Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole

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.

Do you realize it would take tons of Thermite to do what was required to cause a CD. Thermite has been debunked totally, Jones is a disinfo agent with an agenda. Curious no-one saw this tons of thermite being put in.
I have multiple reports debunking thermite. And proper truth seekers despise the idea, as it was blatant disinfo to decredit the truth movement.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I do not think you will be happy with anything

So therefore you won't post your evidence?

Post it anyway, please.

We were almost getting somewhere earlier, when you linked me to a NIST page. Can you present the same evidence that the NIST team presented to me? Then we can talk about it. Can we do that?

I don't think any video will 'prove' anything.

I saw a paper recently that tried to show the building did what would be expected and without added explosives.

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

Some of the math is deep, but it is hard to argue. I would like to see someone try to prove CD using this scientific method.

It is a paper puplished for per review, so if they are wrong they will be called on it.

Originally posted by numb99
I don't think any video will 'prove' anything.

Well I beg to differ.

In this video there are multiple evidence showcased that points towards controlled demolitions.

Google Video Link

Many people should watch this video.

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by numb99
I don't think any video will 'prove' anything.

Well I beg to differ.

In this video there are multiple evidence showcased that points towards controlled demolitions.

Google Video Link

Many people should watch this video.

I will rephrase,,,
I video with people saying it looks/sounded like CD, does not prove anything. Hearing loud sounds as a building falls on itself sounds logical to me.
It's all the same story.
"It never happened before", so I guess it can never happen. I haven't driven home from work today so I guess I an never leave.
"A b-25 crashed into the Empire State and it didn't fall". Wow thats news.
Take a look at that paper. It show the math behind way buildings do not fall over like trees.

Originally posted by numb99
Some of the math is deep, but it is hard to argue. I would like to see someone try to prove CD using this scientific method.

What's in that paper is a mathematical model that follows assumptions set by the authors. The authors, by the way, aren't newcomers to the debate, but include Bazant (from the early Bazant and Zhou paper, released a day or two after 9/11), and Frank Greening, who was the guy that thought a thermite reaction could naturally occur from molten aluminum touching rust on a steel column (which was debunked by Steve Jones in a videotaped lab experiment).

What's in error is not the math but the assumptions made. There have been a series of papers, and this seems to be just another paper in that series, that try to prove a natural collapse would be possible given the potential energy of the falling block of upper floors. One problem that has already been pointed out with this paper, by mechanical engineer Gordon Ross, is that the block of upper floors did not uniformly drop, but rather the upper floors appear to "fold" into one another until the roof nears the initiation point, and then the rest of the building begins falling from there. They also did not consider fall times for their models, which would have been slower than the observed collapse times.

Another problem is that their model does not consider impact-loading in steel structures, which is a rather obscure science anyway because it rarely deserves such consideration. The only paper I'm aware of that studies this is a paper released in 1984 by authors Calladine and English, and the only people I've seen study and consider this paper were members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice in their forums.


There have been exchanges between Frank Greening and Gordon Ross, and various others at the JREF forums, and this paper is actually a result of that. I would say it's rather biased in addition to what I said above, and Ross will no doubt have another paper out pointing out more flaws with it some time soon (and he's expressed this intention on the STJ911 forums).

At any rate, all they're trying to do is establish that it would be possible for the building to have collapsed on its own, again, just on the grounds of potential energy, and doesn't necessarily reflect any specific observations on 9/11, and it certainly doesn't debunk alternative theories.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Do you realize it would take tons of Thermite to do what was required to cause a CD. Thermite has been debunked totally, Jones is a disinfo agent with an agenda. Curious no-one saw this tons of thermite being put in.
I have multiple reports debunking thermite. And proper truth seekers despise the idea, as it was blatant disinfo to decredit the truth movement.

let me just say, you really think highly of your analytical skills.

i don't. i think they are sorely lacking.

jones has not been debunked. there was probably over a million tons of debris PER TOWER. the debris was closely guarded, and then hidden, through burial, or recycling.

it is entirely possible to not find something that was there, in light of the bigger picture.

that said, jones seems to be finding evidence of thermite, or, at least, the constituents of thermite, which may or may not be from an alternate source. certainly, and absolutely, he has NOT been 'debunked'.

if jones doesn't prove thermite, it does not 'debunk' alternate explanations, like 'spray on rocket fuel'(thanks, again, neu fonze/dr.greening), scalar howitzers, beams from outer space, suitcase nukes, RDX, thermobarics or invisible godzilla(thank you, wcelliot for the invisible godzilla theory, i'm still looking into it).



smileys are detestable. such a blatant device for 'swaying an argument'.

the truth movement doesn't need absolutists. we need fuzziticians.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by billybob]

[edit on 14-6-2007 by billybob]

So the official theory is the reality?

