Indisputable proof and evidence of explosives used on 9/11

[creativedreams]

What is very odd about WTC 7 is it took about 7 YEARS to explain how it came down.

Exactly......why did it take them 7 YEARS to explain the building collapses?

That is because they had to figure out how to re-write physics.

Even a Physicist that worked for NASA for almost 30yrs said:... "seeing the huge pyroclastic cloud of pulverized concrete dust and the massive structural members being hurled horizontally leaves no doubt in my mind the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives."

Seven Senior Engineers say NIST Reprort re-writes physics:
Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9-11 Investigation

Here is a simple comprehensive example that depicts how the NIST investigation went when Bush appointed his personal friend to head the NIST Report and collapse investigation.

The Administration specifically instructed him to NOT look at the possibility in explosives in the collapses....even though there are countless witnesses live on the news who heard many explosions.

 

[Fizz]

What is very odd about WTC 7 is it took about 7 YEARS to explain how it came down.

Exactly......why did it take them 7 YEARS to explain the building collapses?

That is because they had to figure out how to re-write physics.

Even a Physicist that worked for NASA for almost 30yrs said:... "seeing the huge pyroclastic cloud of pulverized concrete dust and the massive structural members being hurled horizontally leaves no doubt in my mind the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives."

dont you think if they were going to wire a building with explosives they would have at least have an excuse in place already as to how it collapsed? sorry to inject logic into the conversations again.

so does the NASA physicist that thinks volcanoes had something to do with the WTC collapse explain how a 4 story high bulge appears in a building BEFORE the explosives are used?

 

[Gamolon]

What part do you not understand when I say I don't know what happened?

If you don't know what happened then why do you refer to the explanations as OCT and Bush Lies?

Sounds to me like you've made up your mind already. I don't see you vehemently debating the mistakes and crappy arguments of the other theories out there like you do the OCT.

Why is that?

I mean, you are trying to find the truth right? Why the bias? Why do you refer to something that you admit don't know what happened with terms like Bush Lies and OCT?

 

[eots]

What is very odd about WTC 7 is it took about 7 YEARS to explain how it came down.

Exactly......why did it take them 7 YEARS to explain the building collapses?

That is because they had to figure out how to re-write physics.

Even a Physicist that worked for NASA for almost 30yrs said:... "seeing the huge pyroclastic cloud of pulverized concrete dust and the massive structural members being hurled horizontally leaves no doubt in my mind the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives."

dont you think if they were going to wire a building with explosives they would have at least have an excuse in place already as to how it collapsed? sorry to inject logic into the conversations again.

so does the NASA physicist that thinks volcanoes had something to do with the WTC collapse explain how a 4 story high bulge appears in a building BEFORE the explosives are used?

`your volcano question is simply retarded and disingenuous and I'm not going to waste time posting were the term is used for man-made explosions..but it is..as far as you second question the fact is they never counted on the emergence of the the Internet and the coming together of all these brilliant minds..as much as debunkers like to pretend if not for us building 7 would of almost gone unnoticed by the masses..as well as the flaws pancake collapse theory that many uniformed debunkers still spout
in thew days of jfk people had to travel like salesman from town to town
with there slide shows to a few hundred people and research was difficult
and time consuming...the power Internet caught them of guard

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Exactly......why did it take them 7 YEARS to explain the building collapses?

That is because they had to figure out how to re-write physics.

Even a Physicist that worked for NASA for almost 30yrs said:... "seeing the huge pyroclastic cloud of pulverized concrete dust and the massive structural members being hurled horizontally leaves no doubt in my mind the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives."

dont you think if they were going to wire a building with explosives they would have at least have an excuse in place already as to how it collapsed? sorry to inject logic into the conversations again.

so does the NASA physicist that thinks volcanoes had something to do with the WTC collapse explain how a 4 story high bulge appears in a building BEFORE the explosives are used?

`your volcano question is simply retarded and disingenuous and I'm not going to waste time posting were the term is used for man-made explosions..but it is..as far as you second question the fact is they never counted on the emergence of the the Internet and the coming together of all these brilliant minds..as much as debunkers like to pretend if not for us building 7 would of almost gone unnoticed by the masses..as well as the flaws pancake collapse theory that many uniformed debunkers still spout
in thew days of jfk people had to travel like salesman from town to town
with there slide shows to a few hundred people and research was difficult
and time consuming...the power Internet caught them of guard

excellent,very well put. anybody with any sense of logic or common sense would see that.i was about to say the same thing,you beat me to the punch.

