10 Years later and still waiting for the Truth...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You are referring to a statement that Skilling made on a paper that was published in 1964, a three page white paper with no research, documentation or analysis that can be proven. There is NO supporting documentation. So, your one statement that says that cannot come down is an assumption and nothing more. Did you think I do not know the paper you are referring to or bring up?

Their worry, which Skilling then goes on to discuss but you left out, is the ensuing fires and jet fuel which is exactly what happened.

again, only local damage during the striking of the building was expected but they do not discuss if there would be ensuing fires or damage what would occur.

Robertson has also said that it was designed to withstand a strike but that does not mean that would continue to remain standing. Again, it means it would survive the impact. Which it did so this is a moot point.

Now, atfet said incident, it was stated that

The WTC Buildings were designed to withstand Boeing 707 impacts but were "never designed for the massive explosion nor the intense [Jet Fuel jet fuel] fires that came next - a key design omission" - [September 2005 NIST Report Eduardo Kausel . All of you continue ti refer to NIST's initial findings because you know in the final report all those are answered.Pure denial.

Hindsight is 20/20...

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

You are referring to a statement that Skilling made on a paper that was published in 1964, a three page white paper with no research, documentation or analysis that can be proven. There is NO supporting documentation. So, your one statement that says that cannot come down is an assumption and nothing more. Did you think I do not know the paper you are referring to or bring up?

Robertson has also said that it was designed to withstand a strike but that does not mean that would continue to remain standing. Again, it means it would survive the impact. Which it did so this is a moot point.

It is so nice to know that Newtonian Physics depends on what Skilling and Robertson said.

What if it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for any skyscraper that big to collapse that fast? So isn't what matters is having accurate data on the distribution of mass and not what who said about what, when and where? Why do you talk about documentation if you don't want documentation on the building?

Get accurate data and THINK FOR YOURSELF!

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
What if it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for any skyscraper that big to collapse that fast?

And this is the crux of the whole issue. No building can fall through itself at or near free-fall speeds without the assistance of explosives.

It has been shown time and time again that every sign of controlled demolition was displayed at the WTC in the form of explosive ejections, flashes, and timed/synchronous "booms". All are seen in controlled demolitions and none are seen in fire-induced or any other type of building collapse.

Originally posted by -PLB-
No corroboration with any other audio source

As has been stated numerous times, witness testimony is the number one form of evidence in a court of law. The explosions in "9/11 Eyewitness" are corroborated by first responders. First responders are used in court every single day as credible and reliable witnesses. For you to discount their testimony is somewhat disturbing.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Edited by a truther

Rick Siegel has publicly stated that he payed someone to edit the video and was not happy with the outcome of the editing, but he still publicized the video because people needed to see and hear what happened at the WTC. I also don't believe Siegel considers himself a "truther".

Originally posted by -PLB-
Plausible alternative explanations

I think it's more like "plausible denial explanations". There are no plausible alternatives when you hear 9 or 10 loud explosions in a video before the collapse of a building. Then you read witness testimony to those same exact number of explosions before the collapse of a building. That is evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that those explosions occurred.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Jets were accelerating, not possible when it came from an explosion.

If by "jets" you mean the puffs or ejections of dust/debris, then that is your (or someone else's) unprovable opinion, nothing more.

What is not an opinion is that those "jets" have never been seen in any other building collapse in history except for controlled demolitions and there's no possible way you can prove otherwise. That is something that many of you need to accept.

Originally posted by -PLB-
One building collapsing similar as another building is not evidence of CD, that is a fallacy.

If buildings could have all support columns across the entire building fail at the same time causing the building to fall straight down simply by fire:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]

...then controlled demolition companies would be using simple office fires to bring steel-structured buildings down at a fraction of the cost it takes them currently to set a building up with explosives and pay a team to do it.

Originally posted by esdad71
You are referring to a statement that Skilling made on a paper that was published in 1964, a three page white paper

Did you read what John Skilling said? He said "our research indicated". The three-page white paper of 1964 was a Port Authority analysis. Skilling was referring to his firm's 1200-page analysis. Hence why he said "our research indicated".