Ossama Bin Ladeen is a Genius, 12 arabs brought down america to its knees?
Shut down air traffic for days, the markets and to top that killed 3000 innocents with just airplane tickets and box cutters? and managed to bring down WTC 7 by magic with no airplane involved, making the USA look like a bunch of idiots with no military might, no inteligence and to top it off no WILL to catch the perpetrators?

Do we believe all this?

A simple YES or NO will suffice....

[edit on 15-6-2007 by kix]

Originally posted by kix
So the official theory is the reality?

Ossama Bin Ladeen is a Genius, 12 arabs brought down america to its knees?
Shut down air traffic for days, the markets and to top that killed 3000 innocents with just airplane tickets and box cutters? and managed to bring down WTC 7 by magic with no airplane involved, making the USA look like a bunch of idiots with no military might, no inteligence and to top it off no WILL to catch the perpetrators?

Do we believe all this?

A simple YES or NO will suffice....

[edit on 15-6-2007 by kix]

ok, No

just a few random thoughts and comments with the odd question thrown in.

Originally posted by billybob

jones has not been debunked.
(snip)
that said, jones seems to be finding evidence of thermite, or, at least, the constituents of thermite, which may or may not be from an alternate source. certainly, and absolutely, he has NOT been 'debunked'.

if jones doesn't prove thermite, it does not 'debunk' alternate explanations, like 'spray on rocket fuel'(thanks, again, neu fonze/dr.greening), scalar howitzers, beams from outer space, suitcase nukes, RDX, thermobarics or invisible godzilla(thank you, wcelliot for the invisible godzilla theory, i'm still looking into it).

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole
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.

well, i would certainly encourage both of you to chime in on this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

it doesnt prove or disprove jones' findings but certainly calls his methods into question which vicariously call his findings into question...but thats for the other thread not this one.

also, for those that may still believe that high explosives were used, feel free to read this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

where in the course of the debate i laid out some theoretical calculations based off the little i could find in regards to the construction of the WTC's and i believe i showed that while not impossible, the destruction of the wtc's PROBABLY wasnt done with conventional high explosives. (unless youve had a debate and got the "fighter" tags you cant post there but if anyone has questions or comments please u2u me and ill try to answer them, if we get enough maybe ill start a thread just on that type of topic, but short of answering questions im not really interested in another drawn out discussion on that as ive posted all i really have to say on the matter in that thread.)

now since i question these things does that mean i buy into the official story and that im just trying to "debunk" theories? well, YOU could see it that way however i dont...what i feel im trying to do is help weed out the more improbable of the theories out there.

no one said you had to believe the govts version of events but with SO MANY 'alternative theories' out there, wouldnt it be nice to narrow the field a bit so that we're not just rehashing all the same crap 100 other guys have done in the last 5 years and set to examining other ones?



also, why are eyewitness testimonies from people that believe they see signs the buildings are going to collapse (including photos and video) just hearsay but eyewitness testimonies from guys that see molten metal taken as gospel? im just curious about the double standard.

i mean havnt we reached the point where we have all seen all the pictures and video out there? aretn we also all at the point where the authenticity of ANY media sample can be called into question by either side of the debate? "oh that video is fake" or "that video is edited" etc...

what we need is some fresh data.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Ok, time for more reasons why it could not be a CD.

OK, time for more reasons it could be a non conventional CD.

how could potential explosives survive the impacts and infernos?

Because I have proven that there didn't need to be explosives at the impact zone to cause failure AT the impact zone. But, you guys ignore what a real civil engineer has to say. Talk about picking and choosing your evidence.

