Proof of bombs used and evidence hid 9/11

[creativedreams]

The FBI should never have allowed all the crime scene evidence to be quickly cleaned up and all the evidence to be quickly shipped to China...

Let's see how many live news interviews, witness accounts, etc. we can post to bombs and explosives being used to bring down Building 7, WTC1, WTC2 on 9/11!

Bush appointed his personal friend Frank Gayle to lead the NIST Report investigation of the collapse of the buildings. The researchers of the NIST Report were specifically told to NOT factor in the possible use of explosives when trying to explain the collapses.

Kevin Ryan who represented the "Underwriters Union" which is the company that certifies the steel components in the Twin Towers flat out told Frank Gayle head of the NIST Report that "the report is WRONG and the TOWERS SHOULD HAVE EASILY STOOD"!

Kevin Ryan lost his job and is now part of the 9/11 Truth Movement...

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i06RAC6YprI[/nomedia]

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTfMzCXhz1k[/nomedia]

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1BlJ-gC6Js[/nomedia]

 

[creativedreams]

[nomedia]http://youtube.com/watch?v=S2GIAIV3inM[/nomedia]

[nomedia]http://youtube.com/watch?v=edO4r9zIufc[/nomedia]

Here are a couple more good vids

 

[creativedreams]

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM[/nomedia]

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX9gdRST6zM[/nomedia]

 

[ADK_Forever]

Wake up and smell the coffee. It smells better than those conspiracy theories.

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0[/nomedia]


[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0[/nomedia]


If videos ain't yer thang, read: Controlled demolition -Debunk 9/11 Myths

Controlled demolition?
Claim

Steven E. Jones and other so-called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" have purported that the impact of aircraft hitting the World Trade Center and the resulting fires were insufficient to cause the collapse of the World Trade Center. They argue that pre-planted explosives must have been used to cause controlled demoltion and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers.
Fact

* The collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers initiated where the planes hit the buildings. Controlled demolitions always are initiated at the bottom of a building, to take advantage of maximum gravity forces.

* If the World Trade Center collapsed due to controlled demolition, as the theory goes, the explosive charges would have had to survive the crash of airplanes into the buildings. (at ~500 miles per hour)

* When a controlled demolition occurs, you hear the very loud and very distinct sound of the charges going off. These will repeatedly go off, in a quick, regular pattern, for 10+ seconds prior to the structure collapsing. While some people heard what "sounded like an explosion" at the World Trade Center, this is not what they heard or described. Nor is any such sound of demolition charges going off heard in any videos of the collapse.

* The detonations in a controlled demolition go off in a very regular pattern, not at all like the random squibs seen on 9/11. Those squibs are the result of pockets of air (the building is ~70% air in volume) being collapsed, with pulverized gypsum (drywall) and other material being forced out.

* Blasting caps, detonating cord, and other such evidence were not found in the World Trade Center debris.

 

[Polynikes]

I don't see how any of this equates to proof. Interviewing people about their experiences after a traumatic event has been proven to be so unreliable I am surprised it is still admissible in court. Research how many people have been proven wrong when they were absolutely sure they saw a U.F.O.

Factor in quote mining and taking statements completely out of context and you venture even further from the definition of proof.

When looked at objectively and having taken into account a number of possibilities, this theory just doesn't appear logical or probable.

I have yet to see anything that is even slightly bizarre enough concerning the 'use of thermite or explosives theory' for me to conclude that there is reason to believe that explosives were in fact used. I will admit at first the collapse of WTC 7 had me wondering, but if you do proper research and gather enough factual information outside of 'OMG XPL0SIVES IN WTC' Youtube videos there is a reason it fell in the manner it did.

When questioning things of such a magnitude it is important to be self aware and remain objective to avoid leaning towards your believes or agenda prior to any investigation. For example, it would be hard for any parent to believe their child had committed a murder, but when they are standing over the body with the knife if their hand, you have to face the facts, no matter how much you might not like them.


A conspiracy theorists most prized, and false argument is one which resorts back to the premise that the inability to prove the most probable explanation correct and a conspiracy false somehow implies that there was indeed a conspiracy. This is simply not the case.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Proof?

Hardly my friend.

 

[BmanMcfly]

The only problem with the idea of 'molten aluminum' is the color... you can melt aluminum and still have it with a 'silvery' colour.

The PROOF is in the PHYSICS of the collapse.

Do this yourself so you don't have to take my word for it:

1 - Search 'controlled demolition' video
2 - Find the stats on that particular building (most important heigh / number of floors
3 - Count the time from the initiation of collapse (the second that the building begins to fall inward) and stiop counting once the rumbling stops (since dust will prevent you from seeing this moment)
4 - Do the same with either WTC building
5 - Now calculate the rate of collapse (distance / seconds or floors / second)
6 - Compare the results from a KNOWN controlled demolition vs a 9-11 demolition

This result is PROOF that the WTC REQUIRED explosives to collapse ... WHy?

