9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[Mr. Jones]

NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. NIST also pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns.[24] The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center performed a test with conventional thermite and was unable to cut a vertical column, despite the column being much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center.[47] Jones and others have responded that they do not believe that thermite was used, but rather a form of thermite called nano-thermite, a nanoenergetic material which developed for military use, propellants, explosives, or pyrotechnics. Historically, explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited by their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nano-thermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.[48]

The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes progressive collapse inevitable once an initial collapse occurs. A paper by Zdeněk Bažant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was an order of magnitude greater than that which the lower section could support.[2]

Engineers who have investigated the collapses generally disagree that controlled demolition is required to understand the structural response of the buildings. While the top of one of the towers did tilt significantly, it could not ultimately have fallen into the street, they argue, because any such tilting would place sufficient stress on the lower story (acting as a pivot) that it would collapse long before the top had sufficiently shifted its center of gravity. Indeed, they argue, there is very little difference between progressive collapse with or without explosives in terms of the resistance that the structures could provide after collapse began.[2][49] Controlled demolition of a building to code requires weeks of preparation, including laying large quantities of explosive and cutting through beams, which would have rendered the building highly dangerous and which would have to be done without attracting the attention of the thousands of people who worked in the building.[6][50] Controlled demolition is traditionally done from the bottom of buildings rather than the top, although there are exceptions depending on structural design. There is little dispute that the collapse started high up at the point where the aircraft struck. Furthermore any explosives would have to withstand the impact of the airliners.[6]

Members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth have collected eyewitness accounts[51] of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.[16][52] Eyewitnesses have repeatedly reported of explosions happening before the collapse of the WTC towers, and the organization "International Center for 9/11 Studies" has published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard.[53] There are many types of loud sharp noises that are not caused by explosives,[54] and seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions.[55] Physicist Steven E. Jones and others have argued that horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers would indicate that the towers had been brought down by controlled explosions.[56][57][58] NIST attributes these puffs to air pressure, created by the decreasing volume of the falling building above, traveling down elevator shafts and exiting some open elevator shaft doors on lower levels).[59]
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This wall of cut n paste is a poor defense of your idiocy. It explains nothing, and assumes everything. You disparage the Bazant/NIST theory without even realizing it was the NIST position, because you had no idea it was what you have been defending all along! You don't read what is posted with any comprehension, and you make an ass out of yourself countless times.
Then you try to save face by posting exactly what has already been proven to be a theory based on a false premise and a scientific, and physical impossibility.

You haven't answered anything about the missing jolt, cause you still think they are talking about the planes!! LOL!

 

[Mr. Jones]

also note the wording of this sentence:" Hey asshole this has been reviewed by others in the pertinent fields of study, and they had no problem or dismissed it away simply because of who wrote it.."
which begs the question were they all twoofers?

Aw whats the matter dawgshit? Are you some little child that doesn't want anyone playing that can whip your official conspiracy theories ass?
You apply labels of "truther" to people who have an intelligent, credible, calculated thesis,, that blows the NIST/Bazant one out of the water (you know the one you thought was another truther theory? and I had to point out to you that it wasn't? and exposes their attempts at obfuscating the data, so you want these credible sources placed "out of bounds" or "no fair"? Well too bad for you asshole, learn to deal with the fact that these so called "truthers" have valid objections. Why don't you try to deal with what is being claimed instead of trying to make up the rules as to who can or can not participate or be used as a source in the discussion? Pussy..

 

[daws101]

NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. NIST also pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns.[24] The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center performed a test with conventional thermite and was unable to cut a vertical column, despite the column being much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center.[47] Jones and others have responded that they do not believe that thermite was used, but rather a form of thermite called nano-thermite, a nanoenergetic material which developed for military use, propellants, explosives, or pyrotechnics. Historically, explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited by their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nano-thermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.[48]

The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes progressive collapse inevitable once an initial collapse occurs. A paper by Zdeněk Bažant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was an order of magnitude greater than that which the lower section could support.[2]

