Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: Salander

Everybody knows the official story is a lie,

No only a handful of people believe it's a lie.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

guess you're still claiming there's no problem at all with taking 1,5 million tons of rubble from a crimescene?

Brilliant plan.......

You 've got 16 acres of rubble, much of it on fire, containing remains of 2700 people and you want to play games ....??

Was not feasible to examine the site in situ - only thing to do was to dig through pile layer by layer removing remains

all the debris was then hauled to Fresh Kills in Staten Island for examination

Large pieces (vehicles, steel columns) were separated out - ones of interest to the investigators (those from impact floors)
were removed for study.

The smaller rubble was put on a conveyor belt and sifted by police detectives for human remains, personal effects and
other items of interest for recovery

a reply to: samkent

You tell me now.

Obviously you've got no problem demanding physical proof on the one hand while ignoring the lack of evidence on the other. What is this, cognitive dissonance or the shallow fruits of paid disinfo perpetuated for the sake of damage control?

At least you would have my respect if you could admit the plain fact, that this destruction of evidence was a crime.

Guess we're done again, see ya around and my condolences for 15 years lost to lies and deception btw. What a waste, man!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

At least you would have my respect if you could admit the plain fact, that this destruction of evidence was a crime.

There was no destruction of evidence.
All the debris was sifted through with a fine tooth comb.
Evidence was kept.
Debris was sold for scrap or buried in a landfill.

You are claiming they did wrong.
Now you prove they didn't look at ALL the evidence.

a reply to: neutronflux

Has nothing to do with propaganda.

Prove it?

conspiracists do not have a coherent truth and no physical evidence.

So millions of Americans who do not believe in the official narratives including men and woman who have high IQ's, years of collage holding Master degree's, Bachelor Degree's, to Engineers, and Scientist, do not have any coherent truth?

But only you do? Care to share this coherent truth with the rest of the world?

Conspiracists are not going to get to the truth pursuing false narratives used to push book sales.

So what your saying is, all conspiracy are based on book sales? And there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory.

It's good to know our government are honest people, and never lie, or commit crimes while in office.

It's interesting that you support the idea that no two people have ever conspired in our government to commit fraud for personal gain.

It's interesting that some believe in here, that no government in this world has organized and carried out a false flag.

is this true, has there been a study that proves that explosives were used to blow up the WTCs, it doesn't really matter if its true or not i suppose, over 3000 people sacrificed and there is nothing we can do about it, there really isn't its funny if you think about it, our last chance imo, is all those crazy Americans with guns, they are the biggest army in the world and they are armed to the teeth, here in Europe if we tried to band together to stop these evil people we would be doing it with sticks and stones, so i will say that i hope you don't let them take your guns cause they know there is a snowball effect happening as we speak, in terms of knowledge of them and their nefarious ways, an awakening if you will.

originally posted by: Davg80
is this true, has there been a study that proves that explosives were used to blow up the WTCs,

No, there has been many silly claims, but there is zero evidence explosives were used.

a reply to: samkent


Aha! No destruction of evidence, it just happened to vanish like solid cores of steel?

Debris was sold for scrap or buried in a landfill.

... together with the remains of many victims, did you actually know that? Of course I claim they did wrong, what the heck did they do right?
No evidence, no integrity, no dignity.

But I'm supposed to prove they didn't look at all the evidence now? Awesome spindoctering, I'm impressed. Do you actually provide facts yourself from time to time or is it sufficient to spread half-truths only?

Let's just forget about all that then and obey a nice day for the sake of our Führrr... errr... Empire!

a reply to: hellobruce

No, there has been many silly claims, but there is zero evidence explosives were used.

There is also zero evidence that office fires brought down all three WTC.

The real fact is, the NIST Report cannot, and will not stand up to scrutiny to real science.

Another fact is the NIST wrote a hypothesis to support a political event, that has never been proven true.

So if no explosions happened, no demolition happen, and the NIST report has never been proven true, or Peer Reviewed, what brought the WTC down?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander

Everybody knows the official story is a lie,

No only a handful of people believe it's a lie.

Millions of people know it's a lie. Lying about this yourself isn't going to change that.

a reply to: Informer1958
How many believe in controlled demolition of the WTC again?

originally posted by: Informer1958

The real fact is, the NIST Report cannot, and will not stand up to scrutiny to real science.

Conspiracists had about twelve years to prove something, and cannot create a consensus among themselves.

Talk about groups forming false narratives from biased political views. Or is it for book sales and YouTube likes.

a reply to: Informer1958

Funny there is a court case around what brought WTC 7 down. It was fire.

a reply to: neutronflux



Spoken like a true politician. Great method to marginalise dissent and opposing opinions btw, I guess all our independent thinkers would be proud of you!
Just a bunch of book-selling crooks either, weren't they?

