Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
That being said Billybob... the seismic data does not support a conventional demo.

Most of us think it was not a conventional demo. So what does that do to your statement?

Bezerk.... here is some information about the seismic data:

this is the first collapse:



Second Collapse:





Taken From: www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Here is what Arthur Lerner-Lam, a seismologist at the University that recorded these said to Popular Mechanics :

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

www.popularmechanics.com...

Here is a Geologist that agrees with the staments made by Mr. Lerner-Lam:

"How can geologists catch a terrorist? With their instruments, explains Terry Wallace, a geophysicist at the University of Arizona. There are about 16,000 seismometers installed around the world, many of which offer data on freely accessible Web sites. Seismometers detect motion in the Earth, which can be triggered by an earthquake, or possibly explosions.

By learning how to read these signals, Wallace hopes scientists might catch on to suspicious activity.

"We can study these signals and begin to develop a portfolio of different kinds of signatures of explosions," says Wallace. "It will be like have a set of fingerprints."

Geophysicists have already contributed critical data to terrorist investigations. It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers — but only the impact of the airplanes and subsequent fires — that contributed to the towers' collapse on Sept. 11".

www.globalsecurity.org...



[edit on 7-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by ANOK
Most of us think it was not a conventional demo. So what does that do to your statement?

Well, if you were reading the thread...you would have noticed that the discussion was about conventional demos...as Billybob pointed out in the ones he witnessed.

My statement was to that of a CONVENTIONAL Demo... If you would like to discuss other non conventional methods..please feel free .. the NWO hasn't highjacked this forum yet.

seismic data guy...i think you posted the same picture twice......


demo videos....

starts about 5:10
video.google.com...

about 50 seconds...
www.youtube.com...

about 45 seconds....
www.youtube.com...

about ten seconds.....
www.youtube.com...

about ten again....
video.google.com...

in the buildings with windows....i didnt see windows blown out because of the intial explosions....like loose change claimed is why windows were being blown out while the building collapsed...hmmmmm


and also all the explosions were done when the building collapsed....hmmmm again...

[edit on 7-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
seismic data guy...i think you posted the same picture twice......

Thanks for picking that up! I fixed it.

Originally posted by billybob
EVERY demo i've watched has two stages.
the first set of blasts brings the building to the brink, basically near equilibrium. the building is given some time(a few seconds) to transfer load paths, and THEN the final set of blasts knocks down the (now a house of cards) building.

well, two things.

first, in all the demos you watched...wasnt it pretty obvious to everyone everywhere nearby that there were explosives going off?

second...IF this was a cd, it wasnt conventional. the collapse started at or near the impact sites which means that you wouldnt blow the basement or anything else like you would in a normal demo job.

IF (HUGE IF) it was a cd, it started near the impact zones then used the mass of the "caps" of the buildings to do the hard work while using explosives to soften it up as it fell. the timing had to be perfect and they had to be really sure where the planes would hit so there was no risk to their ring main. but, this is another reason why the "squibs" argument is crap. the way you set up demo charges makes it REALLY hard to have one go off on its own prematurely. so, you would have to believe that the team was brilliant enough to make it look like it wasnt a CD yet make a demo 101 amateur mistake like that?

well, whatever floats yer boat i guess.

but, for one of the few times ever, i have to agree to some degree with Anok. IF it was a CD it was NOT likely conventional explosives used anywhere in it.

oh and all the seizmic data shows is that there was somethign that propogated a wave before the collapse of the building. to jump all over "explosives" based on that is poor investigation and poor science. all you have is yet another out of context piece of evidence.

evidence is not proof, just like loud noises or even explosions do not equal bombs.

Originally posted by Damocles

first, in all the demos you watched...wasnt it pretty obvious to everyone everywhere nearby that there were explosives going off?

Well, yes, as everyone was waiting, cameras ready and coolers filled with beer, for the big event. The towers being on another scale entirely, and the cores being what had to be knocked out, and being in the center of the building mass, and the rapidity of the destruction and the multiplicity of the blasts, subsumes most of the noise of individual blasts in the general roar of destruction.

Nonetheless, to quote that famous filmed fireman, "the floors started poppin' out--bang bang bang bang" (hand gestures optional).

And you still have a mass of reports of intermittant explosions going off throughout the towers and WTC 7 from PDNY/FDNY and media, some of it caught on video, esp for WTC 7.

second...IF this was a cd, it wasnt conventional. the collapse started at or near the impact sites which means that you wouldnt blow the basement or anything else like you would in a normal demo job.

