excellent video - thanks
to the deniers I say I was one myself. But after studying this for years now I know the subject fairly well and there are many different elements and strands of evidence that come to together to prove 9/11 was an inside job that compelling arguments could be formed from a variety of perspectives.
But these facts are among the easiest to grasp and easily verifiable for most people. There is nothing theoretical about it.
The speed and symmetry with which 1,2 &7 came down is well documented.
WTC7's implosion is categorically impossible without the use of explosives. This building was 350' north of the North Tower and imploded in a manner consistent with a controlled demolition at the nearly freefall speed of 6.5 seconds. NIST refuses to release the inputs they used for it's wtc7 collapse computer modelling citing national security concerns. (not what those concerns are mind you) This is not how science is done. It's shameful. Without knowing whatever it is that NIST is so desperate to keep hidden the final model does not even look like wtc7 coming down. Verification through experimentation are at the very heart of the scientific method and they cannot even get a computer model to mimic wtc7. The fact is, that as we have never once seen a steel framed skyscraper behave in this manner except during demolition the burden of proof lies with anyone saying it was other than a controlled demolition. A burden that has not nearly been met by anyone.
The "New phenomena" of "column 79" that we got after 7 years from NIST is absurd. (Even NIST knows this) One column fails from 'thermal expansion so all the rest (58 perimeter and 25 cross-braced box core columns) just popped off at the same instant in such a manner as to create the speed and symmetry witnessed? Isn't it more logical to conclude it must have been a CD, Occam certainly would have thought so. Why would the building exhibit every characteristic of an implosion and not be one no one ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg
NISt also brought us a 10,000 page report on WTC 1 &2 which contains less than a single page dedicated to the actual collapses. And they didn't even test for explosives! Why?? (They could have shut everyone up) and it was clear explosives were used in '93 and "high order damage" was present at the site? But they did not. NIST profound scientific reasoning for this:'It is a waste to look for something that isn't present.'
The dramatic explosiveness in the destruction of wtc 1&2 were is also very revealing. Nothing like a typical CD, these buildings were shredded by thousands of timed explosions from the point of the plane impacts in hopes of making them look like gravity collapses.(epic fail) If you step through videos frame by frame (u can do this on the 911research.wtc7 website) you will see that the top sections were destroyed first from the point of impact up. They disappear into the growing dust clouds before the bottom section is systemically blown up from the impact points down. NIST tells us that the top sections acted like 'pile drivers.' In other words, like dense solid hammer heads that destroyed the much stronger undamaged sections below. Is this what you see?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
In fact they disappeared into clouds of dust that were blasted outwards as part of the fountain of debris each of the Towers became. Destructive energy so violent that it blasted most of the building contents, including their elaborate cross-braced core structures and large multi-ton perimeter wall assemblies and massive corner box columns hundreds of feet in all directions! FEMA documented 800 foot circular debris fields. (the towers were approx 207'x1400') The explosions pulverized most of the concrete (each floor had four inches of reinforced concrete over metal decking) and left no genetically discernible trace of 1100 human bodies. Gravity can simply not account for the level of destructive energy required and all in 15 seconds.
Look at the North Tower. It was hit so close to the roof there are like 90 story of undamaged structure beneath the crash zones (Here's a cool page I found with some high res shots taken by Noah Murray showing just how explosive this was and links to some pages worth reading:
http://smu.gs/jvzZxu) And yet we are supposed to imagine that gravity alone using that tiny upper block if 12 floors...could account for it's incredible destruction and what remained? Good luck with that !
And what of the 99 day fires (with temperatures recorded by Bechtel at 2800f -days later! and it poured almost all week.not to mention the fire hoses going 24-7.) these were no standard office fire that's for sure or they would not have taken over 3 mos to go out!. There is overwhelming evidence for molten metal, starting with the fema bpat app C
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm (and confirmed by so many different sources and strands of evidence it would b be tiresome to list them here. So when you hear someone dismiss this claim you can rest assured they don't know what theyr're talking about) The FEMA BPAT App C says it clear as day in a report from government scientists. FEMA wasn't even allowed access to the site for nearly a month and even then it was described as a 'guided tour.') Anyway, Ill leave it here but evidence for the use of explosives in lower Manhattan on 9/11 is overwhelming and conclusive, to say the least.
