9/11 Truth Frustrations

I see it didn't take long for this thread to be infiltrated by the disinfo OS defending 'debunkers'.

The frustrations you talk about are very blatant on the ATS 9/11 forum, as you can see, your thread has already been hijacked, by the real 'hijackers'.

It only takes one 9/11 lie to be exposed and the rest of the facade comes tumbling down.

The 9/11 lies are being exposed one by one, and then there is a flurry by these so called 'debunkers' to try and cover up the lies with crazy disinfo.

My pensioner dad, who is ex military, laughs at some of the stuff these so called 'debunkers' come out with.
He can see what game is being played by them, and can spot all the disinfo they churn out, and he isn't really interested in 9/11. The disinfo is so obvious to people that do not even research 9/11, let alone those that do!

Originally posted by conwaylemmon
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I'll admit i'm a total crackpot sucker, but only because i'm responding to you again. I feel dumber each time. everyone else has quit already.

I happen to work in the film business. and $3000 is nothing if you're trying to present a film in multiple cities. FWIW

Your other points are just not worth it, although you DO address the OP's thread quite nicely. I'm going to go dust off my crack-pot and play online arm-chair explosive expert some more. its a really cool game.

Thanks for admitting you could be wrong. I believe you are. I wish you well. Good luck to you and to all of us. It has been enlightening. I'm sure I'll see you around.

I'm sure you will, because the one thing you've overlooked is that you're really not debunking ME. You're debunking all the eyewitnesses, video, and physcial evidence left behind, 'cause all I'm doing is quoting them.

We have firefighters reporting with their own eyes how the fires were burning out of control in WTC 7 and were causing massive damage to the structural integrity of the building, and even William Rodriguez stated the planes hit the towers with such raw force that fireballs came down the elevator shaft and pushed the elevator down into the basement. Anyone else hearing this will conclude the impacts from the planes and the impact damage from the collapse of the north tower did at least *something* bad to the buildings so there's at least *some* credibility to the idea the fires caused the buildings to collapse...but the consistant "I don't hear you Nyah nyah nyah NYAH nyah" response from the truthers as they consistantly avoid addressing details that derail their theories is a de facto admission they know there are severe problems with their claims. If I'm the one who's in the wrong then why are you the ones playing these "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" games?

You're certainly not a crackpot. You're just getting a lot of bad information from a lot of internet con artists and crackpots. You just don't realize it yet.

Originally posted by kidtwist
I see it didn't take long for this thread to be infiltrated by the disinfo OS defending 'debunkers'.

The frustrations you talk about are very blatant on the ATS 9/11 forum, as you can see, your thread has already been hijacked, by the real 'hijackers'.

So are you saying "we believe everything the gov't tells us", "we're afraid of the truth" , or it's being covered up by armies of sinister secret agents"?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

It only takes one 9/11 lie to be exposed and the rest of the facade comes tumbling down.

The 9/11 lies are being exposed one by one, and then there is a flurry by these so called 'debunkers' to try and cover up the lies with crazy disinfo.

Give us an example, please, because all the so-called lies I've seen have been explained a dozen times over already- "Pull it" is an internet meme invented by Alex Jones, "No arab names on the passenger lists" was a lie invented by David Ray Griffin, "there were no fires in WTC 7" was a lie invented by Richard Gage, it goes on and on. If we sound obnoxious in our explanations, well, that's our own human failings, but keep in mind that having to explain the same thing over and over only to have someone demand we explain it all over again the next day gets tiring after a while.

My pensioner dad, who is ex military, laughs at some of the stuff these so called 'debunkers' come out with. He can see what game is being played by them, and can spot all the disinfo they churn out, and he isn't really interested in 9/11. The disinfo is so obvious to people that do not even research 9/11, let alone those that do!

Was he physically there during 9/11? If not then why is his opinions more valid than the eyewitness accounts of the people who were there?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I can't believe i'm continuing this.
You're right. there is a lot of bad info out there. and a lot of info that is tempting to believe, but not backed up by anything. So I'm going to attempt to explain to you why I believe what I believe. It is based entirely on my own observations, thoughts and physics 101, and towers 1 and 2. Sure, the Gage video and others have seeded my thoughts, but I have taken the information that I feel is sound and deduced my own set of reasons why I think the buildings fell. It has nothing to do with planes or fire.

