Every picture of "Ground Zero" is evidence of explosives used.

[PixieStix]

Every picture of "Ground Zero" is evidence of explosives used.

EVERYTHING but the steel was exploded into a huge pyroclastic cloud of dust BEFORE it even hits the ground.

If everything WASN'T exploded into dust then the rubble pile of the Twin Towers at Ground Zero would have been HUGE and MUCH HIGHER than it was.

Do you even know what a pyroclastic cloud is?

Honestly, I think some ignorant wannabe truther wrote this one and everyone since is just copying and pasting. Any rational thought would reveal this is a lie.

He is having a creative dream

 

[Liability]

And there is still ZERO evidence that Bld 7 at WTC was either pulled or explosively demolished. A massive hole formed in the side of the building of about 20 stories in dimension when parts of the WTC Tower collapsed INTO WTC 7. Couple that with the manner in which the building was constructed (i.e., the support structure of WTC 7 was irreparably damaged in that collision between the collapsing Tower and WTC 7) AND with the raging inferno that further weakened the building, the WTC collapse was inevitable. Firefighters and others there prior to the collapse KNEW it was failing and pulled back the responders to avoid further loss of life.

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

Not one damn bit of ACTUAL evidence supports ANY contention that the buildings (or any of them) were explosively demolished.

 

[eots]

Of course it could succeed. It did. Its easy to see how.

Security at airports used to be lax. After the hijackings in the 70s, everyone learned not to resist. Nobody would expect hijackers to use box-cutters. Everyone expects hijackers to use guns so that's what they look for. Passengers who were hijacked would expect to have been taken to Cuba, not to be slammed into buildings. Therefore, nobody resists. And it is difficult to believe so people aren't as vigilant as they would be if they were expecting it

.


getting a sharp object on a plane is still no big task and you ignore the ample prior warnings and offer no examination of the timeline and the ability to intercept or the many conflicts of critical testimony of key people involved at NORAD and the FAA






the stalling of air defense could no longer be contained

I don't think it was, but it is the only plausible conspiracy theory. And if it was, why would a fighter blow it out of the sky and let the other three planes hit buildings? Why would it not be allowed to hit its next target, whatever it may be

same answer...these are theories..only a honest independent investigation with full subpoena power, testimony under oath and subject to cross examination will give definitive answers...the absolute certainty is the official reports are cover-ups,,and almost completely false

There was a full, complete investigation. In fact, its findings and supporting documentation are fairly described as voluminous. There is nothing of any REAL concern left unaddressed. There are always, in such investigations, some opportunities for idiots -- such as you -- to cobble some dark sinister mystery out of. But nothing of any validity.

We know who did it. Despite your pathetic mewings, we also know who didn't do it.

So, fuck off.

and your proof of this is ?

 

[Liability]

.


getting a sharp object on a plane is still no big task and you ignore the ample prior warnings and offer no examination of the timeline and the ability to intercept or the many conflicts of critical testimony of key people involved at NORAD and the FAA






the stalling of air defense could no longer be contained



same answer...these are theories..only a honest independent investigation with full subpoena power, testimony under oath and subject to cross examination will give definitive answers...the absolute certainty is the official reports are cover-ups,,and almost completely false

There was a full, complete investigation. In fact, its findings and supporting documentation are fairly described as voluminous. There is nothing of any REAL concern left unaddressed. There are always, in such investigations, some opportunities for idiots -- such as you -- to cobble some dark sinister mystery out of. But nothing of any validity.

We know who did it. Despite your pathetic mewings, we also know who didn't do it.

So, fuck off.

and your proof of this is ?

Try to keep up, you fucking moron.

The 9/11 Commission conducted a very detailed investigation. In addition, the NIST report is quite clear.

All the blithering blathering nonsensical crap you keep referencing has been totally debunked many times. The proof of that was shoved down your throat by half a dozen or so folks here on this Board alone, you fucking lying moron. That you choose to blithely ignore it and yet still demand proof shows only what a chump hack you are.

It is impossible to get you to even admit that Bldg 7 collapsed because it got physically so damaged by the portions one of the Towers collapsing INTO it that it lost its structural integrity. I have already provided CLEAR proof of that which also truly destoys your delusional fantasy of any explosive demolition. http://www.usmessageboard.com/1804100-post222.html and link therein.

There is no purpose served in you repeatedly demanding proof which you "look at" with fully closed eyes, you dicklesss twerp.

Fuck off.

You scumbag Troofers have not even the most rudimentary understanding of the implications of what you so baselessly maintain.

 

[eots]

but both investigators at NIST and the 9/11 commision report denounced them...what of their concerns and NIST says damage played no significant role and building fires alone caused the collapse ..so you don't even know the official lie that you support ??

