapse does not fit anything other than fire / thermal stress / impact damage as the root cause. No matter the amount of whining or word games will change that.

Or can you make a valid case using the actual collapse something other than impact / fire / thermal stress was the root cause.

I dont see any reference to an actual criminal investigation in anything you posted above.

Did you forget a link?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

What does no criminal investigation have to do with the fact you cannot cite any scientific evidence of implosion of the towers? An exercise of physics? Remember this list?

It’s not theory the vertical columns buckeled inward as show in the video record.

How would a planted CD system survive the jet impacts that cut vertical columns, fire water mains, breached elevator shafts, cut elevator cables, and cut core columns? To initiate a collapse at the areas of impact?

How would a planted CD system survive wide spread fires?

If the steel columns were cut by pressure waves, there would be physical evidence and audio evidence? Shrapnel everywhere from the supposed requirement to remove the resistance of every tower floor.

If the resistance of ever floor had to be removed, how many charges required? 4 per floor would equal 440 charges for one tower.

Even for a thermite system the truth movement claims had to remove the resistance of all floors, it’s existence would be obvious. It would show in the metallurgy of the steel, and the WTC pile would have been littered with columns cut from floor to floor. Fragments of blasting caps/ignition devices would have been recovered with the 19,000 pieces of human remains recovered. The signs would be obvious to the volunteers that lost family members and fellow first responders at the towers.

There is no credible proof/evidence/narrative for tower CD/implosion. Period. Sorry.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

What does you rant have to do with there is no evidence of planted explosives.

Colleges and universities have research into the towes also concludes impact / fire / thermal stress damage as the root cause of collapse? Is that false?

If the government was the mastermind of 9/11, why would you state

Other than that, the only government sponcered report on what happened is the Commision report.

Cause I don’t trust the government. But I do trust many of the first responders.

There are at least two other studies in to WTC 7 that concluded fire / thermal stress as the root cause of its collapse. Research and conclusions submitted as depositions in law suits as sworn testimony. Is that false?


Especially for WTC 7, to say only the government has only formally looked into the WTC is another false statement by you.

That vast majority of professional criticism of NIST is not that they find fault with the conclusions, but aggravated that NIST mostly focused on the actual event of collapse. Not spending time on things like if the towers were properly insulated.

What you need to do is make a credible case using the actual collapse on what brought down the towers. Not somebody said pull it, classic conspiracist innuendo with out of context quote with a term not used to set off charges.

The only thing you are doing is throwing a tantrum there is no credible proof the towers were brought down by planted explosives, planted nukes, missiles, lasers, nor Dustification. The actual physics of the collapse does not fit anything other than fire / thermal stress / impact damage as the root cause. No matter the amount of whining or word games will change that.

Or can you make a valid case using the actual collapse something other than impact / fire / thermal stress was the root cause.

I dont see any reference to an actual criminal investigation in anything you posted above.

Did you forget a link?

The laws of physics have never been on a criminal trial by the US government, surprised you believe in modern physics.

Move the goal post much?

Now let’s get back to you ignoring the studies that were sworn testimony in the WTC 7 lawsuit that concluded fire / thermal stress damage was the root cause of building sevens collapse.

How is the AE backed WTC 7 Evaluation going, and when is that report going to be released for peer review as stated in the original evaluation’s goals? If it is released, I guess no matter it’s conclusions they are not valid because it was not part of a criminal investigation?

Just pointing out actual fact, not defending NIST. The NIST report passed academic trail by being comprised of peer reviewed studies published in journals. Would you like to see the list of peer reviewed material the NIST report is based off of if its still kicking around the internet?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Oh, and the hand sorting of the would trade center rubble was part of a crime scene investigation. The hand sorting of rubble for evidence, remains, and personal effects by local and federal law enforcement that recovered 19,000 human remains. 6,000 pieces that could fit in tests. The investigation by DNA shows the remains of the terrorists ended up at the WTC. The investigation that showed no demolitions shrapnel with the remains. A investigation that found no credible evidence of planted explosives, no blasting cap fragments, no fragments from bombs, and no fragments from a CD detonations system. No evidence of steel worded on by demolitions. That investigation by law enforcement.
Kind of hard to put dead suspects on trial.........