My view of the collapse sequence is this, posted elsewhere: The actual collapse was done in 4 stages in a roughly 20-second time frame. First, the coup-de-grace wallop in the sub-basements, felt all the way up at Columbia's seismographs. Several seconds later, the core as taken out at the impact area, initiating collapse. Almost immediately after, the upper structure was shattered to insure it didn't crash to earth in a single mass. Then the cascading race to the ground, beating the first debris ejected above.

IF (HUGE IF) it was a cd, it started near the impact zones then used the mass of the "caps" of the buildings to do the hard work while using explosives to soften it up as it fell. the timing had to be perfect and they had to be really sure where the planes would hit so there was no risk to their ring main. but, this is another reason why the "squibs" argument is crap. the way you set up demo charges makes it REALLY hard to have one go off on its own prematurely. so, you would have to believe that the team was brilliant enough to make it look like it wasnt a CD yet make a demo 101 amateur mistake like that?

well, whatever floats yer boat i guess.

No doubt this was an intricately planned and near-perfectly executed production. Once you don't buy the Official Story, you realize that patience, planning and resources in abundance were given to this project. It is literally a moment that redefines history and sets the world on a new, darker course. But this is an imperfect world, and no amount of planning and resources can make the result match the official line of a gravity-driven collapse, because it would have been so different.

The tops of the towers, even if they could have been severed, would have slowly buckled and toppled en masse to earth. That is actually what started to happen before they were blown apart. And that pretty much would have been it. No more weight above --which the remaining buildings had been supporting since their construction--means that the rest of the towers would have stood.

In this case the alternative reality, in Alice-in-Wonderland fashion, has been implanted as the truth. Up is down, black is white.

And even the idea that the upper building mass of the second tower hit--not on-center, but with a diagonal blow missing the core--would have toppled is ceding far more to official improbability than it deserves.

As for those squibs, scoff at them as you will, but something was explosively blowing out windows and ejecting smoke plumes dozens of floors from the collapse areas, successively, as the towers fell. In a few cases, this occurs a good twenty floors below the collapse wave.

Look at this piece of the puzzle or that closely, and someone tells you, "Oh, you're wrong, this couldn't do that, it's not the way it works...that couldn't be, because this thing here can't do that." It is divide and conquer.

Step back, look at it all objectively. Consider that list of inexplicable anomalies I posted on the prior page, which you conceded had merit but begged off to answer as beyond your area of expertise. Heck, just watch a decent video of one tower collapsing, and you know--if you know anything about structure and basic physics--that those towers didn't fall from a gravity-driven collapse caused by airplane impacts and jet fuel.

but, for one of the few times ever, i have to agree to some degree with Anok. IF it was a CD it was NOT likely conventional explosives used anywhere in it.

oh and all the seizmic data shows is that there was somethign that propogated a wave before the collapse of the building. to jump all over "explosives" based on that is poor investigation and poor science. all you have is yet another out of context piece of evidence.

evidence is not proof, just like loud noises or even explosions do not equal bombs.

Sorry Damocles, I greatly admire your intelligence and your debating skill but here you're using sophistry. And I sense your concession to "unconventional" means is a hollow one, as you believe them fictional. Your argument is exactly the "this indeed happened but is not proof of anything" reasoning that one sees so often and that is so misleading. It is further dependent upon the shameful suppression and ablation of evidence and the inadequacy of the official investigations.

As just one example, how can the construction plans of the cores of the towers, semi-public buildings that no longer stand, be still considered sensitive information and withheld? Aren't they absolutely essential to any serious investigation of the nature of the collapse?

To brush off major seismic events that occur, by your own admission, just before the onset of the collapses, is disingenuous at best. Well, let's ask the obvious--what, if not some sort of massive explosive force, could cause two seismic events of such a magnitude as to be registered up at Columbia? Unless those were coincidental earthquakes, what other explanation is there?