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Have to remember the context that Skilling was working in

Concern was raised about plane flying into building . It had happened twice before in NYC - 1945 B 25 hitting
Empire State Building which many people knew about

Was second incident in 1946 at 40 Wall St

On the evening of May 20, 1946, a United States Army Air Forces C-45 Beechcraft airplane crashed into the north side of the building. The twin-engined plane was heading for Newark Airport on a flight originating at Lake Charles Army Air Field in Louisiana. It struck the 58th floor of the building at approximately 8:10 PM, creating a 20 by 10-foot (3.0 m) hole in the masonry, and killing all five aboard the plane, including a WAC officer. Fog and low visibility were identified as the main causes of the crash. At the time of the accident, LaGuardia Field reported a heavy fog that reduced the ceiling to 500 feet (150 m), obscuring the view of the ground for the pilot at the building's 58th story level. Upon impact, several parts of the aircraft, along with pieces of brick and mortar from the building, fell into the street below. However, there were no reported injuries of any of the estimated 2,000 workers in the building, nor anyone on the street

Based on that many have raised issue of what would happened if a plane struck building

Skilling and Port Authority realized needed to knock down issue

The research paper was a whitewash "Yeah we looked into it. Made some calulations, Nothing will happned to
building So now STFU and let us get on building the WTC"

No supporting evidence was included , no tests were performed. It was a whitewash to avoid the issue

Consider how "truthers" like to accuse everyone else of lying - Why not Skilling and his group

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Have to remember the context that Skilling was working in

Concern was raised about plane flying into building . It had happened twice before in NYC - 1945 B 25 hitting
Empire State Building which many people knew about

Was second incident in 1946 at 40 Wall St

On the evening of May 20, 1946, a United States Army Air Forces C-45 Beechcraft airplane crashed into the north side of the building. The twin-engined plane was heading for Newark Airport on a flight originating at Lake Charles Army Air Field in Louisiana. It struck the 58th floor of the building at approximately 8:10 PM, creating a 20 by 10-foot (3.0 m) hole in the masonry, and killing all five aboard the plane, including a WAC officer. Fog and low visibility were identified as the main causes of the crash. At the time of the accident, LaGuardia Field reported a heavy fog that reduced the ceiling to 500 feet (150 m), obscuring the view of the ground for the pilot at the building's 58th story level. Upon impact, several parts of the aircraft, along with pieces of brick and mortar from the building, fell into the street below. However, there were no reported injuries of any of the estimated 2,000 workers in the building, nor anyone on the street

Based on that many have raised issue of what would happened if a plane struck building

Skilling and Port Authority realized needed to knock down issue

The research paper was a whitewash "Yeah we looked into it. Made some calulations, Nothing will happned to
building So now STFU and let us get on building the WTC"

No supporting evidence was included , no tests were performed. It was a whitewash to avoid the issue

Consider how "truthers" like to accuse everyone else of lying - Why not Skilling and his group

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
As has been stated numerous times, witness testimony is the number one form of evidence in a court of law. The explosions in "9/11 Eyewitness" are corroborated by first responders. First responders are used in court every single day as credible and reliable witnesses. For you to discount their testimony is somewhat disturbing.

Witness testimonies are not reliable. We have a large video and audio record. All these videos and audio tracks should corroborate those explosions at exactly the same time. They don't. That either means all other videos are doctored, or in that one video it is not explosives we hear. What do you think is more likely?

Originally posted by -PLB-
Rick Siegel has publicly stated that he payed someone to edit the video and was not happy with the outcome of the editing, but he still publicized the video because people needed to see and hear what happened at the WTC. I also don't believe Siegel considers himself a "truther".

I find it a questionable source. It is odd you say that he does not consider himself a truther. Does that mean he himself does not believe he recorded explosions?

Originally posted by -PLB-
I think it's more like "plausible denial explanations". There are no plausible alternatives when you hear 9 or 10 loud explosions in a video before the collapse of a building. Then you read witness testimony to those same exact number of explosions before the collapse of a building. That is evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that those explosions occurred.

