Nice footage of skyscraper demolision..

Originally posted by gavron
Not according to the professionals at im implosionworld.com:

What about the experts that say it was a CD I mentioned earlier?

This is one of the major problems with 9/11-for every theory or hypothesis, there is an equal and opposite theory or hypothesis.

I think(as do many, many others) the only way around those problems are to have a new(and independent from Federal Government) investigation conducted into all of the events of 9/11.

I'm going to quote myself.

Originally posted by Niobis
That, along with the other are long papers, so it will take me a while to read them. When I finish, I will post my opinion on them.

On second thought, I won't read them because I don't need to. I'd like to draw your attention back to the NBC footage of the South Tower collapse. As I've pointed out many times already, there are hundreds of flashes from the explosives. I have not been able to count them all there are so many. They are above and below the initial attack, and they keep going down. I have also noticed they are in sync with each other. You can see them go off on each corner of the building at the same time, so therefore you can't just say they were generators or transformers.

This one video is all the proof needed to prove CD in these towers as there are way too many of them to be something other than explosives.

www.youtube.com...

The poster of the video also links to the full quality video for even more clarity.

Originally posted by Niobis

What about the experts that say it was a CD I mentioned earlier?

What about the fact that many of them retracted their statements in light of studying further into the collapses? What about the thousands of structural engineers that agree with the official story?

This is one of the major problems with 9/11-for every theory or hypothesis, there is an equal and opposite theory or hypothesis

No that is not true. The "truthers" story is the only one that has changed in light of past theories proven to be utterly false. The official story has not changed.

I think(as do many, many others) the only way around those problems are to have a new(and independent from Federal Government) investigation conducted into all of the events of 9/11.

I doubt you are going to see that as it takes alot of taxpayers money and time. Perhaps you should read what is already available instead of Dr. Jones and Richard Gage interpret it for you.

Also I would like to add that the investigation into WTC7 will be published soon.

Originally posted by Niobis

On second thought, I won't read them because I don't need to.

So expert opinion on the matter is meaningless? If you wanted to know if it was a CD or not, would you listen to the people who do it for a living?

I'd like to draw your attention back to the NBC footage of the South Tower collapse. As I've pointed out many times already, there are hundreds of flashes from the explosives.

Why do they all happen after the collapse?

This one video is all the proof needed to prove CD in these towers as there are way too many of them to be something other than explosives.

www.youtube.com...

You are speculating. In that video I see no flashes no explosions to initiate the collapse. The only thing I see is the floors that were damaged by the planes failing and the top of the bulding act as piledriver.

One thing I would love for you to do is watch this movie from beginning to end and then come back to me and tell me what you think has been presented falsely.

Google Video Link

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
What about the fact that many of them retracted their statements in light of studying further into the collapses? What about the thousands of structural engineers that agree with the official story?

Again, we get into the same problems. For every theory, there's an equal and opposite theory. There are structural engineers that don't agree with the official story, and there are structural engineers that do agree.

No that is not true. The official story has not changed.

It's not? You and I are a good example of this. We are not experts, but we can still present equal and opposite theories and hypothesis'.

I doubt you are going to see that as it takes alot of taxpayers money and time.

Well it needs to be done! There were over 2700 people in those buildings. I think they deserve 2700 different investigations. So far, there have only been 3 'official' investigations and they were all high dollar cover-ups. I would rather my tax money go towards a new 9/11 investigation than to bombs for the illegal war in Iraq.

Also I would like to add that the investigation into WTC7 will be published soon.

Yes, I know. I'm anticipating the BS story that will be told. One only needs eyes to see WTC7 was a CD.

So expert opinion on the matter is meaningless? If you wanted to know if it was a CD or not, would you listen to the people who do it for a living?

When did I say anything like that? I said I didn't need to read those papers because I already know those towers were brought down in a CD. There way too much conclusive evidence saying so. Including the experts that first said it looked like a CD, but then retracted their statements(most likely because they were threatened in some way or another). Some have even lost their jobs because they said it was a CD.

Why do they all happen after the collapse?

We've been over that already. The explosives set off to initiate collapse would be on and around the core columns. We can not see the core columns from outside. The North Tower's antenna drops a half a second before the rest of the building(FEMA and NIST both acknowledge that), which indicates core column damage first.