 

[Fizz]

so you don't even know the official lie that you support ??

what lie? provide proof anything in either investigation is a lie.

 

[eots]

the report was denounced by the lead investigator for 7 years..as was the 9/11 commission report by many of its members and NIST claims building fires alone caused the collapse of wtc 7..even though there was no evidence of the temperatures predicted to cause failure..these are facts

 

[Fizz]

the report was denounced by the lead investigator for 7 years..as was the 9/11 commission report by many of its members and NIST claims building fires alone caused the collapse of wtc 7..even though there was no evidence of the temperatures predicted to cause failure..these are facts

so a minority of the investigators didnt agree with the majority. how is that a lie?

 

[CandySlice]

Okay, lets say I give any creedence at all to the missile in the pentagon bullshit. Where are the passengers on Flight 77? Do their loved ones think they are on a n extended vacation??

 

[Mr. Jones]

Okay, lets say I give any creedence at all to the missile in the pentagon bullshit. Where are the passengers on Flight 77? Do their loved ones think they are on a n extended vacation??

Any relation to "Candycorn" by any chance?

 

[Mr. Jones]

the report was denounced by the lead investigator for 7 years..as was the 9/11 commission report by many of its members and NIST claims building fires alone caused the collapse of wtc 7..even though there was no evidence of the temperatures predicted to cause failure..these are facts

so a minority of the investigators didnt agree with the majority. how is that a lie?

So the 9-11 commission writers now rejecting their report and openly saying they were obstructed and misled is of no consequence to you?
Why do you accept the "report" but they don't?

 

[Mr. Jones]

so you don't even know the official lie that you support ??

what lie? provide proof anything in either investigation is a lie.

Why don't you provide proof that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt? Parroting propaganda from known liars makes you look an idiotic loyalist that doesn't care about the state of affairs in your own country.
Facts proving the 9-11 story is not credible have been presented on these forums time and again, and the holes in it exposed. NIST and the others never have proved their theory is correct, and they even admit they can't, yet stooges like you would rather believe the accounts of proven liars to the American people.
Are you that naive? Or just willfully ignorant of the history of your country's abuses?

 

[Patriot911]

the report was denounced by the lead investigator for 7 years..as was the 9/11 commission report by many of its members and NIST claims building fires alone caused the collapse of wtc 7..even though there was no evidence of the temperatures predicted to cause failure..these are facts

so a minority of the investigators didnt agree with the majority. how is that a lie?

So the 9-11 commission writers now rejecting their report and openly saying they were obstructed and misled is of no consequence to you?
Why do you accept the "report" but they don't?

Still going with this lie, Jones? Care to show where any of the 9/11 commission writers claim they reject the FINAL report? All their claims came DURING the writing of the report, not the final report. You've been shown this numerous times, yet you insist on lying your truthtard ass off over it. And you wonder why everyone hates you.

 

[Patriot911]

so you don't even know the official lie that you support ??

what lie? provide proof anything in either investigation is a lie.

Why don't you provide proof that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt?

We can't. We're not experts in the field. They are. Yet here you are, a bunch of ignorant fucks pretending like you have intelligence pretending they are all lies. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not ours.

Parroting propaganda from known liars makes you look an idiotic loyalist that doesn't care about the state of affairs in your own country.

Yet the only ones doing that are traitorous assholes like you who not only hate this country, but are actively trying to destroy it through sedition.

Facts proving the 9-11 story is not credible have been presented on these forums time and again, and the holes in it exposed.

Yet you can't back up these outlandish claims with any evidence. That is why everyone makes fun of you and doesn't believe you. If you had some real evidence, you would probably already have your precious investigation.

NIST and the others never have proved their theory is correct, and they even admit they can't, yet stooges like you would rather believe the accounts of proven liars to the American people.

So let's get this straight. NIST says it is a theory and admits they could be wrong, yet YOU claim they are outright lying. On what basis? Your expert opinon? Gage's? Gage is a fucking moron and only an architect. Most of his claims are so flawed that any moron can see they are bullshit to convince gullible fucks like you into buying into the grand conspiracy. Hmmm. Who to believe? The ones claiming they might be wrong but have published their theory in great detail or the ones claiming they are absolutely correct and NIST is outright lying, but have zero evidence to back up their claims and have published nothing?

Are you that naive?

No, but you prove you are time and time and time again.

Or just willfully ignorant of the history of your country's abuses?

Oh, that's rich! So if a COUNTRY does something wrong once, they are automatically guilty of all future crimes. What a fucking asshole you are, Jones! Come back when you actually have something of value to write.

 

[MikeK]

There are only two possible ways that explosives can be used to collapse a building.

