103 votes

The Smoking Gun. WTC7 taken down by CONTROLLED demolition. WTC1 and WTC2 as well. What are we to make of this?

Controlled demolition.

In case you have not seen the new documentary, where now thousands of structural engineers, architects, chemical engineers, and physicists are going on record that IT IS NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE that those three buildings could have been brought down by office fires, or by even high-impact 767 crashes in regards to WTC1 and WTC2. (You can watch that documentary when you have time here:)

http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138/

All...I repeat all...of the three buildings brought down that day...comprising the worst structural "failures" in world history...were done by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Incontrovertible. Irrefutable.

And extremely high-tech, high energy military grade explosives which are able to melt steel in a flash, were used.

This is now, without question.

We have solved the what. Now we turn to the how...and then the WHO.

But the government's official accounts, the FEMA and the NIST reports, are so ridden with fraud, gross negligence, and pseudoscience, that those reports...are CRIME SCENES in and of themselves.

We need to start prosecuting right there and then work our way up...but I digress...

3000 innocent citizens and first responders have died! Who will speak for them?? Who will bring them justice??

And hundreds of thousands of family members and friends to the victims who carry the pain with them to this day...deserve a right to know what happened... rather than being insulted by these incompetent, taxpayer-funded government-sponsored cover-ups to the scene of the worst mass murder in American history.

WTC7 was demolished differently than the Twin Towers: All or most of its basement supports were severed at once....as evidenced by the free fall, or fall at the speed of gravity with no resistance, of the first 108 feet.

In other words, 108 feet, you know, 8 to 10 stories of the building of the lower floors, just ceased to exist in an instant.

Where did they go? Did those floors slip into a parallel universe?

Or were they blown to smithereens?

Certainly the truth...wherever it may lie...is not the, fake, forced, fraudulent model reconstruction that NIST (MIST?) tried to shove down the throats of the American taxpayer, $22 Million Dollars later!

As to the destruction of the WTC1 and WTC2 towers...two of the STRONGEST vertical structures on Earth...the entire buildings were laden with nano-thermite, with complete destruction set to begin just below the airplane impact zones, and timed to look like a "normal" gravitational collapse.

It was a brilliant execution.

[Except there is no such thing as a "normal gravitational collapse." Asymmetrical damage (the jet impacts)...can not lead to a symmetrical global collapse. Physically impossible.]

You heard the first collective shaped charge "ka-POW" of the south tower floors being blown apart just below the jet impact area, then the explosions of the other successive floors were timed and were increasingly masked by the continuous roar of the massive demolition wave which gained velocity and amplitude as it plummeted to Earth.

Very clever.

But, eyes don't deceive...and ears don't....thanks to the advent of cameras and cell phone cameras.

Complete gravitational collapse on super-highrises from office fires no matter how hot?

Doesn't happen.

Has never happened in the nearly 100 years of high-rise history.

Will never happen in the future, as long as the Laws of Physics apply....which they will forever.

Unless thermite is involved.

Which may explain the molten iron in a sheer 'waterfall' of molten metal off of the south tower as its upper 30 floor block begins to deform and rotate down, but a block no more, its angular momentum of all that incredible mass, suddenly neutralizing into dust...as the "collapse" accelerates in earnest, traveling down the former path of MOST resistance (the core) that in seconds has become--by being blown to bits--the NEW path of LEAST resistance.

Hmmm. 30 stories pulverized into powder in two seconds. Very strange.

The path of MOST resistance...becoming the path of LEAST resistance. Very strange.

Molten iron. Very strange.

What possibly could turn most of the mass of 350 vertical feet of an acre-sized building, into wisps, in a few seconds? Or melt its steel columns in the same??

Must be something...of course NOT mentioned in the taxpayer funded NIST and FEMA and 9/11 Commission Reports.

Here is the smoking gun to how the controlled demolition was set up...innocuously...with unrecognizable boxes of military-grade super-thermite sol-gel shaped charges, placed in the core areas hidden from the office tenants, against the bare columns in and around the elevator banks.