1. Gravity makes things fall. And they fall at a constant rate. and it brings things straight down
No matter if we're talking about demolition, or fire/plane induced collapse, the thing that made the buildings fall to the earth is definitely gravity. agreed? and any discussion of things falling from height to the earth most certainly pertains to gravity. Gravity pulls everything down at the same rate. we all know this. drop a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum and see which lands first. neither. take away the vacuum and add atmosphere. the feather takes more time because of it's shape; it is not as aerodynamic as the ball. So things fall at a constant acceleration unless they are impeded by something. Air, water, plinko pegs, cement, bricks, steel girders, the thing's own structure. Of course the buildings didn't fall at exactly the acceleration of gravity. But it was close enough to that rate, that most of the lower structure would have to have been removed. Were all beam connections in the towers weakened by heat at precisely the right time in order to facilitate a cascading, complete failure? Extremely improbable. The steel structured buildings did not resist gravity on their way down.

2. Equal and opposite reaction
We all know about this. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. a law of physics. apply a force to something and you get the same force back. this is why I can accurately weigh myself on a scale, or knock someone out with a punch (I've never done this.) It also works for destructive forces. Drop a wine glass onto another equal wine glass. which one breaks? they probably both break but maybe one or the other. Drop a wine glass onto a whole stack of wine glasses. does the entire stack break? doubtful. So we have the top of the building (15 floors?) essentially giving way and crushing the entire building. How does 15% of a thing pulverize 100% of the same thing. Did the top 15 floors suddenly become much more massive than the 15 floors below? and then those 30 floors were suddenly more massive than then next 30 floors down? Oh no. Maybe the 15 floors crush one floor and then those 16 floors crushed another floor and then those 17 floors crushed another, all the way down. Highly unlikely, especially when you consider that the further down the collapse went, the less solid it was and would be. Drop a 5 pound brick on a wine glass, it breaks. what about 5 pounds of sand?

3. conservation of energy. loss of potential energy equals gain of kinetic energy.
The constant force of gravity and the height and mass of the buildings add up to a massive but finite amount of potential energy. After the collapse, there was no potential energy. the basic gravitational potential energy formula is mass x gravity x height. It doesn't matter what the figures are except that after the collapse, height=0 and therefore the gravitational potential energy after the collapse is 0, and therefore, all of the potential energy converted to kinetic energy by the time the collapse ended. Remember GRAVITY is the only thing that brings things to the ground. and it brings them straight down. So what then was the extra energy that caused massive amounts of matter to shoot out horizontally. Air pressure? Absolutely not. If potential energy is used up creating air pressure (kinetic energy in a horizontal direction), than we would have to add energy to bring the building all the way down. And what extra energy caused concrete to be pulverized into powder and spread over the entire tip of manhattan from Battery Park to Chambers Street and further? Gravitational Force? We need all of it to flatten down the entire mass.

Can anyone tell me where the extra energy comes from? Energy needed to pulverize concrete into dust and spread out over lower manhattan, energy to fling massive pieces of everything hundreds of feet horizontally. Lets just say for argument's sake that a building can collapse entirely to the ground through its own structure at nearly the acceleration of gravity. I'll even give you that as a freebee. Where does the extra energy come from to also explode sideways? Large amounts of energy were added to the equation.
I see a massive explosion when I watch the buildings fall. So, my science matches my observation, i think.

That's all I have

Well, I never thought my first thread would get this attention & that the following posts from my OP would prove what I was saying in my OP,

I am going to leave this thread now, as I feel that the other posters in here have proved my point for me!

much love,
richy

yeah they are predictable.

Tell us Dave, why the need to lie?

Popular Mechanics

I know you pros got all the answers but always ignore this simple question.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
yeah they are predictable.

Tell us Dave, why the need to lie?

Popular Mechanics

I know you pros got all the answers but always ignore this simple question.

Ignoring the question isn't going to make it go away.

You guys have all the answers, bring it!

reply to post by conwaylemmonThanks for continuing, because you've posted a very well worded list of reasons why the position that Dave has taken, lacks reason. He's ready to snap, and because his position is so tenuous, he's left with nothing but constant, petty bickering. You've pointed out the weaknesses of the OS that are so glaringly obvious, that anyone can see that accepting the OS, without question, is a clear case of obstruction of justice. I don't want you in harms way Dave, I want you in jail.

