Massive Times Square Billboard to Show Video of WTC 7 Destruction During 9/11 Anniversary

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: plube
Simple thing is...prove that explosives were not used....
So sir.....could you please prove that explosives were not used.

In the real world those making silly claims have to prove those silly claims, not others disprove them.

It appears in the fantasy world truthers live in things work differently.... however we are in the real world, so things do not work the way you want them to.

Oh, and they blame the Jews!

thats a pretty big leap...we have gone from explosives to jews.....so i take it bruce you are now lumping Jews and Zionists in the one basket ?.....

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Was that substance tested? was it confirmed by professional metallurgists? Just how can steel remain molten for weeks and weeks without an external source of heat? How did the eyewitnesses manage to get so close to molten steel and survive without proper safety equipment like those found in actual steel mills? When do explosives create molten steel that remains molten for weeks? You see questions like these should have gone through your head first. Then you should have thought about what else was in that structure that could have created a molten metal. Well we have quite a few things: the batteries from the UPS banks that kept critical electronics going in the event of a power outage. You have two airliners made from aluminum. You have vehicles with plenty of alloys and metals that can melt. What this firefighter is claiming to be molten, more than likely is referring to red hot metals that appeared to be molten. Thermite is not an explosive. Thermite does not remain molten for long after the reaction is complete. So, this should not be used as some sort of an "unexplained question" for a conspiracy to be hung up on.

You posted two videos for "evidence" of explosives used at WTC7. I dont know why you did that when you first posted a video of a firefighter that was repeating the same lines taken from every truther website there is. I brought up the fact that the two videos did no such thing and you were wrong. You demanded that I provide evidence of it and I told you you can find it yourself using ATS search nd 30 seconds of looking. You refused and got snippy when I called you on your BS about researching deeply into these topics. am I missing anything? I offered you where to look to find what I had spoken about and where I got my information from. You refused. So, who is getting uppity and wild? I told you where to go find your answers.

Next time vet your youtube videos first and make sure they are not crap that has been exposed as either hoaxes done by "Truth"ers or videos that do nothing to support your claims. That firefighter? Why was he so quiet for all these years? Is it because he was threatened with death or something? Or is he coming out now to get his 15 mins of fame? I mean really. His quotes are practically word for word taken from the pages of "Truther" websites. i couldnt listen to him long because I felt like I just had someone reading to me from the AEfor911T website. It sounded like someone was paying him to say it. I tell you what, after you go and take me up on my challenge (less than 24 hours now) I will go through that video and tell you every single thing he got wrong. Just because he says "Im a 30 year veteran and now Im retired so Im not afraid" is a load of horsedung. he made so many errors in first words that this whole interview reeks like the Hudson River.

You appear to be over zealous with your assumptions, first you claimed added audio to clips with zero proof and now you just jumped to explosives. Couple of points, there are in actual fact a few witnesses who stated seeing molten steel at ground zero. The only person full of horse dung here mate is yourself and every time you sit there basically calling those witnesses liars (which is effectively what you're doing), you just appear desperate in trying to spread your horse dung around the place.

Let me reiterate my stance to you, it is unknown at this time the true events of 9/11, however the official line is not satisfactory by any means.

From the posts you have made and the way you're trying to make your points I can see you're one of the people who desperately refuses to believe any other version of events of that day, other than what officials have told you. This is despite the holes in the NIST report, witnesses, all the footage you claim is tampered with (and I can say, I know you're full of horsedung because I still remember the day and that includes the explosions before WTC7 fell).

And there is another glaring issue that I forgot to mention, do you know how long ground zero burned for after 9/11?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Well seeing as you failed in your task, no surprise. Here we go:
911myths.com...
speakoklahoma.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

ae911truth.info...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The biggest issue with that video is that others have analyzed the video and could clearly tell that the video's audio is in mono, while the big blast is in stereo. That is impossible to have happened and to be recorded in that way. The original video has not surfaced which clear this up. The truthers have jumped on this video as if it is proof of something, but all it is is proof is the gullibility of the truth movement to jump on anything that remotely supports their beliefs.

Do I deny explosions at the wtc site? Nope. Hell you had 30+ acres of structures on fire, two airliners, hundreds of vehicals destroyed crushed or burned, police cars and trucks with ammo, gas lines, gas pockets, etc etc etc all in there as most probably causes of the explosions heard. Even bodies falling and hitting the pavement sounded like explosions and described like that!

a reply to: GenRadek

The answer was four months btw

Dust, debris and rubble with a sprinkling of jet fuel, most of which would've burned up on impact or shortly thereafter and it burned for four months?

I'll reiterate again, there is so much wrong with the events of 9/11, a couple things I could understand but numerous things I can't. You are desperate to debunk everything being questioned about those events, you can justify it to yourself but it doesn't make the questionable events disappear.

And throwing a bunch of links created by people like yourself just proves that some, understandably, believe the official line and wouldn't dare question anything else.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I'll reiterate again, there is so much wrong with the events of 9/11, a couple things I could understand but numerous things I can't. You are desperate to debunk everything being questioned about those events, you can justify it to yourself but it doesn't make the questionable events disappear.

