Proof Positive: WTC-Controlled Demolition

letsroll911.org...

Here is a short video, roughly 10 minutes(slightly less), that 'in my opinion' shows "smoking gun" evidence that WTC-1 and 2 were brought down in a Controlled Demolition.

I was amazed after watching this, and I've watched Sept Clues, Loose Change ,9/11 Mysteries, and the rest, and as far as proving that WTC 1 and 2 were brought down by Controlled Demolition, this video is the most clearest, to the point, in proving that subject alone.

*If this has been posted on here before, my apologies. I looked around this forum thoroughly, for a good 20 minutes, and I hope I didn't get this video link from here. Hopefully it'll be new to at least most of you, and will help with anyone who is on the fence about the issue of how the towers were brought down.*

Well, if you think that's "smoking gun" evidence then what do you think the same flashes are (that they claim are "demo charges") that appear in the areas above the falling tower? Surely there aren't some charges floating in the air suspended between the camera and the smoke? What about the ones that are off to the sides of the tower?

Sorry, these aren't charges, and are most likely falling debris that catches the sun and reflects it's light back to the observer.

The "ejections" are merely that, ejected dust and debris from the compression of air causing it to expel outwards.

The "thermite" ... who's to say it's not an electrical main throwing out sparks?

There's too many rational explanations to this "evidence" for it to be a "smoking gun" video.

Good video. Its self explanatory, unless you wish to delude yourself.
Thanks for posting it.

Originally posted by Soloist
The "ejections" are merely that, ejected dust and debris from the compression of air causing it to expel outwards.

Through solid concrete and intact structure, rather than through a falling dust and debris field? Please.
I'd like to see some mathmatical proof that the path of least resistance is intact structure rather than debris casuing these ejections. Lateral high velocity ejections at that.

Nola213, check out this thread, it's an oldie but goodie that I think you will find of interest...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by twitchy
Through solid concrete and intact structure, rather than through a falling dust and debris field? Please.

Uhm, how in the world can you even tell that those "ejections" were coming through any kind of solid structure whatsoever?? There is simply not enough detail in the videos to say they aren't shooting out of a window or a damaged section that created an opening big enough for air to come out of. Not only that but the angle in the video only shows the sides of the building that you can't see.

Also, you do not see them until the building has already begun to collapse and is heading on it's way down, which is unlike the videos of controlled demolition where you usually see the explosions then the building coming down.

I would love to know how you have come to conclude that it must be coming through solid concrete.

I'd like to see some mathmatical proof that the path of least resistance is intact structure rather than debris casuing these ejections. Lateral high velocity ejections at that.

As I said above, can you prove in any way with the video that was posted that the ejections come through "intact structure"?

What about the flashes the video claims are demo charges, that can be clearly seen after the towers fall, above and beside them?

I look forward to your response.

In the meantime here's a little math equation for you :

2 (planes crashing and exploding into the towers)
+ 2 (of those towers fall from the top down from the ensuing damage)
-----
= 4


1 (claim that the flashes are demo charges)
+1 (claim that "ejections" are demo blasts)
+1 (claim that "thermite" causes the sparks on the video)
+1 (using reporters analogies to building demos to help their point)
------
= 4


So, to sum up :

4 - 4 = 0 Chance of this video being proof positive of controlled demolition and certainly not a "smoking gun".

reply to post by twitchy


Just to clarify here...the WTC was not made of solid concrete. Get your facts straight. The entire outside of the building from top to bottom was mostly glass, not solid concrete. If you are going to state something atleast do it with the facts and not some made up crap. Have you ever even been to the Trade Center????

Originally posted by Soloist
I would love to know how you have come to conclude that it must be coming through solid concrete.

I'd love to know how you were able to construe that I said it did. Perhaps you missed the part where I said 'and intact structure'.
No of course it's no smoking gun, but I wonder if you know about some of the other smoking guns involved...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Did you know the Bin Laden construction group was on site during the construction of WTC?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I'm not going into a debate here sorry, but I've absolutely burnt out on having to repeat things over and over to skeptics here, but if you see anything out of place by me on this thread, I'd be glad to...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Soloist
As I said above, can you prove in any way with the video that was posted that the ejections come through "intact structure"?

Yeah in the part where they come out of the side of the building, the intact sections below the collapse. The Intact Structure.

Originally posted by Soloist
What about the flashes the video claims are demo charges, that can be clearly seen after the towers fall, above and beside them?

So because the flashes are in the falling debris field, you've convinced yourself they can't be explosions. Sounds like a really objective observation, I applaude your method. Do you think it's possible for explosives to be out of sequence, do you think they would fall to earth or would they float around?

Originally posted by Soloist
In the meantime here's a little math equation for you :

Here's one for you...
Proof positive no explosives planted in WTC complex = 0

Originally posted by cw034
Just to clarify here...the WTC was not made of solid concrete. Get your facts straight. The entire outside of the building from top to bottom was mostly glass, not solid concrete. If you are going to state something atleast do it with the facts and not some made up crap. Have you ever even been to the Trade Center????