Originally posted by conwaylemmon
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I can't believe i'm continuing this.
You're right. there is a lot of bad info out there. and a lot of info that is tempting to believe, but not backed up by anything. So I'm going to attempt to explain to you why I believe what I believe. It is based entirely on my own observations, thoughts and physics 101, and towers 1 and 2.

You've obviously put some effort into this post, so I would be remiss if I ignored it and didn't correct what there is to correct. I think you've made a fairly good account of your beliefs here, but there are quite a few things that I would like to bring attention to.

1. Gravity makes things fall. And they fall at a constant rate. and it brings things straight down

This is completely incorrect. Things only fall at a 'constant rate' once they have reached an air resistance that matches the force applied by gravity. Otherwise, things accelerate rather than remaining constant. This is important to know when measuring the descent of the towers. You seem to grasp this but I'm mostly taking issue with terms here as they can be confusing.

Of course the buildings didn't fall at exactly the acceleration of gravity. But it was close enough to that rate, that most of the lower structure would have to have been removed.

You don't really have any evidence for this. The towers fell at approximately 2/3g and 3/4g. In order to show that the lower structure would have to have been 'removed' you'd need to present some calculations. The information we have available shows that in fact 1/3rd of the energy available at the crushing front is a huge amount of force and indeed the buildings did resist the collapse as best they were able.

Were all beam connections in the towers weakened by heat at precisely the right time in order to facilitate a cascading, complete failure? Extremely improbable. The steel structured buildings did not resist gravity on their way down.

This contradicts your previous post. If indeed the structures accelerated downwards at < g then the lower structure did resist the collapse. Also no, all beam connections weren't weakened, there were very few beam connections at all.

Drop a wine glass onto a whole stack of wine glasses. does the entire stack break? doubtful. So we have the top of the building (15 floors?) essentially giving way and crushing the entire building. How does 15% of a thing pulverize 100% of the same thing.
...
Drop a 5 pound brick on a wine glass, it breaks. what about 5 pounds of sand?

The answer to the first part of this was contained within your post. It is a progressive process. However, you make some crucial mistakes. In your wine glass example, you drop the glass on the first in the stack, but you forget it must then be dropped onto the next one in the stack. The floors in the WTC were composed of a thin layer of structural material and then open office space composing nearly an acre. There was an awful lot of open space between them.

Secondly, while sand might seem in your head to be unlikely to damage a wine glass, you'd be surprised. You picked sand because it seems a harmless particle I assume, but lets look at more realistic scenario. Take a brick and smash it repeatedly with a sledgehammer. The debris you're left with will be some large chunks, some small chunks and some dust. Drop this onto a glass and you will see the exact same result.

Remember GRAVITY is the only thing that brings things to the ground. and it brings them straight down. So what then was the extra energy that caused massive amounts of matter to shoot out horizontally. Air pressure? Absolutely not. If potential energy is used up creating air pressure (kinetic energy in a horizontal direction), than we would have to add energy to bring the building all the way down.

This is also completely incorrect. Energy is not required to bring a building down completely. You're mistaking displacement for velocity. If energy is used up in accelerating / pressurising air then it is the velocity of the debris which is affected. The total displacement is a function of time.

Secondly, the debris was being ejected through the impacts as well as increased air pressure. Any aggregate poured into a tube will exert pressure against the sides. It's essentially analogous to the concept of pressure itself. The collapse front was slowed, but it'll reach the ground sooner or later.

I see a massive explosion when I watch the buildings fall. So, my science matches my observation, i think.

Until we can test your theory with figures and measurements, this isn't science. You've made a great effort here but you misunderstand some key effects. I hope we can discuss these and come to some conclusion in order to defy this thread! :-)

how do i delete?

This is completely incorrect. Things only fall at a 'constant rate' once they have reached an air resistance that matches the force applied by gravity. Otherwise, things accelerate rather than remaining constant. This is important to know when measuring the descent of the towers. You seem to grasp this but I'm mostly taking issue with terms here as they can be confusing...

...You don't really have any evidence for this. The towers fell at approximately 2/3g and 3/4g. In order to show that the lower structure would have to have been 'removed' you'd need to present some calculations. The information we have available shows that in fact 1/3rd of the energy available at the crushing front is a huge amount of force and indeed the buildings did resist the collapse as best they were able.