Engineers who have investigated the collapses generally disagree that controlled demolition is required to understand the structural response of the buildings. While the top of one of the towers did tilt significantly, it could not ultimately have fallen into the street, they argue, because any such tilting would place sufficient stress on the lower story (acting as a pivot) that it would collapse long before the top had sufficiently shifted its center of gravity. Indeed, they argue, there is very little difference between progressive collapse with or without explosives in terms of the resistance that the structures could provide after collapse began.[2][49] Controlled demolition of a building to code requires weeks of preparation, including laying large quantities of explosive and cutting through beams, which would have rendered the building highly dangerous and which would have to be done without attracting the attention of the thousands of people who worked in the building.[6][50] Controlled demolition is traditionally done from the bottom of buildings rather than the top, although there are exceptions depending on structural design. There is little dispute that the collapse started high up at the point where the aircraft struck. Furthermore any explosives would have to withstand the impact of the airliners.[6]

Members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth have collected eyewitness accounts[51] of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.[16][52] Eyewitnesses have repeatedly reported of explosions happening before the collapse of the WTC towers, and the organization "International Center for 9/11 Studies" has published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard.[53] There are many types of loud sharp noises that are not caused by explosives,[54] and seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions.[55] Physicist Steven E. Jones and others have argued that horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers would indicate that the towers had been brought down by controlled explosions.[56][57][58] NIST attributes these puffs to air pressure, created by the decreasing volume of the falling building above, traveling down elevator shafts and exiting some open elevator shaft doors on lower levels).[59]
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This wall of cut n paste is a poor defense of your idiocy. It explains nothing, and assumes everything. You disparage the Bazant/NIST theory without even realizing it was the NIST position, because you had no idea it was what you have been defending all along! You don't read what is posted with any comprehension, and you make an ass out of yourself countless times.
Then you try to save face by posting exactly what has already been proven to be a theory based on a false premise and a scientific, and physical impossibility.

You haven't answered anything about the missing jolt, cause you still think they are talking about the planes!! LOL!

lol it you who are making an ass of themselves.

 

[daws101]

also note the wording of this sentence:" Hey asshole this has been reviewed by others in the pertinent fields of study, and they had no problem or dismissed it away simply because of who wrote it.."
which begs the question were they all twoofers?

Aw whats the matter dawgshit? Are you some little child that doesn't want anyone playing that can whip your official conspiracy theories ass?
You apply labels of "truther" to people who have an intelligent, credible, calculated thesis,, that blows the NIST/Bazant one out of the water (you know the one you thought was another truther theory? and I had to point out to you that it wasn't? and exposes their attempts at obfuscating the data, so you want these credible sources placed "out of bounds" or "no fair"? Well too bad for you asshole, learn to deal with the fact that these so called "truthers" have valid objections. Why don't you try to deal with what is being claimed instead of trying to make up the rules as to who can or can not participate or be used as a source in the discussion? Pussy..

you've whipped nothing except-t yourself in to a false sense of superiority.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?) could easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....

I thought those bowing beams were pulling the walls INWARD, Ollie...

They did. and then they broke loose.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and all that stuff, ever flip a paperclip? Probably not.....

Yes we've trying to get you understand this for years now. The lower part of the building should have countered the reaction placed on it by the falling top parts. There should have been a noticeable "jolt" as these 2 masses encountered each other, and subsequent jolts that cause a pause or hesitation of the collapse fronts. After all, the much smaller heavily damaged top parts are said to have smashed through each of the subsequent lower floors.
The tops with their smaller mass according to known physical laws of science, should not have been able to crush down the more thicker, sturdier, undamaged lower sections, in the short amount of time that was witnessed, without something else helping it along, by removing the mass (resistance) from below.
The tops were said to have fallen on the lower a distance of about 1 story, and even taking the kinetic energy into account, it still does not add up. NIST does not even make an attempt to explain the collapses, and tries to make you think that this destruction would be obvious and not unusual at all.
They have been caught in many cases of disinformation, and have even ignored a complete explanation of the entire collapse sequences, because if they did it would become very obvious it wouldn't make sense almost immediately, this is why they stopped their analysis at the point up to the collapse and didn't follow it the rest of the way.
It took other people to do this and when they finished their findings prove that NIST/Bazant's theory is a deeply flawed one.

