Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

Can you please tell me acording to NIST why the buildings collapsed?
Thank you space bits

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Can you please tell me acording to NIST why the buildings collapsed?
Thank you space bits

Haha Yup, NIST is government funded! If the government can lie so can its affiliates. I wouldnt put to much into what the government sais, mostly when they talk you need to read between the lines or look for there hidden agenda(s).
And no, I'm not saing the gov is involved in the WTC incedent. And yes, I claim they lie, mosltly because they were cought on tape doing so.
As for NIST, well they could make that building look like a little spider took it the down.

Anyways you wanna prove it to yourself that metal dont work that way? rent an acytalene cutting torch for the weekend(about $50), then get a bunch of diffrent steel pieces(even if they come from the scrap yard). Then try and weld some metal toghether, heat up metals to see how long it takes to melt or deform the metal. try whatever you like... you will see that trying to break your own weld is pretty hard to do. Warping or melting steel, you will see the amount of heat it takes to even juts beable to bend metal, let alone melt metal.
You will also have to remember that you are useing "controled fire" to melt or warp metal. Now try and redo what you did with the torch on an open fire, you can even use gas(s) in your "uncontroled fire" if you wish, but you will not warp metal or melt it with an open fire.

Originally posted by SpaceBits

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Can you please tell me acording to NIST why the buildings collapsed?
Thank you space bits

Haha Yup, NIST is government funded! If the government can lie so can its affiliates. I wouldnt put to much into what the government sais, mostly when they talk you need to read between the lines or look for there hidden agenda(s).
And no, I'm not saing the gov is involved in the WTC incedent. And yes, I claim they lie, mosltly because they were cought on tape doing so.
As for NIST, well they could make that building look like a little spider took it the down.

This is what I often talk about. Many complain about NIST...yet they don't even read it. If you are so sure NIST is wrong... how come you cant tell me what is wrong with it? Saying its government funded does not mean that it is not right or incomplete.

Originally posted by SpaceBits
Anyways you wanna prove it to yourself that metal dont work that way? rent an acytalene cutting torch for the weekend(about $50), then get a bunch of diffrent steel pieces(even if they come from the scrap yard). Then try and weld some metal toghether, heat up metals to see how long it takes to melt or deform the metal. try whatever you like... you will see that trying to break your own weld is pretty hard to do. Warping or melting steel, you will see the amount of heat it takes to even juts beable to bend metal, let alone melt metal.
You will also have to remember that you are useing "controled fire" to melt or warp metal. Now try and redo what you did with the torch on an open fire, you can even use gas(s) in your "uncontroled fire" if you wish, but you will not warp metal or melt it with an open fire.

At what point do I fly an airplane into it?

[edit on 23-6-2007 by CaptainObvious]

ok lets take this photo from NIST.

Impact pieces

now at lines 95 to 97, these are the floors, but where is the cement floor.
now, an an aluminum plane just goes through not only the steal exoskeleton but also the cement floor reinforced with iron cross beams bolted and welded toghether.

Thats one tuff plane, also the reson why i claim they could be used as bunker busters for the military to use, cheaper too.

Also this computer simulation from NIST

WTC Engine

Notice how the engine goes inbetween the floors and the video shows the floors being destroyed/manipulated just by the engine going in between floors. what about the cement floors? the reinforcement beams for the floor?
I find there studies incomplete.

Also i ment to mention, as for crupple zones on a car is correct, the plane didnt have this... but, when the plane actually makes contact with the building the building would have been pushed, as it's ment to sway in the wind, this would have acted a bit like a crupple zone, and reduced some of the impact, yet they dont add this info into accout as well.

Like i said before, i dont know how but them planes had help going into the buildings and the buildings had help coming down the way they did.

Sorry space bits...your wrong.

Try to think of a tornado that take a piece of wood and sends it through a concrete wall! I posted this before and you didn't pay much attention to it. A tornado can send a 2x4 through a cement wall goingaround 110 miles per hour. The two planes that hit the towers were going roughly 4-5 times that fast.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Sorry space bits...your wrong.

Try to think of a tornado that take a piece of wood and sends it through a concrete wall! I posted this before and you didn't pay much attention to it. A tornado can send a 2x4 through a cement wall goingaround 110 miles per hour. The two planes that hit the towers were going roughly 4-5 times that fast.

Ok, well for one, the 2x4 is a solid piece and is quite small kinda like an arrow or bullet. In comparison to the nose of the plane, there is a difrence of about 20 feet or more? also, wood is stronger than alluminum in most case's.

747 are reported to have speed of up to 580mph, but it was reported that the plane wasnt flying at top speed(the speed of the plane cant be proven.)
also a tornado is quite diffrent, considering it can pick up a cow and throw it a mile away. tornados are odd events and the currents are still under scientific reviews. the eye of a tornado could have a speed of 100mph while the top could be spinning alot faster.

Originally posted by SpaceBits

Ok, well for one, the 2x4 is a solid piece and is quite small kinda like an arrow or bullet. In comparison to the nose of the plane, there is a difrence of about 20 feet or more? also, wood is stronger than alluminum in most case's.