 

[Fizz]

as far as you second question the fact is they never counted on the emergence of the the Internet and the coming together of all these brilliant minds..as much as debunkers like to pretend if not for us building 7 would of almost gone unnoticed by the masses..as well as the flaws pancake collapse theory that many uniformed debunkers still spout
in thew days of jfk people had to travel like salesman from town to town
with there slide shows to a few hundred people and research was difficult
and time consuming...the power Internet caught them of guard

sometimes i think you are logical and intelligent and then you go and blow it by saying things like this.

in september of 2001 the internet was in over 50% of american households. oh, and this is FROM THE GOVERNMENT. Computer and Internet Use in the United States: September 2001

 

[Christophera]

What is very odd about WTC 7 is it took about 7 YEARS to explain how it came down.

Exactly......why did it take them 7 YEARS to explain the building collapses?

That is because they had to figure out how to re-write physics.

Even a Physicist that worked for NASA for almost 30yrs said:... "seeing the huge pyroclastic cloud of pulverized concrete dust and the massive structural members being hurled horizontally leaves no doubt in my mind the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives."

dont you think if they were going to wire a building with explosives they would have at least have an excuse in place already as to how it collapsed? sorry to inject logic into the conversations again.

The final OCT theatre of collapse analysis actually provides an estimate of how much high explosives would be required, and a statement identifying a concrete core. The notion of collapse is illogically supported by assuming the explosives could not be planted.

Note, this is the 3rd revision and has been removed from the civil.northwestern.edu website.


Collapse of World Trade Center Towers:
What Did and Did Not Cause It?
Zdenek P. Bazant 6/21/07
1, Hon.M. ASCE, Jia-Liang Le
2, Frank R. Greening
3, and David B. Benson
4, Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center towers. However, it has not been checked whether the allegations of controlled demolition by planted explosives have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse agrees with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but disproves the free fall hypothesis (on which the aforementioned allegations rest). Although, due to absence of experimental crushing data for the lightweight concrete used, the theory of comminution cannot predict the size range of pulverized concrete particles, it is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm – 0.1 mm) is fully consistent with this theory and is achievable by collapse driven gravity alone, and that only about 7% of the total gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy of impacts would have sufficed to pulverize all the concrete slabs and core walls (while at least 158 tons of TNT per tower, installed into many small holes drilled into each concrete floor slab and core wall, would have been needed to produce the same degree of pulverization). The exit speed of air ejected from the building by the crushing front of gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, 465 mph (208 m/s) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and glass fragments, and shows that the lower margin of dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and air ejection, neglected in previous studies, are found to be negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down (these forces extended the crush-down duration by about 4%; they augmented, by about 25%, the resisting force due to column buckling at the end of crush-down, and doubled that force at the beginning of crush-up). The calculated crush down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration is found to be in conflict.


Zdenek P. Bazant et. al, 6/21/07 revision

http://algoxy.com/psych/images2/00 WTC Collapse - Wha#558C6.pdf



Clearly, if Bazant of the OCT coverup scam, revises 3 times, finally including an estimate of the equivialnt amount of explosives needed as well as a comprehensive structural description, then the revision is REMOVED, then a NASA scientist says there were explosives, there were very likely explosives used.

Concrete can be easily fractured to fall freely by a small amount of properly placed explosives, steel cannot.

 

[Fizz]

Note, this is the 3rd revision and has been removed from the civil.northwestern.edu website.
Clearly, if Bazant of the OCT coverup scam, revises 3 times, finally including an estimate of the equivialnt amount of explosives needed as well as a comprehensive structural description, then the revision is REMOVED, then a NASA scientist says there were explosives, there were very likely explosives used.

Concrete can be easily fractured to fall freely by a small amount of properly placed explosives, steel cannot.

wait a second. your proof that explosives were used was that northwestern university updated their website?

HAHAHAHAhahahahahaha holy shit!! thats fucking funny!!!!

oh my god.... if your nose were upside down you would drown in the rain....

 

[CurveLight]

What is very odd about WTC 7 is it took about 7 YEARS to explain how it came down.

Exactly......why did it take them 7 YEARS to explain the building collapses?

That is because they had to figure out how to re-write physics.

Even a Physicist that worked for NASA for almost 30yrs said:... "seeing the huge pyroclastic cloud of pulverized concrete dust and the massive structural members being hurled horizontally leaves no doubt in my mind the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives."

dont you think if they were going to wire a building with explosives they would have at least have an excuse in place already as to how it collapsed? sorry to inject logic into the conversations again.

so does the NASA physicist that thinks volcanoes had something to do with the WTC collapse explain how a 4 story high bulge appears in a building BEFORE the explosives are used?

