The End of the 9/11 CT Movement

[Freewill]

Nobody talks about the 1919 World Series "Black Sox" Scandal anymore either but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Nobody credible can ever convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bldg. 7 imploded (a perfect implosion several hours after the twin towers went down) as a result of heat from the other buildings. Way too much evidence to the contrary.

WTC7 was burning from within that is what everyone should know.

The question for me has always been, when were the explosives set? Was it before the attack taking a risk that the WTC falling would damage the devices? Or were there brave men who went into a burning building with explosives?

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories Rare footage shows WTC 7 consumed by fire Daily Mail Online

 

[Freewill]

minutia

and exactly WHY is the descent rate ( acceleration ) "minutia"

if you had any idea of what minutia was ..you'd understand

We know what minutia is, it is what you try and use to promote your CTs. You will take the smallest of minutia and make it seem predominate. Such as your argument of 35%, WTF?

Let me make it clear for you, and simple. Look at the videos. What you see is 15 floors falling onto ONE floor. That ONE floor could not sustain the wait of the 15 floors so it too collapsed, the next floor had 16 floors falling on it. That went on for 95 floors and is easily explains what we saw in the videos.

That was 36% and now that you mention it, yes the floors would have been broken by massive overloads, HOWEVER, please think about this, what caused the destruction of the outer wall columns & what caused the destruction of the core? not only that, but what magic kept the whole thing stable for a uniform acceleration downward of 50>60 stories? ( at least that is as much of it as could be properly seen ) The fact is that in any system where stuff is breaking loose, you can NOT depend on all of the bits to fail exactly on-time in sequence to produce any sort of result at all, the complete & total destruction of a skyscraper takes an engineered effort to make it happen just like clockwork. to expect asymmetrical damage & fires to produce such a result is madness!

Here is how:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse Science Engineering and Speculation

 

[DriftingSand]

Nobody talks about the 1919 World Series "Black Sox" Scandal anymore either but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Nobody credible can ever convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bldg. 7 imploded (a perfect implosion several hours after the twin towers went down) as a result of heat from the other buildings. Way too much evidence to the contrary.

WTC7 was burning from within that is what everyone should know.

The question for me has always been, when were the explosives set? Was it before the attack taking a risk that the WTC falling would damage the devices? Or were there brave men who went into a burning building with explosives?

Buildings around the globe "burn from within" without producing a perfect implosion. Office fires don't melt central, supporting I-beams. The explosives could have been set by a crew of workers over a period of months. Most of the structural portion of the building is hidden from public view.

The owner of Bldg 7 literally gave the order to "pull" the building. That's a term used by professional demolition crews.

 

[Freewill]

Nobody talks about the 1919 World Series "Black Sox" Scandal anymore either but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Nobody credible can ever convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bldg. 7 imploded (a perfect implosion several hours after the twin towers went down) as a result of heat from the other buildings. Way too much evidence to the contrary.

WTC7 was burning from within that is what everyone should know.

The question for me has always been, when were the explosives set? Was it before the attack taking a risk that the WTC falling would damage the devices? Or were there brave men who went into a burning building with explosives?

Buildings around the globe "burn from within" without producing a perfect implosion. Office fires don't melt central, supporting I-beams. The explosives could have been set by a crew of workers over a period of months. Most of the structural portion of the building is hidden from public view.

The owner of Bldg 7 literally gave the order to "pull" the building. That's a term used by professional demolition crews.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9 11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

The owner of the building is a demolition expert?

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7 Building 7

 

[DriftingSand]

Nobody talks about the 1919 World Series "Black Sox" Scandal anymore either but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Nobody credible can ever convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bldg. 7 imploded (a perfect implosion several hours after the twin towers went down) as a result of heat from the other buildings. Way too much evidence to the contrary.

WTC7 was burning from within that is what everyone should know.

The question for me has always been, when were the explosives set? Was it before the attack taking a risk that the WTC falling would damage the devices? Or were there brave men who went into a burning building with explosives?

Buildings around the globe "burn from within" without producing a perfect implosion. Office fires don't melt central, supporting I-beams. The explosives could have been set by a crew of workers over a period of months. Most of the structural portion of the building is hidden from public view.

