CNN 9/11 footage that offers good non-conspiracy evidence

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Then I don't know why that's your point. Because it doesn't add anything to your case for thermite at all. All the arguments against apply to it as much as regular thermite, if you're not talking about using it as explosives.

No, because you don't need nearly as much of it, it's not as sloppy, and it burns hotter. It wouldn't be laying around everywhere, you would have to look for it on the very ends of columns.

No, dude, they don't. And I'd love for you to enumerate all these engineers and scientists. I am highly confident it's a handful.

After I post these I want you to post all of the engineers you can find that will verify the "official story".


Charles Pegelow, licensed professional structural engineer of 30+ years experience with various contractors, states that pancake collapses occur only in certain types of concrete structures (with references to actual cases) and are impossible in steel framed buildings as alleged by NIST. He's interviewed by Fetzer here: www.indymedia.org.uk... .

Gordon Ross, mechanical engineer, has authored a Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1, which shows that the initial block of floors to fall for WTC1 should have been arrested after only a few floors, even being generous to the official account. He also keeps up this site: How the Towers were Demolished. He also co-authored the paper Seismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job with Craig Furlong.

Dr. Steven E. Jones, 20+ year professor of physics, authored the paper Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?, which was peer reviewed at least twice, but that point is still disputed by individuals who have yet to actually address the information he presents in it. Also available from Prof. Jones are these resources: ISU Physics Dept. talk, Italian 9/11 Conference video, and FAQ: Questions and Answers

Eric Douglas, Registered Architect, has authored the paper The NIST WTC Investigation--How Real Was The Simulation?.

Dr. Frank Legge, a Ph.D. chemist with Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, has authored the paper 9/11 - Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition, NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire, 9/11 - Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations, and 9/11 - Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions.

Dr. Kenneth L. Kuttler, professor of mathematics, has authored the paper WTC 7: A Short Computation.

Kevin Ryan, a scientist formerly of Underwriters Laboratories (from where he was fired so criticizing NIST's WTC Tower report as it was still in research) has authored the paper What is 9/11 Truth? - The First Steps.

Dr. Graeme MacQueen has authored the paper 118 Witnesses: The Firefighter's Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers.

Scientist and software engineer Jim Hoffman maintains the following website: 911research.wtc7.net...


The number of engineers and scientists registered with Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and the original Scholars for 9/11 Truth that have not authored papers is much larger:

Incomplete list of STJ911 members: stj911.org...
List of ST911 members: 911scholars.org...

I haven't gone in and counted recently, but ST911 alone had 4 structural engineers, including a structural dynamicist last I checked, and several other mechanical, aeronautic, and other engineers, and I haven't even looked at STJ911's member list to count its registered engineers and scientists.


Oh yeah, hope you don't mind, Griff, I thought I'd mention you too. Griff is a civil engineer, and going for his structural engineering license this spring. And he doesn't buy the official story, either. Valhall used to post here pretty frequently, I think she was an aeronautical engineer and she grew to have problems with the official explanations of the tower collapses, even though she initially thought there was nothing to the conspiracy theories but idiocy. There are a couple other guys that post around here, too, Long Lance and Slap Nuts, and it seems at least one of them had a degree in physics, or worked as a physicist or something, that maybe you can ask about.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, because you don't need nearly as much of it, it's not as sloppy, and it burns hotter.

Why would you think you would need significantly less? That's not correct. It might take a little less, but it would be about the same amount.

The reason it would take a lot of thermite to sever one of those columns isn't because of it's burn temperature. It's because it doesn't naturally burn sideways through things. Using a thermite that burns hotter would make it a little faster, but you'd still need a lot.

It wouldn't be laying around everywhere, you would have to look for it on the very ends of columns.

No. It would be scattered throughout the debris. When the building came down, that stuff would've gotten scraped and crushed right off the columns. It would be on the ends of the columns, too, of course, but it would be everywhere else as well.

After I post these I want you to post all of the engineers you can find that will verify the "official story".

