Extremely powerful new clip by 911eyewitness

Originally posted by pavil
Ok, Ive watched this blurry video for the third time, maybe it's just blurry on my PC. I don't not see the molten metal pouring out the sides of the building that is being talked about, can someone reference it for me.

Here's a still image:

Like the posts just above me I have asked on other threads just exactly how and when would these supposed demo charges have been placed and exactly how many charges per floor in pounds and how many in number per floor would be needed to achieve the results claimed. No one has ever come forth with satisfactory explanations.

And I don't think anyone ever will, short of the master engineer(s) of the event.

You're asking for the number of charges per floor and how much they weighed. We aren't even positive of all of the types of explosives used yet. That doesn't mean there wasn't a demolition; we can still tell that the buildings did not fall naturally by the way that they fell and the fact that they did begin to fall despite the nature and size of the fires. It just means we can't tell you with any certainty the fine details of how it was done.

What if I ask you how many columns were failed and how many were structurally compromised, and to what extent those columns were compromised, before each tower began to fall? If you can't answer me, does that mean that the buildings were necessarily demolitions?

Someone previously mentioned the possibility that maybe the bright flashes were electrical shorts. I can see how thats possible, however I think due to the structural damage I would have immediatly cut the power to prevent more fires caused by electrical sources.... just a thought

Thanks for the picture, I was referring to the initial video in this thread.

The photo you show is 3 minutes after the South Tower collapsed. The Sparks on the right in photo could be any of a number of things. Is that the molten metal that people are speaking of?

You are not suggesting that there were Thermite explosive charges placed right where the impact from the plane hit are you? That would imply that they must have been planted after the planes struck, exactly how did that occur?

You're asking for the number of charges per floor and how much they weighed. We aren't even positive of all of the types of explosives used yet. That doesn't mean there wasn't a demolition; we can still tell that the buildings did not fall naturally by the way that they fell and the fact that they did begin to fall despite the nature and size of the fires. It just means we can't tell you with any certainty the fine details of how it was done.

You are already assuming that there were explosives used when you have no hard evidence to back up your claims whatsoever. Since people are proposing that it was demolition charges that brought down both towers, the burden of proof is on you to back up with factual details. So far I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of how this supposed planned demolition occurred.

And yes, I think I can ask approximately how many charges it would take to level the WTC towers. Forget the type and weight of explosives. I know someone out in cyberspace must have given an estimate of the number of charges at least. I don't claim to be an engineer or architect or demolitions expert. At a minimum there must be a certain number of columns in the interior that would have to fail, so I ask you, how many charges would it take even if there was no plane impact? If you are talking about multiple floors being rigged with charges that makes your claims even more far-fetched. Especially when you times it by two for each tower.

Here is a video that seems to dispute the claim that all the fires were out when you can see that is not the case. The area around her, you see no flames but look at the floors above and below.


Link.

Mod Edit: Truncated Link Of Great Length

[edit on 20/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

But look at the colour of the flames, deep red, not hot enough to cause steel to fail.

To heat mild steel (low carbon content) enough to bend it you need to apply a direct flame that is light yellow at least...

See this heat colour chart...

www.beautifuliron.com...

Mild steel has a low carbon content making it easier to form. Steel used in construction has a higher carbon content and is hardened to increase strength, wear and impact resistance, so a much higher temperature would be required to cause it to bend let alone fail completely.

There is no way those fires would have caused the steel to fail, let alone leave molten pools in the basement.

Originally posted by pavil
You are not suggesting that there were Thermite explosive charges placed right where the impact from the plane hit are you? That would imply that they must have been planted after the planes struck, exactly how did that occur?

I'm not implying that. They could've already been placed and so waiting for triggering. Thermite costs about $10 per 10 pounds. They could've rigged all of the top floors the same as they could with any individual one.

You are already assuming that there were explosives used when you have no hard evidence to back up your claims whatsoever.

