Deliberate Explosion Of Twin Towers, the #1 Smoking Gun of 9-11 Options

[SPreston]

Blast wave, is the only possible explanation. Who cares precisely the how and the what. There was a blast wave, a demolition wave, and therefore, the buildings were intentionally imploded, or in this case, exploded, the first top down explosive demolition of a high rise steel building, with the explanation everyone is supposed to believe, that they simply "collapsed". They were quite obviously taken down on purpose, and the plane strikes and fires were not the actual cause, only the broad daylight "slight of hand" ruse, to create a suspension of disbelief as to the cause of their total destruciton, in the horrified minds-eye of the observing world. That's all that matters. That it was a ruse, the official story about it, a flat out lie. Does it matter the precise mechanism and explanation other than THEY BLEW THEM UP? I don't think so. We've done our job. The sceptics and debunkers, they would like to drag it in that direction, with questions like - when did they wire the buildings for demolition? How many bombs were there? Was it on every floor, or every tenth floor? <said with a shrill wine>

Well, even if every tenth floor, with zero resistence, given the laws of motion, it would still have taken over 30 seconds.

The only possible way they could have come down that fast, is by a blast wave, removing all structural integrity BENEATH the falling debris plume/fountain of building material. Period. That's the only thing that needs to be proven unequivocally and has been proven, and it does not matter where those graphs came from, as they depict the truth and the reality in a very easy to understand, straightforward manner.
http://letsrollforums.com/number-one-smoking-gun-t16540.html

Read carefully the OP. An excellent tool to prove INSIDE JOB complicity.
Fascinating research. That is exactly what it looks like on the videos. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

(IMG:http://breakfornews.com/3i/algoxy_files/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below-crop.jpg)
(IMG:http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/imag1.jpg)

[painter]

I agree SPreston, the rate of decent of the towers, especially #7, is THE 'smoking gun' evidence.

The problem isn't any lack of evidence that 9/11 was something other than we've been told, the problem is overcoming people's resistance to looking at and grasping the evidence. Of course the upper 10 to 20 % of a building can't fall through itself at anywhere near the same rate it would fall through nothing but air. Of course there is no "accumulation" of mass as the upper floors descend when what we see quite plainly is the expulsion of mass in the demolition wave, fountain cascade.

I should think anyone with an average intelligence should be able to see this but I run into people, even quite educated people, who simply refuse to 'believe' it. I was at a dinner party just a few days ago with a high school history teacher who immediately launched into the pancake theory when the subject was brought up. I said to him, "You haven't looked at the evidence, have you?" And he admitted he hadn't studied it but then added, "I'm not an architect." My reply, "That is right, you're not an architect or an engineer -- but there are many architects and engineers who are willing to state publicly that the official account is absurd." I told him about AEf911T and suggested he check it out. He's the kind of person who won't 'check it out' because, if truth be known, he doesn't really want to know. Not because he agrees with the current domestic and foreign policies of the US, quite the contrary, he is outspokenly opposed to them. But because to seriously believe that the US government, with all its faults, could orchestrate and pull off something like this and believe that the US media could help implement and sustain the cover-up, is just "too much" for him. He doesn't want to believe it because to do so would force him to reconsider everything he thinks he knows about the world he lives in.

So, to me, it isn't enough to just point out the obvious "smoking guns." One has to lead people step by step into a different way of looking at the world. Once one begins to understand that DECEPTION isn't the exception but the rule, things begin to become considerably more clear.

[lunk]

It's not so much about showing the facts.
It's about getting the complicit idiot parrots
to want to ask these questions for and to themselves.


Best to have another person on your side.

imo, lunk

[KP50]

But because to seriously believe that the US government, with all its faults, could orchestrate and pull off something like this and believe that the US media could help implement and sustain the cover-up, is just "too much" for him. He doesn't want to believe it because to do so would force him to reconsider everything he thinks he knows about the world he lives in.

So, to me, it isn't enough to just point out the obvious "smoking guns." One has to lead people step by step into a different way of looking at the world. Once one begins to understand that DECEPTION isn't the exception but the rule, things begin to become considerably more clear.

Painter,

That is excellent and sums up exactly why getting people to believe the towers were blown up can be so hard. Because once they accept that 9/11 is the BIG LIE then you have to question all the much smaller lies that got us to this point.

Watching the news on NZ TV last night (a rare event for me), I realised that I no longer accept anything I hear and see. A suicide bomber event is reported in Israel and the facts of the matter are stated with such certainty - yet who knows the whole story behind it?

KP

[dMz]

Watching the news on NZ TV last night (a rare event for me), I realised that I no longer accept anything I hear and see.

Hi KP50,

Perhaps I have an above-average-convincing manner, but most of the people that I have talked to lately are IMMEDIATELY able to smell the propaganda (but I usually steer them toward Rupert Murdoch's Faux Noise specifically to hone their senses). Alternately, it might be due to the "Super Tuesday" presidential S"elections."

The majority of the people that I have talked to (and sometimes have given DVD's to) are ACTIVELY "boycotting" mainstream USA new$$ now.

Anyway, welcome to my "1984; Winston Smith" world- when it comes to "news" that is...

d

[CocaineImportAge...]