The owner of Bldg 7 literally gave the order to "pull" the building. That's a term used by professional demolition crews.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9 11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

The owner of the building is a demolition expert?

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7 Building 7

Nobody has to be an "expert" in demolition to know that they use the term "pull" when it's time to detonate the explosives.

 

[SAYIT]

Nobody talks about the 1919 World Series "Black Sox" Scandal anymore either but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Nobody credible can ever convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bldg. 7 imploded (a perfect implosion several hours after the twin towers went down) as a result of heat from the other buildings. Way too much evidence to the contrary.

People are still talking about 9/11 but fully 13 yrs after the attack the "Truther" Movement has been reduced to the DVD and t-shirt hawkers and their not-too-bright puppies. Even Alex Jones who rode to fame as a "Truther" rarely speaks on the subject these days.
Most of the intelligent, rational "Truthers" are long gone and the "evidence" they produced in those 13 years adds up to a steamy pile of half-truths and outright fabrications.
Many ex-"Truthers" simply tucked tail and slithered away but on his way out the door Charlie Veitch had this to say:
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."

 

[SAYIT]

Nobody talks about the 1919 World Series "Black Sox" Scandal anymore either but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Nobody credible can ever convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bldg. 7 imploded (a perfect implosion several hours after the twin towers went down) as a result of heat from the other buildings. Way too much evidence to the contrary.

WTC7 was burning from within that is what everyone should know.

The question for me has always been, when were the explosives set? Was it before the attack taking a risk that the WTC falling would damage the devices? Or were there brave men who went into a burning building with explosives?

Buildings around the globe "burn from within" without producing a perfect implosion. Office fires don't melt central, supporting I-beams. The explosives could have been set by a crew of workers over a period of months. Most of the structural portion of the building is hidden from public view.

The owner of Bldg 7 literally gave the order to "pull" the building. That's a term used by professional demolition crews.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9 11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

The owner of the building is a demolition expert?

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7 Building 7

Nobody has to be an "expert" in demolition to know that they use the term "pull" when it's time to detonate the explosives.

Except the demo experts deny that, no evidence of explosives was found, and none of the buildings collapsed when hit by planes but rather some time later as fires started by jet fuel weakened key supports.
What kind of CD explosives could have survived those fires, who planted them and how?
"I was a true believer of all this controlled demolition nonsense for a time." - Mike Metzger, co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany.

 

[Freewill]

Nobody talks about the 1919 World Series "Black Sox" Scandal anymore either but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Nobody credible can ever convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bldg. 7 imploded (a perfect implosion several hours after the twin towers went down) as a result of heat from the other buildings. Way too much evidence to the contrary.

WTC7 was burning from within that is what everyone should know.

The question for me has always been, when were the explosives set? Was it before the attack taking a risk that the WTC falling would damage the devices? Or were there brave men who went into a burning building with explosives?

Buildings around the globe "burn from within" without producing a perfect implosion. Office fires don't melt central, supporting I-beams. The explosives could have been set by a crew of workers over a period of months. Most of the structural portion of the building is hidden from public view.

The owner of Bldg 7 literally gave the order to "pull" the building. That's a term used by professional demolition crews.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9 11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

The owner of the building is a demolition expert?

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7 Building 7

Nobody has to be an "expert" in demolition to know that they use the term "pull" when it's time to detonate the explosives.

Prior to 9/11 did you know? Pull did mean to literally pull down a building, a form of controlled demolition. I don't know what was meant by "pull it" but logic dictates it meant to pull the firefighters and that is what the firefighers thought was meant that day.

 

[SAYIT]

The owner of Bldg 7 literally gave the order to "pull" the building. That's a term used by professional demolition crews.

But not to describe or initiate a CD.
That is the kind of patently false claim which de-neutered the "Truther" Movement.
I thank you for your continuing efforts to discredit the Movement.

 

[SAYIT]

Pull did mean to literally pull down a building, a form of controlled demolition...

Literally, and the process requires attached cables. Did anyone report seeing cables attached to any of those buildings?