Dude... I do a lot of Googling to find sources arguing with you guys, but there's no way I'm going through the headache of trying to Google that one.

You know, and I know, that most civil engineers and scientists don't disagree with the official version.

If you want to call me a liar because I don't source that one, go ahead. But we both know I'm right on that one.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Originally posted by Connected


..It is 100% obvious now, that there are REAL disinfo agents on these forums. No matter how much real evidence is thrown at them, they will always agree with the official story.

You think a simple coincidence that whiterabbits avater spells OIL.

here it is I can send you as many as you want:
911research.wtc7.net...

By the way just the energy released by the demolition it was much much greater than the one released by the collapse.
Oh yeah sorry collapse do pulverize steel forgot about that one lol.
You guys are getting funnier by the hour your story its getting more and more incredible I really love you government conspiracy theories wait they cant be theories because they are impossible so lets call them your little Dreams
Aahhahaha
guys honestly I love you
Is your mommy beside you little bunny?
Time for the nap ask your father to explain you real life.
Stop living in a dream world

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Why would you think you would need significantly less? That's not correct. It might take a little less, but it would be about the same amount.

Show me your calculations on this one. If it used, say, 100x finer particles, show me the math that indicates to you that it'd take "about the same amount" of powder to accomplish the same mechanical work via heat. Namely, moving through the steel.

The reason it would take a lot of thermite to sever one of those columns isn't because of it's burn temperature. It's because it doesn't naturally burn sideways through things.

Well dude, this is why you would use a device that guides the thermite rather than just applying masses and masses of it to the side and letting it burn down.

No. It would be scattered throughout the debris. When the building came down, that stuff would've gotten scraped and crushed right off the columns. It would be on the ends of the columns, too, of course, but it would be everywhere else as well.

In very small amounts, relative to everything else lying around. The residue is freaking molten iron, man. I don't know if anyone ever told you that, but that's what it is. It's iron. When it hardens, it's gray, mis-shapen, and I wouldn't think it out of place at all if I saw some such laying around Ground Zero.

After I post these I want you to post all of the engineers you can find that will verify the "official story".

Dude... I do a lot of Googling to find sources arguing with you guys, but there's no way I'm going through the headache of trying to Google that one.

Well then only give me enough to counter my list 1:1.

Not even counting all of the ones on the member lists of those two groups. Don't make assumptions, either; I want proof that each person you provide has studied the tower collapses and agrees with the general idea that fire and impact damages alone did it.

You know, and I know, that most civil engineers and scientists don't disagree with the official version.

No, I don't know that. I'm an engineering student myself. I'm around these people all the time. I seriously doubt they've even heard of the NIST report, let alone read it critically. So, no, we don't both know that "most civil engineers and scientists don't disagree".

If you want to call me a liar because I don't source that one, go ahead.

Not a liar, just don't know what you're talking about.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Exactly what evidence have you provided besides the following:

1. "Fire and damage couldn't bring down those buildings."
2. "It looked just like a controlled demolition."

Seriously. I want you to answer. I want you to tell me what evidence you have provided.

That mother frikken statement above is why Im getting so mad. I have been wasting my time here typing and showing evidence, and you STILL have ignored it, and think it is non existant. You are a frikken brick wall. Why am I wasting my time???? Do you honestly expect someone to not get mad when you ignore them during a debate? What kind of debate is this???!?!?! Where the hell did you learn to debate? Ignore your opposition? Deny facts???!?!?! OMG

Here it is..... my evidence.

1: Video evidence of a symmetrical, even, fall of all 4 corners of WTC 7. This is not possible when there is damage to only a few inner columns. PERIOD. This is the nail in the coffin, but the NIST worshippers just dont have the brain power to see it. There is no possible way that 3 undamaged columns on the corners of WTC 7 could lose 100% of its support at the same exact time, without explosives.. PERIOD.

This video shows 2 of the 4 corners im talking about. This north face of WTC 7 has ZERO damage to it. Yet the supporting columns lost 100% of their support. Impossible without explosives.