When you ask me a hypothetical question of how many explosives were planted, I think it's assumed that we're being hypothetical. Thus the "assumption." And I suppose that's your opinion if you think we have no hard evidence.

So much is available for any open-minded person to truly understand both sides of the issues, that you would have to post some actual substance for me to take that opinion seriously anymore. And the primary burden of proof for how those towers fell is firstly NIST.

And yes, I think I can ask approximately how many charges it would take to level the WTC towers.

Well go ahead and I ask. There's no way I can answer you, so I'm not going to. Reread my previous post if you have a problem with this.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, you don't have it straight. First of all, I've never seen that argument, that the official story is wrong simply because all the paper didn't burn. But what Jack and the makers of this video are getting at, I assume, is that the paper survived while the concrete slabs were all pulverized into fine powder, which coated the streets of Manhattan like a fluffy gray snow.

I haven't watch the video yet so I can't tell you what exactly it's pointing out. Have you watched it?

[edit on 22-5-2006 by bsbray11]

Yes I watched it. Why else would I call it a piece of crap? How about you watching it and then responding? I am referring only to the video that this thread is about, not anything else.

I just watched it again, and the spire collapse again (as it walked around with its feet cut off before disintigrating into dust), and read the latest 911 Eyewitness post referring to the data on what was in samples of dust/debris after the destruction of the three buildings in NYC. There was uranium and other radioactive's that are not found in your computers or flying crafts as apologists propose.

"We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. "
www.911eyewitness.com...

The paper flying in the hot air/debris cloud is a signature of a WMD. Paper would not burn or pulverize from the high heat/impulse of a WMD. Everything and person in the building would. Mass to surface allows paper to survive.

The only part of the official story that is correct is that "Terrorists did this because they hated our freedoms". The terrorists that demolished the three buildings in New York City on September 11, 2001 have removed those freedoms and no one can be jealous of them anymore. The terrorists still hold power and even more since they brought down those buildings. They collected billions in insurance and trillions in contracts for war production.

There are some pissed off military people that did not like the use of these advanced weapons by a country on its own people. They are stepping to the plate.

members.surfeu.fi...

It is little wonder that the masses have no idea what the modern nuclear technology can do. It is just another secret that we have to learn. Everything from Geiger counters to the visions of the big mushroom cloud has to be dispelled as the new information comes to light. The large tubular cloud is the signature of the directed WMD. It rises through each of the buildings as they fall. "Ground Zero" a term for a nuked target, is cemented over and few are allowed near. It was cleaned with running water for 90 days as it burned. 90 days on fire from what?

Originally posted by YIAWETA
Just another piece of an already clear picture. If the thermite charges or flashes don't convince you then nothing ever will. Also look at footage just seconds before the first tower started to fall and you'll clearly see the ground shake and hear a massive explosion. The fact this is still debated is sickening.

It is not debated it is "debunked". A bunch of bunko artists have a go at it to try and keep the people from ever getting together and seeing anything. They are all over here producing fake evidence and obscuring things with inuendo and personal assualts rather than face the proof. Most of them never got the DVD to see the intact detail and get the full sound. They base their bunko on files that have been manipulated by others.

I love the 911 eyewitness. The new one even better. They don't have a hard sell it is all video and science and questions. So many questions and as they say the people who cleaned all the stuff up are hiding things. When you see the explosions inside the building on the new one you will be shocked.

As you see the latest one also re-aquaints you with the results on the dust/debris, or fall out as it conatined uranium and other radiactives of a WMD. Plain as day.

You know they are getting close when they go after the personality instead of substance.

As they say, look and watch. Learn the truth

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
The thermonuclear device is what caused the massive blasts recorded going off in the basemen just BEFORE the collapse.

How come the cores were left standing momentarily after the collapse if the nukes were detonated in the basement? How come people survived in one of the cores?

Because the cores were not left standing, they were cut off at the bottom and clearly moving before they disolved into dust. Don't you have Rick Siegel's spirefinish.wmv yet?