...great link there Preston!... bookmarked that one!

[morninscott]

This is a duplicate post of one I have elsewhere on this site but I think it is quite relevent to this thread also....

This is something i'd noticed quite a while ago.....The location - White House Rose Garden, The speaker - Our favourite George Dubya!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060915-2.html

"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

Now forgive me if i'm wrong, but did he say EXPLOSIVES?

This is the eighth paragraph adjacent to the second photo of the President.
This briefing was also carried by FOX although I was unable to find it currently on their site. (I do have the page copied to my files though)

I'm sure subsequent investigations thought that this really wasn't important as we all know the planes brought down the buildings... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif) .

Forgive me if this has been mentioned elsewhere...

Cheers (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[lunk]

I think he meant to say, airplanes and the resulting explosions.

Dreaded Freudian slips.

imo, lunk

[painter]

. . .
Now forgive me if i'm wrong, but did he say EXPLOSIVES?
. . .

To be accurate, it is clear from the context that what is being referred to are not the attacks of 9/11 but alleged future attacks.

It doesn't help us to misconstrue public statements and present them as something they are not. Quite the contrary, it provides a 'context of error' that allows some to dismiss other, far more valid, points.

[lunk]

To be accurate, it is clear from the context that what is being referred to are not the attacks of 9/11 but alleged future attacks.

It doesn't help us to misconstrue public statements and present them as something they are not. Quite the contrary, it provides a 'context of error' that allows some to dismiss other, far more valid, points.

Quite right.
Got to nip the distractions in the bud.

imo, lunk

[morninscott]

That's fine if he's talking of future attacks, but that was not the impression I got.
Maybe because I don't live in the States, my point of reference can be a little off when it comes to what your President says. (I never truly know what he's saying (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) )
Apologies if it seemed I was trying mislead, as this was certainly not my intention.....
Cheers
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[lunk]

I get fooled by out of context quotes, too.

There is so much to learn, with, what may be, a limited time.

imo, lunk

[Sanders]

I agree SPreston, the rate of decent of the towers, especially #7, is THE 'smoking gun' evidence.

The problem isn't any lack of evidence that 9/11 was something other than we've been told, the problem is overcoming people's resistance to looking at and grasping the evidence. Of course the upper 10 to 20 % of a building can't fall through itself at anywhere near the same rate it would fall through nothing but air. Of course there is no "accumulation" of mass as the upper floors descend when what we see quite plainly is the expulsion of mass in the demolition wave, fountain cascade.

I should think anyone with an average intelligence should be able to see this but I run into people, even quite educated people, who simply refuse to 'believe' it. I was at a dinner party just a few days ago with a high school history teacher who immediately launched into the pancake theory when the subject was brought up. I said to him, "You haven't looked at the evidence, have you?" And he admitted he hadn't studied it but then added, "I'm not an architect." My reply, "That is right, you're not an architect or an engineer -- but there are many architects and engineers who are willing to state publicly that the official account is absurd." I told him about AEf911T and suggested he check it out. He's the kind of person who won't 'check it out' because, if truth be known, he doesn't really want to know. Not because he agrees with the current domestic and foreign policies of the US, quite the contrary, he is outspokenly opposed to them. But because to seriously believe that the US government, with all its faults, could orchestrate and pull off something like this and believe that the US media could help implement and sustain the cover-up, is just "too much" for him. He doesn't want to believe it because to do so would force him to reconsider everything he thinks he knows about the world he lives in.

So, to me, it isn't enough to just point out the obvious "smoking guns." One has to lead people step by step into a different way of looking at the world. Once one begins to understand that DECEPTION isn't the exception but the rule, things begin to become considerably more clear.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[Leslie Landry]

heres a great video i found of bombs being set off during the collapse of the WTC

[SPreston]

The 9-11 Truth Movement Is Growing Faster And Faster



Start video then click photo
(IMG:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3084/2553847158_c800e1d80e.jpg)

[Leslie Landry]

This post has been edited by Leslie Landry: Sep 17 2008, 12:02 AM

[KP50]

Leslie,

That's an interesting little film there - but I've no idea what it is meant to be, it looks like snippets of other films. That segment of the BBC reporter talking of a massive explosion just before the tower comes down in the background has been well scrubbed from the archives.

[Leslie Landry]

Leslie,

That's an interesting little film there - but I've no idea what it is meant to be, it looks like snippets of other films. That segment of the BBC reporter talking of a massive explosion just before the tower comes down in the background has been well scrubbed from the archives.

I added it for the one interview of the guy as the building collapses. I have seen this footage before but i did not see it with the building collapsed. I just thought it was an interesting video that i wanted to add to the pile. Im sure many have seen it lots of times...but I'm also sure that some haven't.

[Leslie Landry]

I have viewed many videos of the collapses and i have not seen any flashes like these in them...real or not? what do you think.

[KP50]

I have viewed many videos of the collapses and i have not seen any flashes like these in them...real or not? what do you think.

Seen many vids with flashes - hadn't noticed the volume of flashes during the collapse though - especially the ones you see through the dust. My guess (only a guess) is that those flashes indicate the destruction of the top 25 floors as they sure never hit the ground in one piece.