You're right. I should have written constant rate of acceleration, however your argument seems to actually strengthen mine. I did forget to consider the resistance of air on the way down. It should have taken even longer for the buildings to fall completely to (+-) ground level.
I believe the 911 commission report has one of the towers falling in 10 seconds, and I believe that it has been calculated that a mass falling from the height of the buildings in a vacuum should reach the ground in 9.2 seconds. so, we have the top of the tower falling through an ENTRE BUILDING and through THE ATMOSPHERE in only about 9% percent more time than it would have taken in a vacuum and WITHOUT AN ENTIRE BUILDING UNDER IT. Sorry to yell, but this doesn't require any complicated math. IT REQUIRES YELLING!

Also no, all beam connections weren't weakened, there were very few beam connections at all.

This is confusing. what do you mean by "very few beam connections at all"? Your entire argument seems to imply that the building was made of floors only and not an outer steel shell and a massive inner core.

The answer to the first part of this was contained within your post. It is a progressive process. However, you make some crucial mistakes. In your wine glass example, you drop the glass on the first in the stack, but you forget it must then be dropped onto the next one in the stack. The floors in the WTC were composed of a thin layer of structural material and then open office space composing nearly an acre. There was an awful lot of open space between them.

I can only drop the wine glass once. It is then entirely up to the next glass down. Are you suggesting that each floor was suspended in mid air with no structure supporting it, just waiting for something to come along and nudge it toward the next floor below? A stack of pancakes won't collapse under maple syrup alone, unless you apply a chewing force to remove each successive pancake.

Secondly, while sand might seem in your head to be unlikely to damage a wine glass, you'd be surprised. You picked sand because it seems a harmless particle I assume, but lets look at more realistic scenario. Take a brick and smash it repeatedly with a sledgehammer. The debris you're left with will be some large chunks, some small chunks and some dust. Drop this onto a glass and you will see the exact same result.

I'd be very surprised if indeed 5 lbs of sand could do nearly the same damage as a 5 lb brick if dropped from the same height. Let's put your head under a falling brick and my head under falling sand and see who gets a goose egg. The point is, as a mass is crushed into smaller and smaller pieces, it will tend to have less and less crushing force.

Energy is not required to bring a building down completely. You're mistaking displacement for velocity. If energy is used up in accelerating / pressurising air then it is the velocity of the debris which is affected. The total displacement is a function of time.

Secondly, the debris was being ejected through the impacts as well as increased air pressure. Any aggregate poured into a tube will exert pressure against the sides. It's essentially analogous to the concept of pressure itself. The collapse front was slowed, but it'll reach the ground sooner or later.

This doesn't make any sense to me. So all you have to do to demolish a building is get it started? Why would anyone hire an explosives expert to demolish a building when instead you can just take out part of a couple of floors and start a fire, and the rest is inevitable. Total displacement is function of time? only? It will reach the ground sooner or later? you're sure? Dynamite is overrated. Why should I put gas in my car? Everywhere I want to go is downhill from here. It's inevitable that i'll get there. It's only a matter of time.

Originally posted by conwaylemmon
You're right. I should have written constant rate of acceleration,

No harm done.

however your argument seems to actually strengthen mine. I did forget to consider the resistance of air on the way down. It should have taken even longer for the buildings to fall completely to (+-) ground level...
in only about 9% percent more time than it would have taken in a vacuum

This is incorrect. The numbers are based on the premise that the towers took only 10 seconds to fall. I believe the section you're quoting from refers to the time for the exterior panels to hit, not for the completion of collapse. Could you quote the source exactly please?

This is confusing. what do you mean by "very few beam connections at all"? Your entire argument seems to imply that the building was made of floors only and not an outer steel shell and a massive inner core.

Oh I think I spot what's confusing here, the vertical steel parts are referred to as columns, and the horizontal ones as beams. The WTC used beam flooring only in the core and on mechanical levels, so that's what I was referring to.

I can only drop the wine glass once. It is then entirely up to the next glass down. Are you suggesting that each floor was suspended in mid air with no structure supporting it, just waiting for something to come along and nudge it toward the next floor below?

It's not quite like that, but it's much more like that than the idea of a bunch of solid objects sitting on each other. The floors were not attached by a hugely robust mechanism and they were not designed to handle much vertical load. Once the towers began collapsing and severed some of the floor connections, that debris is going to hit the next one down. As long as it has enough energy to fail those connections to it's going to keep falling and growing until it hits the ground.