Super-thermite melts steel with incredible temperature and exrtreme levels of energy.. and pulverizes the concrete and the non-steel contents in mid-air, as Towers 1 and 2 come down.

Literally all of the floor concrete, gypsum wallboard, and FF&E, including elevators and HVAC equipment... for 110 stories of each building, an enormous weight, was pulverized to a toxic powder as fine as talcum, in mid air in seconds...and it spread out like a volcanic pyroclastic flow, over lower Manhattan...while the melted and distorted steel frames, collapse in a heap below.

Watch another the 18 minute presentation here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M&feature=g-user-u



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
fireant's picture

yea I know some fkrs like you.

asshole.
you did have me going though, until the attic fire thingy.

Undo what Wilson did

And if you want an intelligent

conversation on this quit calling me an asshole!

fireant's picture

It was said in fun, like hanging around with one of those

maintenance guys that just like to argue. You couldn't pick up on that?

Undo what Wilson did

until the attic fire thingy?

What are you talking about??? I have no idea what you are talking about.
But since you are a pilot. Can a jet that was used of 911 do a 8000 feet decent while doing a 270 deg turn and come in at ground level into a building while being piloted by a person that wasn't even able to fly a single engine Cessna. Is that possible?!?

fireant's picture

When you tried to make the case the low temp upper fires

would necessitate low temp basement fires. dead giveaway.
Here's the way I try to approach this. Yes, it is unlikely three bulls eyes in one day by three recently trained on single engine Cessna pilots. If that is the official story, there will be a trail of long term and sophisticated training. Follow that trail and see where it leads. To reach any conclusions without that information, or to rely on one source only for the information, is not a good recipe for finding the truth of the matter.

Undo what Wilson did

Actually one of them

led to the US Air Force. Not hani hanjour though.

fireant's picture

Following that trail thoroughly will answer many questions

.

Undo what Wilson did

I have heard of only one

that couldn't pilot a Cessna, hani hanjour. He is the one that was suppose to have hit the pentagon.
As for the low temp. upper fires. I wasn't trying to say then that there were high temp. fires in the basement that cause the molten metal there. Here is some required research for you to understand this. Please google, what is thermite, what is thermate, what is nano thermate. After you do that then continue with this thread. Here is how I think the molten metal got there. One of the three above mentioned substances where planted in the building to take out the core columns. Being in the center of the building at the time of the event, most of it was not blown out sideways and was left to fall straight down to the basement. What other conclusions are there as to account for it??

fireant's picture

Evidence does not support any core columns being "taken out".

All available evidence shows the buildings came apart at it's connectors and that the welds and bolts were sheared. If thermate was used, it was not used to cut the core columns. The cores were still standing post collapse. You're theory is simply not supported by the evidence.

Undo what Wilson did

Are you

A maintenance guy too???

fireant's picture

No,

I'm a retired airline pilot.

Undo what Wilson did

Are you the retired pilot

Are you the retired pilot that flew into the pentagon?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

fireant's picture

I was hoping you'd come along and say, "No you are not!", in

order to give you an opportunity to finally be right about something.
It was a joke. Sorry. didn't mean to leave it up so long.

Undo what Wilson did

Since you are a pilot

Could you explain some of the events that took place on 911 concerning the planes. I would love to hear your side of that story!

fireant's picture

Gotcha back!

I'm not a retired airline pilot, just a fan of aviation.
But since you ask, if you have kept up with my posts, you would know I question how amateur pilots could have pulled off militarily precise strikes.
Ps: Sorry for unexpectedly being away for so long and leaving this up without correction. it was a joke.