There are alternative explanations, being deceitful editing and wind. Excluding those explanations shows bias. I am willing to consider explosions as cause, but that theory needs to be corroborated with other audio tracks. It hasn't been, so it is an extremely unlikely theory.

Originally posted by -PLB-
If by "jets" you mean the puffs or ejections of dust/debris, then that is your (or someone else's) unprovable opinion, nothing more.

No, it is not unproven, it can be observer by anyone. You were talking about denial above, this is a classic example of denial.

What is not an opinion is that those "jets" have never been seen in any other building collapse in history except for controlled demolitions and there's no possible way you can prove otherwise. That is something that many of you need to accept.

This is a baseless claim. You do not know what has been observed in history. Maybe is was never documented but even that claim is baseless. Buildings usually do not collapse without explosives, so the event on itself is pretty rare (note that buildings usually also do not suffer from plane impacts and uncontrolled fires). You don't have much material to compare with, and your argument is a fallacy called hasty generalization.

Originally posted by -PLB-
If buildings could have all support columns across the entire building fail at the same time causing the building to fall straight down simply by fire:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]

...then controlled demolition companies would be using simple office fires to bring steel-structured buildings down at a fraction of the cost it takes them currently to set a building up with explosives and pay a team to do it.

This must have been told to you before, the penthouse of the building collapsed several seconds before the rest. Can you show me a controlled demolition video where something similar happened? Or are you denying this?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by -PLB-
Jets were accelerating, not possible when it came from an explosion.

If by "jets" you mean the puffs or ejections of dust/debris, then that is your (or someone else's) unprovable opinion, nothing more.

What is not an opinion is that those "jets" have never been seen in any other building collapse in history except for controlled demolitions and there's no possible way you can prove otherwise. That is something that many of you need to accept.

So why is it that when watching the jets, they actually accelerate and gain more and more dust and debris being ejected over time? What type of voodoo explosives do that?

Originally posted by -PLB-
Witness testimonies are not reliable.

You're only partially correct on this point. A single witness trying to remember key elements of something can have questionable reliability. However, when more than one witness reports the same exact thing, the reliability becomes unimpeachable and their testimony becomes fact.

Originally posted by -PLB-
We have a large video and audio record. All these videos and audio tracks should corroborate those explosions at exactly the same time. They don't.

What you and many others fail to realize is the noise-pollution factor. Some microphones can handle more noise pollution than others. Most of the cameras near the WTC had noise pollution from city noise, loud sirens, sound blocked or distorted by buildings, etc. The camera in Hoboken had none of the city or siren noise pollution, and had an unobstructed view of the WTC.

Audio 101. Google it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
and wind.

Gotta love it when someone pulls the "wind" disinformation card when it comes to that video. Your magical wind blew 10 times before the south tower collapsed. Why would the wind blow that many times just to corroborate firefighter testimony that there were 10 explosions before the collapse of the south tower?

How did your magical wind know to blow only during the collapses of all three WTC buildings and only for the duration of those collapses? Sorry, but the wind disinformation doesn't work and it's hilarious that there are still people that pull that card. Talk about denial and ignorance.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Excluding those explanations shows bias.

Including the "wind" card shows an agenda. Wind doesn't blow only when buildings collapse. Can you not see the ignorance and denial with the "wind" disinformation?

Originally posted by -PLB-
I am willing to consider explosions as cause, but that theory needs to be corroborated with other audio tracks.

Those sounds, some to the exact number, are corroborated by witness testimony. That's corroboration enough unless one intends to remain in denial and ignorance to the facts. Once you do a little research on audio editing and sound pollution, maybe you won't be so hasty to demand every single video at the WTC to have similar sounds. That will never happen.

Originally posted by -PLB-
This is a baseless claim. You do not know what has been observed in history.

If we didn't know what has been observed in history, then we wouldn't have any history at all, would we?

Originally posted by -PLB-
Buildings usually do not collapse without explosives

First correct statement you've made to date. Congrats.

Originally posted by -PLB-
(note that buildings usually also do not suffer from plane impacts and uncontrolled fires)

Note that the damage from the impacts was minor and therefore irrelevant. This was documented by NIST and the analyses 30 years before 9/11.