Method A (Direct Demolition): requires positioning a massive charge at one side of the base to blow out one side of the foundation causing the building to topple. This method was employed in an attempt to topple a World Trade Center tower in March, 1993, by Ramseh Yousef, and it would have worked if his explosive charge had been positioned in a different (higher) level of the basement parking garage. This method of collapsing a structure is easiest and least costly in terms of materials and human effort but the reason it isn't used in populated areas is obvious.

Method B (Controlled Demolition): requires the strategic positioning of measured explosive charges throughout the structure and wiring them to detonate in precisely timed intervals. The objective of this method, which is comparatively costly and time-consuming, is to effect an implosion of the structure's walls thus producing a totally vertical collapse rather than lateral toppling, which would be catastrophic in a populated area.

Bottom Line: Having learned their mistake from Ramseh Yousef's failed 1993 attempt to topple a WTC tower, if Al Qaeda chose to attack the World Trade Center with explosives logic dictates they would have employed Method A, because direct demolition would have toppled the buildings causing exponentially greater damage in the surrounding areas.

Those who have stubbornly adhered to the theory that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition should ask themselves why the attackers would have chosen to minimize rather than optimize damage to New York City?

The controlled demolition theory simply makes no sense.

 

[Patriot911]

There are only two possible ways that explosives can be used to collapse a building.

Method A (Direct Demolition): requires positioning a massive charge at one side of the base to blow out one side of the foundation causing the building to topple. This method was employed in an attempt to topple a World Trade Center tower in March, 1993, by Ramseh Yousef, and it would have worked if his explosive charge had been positioned in a different (higher) level of the basement parking garage. This method of collapsing a structure is easiest and least costly in terms of materials and human effort but the reason it isn't used in populated areas is obvious.

Method B (Controlled Demolition): requires the strategic positioning of measured explosive charges throughout the structure and wiring them to detonate in precisely timed intervals. The objective of this method, which is comparatively costly and time-consuming, is to effect an implosion of the structure's walls thus producing a totally vertical collapse rather than lateral toppling, which would be catastrophic in a populated area.

Bottom Line: Having learned their mistake from Ramseh Yousef's failed 1993 attempt to topple a WTC tower, if Al Qaeda chose to attack the World Trade Center with explosives logic dictates they would have employed Method A, because direct demolition would have toppled the buildings causing exponentially greater damage in the surrounding areas.

Those who have stubbornly adhered to the theory that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition should ask themselves why the attackers would have chosen to minimize rather than optimize damage to New York City?

The controlled demolition theory simply makes no sense.

Because the truthtards don't believe Al Qaeda was involved, or if they were, they were working under orders of our government. Apparently our government has no problem killing thousands, but has a hard time toppling buildings. Then again, why bother to fly a plane into a building. Imagine the terror of just blowing the buildings with no warning! One minute the towers are there, next thing you know they're gone along with everyone in them!

But like you accurately stated, the truthtard theories simply make no sense.

 

[CandySlice]

Okay, lets say I give any creedence at all to the missile in the pentagon bullshit. Where are the passengers on Flight 77? Do their loved ones think they are on a n extended vacation??

Any relation to "Candycorn" by any chance?

More like Dexter with tits.

 

[CandySlice]

Okay, lets say I give any creedence at all to the missile in the pentagon bullshit. Where are the passengers on Flight 77? Do their loved ones think they are on a n extended vacation??

Any relation to "Candycorn" by any chance?

More like Dexter with tits.

Conspiracy theories are the last refuge of the powerless mind. It gives the individual a feeling of control in an uncontrollable world. Let them have their little plots and covert midnight meetings, trench coats and secret docs only THEY are privy to. Without those things they are nothing.

 

[slukasiewski]

Every picture of "Ground Zero" is evidence of explosives used.

What about those airplanes - caught on tape - flying into the buildings, dumb-fuck? And all those people who were on those flights who never came home?

Take your conspiracy theory and shove it up your ass.

Grow a brain...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Every picture of "Ground Zero" is evidence of explosives used.

EVERYTHING but the steel was exploded into a huge pyroclastic cloud of dust BEFORE it even hits the ground.

If everything WASN'T exploded into dust then the rubble pile of the Twin Towers at Ground Zero would have been HUGE and MUCH HIGHER than it was.

Think it through. Even explosives couldn't handle a job of this magnitude.500,000 tons of material turned to dust doesn't sound like conventional demolition explosives to me.

How did the demo team get around radio frequency?
How did the explosives survive the initial blast?

SOMETHING with a magnificent amount of energy pulverized those buildings, but explosives wasn't it. At least not any explosives that we're aware of.