Undo what Wilson did

SteveMT's picture

Since you are an airline pilot, see this informatiomation

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/latestnews.html
Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) When Pilots For 9/11 Truth was founded in the late summer of 2006, the objective was to find evidence supporting what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission as many theories were rumored that elements within the US Government might have had something to do with 9/11. Co-Founder Rob Balsamo explains how he was puzzled and motivated to pursue further research into the events of 9/11 in his citation at PatriotsQuestion911.com, which lead to the formation of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. More than four years of solid research through Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests, numerous interviews and expert analysis has revealed no hard evidence supporting or linking to -- and in many instances factually conflicting with -- conclusions made by the 9/11 Commission. Now there is overwhelming evidence which suggests the data that is being provided to the public through the FOIA, is not from an aircraft which has been operated by American Airlines. Read more...

Aircraft Departure Gate Positional Data Conflicts With Government Story
Latitude/Longitude Coordinates Reflect Departure Gate Other THan Reported

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) It has been reported that American Airlines Flight 77 departed Washington Dulles International Airport at approximately 08:20 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 allegedly from Terminal Concourse D Gate 26 (1). However, the Flight Data Recorder positional data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board tells a very different story. Read more...

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77
FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact With Pentagon

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Flight Data Recorder Expert Dennis Cimino has confirmed that the data being provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is missing crucial information, which according to Dennis, should be present and link the data to a specific aircraft and fleet. The NTSB provided three sets of data through the FOIA for what they claim is from American 77, N644AA. A csv file, an animation reconstruction and a raw data file. Rob Balsamo of Pilots For 9/11 Truth along with numerous other aviation experts, including trained Aircraft Accident Investigators have analyzed these files and determined they do not support an impact with the Pentagon. The data also exceeds the design limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 by a wide margin. This is based on data, precedent and numerous verified experts, including those who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used for the 9/11 attacks (See - "Flight Of American 77", "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" at Pilotsfor911Truth.org for full detailed analysis and interviews). read more...

Evidence Strengthens To Support WTC Aircraft Speed Analysis

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Since our article on WTC Aircraft Speed Analysis was written, more evidence has been gathered to reflect the research provided by Pilots For 9/11 Truth and in the film "9/11: World Trade Center Attack". A more thorough understanding and explanation of why V speeds are established based on wind tunnel tests performed by the manufacturer is also available virtually making the need to gather documents from Boeing based on wind tunnel testing, moot. We already have their results of such tests in the form of the V Speeds they have established through wind tunnel testing required by definition as outlined in the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics and all other related text. Read more...

fireant's picture

Sorry for misleading you.

It was a joke. I didn't intend to leave it up for so long Steve, but got taken away from my computer.
I am well aware of all the discrepancies reported for pre-strike data on the aircraft. None of that has anything to do with how the buildings came down, my primary concern at the moment.
Since it is clear much of the info we have utilized for building collapse has been incomplete and misleading, I will not make any assessment of aircraft data until digging further with different sources. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Again, sorry for leaving a joke uncorrected for so long.

Undo what Wilson did

SteveMT's picture

It all makes sense now, fireant. (lol) That was a good one.

In the heat of discussion, my fallback position is concrete thinking, with literal interpretations of everything. Thanks for that dry, now very funny, comment!

fireant's picture

"Dry"...you nailed me.

Gotta have a little fun, even with such a grave topic.

Undo what Wilson did

one only needs to take the emotion out of 9-11

and look at the science of the event to conclude the planes did not bring down 3 buildings, or even 2, or even 1.

for something to fall with an acceleration rate of gravity, like the buildings did, can only happen without resistance. that can only be true if none, and I mean none of the support structure even slowed the fall down. This is physically impossible.

in engineering terms:
the potential energy of the building when standing upright was completely transformed into kinetic energy with NO energy being used to crush the support structure. so there had to be energy added to account for the energy needed to wipe out the support structure.

fireant's picture

Are you aware only a very small fraction of structural

resistance was encountered during collapse?
Taking it from initiation and the rest of the tower collapse, the only resistance was the floor joists, attached to a side plate with an "L" bracket you can hold in your hand. There were no overlapping beams to support the floors. Each floor spanned 60' in two directions with 4 inches of concrete, and the joists were lightweight trusses. Not much resistance when you consider the entire contents, including floors, of the upper portion pouring into a jumbled mass of debris, smashing anything in it's path.
The supporting side walls did not collapse. They were blown or shoved laterally. The center core did not collapse. All photo evidence says it was beaten up with churning matter. 60 to 70 stories of core were still standing in one tower we know of. Consider the total square footage of the ends of the beams with the square footage of the floor. Tiny. That's about all the structural resistance encountered. The debris went between the beams.
The support structure was not crushed. Have you looked at the science yourself?