The lack of a quick explanation does not preclude the possibility of demo packs. You keep creating your own questions and answering them in the same post then use those answers to claim a logical conclusion. If it was some type of false flag I seriously doubt the planners would have brought in NIST and FEMA officials. All covert ops focus on keeping the number of players at a minimum.

 

[CurveLight]

What part do you not understand when I say I don't know what happened?

If you don't know what happened then why do you refer to the explanations as OCT and Bush Lies?

Sounds to me like you've made up your mind already. I don't see you vehemently debating the mistakes and crappy arguments of the other theories out there like you do the OCT.

Why is that?

I mean, you are trying to find the truth right? Why the bias? Why do you refer to something that you admit don't know what happened with terms like Bush Lies and OCT?

Where did I say "Bush Lies?" I don't remember using that term but I see you constantly attributing it to me in more than one thread. I refer to it as the OCT because that is exactly what it is. The bush admin's official explanation is 9E was a conspiracy committed by radical muslims. It is a theory because it has never been proven true as demonstrated by a huge array of experts, first responders, and many families of the victims.


Then you claim your assessment of how I spend my time discussing the issue is proof of bias? Lol. Look at my first responses in this thread where I posted videos of imploding buildings as evidence against the op claims. Who the fuck do you think you are to claim to know my mind based on your foggy ass observations? I don't need to debate every theory that's against the OCT and that is a waste of time that only impedes seeking the most reliable information.

 

[Christophera]

Note, this is the 3rd revision and has been removed from the civil.northwestern.edu website.
Clearly, if Bazant of the OCT coverup scam, revises 3 times, finally including an estimate of the equivialnt amount of explosives needed as well as a comprehensive structural description, then the revision is REMOVED, then a NASA scientist says there were explosives, there were very likely explosives used.

Concrete can be easily fractured to fall freely by a small amount of properly placed explosives, steel cannot.

wait a second. your proof that explosives were used was that northwestern university updated their website?

Whoa, MISREPRESENTING my post.

Bazant et. al who has been providing the matehmatical analysis for NIST since 2004(?), revised their report for the 3rd time.

northwestern university REMOVED the revision from their website.

You are busted pretending to be confused AGENT

I explained the logical perspective where Bazant asummed the explosives could not be placed then indebtified the concrete core. You are not logical or accountable and have no evidence for anything

 

[Tom Clancy]

For those who refuse to argue science or common sense with people incapable of understanding it. We know about your "questions." We know about "Loose Change." We've attempted intelligent conversation with you and have come to a conclusion:

You, my friend, are an idiot.

Your sources are fake, your sources' information is fake, and all of your logic is fake.

Maybe conspiracies make you feel like a potential martyr, maybe they allow you to project your failures on the government, maybe you just like the challenge of arguing a controversial point.

Maybe the education system is as bad as people say it is.

Free speech is awesome, but for fuck-sake, shut up.

 

[Fizz]

Note, this is the 3rd revision and has been removed from the civil.northwestern.edu website.
Clearly, if Bazant of the OCT coverup scam, revises 3 times, finally including an estimate of the equivialnt amount of explosives needed as well as a comprehensive structural description, then the revision is REMOVED, then a NASA scientist says there were explosives, there were very likely explosives used.

Concrete can be easily fractured to fall freely by a small amount of properly placed explosives, steel cannot.

wait a second. your proof that explosives were used was that northwestern university updated their website?

Whoa, MISREPRESENTING my post.

Bazant et. al who has been providing the matehmatical analysis for NIST since 2004(?), revised their report for the 3rd time.

northwestern university REMOVED the revision from their website.

You are busted pretending to be confused AGENT

I explained the logical perspective where Bazant asummed the explosives could not be placed then indebtified the concrete core. You are not logical or accountable and have no evidence for anything

what part dont you understand? you are using revisions as proof of explosives!! what the hell does that have to do with anything?

you got nothing.

you have no proof of explosives.

you keep calling a steel core, clearly showed by pictures, a concrete core.

you are just completely crazy, dude. you dont make any sense and no amount of logic will change your delusions. you need to take your medication. call your family (if they stil take your calls, but i doubt it) or better yet call your doctor.

you arent in the same reality that the rest of us are in.

you think people blinking and breathing are trying to hypnotize you.

you may have a full six pack but you are lacking the little plastic thingy that holds them all together.