 

[n0spam4me]

You are aware that the towers collapsed following fires caused after by the large passenger jets which rammed them, loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel, at high speed?

and so asymmetrical damage is responsible for the complete & total destruction of TWO skyscrapers ..... is that what you think?

I challenge anyone who cares to "run the numbers" look up the BTU value for jet fuel, and also the amount of heat required to raise the many tons of steel to a high 'nuff temperature to weaken said steel and see what you get..... fascinating .... no?

 

[n0spam4me]

no evidence of explosives was found,

Documentation please

 

[SAYIT]

no evidence of explosives was found,

Documentation please

Just as soon as you document the existence of same and while you are at it, please provide proof of your ludicrous claims that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled."
As already often mentioned, you have the right to make up your own mind ... not your own facts.

 

[SAYIT]

You are aware that the towers collapsed following fires caused after by the large passenger jets which rammed them, loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel, at high speed?

and so asymmetrical damage is responsible for the complete & total destruction of TWO skyscrapers ..... is that what you think?

I challenge anyone who cares to "run the numbers" look up the BTU value for jet fuel, and also the amount of heat required to raise the many tons of steel to a high 'nuff temperature to weaken said steel and see what you get..... fascinating .... no?

"Many tons of steel" were not required to be weakened to cause the collapse so many witnessed on 9/11 but rather enough steel at critical locations was and clearly did reach its fail point.
Your post is the lame old "twisted truth method" (TTM) for which the "Truther" Movement was so infamous.
No one rushed into those buildings to plant demo charges after the planes hit and there was no way to predict exactly where the planes would hit. Furthermore the ensuing fires would have destroyed or detonated any which were pre-planted. End of story and of the "Truther" Movement.

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Former "Truther" Charlie Veitch

 

[daws101]

Nobody talks about the 1919 World Series "Black Sox" Scandal anymore either but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Nobody credible can ever convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bldg. 7 imploded (a perfect implosion several hours after the twin towers went down) as a result of heat from the other buildings. Way too much evidence to the contrary.

WTC7 was burning from within that is what everyone should know.

The question for me has always been, when were the explosives set? Was it before the attack taking a risk that the WTC falling would damage the devices? Or were there brave men who went into a burning building with explosives?

Buildings around the globe "burn from within" without producing a perfect implosion. Office fires don't melt central, supporting I-beams. The explosives could have been set by a crew of workers over a period of months. Most of the structural portion of the building is hidden from public view.

The owner of Bldg 7 literally gave the order to "pull" the building. That's a term used by professional demolition crews.

oh shit! not this debunked bullshit again...

 

[daws101]

You are aware that the towers collapsed following fires caused after by the large passenger jets which rammed them, loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel, at high speed?

and so asymmetrical damage is responsible for the complete & total destruction of TWO skyscrapers ..... is that what you think?

I challenge anyone who cares to "run the numbers" look up the BTU value for jet fuel, and also the amount of heat required to raise the many tons of steel to a high 'nuff temperature to weaken said steel and see what you get..... fascinating .... no?

asymmetrical damage is an effect not a cause. Once again providng smoking gun proof that you are reciting shit and have no clue to it's meaning..

 

[daws101]

no evidence of explosives was found,

Documentation please

In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, which aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of 7 WTC and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC complex, recalled a discussion with the fire department in which doubts about containing the fires were expressed. Silverstein recalled saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". "They made that decision to pull", he recalled, "and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein issued a statement that it was the firefighting team, not the building, that was to be pulled.[66][71][72]
NIST report[edit]
In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began a general investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center but soon made a decision to focus first on the collapse of the Twin Towers.[73] A draft version of its final report on the collapse of 7 WTC was released in August 2008. The agency has blamed the slowness of this investigation on the complexity of the computer model it used, which simulated the collapse from the moment it begins all the way to the ground; and NIST says the time taken on the investigation into 7 WTC is comparable to the time taken to investigate an aircraft crash.[73] The agency also says another 80 boxes of documents related to 7 WTC were found and had to be analyzed. These delays fueled suspicion[who?] the agency was struggling to come up with a plausible conclusion.[72]
NIST released its final report on the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on November 20, 2008.[74] Investigators used videos, photographs and building design documents to come to their conclusions. The investigation could not include physical evidence as the materials from the building lacked characteristics allowing them to be positively identified and were therefore disposed of prior to the initiation of the investigation.[73][75] The report concluded that the building's collapse was due to the effects of the fires which burned for almost seven hours. The fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure, and extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. Also cited as a factor was the collapse of the nearby towers, which broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.
NIST considered the possibility that 7 WTC was brought down with explosives and concluded that a blast event did not occur, that the "use of thermite [...] to sever columns in 7 WTC on 9/11/01 was unlikely".[73] The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile. Demolition proponents say eyewitnesses repeatedly reported explosions happening before the collapse of the towers, and have published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard in support of the sounds of explosions before collapse.[52]

