WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Obviously manipulated? Because you don't like them? The red pixels to the south are other heat sources and not related to the underground fires.

The colors are false colors. That means that the color is related to temperature but is assigned randomly. Orange does not mean orange-hot.

reply to post by xBWOMPx


One guy supervised the analyses of aircraft impact. They were never designed to take multiple impacts.

reply to post by pteridine

The colors are false colors. That means that the color is related to temperature but is assigned randomly.

have some evidence besides your opinion, cuz i have plenty of witness testimony backing the pictures accuracy.



i don't know why i even bother replying. it's so obvious that they just used a blue brush and went over what they didn't like.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Not to get on a high horse or anything, as I know my opinion is quickly becoming some kind of offense to people here, but that is the shadow of a building. It is different in the second picture because it was taken at a different time of day.

www.youtube.com...
from ALien Scientist
Dov S. Zakheim
a. May 4, 2001 - PNAC member Dov S. Zakheim, member and a co-author of PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses", is sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense who was a former vice president of System Planning Corp., a defense contractor which makes remote control and flight termination products.

Originally posted by OpusMarkII
www.youtube.com...
from ALien Scientist
Dov S. Zakheim
a. May 4, 2001 - PNAC member Dov S. Zakheim, member and a co-author of PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses", is sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense who was a former vice president of System Planning Corp., a defense contractor which makes remote control and flight termination products.

This is either true.. or...


It's the biggest coincidence ever to occur and that will ever occur............

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by pteridine

 

The colors are false colors. That means that the color is related to temperature but is assigned randomly.

have some evidence besides your opinion, cuz i have plenty of witness testimony backing the pictures accuracy.



i don't know why i even bother replying. it's so obvious that they just used a blue brush and went over what they didn't like.

The blue corresponds to shadows which are cooler. The colors aren't real, this isn't in visible light it's in the IR.

Originally posted by Human0815
The big question is imho. not how and why the WTC collapsed
the big question is why the US-People do not demand to get the full Truth of 9/11

Why there is no Consequence in all this Discussions?

Why there is no logical radicalization in the People?

Because the majority of people don't believe this conspiracy theory. You guys are radicalizing enough for the other section who aren't. The problem is that your arguments are so one sided and most of you are so close-minded to other ideas that don't involve conspiracy, you end up looking crazy.

I have been swayed a couple times, but it's always the rabid CS folk that remind me how crazy the CT's are most of the time. I call it Chicken Little syndrome.

I opened this thread thinking finally we're going to see all the hard evidence that proves the official story beyond a reasonable doubt. Boy, was I wrong.

Once again the OP is complete conjecture.

You know what is a bit ridiculous? The towers were built to withstand a certain size aircraft collision, correct? In what way is it logical to assume that if a slightly larger aircraft collided then the result would be total demolition and pulverization? It's ludicrous to jump to such an extreme conclusion.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

I guess they (the charges) had some magical protection from fire otherwise they would blow at random.

I have seen TNT stacked and burnt! It did not go boom! It takes a high explosive to detonate TNT.

reply to post by pshea38


Wow, I didn't know that! That is very telling.

I could just imagine our government uproar if Myth Busters were able to prove on national TV the buildings couldn't have possibly collapsed the way they did. It would travel like wild fire as people would start questioning and demanding a full outside investigation surrounding 9/11. Heck, I could foresee protests erupting in front of the white house and capital hill!

The guys on Myth Busters would be forced to recant there results of there testing procedures. Than our government would hire a team of physicists and engineers to prove them wrong and televise a rigged testing to try to prove the OS.

The cards are stacked against anyone wanting answers to the questions of 9/11.

I always wondered why in the heck doesn't someone take a steel building that is scheduled for demolition and use it to prove once and for all if the OS is true. I find it questionable that nobody not even the media has tried to reconstruct the destruction of those buildings!

You know the person who would actually publicize doing such a thing would get so much attention, not to mention $$$$$$ for the rights to televise it or a book writing on the results of the testing.

No I agree, any thoughts of proving the OS story wrong is meant to be buried from the public and never see the light of day.

It's unfortunate we live in a country that citizens are expected to follow lock step with anything our government claims is true. When our government and governments around the world have time and time again been caught lying to their people on past events which have caused us to send our children to war, communities and military troops poisoned by government known toxins or experiments, black flag operations, and behind the scenes criminal activities.

Knowing this, how can anyone blindly accept our governments OS considering their past record of criminal events that have come to light years later?

reply to post by WeRpeons

It's unfortunate we live in a country that citizens are expected to follow lock step with anything our government claims is true.

No one is stopping you from going to your local tv station and proving the OS is wrong.
The only problem is you have zero proof. Only conjecture.

reply to post by TheComte

The towers were built to withstand a certain size aircraft collision, correct? In what way is it logical to assume that if a slightly larger aircraft collided then the result would be total demolition and pulverization? It's ludicrous to jump to such an extreme conclusion.

Without computer modeling the claim to withstand a hit was just a good guesstimation. Likely said to apease the zoning board.

Show us one current expert who can claim any office structure can withstand that kind of hit and survive.

Look how little damadge to wtc 7 neighbours . This is a professional job. No doubt. Controlled demolitions were used on WTC 7 at 5pm on 911. Fact.

Its quite amazing.

Originally posted by Calex1987
but yet there are tons of engineers who will look at you and go the fire wasnt hot enough to explain the molten steel pouring out of the side of the building jet fuel alone and office supplies do NOT burn hot enough to do what your saying its been proven....