 

[Mr. Jones]

also note the wording of this sentence:" Hey asshole this has been reviewed by others in the pertinent fields of study, and they had no problem or dismissed it away simply because of who wrote it.."
which begs the question were they all twoofers?

Aw whats the matter dawgshit? Are you some little child that doesn't want anyone playing that can whip your official conspiracy theories ass?
You apply labels of "truther" to people who have an intelligent, credible, calculated thesis,, that blows the NIST/Bazant one out of the water (you know the one you thought was another truther theory? and I had to point out to you that it wasn't? and exposes their attempts at obfuscating the data, so you want these credible sources placed "out of bounds" or "no fair"? Well too bad for you asshole, learn to deal with the fact that these so called "truthers" have valid objections. Why don't you try to deal with what is being claimed instead of trying to make up the rules as to who can or can not participate or be used as a source in the discussion? Pussy..

you've whipped nothing except-t yourself in to a false sense of superiority.

You made an ass out of yourself and showed everyone here that you don't know anything about the details that are being discussed, you're not even aware of who wrote the majority of info that NIST wrote. You alluded to it as a "steaming pile" like the idiot dipshit that you are, then cut n paste a wall of already debunked BS to try and save some credibility. You have no credibility, and the post I am referring to just reconfirmed this.

 

[SAYIT]

NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. NIST also pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns.[24] The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center performed a test with conventional thermite and was unable to cut a vertical column, despite the column being much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center.[47] Jones and others have responded that they do not believe that thermite was used, but rather a form of thermite called nano-thermite, a nanoenergetic material which developed for military use, propellants, explosives, or pyrotechnics. Historically, explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited by their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nano-thermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.[48]

The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes progressive collapse inevitable once an initial collapse occurs. A paper by Zdeněk Bažant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was an order of magnitude greater than that which the lower section could support.[2]

Engineers who have investigated the collapses generally disagree that controlled demolition is required to understand the structural response of the buildings. While the top of one of the towers did tilt significantly, it could not ultimately have fallen into the street, they argue, because any such tilting would place sufficient stress on the lower story (acting as a pivot) that it would collapse long before the top had sufficiently shifted its center of gravity. Indeed, they argue, there is very little difference between progressive collapse with or without explosives in terms of the resistance that the structures could provide after collapse began.[2][49] Controlled demolition of a building to code requires weeks of preparation, including laying large quantities of explosive and cutting through beams, which would have rendered the building highly dangerous and which would have to be done without attracting the attention of the thousands of people who worked in the building.[6][50] Controlled demolition is traditionally done from the bottom of buildings rather than the top, although there are exceptions depending on structural design. There is little dispute that the collapse started high up at the point where the aircraft struck. Furthermore any explosives would have to withstand the impact of the airliners.[6]

Members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth have collected eyewitness accounts[51] of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.[16][52] Eyewitnesses have repeatedly reported of explosions happening before the collapse of the WTC towers, and the organization "International Center for 9/11 Studies" has published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard.[53] There are many types of loud sharp noises that are not caused by explosives,[54] and seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions.[55] Physicist Steven E. Jones and others have argued that horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers would indicate that the towers had been brought down by controlled explosions.[56][57][58] NIST attributes these puffs to air pressure, created by the decreasing volume of the falling building above, traveling down elevator shafts and exiting some open elevator shaft doors on lower levels).[59]
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This wall of cut n paste is a poor defense of your idiocy. It explains nothing, and assumes everything. You disparage the Bazant/NIST theory without even realizing it was the NIST position, because you had no idea it was what you have been defending all along! You don't read what is posted with any comprehension, and you make an ass out of yourself countless times.
Then you try to save face by posting exactly what has already been proven to be a theory based on a false premise and a scientific, and physical impossibility.

You haven't answered anything about the missing jolt, cause you still think they are talking about the planes!! LOL!

lol it you who are making an ass of themselves.

Like it's their job. Hey, I wonder if these troofers are just paid trolls.

