Indisputable proof and evidence of explosives used on 9/11

[Fizz]

10:06: NYPD officer advises that it isn't going to take much longer before the north tower comes down and to pull emergency vehicles back from the building.

10 NYPD aviation unit reports that the tip of the tower might be leaning.

10 NYPD aviation unit reports that the north tower is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south. NYPD officer advises that all personnel close to the building pull back three blocks in every direction.

10:27: NYPD aviation unit reports that the roof is going to come down very shortly.

can someone please explain to me how explosive demolitions can cause a building to lean even before they are set off?

 

[Terral]

Hi Mr. Fizz cool with Gam cool, Ollie cool and Chris cool mentioned:

... can someone please explain to me how explosive demolitions can cause a building to lean even before they are set off?

Yes (#3). Will I? No. Why? That is easy: Only two kinds of people believe modern-day skyscrapers can collapse CD-style (my WTC-7 CD Topic) ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo"] ... Like This ...[/ame]

... from 'building fires:'

1. Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPES confused:).
2. DoD Handlers/Operatives/Assets cool: = How To Spot These Govt Stooges).

All of my 911Truth posts (sampling of my work) are drafted for the benefit of unbiased third-party readers, so they can formulate 'informed' conclusions.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD6ibU8DaFw"]Compilation WTC Explosive Reports Demolition[/ame]

However, my job is NOT to pander to the likes of DoD Govt Cover Story Stooges (How To Spot) like you. I can show you video after video after video of WTC and Pentagon "EXPLOSIONS" ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WefPzgxvfS4"]Explosions At The Pentagon[/ame]

... but how many times does the plural term "EXPLOSIONS" appear in the 911Commission Report 'and' the Arlington County After-Action Report (#10)????? The answer is ZERO!!!!! Perhaps Mr. DoD Counterintelligence/Disinformation Operative would like to explain HOW the Govt provided more than A THOUSAND PAGES of Officially SWORN testimony concerning these 9/11 INSIDE-JOB Attacks 'WITHOUT' using the term "EXPLOSIONS" even one time????!!!! No. You will never provide any answer, because you cool are here to push the Official Cover Story LIES down the throats of these readers no matter what anyone says. Right??? Of course ...

Mr. Fizz and Gam and Ollie and Chris need to start 'your' Topics explaining the EMPTY HOLE outside Shanksville (my Topic) and the EMPTY HOLE in the E-Ring Pentagon Wall (my Topic) without all of the STUPID questions ...

GL,

Terral

 

[CurveLight]

10:06: NYPD officer advises that it isn't going to take much longer before the north tower comes down and to pull emergency vehicles back from the building.

10 NYPD aviation unit reports that the tip of the tower might be leaning.

10 NYPD aviation unit reports that the north tower is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south. NYPD officer advises that all personnel close to the building pull back three blocks in every direction.

10:27: NYPD aviation unit reports that the roof is going to come down very shortly.

can someone please explain to me how explosive demolitions can cause a building to lean even before they are set off?

It may have something to do with the big jet being in an unauthorized parking space.

 

[CurveLight]

So when did they have time to lay the explosives in the offices? Truthers are as dumb as birthers.

what is truly dumb is thinking that posing the question of how the explosives were planted as if that somehow changes the evidence of controlled demolition or adds to the lack of evidence for building fires did it..

I have always found that question to be a bit silly. If explosives were used it's moot to ask how they got there as a way of denying it happened. However, up to this point I've not seen anything that confirms thermate or thermite, or another cutting agent was used.

 

[Zona]

So when did they have time to lay the explosives in the offices? Truthers are as dumb as birthers.

what is truly dumb is thinking that posing the question of how the explosives were planted as if that somehow changes the evidence of controlled demolition or adds to the lack of evidence for building fires did it..

So, since it would be impossible to bring in that amount of explosives without being seen, somehow makes it possible they were there anyway?

Here is thought, the heat from the burning jet fuel did it? Just a thought...

I heard there really weren't any planes that ran into the buildings.....that was faked as well. Just like in Washington.

 

[Fizz]

It may have something to do with the big jet being in an unauthorized parking space.

you know, i was thinking the exact same thing. i was just trying to figure out how a plane can cause a building to lean visibly but it still needs explosives to make it collapse.

 

[CurveLight]

These two new videos show absolute proof of explosives used to bring down the World Trade Center Buildings.

This footage came right from the history channel itself....



YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns

YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)

Look at this implosion in contrast to the above videos.

[ame=http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U&hl=en&gl=US&client=mv-google]YouTube - Second Tallest Building ever imploded[/ame]

Notice how material destruction in the south tower runs from top to bottom? That shows a collapse. In this video the material destruction is from the bottom up, which shows an implosion. To me, they do not look the same.