Undo what Wilson did

Nonsense

buildings are design to hold many times the weight it actually holds. the vertical supports will provide more than adequate resistance to keep whatever is above up from falling. And at the very least slow the fall. None of that happened.

It takes energy to break things. So it could not have fallen at free fall rates. That defies physics. The only energy in you explanation is the weight above for each floor. Sorry your fairy tale is not support by phyics on this planet.

So the en what happened to the veritical columns? why were they not still standing? Your description of the collapse lacks any serious thought on how a building would collapse.

fireant's picture

What you say suggests you have not studied the building design.

You are speaking in general terms of mass and physics. You are thinking of two separate units of mass, which is not the nature of the collapse.
You deny there were 60 foot spans on either side of the core supported by nothing but lightweight trusses attached by a small "L" brackets?
You are not aware the core actually was standing post collapse? (60 to 70 stories of one core for sure).
Do you understand how much energy was created when the contents of the upper sections emptied out into the tube of the bottom section?
Do you understand the damage done to floors above and below when the towers leaned due to stress on the core?
The side walls did not collapse downward. They were the walls of the tube which were ejected laterally. The core structure took up only a small % of the square footage. It was mostly a space of floors with no vertical support structure; an unanticipated design flaw.
These are facts.

Undo what Wilson did

Exactly right

It certainly helps if a person has a fundamental knowledge of physics. There are alot of uneducated people out there who just don't seem to have the slightest grasp of the concepts.

It took me a while to separate fact from fiction

and I'm a mechanical engineer with 20+ years experience and some of it in failure analysis.

until I looked at it from an engineering stand point I was as gullible as everyone else who drank up the nonsense. It was a post in 2007 that woke me up to look at it in a cold, scientific manner.

Just the facts and concluding no way the planes brought those buildings down.

I was at work that morning

I was at work that morning and did not witness the collapses live. One of my co-workers had been watching on the internet and came in and told me that one of the towers had just collapsed totally to the ground. I clearly remember questioning the accuracy of his statement, confident that he was exaggerating. I said "no way - you mean there was a partial collapse". He said - No, it was totally flattened. I said - that doesn't seem right.

I immediately began to dismiss my first reaction as I watched the videos and the propaganda being played over and over again on the TV.
I have a strong science and engineering background, but I got swept up in the emotion of the event. My brain had effectively been switched off with respect to the conflict between the official explanation and basic physics.
It wasn't until years later that I allowed myself to look at the event rationally rather that emotionally. The truth then hit me like a freight train. It took me months to recover from that, but it was the beginning of a much broader awakening.

Come on Fireant

Answer my one question as to how the molten metal got into the basements? Do this with a reasonable explanation. Yes there were ton and ton of all kinds of metal in those building, but not in a molten state. So lets here it or shut up.

fireant's picture

Instead of being an @ss,

why don't you tell us. I've told you gravity is the likely scenario, but I'm open. How did it?

Undo what Wilson did

Oh god now gravity melts metal!

There is no other way to do it except chemical. It was not electrical, I'm an electrician, I know. There was not enough fuel from the planes, most of that burned off in the first minute or two. The fire up in the tower could not have done it because they were oxygen starved. Not solar power. Not wind. Pretty sure it wasn't nuclear. And now who is name calling. How am I being an a$$. Is telling someone to shut up when they are wrong being an a$$?? oh sorry then! I didn't know you were sooo sensitive.

fireant's picture

Read your question.

You asked me how it got there. Gravity would account for that. And you are obviously badgering the witness lol.

Undo what Wilson did