Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

Erm yes we are discussing CD At the WTC on 9/11, funny that isnt it in a 9/11 forum? The video is interesting and has initiated debate, imo the twisting and bowing of the building reported by Cops and firemen confirm to me this was no CD, how did they know it was going to collape? because it was bowing and buckling, the explosive sounds were electrical explosions and the snapping of structure, wether it cuts it for you is not my concern, i used to believe in the possibilities of CD, but if you look at all the evidence, some provided in this thread, it is not realistic.. i am not the one with it all to prove, imo after careful study since day 1, i have finally come to the conclusion that the official story, although not all information was disclosed, does cut the mustard..
It is you that believes in the CT, it is not for me to convince you, this footage has not been posted before, and with all the wild threads being posted i thought it was time to have a look at some reality.. i am not blindly backing the Government, in fact i still give credibility to some CT's concerning 9/11.. it is just my opinion that i have come to after hours and hours of painstaking research and i mean painstaking, after losing a relative it almost became an obsession for me.. i have more files on 9/11 than you would believe..
People will believe what they want, and i encourage alternate thought, if anyone can post anything that is so convincing, i will alter my opinion, but after careful study and reflection a lot of the truther material is propaganda, they have picked vids and images that just substantiate their theories, when there are other images or vids that clearly dispute what they say, they pick and mix quotes and testimony to suit and even create bogus pictures and vids.. Why? to either totally discredit the true truth movement and for self publicity to make money of DVD's, you do realize Avery did not even make loose change?, some of these high profile truthers have done more damage to the real research of 9/11 than any Government report..

If the fire was so hot, how come ppl were standing at the impact points after the crash?

Originally posted by Amelie
If the fire was so hot, how come ppl were standing at the impact points after the crash?

Was that like long after the crash? Or just immediately afterwards? Because the fire didn't spread until later on.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Was that like long after the crash? Or just immediately afterwards? Because the fire didn't spread until later on.

I can't pinpoint the time because I'm going off TV coverage, but I would say ten minutes after the crash TV showed ppl looking directly out of those points.

Ok, time for more reasons why it could not be a CD.
how could potential explosives survive the impacts and infernos? How could they have been detonated at the same locations as the impact zones while surviving the fires (in the North Tower, for more than an hour and a half). While black boxes used in aircraft data recorders can survive the shock and heat of plane crashes (and they were found from all four 9/11 planes), their integrity is merely to ensure data recorded before the crash remains retrievable, they do not continue to function after extreme force and heat.
shattering of the structure and the blow torch effect of the fires was sufficient to cause the collapses. As witnessed by Police and crews.

Originally posted by DoomX
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.

The buildings i listed had worse fires and worse structural damage then building 7.

Building 7 only had some damage on 1 side to 10 floors according to the firemen on scene.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
it was bowing and buckling

Can you provide proof of this? So far all I've seen is pictures taken right as the collapse starts for WTC2, so there was the tilting which NIST takes a close-up picture of and says is buckling. That, aluminum cladding warped around (which is NOT the same as the steel columns), and hearsay, and that's all I've seen.

the explosive sounds were electrical explosions and the snapping of structure

Evidence? How's this any better than just saying they were explosives?

All the crap about Dylan Avery and etc. is irrelevant to me. Those guys were never guiding lights for me and I think it's unfortunate that so much attention is paid to people like him when there are so many more qualified people out there saying things more accurately. But that doesn't make the government right.

Official Witness statements from Police in the Helicopter as well as on ground, as well as rescue workers in statements told how they felt the building was going to collapse as it was " Bowing and Buckling" a chief of the fire department even suggested the explosion sounds were coming from the Buckling and electrical explosions..
wtc.nist.gov...
proof of Bowing for up to 6 minutes before collapse..

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Official Witness statements from Police in the Helicopter as well as on ground, as well as rescue workers in statements told how they felt the building was going to collapse as it was " Bowing and Buckling" a chief of the fire department even suggested the explosion sounds were coming from the Buckling and electrical explosions..

I asked for proof, not what a fire chief suggested, apparently amounting to a guess. Those buildings had cameras all over them, photos being taken from helicopter passes and everything else, all available online. You should be able to show me anything significant that they saw from the outside in pictures.

proof of Bowing for up to 6 minutes before collapse..

You linked me to a NIST report, so how likely is it that one of the things I said about the NIST report in my last post apply?

Some of the evidence of controlled demolitions is present in the video I just posted in this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 14-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Official Witness statements from Police in the Helicopter as well as on ground, as well as rescue workers in statements told how they felt the building was going to collapse as it was " Bowing and Buckling" a chief of the fire department even suggested the explosion sounds were coming from the Buckling and electrical explosions..

I asked for proof, not what a fire chief suggested, apparently amounting to a guess. Those buildings had cameras all over them, photos being taken from helicopter passes and everything else, all available online. You should be able to show me anything significant that they saw from the outside in pictures.

proof of Bowing for up to 6 minutes before collapse..

