Proof Positive: WTC-Controlled Demolition

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by snoopy
I DON'T NEED EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

Well, then that's all I ever need to know about your opinions of 9-11, I'm done with you. Thanks for playing.

Let me know if you come up with any evidence to prove your claim that the molten metal was steel. And I will have to assume that you concede that simply the sounds of explosions are not proof of demolitions.

And my opinion still stands that unless a claim has some proof behind it, it is not valid.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Hi Soloist,

Hi!

There are only three reasons why you can’t here the explosions.

Shucks! Only 3?

1. You don’t want to here them.
2. You have hearing problems of what I really not hope.
3. You don’t believe all those people, reporters, civilians, fire-fighters, policemen and on who speaks about explosions.

1. It's not that I don't want to hear them, it's that I *don't* hear them nor do I see what looks anything like the comparison video that is the thread topic.

2. Nope, no hearing problems, like I replied a previous post, I'm sure the loud guitar playing has taken it's toll, but I still hear pretty good, at least according to my doctor. But heck, he may be in on the conspiracy too!

3. I believe they heard some explosions, no doubt. What I don't believe, and what is not seen or heard is evidence of explosions caused by demolition which brought down the towers.

How many footage do you want with explosions?

Well... since you asked...

Of all those videos you posted only one is actual audio of an explosion, which is post collapse. So that would not be footage which provides evidence of the massive explosions (not diesel tanks for example) that would be heard right before a tower collapse.

The rest seem to be reports and stories, but no footage with audio.

Originally posted by Nola213

1)Electric shorts will not melt steel, they will short out and blow and that will be the end of it, they WILL NOT continue to melt steel for over 30 minutes

You're assuming that it's steel being melted, which may or may not be the case. And if you don't think that electricity will melt metal, yes even steel - and if you're brave enough to try this experiment this should change your mind.

Simply take a coin of your choosing, if you want to try steel , a 1943 wartime penny will do the trick since they were made of steel... now take a lamp plug and pull it out of the wall socket just far enough so the lamp stays lit and there is enough space to slide the coin between the wall and the plug where it will touch both contacts. I don't suggest you hold onto the coin at this point.

Drop the coin in the space so it touches the 2 contacts. Now, what happened? Sparks should have came out and if you have a breaker it should have been thrown. Once the coin cools take it out and inspect it. What has happened??? OMG, the electricity melted grooves in the metal where the contacts were!!!! Surely, this is impossible since there is no way electricity can melt steel!!! Especially such low voltage!!!!

Sarcasm aside, I know it's possible as this very same thing happened to me on accident, the coin is still in my collection and I enjoy telling the story of how it happened to people when they ask about it.

But don't take my word for it, try it yourself.

In large buildings, they do not put electrical mains on the outside corners or walls of the bulding.

They usually don't park heavy jet aircraft in them either. Of which I could see dragging or blowing electrical wires with it as it goes through the building.

My guess is that pod was filled with Thermite/thermate. I bet the first plane had a similiar pod,

Ok, I have to really give you credit here. If it was thermite, and if the plane did have some sort of pod that could hold it, I could see this as being in the realm of possibility, assuming the heat from the explosion would be hot enough to ignite the thermite. It would seem a good strategy for the hijackers who really wanted those buildings to fall and give them a little extra assurance in accomplishing that.

The pod argument is not even needed in that case, if they were able to sneak aboard the ingredients somehow to do this.

Interesting to think about either way.

I swear the whole hologramand Fake plane nonsense has really ruined the truth movement.

It sure doesn't help their cause any, but then again neither do things like disrupting TV shows by screaming like lunatics, etc. It only adds to the general public view that this is some fringe element that hates the government. It's the bias that hurts it the most, if people could make their arguments without coming across like they are foaming at the mouth and insulting people, they might actually get some more positive attention.

Mr. Lear his own forum, and he started talking about holograms.

Oh yeah, the guy who thinks people can breathe on the moon, and insists there are bucket excavators, parking structures and reactors there, who believes that Billy Meier (The prophet of trashcan lids) is actually truthful, believes in Bob "where's my MIT degree" Lazar, would definitely be the source of info people should trust about , well ANYTHING! LOL

Disinfo anyone?