Likewise, returning to the big picture, dismissing "loud noises and explosions" as not being bombs because "evidence is not proof" is an admirable linguistic and philosophical feat, but every bit as disingenuous, and a perfect example of the inverted reality and enabling evidential holes that the official story depends upon.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by gottago]

well first you have to realize ive never said i buy the official line 100%. there are flaws with it ill admit.

my stance is that the towers, if brought down by cd, werent done with high explosives. thats pretty much the gist of my stance.

im sorry you feel i "begged off" but why is it that everyone, well most everyone, feels that if you have a pretty good reason why it wasnt one thing then you MUST be able to explain it without that thing. nothing personal but i feel thats pretty dumb. if i were to try to explain the collapse of the WTC it would be PURE speculation, and how valuable is that really?

im also sorry that you feel me saying thigns like "explosions dont equal bombs" is a cop out, but its TRUE. talk to any firefighter and they'll tell you that at some piont in their career SOMETHING exploded during a fire...does that mean it was a bomb? of course not. so if it doesnt apply to a house fire why MUST it apply to the wtc?

again about the seizmic data...we dont KNOW what it is and anythign else is guessing...i mean you would have me believe that there was an explosions massive enough to register on their equipment, yet the building stood for 10 seconds more? THATS my problem with it, along with the fact that there is no physical proof there were any explosives in that building at all.

and the squibs...ok, ill try to state why i think the way i do more clearly. look at the mechanics of an explosion. it detonates, pressurewave expands omnidirectionally from the blast, unless of course its a shaped charge then its a little different but not much for the purpose of this discussion. ok so it blows and the pressure wave expands. overpressures the whole floor of the building as it was pretty wide open. has enough force to overpressure a full acre of area, pop a window and be seen outside. ok, BUT, that blast wave is going to push stuff out very quickly and die off. WHAT WE ACTUALLY SEE is quite different. it "pops" and then when you watch the videos you can see it actually continue to push outward. why? its exactly NOT what you'd expect from an explosive.

additionally, theres the matter of for that to be a premature blast, it had to be wired wrong. so are these guys gods of demo that can take down a building from the top without any of the really hallmark signs of explosions, or are they amateurs that slept through the first 4 hrs of demo training? sorry, but for me you cant have it both ways. the guys that dis this job would have had to be MUCH better than me and i can guarantee you had i rigged that buildign there wouldnt have been premature explosions.

next we have to buy the fact that the demo charges survived the impact, the ring main survived the impact and taht they both survived the hour of fire that was present after. conventional demo wont.

another thing is ok, i cannot say for sure that the sound of the collapse would not mask the sounds of the next set of demo charges. i dont believe it would because we're still talking about a LOT of demo, but for the sake of discussion ill grant that it could have covered it. havng not been on scene and having no way to know jsut how loud it was, its all speculation anyway.

but, how'd they mask the first shot? the one that started the downward fall of the towers...you'd still hear that one. and for the record, in the debate i linked to a video that showed a buildign start to fall and then the next shots went off and you still heard them very clearly. and theres no way anyone gonna tell me that the sound waves from the first shot were covered by the fall, the pressure wave from the HE would be around 25k fps and that makes the sound supersonic. you'd hear the first one

so yeah, im open minded about a lot of things but ive yet to see compelling evidence that it was a cd usign conventional explosives. im not trying to be a "know it all" by any means, its just that ive had a LOT of training in this field and so while im willing to admit i could be wrong, i wont admit im wrong until someone PROVES me wrong, and that will take fact, not speculation, not grainey youtube videos that may or may not be altered at this point (not everyone out there has the integrity of us here at ats) i want fact. id even settle for someone gettnig me data on an explosive compound with a high enough RE factor to make the amount needed very small. but if that exists i dont knwo what it is.

so i mean if anyone has hard FACTUAL data that contradicts my findings i would love to discuss it. but man, ive just not seen it, so until then ill stand by my opinion that the wtc towers were not brought down with HE.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by Damocles]

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Im afraid the more you look into the halfbaked CT's the more they look ridiculous, i know this wont get resolved here, but this video in my eyes is good evidence to back up the official line yet again. If people do really look hard enough they can see the BS for what it is..
A lot of you need to be careful where you point the finger, because this type of unpatriotic abuse will eventually be drawn up in the anti-terror laws..
As if the US would seriously authorize 9/11..
People insinuating such things in history would of been thrown in the tower and hung, drawn and quartered..
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but when it can incite hatred against others and its own government, it can border on terrorism.

I dont know how you got so many stars for this BS!You should be ashamed to whitewash ct'rs as terrorists.It helps to be open minded
on this subject.We all clearly saw planes hit the towers and we are told
those Saudi men did it by american intel nearly straight away.
There are many conflicting stories about this terrible day,and i like many here try not to see it in black and white
I am not going to rabbit on about why the airforce stood down,that famous pull it sound bite or the lets roll brigade as they are clearly mentioned on other threads here in great detail.