Conservation of energy : All the energy used in a 'system' is constant. In the example of 9-11 the energy = Gravity - energy pushin outwar - friction from pushing THROUGH the solid untouched structure found in at least 80 stories of the building. Whereas a controlled demolition would have Energy = Gravity + explosives - friction (which would have been reduced through the use of explosives)

So, if the 2 rates of collapse are the same (Or comparable even) then you have proven through the use of physics that there is no real way the WTC buildings COULD have collapsed withuot wither a hidden force pushind down on the wtc buildins, or a hidden force pushing debris outward.

Since the dream pool tends to ignore this point repeatedly I don't expect a rebuttal for this, buit still.... here it is AGAIN for you to ignore.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The only problem with the idea of 'molten aluminum' is the color... you can melt aluminum and still have it with a 'silvery' colour.

The PROOF is in the PHYSICS of the collapse.

Do this yourself so you don't have to take my word for it:

1 - Search 'controlled demolition' video
2 - Find the stats on that particular building (most important heigh / number of floors
3 - Count the time from the initiation of collapse (the second that the building begins to fall inward) and stiop counting once the rumbling stops (since dust will prevent you from seeing this moment)
4 - Do the same with either WTC building
5 - Now calculate the rate of collapse (distance / seconds or floors / second)
6 - Compare the results from a KNOWN controlled demolition vs a 9-11 demolition

This result is PROOF that the WTC REQUIRED explosives to collapse ... WHy?

Conservation of energy : All the energy used in a 'system' is constant. In the example of 9-11 the energy = Gravity - energy pushin outwar - friction from pushing THROUGH the solid untouched structure found in at least 80 stories of the building. Whereas a controlled demolition would have Energy = Gravity + explosives - friction (which would have been reduced through the use of explosives)

So, if the 2 rates of collapse are the same (Or comparable even) then you have proven through the use of physics that there is no real way the WTC buildings COULD have collapsed withuot wither a hidden force pushind down on the wtc buildins, or a hidden force pushing debris outward.

Since the dream pool tends to ignore this point repeatedly I don't expect a rebuttal for this, buit still.... here it is AGAIN for you to ignore.

Already refuted.

Kevin Ryan who represented the "Underwriters Union" which is the company that certifies the steel components in the Twin Towers flat out told Frank Gayle head of the NIST Report that "the report is WRONG and the TOWERS SHOULD HAVE EASILY STOOD"!

Kevin Ryan lost his job and is now part of the 9/11 Truth Movement...

See this thread.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Already refuted.

I never said 'fell at free fall speeds' I said Speed compared to speed because even controlled demolitions do NOT fall at free-fall speeds because of the minuses in the equation.

See this thread.

[/quote]

This point is irrelevent since the physics of the collapse states in no uncertain terms that either some hidden force was pushing towards the earth, or pushing outward, or that there were explosives in the building to do that.... so, if you'd rather believe in magic, that's you're prerogative. I prefer to live in the world of reality... and the reality of the matter is that a building collapsing @ 0.05 seconds per floor THROUGH the steel structure is the rate of collapse you would expect if the only resistance pushing through a destroyed structure.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

I never said 'fell at free fall speeds' I said Speed compared to speed because even controlled demolitions do NOT fall at free-fall speeds because of the minuses in the equation.

You should probably read the thread or at least the OP instead of just the thread title.

 

[creativedreams]

Already refuted.



See this thread.

Yeah I should have not used Kevin Ryans name because there are many more credible people who say 9/11 was a made up scheme.

I knew you would only focus on discrediting him instead of seeing the contents of the countless witnesses that heard, felt, saw, and survived other bombs going off.

These tons of witnesses are only one point I am making to show that there should have been a thorough investigation at the crime scene.

Of all crimes why would they have illegally cleaned up one of the most significantly important ever and quickly ship to China.

 

[BmanMcfly]

You should probably read the thread or at least the OP instead of just the thread title.

Ya... I posted in that thread throughout the discussion.... the numbers the OP in that thread provided was 15 and 22 seconds (or 6 and 11 seconds of resistance / friction / slowing the collapse down compared to free-fall without friction)

Which means in 110 stories between 0.05 and 0.1 seconds of resistance per floor... when I calculated the rate of collapse and figured out those numbers in a known controlled demolition guess what I came up with ?? the result was 0.08 seconds per floor of resistance (after explosives took out the structural elements).

So, yes... I catch your point... but it proves NOTHING.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Yeah I should have not used Kevin Ryans name because there are many more credible people who say 9/11 was a made up scheme.