a reply to: MALBOSIA

So, there is sworn testimony fire and thermal stress lead to collapse at WTC 7. Numerous peer reviewed findings impact / fire / thermal stress related damage was the root cause in published journals you are to lazy to look into for the towers. There was a criminal investigation that recovered victims remains, recovered terrorist’s remains, recovered physical evidence, and personal effects. What you are whining about was the open studies, research, recovery, and law enforcement investigation did not bend to your biased views?

The linked to arguments below quickly and efficiently outlins how there is no evidence of detonations at the WTC.

www.implosionworld.com...

A critical analysis of collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2, & 7 from an explosives and conventional demolitions industry viewpoint

Can you refute the cited above arguments?

It’s like some energy input caused the steel to lose some of its ability to restrain load, misalign, and generate buckling? Is fire a form of energy.........

a reply to: MALBOSIA

If you cannot refute what you label “the official narrative” which is pretty much anything that doesn’t fit your biased views, then what is there to defend?

As backed by video, audio, and seismic evidence, cite what brought down the towers if the root cause was not impact / fire / thermal stress. If you cannot provide an alternate credible explanation, what is there to defend out of the studies as sworn testimony, the peer reviewed material, and the criminal investigations by law enforcement that found no evidence of WTC planted demolitions?

a reply to: neutronflux

There are at least two other studies in to WTC 7 that concluded fire / thermal stress as the root cause of its collapse.

No steel framed building had collapsed because of fire in the history of steel buildings................until three buildings did on the day of 911.
Do you believe in miracles?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

No steel framed building had collapsed because of fire in the history of steel buildings................until three buildings did on the day of 911.
Do you believe in miracles?

It amazes me how the same old tired lines keep getting parroted year after year.
Can't you see the differences between the 911 buildings and all other steel structures?
Do you have the ability to Google fires involving all types of steel structures?

Without leading you hand in hand down the path to enlightenment ask yourself one simple question.
Why do all fire fighters throughout the world accept that steel buildings can go down in fires?

a reply to: neutronflux


There were many. That is what the Zadroga Bill addressed.

Matthew Tartaglia of Perkasie PA, a fireman, began losing his teeth and eventually died.

Do you prefer to ignore the Kurt Sonnenfeld story?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux

There are at least two other studies in to WTC 7 that concluded fire / thermal stress as the root cause of its collapse.

No steel framed building had collapsed because of fire in the history of steel buildings................until three buildings did on the day of 911.
Do you believe in miracles?

Then why bother fire insulating steel beams as required by code? Industry is spending millions on something not needed? And never mind part of the equation for the WTC was deficient fire insulation as documented by pre 9-11 WTC inspects. Then the towes were missing substantial vertical columns. Then damage from thermal stress is as big as a factor as the fires. Then the WTC 7 damage from the towers collapse. Then the factor the WTC buildings minimized concrete useage beyond common practice.

Then the partial fire collapse of the Madrid Windsor tower. A collapse stopped by a mechanical floor which WTC 7 did not have an equivalent.

Then the Tehran Plasco fire collapse.

Then the Brazil Sao Paulo tower block collapse.

Never before means impossible? Point to other top down hush boom CDs using fizzle no flash explosives? Hell, point to other high-rise top down CDs using demolitions? Or any othe fizzle no flash thermite building implosions. And how do you time a split second CD with slow and inconsistent burning thermite that had to remove the resistance of each floor in seconds as claimed by the truth movement after being compromised by hours of fires? You want to talk impossible?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


There were many. That is what the Zadroga Bill addressed.

Matthew Tartaglia of Perkasie PA, a fireman, began losing his teeth and eventually died.

Do you prefer to ignore the Kurt Sonnenfeld story?

This is not to belittle a person that suffered from chemical poisoning from the toxic pile.

How many days after working in the WTC did tooth lose occur?

