Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

This is a fact buddy, read the document. The fact that you refuse to look at proof, doesnt mean the proof doesnt exist.

What about the video of explosions, that can clearly be heard, have you forgot, or did you never know. Not suprising, you didnt know WTC6 was destroyed, and if I said it collapsed, Im sorry, I meant it was taking down by explosives. I know it was demolished along with the others, doesnt really matter when, and the crooks who did it made a fortune out of it, of course thats something people wont talk about.

You debunkers, sometimes you just cant listen to reason can you. Dark elements of the US establishment planned, and carried out, the attacks. And they have been caught lying over and over, manufacturing false evidence, remember the fake passports and phony confession tape, yea but thats just a theory too. Wake up.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

Originally posted by LightWorker13
This is a fact buddy, read the document.

What about the video of explosions, that can clearly be heard, have you forgot, or did you never know. Not suprising, you didnt know WTC6 was destroyed, and if I said it collapsed, Im sorry, I meant it was taking down by explosives. I know it was demolished along with the others, doesnt really matter when, and the crooks who did it made a fortune out of it, of course thats something people wont talk about.

does anyone know what this guy is talking about?
because i dont?
WTC6 taken down by explosives?
i must admit you got me on this one

Originally posted by LightWorker13
This is a fact buddy, read the document.

What about the video of explosions, that can clearly be heard, have you forgot, or did you never know. Not suprising, you didnt know WTC6 was destroyed, and if I said it collapsed, Im sorry, I meant it was taking down by explosives. I know it was demolished along with the others, doesnt really matter when, and the crooks who did it made a fortune out of it, of course thats something people wont talk about.

Sorry but i have to contradict you on this. Building 6 was pulled down using cables and heavy equipment. There is a video of it, i will see if i can find it again for you.

Taking down a building with wires? Since when do they do that?? I just looked for it, and I could find no references to wires pulling it down, anywhere.

What about the video and eyewitness accounts of explosions, by police officers and firemen, trained observers?? What about Larry Silversteins insurance policy, and the "pull it" remark? What about physics professor Steven Jones, saying its literally against the laws of physics for fires to bring down modern skyscrapers? Yes, but as typical, ignore proof and focus on nonsense. Right.

WTC 6 was destroyed because it was "damaged". Learn the truth okay, for god sakes, no for your sake and your families, because the very people responsible for this, are the very people who hate your freedom, and want to take it away, and I dont mean arabs!


[edit on 14-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

Originally posted by LightWorker13
WTC 6 was destroyed because it was "damaged". Learn the truth okay, for god sakes, no for your sake and your families, because the very people responsible for this, are the very people who hate your freedom, and want to take it away, and I dont mean arabs!


[edit on 14-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

Building 6 was PULLED using cables and heavy equipment. I believe you may be getting building 6 and 7 confused.

Here is the video of the contractors pulling down building 6. Its about 30 seconds into the clip.

www.youtube.com...

The holes in Building 6 was caused by falling pieces from the breakup of the North Tower . The steel in just the upper half of the Tower's northeast wall weighed several thousand tons. It can be imagined, given the degree of mushrooming in the Tower collapse, that Building 6 received most of the weight of the Tower's northeast wall. Thousands of tons falling from a thousand feet could have crushed all eight stories of such a building. Moreover, the rectangular shape of the hole, and the fact that it runs the length of the Tower's northeast wall , suggests that it corresponds to the region of heaviest steel fallout from that wall. If the Tower continued to disintegrate in the uniform manner seen before dust clouds obscured the region of breakup, it is easy to imagine that the column-and-spandrel panels of the perimeter wall would be blown off fairly consistently in the direction perpendicular to the wall. That would result in a roughly rectangular distribution of fallout.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by Fowl Play]

Originally posted by Fowl Play
The holes in Building 6 was caused by falling pieces from the breakup of the North Tower . The steel in just the upper half of the Tower's northeast wall weighed several thousand tons. It can be imagined, given the degree of mushrooming in the Tower collapse, that Building 6 received most of the weight of the Tower's northeast wall. [edit on 14-6-2007 by Fowl Play]

Its a wonder with all that structural damage and the fires why building 6 did not collaspe, if thats what casued building 7 to collaspe.

Building 6 was only an 8 story building, hardly comparable with a 47 storey skyscraper.. Different buildings, different situation, and i have already stated i do not think all the facts were released for WTC7.

Funny, Skeptics/Debunkers are using video to prove their point, yet what about all the footage in Loose Change showing pre-collapse explosions and such, how is the footage any more conclusive?