Also note the fires have never caused a steel-structured highrise to collapse, totally and completely, so that point is irrelevant also. Buildings cannot collapse through themselves at or near free fall without assistance. There's no getting around this fact.

Originally posted by -PLB-
This must have been told to you before, the penthouse of the building collapsed several seconds before the rest. Can you show me a controlled demolition video where something similar happened?

There was an explosion that caused the penthouse to collapse through the roof, then additional explosions that caused the building to collapse.

When a building is wired for explosives, they can make that building come down any way they want. Including making the penthouse collapse first, then the rest of the building.

Don't forget, it is impossible for any building to collapse through itself at or near free-fall without assistance. Anything else you say is made-up strawmen based on denial and ignorance.




Flashes, ejections, pre-collapse and during-collapse explosions, timed booms, the speed that the buildings collapsed........ all indicative of controlled demolitions and none have ever been associated with fire-induced collapses. There is no getting around these facts, no matter what excuses you make up.

Originally posted by GenRadek
So why is it that when watching the jets, they actually accelerate and gain more and more dust and debris being ejected over time?

Someone wrote that on some website, and you guys just run with it because it gives you another aspect of controlled demolition to deny. Someone's opinion on some website is not a fact.

We're not debating this yet again. Those ejections have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and no amount of peoples' opinions are going to make this point any less factual.

Either show a building collapse that exhibits these isolated ejections that is not a controlled demolition, or stop trying to debate this fact with someone's opinions.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GenRadek
So why is it that when watching the jets, they actually accelerate and gain more and more dust and debris being ejected over time?

Someone wrote that on some website, and you guys just run with it because it gives you another aspect of controlled demolition to deny. Someone's opinion on some website is not a fact.

My first thought, the first time a Truther asked me to look at the "squibs" was, that doesn't look like an explosion. That looks more like someone pointed a jet engine at the window and cranked it up. The exhaust just keeps going and going and going until it disappears. Explosives just don't do that in the real world.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You're only partially correct on this point. A single witness trying to remember key elements of something can have questionable reliability. However, when more than one witness reports the same exact thing, the reliability becomes unimpeachable and their testimony becomes fact.

So what about all the witnesses who didn't hear explosions? Aren't those equally reliable, and their testimony fact? Or are you only taking the testimonies you like in consideration?

What you and many others fail to realize is the noise-pollution factor. Some microphones can handle more noise pollution than others. Most of the cameras near the WTC had noise pollution from city noise, loud sirens, sound blocked or distorted by buildings, etc. The camera in Hoboken had none of the city or siren noise pollution, and had an unobstructed view of the WTC.

Audio 101. Google it.

Any sound that loud should be recorded on any mic, especially when you are closer. You are actually claiming that mics further away are better at recording explosions than cameras close to it. This is pure fabricated truther nonsense.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Gotta love it when someone pulls the "wind" disinformation card when it comes to that video. ... Can you not see the ignorance and denial with the "wind" disinformation?

You missed "deceitful editing". Do you have the original, unedited video?

Originally posted by -PLB-Those sounds, some to the exact number, are corroborated by witness testimony. That's corroboration enough unless one intends to remain in denial and ignorance to the facts. Once you do a little research on audio editing and sound pollution, maybe you won't be so hasty to demand every single video at the WTC to have similar sounds. That will never happen.

Well, take it to court then. I think your evidence is terrible. I have other standards than you have.

If we didn't know what has been observed in history, then we wouldn't have any history at all, would we?

You are missing the point. When something is not registered in such a way that you can easily access, it does not mean it did not happen. That is a major fallacy.

Note that the damage from the impacts was minor and therefore irrelevant. This was documented by NIST and the analyses 30 years before 9/11.

Also note the fires have never caused a steel-structured highrise to collapse, totally and completely, so that point is irrelevant also. Buildings cannot collapse through themselves at or near free fall without assistance. There's no getting around this fact.

According to your logic, men never went to the moon, the titanic never sunk, Hiroshima was never nuked. Stuff that never happened before happens.

Originally posted by -PLB-There was an explosion that caused the penthouse to collapse through the roof, then additional explosions that caused the building to collapse.

