World Trade Center + Explosives

Originally posted by LeftBehind


Why test for something that there is no evidence for? Should they test for magic perhaps, or maybe leprechaun involvement, after all there is just as much evidence for the towers being brought down by magical leprechauns.

All kidding aside, I don't know why they didn't test for thermite, nor does it prove that thermite was there. Positive evidence, please folks.



[edit on 19-10-2006 by LeftBehind]

His point wasn't that they didn't test for thermite, they didnt test for ANYTHING at all, it was all shipped away and melted down, sounds a little off to me.

Originally posted by Pepperslappy
The only difference I noticed was the loud explosion and the flashes.

Before reading my post, understand that I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, just a few of the first ones.

But I already feel I need to point this out.

I'm much more of a conspiracy theorist when it comes to 9/11, but there is a clear difference in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 and a controlled demolition. The difference that I'm talking about has nothing to do with the lights or flashes or sounds, but with the actual manner in which the tower collapses. Controlled demolitions focus on the idea of bringing down a large building in its own footprint, so as not to damage other nearby buildings, structures, and onlookers. They are even generally called controlled implosions.

implosion - The inward collapse of a building that is being demolished in a controlled fashion by the weakening and breaking of structural members by explosives.

Now, once again, understand that I'm not trying to rob you of all credibility, because I believe many parts of the conspiracy theory. However, to say that you can't find any differences in those two videos besides the light flashes proves that you haven't viewed them closely enough.

Watched more closely, you can clearly see that in the controlled demolition, all supports are exploded simultaneously, causing it to fall in a fluid motion into itself. Use that keyword when you're watching these collapses. Watch the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. The top of the building collapses first, quickly making its way to the base of the tower, but never moving the entire structure simultaneously in a fluid motion. These are the attributes that are seen in the controlled demolition. The WTC buildings don't fall in their own footprints at all, either. You clearly see LOTS of debris falling in every direction way before the collapse ever reaches the base. In the controlled demolition, you see most of the dust and debris sort of shoot out from the very bottom of the building towards the end/AFTER the collapse takes place.

If you think about it, there really aren't that many similarities between the WTC collapse and a controlled demolition, except for the fact that it is highly unlikely that both WTC towers could of been taken down just by two airliners, and that they could of collapsed at the speed that they did. However, one may argue that the collapse of WTC 7 looked EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.

LINK TO VIDEO OF WTC & COLLAPSE:
www.youtube.com...

Now, if you compare THAT video and the controlled demolition video you will notice a multitude of similarities. The most important, IMO, is the fluid motion in which the building falls, and the imploding manner in which it does so; both of which are trademark characteristics of controlled demolitions, and rarely, if ever, seen outside of controlled demolitions.

Omniscient you just helped me think of something.

People ask, "if they could just control demo it couldn't the just make it fall without having to use planes" The planes were there to cover up the collapse of the building.

The plane could of been used to in a sense seperate the building. Once the part above the plane started to fall, it in essence surrounded the building (the debree that is) then the could set off the charges in the rest of the building. and it would be hard to tell because of the falling debree covering the building.

Originally posted by Pepperslappy
Omniscient you just helped me think of something.

People ask, "if they could just control demo it couldn't the just make it fall without having to use planes" The planes were there to cover up the collapse of the building.

The plane could of been used to in a sense seperate the building. Once the part above the plane started to fall, it in essence surrounded the building (the debree that is) then the could set off the charges in the rest of the building. and it would be hard to tell because of the falling debree covering the building.

The only problem I have believing that is the fact that the falling debris didn't cloud vision enough to mask a controlled demolition until the building was at least fairly close to being fully collapsed. At this time, it seems somewhat futile to even make a controlled demolition as the building is already around 60-70% collapsed anyways. At that point, the weight of the building probably would be able to take the rest of it down.

I can answer that other question too.

People ask, "if they could just control demo it couldn't the just make it fall without having to use planes" The planes were there to cover up the collapse of the building.

Would simply a collapse of the WTC have generated enough hatred to spawn an entire war. Possibly. But would hijacking OUR jetliners with OUR passengers on OUR soil and crashing them into OUR monumental buildings on international television with OUR citizens inside of them do the trick? Definately.

And if they had pulled of a plain controlled demolition without the attacks, what would they have done to the Pentagon? And would the US government simply say that they had NO idea that terrorists were placing explosives on the SUPPORTS of these buildings, especially the Pentagon which is constantly the home of many of our very important officials. And to say that terrorists somehow managed to place explosives on every support of the WTC would be ludicrous too; they must have some VVVVIP access. If you just think logically about that question, there are SOO many things wrong with it. Why WOULD the government have a controlled demolition without planes...

Originally posted by Griff

Do YOU know anything about thermite mate? I suggest doing research before spouting about something you do not know about.

Hmm...detonators can't ignite it huh? Do some research before you start to imply someone else doesn't know something when it is yourself who is ignorant of the subject.

I was thinking about thermate which is a mixture between thermite and pyrotechnics. I guess it does show I am not an expert in explosives but neither are you... and please don't try to insult me when you have made worse mistakes and you claim to be a "civil engineer"...

Muaddib,

Actually you are the one that said they used explosives with termite... Therefor back up your claims, everyone else here is trying to.. You go an try it.. it might teach you something...

Left Behind,

I wasn't sure on daytime footage of Windsor, I was assuming since it burned for 20+ hrs... apparently they don't have video of that building burning during the day...