In that video I see no flashes no explosions to initiate the collapse. The only thing I see is the floors that were damaged by the planes failing and the top of the bulding act as piledriver.

We've already been over this, too. The South Tower's "piledriver" starts to fall at an angle, so how does it magically violate laws and not fall to the ground as a whole? Only explosives can explain why.

As for you not seeing any flashes, I don't think you want to see them because as I said, I see hundreds. And a lot of them are synchronized. Download the higher quality video and watch closely. I can see them in the YouTube version, and from the comments on that video so can other people. Open your eyes, man.

One thing I would love for you to do is watch this movie from beginning to end and then come back to me and tell me what you think has been presented falsely.

I've have seen that video before. Yet again, we get into the equal and opposite theory problem.

reply to post by Niobis


I want you to go to 1:53:30 to 1:59:01 in that video I posted. Let me know if you can hear anything that suggests a controlled demolition.

reply to post by Cool Hand Luke


The computer I'm on right now only has dialup, so I'm not able to download the 400mb file. If you can cut the part you mentioned to reduce the size, I'll take a look, otherwise I'm not waiting 24 hours to download it.

Maybe you can find an excerpt of that part of the video...?

I'd still like to hear your explanation of why any flashes occur during the collapses, not to mention hundreds.

Originally posted by Niobis

Maybe you can find an excerpt of that part of the video...?

Here it is. It's pretty disturbing.

I'd still like to hear your explanation of why any flashes occur during the collapses, not to mention hundreds.

Think of how many fires were in that building. When you have something that compresses the space that fire is going to blown outwards. Even if large debris fell or a floor partial gives way, the air pressure will blow them outwards.

And please post the video that has the best evidence and I can give you a further opinion.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
Here it is. It's pretty disturbing.

Thank you for finding a smaller size. I have heard that phone call before and it still gives me goosebumps every time I hear it.

I guess the thing you're trying to point out is the absence of sounds from explosions. If you notice, near the end, there is extra disturbance on the line, and the operator says, "hello?" as if she cannot hear Mr. Cosgrove. There's even more disturbance before the tower starts collapsing.

The 911 audio tapes were not released until 2006, which is more than enough time to edit out the sounds of explosions and replace them with normal sounding disturbance. We can only speculate on these things and either way, it is not conclusive evidence that explosives were or were not used.

After a three-year legal battle with the city's fire department, snippets of about 130 taped conversations between emergency operators and those inside the Twin Towers were released by the city's Law Department Friday. In CDs made available to the public, the voices of the callers have been edited out. But the families of those identified have been allowed to hear both sides.

Emphasis added.
Source

Think of how many fires were in that building. When you have something that compresses the space that fire is going to blown outwards. Even if large debris fell or a floor partial gives way, the air pressure will blow them outwards.

I'm only estimating floor numbers here, so these are not exact, only 'close'. From the NBC footage many flashes can be seen on floors 92 or 95, 85, 83, 79, 75, 72, and many 60 level floors, ect. They follow all the way down out of view of the camera.

By your explanation, that could account(although unlikely) for the floors above the initial impact, but NOT for the lower floors. Find me some reports of fires in the 50-80th floors and I'll believe those flashes are simply fires being forced out by pressure.

Also, I'd like to point out how brief the flashes are. If it was just fire, it wouldn't be a flash. It would resemble the fire we saw as the North Tower began to collapse, which lasts for about 2-3 seconds(as seen in this video). Each of these flashes last less than a half of a second each-exactly like flashes we see in CD.

And please post the video that has the best evidence and I can give you a further opinion.

I did post the video. It's the NBC "live" footage of the South Tower collapse. The poster of the video links to the full quality video in the description.

Download it in full MPG2 quality here: www.megaupload.com...

You can download the full quality, but I can see the flashes in the compressed YouTube version perfectly clear through FLV Player. I noticed if you watch the video in the YouTube window, all the flashes are not clearly visible, but many can still be seen. I recommend downloading the flv file or the above full quality.

Originally posted by Niobis

I guess the thing you're trying to point out is the absence of sounds from explosions.

Yes that was my point.

If you notice, near the end, there is extra disturbance on the line, and the operator says, "hello?" as if she cannot hear Mr. Cosgrove. There's even more disturbance before the tower starts collapsing.