 

[daws101]

isaid no twoofer conjecture .
the camera did not have to be in the tower to be accurate besides shit head if it had and been recovered it most likely would a shown evidence of a longer collapse time. not free fall
as to the powerful jolt to the upper part it was the planes not explosives or thermite.
there is no rule in science or nature that says that the jolts had to be simultaneous or nearly so.
your twoofer conjecture proves this..
also shit head, what you are alluding to and failing to prove by your ignorant and obvious line about gravity is that something other than kinetic energy and massive air pressure changes pushed the framing and other debris several hundred yards away from the collapse .
you have no evidence to corroborate this just specious conjecture.
game, set, match!

btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
oh that's right! you have none.
no where in this post do I infer this;" What a fucking douche bag idiot!!!!The Bazant theory is what NIST AGREED with you fucking moron!
That's right asshole The NIST Bazant theory!!!! You stupid ass SB!
I gave you a link that does exactly what you you are calling it....proves that the Bazant/NIST thoery is "a steaming pile"!!" sister jones.

what I ask for was proof that Bazant theory was fact or bullshit.
you intentionally misrepresented my questions.
you also used a twoofer basis site which proves nothing.
as to the missing jolt there was a jolt just not where you wanted it to be.
newton's third law was satisfied .
I could go line for line ripping apart your bullshit but as your last several posts have clearly shown you just spew shit and see what sticks..
so anything you have posted since is false.

 

[daws101]

Aw whats the matter dawgshit? Are you some little child that doesn't want anyone playing that can whip your official conspiracy theories ass?
You apply labels of "truther" to people who have an intelligent, credible, calculated thesis,, that blows the NIST/Bazant one out of the water (you know the one you thought was another truther theory? and I had to point out to you that it wasn't? and exposes their attempts at obfuscating the data, so you want these credible sources placed "out of bounds" or "no fair"? Well too bad for you asshole, learn to deal with the fact that these so called "truthers" have valid objections. Why don't you try to deal with what is being claimed instead of trying to make up the rules as to who can or can not participate or be used as a source in the discussion? Pussy..

you've whipped nothing except-t yourself in to a false sense of superiority.

You made an ass out of yourself and showed everyone here that you don't know anything about the details that are being discussed, you're not even aware of who wrote the majority of info that NIST wrote. You alluded to it as a "steaming pile" like the idiot dipshit that you are, then cut n paste a wall of already debunked BS to try and save some credibility. You have no credibility, and the post I am referring to just reconfirmed this.

that's funny coming from the no credibility queen

 

[daws101]

This wall of cut n paste is a poor defense of your idiocy. It explains nothing, and assumes everything. You disparage the Bazant/NIST theory without even realizing it was the NIST position, because you had no idea it was what you have been defending all along! You don't read what is posted with any comprehension, and you make an ass out of yourself countless times.
Then you try to save face by posting exactly what has already been proven to be a theory based on a false premise and a scientific, and physical impossibility.

You haven't answered anything about the missing jolt, cause you still think they are talking about the planes!! LOL!

lol it you who are making an ass of themselves.

Like it's their job. Hey, I wonder if these troofers are just paid trolls.

no they're volunteers why pay for what a nut job will do for free.

 

[GuyPinestra]

as they did not turn to dust only appeared to, your "question" is based on a false premise and has no basis in reality.

Can you explain this supposed 'mirage'? It was an ABC newsfeed, after all...

let me get this straight... you believe that the abc network some how tricked viewers with efx..
obviously you a no idea what live feed means..
also what network feed it is doesn't mean shit...

Once again you demonstrate your comprehension level is equivalent to a 2X4.

Did I say anything about 'efx'? No, I didn't.

I asked you what would cause this seeming 'mirage' as videotaped by ABC?

Or is it a 'mirage', as you seem to claim?

Please explain your rationale for NOT believing what the camera captured and your own eyes see?

 

[daws101]

Can you explain this supposed 'mirage'? It was an ABC newsfeed, after all...

let me get this straight... you believe that the abc network some how tricked viewers with efx..
obviously you a no idea what live feed means..
also what network feed it is doesn't mean shit...