I knew you would only focus on discrediting him instead of seeing the contents of the countless witnesses that heard, felt, saw, and survived other bombs going off.

These tons of witnesses are only one point I am making to show that there should have been a thorough investigation at the crime scene.

Of all crimes why would they have illegally cleaned up one of the most significantly important ever and quickly ship to China.

Ya.... during bush it was all about discrediting the person rather than the argument... now, with Obama it's alot easier : You think 9-11 was an inside job because you don't like black people.

 

[creativedreams]

Here is a very detailed video that explains with physics, math, and clear graphs that proves the Towers were a controlled demolition...

It is right here on the front page of this Australian website that says the U.S.A. manipulated 9/11

911oz - Australian 9/11 Truth Movement

 

[Polynikes]

I never said 'fell at free fall speeds' I said Speed compared to speed because even controlled demolitions do NOT fall at free-fall speeds because of the minuses in the equation.

This point is irrelevent since the physics of the collapse states in no uncertain terms that either some hidden force was pushing towards the earth, or pushing outward, or that there were explosives in the building to do that.... so, if you'd rather believe in magic, that's you're prerogative. I prefer to live in the world of reality... and the reality of the matter is that a building collapsing @ 0.05 seconds per floor THROUGH the steel structure is the rate of collapse you would expect if the only resistance pushing through a destroyed structure.

So given this, are you saying that every floor was rigged with explosives? I always thought that the theory was that the core was rigged and the weight of the floors without the structural integrity caused the collapse and brought down the structure. What you are saying is that the resistance of the floors wasn't equal to what they would have been had explosives not been used

Is this correct? I am not trying to use a strawman argument, just seeing if I understand you.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Ya... I posted in that thread throughout the discussion.... the numbers the OP in that thread provided was 15 and 22 seconds (or 6 and 11 seconds of resistance / friction / slowing the collapse down compared to free-fall without friction)

Which means in 110 stories between 0.05 and 0.1 seconds of resistance per floor... when I calculated the rate of collapse and figured out those numbers in a known controlled demolition guess what I came up with ?? the result was 0.08 seconds per floor of resistance (after explosives took out the structural elements).

So, yes... I catch your point... but it proves NOTHING.

Now I remember why I stopped posting about this; because you dismiss irrefutable evidence when presented, and are unable to construct coherent posts.:doh

 

[BmanMcfly]

So given this, are you saying that every floor was rigged with explosives? I always thought that the theory was that the core was rigged and the weight of the floors without the structural integrity caused the collapse and brought down the structure. What you are saying is that the resistance of the floors wasn't equal to what they would have been had explosives not been used

Is this correct? I am not trying to use a strawman argument, just seeing if I understand you.

Now, the official version states that gravity was the ONLY force contained within the 'system' of the collapse. G = 9.87 m/ s^2. Since many of the actual equations involved in calculating resistance almost requires computers to analyze, you can use other methods to derive the other factors like friction... Example : You can calculate the length of time it would take for an object to drop the height of the towers without resistance, now if you take the speed observed the difference of the two is the factor of resistance averaged out over the duration of the collapse.

So, in simple terms : If the rate of collapse using the energy of G alone is equal to the energy in a controlled demolition (G + explosives) and end up with the same resistance factor (or less) then you know there is a flaw in your equation since G CANNOT = G+E UNLESS the explosives were really present.

That's all said WITHOUT speculating on what initiated the collapse, OR the steps required to make it happen... all I'm showing is that something was done to take down the WTC buildings above and beyond gravity acting alone... that video creative linked to comes to the same conclusion using a different method of solving the problem.

We're talking the most basic applications of the rules of physics here... as I've said, it's all in the section of physics called Newtonian mechanics.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Now I remember why I stopped posting about this; because you dismiss irrefutable evidence when presented, and are unable to construct coherent posts.:doh

Because proving that the collapse took longer than free-fall speed without even attempting to consider friction in any form is fallacy and/or strawman in itself.

I'm sorry that in dumbing down what I'm saying is still somewhat complicated... or attempting to reiterate the point that you're missing. Especially when I USED your 'irrefutable evidence' to prove my point... what more do you want??

Ya... sorry that talking about 'science' and 'physics' makes things sound 'incoherent' but I've tried 20 different ways to explain the same point that you keep adding 'irrefutable evidence' that is irrelevent to the point at hand. I'm done with speculating on the how it happened... when the point of the matter is that it happened, and the official version of events doesn't even make sense on a level that even a high school student could figure out.

That's even to go without mention that Cheney was involved in the creation of the document that called for these attacks to take place, that other similar government documents describe a similar means to a similar end, without getting into any 'theory' of how this was achieved...

 

[Bodi]

Am I the only one that missed the "Proof"?