I have one question for you

If the twin towers realy fell by plane impact alone resulting in load bearing loss on the structures in the resulting fire then why the hell arent the Architechs responsible for the design in court facing corporate manslaughter charges?I get the feelings you yanks take corperations to court at the drop of a hat.So why havnt I heard of many families who lost love ones that day doing it

I have a feeling the reason being is these companies would say there is NO way those towers would have fallen on the impact alone and showed proof to help their case.

I think islamic people flew planes into the towers
I think these islamic people where brainwashed into doing it by their high command
I think their high command were briefed by wealthy backers
I think these wealthy backers are in the pockets of the NWO
but the orignal plane flyers and high command dont know their true masters!

The war on terror or given its realy name the war on Islam seems to be working in our favour and not theres?We are invading their countries and stealing their resources.And apart for the few terroroist acts they inflict on us its a very one sided conflict that is making them despise us
Afganistan was invaded because the tallliban refused to give bin laden to the americans without proof that he was responsible for the twin towers.Rather than give them proof we rolled in the war machine and dropped bombs from high above in our modern xbox warfare system, with god mode on of course

We all know then Iraq was next on the list,no need to flog a dead horse about the legalities of that war!

These two wars were the direct result of the twin towers,those two towers that fell as quick as a cheap tarts knickers.Our history is being shaped by that criminal act and a lot of things dont add up

Now lets say that its fully Bin Laden who is responsible and the arabs pulled off a near faultless exercise that day.why dont we talk to them and find out what this small group wantsl(it was a small group then!early videos in afgan of bin had lots of extras in the shots to make them look like a big team)
The british goverment has talked in secret and in the open to the IRA and its splinter groups for many years and now we have peace.Why cant we do the same?IF you say that America doesnt talk to terrorits or do deals then your wrong sunshine.
Bin Ladens main beef with you yanks was having troops on his countries soil(sadui arabia)and he demanded you take them off
news.bbc.co.uk...

hold on you moved your troops!so bin won then?

[edit on 7-7-2007 by noangels2006]

Originally posted by Damocles
im sorry you feel i "begged off" but why is it that everyone, well most everyone, feels that if you have a pretty good reason why it wasnt one thing then you MUST be able to explain it without that thing. nothing personal but i feel thats pretty dumb. if i were to try to explain the collapse of the WTC it would be PURE speculation, and how valuable is that really?

Well, again, I come back to the big picture. I keep my eye always on that. Based on your knowledge, you state firmly that conventional explosives were not used, but a mass of evidence speaks otherwise, reasons above. Well, something ain't right. Those anomalies can't simply be ignored as "pretty dumb." That's convenient looking-through-the wrong-end-of-a-telescope thinking.

im also sorry that you feel me saying thigns like "explosions dont equal bombs" is a cop out, but its TRUE. talk to any firefighter and they'll tell you that at some piont in their career SOMETHING exploded during a fire...does that mean it was a bomb? of course not. so if it doesnt apply to a house fire why MUST it apply to the wtc?

For the simple reason that so many of those firemen and police officers, inside the buildings before collapse, reported explosions throughout the buildings where by all rights no explosions should have been occurring, as there were no fires or impact damage in those areas. What shattered the lobby in the Naudet footage, for example?

again about the seizmic data...we dont KNOW what it is and anythign else is guessing...i mean you would have me believe that there was an explosions massive enough to register on their equipment, yet the building stood for 10 seconds more? THATS my problem with it, along with the fact that there is no physical proof there were any explosives in that building at all.

Well, it's an educated guess, given the magnitude and the circumstances. ;-)

and the squibs...ok, ill try to state why i think the way i do more clearly. look at the mechanics of an explosion. it detonates, pressurewave expands omnidirectionally from the blast, unless of course its a shaped charge then its a little different but not much for the purpose of this discussion. ok so it blows and the pressure wave expands. overpressures the whole floor of the building as it was pretty wide open. has enough force to overpressure a full acre of area, pop a window and be seen outside. ok, BUT, that blast wave is going to push stuff out very quickly and die off. WHAT WE ACTUALLY SEE is quite different. it "pops" and then when you watch the videos you can see it actually continue to push outward. why? its exactly NOT what you'd expect from an explosive.

