New 9/11 Eyewitness Evidence of Bombs at WTC

Jellotuna Says:

May 23, 2012 - If you want to see real proof watch the stuff on building 7 - a 49 story building. The BBC talks about it falling down from damage at 5:07pm. It didn't fall down til after 5:20 and didn't get hit by a plane and they actually show it still standing without realizing it at first. There's also footage of the demolition bombs going off a bit before they bring it down. There's a lot of proof out there. Keep looking - good luck.

MrSkunkwork100 Says:

May 23, 2012 - You're way behind: I've already studied WTC 7, the reports from the official investigations, and the claims made by scholars from the "truth" movement. WTC 7 was just a collapse from random and catastrophic damage inflicted on it. In all the videos of the collapse, neither visual nor audible evidence exists that indicate demolition charges going off.

porterhouse Says:

May 24, 2012 - The explosive residue found at the WTC is thought to have been a component of thermite. When thermite is detonated it is quieter than other explosives. In your investigation did you notice a difference between the way WTC 7 fell, having almost no visible fire damage, and the way the Chinese skyscraper fell in 2009, having been a full conflagration?

MrSkunkwork100 Says:

May 24, 2012 - There was no explosive residue found. That's a long-since debunked, blatant lie. Add to that the fact that the scientists who first tested the dust, didn't conduct complete tests on it. Recently, another scientists conducted tests on those same samples and confirmed that it was not thermite, or explosive. The only reason that the scientists claimed it was explosive thermite, is because they simply exposed it open flame and got it to combust. Thermite is not an explosive; its an incendiary.

MrSkunkwork100 Says:

May 24, 2012 - I would think that after all of this time, you conspiracy theorists would be more honest about these things. The fire damage to WTC 7, was mostly internal, away from external visibility. That said, there's plenty of video footage of the fires burning in windows and smoke billowing out of the building. Since when does fire have to be visible to cause damage. What's with the false dichotomies? Thermal expansion is the effect of heat energy on a material, which is exactly what happened to WTC 7.

MrSkunkwork100 Says:

May 24, 2012 - Moreover, the chemical signature of thermite overlaps the chemical signatures of standard building materials.

porterhouse Says:

May 24, 2012 - No 9/11 investigation tested for explosives or accelarants. That is a fact. There are hundreds upon hundreds of policemen and firefighters who would testify that they heard explosions in those buildings on 9/11 if they were asked. That is a fact. There are FDNY radio communications confirming explosions on low level floors. That is a fact.

MrSkunkwork100 Says:

May 24, 2012 - "No 9/11 investigation tested for explosives or accelerants. That is a fact."They actually did exhaustive chemical testing of the steel, had the steel tested by two independent labs and no explosives evidence was found. Nothing to indicate that anything other than plane impacts and fire caused structural damage. Explosions in a burning building that had just been struck by planes is not unusual and doesn't discount the damage caused by the planes and fires as even the guy in this vid describes

MrSkunkwork100 Says:

May 24, 2012 - Jet fuel was combusting within the buildings since it seeped down shafts and crevices in the structure. Nothing unusual there.

MrAdvantage1 Says:

May 24, 2012 - nobody is debating that there were fires. they are debating the ability for fires to burn through steel beams. and the pancake theory doesnt work for a building falling at free fall speed. there was sulpher and molten metal balls scattered through all the dust. which is evidence of thermite. why are you trying to lead the discussion away from the point? building a strawman?

MrSkunkwork100 Says:

May 24, 2012 - Everything you've just implied is completely false. By iron balls, you're probably referring to the iron micro-spheres found in the dust, which was confirmed by an indepenedent analysis of the dust, to be consistent with the fires. Somehow, you uninformed conspiracy theorists seem to think that thermite is the only means of producing iron spheres. Iron spheres form as a restult of heat energy. Sulfur was in abundance in the buildings by way of construction materials containing it.

MrSkunkwork100 Says:

May 24, 2012 - The iron spheres and sulfer were found in the post-collapse rubble pile, where all the materials coagulated and interacted with each other unfettered. No one concluded that the buildings collapsed in pancake fashion and there was no free fall that day (not that it matters). The only one trying to build strawmenhere, is you. (And quite poorly, too).

MrAdvantage1 Says:

May 25, 2012 - no free fall? building 7 fell at 9.88 m/s for the first 2.5 seconds whereas free fall speed where it took place is 9.802 m/s (david chandler; physics professor, berkley).check out "the science of september 11" on here, its a video that takes an in depth look at what happened. i'm not sure how i used a straw man, i adressed your point about fires. unfortunitally fire cant explain falling falling as fast as the buildings did without a) the pancake theory, or b) the inward bending steel beams.

MrAdvantage1 Says:

May 25, 2012 - furthermore, there are plenty of video taped accounts from people AT THE SCENE where people say that they heard explosions. plus, i've seen videos where you can HEAR explosions, which anyone can look up on here. i'm not saying i know what happened, but to just swallow a story without question, when you consider the repercussions that the story in question has brought to our country, is irresponsible. (am i using a disinfo tactic here too?)

MrSkunkwork100 Says:

May 25, 2012 - It took WTC 7 more than 14 seconds to collapse. Suppose for a second that you're right and that it collapsed in ten seconds: so what? Once strucural integrity is compromised, everything that is meant for support, becomes the means of continued destruction. I've watched Chandler's "explanation" and he dismisses much in his analysis. Everything you claimed are all strawmen: Your whole post, infact.

MrSkunkwork100 Says:

May 25, 2012 - The speed at which the structures collapse has nothing to do with the damage impetus. It's the result of physics principles which are obviously above your head. No one has claimed that the collapses were pancake collapses. THAT'S just one of several strawmen in your lame arguments.

MrSkunkwork100 Says:

May 25, 2012 - The inward bowing of beams is the result of physics in effect on the structures, as well.

MrSkunkwork100 Says:

May 25, 2012 - I can find a dozen videos on YouTube of people discussing explosions in the buildings. What of it? Those same witnesses, most of them, by far do not and have not expressed any persuasion that the sounds they heard were unusual to the events of that day.

MrSkunkwork100 Says:

May 25, 2012 - "(am u using a disinfo tactic here too?)"Yeah. Pretty much.

omarlives Says:

May 25, 2012 - give me a hug. lol

omarlives Says:

May 25, 2012 - luke u should make a rap song.

Spindry96 Says:

May 27, 2012 - So this is evidence? Firemen describing a catastrophic collapse as explosions? Sorry but explosion does not mean explosives. Passengers on the Titanic thought they heard explosions. Was that an inside job too?

Jonathan Russell Says:

May 28, 2012 - Its called jet fuel shooting down the elevator !

Earl Turner Says:

May 28, 2012 - GOOGLE - 911 MISSING LINKS

alvado1211 Says:

May 29, 2012 - The jet fuel burned up on impact I don't think there would be much fuel left to burn after 30 minutes or so.