By the way, quote Matthew Tartaglia where the individual claims he was radiated. You prade Tartaglia as a candidate for radiation poisoning when he has not made that specific claim? When his illness is from the toxicity of the site, not the radioactivity?

Radiation Sickness
www.mayoclinic.org...

If it was radiation sickness, loss of teeth would have been with in four weeks. Is that false. Everyone working the pile would have the same symptoms with in one to four weeks. If there was that much radioactive contamination, everywhere the workers went would have been contaminated. Restaurants, cars, construction equipment, homes, businesses. The people at those secondary locations would show signs of being radiated.

Did the people working the Fresh Kills site for the laydown yard for WTC rubble have the same rate of toxic related illnesses. Where the wearing of PPE was better enforced. PPE keeps toxic chemicals from being absorbed into the body, but provides no shielding from being radiated. So anyone working with the WTC ruble and WTC equipment should have had radiation sickness with in one to four weeks of working with contaminated items. That site should have tested for radioactive contamination, and probably still have radiation above background. Think about the path the dump trucks full of WTC rubble took. That should have been contaminated too.

Any more false arguments?

a reply to: Salander

In fact, shouldn’t Jones have radiation sickness from handling WTC dust? What about the people that kept the dust in their homes for years before mailing the dust to Jones? Do they have radiation poisoning?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

If you cannot refute what you label “the official narrative” which is pretty much anything that doesn’t fit your biased views, then what is there to defend?

As backed by video, audio, and seismic evidence, cite what brought down the towers if the root cause was not impact / fire / thermal stress. If you cannot provide an alternate credible explanation, what is there to defend out of the studies as sworn testimony, the peer reviewed material, and the criminal investigations by law enforcement that found no evidence of WTC planted demolitions?

Investigators never looked for evidence of explosives. They looked for body parts and a few engineers got a few days to look at things. The rubble was taken away too quickly if that possibility was taken serious.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Too quickly? It took nine months to clear the debris from the site, and all of it was taken to specific landfills where it was sorted, and examined. No evidence of blast marks, demolition cord..anything...was EVER found.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Too quickly? It took nine months to clear the debris from the site, and all of it was taken to specific landfills where it was sorted, and examined. No evidence of blast marks, demolition cord..anything...was EVER found.

The heavy equipment did not wait 9 months to start. That was a missleading statement.

Nobody was looking for exolosives.

a reply to: Salander

If it was a nuclear device, anyone pictured covered in dust on the day of 9/11 should have had radiation sickness with hours. That is when the most radiation would have been released, and the contamination the most potent.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Why do you post false arguments? Then why have a forensic team.

exhibitions.nysm.nysed.gov...

The Process Develops
At first, detectives and forensic recovery agents hand-sorted the material. Wearing Tyvek suits and other protective gear, they carefully scrutinized the material with rakes. During the summer of 2002, when all the piles were gone, the staff at Fresh Kills resifted through that material. Many additional remains and personal effects were recovered.

An Elaborate and Specialized Process
It was not until late fall of 2001 that a system used in commercial recycling centers was utilized at Fresh Kills. A long, round cylinder spun huge hunks of debris to loosen and separate fine particles from larger pieces. Once separated, the debris went onto a conveyor belt where New York City police and firefighters and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents searched for human remains, personal objects, and criminal evidence. Work could only be done in 45-minute shifts or the strain from watching the constantly moving material might result in vertigo.

There was no evidence of bomb fragments because there was no planted bombs.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Please cite what evidence should have been present if there is no indication of charges cutting steel, no audio indication of charges powerful enough to cut steel, and there was no steel worked on by explosives?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

You don’t run an investigation by thinking I need to find explosives. You go through an investigation on what clues are physically present. Name the firts two or three clues the forensic team missed from the rubble that should have made them follow a path to planted charges?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You don’t run an investigation by thinking I need to find explosives. You go through an investigation on what clues are physically present. Name the firts two or three clues the forensic team missed from the rubble that should have made them follow a path to planted charges?

You already declared war before anyone could pull out a flashlight.