Here is another implosion video.

[ame=http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RkiwNxfB4GM&hl=en&gl=US&client=mv-google]YouTube - Successful building implosion in Fort Worth[/ame]


The charges start detonation at :34 and notice the flash locations being in the middle and upper parts of the building. Compare this video with the south tower to note material destruction patterns. Your posted video claims explosions were happening on the upper floors thus explaining disintegration. The presence of explosives is speculation but in this video we know for a fact charges were in the upper floors yet the implosion does not match up with the south tower.

Do you have any videos of known implosions that appear similar in style to the south tower?

Well it is a well know fact that the military and cia have researched and use technology far different from the general public and civilian demolition companies.

I can bring up some of these technologies later......oh......they took about an hour to determine eqactly what sequence of floors to detonate for each building.

A German Defense Minister recently was quoted as saying he believed the entire 9/11 event was orchestrated from the new Reinforced floor they spent millions on for an emergency command center in Building 7 and then destroyed the evidence.

If you want to support the claim it was a planned demo then you definitely need to show those technologies. I don't care what a Ger Def Min thinks happened unless he can demonstrate the plausibility for the claim. I can't find a single video of a building coming down that looks like the towers. As you are aware I don't accept the OCT so you cannot dismiss my objections based on position. Just because I don't buy the OCT that doesn't mean I'm ready to accept a different version to fill in the question mark.

 

[CurveLight]

It may have something to do with the big jet being in an unauthorized parking space.

you know, i was thinking the exact same thing. i was just trying to figure out how a plane can cause a building to lean visibly but it still needs explosives to make it collapse.

What I do find strange is how the top was leaning but then changed trajectory which indicates the bottom of the top piece was being pulled. What else would change the trajectory of that much weight? I'll see if I can find that particular video again.

 

[Fizz]

What I do find strange is how the top was leaning but then changed trajectory which indicates the bottom of the top piece was being pulled. What else would change the trajectory of that much weight? I'll see if I can find that particular video again.

i guess i'm not looking at the same thing you are looking at. i see one side of the building giving way and then the other side. i dont really expect the top to fall off the building to the side. its going to go down into the building. if explosives were used to change the trajectory of the top they would have to be really really REALLY big explosives. i've heard videos of the collapse from right underneath and i dont hear ANY explosives at all. demolition explosives are quite loud and would be heard clearly.

 

[Terral]

Hi Mr. Fizz:

Hi Mr. Fizz cool with Gam cool, Ollie cool and Chris cool mentioned:

... can someone please explain to me how explosive demolitions can cause a building to lean even before they are set off?

Yes (#3). Will I? No. Why? That is easy: Only two kinds of people believe modern-day skyscrapers can collapse CD-style (my WTC-7 CD Topic) ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo"] ... Like This ...[/ame]

... from 'building fires:'

1. Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPES confused:).
2. DoD Handlers/Operatives/Assets cool: = How To Spot These Govt Stooges).

All of my 911Truth posts (sampling of my work) are drafted for the benefit of unbiased third-party readers, so they can formulate 'informed' conclusions.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD6ibU8DaFw"]Compilation WTC Explosive Reports Demolition[/ame]

However, my job is NOT to pander to the likes of DoD Govt Cover Story Stooges (How To Spot) like you. I can show you video after video after video of WTC and Pentagon "EXPLOSIONS" ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WefPzgxvfS4"]Explosions At The Pentagon[/ame]

... but how many times does the plural term "EXPLOSIONS" appear in the 911Commission Report 'and' the Arlington County After-Action Report (#10)????? The answer is ZERO!!!!! Perhaps Mr. DoD Counterintelligence/Disinformation Operative would like to explain HOW the Govt provided more than A THOUSAND PAGES of Officially SWORN testimony concerning these 9/11 INSIDE-JOB Attacks 'WITHOUT' using the term "EXPLOSIONS" even one time????!!!! No. You will never provide any answer, because you cool are here to push the Official Cover Story LIES down the throats of these readers no matter what anyone says. Right??? Of course ...

Mr. Fizz and Gam and Ollie and Chris need to start 'your' Topics explaining the EMPTY HOLE outside Shanksville (my Topic) and the EMPTY HOLE in the E-Ring Pentagon Wall (my Topic) without all of the STUPID questions ...

GL,

Terral

Just continue to run your yapper cool: = ) without offering any reply to WHY the word 'explosions' was sanitized by the Govt from the 911Commission Report and the Arlington County After-Action Report (#10). Mr. Fizz is deliberately running away from the 911Truth like any typical under-trained DoD Disinformation Op.

I suppose we are to believe that these Govt Documents were corrupted by a band of these guys ...

