Proof Positive: WTC-Controlled Demolition

reply to post by Damocles


“anyone but Hillary” so true,

Excluding debris accelerated by explosion…

The Trades exterior wall system was structural, so the interior ‘core’ COULD fall separately at a faster rate – if cut earlier – just like pulling your socks ‘off’ inside out.

While I am no demo expert - implosion –and getting a slight delay on the steel exterior – to use as a quasi-debris fence makes sense.

Originally posted by Damocles
see where i was going with that? am i still the only one that sees this?

Yes, I would say absoulutly, if that image was the only piece of evidence we had, then I would be wrong. But you need to watch videos to see this. A pic won't due here. The videos show debris falling out of the point of impact before the tower starts to collapse. The debris had a "head start", so to say. I would even suggest that the upper quarter of the building was falling faster then the debris below it.

and while it makes perfect sense that you would cut the core first, if the detonations were powerful enough to blow out random windows, they likely would have blown MANY window simultaneously on each floor where we saw "squibs". and that would have been loud enough to pretty much hear in jersey pretty clearly and no one would even doubt the CD theory.

also, cutting the core wouldnt explain the debris falling faster than the building was collapsing if the building fell at free fall speeds ( or faster than according to some).

oh, and from my own experience, being an expert only matters if you agree with the cd theorists it would seem. becuase even when i back my opinions up with actual calculations im ignored or dismissed outright so i pretty much dont care anymore. i believe what i believe and until someone provides me with something new and based in fact thats what im going to continue to believe.

Originally posted by Soloist
You're making the assumption that it in fact was a concrete dust cloud. It could have easily been ash or smoke, or it could have been dust particles and debris from even an upper floor compressed and finding an escape in a broken window,etc. Or any combination of the above.

Yes, I am making an assumption, and I think it is a credible assumption. I stand by my statement.

It doesn't have to in order to blow it out a window or hole or crack in a wall.That's still assuming it's concrete, of course there is no proof of what it is, and since it's too hard to tell what it's coming out of, I think it's safe to say we don't know it's makeup.

We can go with that, but then isn't that why were here debating this, to find the best explination. You know mine.

Just because one dust cloud resembles another doesn't make them the same. Remember it wasn't just concrete in the towers, ash, smoke, drywall, etc ,etc ,etc. which could have very well been similar in type to the "ejections" or any combination thereof.

I can agree with you here, but the fact that they looked exactly like the puffs of smoke in the video with examples of authentic controlled demolition leads me to believe that it is an explosion causing this, even though the timing is off and they are not happening exactly as they should, like in the video examples previously stated. And the particles in the puffs of smoke are a result of the explosions and probably pulvarized concrete. I think it's obvious that there would be a mix of particles including drywall, celing tiles etc. But I think the majority of it is concrete. I would also say that it isn't smoke. You can see the videos to find out that the smoke is black and the puffs of dust are grey. At mid-collaps, you can see the black smoke clearly above the pulvarized concrete dust cloud.
The fact that there was at least 15(probably more) floors in between the collapsing part of the building and the puffs of smoke, leads me to believe that it wasn't pressurized air blasting out of the building. I would think that would be the case if there were only one or two floors in between.
I do realize that this is all my assumption, but it might be somewhat plausible.

Originally posted by Damocles

also, cutting the core wouldnt explain the debris falling faster than the building was collapsing if the building fell at free fall speeds ( or faster than according to some).

Everybody is entitled to their opinion - certainly,

I do think there ‘could be’ an explanation for the appearance of exterior debris falling faster than a delayed exterior wall demo. Acceleration ‘could have’ been added to these bits and pieces from explosion,



But even without it.. sorry a truly crude schematic

Originally posted by twitchy
Actually it does work that way, the proposition, in this case, is
"Proof Positive: WTC-Controlled Demolition", if your arguing against that, then yes I'm sorry but you need to do a little work.

Ummm.....NO it does not work that way.
Anyone can make an accusation but you must prove it.
You don't prove your innocence, someone must prove that you are guilty.
You do remember the phrase, 'innocent until proven guilty' right?
So the point is that YOU must prove your position and nothing you have shown proves anything.

Ok ,everyone, I should have done this from the start, and I'll go back now and see if if i can change the Topic title to "Proof Positive,IMO"

It's proof positive; in my opinion only.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course, and I'm not gonna try to ram mine down anyones throat.

Unfortunately I can't edit the OP, and change the topic title, if anyone knows how to do that, please U2U me. Because statements like "Proof Positive", and "Smoking Gun Evidence/Proof", ARE thrown around a bit too liberally around he.

My apologies.