When a building is wired for explosives, they can make that building come down any way they want. Including making the penthouse collapse first, then the rest of the building.

Your argument is that because it looks like controlled demolition, it must be controlled demolition. So I point out it doesn't look like it because of the penthouse collapse. Then your argument becomes that they can make controlled demolition look like anything they want. According to your logic, any building collapse can be controlled demolition. It is pretty much useless arguing this with you when you hold such a position. Nothing on earth can convince you.

Don't forget, it is impossible for any building to collapse through itself at or near free-fall without assistance. Anything else you say is made-up strawmen based on denial and ignorance.

Baseless claim by a complete layman.

Flashes, ejections, pre-collapse and during-collapse explosions, timed booms, the speed that the buildings collapsed........ all indicative of controlled demolitions and none have ever been associated with fire-induced collapses. There is no getting around these facts, no matter what excuses you make up.

All your "evidence" has rational explanations that do not require demolition charges. Like I say, real evidence is missing, there is just some circumstantial evidence. You will have to do way better than that. For example, find at least one video that corroborates at least one explosion.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by _BoneZ_Don't forget, it is impossible for any building to collapse through itself at or near free-fall without assistance. Anything else you say is made-up strawmen based on denial and ignorance.

Baseless claim by a complete layman.

This is the problem with 9/11 that has become more important than 9/11 itself.

This pretense that grade school physics is so complicated that it cannot be comprehended without advanced degrees. And our EXPERTS have created this problem for themselves by having supported this lie but if it is easy to understand they would have to explain why they did not expose it in 2002.

A simple simulation would be to remove the simulated levels 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories floating in the air and 90 intact simulated stories below. Let simulated gravity take its course. The bottom of the falling 15 stories would impact the top of the 90 in just under 2 seconds at 44 mph. This eliminates all discussion of how much damage the airliner impact and fire did.

The levels get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up. Even at a 3 to 1 ratio of destruction, which I regard as extremely unlikely, that would leave 45 stories standing. That destruction would require energy. The only source is the kinetic energy of the falling 15 stories. They would slow down. Completely eliminating 5 stories is more destruction than the airliner impact and fires could have accomplished. So if that simulation comes nowhere near complete collapse then what is with this nonsense that has been going on for approaching TEN YEARS?

Doing that simulation correctly would require the mass of steel and concrete on every level. And the amount of energy required to collapse each level. So where are the physicists who have been asking about that for more than nine years?

So where is the engineering school that has said they would build a model that could collapse much less done it?

psik

Originally posted by -PLB-

So what about all the witnesses who didn't hear explosions? Aren't those equally reliable, and their testimony fact? Or are you only taking the testimonies you like in consideration?

Anyone that was close to the WTC heard and felt the explosions. First responders, by-standers, survivors, news reporters.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Any sound that loud should be recorded on any mic, especially when you are closer. You are actually claiming that mics further away are better at recording explosions than cameras close to it. This is pure fabricated truther nonsense.

It's only nonsense to the uneducated. If you've never been in an audio studio, or know how to operate an audio mixer, then you don't know that very loud sounds can overwhelm a microphone and cause those sounds to get distorted and not to pick up any more sounds because it is overwhelmed.

So, I'll post it one more time for you: Audio 101. Google it. Please learn about audio recording and mixing before you comment any further on this point.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Stuff that never happened before happens.

Along with audio editing and mixing, I guess mathematics is also not your strong suit. If that something that never happened before happened once on one day, I could accept that. But three times on one day and one day only? You haven't the slightest clue how astronomically high the odds are for that to happen.

And then to add on top of that, the ejections seen as both towers collapsed are also claimed to have been seen for the first time in history in two building collapses that are not controlled demolitions (according to official story supporters); on one day and one day only.

So we have astronomically high and astronomically high which = infinitely high odds that two events happen on one day and one day only. Never seen before or after. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it in the real world.

Once is acceptable. Twice is coincidence. Three times is sabotage.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Your argument is that because it looks like controlled demolition, it must be controlled demolition.

You're leaving key parts out which can be construed as deliberate deception on your part. The building collapses didn't just look like controlled demolition.