No one survived in the core. There you go blasting disinfo again. The survivors you talk about where in a stairwell, not the core. You distort more than a cell phone at 30,000 feet.

The stairwells were in the core, as were the elevators.

But for the few that did survive the collapses, about another 1000 were "vaporized" (the term the medical examiner used), with no parts left even big enough to identify.

NEW YORK -- Three months after the World Trade Center attack, victims' families are being forced to face the ghastly possibility that many of the dead were "vaporized," as the medical examiner put it, and may never be identified.

Source.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The stairwells were in the core, as were the elevators.

Not where the people were found. Corner stairwell.

*SNIP* Personal Attack

Projectile Motion With Cannon


They have a whole bunch of new clips up there. Check it out. This film is AWESOME.

They showed how the amount of force upwards and sideways remaind the same as the building collapsed. Once again proving demolition and demolishing the hoax that Agent Smith perpetrated.

*SNIP*

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by ChapaevII
Not where the people were found.

Corner stairwell.

Really? I wasn't aware, but sure. If this is wrong, I'm assuming someone else will correct it. I've already done enough digging for one day.

They showed how the amount of force upwards and sideways remaind the same as the building collapsed.

What force, specifically? I'm not sure I'm following. Do you at least see what we're pointing out, albeit if separately from what you're also pointing out? Because it'd be nice to at least know you realize that the dust cloud was being sucked downward as the collapses continued.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

They showed how the amount of force upwards and sideways remaind the same as the building collapsed.

What force, specifically? I'm not sure I'm following. Do you at least see what we're pointing out, albeit if separately from what you're also pointing out? Because it'd be nice to at least know you realize that the dust cloud was being sucked downward as the collapses continued.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by bsbray11]

The WMD of course. The force that pulverized the concrete in a few seconds, super heated the steel and allowed the collapse of 100+ story steel buildings in near free fall time.

Yes it was quite a day for physical wonders. It looks like a roman candle and nothing is being sucked in, it is being blown out, hundreds of feet. Several American football fields. It is so easy to see with that DVD. The Google stuff is ok but the DVD is amazing quality and nothing is left to the imagination or to Agent Smith to alter.

Having viewed (most) of the videos linked to on this thread (I'm still only about halfway through the 2 hours 40 minute one), I have a few points to add.

First and foremost, I have extensive experience with pyrotechnics (mostly in an entertainment capacity), and a mild to moderate pyro experience in a demolition capacity, and I can say, flat out, that the way both towers fell just screams controlled demolition (and I won't even get into how much WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition). It could be argued through very weak physics that WTC1 (the first tower hit) fell because of the damage from the impact and fire, though the chances of it falling in just such a manner are roughly a billion to one. Because the hit was so close to the top of the tower, it's pretty logical that the start of the fall would be from the top of the tower, directly upon itself. However, with 47 concrete core towers, it's extremely unlikely that the central towers (providing roughly 80% of the building's support) would have vaporized, and fallen completely vertically, into itself. This doesn't even start to mention the interlocked design of the outer steel structure that was designed to redistribute weight as needed, due to failure of other support members, or typical forces experienced during high winds or a hurricane (which do hit NYC on occasion). In the original NIST report, as outlined by the rather long video posted earlier, it is stated that both towers wobbled from the hits, but reacted just as they would to high winds, and stabilized normally, even after the plane strikes.

As far as later controlled demolition, the vaporized concrete and steel, with remains of intact paper, hold very true to a basic controlled demolition. The explosives are loaded and directed in such a manner to maximize the structural damage in such a manner to cause the building to implode, while minimising collateral damage. As far as the length of time needed to install such explosives, yes, it does typically take weeks to install, however, with a large enough and skilled enough team (say, Army Corps of Engineers), and very detailed preplanning (structural docs could have been obtained from the city archives - they're always public record, unless security deems it otherwise - and even then, with the rumored inside involvement with the building owners as to their possible financial gain with the towers coming down....), it is feasible that all the explosives could have been installed the night before. The video shot, from any angle, as each of the towers collapse (not to mention the piles of rubble afterwards) does suggest that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, especially because of the lack of the 47 concrete core towers still existing, even in part, after the demolition.