Most of what's wrong is only in the minds of internet investigators.
But that's understandable since all of there evidence comes from Youtube.

Can you imagine being arrested for a crime you did not do.
Once in court the prosecutors use Youtube as their sole source of evidence.

a reply to: samkent

Can you imagine being arrested for a crime you did not do.
Once in court the prosecutors use Youtube as their sole source of evidence.

I don't know....Youtube's been used quite effectively to convict Russia over the past few months...

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Here is an interesting article that may shed light on just why the pile was so hot for so long:

Iron Burns!

also in regards to molten metal:

Molten Metal

I had come across this years and years ago, and it reminded me of what I had learned back in chemistry class. Iron and steel rust. Rust is a slow form of oxidation. Ever notice when a car burns, it rusts really quickly, while a car that has its paint just stripped to the steel does not rust as quickly? When steel is heated it rusts quicker. However, rust is a form of burning. In fact, if you have a large amount of steel or iron in a giant heap, the heat generated from rust alone can actually pose a fire threat. I can hear you chuckling and scoffing at this notion that this is possible but it is true. If you were to google "Iron ore ship fire rust threat" you will find that there are indeed special rules regarding the transport of iron ore pellets. The heat from the rust can be a serious fire hazard.
You can read about the threats and how they can be mitigated here:
Carefully Ship DRI

Shipping Iron Ore Pellets Safety

DRI

When large amounts of iron rusts, adding water to it may make it worse. This may be a probable reason as to why it remained hot for so long. You had heated steel that ended up being buried, covered with other flammable materials, seawater and regular water pouring onto the steel beams which are rusting, producing more heat, which is kept insulated by the debris and fed by oxygen from cracks, gaps, and openings in the piles. Remember, nearly 30 acres of offices were burning.

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Here is an interesting article that may shed light on just why the pile was so hot for so long:

Iron Burns!

also in regards to molten metal:

Molten Metal

I had come across this years and years ago, and it reminded me of what I had learned back in chemistry class. Iron and steel rust. Rust is a slow form of oxidation. Ever notice when a car burns, it rusts really quickly, while a car that has its paint just stripped to the steel does not rust as quickly? When steel is heated it rusts quicker. However, rust is a form of burning. In fact, if you have a large amount of steel or iron in a giant heap, the heat generated from rust alone can actually pose a fire threat. I can hear you chuckling and scoffing at this notion that this is possible but it is true. If you were to google "Iron ore ship fire rust threat" you will find that there are indeed special rules regarding the transport of iron ore pellets. The heat from the rust can be a serious fire hazard.
You can read about the threats and how they can be mitigated here:
Carefully Ship DRI

Shipping Iron Ore Pellets Safety

DRI

When large amounts of iron rusts, adding water to it may make it worse. This may be a probable reason as to why it remained hot for so long. You had heated steel that ended up being buried, covered with other flammable materials, seawater and regular water pouring onto the steel beams which are rusting, producing more heat, which is kept insulated by the debris and fed by oxygen from cracks, gaps, and openings in the piles. Remember, nearly 30 acres of offices were burning.

I can hear you chuckling and scoffing at this notion

Totally

I'll quote you again:

But of course, the "Truth" movement is one step ahead of this fact of life by going one better: Secret ultra explosives with the cutting power of C-4 with the silence of thermite, and long lasting magical pools of molten steel and requiring no cords, no det cord, no blasting caps, no radio transmitters or special transmitters that are specially shielded from random radio frequencies. It just gets sad.

Extremely sad, like those far fetched notions of trying to explain away molten steel. And just in case you forgot, in your desperation you have changed tact from someone who denied molten steel altogether, to someone that is now trying to explain how molten steel could be formed. I quote you again:

Everything about controlled demolition and everything that they claim about that is 100% BS. Free-fall, molten steel, explosives, basement bombs, thermites, remote controlled planes with bombs and missile pods, etc etc etc

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you just don't like anyone disagreeing with your fallable notions and you'll throw anything you can in defense when someone attacks your notions.

Are you aware of this behaviour you exhibit?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I'm, sorry I wont play your "Gotya game" with my own words. I know this game well and sorry, it wont work.

Do not play the innocent "I'm just asking questions, not making accusations" nonsense. You post videos that are blatantly suggesting serious accusations through "innuendo" and the old "Isnt this suspicious?" style of post. Here you posted video of a fireman who claims to have seen molten steel flowing and heard big explosives going off and such, and another video with fake audio of a blast and another that, I dont even know why you bothered since it did nothing. Now, as is standard operating procedure, 99.99999% of "truthers" when they post such videos means they are not so subtly claiming that these are signs of something sinister occurring and therefore means that we were all lied to abotu what happened, and that means that this is evidence of inside job with explosives, thermite, etc etc etc etc. Do not play coy with me. You posted those videos suggesting just that. Do not deny it. I react to the videos because I know you are trying to push this nonsense that explosives were used, via thinly veiled "just asking questions" and "Isn't this suspicious?" comments. TO you, those videos are directly pointing at some sort of explosives related demolition as the cause of bring down. But you play it off, and then try to get me in a game of "gotya! I wasnt really making those accusations, youare just overreacting to my innocent questions." BS. Why else would you post those videos if not for the sole purpose to claim evidence o explosives? Well nice try. But not going to work. You posted those video in order to show that somethign sinister happened and therefore it was secret demolition of some sort. Do not play this game with me. You will lose. Just like how you lost my challenge. No surprise.