You can make out that the "distubance" is Doug Cherry talking to Kevin Cosgrove telling him the position in which they are at in the building. Which you then hear Kevin Cosgrove repeat it to the 911 operator. "Hello?" Because she couldn't hear his voice clearly anymore because Doug Cherry was talking and she was just making sure that he had not left the phone. He then says "Hello. Yes we're looking...Yes we are overlooking the financial building. Three of us. Two broken windows."

After a three-year legal battle with the city's fire department, snippets of about 130 taped conversations between emergency operators and those inside the Twin Towers were released by the city's Law Department Friday. In CDs made available to the public, the voices of the callers have been edited out. But the families of those identified have been allowed to hear both sides.

Emphasis added.
Source

Yes, the CD's that were made to the public had the callers voices completely edited out, out of respect for the victims and the families. In Kevin Cosgrove's case, his family has allowed to let the public hear it.

In late March, the city released 130 phone calls to 911 from people inside the towers. The New York Times and families of Sept. 11 victims had sued the city for those and other records under the Freedom of Information Act, and the New York State Court of Appeals ordered their release with some portions removed

[snip]

The recordings released today were edited to remove the voices of civilians calling the 911 system, as the court ordered on privacy grounds. As a result, those calls contain only the operators’ responses. Calls made by government employees — including firefighters — contain both sides of the conversation.

There is one exception: a call made by Melissa Doi, who was trapped in the south tower. It includes four minutes of her voice because it was introduced as evidence during the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. In the call, Ms. Doi tells the operator she believes she is dying, and asks the operator to call her mother. Although the call lasted some 24 minutes, only 4 minutes were put into evidence; the remaining 20 released today contain the 911 operator’s voice as she tries to console Ms. Doi, who apparently died while on the phone.

Source

Ask yourself, does the Kevin Cosgrove tape sound edited to you?

Here is a list of 22 more tapes.

And yes it is speculation that they would edit out explosions.

By your explanation, that could account(although unlikely) for the floors above the initial impact, but NOT for the lower floors. Find me some reports of fires in the 50-80th floors and I'll believe those flashes are simply fires being forced out by pressure.

I already showed you many quotes of people in the buildings seeing and smelling jet fuel in the many of the lower floors. How much would it take to really ignite it?

Here is a page of those quotes and here

Like the Concourse Level, elevator lobbies throughout the building were particularly affected,38 likely by excess jet fuel ignited by the crash pouring down the elevator shafts.39 While only 3 percent (n=11) of the survivors reported seeing fireballs in their immediate area at the time of the airplane impact, the observations from the face-to-face interviews show the extreme nature of these events:

A survivor from a floor in the 80s: “The entire corridor became an inferno outside our front door. Smoke began to enter our office. There was also debris falling. ... The fire on the corridor was at least 10 ft high, and it ran the … good length of the corridor. Then I saw a fireball come down the elevator shaft and blew the elevator doors. The fireball came right at me; it was a really bright color.”
Interview 1000055 (NIST 2004)

A survivor from a floor in the 40s: “I saw the elevator in front me had flames coming out from it. The elevator was closed but the flames came from the front where the doors meet and on the sides. They reached about a foot and a half, with the flames standing from the floor to the ceiling. I saw a chandelier shaking; it was really moving. The corridor was dim. I also heard people screaming from the [nearby] floor. I felt the
heat on my face and I thought that my eyebrows were going to get burned. Black smoke starting filling the corridor, it got really dense really fast.”

Interview 1000109 (NIST 2004)
A survivor in the basement: “I saw a big bright orange color coming through the basement with the smoke ... A fire ball came shooting out of the basement door

Source

Lets not also forget the transformers in the building and the stress of having millions of pounds forcing their way down buckling the metal in the further down floors and the debris that follows.

Download it in full MPG2 quality here: www.megaupload.com...

Thank you for that, it is much clearer. Again why do these flashes happen after the building starts collapsing? In a controlled demolition, the charges are set off before the building starts falling.

You make the claim that it's because they set off explosives in the core first therefore we shouldn't be able to see them. But we should still be able to hear them, which we do not.

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
Ask yourself, does the Kevin Cosgrove tape sound edited to you?

Yes, it does.