This is exactly what we see in the towers, the outer structure becomes disconnected and pushed outwards by the debris raining down on the floors inside. The whole structure essentially becomes a funnel, the strongest elements resist the collapse and push the debris inside, towards the weakest.

I'd be very surprised if indeed 5 lbs of sand could do nearly the same damage as a 5 lb brick if dropped from the same height. Let's put your head under a falling brick and my head under falling sand and see who gets a goose egg. The point is, as a mass is crushed into smaller and smaller pieces, it will tend to have less and less crushing force.

That's not strictly true. What will happen is that you're smearing out the impact over time. If you were to wrap that 5lbs of sand in a simple duct tape ball and drop it, it would be almost as painful as the brick. The fact is though in reality we'd end up with a lot of chunks of various sizes, and all of them would contribute to the damage. Would you really want to get hit with 5lbs of broken bricks any more than intact bricks?

This doesn't make any sense to me. So all you have to do to demolish a building is get it started?

Pretty much yes:

Why would anyone hire an explosives expert to demolish a building when instead you can just take out part of a couple of floors and start a fire, and the rest is inevitable.

The experts are hired because the buildings need to come down within a short period and within a specific area. Neither of those happened on 911 and as you can see in the video I posted, you can use an explosiveless initiation process on some buildings in order to demolish them to ground level with identical criteria. A fire and waiting doesn't guarantee that, and it can't be remotely controlled.

That's why the experts do it, because they don't want to end up with damage like 9/11.

Total displacement is function of time? only?

Obviously the total displacement over a period t depends on the velocity, but my point is that removing energy through resistance won't actually stop the building collapsing. As long as it retains enough energy to overwhelm the next floor in sequence it will continue to collapse to the ground level.

Why should I put gas in my car? Everywhere I want to go is downhill from here. It's inevitable that i'll get there. It's only a matter of time.

Your analogy illustrates my point well. The upper sections of the building are essentially sitting on a big hill formed from their potential energy. Even if there are lots of obstacles in front of your car in the road, as long as you can smash them out of the way you'll eventually reach the bottom. Of course, your car won't be so intact.

Originally posted by exponent

This is incorrect. The numbers are based on the premise that the towers took only 10 seconds to fall. I believe the section you're quoting from refers to the time for the exterior panels to hit, not for the completion of collapse. Could you quote the source exactly please?

Actually its right from the 911 commission report

At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds

www.9-11commission.gov...

Oh I think I spot what's confusing here, the vertical steel parts are referred to as columns, and the horizontal ones as beams. The WTC used beam flooring only in the core and on mechanical levels, so that's what I was referring to.

In haste, I referred to all steel as beam connections. I meant all of the steel in the building.

It's not quite like that, but it's much more like that than the idea of a bunch of solid objects sitting on each other. The floors were not attached by a hugely robust mechanism and they were not designed to handle much vertical load. Once the towers began collapsing and severed some of the floor connections, that debris is going to hit the next one down. As long as it has enough energy to fail those connections to it's going to keep falling and growing until it hits the ground.

its inevitable then

This is exactly what we see in the towers, the outer structure becomes disconnected and pushed outwards by the debris raining down on the floors inside. The whole structure essentially becomes a funnel, the strongest elements resist the collapse and push the debris inside, towards the weakest.

That's not what I see. sorry. I see far too much horizontal explosion. where does the core go?

That's not strictly true. What will happen is that you're smearing out the impact over time. If you were to wrap that 5lbs of sand in a simple duct tape ball and drop it, it would be almost as painful as the brick. The fact is though in reality we'd end up with a lot of chunks of various sizes, and all of them would contribute to the damage. Would you really want to get hit with 5lbs of broken bricks any more than intact bricks?

If you smeared out the impact over time, you'd likely delay breakage, and ultimately delay or even halt collapse. that's part of the point. the rest of the point is not how fine the "sand" is, but that it is not as solid and rigid as it was to begin with, and therefore not only does it have less crushing force than it originally did, at least some of the falling (velocity, energy, inertia) is absorbed by the stuff breaking into bits, again likely slowing it down.