Simple physics alone is enough to see that the towers could not have collapsed upon themselves in such an orderly fashion. The video footage of WTC 2 (the second tower hit), even having been hit roughly 25 stories below the top of the structure, collapses almost perfectly neatly upon itself (yes, I know the top of the tower falls slightly to one side during the initial stages of collapse, but this is most likely due to the original damage to the structure, compromizing the controlled demolition - the remainder of the building falls neatly upon itself).

I really don't subscribe to the mini-nuke theory for destruction of these buildings, because of the fact that even after the towers fell, there was still 2-3 stories worth of the central core towers standing (not to mention how the buildings fell). If a mini-nuke was used in the basement to destroy the foundations of the central core towers, then it would stand to reason that nothing would be left of the towers.

Knowing typical controlled demolition techniques, the blasts are set to demolish the strongest, most centralized support members first, and, after a slight delay, demolish the outward members, so that they fall inward, towards the center of the structure. A beautiful, and very entertaining example of this can be found here: King Dome demolition. Notice how all of the outer portions fall inward towards the center, even with noticable blowout. Watch that, and then compare it to the WTCs falling. I promise you'll see similarities.

Finally, regarding smoke colors, black smoke means one of two things, and it depends on the type of fire. Black smoke is indicative of unburned hydrocarbons (or flammable material). A fire that starts with black smoke, and continues with black smoke is indicative of a fire that's burning at a fuel refinery, rubber manufacturer, or other source that contains very carbon-heavy fuels that continue to last. On the other hand, a fire that starts with a white or grey smoke, which becomes black (such as seen at the WTC fires), is indicative of a fire that started hot, and has since cooled, thus releasing more carbon-based material as soot (such as average fire-retardant office furniture). Jet fuel will often burn with an almost white smoke, as the fuel burns almost completely, and very hot. This white smoke signifies that almost everything is being burned, with very little fuel being ejected from the flames (it's mostly white ash). In the WTC fires, predominately grey smoke is seen at the initial fires, meaning that there's highly flammable fuel (the jet fuel), along with reduced flammability fuels (flame-retardent office materials), all burning together. As the smoke blackens, it means that the fire is running out of jet fuel to burn, and is, instead, trying to burn the flame-retardent fuel making up the office furniture. Knowing the rate that kerosene and alcohol (the two most common jet fuels) burn and evaporate (especially in warm enviornments), it's pretty logical that the jet fuel was completely gone about 5 minutes into the fire (if that). For proof of that theory, try spraying liquid kerosene, propane, or lighter fluid/charcoal grill lighter fluid onto the ground (dry concrete surfaces work best for this demonstration), and see how long it takes for the surface to dry at room (or outside air) temperature (be careful with the fumes, as they can be dangerous to breathe). After the liquid has dried, try setting fire to the area. It won't happen. This is exactly the same effect as happened at the WTC buildings. Additionally, if you have a thermometer capable of reading into the 1000 degrees C ranger or better, repeat the experiment, this time setting fire to the fluid before it evaporates, and see what the max temperature is. It's well below the melting temperature for steel (1510 degrees C (2750°F)) If these fuels could possibly reach that temperature range, I'd accept, to an extent, the fire damage theory as fact (kerosene, alcohol, and lighter fluids burn at less than 900 degrees Fahrenheit).

I'm not quite willing to accept the thermite theory, as this would mean prolonged burns at most steel structural compenets (all on the outside of thw structure) for several seconds at least. None of the video supports this. A possible alternative would be white phosphorus strips, but even then, white phosphorus would require several seconds (at the brilliance of the sun) to burn through 4" thick steel supports. Once again, none of the video footage supports this.

