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

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by ANOK
Any more excuses for why those pics don't show controlled demo?

This is ridiculous and desperate lol. Clean up is not going to make the buildings outer walls be on top of the rest of the building, and be in its footprint.
...

Just because the outer walls collapsed last does not mean it was a controlled demolition, it just means the collapse started in the inside, which in fact disproves the controlled demolition claim. More so when even in the videos where we can see the collapse of the roof and penthouse it is clearly seen that there was no symetrical collapse, but that WTC7 collapsed in stages. Which rules out "controlled demolition".

edit on 23-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Fallacy!

You really think that would work?

I have been on sight with demolitions of buildings "iron worker" and WTC7 collapse is consistent with controlled demolitions. If i said that if i removed the skeletal structure from a human body and was to tell you in no way should it mean that that human could not stand up, walk around you would laugh your a** off... just like I am doing right now with your statement.

Really?

Wow, try holding a candle to a piece of iron and see what happens.

hint: nothing

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....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? you say your wife is an architect.....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...

edit on 20-9-2011 by Calex1987 because: (no reason given)

www.popularmechanics.com... => Read it, learn it, go outside and take a breath of fresh air.

reply to post by ANOK


Not to burst your bubble, but if cleanup was already days underway, which you can see by the cleared dust on the street, then that means that the extent of the debris dispersal is lessened.

Also, collapsing into the footprint "area" (even though it did damage a couple other buildings, I realize that still counts as footprint to you) does not mean it was a controlled demo. It's akin to saying that because a person collapsed, it can't be a heart attack, because it looked just like an aneurysm (probably not an accurate simile. My point is that two things looking similar does not make them the same thing. You can't argue that WTC 7 was in a unique circumstance that has never happened to any other building. NO, it was not "just" on fire. I know what NIST says, so don't bring it up again. They said that yes, the fire, where it was, was what caused the collapse, but the damage to the building is what caused the "collapse into the footprint" you tote so widely as proof. It is not proof. It is at best coincidence.)

I'm still thinking about what I think happened that day.
But, there is simply too much evidence that this did not happen to the "official story".

I really couldn't care less about all the fighting between the two camps, because I often think that both sides are often misleading and arrogant.
However, I do listen to those who don't pretend to have all the answers, and actually investigate the science and the scenarios, rather than those who just repeat what everyone else has said.
For me, the fact that no other steel structure has failed in the same way is interesting, but not a basis to say that explosives were used.
The evidence from witnesses is not entirely credible either, because no one knew what was happening that day and the trauma might well create the impression to support a belief. Fantasy became reality, people repeatedly describe a "movie scene", and for the Human mind to make sense of it it is highly likely that subconscious seeds were planted which could make the explosion of a gas tank in the basement suddenly become a demolition explosion.

Having said all of that, the very basic fact that pilots with decades of training are on record as stating that those terrorists could not have flown those planes into those buildings in the way that they did with the limited training they would have had really worries me.
The fact that a passport of one of the supposed terrorists was found at the scene, in all that chaos and mess, that worries me.
The fact that one of those named as a terrorist turned out to be alive and well, that worries me.
The fact that a group of Israeli's were seen celebrating and filming the attack (note that the witness didn't know that they were Israeli's), that worries me.

And hundreds of other things worry me too.

I think we're looking for a needle in a haystack by investigating the buildings. We all know that what we saw happen that day does not match the official story, but finding any evidence to investigate this further would be almost impossible now.
The footage of that day might yield more in the future, but it's already been investigated frame by frame by both sides of the fence and nothing new has really come to light.

In my opinion, the actions of people in positions of power in the days and hours leading up to it are what we should be looking at. Who financially benefited from this event? What warnings were ignored and by who, and why?
The identities of those supposedly involved are what we should be investigating. Where did any of the terrorists come from? Where are their families? What did they do for a living? Where were they educated? Who funded them?

It's simply not good enough to say "AQ did it".

reply to post by Gando702


This is my third post to you. The last two you refused to respond too. Again I will ask your clarification on the following point..

The mock simulation tests being done for the same attacks on the same day is the one that leaves me stractching my head.. Funny the same thing happened in the UK on 7/7. Mock terrorist attacks being carries out at the same stations at the same time as the real ones. I wish someone could explain these away for me............

reply to post by purplemer


The war games were used as an operational cover to execute the attacks. Fact.

reply to post by detachedindividual


I do recall some swedish guys working with a flight simulator, and the guys that tried it had no experience in flying, yet were still able to get the plane to its target. I think this is because it is not very hard to push the throttle and steer the plane. Pilot training is needed in order to turn on the plane, adjust for emergency, and land the plane. The guys piloting on 9/11 didn't really care about any of that, and if their sporadic flight paths mean anything, it's that they had no idea how to steer it directly where they wanted to. It took a while for them to get on course.

911 was an inside job, plain and simple! Quit trying to convince others that it wasn't! It was an inside job by the nazi's who have infilitrated this country's government!

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Did you watch the video of the thermite test that engineer did to prove that thermite could cut steel beams instantly? Loud hissing, lots of sparks, but no KABOOM like you'd get with C4 or TNT.

First, the engineer used thermate which is a variation of thermite designed to cut steel. It did cut steel, which is hardly a surprise. He could also have demonstrated a hacksaw, given the applicabilityof thermate to the WTC collapses.