Nothing is Proof Positive, when it comes to conspiracies. This is a forum, and it's 99% opinion based, not fact based.

I'm a newer member, and I should have used a different thread title.

[edit on 27-10-2007 by Nola213]

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by twitchy
Actually it does work that way, the proposition, in this case, is
"Proof Positive: WTC-Controlled Demolition", if your arguing against that, then yes I'm sorry but you need to do a little work.

Ummm.....NO it does not work that way.

Anyone can make an accusation but you must prove it.
You don't prove your innocence, someone must prove that you are guilty.
You do remember the phrase, 'innocent until proven guilty' right?
So the point is that YOU must prove your position and nothing you have shown proves anything.

That's to prove guilty, but not to get it to trial. Most people here just want more research done. Unbiased research.

I just have three questions for those involved on both sides of the argument:

1) is any one a demolition expert?

2) is any one a structural engineer?

3) is any one a pilot with any kind of expertise in impact analysis?

I ask this because i am reading some many very strong arguments on both sides of the issue but no one seems to offer any kind of professional input. And while i believe there can be very in-depth analysis by non-professionals, i can only wonder if the analysis is made without prejudice. (I was taught to approach the problem without feelings and prove your analysis likewise) I have yet to read or see anything that convinces me either way.

reply to post by KelticKraute


I am not sure if anyone involved in this thread has any of those credentials. I know I don't. There are several on this site that claim to have knowledge in those areas, and as you read other threads their list of expertise grows. In short I am not sure if anyone on this site has the credentials they claim. I think that is why these 9/11 threads turn into a big tail chase.

please forgive me if this was covered

here is the counter video to the conspiracy video for your enjoyment

Not a bad video....not as in depth an analysis as I like, but ok.


Did some one say that the sparks on the corner of the tower was a broken electrical main?

Q: What electrical main shoots sparks in a manner that gives them the ability to make it what looks like 30 stories or more down and NOT burn out before that?

Q: How many buildings are built with electrical mains on the outside walls AND just happen to have maintenance accesses running up the entire middle of the structure?

Pancake theory?

Q: What pancake theory gives a building that is not airtight the ability to shoot ejecta out in symmetry down the buildings side and across its horizon AND violate the law of time by shooting it BEFORE the mass of the building coming down reaches it?

This video, is completely dumbed down....I think that is an unwise move. It doesn't strike me as compelling to create a video geared towards those that don't see what we see, and assuming they don't based on IQ, education, etc. I don't think that about them, I think that they are entitled to their viewpoint, and I respect that. So I hope you will accept my reply in good faith and no ill will.

Our MASTERS think we are dumb. Those who mean to RULE us consider us cattle, and consider us too weak to see, acknowledge, or do anything with these signs that they very, very foolishly gave to us on a silver platter. If they wanted to get away with it clean...they would have done so. Probably meant it that way. But destiny I suppose didn't want to give them that, and so, it gave us the clues. No coincidences, just things that coincide.

But I pray you all, we must not let people put videos out in this manner!!!! WE MUST NOT SUCCUMB TO THE TOOLS OF THE VERY EVIL WE WISH TO FIGHT!!!

reply to post by kaja sinis


they were right. The conspiracy believers always ignore the lack of sound from the "explosions". What is your explanation for that ?

This is making me angry. I dunno if anyone has said this because I got too pissed at all the skeptics because they are ignoring a lot of things. Did you ever see the footage of I believe it was the second tower, when it was almost completely collapsed, and there was still a few core columns standing and they crumbled with the dying smoke?

Well, those flashes that you see in the smoke above the falling building are most likely the core columns being cut, and like someone else said, the building was hit by a plane, so the wiring was probably cut to some of the charges, and some of the flashes are also from pieces with charges still attached firing from heat and/or impact of other falling pieces.

For you skeptics, the smoking gun was established the day of the "attack" with the footage of the "attack"... and all you gotta do is stare at it a little deeper than your indoctrination will allow you to. Just like that post with the optical illusion of the girl spinning, some will try to use their learned logic to see the towers collapse from plane impacts, others will use their feelings, intuition, and natural common sense to look and see those towers falling in an impossible way, and as the official story as your bible, defying all laws of physics in the process. That's a thousand some foot tall building falling into complete dusty rubble in 10 seconds... and pancakes, my foot. when you have 100 or more pancakes stacked upon one another, and the top few start to fall, there's still dozens of other pancakes below those first few that create RESISTANCE!!! thousands and thousands of tons of steel and concrete VS not even half of those thousands of tons of concrete and steel.... pancake theory or not, steel core columns don't pancake when they are practically solid from top to bottom. There's no room for the steel core columns to pancake upon themselves. They would simply bend and snap. But to think they all just bent and snapped in exact accordance with the floors pancaking.... that takes a wide stretch of the imagination to come up with a theory that can expain away the behaviour of those core columns. At the most, there would be huge sections of the core olumns jutting upwards, maybe bent and mangled, but still visible... but nope...only rubble.