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
NIST also concluded that it is unlikely that the quantities of thermite needed could have been carried into the building undetected. Demolition advocates have responded that they do not claim that thermite was used, but rather that nano-thermite, far more powerful than thermite, was used. Finally, the theory that fires from the large amount of diesel fuel stored in the building caused the collapse was also investigated and ruled out.[73]
Reactions[edit]
The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[2][76][page needed]
The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations,[77] and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.[78]
Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"[6] Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.[21] The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones".[3][22] On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.[22]
Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception.[79] Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).[2]
Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.[3] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[80]
Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings,[6][7][8][12] Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America",[81] states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.[82] Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.[83]
Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.[84] The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.[6] Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[6][85] without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.[1][49][84][85][86][87] Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"[88]
World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Upon presentation of the NIST's detailed report on the failure of Bldg. 7, Richard Gage, leader of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?" in which Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator said he could not explain why the skepticism would not die. “I am really not a psychologist,” he said. “Our job was to come up with the best science.”[35] James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives," though he adds that NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.[89]
See also[edit]

 

[Freewill]

Nobody talks about the 1919 World Series "Black Sox" Scandal anymore either but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Nobody credible can ever convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bldg. 7 imploded (a perfect implosion several hours after the twin towers went down) as a result of heat from the other buildings. Way too much evidence to the contrary.

WTC7 was burning from within that is what everyone should know.

The question for me has always been, when were the explosives set? Was it before the attack taking a risk that the WTC falling would damage the devices? Or were there brave men who went into a burning building with explosives?

Buildings around the globe "burn from within" without producing a perfect implosion. Office fires don't melt central, supporting I-beams. The explosives could have been set by a crew of workers over a period of months. Most of the structural portion of the building is hidden from public view.

The owner of Bldg 7 literally gave the order to "pull" the building. That's a term used by professional demolition crews.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9 11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

The owner of the building is a demolition expert?

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7 Building 7

Nobody has to be an "expert" in demolition to know that they use the term "pull" when it's time to detonate the explosives.

I always thought they yelled, "fire in the hole.."

 

[n0spam4me]

Mark my words
If the real perpetrators manage to effectively marginalize the TRUTH MOVEMENT, Your children and their children after, will experience a dark age that will make the previous "dark ages" pale by comparison.
You may not get what is at stake here, it is nothing less than the very nature of COMMON SENSE, and humanities connection to physical phenomenon with insight into what is happening and why.
The plot is nothing short of satanic, in that the perpetrators seek to strip the rank&file citizens of any vestige of autonomy by destroying COMMON SENSE.

It is NOT an "argument from incredulity" to question the events of 9/11/2001 ( that is the official explanation for said events ) it is truly ... COMMON SENSE.

 

[SAYIT]

Mark my words
If the real perpetrators manage to effectively marginalize the TRUTH MOVEMENT, Your children and their children after, will experience a dark age that will make the previous "dark ages" pale by comparison.
You may not get what is at stake here, it is nothing less than the very nature of COMMON SENSE, and humanities connection to physical phenomenon with insight into what is happening and why.
The plot is nothing short of satanic, in that the perpetrators seek to strip the rank&file citizens of any vestige of autonomy by destroying COMMON SENSE.

It is NOT an "argument from incredulity" to question the events of 9/11/2001 ( that is the official explanation for said events ) it is truly ... COMMON SENSE.

Satanic! Whoa! Paranoia @ the next level. Somebody get me a foil helmet ... quick.