And I wasnt being an ass about that earlier... Maybe people dont research so I just said look it up.

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

This is complete bs and you know it, The area wasn't even that hot for this to happen. Why even fight this..

Please prove that this is BS, I am not claiming it is neccesarily the answer I was merely stating that it is possible. Aluminum could easily melt in the temperatures produced by those fires, I'm not exactly clear on how this is BS, nor will agree with it just off your opinion.

Even if it is not melted aluminum, that still does not make it thermite.

Then what is it if it isn't Thermite? you are contradicting yourself.

The stuff coming from the towers in that video I posted and the stuff coming out of that flower pot on brainiacs looks about the same..

Ohh and notice the concrete comment that was made earlier.. Thermite + flowerpot = not melted.

[edit on 10/19/2006 by ThichHeaded]

Yes Thickheaded. Thermite can break/melt concreate but then it also can't depends on how the Thermite is placed and used.

Thichheaded,

The Brainiacs used the flower pot as "slow release mechanism".

The thermite melts right through the bottom, it isn't "spilling over".

It would have melted through the floor in the towers if it was pooled on the floor, just like the brainiacs video.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Thichheaded,

The Brainiacs used the flower pot as "slow release mechanism".

The thermite melts right through the bottom, it isn't "spilling over".

It would have melted through the floor in the towers if it was pooled on the floor, just like the brainiacs video.

If the thermite pooled on the floor and melted it...then wouldn't it just help the building collapse

Well, if was a large pool of thermite, it wouldn't stay pooled long enough to fit what we see in the video.

It would be melting through anything underneath it as it went down. If that was thermite pooled up in a corner we would have seen it melting its way down the aluminum of the building.

Now you are making an excuse on why it didn't go thru the floor?

What is this, either it did or it couldn't.. I think it couldn't cause it wasn't consintrated.

And who said it was in the tower, it could have been coming from right behind a wall or something and decided to spill out.

And if it was moving toward the side of the building, let me ask, you think the tower was leaned that far to have it actually go like that???

See what you say makes completely no sense. According to official reports the plane disintegrated on impact. so technically your plane theory for this thermite is wrong.

[edit on 10/19/2006 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by Griff

People did notice. Just people like you choose to ignore their statements. Just like the 9/11 commission. Why is that?

A lot of people make claims and they are not all true.

But i guess you and others like you can't never understand this.

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Muaddib,

Actually you are the one that said they used explosives with termite... Therefor back up your claims, everyone else here is trying to.. You go an try it.. it might teach you something...

i did not claim there were "explosives nor thermite".... and I believe quite the contrary as i have stated before.

Several people in this same thread have claimed that there were explosive devices and thermite to take down the towers, but these are only based on claims with no confirmation.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Muaddib]

But we have scientists and Santa Claus backing us, who does FEMA and NIST backing them, a bunch of morons.

And you did say that thermite needed explosives to work. Don't back out of this...

So I am saying this in a nice way.. if you aren't 100% sure, don't say it.. cause things will blow up in your face sooner or later..

New poster who made this thread, take that advice also.. it will help you later on.

Lol at 9/11 threads. You can't prove anything, it'll just be a theory just like scientists tying to know how the universe came into being. Anything they come up with will still be a theory. We need threads about all the suspicious activity that took place in the months before 9/11 and the coincidences, in essence common-sense is what is required. Five days before 9/11 bomb sniffing dogs were removed, there was a massive power down a few weeks prior to 9/11 during which "workmen", were seen and heard operating heavy machinery and resident's were told that internet cables were being upgraded(yeah right), etc. These things are what we need threads on, there is no room for debate when it comes to such things and with common-sense anyone can put 2 and 2 together, see?

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Elijio]

You have voted Elijio for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

You are my hero for at least the next 30 minutes...

I'm going to hate myself for this im sure....

BUT


and i ask this as a generally well intended fair question..

how many of you that believe there were explosives in the WTC have personally worked wtih HE? fourth of july doesnt count. i mean real live high explosives?

raise your hands if you please.



and yes, i have. extensivly. (even if i cant spell extensivly)

And we are suppost to believe you why again?

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
And we are suppost to believe you why again?

was that at me? if so i guess i really dont care if u do believe me or not. due to an error at ATS my pre-august body of posts where i laid out a lot of data on HE was lost and im just not so inclined to repost it.

i asked a simple question and anyone who's read my earlier posts may not agree with my opinions but i havnt yet had anyone able to say my HE data (which i presented fairly without my own bias) was wrong. ive even gone so far as to try to do calculations that would SUPPORT the CD theory.

so how bout we stick to my question rather than come after me. if you have demo experience id love to discuss the topic with you. im just pretty much done debating HE data with people who's experience is limited to google.

theory and real world are often different. ask any engineer or inventor.

So I guess that CD expert from the Netherlands don't count huh?

Video here
www.911blogger.com...

Interesting how things fall into place..

He is shown a video of WTC 7 falling. He swears up and down its a CD, then when he is told it was WTC 7 on 9/11 he still swore it was a CD.

So don't come in here saying we are full of it, we have many people backing us up on this issue.

Things just don't fall straight down cause some planes hit it.. and things don't melt metal cause it is to cold...

Next time try messing with someone less knowledgable in this..

And the mans credentials in case you are wondering.
www.jowenko.nl...

[edit on 10/20/2006 by ThichHeaded]