Several first responders, who all corroborate each other, reported flashes in both towers, which are seen only in controlled demolitions.

Numerous witnesses reported timed "booms" as both towers collapsed, which is only heard in controlled demolitions.

The towers exhibited ejections of dust/debris, which have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.

The speed at which all three WTC buildings fell at or near free-fall, has only ever been achieved in controlled demolitions.


Every single aspect of the collapses of all three WTC buildings exhibited every sign of controlled demolition and no signs of fire-induced collapse. Many of us have begged for years for one of you to show a fire-induced collapse that exhibits the above.

That request still remains unanswered to this day.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Baseless claim by a complete layman.

If that's all you can come back with, we're doing pretty good.

Originally posted by -PLB-

All your "evidence" has rational explanations

No. All the evidence has made-up, fairy tale explanations to help people sleep at night because they don't want to accept the consequences of what the evidence really means: that 9/11 was an inside job.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Like I say, real evidence is missing

The only "real" evidence you'll accept is the physical evidence and that has all been destroyed. Courts have proven time and time again that you don't need the physical evidence to prove something. So, while you sit in denial and ignorance and push aside all available evidence just because of the lack of physical evidence, the rest of us will press on with getting to the truth.

Thank you for your opinions.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Anyone that was close to the WTC heard and felt the explosions. First responders, by-standers, survivors, news reporters.

No doubt there were explosions, that is to be expected in an office fire. But that is not the point here. You are claiming controlled demolition charges that are audible miles away.

It's only nonsense to the uneducated. If you've never been in an audio studio, or know how to operate an audio mixer, then you don't know that very loud sounds can overwhelm a microphone and cause those sounds to get distorted and not to pick up any more sounds because it is overwhelmed.

So, I'll post it one more time for you: Audio 101. Google it. Please learn about audio recording and mixing before you comment any further on this point.

I know that. So show that all those microphones from other sources are clipping, distorting or attenuating that the same moment as in that video of yours. You are funny though. You go from the explosion not being loud enough and being obscured by other sounds to it was so loud that no microphone could handle the sound pressure level.

You really do not know a thing about this subject, and you should read more than just audio 101 on Google.

Originally posted by -PLB-Along with audio editing and mixing, I guess mathematics is also not your strong suit. If that something that never happened before happened once on one day, I could accept that. But three times on one day and one day only? You haven't the slightest clue how astronomically high the odds are for that to happen.

This is not mathematics, it is statistics. Your reasoning here is flawed again, you don't understand statistics (which is not strange when you think it is the same as math). The buildings did not fall from chance, they fell as direct result of planes hitting them and burning uncontrolled for hours. You have to understand that rare does not mean low chance. Something can be extremely rare but have a 100% probability of happening.

Just for the record, please share your calculations on which you base your position.

And then to add on top of that, the ejections seen as both towers collapsed are also claimed to have been seen for the first time in history in two building collapses that are not controlled demolitions (according to official story supporters); on one day and one day only.

Claimed by truthers yes. I don't even have comparable material to make that assessment. Again your reasoning is very flawed. It is like saying that the chance of men going to the moon is astronomically low, and the chance of men going form the moon to earth is even smaller. So both events can never have happened in a short time after each other, even several times over a couple of years, according to you. You are wrong. The one rare event is a consequence of the other rare event. Just like those squibs are a consequence of a certain type of skyscraper collapsing as result of plane impact and fires, something that has never ever happened before in history.

So we have astronomically high and astronomically high which = infinitely high odds that two events happen on one day and one day only. Never seen before or after. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it in the real world.

Once is acceptable. Twice is coincidence. Three times is sabotage.

Is this your math? highxhigh=infinity?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You're leaving key parts out which can be construed as deliberate deception on your part. The building collapses didn't just look like controlled demolition.

You don't really get it. It didn't look like controlled demolition because of the penthouse collapse. Sure you can have other reasons why it was a controlled demolition, but claiming it looked like one isn't really one of them. And now your are switching to the scattergun tactic.

Several first responders, who all corroborate each other, reported flashes in both towers, which are seen only in controlled demolitions.