12 years you say... that's funny. Spoken like a true Vogon, amazing.



Where's my towel...

a reply to: neutronflux

Talk about groups forming false narratives from biased political views. Or is it for book sales and YouTube likes.

Study concludes explosives used on 911

Yet, no one can debunk it. Ridiculing "all" conspiracies theories concerning 911 doesnt prove the official narratives are true.

So it boils down there is only one side of the population who believe the official narratives, and one side that believes the official narratives are lies.

The hundreds of people I have talk with about 911, do not believe in the government properganda and pseudo science Reports about 911.

I have yet to meet anyone who supports the official narratives of 911.

Most American now know that we are in an information war where the truth is constantly suppressed from the public.

a reply to: Informer1958

Controlled demolition has been debunked over and over again at the WTC. The reason conspiracists theories very and rage on? Because of bring biased, lacking in understanding how structural steel losses ability to resist strain, and there is no evidence that proves any conspiracy.

Why does not believing in the official narrative mean you MUST believe in control demolitiom? Talk about being narrow minded and ignorant.

The movement is not going to get to the truth through chasing false narratives. Talk about being a tool?

Like I said. If the movement was about the truth, it's voices would not be disjointed and at odds with each other. So sad.

originally posted by: Informer1958

The hundreds of people I have talk with about 911, do not believe in the government properganda and pseudo science Reports about 911.

What happen to the millions you claimed.

You didn't say they believed in controlled demolition at the WTC.

Why must a person believe in controlled demolition to not believe the whole official narrative.

Please start listing the pseudoscience of the NIST reports for WTC towers one and two.

Fire collapse of WTC 7 already has survived one court case.

a reply to: neutronflux

Controlled demolition has been debunked over and over again at the WTC.

By whom, 911 Myths?

The reason conspiracists theories very and rage on? Because of bring biased, lacking in understanding how structural steel losses ability to resist strain, and there is no evidence that proves any conspiracy.

Including the official narratives that silly office firers brought down the WTC. There is absulutly no credibal science that proves office firers brought down the WTC, none.

So yes this does open the door for "conspiracy theories" because the truth was never told.

Why does not believing in the official narrative mean you MUST believe in control demolitiom? Talk about being narrow minded and ignorant.

The very fact is, most of the circumstantial evidence found and observed supports a control demolition and many scientist across the globe support this.

The only scientists that do not support control demolition are mostly our government paid scientist who did a pseudo Report to fool the masses and play on everyone intelligence as if most Americans have an IQ below 70. And you consider me being narrow minded and ignorant?

Like I said. If the movement was about the truth, it's voices would not be disjointed and at odds with each other. So sad.

What is so sad is the official narrative supporters cannot support their own official conspiracy theories and have to ridicule all none believers because they cannot disprove some of the conspiracy theories, specially control demolition.

Like I said. If the movement was about the truth, it's voices would not be disjointed and at odds with each other. So sad.

So sad that very few believe most ATS members are on the 911 threads to invent lies and that most are ignorant and narrow minded as you just demonstrated. So sad indeed.

a reply to: neutronflux

You didn't say they believed in controlled demolition at the WTC.

Most Americans I have spoke with, agree demolition "could" explain the demise of the WTC.

Why must a person believe in controlled demolition to not believe the whole official narrative.

Because most Americans are not idiots and most understand the NIST Report and know it is seriously flawed.

Please start listing the pseudoscience of the NIST reports for WTC towers one and two.

Now look who is playing ignorant.

Fire collapse of WTC 7 already has survived one court case.

And what famous court case might that be?

a reply to: Informer1958

And you cannot list one bullet point of pseudoscience out of the reports.

Lies like what?

The WTC steel was sent to China with no inspection. Conspiracists lie. Steel and debris inspected at multiple sites and conspiracists try to hide the fact.

The only way iron spheres could exist were from controlled WTC demolition. Lie. Experiments and common sense of welding contamination from building construction / maintenance from all of New York proved otherwise.

Evidence of thermite in WTC dust. Lie. Proven primer and contaminates from building materials.

Jones paper was a serious peer review. Lie. From pay to play journal that bypassed editors responsible for peer review.

Most scientists support controlled demolition? Lie. If a majority of architects and engineers supported controlled demolition, then no need to form the architect and engineer group for 911 "truth".

And that list was the best conspiracists, who should be the most transparent group in the would, could come up with for how many years....

The fact that conspiracists totally ignore a court case brought to court by the insurance company to prevent payout for WTC 7 concluded fire collapse with no fault of the building owner. The strongest case the insurance company could make was fire collapse propagate by bad engineering.