Wow, thanks for setting me straight on that.

Thank you for the link twitchy.

As far as the demo charges( the flashes occuring in the smoke ect, these are charges that wires were probably severed by the planes that are attached to severed steal beams blow popping late as the heat set the off ect).

Large pieces fell off and they still had shape charges stuck to them. You need a keen eye to be able to differentiate between the charges, and paper debris.

But if your going in with a set idea and nothing is gonna change that, you won't see it, because you vision will be clouded by the conclusion you've already come to.

I undertsnad all the demo charges are supposed to go off first, then the big shape(cutting charges). But you have to undrstand to planes ripped into these buildings with alot of fuel which could have easily messed up wiring(aka fuses) for everything to go as a perfectly planned Controlled Demolition.

Which They were COUNTING ON. They wanted it to be unconventional, and not look like a CD, but get the job done, and it did.

I would love to sit and watch this film with someone who thinks no explosives were used, and be able to pause rewind, pause rewind a few parts and ask them to tell me what that was?, and explain this... ect, ect.

To me this movie, like the paragraph that introduces it says has been basically dumbed down to the most basic of tell tale signs of CD, and they show a few Controlled demos, so the viewer knows what to look for, then they show WTC2 coming down, and what do you know there are all the same exact things that were in the Controlled demo videos.

To me this video (and I've watched ALOT of videos) is not really the straw that broke the camels back, but it's just so OBVIOUS to me what is taking place as those towers are coming down.

It infuriates me
That more money wasn't spent inspecting the wreckage at Ground Zero. I have picture of main upright beams sliced on 45 degree angles just like you see after a planned CD. But Gullianies Bulldozers, and dumptrucks were swift, and all the evidence was swept under the rug, evidence sold for scrap?. That is criminal. And to think this man, this criminal, an accomplice after the fact to the murder of thousands of American people may become our next President. It sickens me.




EDIT**btw -Unplugged- I love your Avatar. Easily the best Graphic Novel ever written. Closely followed by The DKR's, and Kingdome Come. But Watchmen...it's in a league of it's own.





[edit on 26-10-2007 by Nola213]

reply to post by Soloist


The compressed air hypothesis is tempting until one considers that at least one of the squibs appeared way, way below the crumble zone. By what method of action do you propose that compressed air could or would be of that force at a level where the floor is (for a second, at least) perfectly intact? Perhaps you're thinking of air rushing through a ventilation shaft. But if this were so, why are we seeing squibs on only a few floors and not all of them? Or, in the alternative, why would we see squibs at all? If every floor is ventilated, then each one should be experiencing a burst of compressed air, with the effects the strongest near the top of the crumble zone and decreasing in intensity with each lower floor.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
The compressed air hypothesis is tempting until one considers that at least one of the squibs appeared way, way below the crumble zone.

More importantly the buildings were not air-tight and compression requires this.

I've heard better alternative theories, like plumbing being ruptured ahead of the collapse and etc.


But I think the best one is still that explosive devices directly caused whatever they are, because the "collapse front" to me means the firing sequence, nothing else should have been moving that fast that far down.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Ruptured plumbing produces a white smoke-like substance? Who knew? A steam blast, maybe, but who knew commercial-purpose plumbing had that much umph behind it?

EDIT: I am using heavy sarcasm to imply that the "plumbing theory" lacks credibility.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by uberarcanist]

reply to post by cw034

Just to clarify here...the WTC was not made of solid concrete. Get your facts straight. The entire outside of the building from top to bottom was mostly glass, not solid concrete. If you are going to state something atleast do it with the facts and not some made up crap. Have you ever even been to the Trade Center????

Actually the exterior was mostly made up of prefab steel sections.







Perhaps you should do as you suggest.

To the OP. The demo charges that you refer to in the video. Would be the WTC individual floors colllapsing one on to another like a pancake effect so to speak. Just like clapping your hands together as if you had chalk on them, creating the plumes of smoke you see in the footage. And can you imagine all the wiring in these two buildings? The flashing lights you see are electrical wires being torn apart arching off one another.

I do NOT deny the fact it was an inside job. I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that, or maybe not. (Insert your opinion here)
We all know an iceberg sank the Titanic, but i thought, not even GOD could sink this ship. She, was unsinkable. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Originally posted by Darth Logan
The flashing lights you see are electrical wires being torn apart arching off one another.

a-wha? Did you even take the 9 minutes and 40 seconds to watch the movie?

The Flashes, which sound like firecrackers, or gunshots, preceed a Controlled demolition. They were heard on 9/11 but not wintnessed, because no one had the vantage point of the news helicopters.

But in the media footage you can see flashes occuring all over the building above/below the impacted floors, first slow, then speeding up. Then the smoke rizes from below as the basement is blown, then Thermite for the whole world to see at the point of failure go figure. a couple big well placed Shape charges (these are like C4, basically, moldable TNT) and collapse ensues, squibs 20 floors below the collapse in 3 in a row mind you in one continueous camera shot (to make sure the the building is pulverized.)