Regardless of the cause, this is one of the most documented building collapses in the world (if not the most documented), and as such, any theories are easilly disproved if footage cannot be found to support said theory (at least externally).

Controlled demolition, yes. Thermite or other steel compromising compoud, likely not.

[edit on 6/19/2006 by obsidian468]

I didn't have enough room in my last post to address this, the ideas posted that people were found alive in the corner stairwells...

Given that a controlled demolition blast of these buildings would have focused upon the primary supports for these buildings (the 47 interior concrete columns, designed to support 90% of the weight of the buildings, as well as prevent fire from being able to use the stair and elevator shafts contained within), it would stand to reason that minimal demolition blasts were planted in the exterior stairwells (I'm guessing the four corners of the building), as it's well known that these would collapse after the central columns and key points in the external steel structure were demolished. That said, it's pretty feasible, if not likely, that there would be a survivor or three from within these external columns (if the force of the fall and sudden stop didn't kill them) and humans have been known to survive worse). It's pretty logical that they would have survived this, especially if they happened to be on a floor that didn't have a blast charge on it (I'm guessing that only one out of every 3-5 stories had a blast charge in the exterior stairwell, judging by what I know of demolition procedures).





Also, and this is somewhat unrelated to the original post for this thread, but addressed in the LONG video posted later in this thread, I do want to say that what hit the Pentagon was indeed a 757. I was on the crew that erected the veil that covered that section of the Pentagon during reconstruction, not to mention living locally, and seeing that the damage to the light poles on 395 was caused by nothing less than a 757 (no missile would take out the tops of three light poles, spanning roughly 100 feet). I have seen this firsthand. I also know the composition of the outside walls of the Pentagon (my father had a large hand in the renovation of that section, which did include reinforcements to the exterior walls), and know that a 25' wide 757 fuselage would likely (considering that an average commuter jet is made up of aluminum, paper honeycomb, and other light/flimsy materials) have compressed upon meeting the Pentagon walls, comprised of steel, kevlar, reinforced concrete, and limestone (all told, about 16" thick, with rocket/bomb-proofed windows). Part of the Pentagon remodel that happened just before the event was a major reinforcement of the exterior walls. It was designed to withstand Oklahoma City style bombings.

Additonally, that part of the Pentagon is not easilly accessed by traffic. The last time I was down there (less than a year ago), I was driving a 16' straight truck, and it took me four hours to pass security there, because the original truck scheduled to be there had broken down (thus, I was driving a similar truck, but didn't have the same truck license plate registration), and Pentagon security had never been notified. So, I ended up stuck curbside in Clarendon, VA (not far from the Pentagon) on the phone between staff at the company I was working for, the site contact, and Pentagon security for about four hours before I was finally able to deliver my cargo (two posters and four set pieces - and the security checkpoint that I wasn't able to get through was before that wedge of the Pentagon, heading towards it). The point I'm going for, if they're reinforcing that part of the Pentagon that heavilly, imagine the sides that are pretty easilly open to public traffic (requiring no more than a valid ID to pass through the gates) - they are remodelling/reinforcing ALL of the Pentagon, known because my father is a contractor on all of the remodels, in progress yet or not.

That said, a 757 vs. the exterior wall of the Pentagon... the 757 will lose. The plane will penetrate (from sheer force - a 180 ton airplane, at 550 mph) yet would be collapsed into a smaller space, and likely (especially being a trans-continental flight) detonate at impact. The wings will fold back on the body, and the tail section will collapse onto the body, and all will slide through (or be vaporized from the jet fuel blast in a confined space, which will amplify temperatures, briefly) - remember, almost all commercial aircraft are completely aluminun in structure, and how easilly aluminum compresses in can compressors (typical for recycling). Fact is, from my own personal observations, two days after the attack, it was definitely a plane that impacted the Pentagon. My main beef with all the Pentagon/missile theories is that they don't take into account the known collateral damage on Route 395, nor the reinforced and hardened nature of the Pentagon walls. These two factors alone justify the nature of the impact hole.

