Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

Look, I can continue tomorrow... Not trying to cut n run.... I have real life stuff to do.

Thanks for the debate.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The NIST report states:

3.4 THE JET FUEL

As in WTC1 , less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud insode the building. Roughly 10-25 percent was consumed in the fireballs outside the building. Thus, well over half of the jet fuel remained after the initial fireballs.

Mhmm, yeah I read that.... and where is NIST's proof? Where is NIST's measurements? Where is NIST's calculations?

If you expect me to be as gullible as you and beleive word for word what they say, then you are expecting to much.. That is rediculous.



[edit on 25-6-2007 by 11 11]

As for the firefighters, i saw a video with firefighters going into the WTC building lobby and they said "It looks like a bomb had gone off in here."
I think they would know the difrence between "fireball damage" and "bomb damage".

FDNY describe the bombs planted in the World Trade Center

FDNY: "there is a bomb in the building"

WTC Lobby explosions

Now that, SpaceBits, is what I expect to see as evidence of quotes, not text like CaptainObvious gives us.

[edit on 25-6-2007 by 11 11]

I really do not understand what the video of this topic proves.

There are numerous pieces of evidence that contradict the official explanation.

There are also numerous eye witness testimonials that conclude that there were multiple explosions imminent inside the buildings, I'm sure everyone knows about that.

NIST: "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."

NIST: Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel. "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST page 181

Also how can debunker's sit there and claim that Fire bought down the buildings when in fact NIST's own investigation states "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."

How did WTC7 collapse?




The above pictures are from the Bankers Trust building which was closer to the towers than World Trade Center 7. As you can see from the building it sustained more damage than ANY pictures that have been released of World Trade Center 7, and guess what the building is still standing as of today.
What ever happened to a building collapsing from debris falling onto it?
See the simple reason why Bankers Trust building did not collapse is because it was not set up for a controlled demolition. It's that simple. If you look at the image of the WTC7 collapsing there is no way in hell that is a pancake collapse. It would of looked like the picture below if it had been pancaking:





How do you explain the molten metal found months after 9/11 under ALL 3 buildings?




How do you explain the squibs, 20+ floors below the collapse initiation?



Too many questions unanswered by the current administration.

BeZerk

[edit on 26-6-2007 by BeZerk]

i havnt seen the video because i dont have time right now but i want to ask
does this video explain why the buildings fell at such speed? wouldnt the floors below slow the building down?
also u wouldnt need a "massive" explosion to make it fall. rather well placed smaller explosions would do (which can be seen in the floors below where the plane hit and also heard by firefighters)
Does it explain why building number 7 fell?
also u mentioned the heat of the fire saying that it was hot enough to force people to jump from the building. let me remind u that a relativle weak fire can force u to do some crazy things. think of holding a lighter to ur hand. its hot right? but will it do anything to a piece of steal? i doubt it

okay i just saw the video. I dont see how this video 'debunks' the CD theory. so because u could only see one corner of the building as it fell then it proves it fell because due to fire? if thats the case wouldnt it fall to the side? and not straight down?

one last thing. people need to give up that whole 'our government wouldnt do this thier own people." thing. how is questioning the govrnment unpatriotic?? by ur logic we should just allow the govrnment to become all powerfull and we should submit. then we will be truly patriotic right?"

Originally posted by a7chemist
one last thing. people need to give up that whole 'our government wouldnt do this thier own people." thing. how is questioning the govrnment unpatriotic?? by ur logic we should just allow the govrnment to become all powerfull and we should submit. then we will be truly patriotic right?"

I agree entirely.

False Flag terrorism has occured throughout history. People cannot deny that.

BeZerK

Originally posted by BeZerk

Originally posted by a7chemist
one last thing. people need to give up that whole 'our government wouldnt do this thier own people." thing. how is questioning the govrnment unpatriotic?? by ur logic we should just allow the govrnment to become all powerfull and we should submit. then we will be truly patriotic right?"

I agree entirely.

False Flag terrorism has occured throughout history. People cannot deny that.

BeZerK

Hi, your input is valued and respected, but could you please stay on topic.. we are talking about how the pre-collapse in the video, plus other evidence as to ascertain that CD was not used in the buildings collapse..
Many thanks

Just watched the video, ran it about 8-10 times over. Good to see it again.

But, just how does this prove there was no CD? It proves just the opposite.

First, when collapse occurs, you're at extreme close-up. the corner buckles, with an orange explosive flash seen on a floor immediately below.

Already you have evidence something's not right--what just exploded? Jet fuel? A filing cabinet?

Actually you'd have been better served with a wider view to see what's going on throughout the impact area, but already things aren't what you claim.

At the 19-22 second mark, the camera has pulled back and you can see waves of explosions in increments of 8-10 floors sending out concentric pillows of ejecta and smoke. They occur at such an incredible rate of speed that they move faster down the building than the falling debris, i.e., gravity.

How that? More filing cabinets going off in ten-floor increments?

And even NIST has backed away from the house of pancaking theory, so just what is driving that cascading, faster-than-gravity explosive destruction?

Thanks for the post, but the results aren't what you claim. The opposite, in fact.

Originally posted by Fowl Play

Originally posted by BeZerk

Originally posted by a7chemist
one last thing. people need to give up that whole 'our government wouldnt do this thier own people." thing. how is questioning the govrnment unpatriotic?? by ur logic we should just allow the govrnment to become all powerfull and we should submit. then we will be truly patriotic right?"

I agree entirely.

False Flag terrorism has occured throughout history. People cannot deny that.