More like entertainment I think, although it is sad that some people believe in him so blindly, some willing to spend of thousands of dollars on equipment because they think he somehow knows something about the moon that NASA and scientists of the world don't , or are hiding.

It goes beyond entertaining at that point and rapidly turns into irresponsibility.

Another reminder that is thermite was used it would not explain the metal being molten for such a long time. A Thermite reaction would also cause the material to cool down very fast. The fact that there was molten metal for so long pretty much disproves thermite. Another issue that disproves thermite is that there was absolutely no Barium Nitrate, the key ingredient and of which there would be an abundance of if it were used. It would also require about 300lbs of thermite according to jones. So as we can see, The thermite theory is pretty much nothing but hot air.

As is the pod claim which is simply based on pixilation of a digitally zoomed in photo.

More importantly is that these claims are simply pure conjecture and have no merit. If there was any physical evidence of any these claims, then it would be a different story. But in these cases it's simply putting the cart before the horse. Determining that there is a conspiracy theory, and then trying to find ways to validate that belief by imagining various ways in which it could have been done.

Well snoopy,

Maybe I am wrong, but I assume that you didn’t even take the time to listen or watch the footage I provide you.
You are absolute convinced that there was no molten steel right.
What’s you take on this then.

911research.wtc7.net...

For the discussion of detonations devices, do me a favour, and listen en watch this footage and start by 01.50

video.google.nl...

Let me know your view on this if you please?

people all I ask is that before you make anymore remarks, read the entire thread, and view all the videos presented.

Becuase it's getting really annoying to have to post the same two videos to 15 different people that say "proof of explosions does not equal proof of demolition.

This will be the LAST time I will REFUTE this point so here it is again for the CHEAPEST seats in the house.

Explosions do not cause this, only Controlled Demolition does......


www.youtube.com...


by the way these pictures were taken at ground Zero only hours after the demolitions of Building one and two. Again explosions don't cut steel on perfect 45 degree angles.

Please people, if you wanna be involved in this debate, read from the beginning, and watch all the videos posted by both sides. If that's too much for you to do......, please, don't post in this thread. It is very irritating to have to repeat oneself over and over and over again.

reply to post by Nola213


After watching that video and seeing some flashes that looked blatantly added, I started digging around various video sites watching the same videos from several different sources, while in many of the videos the flashes are present, in many of the videos the flashes aren't. It seems that the flashes tend to be missing or less exaggerated in the videos posted by people without an agenda, i.e people who aren't trying to prove one way or another. For example, watch the sequence at 11:13 in the Letsroll911 video:

here

And then watch the same footage at 00:30 in the following video:

here

Notice the difference?

In fact, if you watch the video footage in Letsroll911's video in itself carefully you can see inconsistencies where different footage of the same event is shown, for example one shot shows what looks like a fireball, where as another shot of the same sequence shows what looks like a glint. Even if you ignore those inconsistencies many of the 'flashes' look digitally inserted or enhanced.

But don't take my word for it, do your own research, search for different independent sources of the video footage shown in the Letsroll911 video and see the difference.

Now tell me, why would people supposedly campaigning for the 'truth' produce such a blatant misrepresentation of the evidence?

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by Nola213
Here is Demo Debris At Ground Zero, Tell me, how Crumbling produces these perfect Shape charge Cuts at Ground zero?

Those columns they show were cut by torches by cleanup/recovery crews.

A few questions on cutting columns by cleanup/recovery crews.

Why would they cut at such a perfect angle to cut debris free?

Why would they cut at such a straight line and almost perfectly horizontal...i.e. no amount of "human user freehand mistakes"?

Why would they cut the debris so far above their head (remember they would have had to bring in a ladder or cherry picker to do that cut) when they could have just as easily cut at normal height?

Just a few things for the people who "know" that that column was cut by hand. That's a pretty perfect cut by hand for debris to be thrown away (err smelted down....err gotten rid of). Or to be hurridly cut to rescue someone IMO.

[edit on 11/2/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/2/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/2/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by snoopy
Another issue that disproves thermite is that there was absolutely no Barium Nitrate, the key ingredient and of which there would be an abundance of if it were used.