Agree with you totally, until you characterize what we see. I don't see anything that doesn't jive with the explosive process you describe here. I see the squibs pop, ejecting dust/gasses, and within less than a second be subsumed by the collapse wave. Just what doesn't fit with an shaped charge explosion, further funneled through office corridors? The dust is going to hang in the air once the force is spent. It does. What's the problem here?

additionally, theres the matter of for that to be a premature blast, it had to be wired wrong. so are these guys gods of demo that can take down a building from the top without any of the really hallmark signs of explosions, or are they amateurs that slept through the first 4 hrs of demo training? sorry, but for me you cant have it both ways. the guys that dis this job would have had to be MUCH better than me and i can guarantee you had i rigged that buildign there wouldnt have been premature explosions.

I don't believe these squibs can be characterized accidents/fool's work, and thus dismissed at all. That was one heck of a building to take down. Bombs were going off from the time of impact to collapse. The squibs to me are indications that major sections of core had to be blown out/softened up before the cascade/destruction wave reached them. They're integral to the demolition but left unavoidable telltale evidence, wrongly characterized and thus easily dismissed.

next we have to buy the fact that the demo charges survived the impact, the ring main survived the impact and taht they both survived the hour of fire that was present after. conventional demo wont.

We have survivors from the immediate floors of the impact area and others who didn't make it but were trapped on those floors. We have pictures of people standing in the impact holes before collapse. Office workers aren't hardened for airplane impacts and fire, but they survived. I'll give the pros that pulled this off enough credit for ingenuity that they managed somehow.

but, how'd they mask the first shot? the one that started the downward fall of the towers...you'd still hear that one. and for the record, in the debate i linked to a video that showed a buildign start to fall and then the next shots went off and you still heard them very clearly. and theres no way anyone gonna tell me that the sound waves from the first shot were covered by the fall, the pressure wave from the HE would be around 25k fps and that makes the sound supersonic. you'd hear the first one

No bang. Thermate. That stuff dripping out of the corner of the tower just before collapse. Silent scream.

...so i mean if anyone has hard FACTUAL data that contradicts my findings i would love to discuss it. but man, ive just not seen it, so until then ill stand by my opinion that the wtc towers were not brought down with HE.

I really do see where you're coming from but again I'll just say we come at this from opposing POV. You look at it from your area of expertise, and I look at it more globally, for lack of a better word. That's why I constantly drag in stuff that annoys you. To me it's all got to fit, and there's so little that fits officially.

LOL doesnt annoy me and the great part of an intellectual discussion is the ability to agree to disagree. i respect the fact your able to have a rational discussion on the matter and for that you also have my thanks.

(just nice not to be called a shill for once)

adn i can totally see where youre coming from looking at it as a whole...but for me if a part of the puzzle makes no sense, then it needs to be reevaluated and either confirmed or dismissed.

for some the mechanism of the collapse doesnt matter, they just "know". well, for me that doesnt work. if i look and cant find explosives being used then i have to know what was. if nothing else fits the bill then i have to wonder if it was a CD at all....get what i mean? sometimes things soudn better to me in my head lol.

and like i said before, im not trying to debunk the theory that the govt did it, im trying to eliminate one possible "how" they did it so that we can get closer to the real truth. if we're wasting our time on theories that dont hold water then thats that much longer til the real truth is uncovered. get what i mean?

watch the squibs footage again, you'll see that after the initial ejection of matter, theres a force that continues to push it along...for me thats very telling but you may disagree.

also, were the people that were witnessed standing in the openings people that had been on that floor when the plane crashed or were they from upper floors trying to get down in which case they fires may not have been as hot.

C4 will burn when exposed to fire. melt when exposed to heat. (i dont recall at what temp and i dont have that particular book anymore) i just know its not much hotter than your typical campfire. (i wont explain why i know that so that one you can take or leave. i wont proclaim it as fact based on just my doing it, if i cant prove it it doesnt matter)


oh, and when someone can demonstrate thermate cutting horizontally without beveling the edges of the cut ill give it more consideration or at least real proof that there was thermate. ok, so metal appears to be pouring out of the building. was there really residue of thermate found? cuz ill stand by what i said in another thread about his resaerch methods being sloppy and so his results are suspect.

jones could have done ONE simple thing. get a 2" thick steel plate, stand it vertically, and using the resources of his labs, get thermite/mate to cut it leaving a clean horizontal cut. BOOM! debate solved. right there he'd prove if it was possible or impossible. he, nor anyone else, hs done so.