 

[CurveLight]

For those who refuse to argue science or common sense with people incapable of understanding it. We know about your "questions." We know about "Loose Change." We've attempted intelligent conversation with you and have come to a conclusion:

You, my friend, are an idiot.

Your sources are fake, your sources' information is fake, and all of your logic is fake.

Maybe conspiracies make you feel like a potential martyr, maybe they allow you to project your failures on the government, maybe you just like the challenge of arguing a controversial point.

Maybe the education system is as bad as people say it is.

Free speech is awesome, but for fuck-sake, shut up.

Why act like your camp is superior in intelligence and honesty? There are some very far fetched theories but that does not negate how OCTAs
often ignore facts they cannot address or change their standards to dismiss that evidence. There are thousands of experts in a wide array of fields that doubt the OCT so your constant ad homs do nothing but show yourselves to have an affinity for resorting to nonsense when you can't stand your ground. Or you tell people to shut up. Are you are nobody forces you to read or post in these threads? It's your sole choice so stop crying.

 

[Tom Clancy]

For those who refuse to argue science or common sense with people incapable of understanding it. We know about your "questions." We know about "Loose Change." We've attempted intelligent conversation with you and have come to a conclusion:

You, my friend, are an idiot.

Your sources are fake, your sources' information is fake, and all of your logic is fake.

Maybe conspiracies make you feel like a potential martyr, maybe they allow you to project your failures on the government, maybe you just like the challenge of arguing a controversial point.

Maybe the education system is as bad as people say it is.

Free speech is awesome, but for fuck-sake, shut up.

Why act like your camp is superior in intelligence and honesty? There are some very far fetched theories but that does not negate how OCTAs
often ignore facts they cannot address or change their standards to dismiss that evidence. There are thousands of experts in a wide array of fields that doubt the OCT so your constant ad homs do nothing but show yourselves to have an affinity for resorting to nonsense when you can't stand your ground. Or you tell people to shut up. Are you are nobody forces you to read or post in these threads? It's your sole choice so stop crying.

Excuse me, look at my previous posts Debunking every single Conspiracy.

How is my "Camp" Superior? well.. how do I start this off.. Look above.

 

[Fizz]

There are thousands of experts in a wide array of fields that doubt the OCT

experts doubting the story are NOT evidence.

show any evidence at all the the OCT is not correct.

 

[CurveLight]

For those who refuse to argue science or common sense with people incapable of understanding it. We know about your "questions." We know about "Loose Change." We've attempted intelligent conversation with you and have come to a conclusion:

You, my friend, are an idiot.

Your sources are fake, your sources' information is fake, and all of your logic is fake.

Maybe conspiracies make you feel like a potential martyr, maybe they allow you to project your failures on the government, maybe you just like the challenge of arguing a controversial point.

Maybe the education system is as bad as people say it is.

Free speech is awesome, but for fuck-sake, shut up.

Why act like your camp is superior in intelligence and honesty? There are some very far fetched theories but that does not negate how OCTAs
often ignore facts they cannot address or change their standards to dismiss that evidence. There are thousands of experts in a wide array of fields that doubt the OCT so your constant ad homs do nothing but show yourselves to have an affinity for resorting to nonsense when you can't stand your ground. Or you tell people to shut up. Are you are nobody forces you to read or post in these threads? It's your sole choice so stop crying.

Excuse me, look at my previous posts Debunking every single Conspiracy.

How is my "Camp" Superior? well.. how do I start this off.. Look above.

Forgive me. Makes perfect sense your camp is superior since you made the declaration. Who can argue with what you say is true?

 

[CurveLight]

There are thousands of experts in a wide array of fields that doubt the OCT

experts doubting the story are NOT evidence.

show any evidence at all the the OCT is not correct.

If experts who doubt the OCT is not evidence it is incorrect then by that same logic experts who claim it is true is not evidence it is correct. Since we can't reference experts how do you suggest one investigates?


The OCT claims bin laden was responsible yet he has never been charged with anything regarding that day. When evidence of his guilt was requested the Bush admin flat out refused to provide any. That is evidence the OCT is not fully correct. Somehow I don't think you care and will try to make up some lame excuse to justify it. Where in the CR (9E commission's report) is WTC 7 addressed? Have you ever read Griffin's list of 100? Did you ever explain why the oral testimonies were kept locked up by New York? (that was a great example of how OCTAs change their standards out of convenience.