BeZerK

Hi, your input is valued and respected, but could you please stay on topic.. we are talking about how the pre-collapse in the video, plus other evidence as to ascertain that CD was not used in the buildings collapse..
Many thanks

Fowl i dont need you to point that out to me out of all people

How about if you can put your "valued" and "respected" input into your own thread and my posts, that would be greatly appreciated

Also if you scroll up a bit you may see i have contributed to what the thread is about.

BeZerK

[edit on 1-7-2007 by BeZerk]

I posted this video in another thread I will post it here too, so more eyeballs can see it...


Here is a Very curious 9/11 vid showing explosions. When you watch the vid, put it to full screen. Now this vid starts just before the 2nd plane strikes the second tower. You will see a explosion in the 1st tower that was already hit. I never saw this vid before and if anyone has any other footage of this i'd love to see it.


www.youtube.com...

MrX
thanks for posting the video; that is quite remarkable footage.

Sync'ing an explosion to coincide with impact in the other tower is really staggering.

And it visually confirms Richard Rodriguez's claim that an explosion went off above him at nearly the time that the second plane hit the other tower.



[edit on 1-7-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by Damocles
well let me ask, for those that think it was a cd, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

From day one. Since I have structural engineering training and classes.

loose change?

I've only seen one 9/11 video. 9/11 mysteries. And that was after I knew what I know.

i just looks like the cd's youve seen on tv?

WTC 7 does but 1 & 2 were defenately unconventional if they were.

or have any of you actually done some research and traiing in explosives and can draw on that to point out how it was a cd?

Nope, only the laws of physics that would need to be broken if it was just plane damage/fire and gravity.

cuz if anyones got demo training id love to compare notes, maybe im missing something.

No offense but you've stated many times that your training was not in uncoventional explosives. We don't know what was used. Hence the speculation. But, you have checked one type off the list. Conventional explosives.

cuz ive actually done the demo calculations and know how much ordinance it would have taken and it just doesnt seem plausable.

Let me ask. Do you still believe plane damage/fire and gravity can accomplish the exact same thing? Remember that it takes precision to fell a building in that manner. What kind of presision is there in an uncontrolled fire? To have a collapse that mimicks a CD?

Originally posted by Damocles
Griff,
ive seen a lot of people ask for realistic computer models, and doubt the ones that are out there, that show "what really happened" (yes the quotes are intentional) but has anyone done one, backed by actual facts adn math, taht shows "what should have happened"?

and i dont mean some bored teenager with a graphics program and too much THC doing an "animation" for youtube. i mean actual engineers and architects doing a simulation modelling what we know that shows something happening other than what we witnessed that day?

cuz honestly, in the spirit of open mindedness, id love to see that

Me too. Problem is that unless you are a part of NIST, you don't have access to the structural documents. Not even Purdue had the structural documents. How did they do finite element analysis when they didn't know all the elements?

youtube.com...
Please tel me what these explosions were.and why every single news reporter on scene that day said there was explosions.Also please explain why the fbi said there was a van with explosives in it in the basement so they cleared the fireman.Please tell my why both firemen and cops on scene that day say they had to pull out because of explosions..

Yes your video was good but you think all these police fireman every new reporter and the fbi were all feeding into this "conspiracy" on the day of 911 itself??? dauum i guess we are full of nutcases...

Why did the reinforced floors not do their job????
And if i bought this video as bullet proof evidence then please explain how parts of plane were found at the WTC building after they feel hard enough to turn humans into dust,yet 0 plane parts in PA and at the pentagon???Yet with no plane parts they were somehow able to the dna of every passenger....

As for your video its great but i personally cannot deny credibility to the tons and tons of credibale witnesses who says there were explosions that same day.....they didnt wait weeks or months no the very same tragic day they all heard and witnessed explosions..

And if you think this was synched in well then both those firemen sure are good actors,expecially since the worst attack in modern history had just happend about 30 minutes earlier,these folks deserve some awards.

And the mentalilty that anyone who doesnt think this was all terrorism is a high teenager is pure ignorance.Please go watch fox news and learn the real american way of life...heh good luck in life sheeple

I also get a real kick out of poeple mocking any information obtained via online,,it would be completely idiotic to not take advantage of the heap of information that this generation can now easily access.Yes it should not fuly take the place of meeting poeple to debate or discuss facts(engineers,controlled demo teams,pilots) but to deny any and all information that comes via internet is obsured.
[edit on 5-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

[edit on 5-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I am not the one who has to prove what you say..
I am providing documentated evidence from an official report, that details the official story..
You are providing secondary information that is hearsay, allegedly taken from a person/s that are not experts in this field..
You prove that the official line is not correct with something more than secondary sources, and then possibly i may emalgumate it into my opinion..
You havent given anything??

There ya go silly.see the above video..plus please explain my questions...
Also are you the expert for your film?its not narrated lol so what expert have you presented?Oh wait i think i saw a goverment link you had ahah

[edit on 5-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

plz delete this post.Did not mean to make it...im a dummy yes i know

[edit on 5-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

If NIST's computer models do in fact show collapse initiation in support of the official explanation, then why do they not disclose those models for everyone to view?

Here are some of the things NIST has said in its extensive report:

“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181

“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143

“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143

"Overall, approximately 87 percent of all perimeter and core column steel tested exceeded the required minimum yield strengths specified in design documents. Test data for the remaining samples were below specifications, but were within the expected variability and did not affect the safety of the towers on September 11, 2001.” It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250°C.… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250°C.… Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 °C.” p. 180

Did NIST look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.

NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

NIST REPORT

BeZerK

[edit on 5-7-2007 by BeZerk]

[edit on 5-7-2007 by BeZerk]