Please refute what I have said about the core. Thanks. Until then, I am going to assume you have an agenda yourself and are not looking at the evidence/proof etc.

The "bombs wouldn't have survived the impacts and fires" is a strawman since it can be proven that taking out the core ANYWHERE would still cause failure at the impact zones. Refute that.

shattering of the structure and the blow torch effect of the fires was sufficient to cause the collapses. As witnessed by Police and crews.

Nice choice of words. "blow torch effect". You want to really see a blow torch effect, look into the fire that was on the 11th floor in the 90's. Edit: Doh, I ment 70's It was much hotter and longer but the steel was all able to be salvaged.

BTW, just because I believe the core had to be taken out, doesn't mean I'm saying it was done by our government. There was a guy who got arrested in Tennesse with a WTC pass. His name is Sakher Hammad. He was suppossedly there to "fix the sprinkler system" (hmmm...wonder why the sprinklers weren't working?) but the Port Authority repairs the sprinklers themselves. So who DID sign for this man's pass?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

[edit on 6/15/2007 by Griff]

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.

Let me ask. If the core is being taken out, wouldn't there be bowing and buckling going on also?

I have seen no CD theory that has not been debunked..

Really? Debunk my CT theory then.

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...

Again, no you haven't.

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.

Try looking into the "metorites". They are proven to be STEEL and concrete. If there was no molten steel, how'd that happen? Enough said I'd say. But, like most of you guys, you'll just ignore it and then in two more posts, post that there was no molten steel.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
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..

You said it right there. What about all the other primary evidence, quotes from eyewitnesses and images that DON'T back the official story. Ignored?

Originally posted by numb99
I don't think any video will 'prove' anything.

I saw a paper recently that tried to show the building did what would be expected and without added explosives.

www.civil.northwestern.edu...[/quot e]

Thanks for posting that. At least they have put thier paper out for peer review and have shown thier calculations (unlike NIST). I'm wondering though, how do they know certain things without ever looking at the construction documents? I'll look through it and see what I can make of it.

One thing I did notice when skimming through is that they assume a freefall of one story to calculate the initial kinetic energy (at least that's what I think because, like I said, I have only skimmed as of now). I have been saying this for as long as I remember. Buckled columns still give some resistance. Therefore, if someone calculates a freefall of 12 feet to get the initial energy, thier further calculations would be incorrect.

I'm not saying this paper per say because I haven't read it yet.

[edit on 6/15/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 6/15/2007 by Griff]

For some reason, the quote tag in my last post won't let me fix it. It keeps showing I have a space *quot e* when in actuality, there is no space. Oh well, people can still read it.

About Bazant and Greening's paper.

Look at the references. I wasn't aware that you had to reference your own work? The first 10 references are of Bazant's previous work. Am I wrong? Do you need to reference yourself?

Griff said:

There was a guy who got arrested in Tennesse with a WTC pass. His name is Sakher Hammad. He was suppossedly there to "fix the sprinkler system" (hmmm...wonder why the sprinklers weren't working?) but the Port Authority repairs the sprinklers themselves. So who DID sign for this man's pass?

Thanks for the info Griff.I was never aware of that.I found that it doesn't matter how much evidence is present,people are dead set on what they believe in.Its called pick and choose what you want to believe ,ignore the rest.

Originally posted by crowpruitt
Thanks for the info Griff.I was never aware of that.

I found that it doesn't matter how much evidence is present,people are dead set on what they believe in.Its called pick and choose what you want to believe ,ignore the rest.

No problem. I find it strange that I have never seen this on a main stream news site or even mentioned. It's a known fact but was never reported. Why?

If it comes out that a CD is proven, this would be the government's "get out of jail free" card. They could claim that the terrorists planted the explosives/micro-nukes/thermate etc. Yet, they don't even mention it nor has it been investigated. Why?

Originally posted by Griff
Look at the references. I wasn't aware that you had to reference your own work? The first 10 references are of Bazant's previous work.

That's probably because these are about the only guys even trying to work out how the collapses could have been possible mathematically.

I guess this is the "hundreds of engineers that have proved the official story", right?

[edit on 15-6-2007 by bsbray11]