Please don't tell me about "Pancake collapse" everyone except Popular mechanics, shills, and people who haven't done any research use that term.

Please it insults my intelligence. Do I have to get into how a pancake collapse is impossible when a building falls at free fall speed? Have you done any research on this?

Because in the Fema report, I believe it was Femas. Their Pancake collapse recreation, didn't account for the core columns -the infrastructure, the really thick steel is still standing after their recreation, what a laugh.

A pancake collapse cannot account for those coming down. Toppling over I could see, but not coming straight down in nicely precut 12 foot sections to be carted away.

Here's a 37 second clip which proves my above point how the infrastucture was brought down.

www.youtube.com...

What do you call THAT??? did a pancake collapse CUT those steel beams at perfect 45 degree angels?

Even the NIST has given up and has admitted they can't figure out how the towers collapsed. They did everything in their story but come out and say explosives had to have been used.

So now that the PM group finally realizes their all alone with this Sept 12th pancake theory, I believe,no I hope it's only a matter of time before they give in to the truth. THEN Hopefully some people like Bush's brother running shady security, and Silverstein makeing millions by blowing up his VERY HEALTHY insured buildings to Kingdome come, will start being questioned, and the inditement ball will start rolling.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by Nola213]

Originally posted by twitchy
I'd love to know how you were able to construe that I said it did. Perhaps you missed the part where I said 'and intact structure'.

I didn't miss it, as a matter of fact I quoted you on it. Please go back and read the post if you are having problems following along. You cannot tell from that video what the plume is coming out of, to assume it's "solid concrete or any intact structure" is just that, an assumption.

No of course it's no smoking gun

Which is why I posted the problems with the video, all the claims made are false or misleading. Things like this should be seriously scrutinized before giving a thread title such as "Proof Positive" anything.

I'm not going into a debate here sorry

Well, you were the one asking for "mathmatical" proof. Why even counter someone else's post if you don't want to debate?

Yeah in the part where they come out of the side of the building, the intact sections below the collapse. The Intact Structure.

My point is how can anyone tell that they are intact sections of structure? You cannot even see them in the video, they come from the side. Who's to say it's not blown out a window? Or something else that's not intact?

So because the flashes are in the falling debris field, you've convinced yourself they can't be explosions. Sounds like a really objective observation, I applaude your method.

Did you even read what I posted? If you watch the video you will see the same flashes they say are demo appear in the air ABOVE the already fallen tower. Not only that but they can be seen in the sky BESIDE the tower. So, if these flashes are demo charges, someone really missed the mark, heck, they missed the whole building!

Originally posted by Nola213
You need a keen eye to be able to differentiate between the charges, and paper debris.But if your going in with a set idea and nothing is gonna change that, you won't see it, because you vision will be clouded by the conclusion you've already come to.

Since my non-keen eye caught several of these uhm "look-a-like" charges, can you please explain to the rest of us cloudy visioned, non keen eye having people how in the world your keen eye can tell the difference between the flashes that appear to happen in front of the building, and the ones above and beside the building?

I look forward to your response.

Which They were COUNTING ON. They wanted it to be unconventional, and not look like a CD, but get the job done, and it did.

Oh, maybe that's it, maybe since they wanted it to look unconventional they made special "floating" charges that explode in the sky for all to see?

To me this movie, like the paragraph that introduces it says has been basically dumbed down ... and what do you know there are all the same exact things that were in the Controlled demo videos.

I put in bold what pretty much says it all. As far as the same exact things in the demo videos I'm having a real hard time finding the floating charges for some strange reason, I don't suppose that could possibly mean they aren't the exact same things now could it?

a-wha?? I'm not insulting your intelegence. Sorry if you think that. Have you ever heard a transformer form a power line get hit by lightning? I have, and it sounds like the 4th of July, with the light show. And all I see is the floors pancakeing one after another. Im just telling you what i see and trying to explain it thats all. Sorry if I offended your thread. Like I said before, I don't deny it was an inside job! If you can't leave yourself open for discussion in a civil manner than what's the point? Im out.

www.youtube.com...://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/

You guys should watch this short video...it shows very clear and undeniable shots of the detonation charges going off all over the towers BEFORE they fall. They are the same little flashes (or "glass" ) we see when the towers fall. After the detonatons you can even see puffs or plumes of smoke coming out of the area!




----------

(I read Watchmen for a class in college, loved it, i had never read any comics before but this was special indeed:up

[edit on 27-10-2007 by Unplugged]

reply to post by Nola213


Excellent footage Nola213, I did not seeing it before.

In my opinion, very strong evidence, and that what many suspected already has indeed happened, that WTC-1 and 2 and don’t forget WTC 7, were brought down in a Controlled Demolition.

I have watch it a few times, and the more you look the more flashes you see.
Before this footage that you provide, I already had made up my opinion.
And that is, that what happened on 911 was an in my eyes an “false flag” operation of unbelievable proportions.