2: Here is picture evidence, of CUT STEEL BEAMS from WTC 7. BEFORE ANY CLEANUP WAS ATTEMPTED. This clearly shows signs of Controlled Demolition. The smaller inner pictures were taken from within the building next to WTC 7.



3: Now here is picture evidence that proves WTC 7 was demolished to get rid of sensitive materal, and there was strict orders to rush the cleanup of WTC 7, to hide any evidence that could leak out into the world.

Why did they clean WTC 7 up so fast? What did they have to hide?

4: Video evidence of explosives on WTC 7. These squibs prove a LOT.
www.youtube.com...

NIST worshippers think this is just glass blowing out. They can't be more wrong. WTC 7 has SAFETY GLASS installed. This safetly glass is like auto safety glass, that has a film built into it. This glass will shatter but WILL NOT FLY. The film will keep the pieces together. They did this just incase someone broke a window from the inside of the building. The broken glass will shatter but it will NOT fall off the building and hit people walking on the sidewalk below. This was mandatory. Yet people ignore it..


So.. video and picture evidence.. want more?






[edit on 15-3-2007 by Connected]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Show me your calculations on this one. If it used, say, 100x finer particles, show me the math that indicates to you that it'd take "about the same amount" of powder to accomplish the same mechanical work via heat. Namely, moving through the steel.

Don't have any. But I'll explain why I think that below.

Well dude, this is why you would use a device that guides the thermite rather than just applying masses and masses of it to the side and letting it burn down.

To survive being burned by the thermite itself, you'd need a big heavy device to force it sideways.

So, either you've got a big bunch of thermite, or you've got a heavy, obvious device.

In very small amounts, relative to everything else lying around. The residue is freaking molten iron, man. I don't know if anyone ever told you that, but that's what it is. It's iron. When it hardens, it's gray, mis-shapen, and I wouldn't think it out of place at all if I saw some such laying around Ground Zero.

Each of those small amounts, if they were burning at all when they got knocked off, would be surrounded by a burn zone where they set fire to debris. They'd stand out like like pockets of unexplainable fire damage. You'd be able to see the black spots as they were digging it out.

Well then only give me enough to counter my list 1:1.

I don't even know that I could enough statements to match that. So, go ahead and draw whatever from that.

I think the fact that most civil engineers and scientists in the world aren't speaking out in support of the conspiracy theory (which could, if true, get them fame and fortune) is a testament to it not being true, though.

Originally posted by piacenza
here it is I can send you as many as you want:
911research.wtc7.net...

Oh please. If you want to do a link exchange, I'll post right back.

I asked for evidence. I want you to post specific evidence you've offered and then I want you to back it up when I argue with you.

guys honestly I love you
Is your mommy beside you little bunny?
Time for the nap ask your father to explain you real life.

Dude. Get a grip, seriously. If you can't act maturely and follow the courtesy rule, stop posting.

whiterabbit, you prosting straight lies, how do you expect to get treated?


Here, I'm going to to what whiterabbit did, post a straight lie without any numbers or proof.


Here it is:

"The majority of structural and civil engineers agree that 911 was an inside job."

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Connected]

Originally posted by Connected
Here it is..... my evidence.

1: Video evidence of a symmetrical, even, fall of all 4 corners of WTC 7. This is not possible when there is damage to only a few inner columns. PERIOD. This is the nail in the coffin, but the NIST worshippers just dont have the brain power to see it. There is no possible way that 3 undamaged columns on the corners of WTC 7 could lose 100% of its support at the same exact time, without explosives.. PERIOD.

Maybe you missed what I said, but this falls under "It looked just like a controlled demolition" AND "Fire and damage couldn't bring down a building."

You aren't offering any evidence. You're just saying you don't think it could happen. That's not evidence.

Why couldn't the columns fail almost at the same time? I can tell you why they could.

Can you tell me why they couldn't? Saying they couldn't is evidence. Tell me WHY they couldn't is evidence.