Please provide your source that the steel was tested forensically for ANY elements. Thanks.

Here, I'll do your research for you.

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

Source: wtc.nist.gov...

So, how do you know for a fact that barium nitrate wasn't present? Or are you confusing fact with opinion again?

More importantly is that these claims are simply pure conjecture and have no merit.

As oppossed to your claims that barium nitrate was not found? Please elaborate.

But in these cases it's simply putting the cart before the horse. Determining that there is a conspiracy theory, and then trying to find ways to validate that belief by imagining various ways in which it could have been done.

Reword some of the wording in those sentences and you have exactly what NIST did with plane damage and fire alone. Funny how some can not see this.


Edit: BTW, I love this little gem.

Originally posted by snoopy
And my opinion still stands that unless a claim has some proof behind it, it is not valid.

[edit on 11/2/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/2/2007 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff

Why would they cut at such a perfect angle to cut debris free?

While I don't pretend to know why any columns were cut, I'd imagine somebody would cut at a certain angle for the same reason they cut trees at certain angles. I'm pretty sure when they're clearing debris that they don't want columns to fall on people.

Why would they cut at such a straight line and almost perfectly horizontal...i.e. no amount of "human user freehand mistakes"?

I've yet to see any column with a perfect cut, please show me some.

You do realise that thermite is quite a difficult substance to direct given it's tendency to burn at such high temperatures and melt through it's container downwards. It doesn't walk a long a beam or follow a guided line.

Now tell me, if somebody were cutting the columns and beams as a method to initiate or assist the building collapse, why would they cut at irregular angles? And how do you propose (as the theory suggest) that shaped charges or thermite or both produce such angular cuts?

If you assert that the cuts are so clean and perfect, I can assure you that a human hand or machine would do a far better job than shaped charges or thermite. Note that thermite is a chemical mixture that flows when ignited and not little bugs that chomp in directed unison.

I think I may have found my answers.

Originally posted by Griff
Why would they cut at such a perfect angle to cut debris free?

The poster above me made a few good points. Although, trees are cut with a wedge and not an angle, the reasoning could have been more control of the fall.

Why would they cut at such a straight line and almost perfectly horizontal...i.e. no amount of "human user freehand mistakes"?

This steel is cut freehand and it's pretty straight.

Why would they cut the debris so far above their head (remember they would have had to bring in a ladder or cherry picker to do that cut) when they could have just as easily cut at normal height?

I even have an answer to myself for this one.



Notice how long the torch is.

I'm still torn on this, but am leaning more towards torch cut.

reply to post by Nola213

by the way these pictures were taken at ground Zero only hours after the demolitions of Building one and two. Again explosions don't cut steel on perfect 45 degree angles.

You are blatantly spreading false facts and the MOD's should clamp down.

Those pictures are not from 1-2 hours after the collapse....try 1 to 2 weeks.

Enough of the BS.......I thought these threads are under close scrunity.

Why are blantant flasehoods like this poster has posted allowed?



[edit on 2-11-2007 by ferretman2]

Originally posted by ferretman2
You are blatantly spreading false facts... Those pictures are not from 1-2 hours after the collapse....try 1 to 2 weeks.

Do you have a source, I've never seen any claim those photos are 1-2 weeks after the collapse. There are a series of pictures, that one being the most well known because of the steel beams, if you will look at the other pictures, you will see rescue workers and dogs. Rescue workers 1-2 weeks later?

Originally posted by Griff

A few questions on cutting columns by cleanup/recovery crews.

Why would they cut at such a perfect angle to cut debris free?

Why would they cut at such a straight line and almost perfectly horizontal...i.e. no amount of "human user freehand mistakes"?

Why would they cut the debris so far above their head (remember they would have had to bring in a ladder or cherry picker to do that cut) when they could have just as easily cut at normal height?

Just a few things for the people who "know" that that column was cut by hand. That's a pretty perfect cut by hand for debris to be thrown away (err smelted down....err gotten rid of). Or to be hurridly cut to rescue someone IMO.