First of all prove there was any "molten steel"... If anything was melted it could be lead, or some other metal that can melt at much lower temperatures than steel. This claim that "there were pools of molten steel" is nothing more than an unfounded rumor.

Years ago I looked, and posted the reports of the main clean up contractor for the towers, and WTC7 and there was no mention whatsoever about "molten pools of steel".

Originally posted by Calex1987
and they are the first steel structure's to actually "collapse" because of fire...please if your so inclined tell me why a building that burned for 18hours straight stayed standing...it must of went threw way more hell Considering it burnt for 18hours over what 54 mins?

Again with the claim about the WTC 1,2 and 7 collapsing only because of fires?...

Did you and all the other 9/11 truthers develop amnesia for that day and every time you watched/watch videos of what happened that day?...

It is a fact that a passenger plane crashed into WTC1, and another into WTC2 and which sheared many of the columns compromising the structural integrity of the towers...

It is a fact that there was a massive explosion from the impact of the planes which caused shockwaves which would further cause stress to the towers, and even WTC7 and other buildings in the area...

It is a fact that fires also occurred in all three towers which would even put under more strees the structural integrity of all three towers because the fires lowered to at least half the strength of the columns and which could not resist bearing the several tons of weight any longer.

It is a fact that despite the claims of "demolition" the towers fell from the point where the planes crashed, and subsequently caused the towers to fall progressive in a "pancake" collapse, which rules out "demolition", more so when explosives at the point of impact wouldn't have survived the initial impact and explosions of the planes into the towers.

It is a fact that even the collapses caused tremors, albeit small but which would have further destabilized the structural integrity of the towers which were still standing.

It is a fact that WTC7 was hit by thousands upon thousands of tons of debris from one, or both towers, which opened a large hole in WTC7 which also put this tower under a lot of stress.

It is a fact that then all three towers were under fires for a long time, and ALL these factors together were the cause for the collapse of the towers, including WTC7.

Even in the videos of WTC7 it can be seen that the collapse started from the inside, as the roof collapsed 8 seconds before the exterior collapsed. This does not happen in a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by Calex1987
you say your wife is an architect.....

I guess you think that making such a comment doesn't make her an architect?...

Originally posted by Calex1987
well then even she could tell you she didnt know for a fact it would come down...or the fact she really thought it would since a fire has NEVER taken a steel structure down..... i would love to argue every point of your new found belief but it would be pointless...

People like you need to have your memories jolted because the WTC1, 2 and 7 weren't only on fire...

Obviously people like you forget, and ignore the fact that other factors, which had nothing to do with controlled demolitions, were involved in the collapse of the WTC towers.

I do have to wonder why after 10 years there are still people who claim they watched the whole thing, and investigated the whole thing yet to this day these same people still claim "the WTC could not have fallen from a fire"... As if that was the only thing that happened to the towers that day...

Originally posted by WeRpeons
...

I always wondered why in the heck doesn't someone take a steel building that is scheduled for demolition and use it to prove once and for all if the OS is true. I find it questionable that nobody not even the media has tried to reconstruct the destruction of those buildings!
...

Sure, you, and one other person want to volunteer to fly a passenger plane with the same amount of fuel, and other burning materials, including luggage, and crash such plane into a vacated building similar to the WTC towers, with the same amount of floors, and crash it more or less at the same point of impact the WTC1, and 2 were hit?...

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean

I have seen TNT stacked and burnt! It did not go boom! It takes a high explosive to detonate TNT.

edit on 21-9-2011 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)

TNT melts at 176 F, and I am pretty certain the fires were much higher than 176 F, weren't they? Not to mention the original explosions from the airplanes crashing.

...
The second fact that makes TNT explosive is that it is chemically unstable - the nitro groups are so closely packed that they experience a great deal of strain and hindrance to movement from their neighbouring groups. Thus it doesnt take much of an initiating force to break some of the strained bonds, and the molecule then flies apart. Typically 1 gram of TNT produces about 1 litre of gas, which is a 1000 fold increase in volume. This expanding hot gas can be used to propel a projectile, such as a bullet from a gun, or for demolition purposes.
...

www.ch.ic.ac.uk...

reply to post by pteridine

you're wrong. it isn't in IR, it's in a combination of both.

This report presents results of Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS)

The images (larger area shown below) also show vegetated areas as green. Water appears blue, and the smoke from the fires appears as a light blue haze. White and lighter blue areas are rooftops, roads, and concrete as well as dust and debris from the collapsed buildings. Dust, probably more than a millimeter thick, appears in shades of brown.

i love to catch people in straight up lies. it's been photoshopped.

The accompanying maps are false color images

ahh! i see where you got "false color images" now. seems like you're making up crap in an attempt to confuse. it's sad really. at any rate, the color to temperature still stands.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

If it does not make the noise, then it is not an explosive. An explosive is something that explodes, and the explosion is what causes the noise.

If it were to be thermite, then it would not be an explosive. It would be more along the lines of a chemical reaction. Still, without proof of the charges, there is no story.

The elements were already present within the tower to mix aluminum and rust in the dust. What is not clear is whether there were actual charges anywhere.

I have an open mind, but my brains have not yet fallen out. I need evidence to say conclusively one way or the other.

Also, I admit that I make mistakes. I make mistakes often, and I own up to them. For example, I was skimming the fire article, and missed the part where it said that in broad fires, the temperatures varied widely, but that the difference in temperatures still led to deformations within the steel.

Now you're just splitting hairs for the sake of arguing. Troll behavior.

Good day.

This thread is polluted with too many trolls.

Out.