911 is a joke

[onesp1ng]

what do you say to this? don't just explain it away as impossible because it runs counter to your world view. please, take an objective look at what actually happened here...beyond the sensationalisms and speculation.

As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders

3. "Squibs", or focused explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

4. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure

12. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises

13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

here is wtc 7 from another angle.

http://www.blinkx.com/video/wtc7-drops-at-free-fall-speed-w-near-symmetry-from-fire-debris/HNTBo9aK_nJIYbhQwilpGQ

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse

3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

4. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

6. Tons of molten metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor).

7. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

how do you deal with this information?? experts in their field agree that, without a doubt, the only known way a building can come down like the towers did, is by controlled demolition. this is clearly evident from historical records, is testable, and provable. fire, pancaking, and the like are not. they just sound, well, much better..

[onesp1ng]

here is a peer reviewed journal article published in "Science" by prof. steven jones.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

[doc]

The "pancaking" of one floor on top of the one below, and subsequently, the pile of floors falling upon the one below, will explain all of these things seen and found.

The squibs are explained by forced air through the elevator shafts and other duct work.

The columns gave no resistance because they were outside the collapsing structure. Remember, the floors basically fell onto each other. They were hanging to the exterior supports; not "on top of them" as is usually found in structures.

The way the building was designed contributed to the way that it fell down. In fact some of your comments about how it came down actually support the "one floor falling upon the next" concept.

[Iron Cross]

This would be comical if it wasn't so incredibly offensive to all those involved in the rescue effort and those who lost loved ones. This conspiracy bullshit comes from the same idiots who think we never landed on the moon or that aliens control the government through FEMA. Cause we all know how all powerful and efficient FEMA is.

I already said this but I'll repeat it. I know people who saw the entire thing go down. They saw planes run into the building they watched them burn for over an hour and they saw them fail and collapse. YOu will probably say the pentagon was hit by a missile too not a plane. Yet one of my sisters friends woke that morning looked out her DC apartment window to see a plane run into it. Instead of spending a few hours searching around the internet for pictures of buildings or engineering reports why not get up off your ass and go talk to some people involved or who were there.

DO you understand how offensive all this "scientific investigation" is to all those directly affected that day?

Answer me this to. What possible reason does anyone have to fake this? Also... Do you think its even remotely possible for the government to hide the fact that they were behind all this? They couldnt even hide nixon wire taping or clinton getting his freak on. YOu'd think intentional murder of thousands of its own citizens would slip out.

[doc]

Well, we all watched it on television. What happened was fairly obvious, though the actual engineering and how they came down was not readily apparent. Discussion of this nature might be offensive, but, consider it discussion. Everyone is entitled to at least that.

I was talking to a friend's son the other day in the pool out here. Guy from California. He started giving me the pro obama bullshit, and we eventually got into 9 11. His claim was that the paramedics put explosives in building 7 to bring it down.

I didn't say a thing. I used to be a New York City Paramedic. I had a lot of paramedic friends,and some firefighter and police buddies. I have no idea who I "lost" that day, as I haven't stayed in touch with them. But I thought about the whole idea of carrying C4 in my paramedic ambulance back then. Truly ****ing comical.

I didn't bother trying to explain anything to this kid.

[master splinter]

H.R. 1955, homegrown terrorism act?!??!

havent read the thread yet, but going to...

but before i say anything, and you say anything more on this, watch this first...


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQxm0v6IQ4E"]YouTube - HR-1955 turns Patriotic Americans into Terrorists[/ame]

in other words, if the government deems your "THOUGHTS" as "terrorist"

they can lock you up "Indefinitely" and actually torture you.

I know who the real terrorists are...

[master splinter]

well, im not gonna go as far as saying that the us government planned 911 or subscribe to conspiracy theories. i am not a terrorist or stupid enought to think that i can oppose the us government.

but this bill really bugs me...

it isnt about me, drag me off and torture me, imprison me, i dont give a shit...but leave my family and innocent children out of it!, if i didnt have a family i wouldnt give a crap about the whole thing, but the thought of my family being torn apart and sent to a concentration camp simply for pondering different perspectives, is a horrid thought.

my son and daughter will be growing up in this, right now they are still only babies. to think that someone could have such a disregard for life is hellish.

i am one who has faith in righteousness, hopefully that isnt considered terrorism.

it is a terrifying thought, that one can deem your thoughts and free will as a crime. not even god would do such a thing.

where are you god...

[master splinter]

one more thing.

look into the eyes of a child. if you cannot see the wonder, the joy, the amazement, and all emotions and sensations and feelings that they are trying to understand and comprehend, a newborn child! The innocence!, you wish that they would never know evil, you wish that they will be protected from it forever.

if you can see now how many of these beautiful innocent lives were greedily and without out aforethought, were simply taken in the blink of in eye countless times during any war!

Tell me what can bring a person to such wickedness and disregard for life?

Please tell me, is there truly not a better way to peace!

i say this with utmost despair.

[doc]

Baseball caps and little stringy chin beards always make me question people's credibility.

I'm sure he's got interesting things to say, but can anyone leave a synopsis for me?