 

[Bodi]

Because proving that the collapse took longer than free-fall speed without even attempting to consider friction in any form is fallacy and/or strawman in itself.

I'm sorry that in dumbing down what I'm saying is still somewhat complicated... or attempting to reiterate the point that you're missing. Especially when I USED your 'irrefutable evidence' to prove my point... what more do you want??

Ya... sorry that talking about 'science' and 'physics' makes things sound 'incoherent' but I've tried 20 different ways to explain the same point that you keep adding 'irrefutable evidence' that is irrelevent to the point at hand. I'm done with speculating on the how it happened... when the point of the matter is that it happened, and the official version of events doesn't even make sense on a level that even a high school student could figure out.

That's even to go without mention that Cheney was involved in the creation of the document that called for these attacks to take place, that other similar government documents describe a similar means to a similar end, without getting into any 'theory' of how this was achieved...

problem is that you have never proven anything regarding your case, you take a ton of circumstantial stuff and toss around some numbers and say "THERE!"

 

[Moon]

Am I the only one that missed the "Proof"?

You have to be smart enough to understand it. I don't qualify either.

 

[Bodi]

You have to be smart enough to understand it. I don't qualify either.

I must be severely limited then, not only did I not understand it, I didn't even see it. :shock:

 

[Moon]

I must be severely limited then, not only did I not understand it, I didn't even see it. :shock:

yeah, that means you're dumber than a box full of hair. Oh well, we always have our twilight years to look forward to, watching reruns of Gilligan's Island and drooling on ourselves.

 

[Bodi]

yeah, that means you're dumber than a box full of hair. Oh well, we always have our twilight years to look forward to, watching reruns of Gilligan's Island and drooling on ourselves.

If it was Einsteins hair, I would be OK with it, but really, what are the chances of that.

 

[BmanMcfly]

problem is that you have never proven anything regarding your case, you take a ton of circumstantial stuff and toss around some numbers and say "THERE!"

I should have expected that as a response.... I've posted the same thing about 50 times and it always gets ignored, and short of copying and pasting the same response over and over I merely explain it in more simple ways...

The PROOF is in the PHYSICS of the collapse.

Do this yourself so you don't have to take my word for it:

1 - Search 'controlled demolition' video
2 - Find the stats on that particular building (most important heigh / number of floors
3 - Count the time from the initiation of collapse (the second that the building begins to fall inward) and stiop counting once the rumbling stops (since dust will prevent you from seeing this moment)
4 - Do the same with either WTC building
5 - Now calculate the rate of collapse (distance / seconds or floors / second)
6 - Compare the results from a KNOWN controlled demolition vs a 9-11 demolition

This result is PROOF that the WTC REQUIRED explosives to collapse ... WHy?

What part doesn't make sense?? Let's say you have a 55 story building that, in a controlled demolition takes 8 seconds when the rate at free-fall would be 6 seconds.... you could say that the resistance level of this collapse was 2 seconds / 55 floors. Which makes sense because even with much of the building having its structure blown out, there is still a resistance factor, because friction applies to EVERYTHING falling down. Then, you take a 110 storey buildings that collapse in 12 and 22 seconds respectively (I would argue 19 seconds, but lets stick with the provided time for the sake of argument) when the free-fall drop time in a vacuum would be 9.8 seconds we're talking about 3 or 13 seconds of collapse time respectively over that 110 storey distance... we're talking about 3 - 6 / 110 or resistance factors that go from negligable to 0.1 seconds per floor of a collapse rate...

The thing is that for 80 floors or so the second building collapsed through gravity alone in what amounts to a multi-million tons of concrete and structural steel that somehow offered as much or only slightly less resistance than a building that was known to have been taken down by explosives....

It's not so hard to understand either that pulverized concrete = MASSIVE resistance = Drastic reduction in accellaration or even deceleration. Also, debris getting pushed OUTWARD means that Gravitational downward energy was transferred into outward energy, another factor reducing speed or accelleration.... and we're not talking in the negligable numbers either.

These are based off principles of physics that are known enough that they go as far as calling them LAWS of physics.... so the challenge remains take a few minutes if you don't believe me, it's not hard to find the videos with youtube to calculate the collapse rates of other known demolitions as well as any angle you could ever want of the WTC buildings. From there it's just a matter of finding the appropriate calculation and you can see for it yourself without me having to tell you. Hell, I even go as far as telling you to not take my word for it on the laws of physics... there are books for that too, or even google searches. The fact of the matter is, once you see how the energy involved doesn't add up in the official version based on observable information means that either they are too stupid to realize their mistake or the dream pool is too stupid to question the 'experts'.

And I'm not even talking 'einstein' level physics... I'm talking about highschool level math and the laws of conservation of energy, part of newtonian mechanics chapter in a physics book.