2335! update: 2416, update: 2444! new update: 2613 and growing!

[Jeroen]

30. Classic, controlled demolition

Last edited Wed Nov 4, 2015, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Your argument is based on the absence of evidence for a classic, controlled demolition:

1. No explosions were heard before or during the collapse;
2. No evidence of explosions were found in the debris;

However, you seem to ignore numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel. These explosions ‘have been debunked’ as exploding generators, popping bolds, floors dropping on floors below and so on. Because explosives are ruled out a priori, debunkers provide alternative explanations, as the ones mentioned. Again, the most obvious cause, namely explosives, is ignored because it contradicts the official narrative. The same holds true for other strong indicators of explosives such as:

1. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph;
2. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds;
3. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the crush zone;
4. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile;

Also, you dismiss the nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples, as well the thermite incendiaries on steel beams. You also ignore the molten steel & iron found in the debris piles. I’ve read the ‘debunking arguments’ debunking the nanothermite, iron microspheres and molten steel & iron, but I am not convinced.

As for the absence of evidence for a classic, controlled demolition, this of course, is to be expected. Those who orchestrated the collapses needed to conceal the use of explosives. Therefore the structures were weakened by a series of smaller explosions before the final chain of explosions was initiated.

I often hear the incompetent argument: the US government is not competent enough to pull of 911. However, the MIC, ‘the deep state’ or how you want to call it, is. And it is fact, not fiction that similar plans existed before 911 such as Operation Northwoods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

To conclude, you and I will have to agree to disagree. You support the official narrative and to be fair, that is the logical thing to do. Those who question the official narrative, like me, have to prove the existence of a conspiracy, which, of course, is very hard to do because the evidence is concealed or destroyed. Those who ask questions are ridiculed and dismissed as irrational, unscientific and even unpatriotic. In other words, there are no incentives to question 911. This in itself is questionable.

Edit to add video