Try sending your handler a memo . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[CurveLight]

What I do find strange is how the top was leaning but then changed trajectory which indicates the bottom of the top piece was being pulled. What else would change the trajectory of that much weight? I'll see if I can find that particular video again.

i guess i'm not looking at the same thing you are looking at. i see one side of the building giving way and then the other side. i dont really expect the top to fall off the building to the side. its going to go down into the building. if explosives were used to change the trajectory of the top they would have to be really really REALLY big explosives. i've heard videos of the collapse from right underneath and i dont hear ANY explosives at all. demolition explosives are quite loud and would be heard clearly.

We are probably looking at two different videos. You say the absence of audible explosions indicate there were no demolition packs in place. This also means the audible presence of explosions indicate the towers collapsing were helped by demo packs. For 4 years New York kept oral history evidence of explosions under lock and key. There is a dual level of importance. The first is answering why they were kept hidden? If there were no logistical secrets what is the justification? It can't be the catch all "national security" routine.

The second layer is how many testimonies claim to have heard the explosions being referenced here. These are a couple of samples:

(quotes start at 1:31)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3MG5vPoV54[/ame]

Here are some more:

"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?"
--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

This is the NYT story from over 4 years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/nyregion/12records.html?_r=1

I've seen some people dismiss explosions by saying there are many things in offices that would explode. Surely it would have to be pretty amazing for typical office equipment to explode loud enough to be heard over all the other chaos. But the main oversight is not recognizing these testimonies are not speaking of explosions strictly in the impact area of the towers. These were witnessed several to 40 stories below the plane crash. How can that be explained?

 

[Fizz]

I've seen some people dismiss explosions by saying there are many things in offices that would explode. Surely it would have to be pretty amazing for typical office equipment to explode loud enough to be heard over all the other chaos. But the main oversight is not recognizing these testimonies are not speaking of explosions strictly in the impact area of the towers. These were witnessed several to 40 stories below the plane crash. How can that be explained?

i think most people are describing a building collapse in the best terms they have. what does a 110 story building falling down sound like? a football game? a freight train (closer, but not really), an explosion??

watch and listen to this. where are the explosions?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc[/ame]

watch the corner of the building buckle with NO EXPLOSIONS.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYnUyx4kw8[/ame]

this is what REAL building demolitions sound like. do you hear any similarity at all?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ[/ame]

 

[eots]

I've seen some people dismiss explosions by saying there are many things in offices that would explode. Surely it would have to be pretty amazing for typical office equipment to explode loud enough to be heard over all the other chaos. But the main oversight is not recognizing these testimonies are not speaking of explosions strictly in the impact area of the towers. These were witnessed several to 40 stories below the plane crash. How can that be explained?

i think most people are describing a building collapse in the best terms they have. what does a 110 story building falling down sound like? a football game? a freight train (closer, but not really), an explosion??

watch and listen to this. where are the explosions?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc[/ame]

thats funny at the 4 sec mark about 20 floors down note the huge squid ejecting from the building...nice clip

 

[Tom Clancy]

I think this pretty much clears it up..

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_c1tPMiG0&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo&feature=channel[/ame]

 

[Gamolon]

As you are aware I don't accept the OCT so you cannot dismiss my objections based on position. Just because I don't buy the OCT that doesn't mean I'm ready to accept a different version to fill in the question mark.

So you think they are lying when it comes to the explanations of what happened to the Twin Towers, WTC7, etc.?

Let's make this easy and discuss one aspect of the theories. Do you think WTC7 came down due to fires, thermal expansion, and weakening of steel members?

 

[Gamolon]

thats funny at the 4 sec mark about 20 floors down note the huge squid ejecting from the building...nice clip

Please tell us eots, what caused that "squid"?

 

[Gamolon]

What I do find strange is how the top was leaning but then changed trajectory which indicates the bottom of the top piece was being pulled. What else would change the trajectory of that much weight? I'll see if I can find that particular video again.

i guess i'm not looking at the same thing you are looking at. i see one side of the building giving way and then the other side. i dont really expect the top to fall off the building to the side. its going to go down into the building. if explosives were used to change the trajectory of the top they would have to be really really REALLY big explosives. i've heard videos of the collapse from right underneath and i dont hear ANY explosives at all. demolition explosives are quite loud and would be heard clearly.

We are probably looking at two different videos. You say the absence of audible explosions indicate there were no demolition packs in place. This also means the audible presence of explosions indicate the towers collapsing were helped by demo packs. For 4 years New York kept oral history evidence of explosions under lock and key. There is a dual level of importance. The first is answering why they were kept hidden? If there were no logistical secrets what is the justification? It can't be the catch all "national security" routine.