And yes it is speculation that they would edit out explosions.

It's also speculation they didn't edit the tapes. Like I said, either way they are not conclusive evidence that explosives were or were not used.

I already showed you many quotes of people in the buildings seeing and smelling jet fuel in the many of the lower floors.

There is no definite proof that a plane impacted the buildings, so any account of odor of jet fuel is not technically valid and could be falsified accounts. I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that Flight 11 or 175 impacted either building, and until I do, I personally cannot believe those reports.

Government reports say that the planes were only carrying about 10,000 of their 24,000-gallon capacity. FEMA even admits most of the fuel burned off after a few minutes.

www.911review.com...

Lets not also forget the transformers in the building and the stress of having millions of pounds forcing their way down buckling the metal in the further down floors and the debris that follows.

We also can't forget about the puffs of smoke coming from the North Tower at the exact time the South Tower was attacked. It was very obvious and can be seen in many "live" coverage videos. The odds of them being explosions from something 'natural' at the exact same time the South Tower was attacked are very slim.

Here's one of many:
www.youtube.com...

I found more flashes, too. They occur way before either building starts to collapse, even before the South Tower is attacked. Thanks to CNN we can see why there were individual streams of white smoke coming from the North Tower.

video.google.com...

They occur at 08:13 right above the banner; at 08:18; at 08:22; 3 occur at 08:33 and then pay attention to the following close up. White smoke can be seen coming from where those 3 flashes occurred. There was no smoke coming from locations before the flashes.

I'm sure you'll just throw those off as being something other than explosives. Just as you have the very obvious ones in the NBC footage.

Again why do these flashes happen after the building starts collapsing? In a controlled demolition, the charges are set off before the building starts falling.

In CD, explosives are also set off during the collapse itself.

Aside from the above mentioned puffs of smoke and flashes, what about the "rooftop explosions" on the North Tower right before it starts to collapse? I posted the video earlier, but you never commented. They obviously had something to do with the collapse.

But we should still be able to hear them, which we do not.

Hundreds and hundreds of witnesses heard explosions from the time the buildings were attacked until they collapsed. Secondary explosions can be heard in many videos. I will not post any of them because you make up some reason as to why they are just "generators" or "transformers".

I have shown you so much evidence of explosives in the Twin Towers, from flashes to expert corroboration to molten steel over the past 4-5 days and you just seem to be ignoring the obviousness of CD. We are no further from where we started. We could debate this for years and years, and it seems to me no matter how much evidence of CD I show, you always find a way to dispute the obvious. I really don't know how much more evidence you need, man. We was not lucky enough for someone to take a camera inside one of the buildings and take a picture or video of one of the explosives close up. Even if they did I'm sure someone would say "that's not inside the Twin Towers". Sometimes you have to deal with what you have, and we have more than enough evidence for CD of these two buildings.

Originally posted by Niobis

Yes, it does.

Thats a problem... But I guess you are entitled to your opinion

It's also speculation they didn't edit the tapes. Like I said, either way they are not conclusive evidence that explosives were or were not used.

In that phone call you can hear Kevin Cosgrove's voice clearly throughtout the tape. You can also hear the background noise. What part of the background noise sounds edited to you?

Meh, why do I even ask? Of course it's edited otherwise it wouldn't fit my narrow worldview

There is no definite proof that a plane impacted the buildings, so any account of odor of jet fuel is not technically valid and could be falsified accounts.

Are you Friggin kidding me? Falsified accounts? So now these people are liars? How about you contact the many people that did survive that day that still remember seeing and smelling jet fuel. How about the firemen's accounts? They're all in on it too?

I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that Flight 11 or 175 impacted either building, and until I do, I personally cannot believe those reports.

So I guess thousands of eyewitnesses, hundreds of videos, the shape of the damage done to the building, phone calls from the planes are not evidence of planes hitting the buildings???

What evidence exactly would you be satisfied with?

Government reports say that the planes were only carrying about 10,000 of their 24,000-gallon capacity. FEMA even admits most of the fuel burned off after a few minutes.

Right so let's say 90% of the fuel was instantly burned off. That is still 1,000 gallons. Even at 95% that is still 500 gallons. Are you claiming that this is an insignificant amount?

Here's one of many:
www.youtube.com...