originally posted by: Flatcoat

However, that clip originally had the explosion sound in stereo, but ALL the other audio was in mono. The clip got debunked as being a fake, and was rapidly removed from youtube. But it then reappeared on youtube a few days later, but NOW with the explosion in mono.

Do you have any proof of that?

The video has been deleted. A debunking of that point would require access to the original footage but it has not surfaced.

But it's not the only way to debunk the explosion as being real.

The audio was run through a software program that determined that the sound in the "explosion" in that clip exceeded the frequency range limitations of the microphone.

From merory, the mic was capable of recording from about 60hz to about 10khz. That's adequate for recording voices, etc, and typical of the time. But the explosion sound exceeded those limits. That can onlt happen if someone added in the sound.

Yet another way to debunk it is to use your ears and your grey matter. Just listen to it. the voices are muddied, there's a lot of background noise and little dynamic range. The xplosion sound is clear, has excellent frequency range, and much greater dynamic range.

If you're looking for something to reinforce your view of explosives, then you've found it. If you're skeptical, then you'll need further convincing.

a reply to: lexyghot

I won't argue with you because I haven't seen the analysis, but my original question still stands. If not an explosion, then what were they reacting to?

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: lexyghot

I won't argue with you because I haven't seen the analysis, but my original question still stands. If not an explosion, then what were they reacting to?

That would be speculation on my part, and not necessary.

I know for a fact that the explosion sound was added in, most likely to dramatize a documentary. that's all I need to know.

a reply to: Flatcoat

My speculation is that if you take away the blast, you will hear the firefighter thats shouting at them to get out of there. Someone shouts at you, you may flinch a bit. I wrote about this on this thread a few years ago:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The words as best as I can hear them:
Policeman 1 (the guy on the phone with the cloth over his head)
"Heres one of the guys that can tell you that I'm OK, allright? (hands phone to Policeman 2) here you are...do you want to call your mother or something?"
Policeman 2 (tall guy with black air mask and gray cloth over shoulder)
"hello?"
someone shouts (loud explosion noise added in) makes the two policemen flinch and look around towards the South (The direction of the WTC Towers).
Fireman 1 walks up from east (wearing white mask)
"(You are ?) not supposed to be here right now, you gotta get back from here, you know that, they gotta get back, the second's (or second ones) gonna fall down....
Fireman 2 talking over the first firefighter at the same time (previously unseen, wearing helmet and black mask)
"Allright just hold it, I know"
Policeman 1
"dont' worry about me"
Fireman 2
"you need to make calls, I know"

That is about the best I can make it out with the audio. The part that everyone is also jumpy over is that someone supposedly said "Seven's Exploding". By listening closely, I can hear two voices saying two things at the same time. The first firefighter says "You gotta get back, second ones gonna fall down" and it is right at that last half of the sentence the second firefighter says, "Just hold it, I know". They overlap and if you have been told what to expect or have a fake subtitle, you are gonna hear what they want. But without it, I hear nothing about Sevens exploding. The words "seconds gonna come down," and "Just hold it, I know" are muddled together. That is causing the confusion.

Well here we are almost new years eve and That Didn't Happen! Just when is this video supposed to air in Times Square? a reply to: real_one

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Well here we are almost new years eve and That Didn't Happen! Just when is this video supposed to air in Times Square? a reply to: [post=18396642]real_one[/post

It appears truthers were unable to come up with the goods. Again!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Well here we are almost new years eve and That Didn't Happen! Just when is this video supposed to air in Times Square? a reply to: [post=18396642]real_one[/post

It appears truthers were unable to come up with the goods. Again!

Just as they are unable to come up with the truth. Why call them truthers when delusional fits so much better?

In tribute to the last couple of posters, your patriotism and allegiance to those with the power is amusing

o, say, can u see? by the dawn's early light? what so proudly we hailed, at the twilights least gleaming. whose broad stripes and bright stars, throught the perolous night, o'r the rampardes we watched, were so gallently streaming. and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there. o, say, does the star spangled banner yet wave? for the land of the free, and the home of the brave!

Sing along now

You do know that your glass is just as capable of holding koolaid as any other right?



And that this event never occurring makes it more likely .



a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Can someone tell me, Why the US Government would allow such a video to be shown? Specially there for the world to see.
I'm from the UK and a little obsessed with the american government (And UK government) And what they are up to!

originally posted by: TimeToAct
Can someone tell me, Why the US Government would allow such a video to be shown?

Just why do you think the yank government would try and stop it?
Why should it be censored?