Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

reply to post by Varemia


Come now...look at the bent columns I highlighted.

You don't need any expertise with anything to be able to look at the dings in the columns starting to the left. As you follow my line you see the dings get more pronounced and eventually becomes the oblong gash.

reply to post by FDNY343


You're on my list buddy, you've made some pretty wild claims without anything to back it up, and you've ignored every bit of evidence and material I've provided. You discount and nay-say but don't provide anything of substance and now you're denying the clearly visible dents in the columns becoming more pronounced as you follow the gash from the left to right.

To have you deny what is clearly seen in the photo makes me distrust you even more.

How can you just declare what caused the damage? Because you witnessed a plane cause it?

Originally posted by FDNY343
Did I ever say that the victims are lying? Never. Don't put words into my mouth, or assume what I would say. You don't know me kid.

And yes, I feel that data directly from the doctors at the hospital, analyzed by other doctors, is MORE credible than people who are not doctors, that say "it was an explosion" and you automatically think explosive.

This is a cute way of avoiding having to come up with some weak excuse to explain what all the people in the videos I posted said. You say I'm putting words in your mouth yet you apparently chose not to even consider what the actual victims have to say about what happened to them.

I'll address the rest of your assinine post tomorrow.

Sleep on it then.

So, I just watched the video in the OP. All I can say is fantastic. The man does more to prove the OS is a lie in one video then ptery, wmd, fdny, hoops, valermia, and g.o.d. have collectively done to promote the OS in all their posts combined.

It is simple...trusters lie about thermite not being able to melt/cut steel. They demand proof. They are given proof. they talk about other things.

Go ahead and watch the video again. Feel your brain go into cognitive dissonance in real time. Strain what you see through your science filters. Come back here and talk about something other than what you watched.

The sad fact of the matter is, you will have no problem acknowledging that the gov't military tech is at least 20 years ahead of what we see commercially available in regards to almost everything except 9-11.

What makes you think that they used the same types of explosives or cutters available to a standard demo company?

Whatever was used to destroy the towers that day was unconventional and purpose built. Planned meticulously and executed to almost perfection.

However, there were many mistakes and with time on our side, we are uncovering them and exposing them. We are winning.

So lets hear it again boys...Can Thermite of any type burn through steel beams?

reply to post by Game_Over


Although we agree the OS is a bad fairy tale, because there was much more at stake than just demolishing the buildings and starting a war, too much was at stake to use untested tech. I think the evidence also supports this...they would have used tried and true conventional means IMHO.

I've got a thread relegated to the HOAX section by the ATS PTB which hightlights the damage and provides a better explanation than the OS. Shameless plug here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Yankee451


I guess I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that I believe the type of tech/explosive/cutter used was indeed conventional - I meant their implementation of said devices was not.

I was referring to how the charges were shaped, fastened and distributed or put in place.

When I said purpose built I was referring to how they were delivered...perhaps I should have said "custom made" to more accurately define what I mean.

reply to post by Game_Over


It's not you, I'm a terrible skimmer, plus my eyes have been betraying me more and more each year.

Then I agree, they'd use tried and true means to bring down the buildings. I think Jon Cole's analysis about the thermate being quiet is dead on, that they needed an hour after "impact" to weaken the structure before the final show.

Given that our commercial tech is probably just outdated military tech, they'd also have tried and true newer tech to use to throw sand in our eyes, and I think this is being exposed through the video tampering investigations. If we laypeople can figure this stuff out... this was not the A team...this may have been the Z team for all the sloppy technique they used.

Originally posted by Game_Over
I guess I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that I believe the type of tech/explosive/cutter used was indeed conventional - I meant their implementation of said devices was not.

"Conventional" as in conventional military, or conventional commercial? That's an important question.

Conventional military.

How they "installed" it (for lack of a better term) was unique.

Originally posted by Game_Over
Conventional military.

How they "installed" it (for lack of a better term) was unique.

Could you explain? I'm interested in knowing how they did it if you are knowledgeable about it.

No, I am 100% using my imagination here.

This is just something that I think about and interests me.

I have a keen interest in film making and modern day illusions. I sometime wonder about different techniques one could employ to achieve the desired results.

However, I can see that its not really what this thread is about and I will start a new thread if I want to explore this subject in the future.

reply to post by Game_Over


By all means elaborate. It's my thread, go nuts. I was going to start a thread for pure speculation anyway.

To be honest, I wish I had some cool idea but the kind of stuff I'm imagining is really just fanfic that would be a trolls smorgasboard to be used against me out of context. When I come up with something, you will be the first to know.

Not that I'm into self censoring, I just don't have a good enough idea yet to share on this matter.

Love the original post though...guys who pull off experiments like that are my real heroes.

Originally posted by Game_Over
Conventional military.

Conventional in a military context can refer to a range from C4 to sophisticated bombs.


The most robust parts of the WTC Towers were their core structures. To demolish the buildings, their cores would have to be compromised somewhere so as to shift all of the weight onto the outer columns. The core columns were all accessible from elevator shafts.


Watch this and Kevin Ryan will give more specific information himself:

reply to post by bsbray11


Kevin Ryan couldn't find his butt with both hands if it was on fire. His speculations are without bases. He is, however, getting the attention he wants with these fantasies.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Kevin Ryan couldn't find his butt with both hands if it was on fire. His speculations are without bases. He is, however, getting the attention he wants with these fantasies.

Sounds like you described yourself Professor. Have you reconsidered your MIT paper as proof or anything other than a white wash? Nope. Your speculations are without proof, but that doesn't keep you from making them.

reply to post by Yankee451


Your speculations have even less substance. I especially enjoy the missile theory.

The MIT paper says that the plane was certainly strong enough to penetrate steel columns whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by pteridine
Kevin Ryan couldn't find his butt with both hands if it was on fire. His speculations are without bases. He is, however, getting the attention he wants with these fantasies.

You mean "basis." Thanks for the lunch room commentary. Maybe one day people will care what you have to say, too.


I'm not surprised that no one has anything more intelligent to say about the 15 minute video. God forbid you spend that long entertaining that you might actually be completely wrong, or else you'd end up a "truther" too.

Originally posted by bsbray11
[
You mean "basis." Thanks for the lunch room commentary. Maybe one day people will care what you have to say, too.

I'm not surprised that no one has anything more intelligent to say about the 15 minute video. God forbid you spend that long entertaining that you might actually be completely wrong, or else you'd end up a "truther" too.

I meant "bases" which is the plural of "basis." You don't have to thank me for the vocabulary lesson; I am here to help people like you.
The video doesn't deserve more discussion but perhaps you want to say something intelligent, just as a change of pace.

reply to post by pteridine




I give you the chance to explain to the readers...please, tell us all how they modeled the wings.

Please explain using your own words.