Could transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what the firemen saw and heard? What about an acre of concrete floor slamming into another? Would steel bolts snapping under tremendous tension make a pop or explosive sound? Assuming the towers weren't in the vacuum of space, we can be fairly safe to say the things I mentioned are good candidates to explain what the firemen heard. Even they think so...

Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”

But if you read on...

"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."

This is a quote taken out of context. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking it out of context...

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
funny your mate Dylan Avery only chooses to use part of this quote, other truthers are guilty of this misinformation too.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Building 6 was only an 8 story building, hardly comparable with a 47 storey skyscraper.. Different buildings, different situation, and i have already stated i do not think all the facts were released for WTC7.

But what about other steel skyscapers that have had worse fires then building 7 and worse structural damage and did not collaspe ?

The WTC buildings are the only steel buildings in history to collapse from fires.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

This is a great example of how easy it is to deceve (sp?) others.

ONE video is posted and people are posting "never seen this, well, the Contolled Demo theory is out of the question now..."

Did a single video convince you to question the 911 events? if so, your easy! a sure push-over! I could probably make a well-done documentary on 'aliens and how they did 911' and convince a few....thats sad.

I just think sometimes, the 911 truthers/researchers are in it for the wrong reasons. like its some game...does anyone else kinda understand what im trying to type out here?

A crime happened. an investigation NEVER really happened.

Sticking to the FACTS, and only confirmed facts, and NEVER diving into "i think this" or "i think that happened" and going into THEORIES is the ONLY WAY TO ROLL.

even if this video was proof of a collapse, and nothing more...then it is interesting HOW it collapsed, at free fall speeds,and it was a COMPLETE collapse, not in chunks, concrete into dust, and how bout the molten pools...ignoring this stuff and claiming ONE single video is proof that the CTers are crazy is foolish.

do you want truth, or some type of internet message board fame?
"who will defeat the crazy CT'ers..." : again, not a game.

Originally posted by DoomX
This video definately shows that the building has lost structural integrity. Those who keep relying on the orange liquid that pours out of the one corner in other captured video CANNOT and SHOULD NOT instantly assume it is thermite as there was a fire in the building and stuff can burn and quite possibly resemble that orange liquid. To go straight and assume it is thermite is ludicrous.

I agree. I have read that there were computer back-up batteries on that floor. Lots of them. I could see the orange glowing metal being from those. That's a more plausible explaination than aluminum mixed with embers IMO.

Originally posted by snoopy
The lower portions could not have remained in tact. If I handed you a 40lb weight you would have no trouble holding it right? Now if I dropped that 40lb weight from 12 feet above, would you have any trouble catching it? This notion that it would have just stopped is unfounded. If that had happened, then you'd definitely have a smoking gun.

Let's put it more like this. Construct a steel column that is 12 feet and place the 40 lb. weight on that. Now, use fire to cause the column to buckle. Is the 40 lb. weight going to freefall down 12 feet at the acceleration of gravity or will there be resistance to cause it to fall slower?

There's not much to this video and not surprisingly I'm not convinced. I'm trying to come up with an even more insubstantial argument. It's almost like saying that these 110 story buildings came down for obvious reasons and there is really no need to look at the collapse in detail or to evaluate where the strength of the building was centered. A close up view of one corner of the building is all that is required to answer our questions.

Sorry. Gotta do better. Prudence dictates. Where's Dana Carvey when you need him?

Originally posted by snoopy


The lower portions could not have remained in tact. If I handed you a 40lb weight you would have no trouble holding it right? Now if I dropped that 40lb weight from 12 feet above, would you have any trouble catching it? This notion that it would have just stopped is unfounded. If that had happened, then you'd definitely have a smoking gun.

the upper portion was heavily listing already and was falling off the side of the tower. at that time it hadn't fallen very far and the lower structure was obviously capable of bearing the weight of the entire building.

a fall of so and so many feet did not happen, because the structure didn't just vanish, it was just damaged, therefore still bearing a partial load. none of your objections adress that the cores of both towers (again take a look at my post on top of p3 and follow these links if you haven't done it already) remained standing for a few seconds. relieved of their loads, they nevertheless sank to the bottom, simply disintegrated, which, like seperation of all floors from the core cannot be explained by fires on half a dozen floors.

while I'm at it: will someonep lease explain the 'meteorite' too?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 14.6.2007 by Long Lance]

Flight 175 crashed into the 81st floor. According to Christopher Bollyn:

"A former Japanese bank employee recently came forward and explained that the 81st floor was an entire floor of server-size computer batteries:

Fuji Bank had reinforced the 81st floor, he said, so the floor could support more weight. The entire floor was then filled with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.