Once again you demonstrate your comprehension level is equivalent to a 2X4.

Did I say anything about 'efx'? No, I didn't.

I asked you what would cause this seeming 'mirage' as videotaped by ABC?

Or is it a 'mirage', as you seem to claim?

Please explain your rationale for NOT believing what the camera captured and your own eyes see?

if my comprehension level is equivalent to a 2x4 yours must be that of a toothpick and I'm being generous.
as I said, it being ABC is not relevant
I never inferred I did not believe what the camera captured ,that's a false assumption by you, and it's a really bad habit you asshats all have.
there are a myriad of conditions that could cause the crumbling to dust effect you claim to see. heat, making the air ripple, distance, air quality focal length image compression etc..
as to what your eyes see it's not just a simple picture, your brain has more to do with what you actually comprehend and understand then you think.

 

[SFC Ollie]

There were no steel beams turned into dust.......

Anyone who believes this has a problem.

And I don't give a shit what you think you saw. The technology does not exist........

 

[daws101]

There were no steel beams turned into dust.......

Anyone who believes this has a problem.

And I don't give a shit what you think you saw. The technology does not exist........

he wishes it does like most people he doesn't understand that your eyes and mind play tricks on you 24/7.

 

[GuyPinestra]

let me get this straight... you believe that the abc network some how tricked viewers with efx..
obviously you a no idea what live feed means..
also what network feed it is doesn't mean shit...

Once again you demonstrate your comprehension level is equivalent to a 2X4.

Did I say anything about 'efx'? No, I didn't.

I asked you what would cause this seeming 'mirage' as videotaped by ABC?

Or is it a 'mirage', as you seem to claim?

Please explain your rationale for NOT believing what the camera captured and your own eyes see?

if my comprehension level is equivalent to a 2x4 yours must be that of a toothpick and I'm being generous.
as I said, it being ABC is not relevant
I never inferred I did not believe what the camera captured ,that's a false assumption by you, and it's a really bad habit you asshats all have.
there are a myriad of conditions that could cause the crumbling to dust effect you claim to see. heat, making the air ripple, distance, air quality focal length image compression etc..
as to what your eyes see it's not just a simple picture, your brain has more to do with what you actually comprehend and understand then you think.

Any and all of those things you describe as possible causes, if in fact they were present, either singularly or in multiples, would have distorted those images continuously throughout that segment of videotape. The fact that they didn't leads a rational person to believe that something else caused the visual effect seen. Since it happened at the very moment that the spire collapsed it would be reasonable to assume that the two are related., and that technology has indeed concocted a method of dissolving steel.

That makes at least as much sense as a pancake collapse through 1,000 feet of little to no resistance...

 

[Mr. Jones]

There were no steel beams turned into dust.......

Anyone who believes this has a problem.

And I don't give a shit what you think you saw. The technology does not exist........

The technology does exists. It is nuclear technology. It can vaporize lots of stuff...Just sayin'..

 

[SFC Ollie]

There were no steel beams turned into dust.......

Anyone who believes this has a problem.

And I don't give a shit what you think you saw. The technology does not exist........

The technology does exists. It is nuclear technology. It can vaporize lots of stuff...Just sayin'..

OK 2 points, but we all know there was no nukes....

 

[GuyPinestra]

There were no steel beams turned into dust.......

Anyone who believes this has a problem.

And I don't give a shit what you think you saw. The technology does not exist........

The technology does exists. It is nuclear technology. It can vaporize lots of stuff...Just sayin'..

OK 2 points, but we all know there was no nukes....

And how do "we all know" that...?

 

[Mr. Jones]

The technology does exists. It is nuclear technology. It can vaporize lots of stuff...Just sayin'..

OK 2 points, but we all know there was no nukes....

And how do "we all know" that...?

There is supposed evidence of nuclear fission....

What is definitely known, is that the damage observed, does not fit that which can be done by fire...NIST own testing and their report proved that...

 

[SFC Ollie]

Oh come on now, even I give you more credit than that. There was no sign or evidence of any Nukes. And especially not in the video that is being discussed.....