[edit on 11/2/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/2/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/2/2007 by Griff]

I don't know the answers to all the questions so I will talk to a welder to find out for you. I can tell you that the angle is to control the direction of the fall. When you have a lot of people workin around you you don't want it to just fall in some random location, especially not on yourself. The angle will control the direction. Also, while the cuts may look perfect from that distance, they really aren't. They can simply draw a line on the beam with pencil and follow along.

Again, I will talk to someone who has better knowledge of this and add to it or correct any mistakes I may have made.

reply to post by twitchy


The pictures are of the clean up effort. They spent the first week searching the rubble.

You really think that within 2 hours they were able to clear areas and get back-hoes in the site?

Did you even see any of the coverage of 9/11?

I walked by groud zero almost every single day afterwards going to my job. I was ~600 ft away when the first building collapsed (no explosions just one big rumble). I watched the second plane fly into the building from my office window @ 25 broadway.

It stupid bunk like what was posted which ruins any type of search for answers. This gets repeated time and time again.

The are countless threads which have dealt with the aftermath and clean-up effort. People should be required to search former posts before staring new ones.

Griiff - Though I do not agree with your posts or view you do provide some sort of 'research' in your arguements. The cutting of the beams has been covered alreay and the people involved have done a through job. I suggest you search the threads and your questions will be answered.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by ferretman2]

Originally posted by ferretman2
The pictures are of the clean up effort.

I'm not trying to be facetious, just asking what date were the pictures taken, do you know? You are saying they are as much as two weeks after the collapse, but you didn't source that information. Obviously, the source and dating of the pictures are important if they are to be entered as evidence to either side of the debate.

reply to post by Nola213


Hi Nola213,

I have more flashes for you.

Watch the impressive footage of the VIDEO: 911 Mysteries, Part 5; provide by SkepticOverlord.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Watch the many strong flashes clearly visible between the dust when the South tower come down from 05.14 of the video.
Take your time and do it more then once.
For some, falling reflecting glass windows.

Originally posted by snoopy
I don't know the answers to all the questions so I will talk to a welder to find out for you.

Thanks. But, as I've said, I pretty much found the answers to my questions. Anyway. I wish we did have some time stamped photos of more of the wreckage. I wonder why cameras weren't allowed on site down there?

On a side note. Snoopy, you keep claiming that you were there on 9/11 and for days after etc. I am not trying to insinuate that you weren't where you say you were. Do you have any photos of 9/11 and or the days after? It would be good for all of us to see new photos and to actually trust your statements more. I repeat, I am not calling you untrustworthy nor am I trying to pick a fight. Just, some proof that your claims are truthful would be nice. Thanks again.

No I didn't have a camera, nor did I even own one. There were a lot of people filming though. And as we can see from the internet a lot of those photos and films have been put online.

But let's look at the insinuation. That the beams down at the base may have been cut by thermite charges. Well, we know there was no barium nitrate found at all, pretty much ruling out thermite. We also know that the collapse initiated from the impact. So what purpose would there be to cut beams at the bottom of the building? It certainly wouldn't have aided the collapse, because th collapse in no way started from the bottom.

So for those to be cut by charges really makes no sense unless one is simply trying to find a way to turn it into an inside job and use whatever pictures are around to push that belief.

reply to post by twitchy and post by Griff

Originally posted by twitchy
I'm not trying to be facetious, just asking what date were the pictures taken, do you know? You are saying they are as much as two weeks after the collapse, but you didn't source that information. Obviously, the source and dating of the pictures are important if they are to be entered as evidence to either side of the debate.

Originally posted by Griff
I wonder why cameras weren't allowed on site down there?

Although the whole of the following video is worth watching (it's only short), you'll be particularly interested in the footage starting at 0:55:



If the above video doesn't work, you can find it here. You can also find it and a more complete copy of the 0:55 footage (in real media format so I can't embed it here) at the bottom of this page.

This stuff isn't hard to find if you're willing to look for it.

A somewhat low-resolution but extensive collection of Ground Zero photos can be found here. Although I haven't looked into it, it might be possible that the original photos available on that site might contain EXIF data if they were taken by digital cameras, in which case they should have the date they were taken on. It would be advisable that you inquire about this however before committing any money to acquiring the originals.