for me, and maybe it is just me, but i have to take all the anomolies and rule out any mundane explainations. how many people here do that? how many take somethign like the seizmic events (for example) and look for EVERY possible cause before accepting them as proof? or even doing some research to find out how much HE would have to be set off to cause that reading. as a GUESS id say its a lot, and if we knew how much we could look at the videos and figure out if what we saw was big enough to yeild those results. has anyone done that? seizmics arent my thing so im pretty much no help on that one. but as a guess id bet that even OKC didnt produce those readings had it been monitored. again, just a GUESS.

theres 3 of you id give credit to being open minded enough to consider such things on your own, but thats a pretty small fraction of people IMHO.

Was just teasing you with "annoying"--I just hate smileys and so it doesn't come through. And with you 110 %--it's also nice not be called a CT nut either.

So, back to squibs then:

took your advice and just watched this
again, from 9/11 Mysteries. Putting aside Karmina Burana and that woman's annoying voice, I really don't see any continuing ejection--they puff out and the smoke lingers a bit and gets subsumed by the collapse. The skylobby squibs are the closest to what you describe, but then they're the most reenforced areas of the towers and you can argue multiple charges go off, not in perfect unison, that would force ejecta in what appear to be lingering waves. And really, I was quite generous in giving them even a second to linger; they get consumed almost immediately by the incredible speed of the collapse.

Here's the most compelling evidence of survivors I can find, right from the 9/11 commission. The guy had a wing slash through his cubicle and lived to tell (!).

And you'd have to assume (sorry to speculate) they wouldn't know exactly which floor would be hit, so there was redundancy built in, it not being a mom & pop operation.

The only survivor known to have escaped from the heart of the impact zone [Stanley Praimnath] described the 81st floor-where the wing of the plane had sliced through his office-as a "demolition" site in which everything was "broken up" and the smell of jet fuel was so strong that it was almost impossible to breathe. This person escaped by means of an unlikely rescue, aided by a civilian fire warden descending from a higher floor [Brian Clark], who, critically, had been provided with a flashlight.
– 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 9

I'm not clear why thermate has to cut horizontally to be effective, but certainly it can be contained about the columns to do its work, horizontally or diagonally. Wouldn't diagonal be better in any case in initiating collapse, slipping the core off-center?

Jones has recently obtained and analyzed some residual taken from a memorial scrap column and has reported findings fully supporting thermate residue. To be taken for what you want. But just shows you why they treated that steel like it was gold from Fort Knox as they hustled it off to China.

As for the seismic events, you might as well throw in the blossoming destruction clouds, the hotspots, and the dust too in those computations. I'm not an engineer and it'd take me months to reach the competence necessary to calculate the energies exhibited, but well, that's my point. They're massive. they're so obviously beyond the scale and nature of the kinetic energy released by a gravity driven collapse that it would be a pointless exercise to even begin the process. Just "go to the video tape," as Marv Albert used to say.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by gottago]

[edit on 7-7-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by noangels2006

The war on terror or given its realy name the war on Islam seems to be working in our favour and not theres?We are invading their countries and stealing their resources.And apart for the few terroroist acts they inflict on us its a very one sided conflict that is making them despise us

ho

We agreed with the leader of the group, Mohammed Atta, to perform all attacks within 20 minutes before [President George W.] Bush and his administration were aware of what was going on. And we never knew that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face those events by themselves when they were in the most urgent need of their leader.

taken from one of his videos....
www.cnn.com...

and as far as iraq goes...1995 report...
www.fas.org...


and the reason the builders have not been sued....is because someone else flew a freaking plane into them....there's no way that the builders would be responsible for something like that....if it was in california and taken down by an earthquake, i'm sure they could be sued...however....NO!

Originally posted by gottago

I'm not clear why thermate has to cut horizontally to be effective, but certainly it can be contained about the columns to do its work, horizontally or diagonally. Wouldn't diagonal be better in any case in initiating collapse, slipping the core off-center?

Thermite burns vertically. To use it as a cutting charge into columns, supports etc. You would have to some how harness the thermite. Think of the construction that would be needed to do this. The time...etc.

Originally posted by gottago
Jones has recently obtained and analyzed some residual taken from a memorial scrap column and has reported findings fully supporting thermate residue. To be taken for what you want. But just shows you why they treated that steel like it was gold from Fort Knox as they hustled it off to China.