Remember the movie Armageddon, where the asteroid hits the Empire state building and the top falls off? That's what I thought of when I saw the towers fall on TV. I Remember being confused because I thought that the towers should've fell more like the building in Armageddon. I know it was just a movie, but I'm sure the people who made that CGI effect consulted some experts on physics and building structure in order to make that scene seem as realistic as possible. Maybe not, though. No skyscrapers have ever fallen before 9/11.
Which makes it even more ludicrous that we can even trust so called "experts" on steel building collapse. Suddenly, everybody just knows the dynamics of that sort of thing? And if it's so conclusive, then why are structural engineers and physicists (assuming we're all studying the same physics and structural engineering) almost split down the middle as to what really happened to those towers. Most probably couldn't honestly explain that sort of thing. If they can, they are liars, because computers have to be programmed by humans, and computer models of the collapse could purposely be flawed... so kabam. Stop it, skeptics. You are WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!
All of this coming from a guy who just a year ago wanted to join the army and support the war...
I opened my eyes, man.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by indierockalien]

Originally posted by KelticKraute
I just have three questions for those involved on both sides of the argument:
1) is any one a demolition expert?
2) is any one a structural engineer?
3) is any one a pilot with any kind of expertise in impact analysis?

I ask this because i am reading some many very strong arguments on both sides of the issue but no one seems to offer any kind of professional input.

Good questions KelticKraute, and these are my answers.

1) am I a demolition expert? , No

2) am I a structural engineer? No

3) am I a pilot with any kind of expertise in impact analysis? No

So, for professional input, I depend in a way of the professional opinions of all those experts, and here is the problem.

You can also ask the following questions.

1) are there demolition experts with different opinions? Yes

2) are there structural engineers with different opinions? Yes

3) are there pilots with any kind of expertise in impact analysis with different opinions? Yes

4) are there witnesses with different testimony? Yes

So, in order to make up my own opinion I must and has read en watch “almost” every available information on the net.

You do that, I do that, everybody do that.

And despite the different opinions of the experts and witness testimony, combined with all what I have seen in the pictures, seen and heard in the video footage, the showed debris, and on, I made a pretty solid opinion for myself.

And that is that 911 was an inside job.


[edit on 28/10/07 by spacevisitor]

So, I guess the last poster defeated one of the points I made, and yet verified the point..of.. the point... at the same time. How can we trust hard science if the scientists can't even agree on the solidness of their foundations? Maybe they CAN prove that the towers collapsed due to plane impact, but all you have to do is hire some scientists of your desired opinions, and they could find a plausible way to make a theory work. But there are some things that are undebateable, like the melting point of commercial grade steel... it all melts at around the same temperature. So when one scientist says one thing and another says something on the contrary, which one is lying? In my opinion, the proof lies in the footage of some molten type lava pouring out of that building. I agree that the steel could weaken a lot in a jetfuel fire, but I don't think that within an hour or so, that a fire which contains almost no elements of jetfuel after the initial explosion, could cause STEEL PILLARS to turn into molten lava.

Scientists FOR the official story are obviously downplaying the temperature at which steel melts AND they are upgrading the temperature at which jetfuel and normal carbon-based fires burn at. And now, that will all become the norm in the education system, and people will all be taught the science that can prove the official 9/11 story.

That was a pretty good video Syrinx.

Scientists FOR the official story are obviously downplaying the temperature at which steel melts AND they are upgrading the temperature at which jetfuel and normal carbon-based fires burn at. And now, that will all become the norm in the education system, and people will all be taught the science that can prove the official 9/11 story.

I posted about this in another thread. Did nobody ever see the documentary several years back on the History Channel I believe it was. Regarding one of the engineers and architects who helped build the WTC and went over explaining the design of the WTC and explaining how it collapsed?

The temperature did not melt the steel beams. The heat was simply hot enough and long enough that it weakened the beams causing them to sag and finally give way to all the weight they could no longer support.

Does anybody here deny that steel can be forged and shaped when subjected to high temperatures without having to be melted?

Now the architect and engineer did explain in the documentary that the steel beams are covered in fire resistant material and this is one of the only things that actually kept the towers from not collapsing sooner. They reveal a lot of information about the integrity of the building both the good and bad.

I encourage you to read this before replying:

Why did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering and Speculation