The second layer is how many testimonies claim to have heard the explosions being referenced here. These are a couple of samples:

(quotes start at 1:31)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3MG5vPoV54[/ame]

Here are some more:

"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?"
--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

This is the NYT story from over 4 years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/nyregion/12records.html?_r=1

I've seen some people dismiss explosions by saying there are many things in offices that would explode. Surely it would have to be pretty amazing for typical office equipment to explode loud enough to be heard over all the other chaos. But the main oversight is not recognizing these testimonies are not speaking of explosions strictly in the impact area of the towers. These were witnessed several to 40 stories below the plane crash. How can that be explained?

So I guess when people describe a tornado going through their town as "sounding like a freight train", people on the scene need to start looking for tracks and a caboose right?

 

[CurveLight]

I've seen some people dismiss explosions by saying there are many things in offices that would explode. Surely it would have to be pretty amazing for typical office equipment to explode loud enough to be heard over all the other chaos. But the main oversight is not recognizing these testimonies are not speaking of explosions strictly in the impact area of the towers. These were witnessed several to 40 stories below the plane crash. How can that be explained?

i think most people are describing a building collapse in the best terms they have. what does a 110 story building falling down sound like? a football game? a freight train (closer, but not really), an explosion??

watch and listen to this. where are the explosions?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc[/ame]

watch the corner of the building buckle with NO EXPLOSIONS.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYnUyx4kw8[/ame]

this is what REAL building demolitions sound like. do you hear any similarity at all?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ[/ame]

Did you offer an explanation why those testimonies were kept locked up?

Your dismissal of these testimonies as being of those who are describing a building falling overlooks a couple of things. The first is you claimed the absence of audible explosions support the claim no dem packs were used. Here it is provided first hand accounts of those audible explosions and somehow they don't matter? The second is these are survivors. That means they were able to get away fast enough to survive the collapses. By video we know how long it took for the towers to come down. How many seconds did that give for people to reach a safe zone? That means your explanation they were only hearing the towers come down is suspect. Also look closer at the testimonies...these are professionals who are aware of explosions and gave great detail. It's not like Aunt Mae from Accounting confusing it for a movie soundbite.

 

[CurveLight]

i guess i'm not looking at the same thing you are looking at. i see one side of the building giving way and then the other side. i dont really expect the top to fall off the building to the side. its going to go down into the building. if explosives were used to change the trajectory of the top they would have to be really really REALLY big explosives. i've heard videos of the collapse from right underneath and i dont hear ANY explosives at all. demolition explosives are quite loud and would be heard clearly.

We are probably looking at two different videos. You say the absence of audible explosions indicate there were no demolition packs in place. This also means the audible presence of explosions indicate the towers collapsing were helped by demo packs. For 4 years New York kept oral history evidence of explosions under lock and key. There is a dual level of importance. The first is answering why they were kept hidden? If there were no logistical secrets what is the justification? It can't be the catch all "national security" routine.

The second layer is how many testimonies claim to have heard the explosions being referenced here. These are a couple of samples:

(quotes start at 1:31)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3MG5vPoV54[/ame]

Here are some more:

"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?"
--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

This is the NYT story from over 4 years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/nyregion/12records.html?_r=1

I've seen some people dismiss explosions by saying there are many things in offices that would explode. Surely it would have to be pretty amazing for typical office equipment to explode loud enough to be heard over all the other chaos. But the main oversight is not recognizing these testimonies are not speaking of explosions strictly in the impact area of the towers. These were witnessed several to 40 stories below the plane crash. How can that be explained?

So I guess when people describe a tornado going through their town as "sounding like a freight train", people on the scene need to start looking for tracks and a caboose right?

Was that your entry into the "Dumbest fucking question" contest?

The testimonies are from professionals....firefighters....cops.....emts.

I see you didn't even attempt to answer why the testimonies were kept locked up.

 

[CurveLight]

As you are aware I don't accept the OCT so you cannot dismiss my objections based on position. Just because I don't buy the OCT that doesn't mean I'm ready to accept a different version to fill in the question mark.

So you think they are lying when it comes to the explanations of what happened to the Twin Towers, WTC7, etc.?

Let's make this easy and discuss one aspect of the theories. Do you think WTC7 came down due to fires, thermal expansion, and weakening of steel members?

What part do you not understand when I say I don't know what happened? See, this is the obsession problem of OCTAs. They don't know how to discuss the matter unless they can work from their preconceived conclusion backwards. What is very odd about WTC 7 is it took about 7 YEARS to explain how it came down. That doesn't make any sense. It also proves the claim that the 9EC is a "full report" of that day is bullshit. That report was published FOUR YEARS before WTC 7 was officially explained.