You linked me to a NIST report, so how likely is it that one of the things I said about the NIST report in my last post apply?

I dont need to prove anything to you, it is you that needs to prove CD..
Official witness statements, the Nist report shows detailed images, many in fact that can substantiate the bowing, the police statements are worthy evidence, if you think all your forces and rescue workers, and all the different agencies that made up the NIST report are liars, thats your perogative, i dont need to change your mind.. This eveidence as well as the obvious buckling on film, is far superior evidence and is what scientists and engineers concluded after months of study, they back what they say up with great sources, unlike the CD theorists. I have seen no CD theory that has not been debunked.. I am a CTist so if you can post proof backing up your theories, i would change my mind, but on CD, ive seen or debunked the lot...
Who gives a rats if u dont buy it?

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I dont need to prove anything to you, it is you that needs to prove CD..
Official witness statements, the Nist report shows detailed images, many in fact that can substantiate the bowing, the police statements are worthy evidence, if you think all your forces and rescue workers, and all the different agencies that made up the NIST report are liars, thats your perogative, i dont need to change your mind.. This eveidence as well as the obvious buckling on film, is far superior evidence and is what scientists and engineers concluded after months of study, they back what they say up with great sources, unlike the CD theorists. I have seen no CD theory that has not been debunked.. I am a CTist so if you can post proof backing up your theories, i would change my mind, but on CD, ive seen or debunked the lot...
Who gives a rats if u dont buy it?

Maybe you can explain the molten steel in the basements of the WTC buildings and where it came from. The fires in the towers were burning out well before the collapse.

I have yet to see any analysis that shows that the molten metal under the towers was steel. There is nothing to indicate that this metal was steel. Molten metal does not mean molten steel.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I dont need to prove anything to you, it is you that needs to prove CD..

I don't see it that way. I'm not the one releasing government reports that purport to explain what happened. I'm the one that takes issue with them when they're wrong. In other words I'm a tax-paying citizen.

But I take this as you saying, you can't show any of the things I asked.

the Nist report shows detailed images

Again, the NIST report shows one side of WTC2 as it was leaning, claiming this was the buckling collapse mechanism. They ignore the other three sides, which were not buckling in the same way, yet I fail to see why they are less important. They also show "buckling" in the form of pictures of aluminum coverings from the outside through a field of varying heat.

If there are any other images, I'd like to see them.

This eveidence as well as the obvious buckling on film

You going to show this to me?


One issue at a time, Fowl Play. Just try to work through all of this with me, if you can, and we'll go to all of the other issues next if you'd like, and review them once again.

I havent got time to go through it with you, go through it yourselt, you obviously did not see the Nist report ? it has images from 3 sides of WTC2..
Im not going to do your study for you, i have been doing it for 6 years..
If you wanna go through it, feel free, if i have time i will join in, but i have amounts of further evidence to post.
It is you that believes a wild CT that has been debunked imo, you are wrong again, it is you that needs proof, so far i have seen nothing from you. At least i am presenting primary evidence, quotes from eyewitness statements and images substantiating my beliefs which coincidently seem to back up the official story..
If you need someone to teach you the A,B,C find someone else.

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

At least i am presenting primary evidence

I think the point is I keep asking for this evidence and you just keep posting things like this instead.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I have yet to see any analysis that shows that the molten metal under the towers was steel. There is nothing to indicate that this metal was steel. Molten metal does not mean molten steel.

So your saying that all the firemen, demo and excavtion crews that stated it was molten steel do not know what they were talking about ?

Originally posted by bsbray11

At least i am presenting primary evidence

I think the point is I keep asking for this evidence and you just keep posting things like this instead.

I do not think you will be happy with anything, you obviously dont believe anyone... I have posted multitudes of evidence throughout the thread. If your trying to derail, its working, if not get on topic, about this Video footage and that this and further evidence presented indicates the possibility of the official story being correct and that there was no CD in WTC 1 & 2?
How can you be denying ignorance, by dismissing all documented reports, eyewitness accounts and facts , toiled over for months by experts from many agencies?

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I have yet to see any analysis that shows that the molten metal under the towers was steel. There is nothing to indicate that this metal was steel. Molten metal does not mean molten steel.

Well I'm sure a good portion was thermate. Professor Steven Jones has a sample of this material and proved that there was thermate byproducts contained in the sample.

video.google.com... --molten metal pouring from wtc.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I have yet to see any analysis that shows that the molten metal under the towers was steel. There is nothing to indicate that this metal was steel. Molten metal does not mean molten steel.

So your saying that all the firemen, demo and excavtion crews that stated it was molten steel do not know what they were talking about ?

I am questioning their ability to ascertain what type of Metal it was..
Were they also qualified Metalurgists in their spare time? what i am getting at is that it could be Iron, allumin with impurities or whatever, i have seen no official report that says that it was definitely Molten steel, only speculative comments in the heat of the moment so to speak, could someone, not an expert of got it slightly wrong?
It has happened to worse and less brave people.