This video shows 2 of the 4 corners im talking about. This north face of WTC 7 has ZERO damage to it. Yet the supporting columns lost 100% of their support. Impossible without explosives.

Why is it impossible? No evidence here.

3: Now here is picture evidence that proves WTC 7 was demolished to get rid of sensitive materal

That proves they cleaned it up fast. Everything else is your opinion.

No evidence here.

4: Video evidence of explosives on WTC 7. These squibs prove a LOT.
www.youtube.com...

This is evidence.

Unfortunately, it's evidence that can be refuted. It really is air, dude.

Originally posted by Connected
Here, I'm going to to what whiterabbit did, post a straight lie without any numbers or proof.

Here it is:

"The majority of structural and civil engineers agree that 911 was an inside job."

Well that actually would be a lie, so you're half-right.

Originally posted by esdad71
PNAC has nothing to with this footage. It is a think tank. Have you ever taken the time to read their website? You might agree with one or two things, but that make you a neo-con? Choose the path you take wisely.

You don;t want to watch the footage because PNAC controls the media, or is that the Jews? Not sure anymore since anything is possible. Maybe it is Thetans from Jamaica disguised using holograpy who control the Senate sending mindwaves to control our habits during TV watching of reality shows.

Sounds far fetched, so does holographic planes or missles hitting the WTC.

????

Care to rewrite that in a coherent statement?

Sure little bunny you are so right I am sorry.
AHAHAHAH you are funny as hell eheheh.
Sure buildig collapse in their own footprint Nist said it must be true AHAHHAHAAH
This is the funniest of all.
How old are you 10?
AHAHAHHA
Damn you are funny

Originally posted by whiterabbit
I can tell you why they could. ........

.....Unfortunately, it's evidence that can be refuted. It really is air, dude.

Could.... Can.... all you are is talk!!!!

Please refute my video and picture evidence... so far all you do is deny deny deny...

I was right, I show picture and video evidence, and all he does is deny, and ignore.. What a damn straw man... and yes I know what it means, it means you are grabbing anything you possibly can to support your claims... even if all you are grabbing is words... Half the stuff you "disprove" is stupid little sayings like "oh thats not evidence".

LOL. In the court of law, my video and picture evidence is all I need. I don't need special calculations. Show the video to the jury, and thats that. They are smart enough to see a building can no collapse like that without help.

"20 story hole in the building" lol..

Oh NOOOO, I cut myself with a knife and im bleeding, that must mean I have a broken bone!




[edit on 15-3-2007 by Connected]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Connected]

Originally posted by Connected
Please refute my video and picture evidence... so far all you do is deny deny deny...

I can't watch the video at the moment (youtube's block where I'm at), but what about the pictures am I refuting? Are they supposed to be evidence of thermite cuts?

Originally posted by piacenza
Sure little bunny you are so right I am sorry.

This is the funniest of all.
How old are you 10?
AHAHAHHA

Don't come crying to me when they enforce the rules.

Originally posted by whiterabbit

I can't watch the video at the moment (youtube's block where I'm at), but what about the pictures am I refuting? Are they supposed to be evidence of thermite cuts?

It doesn't matter what cut them.. the point is they are cut, and before any cleanup crew got to them. That means CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Originally posted by Connected
It doesn't matter what cut them.. the point is they are cut, and before any cleanup crew got to them. That means CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Okay. How'd you know they were cut before any cleanup crew got there?

(Obviously the photographers and the press were able to get there.)

You guys are super funny the rules should be enforced for spreading known false informations.
You do that in purpose.
Plus how can you be at work at make all those posting.
I am very positive you must be a minor otherwise I have no clue how you can write what you do.

Originally posted by Connected
What a damn straw man... and yes I know what it means, it means you are grabbing anything you possibly can to support your claims... even if all you are grabbing is words...

I knew you had no idea what a straw man was, judging by the way you throw it around. That's not what it means at all. Not even close.

Go look it up if you don't believe me.