You have to be kidding me, right? A plane coming in at 500+ mph crashing into a building is not going to leave the surrounding it undisturbed. Why does the smoke out right where the fires are?

Why would they set off an explosive right at that moment and not bring the first tower down?

Again why do you keep showing videos with planes in them? I thought they didn't exist

video.google.com...

White smoke can be seen coming from where those 3 flashes occurred. There was no smoke coming from locations before the flashes.

Can you not see the fires above the main fire? We can safely assume that the floors between the main fire and the smoke coming out the higher fire are on fire. What it looks like to me is electrical in nature. Remember the building did have electricity.

One thing you have to ask yourself is why would they set off such small explosives and why then? Why there?

Again why do these flashes happen after the building starts collapsing? In a controlled demolition, the charges are set off before the building starts falling.

Aside from the above mentioned puffs of smoke and flashes, what about the "rooftop explosions" on the North Tower right before it starts to collapse? I posted the video earlier, but you never commented. They obviously had something to do with the collapse.

Lol Really? The reason I didn't comment on them was because it was a non issue. Lets say they were explosives in that rooftop, did they do anything to dissociate the top 30 stories of the building? No it stayed together as one piece for a good portion of the collapse.

Hundreds and hundreds of witnesses heard explosions from the time the buildings were attacked until they collapsed. Secondary explosions can be heard in many videos.

Here you go in full and in context. And it has the added bonus of showing the quotes that Richard Gage and Steven Jones use and show you the full quote so you can see how much these guys are lying to promote their agenda.

Here are some links to some more accounts and explanations.

I have shown you so much evidence of explosives in the Twin Towers, from flashes to expert corroboration to molten steel over the past 4-5 days and you just seem to be ignoring the obviousness of CD.

You have shown nothing that would convince anybody, including a jury. What does molten metal have anything to do with a CD? Find me one other CD where there has been molten metal found 6 weeks later.

And if you do find one you still have to ask do the explosives melt steel to weaken them or do they use explosive shape charges to cut the beams?

Even if somehow they did manage to plant tens of thousands of pounds of thermite into the building, how would tens of thousands of pounds of thermite result in molten metal 6 weeks later?

By the way, the way CT's talk about the molten metal subject, they make it sounds as if all of ground zero had flowing lava underneath it when that is clearly not true. You can watch any clean up crew working there and even underneath ground zero where there is not a sign of molten metal. The molten metal was in a relatively small area of ground zero.

And also another question, why didn't the bomb sniffing dogs ever pick up on any of the explosives in the building? And I know what your answer will be, they were pulled out. They were there

We are no further from where we started.

Agreed

We was not lucky enough for someone to take a camera inside one of the buildings and take a picture or video of one of the explosives close up.

No but we had eyewitness testimony and firemen's testimony and they all say jet fuel was in the building. But I guess they are all in on it. Yep you guys are sure doing a great job helping out the survivors of 9/11. Calling them liars, making claims that they were actually part of it.

This isn't some movie, this really happened.

And you are right this is going nowhere so I'm done with this thread. Good luck, I hope you come back to reality someday.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]Spelling,quoting, grammar etc.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
So I guess thousands of eyewitnesses, hundreds of videos, the shape of the damage done to the building, phone calls from the planes are not evidence of planes hitting the buildings???

What evidence exactly would you be satisfied with?

Cool Hand Luke, a few posts back, I asked you to provide serial numbers for the alleged wreckage to show that all of the alleged pieces found actually match the airframes of the alleged planes involved.

It's a stretch of your imagination to claim that planes hit the towers when you can not prove the identity of the alleged planes.

I guess you forgot to provide that evidence for me, as all you did was link me to pictures of unidentified scrap metal, with a promise that you'll look for the ID. It might be easier to admit that you can't positively identify the alleged planes rather than pretending you know which alleged planes allegedly hit the towers.

reply to post by tezzajw


I guess you wouldn't call people calling from the plane identifying it as evidence because those phone calls are fabricated. The video evidence that matches the planes before they hit the towers I guess is fabricated too. And the engine that was found that matched the plane I guess was just dropped off right? And the radar data and the fact that the planes never landed at another airport again isn't good enough to deduce which planes hit the towers that day.