[edit on 6/19/2006 by obsidian468]

That was a great post. You seem to have a grasp yet may I ask if it has so much documentation what you feel the method of demolition was?

Originally posted by ChapaevII
That was a great post. You seem to have a grasp yet may I ask if it has so much documentation what you feel the method of demolition was?

The method of demolition was likely high explosives, typically used in demolition and excavation. The most common ones are TNT and nitroglycerin, which is somewhat gelatinous in nature, and typically comes in plastic tubes of varying lengths, depending on the type, size, and direction of charge needed (If you've ever seen video of the explosive preparation for controlled demolition, this is what you typically see the workers inserting into the holes in the support columns). Another option is C4, which would be needed in smaller quantities, and could be used on the surface to direct a blast, rather than the drilling needed to set the TNT or nitroglycerin blasts. These same explosives could be used to shatter the bolts holding together the exterior steel structure, thus causing it to tear itself apart.

Using either of these types of explosives would eject great amounts of pulverized concrete, partially from the backblast, but mostly from the outward rush of air, as two floor levels pancaked upon each other, no longer having the interior structural supports. Also, viewing this from the outside of the demolition (as you can see in the video of the King Dome demolition), there would be small, noticable flashes as the exterior charges go off (but not every blast would be visible). These are slightly visible in the WTC towers falling, but hard to see, through all of the smoke and dust.

Most likely, the demolition was done with simple conventional explosives, typical for a controlled demolition.

Some more info on controlled demolition:

en.wikipedia.org...

[Edit - corrected information, and added link]

[edit on 6/20/2006 by obsidian468]

Originally posted by obsidian468

Originally posted by ChapaevII
That was a great post. You seem to have a grasp yet may I ask if it has so much documentation what you feel the method of demolition was?

The method of demolition was likely high explosives, typically used in demolition and excavation.


Most likely, the demolition was done with simple conventional explosives, typical for a controlled demolition.

Some more info on controlled demolition:

en.wikipedia.org...

[Edit - corrected information, and added link]

[edit on 6/20/2006 by obsidian468]

Thank you, that was most enlightening.

That 911 Eyewitness has a whole clip showing the charges you may be speaking of. I wonder if you saw that? It is on google and I can find it if you have not.

Is there really enough significant enegy to pulverize all the building like that? Pushing outwards 600 feet (2 football fields)?

This is so much outward force.

ChapaevII,

Depending on the amount, type, and charge direction of the explosives used, there could certainly be enough force generated to spew debris 600 feet from the WTC towers (especially when considering that most of the debris was dust by the time it left the towers).

Some of the controlled blast theories state that roughly 20,000 lbs of dynamite would have been needed to take down both towers, meaning 10,000 lbs of dynamite per tower, spread across 110 floors.

Here's a photo of a blast of only 50 lbs of TNT (roughly the same blast yield as an equivalent amount of dynamite): 50lb TNT Blast

Additionally, the King Dome Demolition that I referenced previously only used 4,450 lbs of dynamite to demolish the entire stadium.

External Source: seattlepi.nwsource.com...

More than 4,450 pounds of dynamite, unleashed over a span of tiny delays, blitzed one of the world's largest concrete domes -- one day shy of its 24th birthday.

Also, a 1000 lb TNT explosion is roughly the same force as 4.0 earthquake (Source)

With all those facts laid out, does it now make more sense to you, just how much force would have been behind a controlled demolition of the WTC towers?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
[The flashes you see are transformers, junction boxes and maybe even lighting ballasts.

Please explain to me how a junction box EXPLODES...

So many nice coincedneces for you... Transformer locations, thermite is heavy, lighting ballasts exploding in perfect time...