Thermite doesn't cut steel beams "instantly" that is whay it is not used for controlled demolition. Instant cuts are linear shaped charges that have to be placed so that all parts of the beam are cut through. When this is done, there are several obvious visual diagnostics. The first is that the cuts are directional; the metal is bent away from the charge. The second is that on the side the charge was placed there is trace metal deposited from the cutter, usually copper. Look up 'lined cavity effect' and you will discover how such things work.

reply to post by pteridine


SO, as you have no real point, decide to post uselessly. Nice. Is there a point to this really? As I seem to recall there was thermate there too, altho it must have been "truther evidence" huh?

The IQ level of the OSrs is really going down by the day, love it.

Originally posted by Saltarello
reply to post by pteridine

 

SO, as you have no real point, decide to post uselessly. Nice. Is there a point to this really? As I seem to recall there was thermate there too, altho it must have been "truther evidence" huh?

The IQ level of the OSrs is really going down by the day, love it.

The point was that the demonstration was of thermate, not thermite. Not surprisingly, your recollection must be from one of the fantasy truther sites. There was no claim of thermate because the elemental composition of the primer paint found by Jones does not have the required elements. Further, neither thermite nor thermate works fast enough to be used in a CD.
I am always glad to help the truthers find the truth but it has been an uphill battle, as many lack basic reading skills and can't tell 'up' from 'down.'

Well the we had termite on the site?Glad we settled that one down. Truther fantasy sites? Lol u mad? Butthurt much?

Originally posted by Saltarello
Well the we had termite on the site?Glad we settled that one down. Truther fantasy sites? Lol u mad? Butthurt much?

I will make an exception for you and explain again as, obviously, English is not your native language. There were erroneous claims of thermite that turned out to be red primer paint. Your recollection was wrong, apparently, as thermate was not claimed and the demonstration was pointless.

reply to post by pteridine


a combination of thermate and explosives would make the collapse quieter and less suspicious. use thermate to remove some resistance over time, then smaller explosives charges could be used which would result in less noise and light.

makes sense.

I dislike talking about this subject because it's so heated. I am a 9/11 agnostic. Some of the theories people spout like holograms and no planes make no damn sense, but, I know for a fact insider trading occurred because I knew someone who was involved in it.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Did you watch the video of the thermite test that engineer did to prove that thermite could cut steel beams instantly? Loud hissing, lots of sparks, but no KABOOM like you'd get with C4 or TNT.

First, the engineer used thermate which is a variation of thermite designed to cut steel. It did cut steel, which is hardly a surprise. He could also have demonstrated a hacksaw, given the applicabilityof thermate to the WTC collapses.

Thermite doesn't cut steel beams "instantly" that is whay it is not used for controlled demolition. Instant cuts are linear shaped charges that have to be placed so that all parts of the beam are cut through. When this is done, there are several obvious visual diagnostics. The first is that the cuts are directional; the metal is bent away from the charge. The second is that on the side the charge was placed there is trace metal deposited from the cutter, usually copper. Look up 'lined cavity effect' and you will discover how such things work.

You're talking about commercial demolition. While you're correct about the homemade thermate in the video, the military has much better stuff, and who is to say that they didn't use nanothermite to weaken the beams in the minutes before the collapse, ensuring a nice floor-to floor pancake effect? This was not a commercial demolition. The military does demolition also.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
You're talking about commercial demolition. While you're correct about the homemade thermate in the video, the military has much better stuff, and who is to say that they didn't use nanothermite to weaken the beams in the minutes before the collapse, ensuring a nice floor-to floor pancake effect? This was not a commercial demolition. The military does demolition also.

Which is, of course, pure speculation. At best it is a hypothesis, but it is not testable, so it is not really a scientific statement at all.

Originally posted by antonia
I dislike talking about this subject because it's so heated. I am a 9/11 agnostic. Some of the theories people spout like holograms and no planes make no damn sense, but, I know for a fact insider trading occurred because I knew someone who was involved in it.

Ignore anything about holograms and such nonsense. It is designed to put you off, and make people think 'truthers' are crazy.

Hardly anyone talks about that stuff anymore here, unless the OSers need a distraction from discussing the physics, and it might come up from a 'new poster' (more likely a resident OSer using another account).

Just focus on the physics of the collapses, and the impossibility of 15 floors crushing 95 floors to the ground.

I have said this many times. If the truth movement spent 1/2 the time it spends on stupid theories that try to explain what happened after the fact instead of all the information as to who planned it, funded it, what groups owned and operated the FAA software, the use of the war game exercises as an operational cover to execute the attack, how Israelis were shadowing the hijackers (living next door) can almost be seen as making it happen. The Israeli art students etc etc, the truth movement would have blown the hole thing open by now.

Forget Thermite, forget the collapse focus on information before the plane hit the tower. Dont get caught in the pre-engineered information rut they planned to keep you in with all these stupid theories. REmember that these stupid theories were created by the perps.

Originally posted by Varemia

Which is, of course, pure speculation. At best it is a hypothesis, but it is not testable, so it is not really a scientific statement at all.

How is the military having better thermite an hypothesis?

It is a well known fact, watch the vid on this page...

Thermite Grenade Cuts Through Steel
Posted Jun 08, 2011 by vlogger

Demonstration of a thermite grenade manufactured by ALS Technologies, Inc., a Bull Shoals, AR.-based less lethal and defense logistics company. Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide that produces an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction known as a thermite reaction. If aluminum is the reducing agent it is called an aluminothermic reaction. Most varieties are not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time. The thermite is simply a mixture of metal, often called the "fuel" and an oxidizer. Its form of action is thought very similar to other fuel-oxidizer mixtures like black powder.

www.military.com...

More info on thermite and its variations...

amazingrust.com...

The finer the particles used the more efficient it burns, that means hotter.