These units were bolted to a raised floor about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. "The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.

But were they really batteries or were they Thermate?

"It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on." "
www.iamthewitness.com...

See also
www.iamthewitness.com...

This is an important piece of information. But Bollyn collaborated with Steven Jones and was, I believe, trying to find evidence for Jones' thermate theory by proposing that the batteries were dummies filled with thermate. I find this suggestion ludicrous as well as unnecessary, for how could thermate powder loaded in dummy batteries on just one floor of a 110-floor skyscraper have helped to cause its collapse, especially when, according to Bollyn, the clouds of white smoke released during the impact contained the aluminium in thermate, i.e., much of it would have been scattered outside the building by the impact? Even NIST no longer accepts the 'pancake theory', which is what such a proposal seems to rely upon.

The office fires would have melted the lead (M.P. = 327.5 degrees Centrigrade) in the many racks of batteries. So what poured out of the gaps on the 81st floor in the NE corner of the South Tower was far more likely to be lead. It is surely too implausible that it was merely coincidence that the metal poured from the very floor that housed tons of lead batteries? Bollyn's witness stated that the batteries were never turned on. But, presumably they would not have been turned on except during a power failure, so I don't think that this supports Bollyn's suggestion that the batteries were dummies.

Of course this does not imply that thermate was not used. However, my opinion is that it does not explain the turning into powder of not only so much concrete but also so much steel. The debris stack left by the collapse of each tower was far smaller than what would be expected for a 500,000 ton building. Where did so much of the steel go? Into the air as dust. Neither thermate nor explosives cannot achieve that. Some other cause for the almost total pulverisation into dust of concrete and metal is required. Gravity cannot do the job, so don't be distracted by video evidence of structural failure. The notion that this could have caused all the 47 core columns to fail as well is sheer nonsense. Such failures were planned for in the design of the towers, so that the remaining columns could take the increased stress.

micpsi,

That's the most plausable explaination I have heard for the dripping liquid metal. It's way more plausable than aluminum mixed with embers. Maybe we should contact NIST and tell then we (well, you) have figured out something that has taken them years and millions of dollars to speculate. I think you deserve that tax payer money. to you.

I tried looking into what all metals would be in those but all I'm getting are sites that sell them. Does anyone know what materials are in them?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well lets start with buildings 5 and 6, and the other buidlings. They were closer to the towers had more structural damage then building 7 and had fires but did not collapse.

i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...


Here is a list of buidlings that had fires burning for several hours longer then the WTC buildings, suffered great structural damage but did not collapse.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

1. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

2. The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

3. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

4. Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

The greatest difference I notice by these listings of buildings is the size of the buildings. WTC 5 was only a 9 story building and WTC 6 was a 7 story building. And its steel construction is different. Couldn't these smaller buildings handle damage differently than something as hugh as 47+ stories?

The other buildings you list range from 34-62 stories and have had fires initiated in them when the structure is sound. What if those buildings you listed had outter damage like WTC7 as firefighters reported hugh gaping hole. I don't think they would still be standing if their constuction was the same.

I'm glad you didn't throw in the Windsor Tower of Madrid to your list of buildings because we know that that buildings steel section did collapse due to fire and only the concrete sections remained.

Its just SAD to see persons who willingly will give all their power and freedom to those who govern them, as a society we have the right and obligation to question EVERYTHING, that is DEMOCRACY, and even if the official version is 100% acurate the society has the right to question, to investigate and to bring what ever they deem the "thruth" to others in search for change, improvement and change.
We are still arguing about 9/11, when we all know (even the die hard believers in the OT), that there are some "weird" coincidences, loopholes and strange info about those dreadful moments in recent history.
What really gets me are the people who will blindly follow the U.S. top government official and are willling to give up everything for the sakes of believing what they are fed and being calm and confortable.

Yes I have seen wild theories here on ATS and I read them, some are lughable, some are well researched, but here we are again discussing the same old thing if it was a CT or not while Ossama is still having cheerios for breakfast, the war still lingers, Gas prices are high, and the economy is ready to go down the tubes thanks to a bad administration.... believe me the CD of the TT at the WTC is the least important of our problems...the millions of zombies who will die for NOT DOING ANYTHING are the problem..

my .02

BTW, yes it was a CD, one small close up video and drawing conclusions from it, will not cut it pal.