Fallacy. Flashes can have other causes.

Numerous witnesses reported timed "booms" as both towers collapsed, which is only heard in controlled demolitions.

Fallacy. Booms also occur from mass hitting mass.

The towers exhibited ejections of dust/debris, which have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.

Fallacy. You can't know everything that has been seen in history.

The speed at which all three WTC buildings fell at or near free-fall, has only ever been achieved in controlled demolitions.

And yes, another fallacy. You can't possibly know this either.

Your "evidence" would be worthless if this were a court case. Your main argument is ignorance. You can't think of a better explanation, or you don't know of it happening before.

Every single aspect of the collapses of all three WTC buildings exhibited every sign of controlled demolition and no signs of fire-induced collapse. Many of us have begged for years for one of you to show a fire-induced collapse that exhibits the above.

That request still remains unanswered to this day.

Except from the missing distinctive loud bangs and squibs just before collapse, columns showing signs of being damaged by charges or any residue from charges in the debris. Or in other words, the real signs of controlled demolition are missing.

If that's all you can come back with, we're doing pretty good.

I didn't mean to give you the impression you are doing good. My opinion is that your are doing terrible in providing any real evidence so far.

No. All the evidence has made-up, fairy tale explanations to help people sleep at night because they don't want to accept the consequences of what the evidence really means: that 9/11 was an inside job.

I do agree on the first part, but would say that the reason for it is that conspiracy theorists do it to enhance their believes.

The only "real" evidence you'll accept is the physical evidence and that has all been destroyed. Courts have proven time and time again that you don't need the physical evidence to prove something. So, while you sit in denial and ignorance and push aside all available evidence just because of the lack of physical evidence, the rest of us will press on with getting to the truth.

No, I don't only accept physical evidence. I already wrote what evidence I accept. But by all means, take it to court.

Originally posted by waypastvne



My first thought, the first time a Truther asked me to look at the "squibs" was, that doesn't look like an explosion. That looks more like someone pointed a jet engine at the window and cranked it up. The exhaust just keeps going and going and going until it disappears. Explosives just don't do that in the real world.

Hell I have been saying that for years, and it still doesnt sink in. I have yet to have one, ONE truther explain how explosives can create a jet of dust and debris that keeps going and going and accelerating after detonation. Never heard one satisfactory answer. Just ignore, and run. Ignore and change the topic. Move the goalpost.

So I guess I can ask the truthers again:
What kind of explosives create a pressure was that behaves like an accelerating jet after detonation? Next, I want them to tell me, how does an explosive behave upon detonation.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Someone wrote that on some website, and you guys just run with it because it gives you another aspect of controlled demolition to deny. Someone's opinion on some website is not a fact.

We're not debating this yet again. Those ejections have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and no amount of peoples' opinions are going to make this point any less factual.

Either show a building collapse that exhibits these isolated ejections that is not a controlled demolition, or stop trying to debate this fact with someone's opinions.

I can tell the difference by watching other real demolitions! In fact, I came to that conclusion before I discovered those websites that do a great job of debunking this garbage.

Every other "demo" video I watched, I saw the puff come out, and then stop. It just went "poof!' and spread out. the WTC starts as a puff and gets bigger and bigger and bigger, and then MORE stuff gets ejected out, and its gets darker. I mean damn, that is nothing like I have seen in real demolition squibs. The author(s) of the debunking website also see that and just reinforced my original observation. That aint from a "explosive".

Its up to YOU to show ME a demolition that shows the "squib" behave EXACTLY the same way as the jets did in the WTC. Specifically, an explosion and then acceleration of debris and dust over time. I want YOU to find me that and any sort of explosive that behaves like that. Just one video that shows C4, TNT, PETN, C2, gunpowder, exploding, and then having the pressure wave accelerate at a constant speed away from the detonation point.

10 years later...wounds not healed...tears still shed...lives till broken. For one day, please try to put yourself in the shoes of the sons and daughters. husbands and wives, brothers, sisters, moms and dads...and do not post selfish comments to attempt to derail the memorial that today is. Show some respect not to the dead but to their survivors...their sacrifice is lived everyday.