You are not looking for evidence, you are looking for an excuse to live in fantasy land where the gov is omnipresent and all powerful and everyone but you and a handful of others is in on the conspiracy.

Come back to reality please

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
I guess you wouldn't call people calling from the plane identifying it as evidence because those phone calls are fabricated.

How do the alleged phone calls identify the alleged wreckage as belonging to the alleged planes by serial numbers?

The video evidence that matches the planes before they hit the towers I guess is fabricated too.

Which video evidence shows the registration tail numbers of the alleged planes as thay are allegedly impacting the towers? Please, show me the video link where I can see, read and identify the registration tail numbers.

And the engine that was found that matched the plane I guess was just dropped off right?

So you have the alleged engine's serial number for me, or a list of the component part serial numbers that can be verified through maintenance records?

And the radar data and the fact that the planes never landed at another airport again isn't good enough to deduce which planes hit the towers that day.

How does alleged radar data identify the alleged wreckage as belonging to the alleged planes by serial numbers?

You are not looking for evidence, you are looking for an excuse to live in fantasy land where the gov is omnipresent and all powerful and everyone but you and a handful of others is in on the conspiracy.

Come back to reality please

You have FAILED to provide ONE serial number of ANY alleged wreckage of those alleged planes. You can not make a positive ID on either of those alleged planes and you're accusing me of living in a fantasy world?

I gotta' love ATS. It's far more entertaining than TV. People can pretend their own versions of reality here, so blissfully ignorant. All I want is a list of serial numbers for the alleged wreckage that was found! Is that so hard to produce?

reply to post by tezzajw






Source

This diagram shows where the the part came from on the plane.

BTW you would be the worst investigator in the world to not be able to take into account phone calls made from the plane from a flight attendants identifying the plane, radar data, dna evidence of people on board that match the flight manifests, video evidence matching the planes to 767s, matching engines to engine 767s, matching the life jacket from a 767, matching the seat cushions from 767, flight data recorders, deducing the identity of the planes because they never landed again etc etc.

God help us all if you ever become an investigator.

Originally posted by tezzjw

All I want is a list of serial numbers for the alleged wreckage that was found! Is that so hard to produce?

Exactly how much of the wreckage do you expect to have serial numbers?

Let's put you in a hypothetical situation. Say a family member you knew was in a horrible horrible car crash in which the vehicle had been sufficiently damaged and burnt to the point where all of the serial numbers had been destroyed or unreadable (it is not unheard of). The car is damaged to the point where it is unrecognizable. Let's say that before the crash you were on the phone the person involved in the crash for 20 mins and heard the crash. Let's say the body of that person was horribly burned to the point where it unrecognizable and dna evidence would be the only means of identifying the body.

With your logic, that phone call would not be enough, dna evidence would not be enough, witnesses describing what happened would not be enough, identification of the vehicle from pieces of the wreckage would not be enough.

And yet in these plane crashes we have radar, FDRs, etc..


[edit on 21-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke] the usual

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
What part of the background noise sounds edited to you?

I don't like repeating myself over and over. I've already told you why I think the tape is edited.

Falsified accounts? So now these people are liars?

I never said they were. I said they could be, which would mean no one is a liar except the government 'officials' and actors that falsified them. They have been known to do it, and they did do it on 9/11. Some of the plane "witnesses" were falsified and can be proven, but I won't be wasting my time posting links for you to dispute.

So I guess thousands of eyewitnesses, hundreds of videos, the shape of the damage done to the building, phone calls from the planes are not evidence of planes hitting the buildings??? What evidence exactly would you be satisfied with?

He I go, repeating myself, again. The eye-witness accounts are widely varied-from 767s to small planes to missiles.

The "hundreds" of videos all have inconsistencies-different color "planes", different flight paths, melting planes. Hell, even the "live" shots are horrible pictures of "planes".

I already told you where to look to see how the plane-shaped holes were created.

I'd be satisfied if I saw a real video of a real plane crashing into the South Tower. The "planes" in most videos violates laws of motion, which is obviously not possible. The "live" videos are even less realistic and only show black blobs that don't even resemble real planes.

Are you claiming that this is an insignificant amount?

I'm claiming a plane never impacted either tower, so therefore, there was no jet fuel.

A plane coming in at 500+ mph crashing into a building is not going to leave the surrounding it undisturbed. Why does the smoke out right where the fires are?