747 are reported to have speed of up to 580mph, but it was reported that the plane wasnt flying at top speed(the speed of the plane cant be proven.)
also a tornado is quite diffrent, considering it can pick up a cow and throw it a mile away. tornados are odd events and the currents are still under scientific reviews. the eye of a tornado could have a speed of 100mph while the top could be spinning alot faster.

I give up!!!!!!

A 2x4 is stronger than an multi engined jet?
A tornado is an odd event?
Tornadoes have "eyes?"

Beam Me Up Scotty..............

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

I give up!!!!!!

A 2x4 is stronger than an multi engined jet?
A tornado is an odd event?
Tornadoes have "eyes?"

Beam Me Up Scotty..............

Well i never claimed to be an expert in tornado's anamolies, wich is why i didnt aswer you the first time. But since you insisted.

And why am i wrong about the video's from NIST i stated that they left out important cross beams and such, so as far as i'm conserned and a few other professionals are conserned, NIST is incomplete in it's studies.
I find they left out many things that would have changed the outcome of there studies.

As for the 2x4 going through a cement wall well think about it... that cement wall doesnt budge, there for, theres nothing to slow down the 2x4 on impact. the WTC building sway in the wind by as much as 10 feet or more st the top. this acts as crupple zone to slow down or reduce the initial impact. this is something NIST never added to there studies.

If you took a gun and shoot from 200 yards away at a sheet of drywall that is very well stabalized.
and
If you took a gun and shoot from 200 yards away at a sheet of drywall that was not suported very well and allowed for movment, do you think the bullet holes would match?. i would think that the second bullet with the weaker wall would create a bigger hole than the wall that is well supported, If the bullet even goes through the second wall.
I never tried it personaly since i never even touched a gun in my life.

Why did the OP leave out this part of the video he posted in the first post??

video.google.com...


This is the same corner that collapses in the first post of this thread, it so happens to have thermite falling out of the side of it....

Originally posted by 11 11
Why did the OP leave out this part of the video he posted in the first post??

video.google.com...


This is the same corner that collapses in the first post of this thread, it so happens to have thermite falling out of the side of it....

Because you cant say it's thermite/mate untill you can absolutly prove it with out a resonable dout, and guess what... that will never be allowed.
You cant just go down there and ask for some metal samples to examine, they'll just laugh at you, and say, we did our test allready no more needs done. Thats why the investigation is allready done/complete and we have no choice but to accsept there findings, even though many claim they missed a tone of evidence.
Were suposed to be good little ppl and just listen to authority, not question it. Even though GZ was hotter that the actual fire itself after 1 month, kinda makes you wonder how thats even possible, doesnt it?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Many complain about NIST...yet they don't even read it. If you are so sure NIST is wrong... how come you cant tell me what is wrong with it?

CaptainObvious, I'm going to finally prove to you that NIST is a pile of garbage. It is nothing more than speculation and wild guesses. If you would have actually read the NIST reports, you would know that they clearly tell you that all of their research is based on photographs and video. They do not have any real evidence what-so-ever to support their bogus claims. The pure fact that they based their wild guesses on photos and videos tells you that they have no more evidence than any other person in the world with an internet connection.


From NIST:
wtc.nist.gov...

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2)the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

CaptianObvious, read the bold words above. This is the weakest part of their entire wild guess. Using photos and videos only, they guessed that the fireproofing was actually knocked off of the steel in the buildings. Can YOU or NIST please explain with PROOF or EVIDENCE of fireproofing being knocked off? Can YOU or NIST explain what could possibly have caused this massive fireball in the following image, if all the jet fuel was supposedly "widely dispersed over multiple floors"?




The truth is, all of the jet fuel was burned up on impact. The above image is proof. So, even if the so called fireproofing was magically knocked off (even though its designed to withstand explosions/fire), there is only simple office fires left to blame. I have proof with photos and video (just like NIST) that these office fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel, simply by looking at the color and density of the smoke coming from the fire.

So, not only did I just prove that NIST is wrong, and just wildly guessing, but I proved that something other than structural failure and fire made the building collapse.




[edit on 24-6-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 24-6-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by SpaceBits
Because you cant say it's thermite/mate untill you can absolutly prove it with out a resonable dout, and guess what... that will never be allowed.
You cant just go down there and ask for some metal samples to examine, they'll just laugh at you, and say, we did our test allready no more needs done. Thats why the investigation is allready done/complete and we have no choice but to accsept there findings, even though many claim they missed a tone of evidence.
Were suposed to be good little ppl and just listen to authority, not question it. Even though GZ was hotter that the actual fire itself after 1 month, kinda makes you wonder how thats even possible, doesnt it?

SpaceBits, I highly suggest you do your homework before you post on these very serious debates about 911 on ATS. Metal samples were examined by Professor Steven Jones, and evidence of thermite/mate was found.

video.google.com...