How did that go again? Oh yeah, you claimed, as evidence to the absence of explosives, that you watched videos and didn't hear anything that sounded like explosives going off. So I responded by pointing to personal testimonies of first responders showing they heard those very specific explosions. What was your response? BAM! Suddenly people hearing explosions didn't mean anything. See how that works? When you personally don't hear explosions on some random video you cite it as evidence the OCT is true but when people who were....ummmmm....actually freaking there state they heard those explosions it suddenly does not matter. OCTAs
do this ALL THE TIME.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Why act like your camp is superior in intelligence and honesty? There are some very far fetched theories but that does not negate how OCTAs
often ignore facts they cannot address or change their standards to dismiss that evidence. There are thousands of experts in a wide array of fields that doubt the OCT so your constant ad homs do nothing but show yourselves to have an affinity for resorting to nonsense when you can't stand your ground. Or you tell people to shut up. Are you are nobody forces you to read or post in these threads? It's your sole choice so stop crying.

Excuse me, look at my previous posts Debunking every single Conspiracy.

How is my "Camp" Superior? well.. how do I start this off.. Look above.

Forgive me. Makes perfect sense your camp is superior since you made the declaration. Who can argue with what you say is true?

You still don't get the fact that i debunked what you and your buddy's keep talking about..

When i've kept repeating myself and all you and your buddy's could do was call me and idiot and a moron and that i'm some lying scum bag who is brainwashed by the Government and MSM.

I could care less if all you call me Idiots, me and many others know you can't provide the Real Facts to prove all your conspiracy's. If you look at how I debunked your points i used Videos that Excelntly showed how it was impossible for Explosives to have been there, it showed how the Steel snapped and that's what caused the fall of the tower.. Tell me oh, wise one.. if there was such things as bombs planted why didn't they go off when the Boeing crashed into WTC 1-2? Why when the towers were falling you couldn't hear any noise of a Explosion going off? Or even see the Flashes that explosions cause? And when shown footage of other buildings being Demo'd you could clearly see and hear the Explosion..

oh right.. you can't. Simple.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Exactly......why did it take them 7 YEARS to explain the building collapses?

That is because they had to figure out how to re-write physics.

Even a Physicist that worked for NASA for almost 30yrs said:... "seeing the huge pyroclastic cloud of pulverized concrete dust and the massive structural members being hurled horizontally leaves no doubt in my mind the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives."

dont you think if they were going to wire a building with explosives they would have at least have an excuse in place already as to how it collapsed? sorry to inject logic into the conversations again.

The final OCT theatre of collapse analysis actually provides an estimate of how much high explosives would be required, and a statement identifying a concrete core. The notion of collapse is illogically supported by assuming the explosives could not be planted.

Note, this is the 3rd revision and has been removed from the civil.northwestern.edu website.


Collapse of World Trade Center Towers:
What Did and Did Not Cause It?
Zdenek P. Bazant 6/21/07
1, Hon.M. ASCE, Jia-Liang Le
2, Frank R. Greening
3, and David B. Benson
4, Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center towers. However, it has not been checked whether the allegations of controlled demolition by planted explosives have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse agrees with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but disproves the free fall hypothesis (on which the aforementioned allegations rest). Although, due to absence of experimental crushing data for the lightweight concrete used, the theory of comminution cannot predict the size range of pulverized concrete particles, it is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm – 0.1 mm) is fully consistent with this theory and is achievable by collapse driven gravity alone, and that only about 7% of the total gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy of impacts would have sufficed to pulverize all the concrete slabs and core walls (while at least 158 tons of TNT per tower, installed into many small holes drilled into each concrete floor slab and core wall, would have been needed to produce the same degree of pulverization). The exit speed of air ejected from the building by the crushing front of gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, 465 mph (208 m/s) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and glass fragments, and shows that the lower margin of dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and air ejection, neglected in previous studies, are found to be negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down (these forces extended the crush-down duration by about 4%; they augmented, by about 25%, the resisting force due to column buckling at the end of crush-down, and doubled that force at the beginning of crush-up). The calculated crush down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration is found to be in conflict.


Zdenek P. Bazant et. al, 6/21/07 revision

http://algoxy.com/psych/images2/00 WTC Collapse - Wha#558C6.pdf



Clearly, if Bazant of the OCT coverup scam, revises 3 times, finally including an estimate of the equivialnt amount of explosives needed as well as a comprehensive structural description, then the revision is REMOVED, then a NASA scientist says there were explosives, there were very likely explosives used.

Concrete can be easily fractured to fall freely by a small amount of properly placed explosives, steel cannot.

very true,Bazant is definetly part of the OCT coverup scam.