I knew you would could up with some lame excuse for those explosions. It's sad really.

Why would they set off an explosive right at that moment and not bring the first tower down?

It's called prep work, man. In CD, the prep work is sometimes done weeks in advance. In the Twin Towers they had to do the prep work within a time frame. And what better time than to do it at exactly 9:03 when the South Tower was attacked. Which is very suspicious-the "plane" hit the South Tower at exactly 9:03 (on the dot), and collapsed at exactly 9:59. The North Tower collapsed at exactly 10:28(on the dot)...it doesn't take a genius to figure out these were planned events.

Again why do you keep showing videos with planes in them? I thought they didn't exist

Because it's very had to find a video that hasn't had an image of "plane" inserted into it. I only know of one, and the guy filming even says it looked like a "rocket".

What it looks like to me is electrical in nature. Remember the building did have electricity.

Of course it does.

why would they set off such small explosives and why then? Why there?

Why anywhere? Again, it's called prep work.

The reason I didn't comment on them was because it was a non issue. Lets say they were explosives in that rooftop, did they do anything to dissociate the top 30 stories of the building? No it stayed together as one piece for a good portion of the collapse.

Of course it's a "non issue" to you because it's just more evidence you're ignoring. The explosions were not on the roof itself, but they obviously had something to do with the collapse. And no, to top portion did not stay together through "a good portion" of the collapse. About 15-20 floors were demolish before the rest of the building. Again, you're talking about a "piledriver" that didn't exist.

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
What does molten metal have anything to do with a CD? Find me one other CD where there has been molten metal found 6 weeks later.

Again, I would be repeating myself. There's no point to dig through CD data to find you more evidence because you would somehow, someway come up with another lame excuse as to why it's not evidence.

Even if somehow they did manage to plant tens of thousands of pounds of thermite into the building...

It would not take "tens of thousands of pounds".

It's estimated, give the size of the towers, roughly 1300 pounds of explosives. would be enough. I haven't heard any estimates of thermate, but I assume it would not be much more than the explosives.

how would tens of thousands of pounds of thermite result in molten metal 6 weeks later?

How would a gravitational collapse account for any molten metal?

why didn't the bomb sniffing dogs ever pick up on any of the explosives in the building? And I know what your answer will be, they were pulled out.

Here we are, back into the the equal and opposite theories.

Yep you guys are sure doing a great job helping out the survivors of 9/11.

Like you're doing a damn thing agreeing with the BS official story, saying we don't need a new investigation.

And you are right this is going nowhere so I'm done with this thread. Good luck, I hope you come back to reality someday.

That's all I'll say on that.

reply to post by Cool Hand Luke


Cool Hand Luke, none of that alleged wreckage you showed me has been confirmed as belonging to the alleged flights AA11 or UA175.

Again, you fail to show me hard evidence. Unidentifiable scrap metal does not positively identify those planes.

I guess you can continue missing the point, you've been ignoring it so far.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Cool Hand Luke, none of that alleged wreckage you showed me has been confirmed as belonging to the alleged flights AA11 or UA175.

I showed you a serial number confirming the model of plane used. The other wreckage such as the engine, fuselage match the same model plane.

If you are looking for other numbers off of other wreckage, I'm sorry I haven't found it yet. And frankly I don't care too much talking about evidence to a person that suggests planes didn't hit those buildings.

Again, you fail to show me hard evidence. Unidentifiable scrap metal does not positively identify those planes.

I showed you that the wreckage belongs to 767.

I guess you can continue missing the point, you've been ignoring it so far.

I could've said the same thing and in my opinion it would be more truthful.

Are you saying that all videos, dna, phone calls, FDR's, eyewitnesses describing the plane are to be ignored or worse yet, suggest they were fabricated?

Listen I know you are going to say "Did you hear that fellas, he admitted it!! He could not find serial numbers on all the parts and match it specifically to flights 11 and 175!!"

Consider how much evidence you have to ignore.

But you know I have wasted too much time on you guys. There is nothing I will say that will make you believe 19 hijackers took over 4 planes that day. And I think I will leave it at that.

Better off nobody interjects reality into your fantasy any more. Just sit back and watch how rediculous it gets

Have fun guys.