I'd like to address the steel issue. Was it shipped off fast? I would think that the engineers would have liked more samples to investigate to help with their investigation. (more so for WTC7 )

That being said Commissioner Holden(Kenneth Holden, commissioner of the department of design and construction) said that while agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the office of the city medical examiner did inspect the steel for crime scene clues and human remains, no engineering examinations were taking place.

Q: Did all the steel go to China?

A: No. Only about 30,000 tons of the recovered 360,000 tons of steel ended up in China. Steel was also sent to India, Pakistan, South Korea, Thaliand, Singapore.

Also:



This ship is being built with 24 thousand tons of scrap steel from the WTC.
www.snopes.com...

Its not ALL in China!!




[edit on 7-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]

CO,

Rome was not built in a day, nor 9/11 planned in a day either. Thermate, if needed for a critical task, would have expertly deployed to do its job. Here I give credit where credit is due. These were pros. Having access to the structural plans and the building itself, and planning for years, the necessary container can be devised, tested and fabricated.

The destruction of the evidence from the site was massive bordering on criminal is pretty much the consensus, and no one tested for what was not wanted to be found. It was after all a crime scene of an unprecedented scale. There were 2 security cordons around the site, local and federal, searches of workers, and the trucks hauling off debris were monitored with gps trackers. Would half that effort had been expended on actual study of the building remains, for all the obvious reasons regarding forensics and structural failure.

And well, slow boat to China or Pakistan or Katmandu, that's irrelevant, it sure didn't go to any independent labs.

And as for that warship, well that's Orwellian on the scale of "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

And it's a perfect symbol for 9/11--plowshares beaten into swords.

These guys have a really sickening sense of humor.

No, 911 wasn't planned in a day.

Lets consider your theory that little by little thermite harnesses were installed throughout the (i am assuming 3) buildings that collapsed.

How long did this take?
Why didn't building Engineers ever notice these harnesses?
Elevator workers ever notice these harnesses?

During renovations/office moves ...these harnesses should have been noticable. No?

Do you know how much thermite would be needed to actually do the job your suggesting?

That doesn't show anything, at all! This is a grainy, shaky video, showing only a corner of the tower crumbling upon itself. OF course this part of the structure is twisting as it crumbles... even if there was a controlled demolition, that does mean each and every single part of the building had to explode as if there were explosives everywhere! Moreover, this doesn't void at all the clearly visible blasts seen in many places around the two towers as they are collapsing.

Controlled demolitions (by implosion process) work by the principle of destroying the BASE of a building first, as well as its core, and bringing it down by small blasts at many places in the structure.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I have never seen it posted before, or seen this footage. It really does seem to debunk the CD theories.. For a CD of such magnitude the explosions would of had to be titanic..

Errr... There's a big problem in that logic. If a controlled demolition of such magnitude would have needed "titanic" blasts, then HOW just one single place, crashing near the top of each tower, could bring the whole thing down in mere seconds, in a perfectly straight manner???

Bullocks.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
This page totally debunks the thermite allegations, and in fact makes them look totally ridiculous.
www.debunking911.com...

disagreed. that site shows pictures, and then tells you what to think of the pictures.

they show thermite (lances) cutting through steel as 'proof' that thermite cuts wouldn't look like that.
fairly poor logic.

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Fowl Play
This page totally debunks the thermite allegations, and in fact makes them look totally ridiculous.
www.debunking911.com...

disagreed. that site shows pictures, and then tells you what to think of the pictures.

they show thermite (lances) cutting through steel as 'proof' that thermite cuts wouldn't look like that.
fairly poor logic.

and many 9-11 sites do the same...including loose change...in that movie there's a scene where he says right before the fall...you can see something suspicious fall out here....and it shows a PERSON jumping out a window and claims it was something to do with a bomb....

and your signature....we have military exercises once a month...sometimes more.....so i dont think the odds are astronomical to have an attack the same day as an exercise

Thermate Squibs? If there were "squibs" as evidence of a controlled demolition, but the towers were brought down with "unconventional" top secret thermate canisters......Then logic would follow that thermate causes squibs.

I cannot believe that. It makes no sense, and I feel what we witnessed on 9/11/2001 was the result of two huge jetliners filled with fuel severing the World Trade Towers to the point they couldn't sustain the damage of both the impact and subsequent fires.