Are you suggesting Steven Jones, a Physic Professor, is wrong? Are you suggesting Steven Jones is deliberately trying to spread disinfo to hurt the country that he was born and raised, and lived in for 58 years? Are you suggesting Steven Jones is trying to hurt his hard earned career and reputation?

griff, yeah i have some thoughts on that ill post later, just making a flyby right now.


11 11: yes, im willing to say that dr jones was at the very least sloppy in his "science" and i laid that out for discussion here feel free to comment there.

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Many complain about NIST...yet they don't even read it. If you are so sure NIST is wrong... how come you cant tell me what is wrong with it?

CaptainObvious, I'm going to finally prove to you that NIST is a pile of garbage. It is nothing more than speculation and wild guesses. If you would have actually read the NIST reports, you would know that they clearly tell you that all of their research is based on photographs and video. They do not have any real evidence what-so-ever to support their bogus claims. The pure fact that they based their wild guesses on photos and videos tells you that they have no more evidence than any other person in the world with an internet connection.


From NIST:
wtc.nist.gov...

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2)the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

CaptianObvious, read the bold words above. This is the weakest part of their entire wild guess. Using photos and videos only, they guessed that the fireproofing was actually knocked off of the steel in the buildings. Can YOU or NIST please explain with PROOF or EVIDENCE of fireproofing being knocked off? Can YOU or NIST explain what could possibly have caused this massive fireball in the following image, if all the jet fuel was supposedly "widely dispersed over multiple floors"?




The truth is, all of the jet fuel was burned up on impact. The above image is proof. So, even if the so called fireproofing was magically knocked off (even though its designed to withstand explosions/fire), there is only simple office fires left to blame. I have proof with photos and video (just like NIST) that these office fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel, simply by looking at the color and density of the smoke coming from the fire.

So, not only did I just prove that NIST is wrong, and just wildly guessing, but I proved that something other than structural failure and fire made the building collapse.




[edit on 24-6-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 24-6-2007 by 11 11]

Awsome find... i missed that.

Ummm.. what do you mean, i never said thermite wasnt used, i actually said thermite or something simaler like acid or molten lava was used to help dring down the towers the way they did, and that i saw a pic of a car that was melted, uncontrolled fires dont melt steal. And thats what started this little segment. I agree with you i think thermite/mate was used as well.
the only reason i said you cant say "themite" was used, was because somone said that "I" couldnt prove thermite was used. It was a little joke for you. As for now there going to hammer you for saying theremite/mate was used... I know i see maulten metal comming from the building.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Also, I never claimed thermite was used to take down the towers, but the evidence shows thermite was at ground zero on 911, so I have to acknowledge it.

This corner of the WTC in the O.P.'s video is irrelivant anyway. The WTC's did not rely on the outer structure for it to remain standing. The inner core is what supports the weight of the building, much like a tree trunk supports the tree's branches and leaves. You can break all the branches you want, but the trunk will remain.

Originally posted by 11 11
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Also, I never claimed thermite was used to take down the towers, but the evidence shows thermite was at ground zero on 911, so I have to acknowledge it.

This corner of the WTC in the O.P.'s video is irrelivant anyway. The WTC's did not rely on the outer structure for it to remain standing. The inner core is what supports the weight of the building, much like a tree trunk supports the tree's branches and leaves. You can break all the branches you want, but the trunk will remain.

So true.
I dont claim it was thermite either, since i dont really know what was used to melt metal, I just know something really hot was used.
I've been searching for this vehicle I claim was melted, and came across these pictures..

Sure looks like explosive were used.
Explosives?

Also, this picture puzzels me...
1) Who, when, what, why are these beames cut the way they are? They are clearly the inner structure columns of the building.
2) These were cut with a fire torch and you can see the melted metal dripping from where it was cut.

If they were cut for the clean up why would they cut them the slow and painfull way, and some would have been hard to get at to use a cutting torch. Theres a Hydrolic machine you can attach to a bulldozer to cut them vary easily.
Any info on these beams?

I dont understand how you could believe that that video proves anything except pose a question as to why it never topples sideways ? for some unknown reason it suddenly corrects itself and pancakes downwards there is too much evidence from too many seperate sources that proves otherwise too many unanswered questions I think you americans have been conned by your own kind the truth is so scarey to face

Originally posted by johnnyrobbo
I dont understand how you could believe that that video proves anything except pose a question as to why it never topples sideways ? for some unknown reason it suddenly corrects itself and pancakes downwards there is too much evidence from too many seperate sources that proves otherwise too many unanswered questions I think you americans have been conned by your own kind the truth is so scarey to face

True.

The videos clearly shows the building toppling as it should, but then the opposite side of the building then gives out(for some unknown reason) and corrects the toppling effect, then collapse into itself taking the path of most resistance and turning everything into fine dust, all that in under 11 seconds.
Absolutely Unbelievable!

Also photograghic evidence from different sources clearly shows that the second plane was not a comercial airliner any investigator worth his salt would never let that fact escape investigation it just astounds me that nothing is being done to point this out on mainstream media