[onesp1ng]

i sincerely hope you guys are right, but to say what happened was readily apparent is far from the actuality. i also watched it on tv and was part of the relief effort in philly. it was not readily apparent. no one knew what the hell was going on, and no one would have believed that three buildings could have totally collapsed on the same day. firemen and policemen, for instance, were running into the towers as it was afire. that’s part of their job, which is why they are heroical. but, at the same time, they do it because there has never been precedence of other buildings “collapsing” due to fire throughout human history.

secondly, i have not seen these pancakes. if the progressive collapse theory is correct, then these pancakes should be visible somewhere. we have numerous before and after pictures. what you find is the perfect symmetrical collapse of 3 buildings (mostly into fine dust particles), which is an unprecedented occurrence never witnessed before except under the conditions i’ve already highlighted. if there were pancakes, i would be inclined to believe your side of the story. since there were not, as is easily varifiable, then the progressive collapse theory is not a valid working theory that can be tested and recreated. how do you explain their disappearance?

in terms of what happened on the scene, well, many people appear to have experienced something completely different than the scenario you’ve described, ironcross. why do you think that is? the same people, including the victims relatives, have and are demanding a truly independent investigation. so who exactly whoudl i speak with? hundreds have said they felt and heard explosives. this is well documented. are they, too, “conspiracists?” there were many many people on scene that day, some of which are the victims’ friends and relatives, who claim there was something else going on entirely. recordings exist everywhere. these people are convinced otherwise and in many instances have joined groups with the hope of finding out the truth. if everything was so clear-cut, as you say, how do you explain this?

again, show me a picture of another building that totally collapsed into it’s own footprint due to fire, damage, etc... or respectfully direct me to a place where these pancakes can be viewed.

[doc]

secondly, i have not seen these pancakes. if the progressive collapse theory is correct, then these pancakes should be visible somewhere. we have numerous before and after pictures. what you find is the perfect symmetrical collapse of 3 buildings

That's "pancaking".

[onesp1ng]

the phenoenon may be referred to as"pancaking," but 1. there has never before been an unplanned full collapse like that (let alone 3 in the same day), and 2, there were no "pancakes" found, only rubble and dust.

[master splinter]

sorry onesping, didnt mean to throw your subject off.

think of what im saying as a sidebar...

anyway, the guy is talking about h.r. 1955.

a bill that allows the persecution of thought crimes.

so onesping, doc, according to this bill, you are all terrorists, simply for discussing 911. watch out.

[doc]

the phenoenon may be referred to as"pancaking," but 1. there has never before been an unplanned full collapse like that (let alone 3 in the same day), and 2, there were no "pancakes" found, only rubble and dust.

There have never been building built like this before.

And "pancaking" doesn't imply the making of "pancakes". For example, a pancake landing is when a plane hits the ground more in vertical direction than on a glideslope. (Much as when you put one pancake on top of another in a vertical fashion). It has nothing to do with what's left. Of course, with all the energy involved, concrete floors will turn to dust.

[onesp1ng]

BBC: Debunked "Pancake Theory" Caused Towers To Collapse
Study directly contradicts NIST report conclusion, laws of physics
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, September 11, 2007

The BBC has been caught in another 9/11 faux pas on the anniversary of the attacks, lending credence to a study that validates the pancake theory as the cause of the twin towers' collapse, despite the fact that this explanation was dismissed by NIST itself years ago and it violates the fundamental laws of physics.

Though the 9/11 truth movement has remained steadfast in its conclusion that nothing other than explosives or incendiary devices could have caused the towers to collapse in the way they did, the "official version" has flip-flopped around with numerous different explanations as each one was disproved.

One of those explanations became known as the "pancake theory," an assertion that the rapid collapse of the towers was due to the weight of each floor creating a domino effect and pulverizing the floor below it as the collapse progressed.

The problem with this hypothesis is that it failed to answer why support mechanisms that were completely undamaged offered next to no resistance as the collapse unfolded, and it violated the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans," writes Professor Steven Jones in his paper Why Indeed Did The WTC buildings Collapse?

NIST were forced to acknowledge the weakness of the pancake theory when they tested steel samples from the World Trade Center.

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th," concluded NIST in their Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers.

However, the fact that actual scientific lab tests of World Trade Center steel completely ruled out the pancake collapse theory didn't stop the BBC from lending credence to a new study that claims "mathematics" has shown that the pancake collapse was plausible.

Exactly what these "mathematics" entail and why they are more reliable than actual scientific lab tests of WTC steel undertaken by NIST as well as the basic laws of physics and gravity is not fully explained in the article.

One would think the BBC would be reticent to engage 9/11 truth again after their previous attempts at debunking left the corporation, disgraced in light of the recent quiz fix scandal, with a bloody nose.

A February 2007 documentary, pitched as a balanced investigation into claims made by the 9/11 truth movement, turned out to be a bias hit piece characterized by outright lies, spin and emotional manipulation.

Barely a week later, the BBC were forced to respond when footage emerged of their reporters describing the collapse of WTC 7 over an hour before the building actually fell - leading many to question how the BBC and other news networks had gained advance knowledge of what seemed to be an pre-planned script on 9/11.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/110907_pancake_theory.htm

as stated before, the "pancake" theory, aka progressive collapse theory, has been proved invalid. the organization that was put in charge of the investigation for 3 years, NIST, in their final 10,000 page plus report, admitted the "pancake" theory was an imprabable hypothesis. therefore, you are basing your arguments and beliefs on a theory that has been retracted and deamed improbable by NIST itself. not only is it impossible in any other setting (absent explosives), buildings do not just disappear on their own accord. there was no concrete found anywhere, only pulverized dust particles. additionally, even if a building could "pancake" completely, it could not do it at free fall speed. this is a solid, incontrovertible, scientific fact.