Pretty much yes:

a video of controlled demolitions?
i'm tired

Originally posted by conwaylemmon
Actually its right from the 911 commission report

At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds

I see, well regardless it is nowhere near accurate. The towers took about 50-100% longer to collapse completely than this. Even NIST doesn't give estimations that low.

its inevitable then

If the initial falling mass is large enough, then yeah I feel the collapse is inevitable. The difference between the amount need to fail an upper floor and the amount needed to fail a lower floor is not very much, as a result we can all but guarantee that a full floor failure high up will result in total collapse.

That's not what I see. sorry. I see far too much horizontal explosion. where does the core go?

The core goes nowhere, after 10-20 storeys the debris was primarily destroying floor sections. After the main collapse front has passed we even see 'spires' of the cores remaining, stripped of their outer rows.

What does 'horizontal explosion' mean here anyway. Do you really think someone trying to carry out a secret controlled demolition would use explosives to push sections around if they didn't have to? No full controlled demolition has this sort of behaviour so why would 911?

If you smeared out the impact over time, you'd likely delay breakage, and ultimately delay or even halt collapse. that's part of the point. the rest of the point is not how fine the "sand" is, but that it is not as solid and rigid as it was to begin with, and therefore not only does it have less crushing force than it originally did, at least some of the falling (velocity, energy, inertia) is absorbed by the stuff breaking into bits, again likely slowing it down.

Certainly a looser mass will in some ways have less 'crushing force', but there are no hard and fast rules you can refer to here. A bag of lead shot will do just as much damage as a lead ball to something which is sensitive to impact such as the floor systems. There's absolutely no requirement for anything to be structurally intact to cause a floor collapse.

a video of controlled demolitions?
i'm tired

You asked if you just needed to get a building started to collapse it, there is a video of companies just getting buildings started and having them collapse completely.

That's essentially what happened on 911, but on a grander scale.

That 9/11 was an inside job is obvious. Anyone knew to the subject that does even a bit of research can see that, so Im not going to waste my time pushing my barrow.

Having said that, sure you will get various theories put forward to explain 'whodunnit' but I look at them all with an open mind. Some may be wacky but meh..were all looking for answers and everything is worth consideration at least.

Personally I ascribe to one of the more 'outlandish' explanations for what caused the towers to fall. But do I feel like a 'whacko'? Nope. I believe the real truth is not in the 'accepted' category by the mainstream or by '9/11 truthers', some of which are not 'truthers' at all. So yea, I feel comfortable with my beliefs. In fact, I'm a lot more comfortable than if most people agreed with me.

The only people here who really insist that the official story/pancake theory is true, are a small group of extremely persistent, atheistic trolls. They're the same people every time, and they can safely be ignored. They're not doing anything other than providing free COINTELPRO for the government.

Anyone with a brain in their head is generally going to be able to recognise the validity of the thermite hypothesis. It's really not hard to figure it out.

reply to post by petrus4


Do you really think "Ignore anyone who disagrees with you" is a valid method to discover the truth? The fact that you try to use 'atheistic' as an insult makes me chuckle so much.

Yes, I'm an atheist. No, I'm not a troll. You have questions in front of you you can't answer, but instead of wondering if your viewpoint is distorted you tell people to just ignore the questions.

Not balanced.

reply to post by petrus4


Now we aren't getting paid? I wish people would make up their minds.

But seriously, I come on here because the motto is deny ignorance. Quite frankly, the majority of the beliefs of the "truth" movement are ignorant of reality.


EDIT... NOT an atheist here

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by petrus4

 

Yes, I'm an atheist. No, I'm not a troll. You have questions in front of you you can't answer, but instead of wondering if your viewpoint is distorted you tell people to just ignore the questions.

The only unanswered question that exists concerning 9/11 in my mind, is the identity of the specific individuals within the American government who ordered the attack. I've seen what I consider to abundant, and irrefutable evidence that thermite was used as the means of demolition. Every element of eyewitness testimony was consistent with known effects of its' use.

I can closely relate to this thread and the frustrations of 9/11, my opinion is that most of what actually caused the disastrous event is covered up from the public, by the US government.

I've watched numerous documentaries about evidence that proves there's obviously something not quite right. For example, there's evidence of molten steel which could not possibly have been created without the assistance of additional bombs. The documentaries went into detail of suggesting how the towers could have been a demolition-type explosions. There's even camera shots from different angles that capture the buildings collapsing in a different behaviour, than what would have occurred if it was the plane crashes alone.

I apologise for the lack of evidence that proves what I am saying, but I can provide links if desired.