Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

WTC7 Refutation Needed


An Urban Legend

Recommended Posts

I don't "want to believe" anything- one way or the other. I've been waiting for photographic evidence of this "20 story hole" that you attributed to Capt. Boyle for 30+ posts now on this thread. That NIST/NYPD photo is of questionable authenticity and is contradicted by several other sources, so I'd like to see some more photos and clear video of WTC7 (not obscured by smoke) if possible. You have failed to provide any photographic evidence of that "20 story hole" and have also failed to admit as much. I'm noticing a pattern here.

Oh. I admit I can't find a clear photo of the 20 story hole that Captain Boyle claimed was in the south side of the building. Too much smoke caused by the raging fires within the building, you see.

Fires which eventually caused the collapse of the building.

Any other quotes I provided that you would like to nitpick to death while ignoring the big picture? I am also noticing a pattern. How about we spend a few pages discussing who initialed what set of drawings from 1976 and other such insignificant details?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • TK0001

    23

  • An Urban Legend

    15

  • jimmyphelps

    13

  • itsnotoutthere

    10

So which other buildings completely "collapsed" on Lower Manhattan after noon EDT that day again? Maybe I forgot...

I'm just saying an actual explosion and subsequent fall of building 7 was not shown on the video of the big boom. I don't think the time was either, come to think of it. For all I know it could have happened at 10:00am or 2:00pm and a section of the subway system collapsed. I'M JUST KIDDING!!! I'm just saying that video alone does not prove anything abt building 7, that's all.

Also, so where was that photo of Capt. Boyle's "20 story hole" in WTC7 that everyone keeps chatting about again? I still haven't seen that photo.

I dunno..I saw some pics, looks like there's a big hole there, and assumed there was a big hole in there.

P.S. There was more than one photo that contradicted the NYPD/NIST photo in my links- there were several stills, and at least one newsfeed video. To answer your question, yes I fully realize that the photos could have been taken at different times- are you able to tell us what those specific times are? That would be helpful.

No, I haven't a clue, just as much as I haven't a clue when the big boom video was made.

I'll say it again. I really haven't been trying to follow the whole controversy/conspiracy thing for a long time now so I have no clue of what's what these days. I'm no expert and don't claim to be. I'm just stating my opinion and not trying to make any statements of fact, else I would have said something like "Pah, that's not building 7!!" I'm just saying that video doesn't anything more than a loud sound. That doesn't mean I don't believe that's an explosion from building seven. Just the proof sucks, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this damage talk is moot.

TK0001 is right. Last year NIST admitted, “This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building” and that, “resulting structural damage [from WTC1 debris] had little effect in causing the collapse”.

The above is amusing because for years we had to put up with official liners arguing how extensive the debris damage was and how it allowed the fire damage to spread as never before seen in other equivalent fires. Those who know buildings don’t ‘collapse’ in the manner seen of WTC7 said all along there was minimal evidence of severe damage and the damage that could be confirmed was superficial. Those people were correct.

It is reminiscent of the official liners’ WTC ‘pancake’ collapse theory that many clung to for months on end (sadly some still push the idea even today). The theory was utterly debunked by the Truth Movement long before the official liners accepted defeat and rescinded the theory.

This shows no matter how many times official liners get it wrong, they would rather create a new bubble than get the hint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TK0001 is right. Last year NIST admitted, “This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building” and that, “resulting structural damage [from WTC1 debris] had little effect in causing the collapse”.

The above is amusing because for years we had to put up with official liners arguing how extensive the debris damage was and how it allowed the fire damage to spread as never before seen in other equivalent fires. Those who know buildings don’t ‘collapse’ in the manner seen of WTC7 said all along there was minimal evidence of severe damage and the damage that could be confirmed was superficial. Those people were correct.

It is reminiscent of the official liners’ WTC ‘pancake’ collapse theory that many clung to for months on end (sadly some still push the idea even today). The theory was utterly debunked by the Truth Movement long before the official liners accepted defeat and rescinded the theory.

This shows no matter how many times official liners get it wrong, they would rather create a new bubble than get the hint.

I used to be of the opinion that the fires and the damage were equal causes for the collapse of WTC7, but now I choose to believe the experts, the structural engineers and professionals at NIST, who say fires caused the collapses. I'm not above changing my mind when a more convincing case is presented. That's what the truther side lacks, for the most part. Airdale's a perfect example - he's said several times that he'll never change his mind no matter what. You (the truthers) accuse us, the official story holder-oners or whatever the disparaging term du jour is, of having closed minds. When in fact, it's almost completely the opposite.

It's entirely plausible that the fires (which were started by the damage-causing debris), which burned uncontrolled for 7 hours, brought the building down. Fortunately, no one got hurt and new language has been written into the code to prevent something like this from happening again.

What's not plausible, in the least, is the building was brought down by CD. There was no deafening succession of charges. There may or may not have been an "explosion" which may have come from WTC7 that was caught by one, maybe two hand held video cameras. Of course, this explosion could've been many things, and not an explosive. Logically, if it was a conventional detonation charge it would have been picked up by every camera in the vicinity and not just a few hand-helds.

But, even I could somehow be convinced that "they" designed an explosive to bring down the building, and they made it much quieter than conventional explosives, and they made it so powerful that only one charge would be needed, and they used it for the very first time that day, questions still remain: how did it get there? Who willingly affixed it to the support, knowing it could easily kill thousands of people? I don't care how much money you throw at a person, most people will have a huge problem with becoming a mass murderer of innocent people. How in the world did it not go off earlier, when debris fell all around it and ensuing fires raged out of control right next to it? Why was no det chord found on the site? Are we to believe this brand new explosive, much more powerful than all previous versions before it, practically silent in comparison to all previous versions before it, could also be fired without wiring? Okay, if we believe that, then we also must believe that the north tower's controlled demolition was so controlled that it threw just enough debris into WTC7 to make a plausible cover-up, also using brand-new explosives never used before that day.

So, on one hand we have a person or crew of people willing to become mass murderers of innocent people wiring....sorry, "affixing" a brand new explosive to a column or columns within WTC7, a building that no one outside of Manhattan ever knew about, whose demolition meant absolutely nothing to the evil-doers hell-bent on war, and on the other hand we have a building that came down due to fires burning out of control for 7 hours.

I'm going to have to go with the experts and choose hand number two on this one.

Also, I'm still waiting to hear the explanation for the jet engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TK0001 is right.

By the way, any way I can get this framed? Maybe bronzed? Aquatus?

Also, Q, NIST also said there is no evidence that explosives were used in the collapse of WTC7. Which I also believe.

Edited by TK0001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to be of the opinion that the fires and the damage were equal causes for the collapse of WTC7, but now I choose to believe the experts, the structural engineers and professionals at NIST, who say fires caused the collapses. I'm not above changing my mind when a more convincing case is presented.

What I gather from the above is that NIST dictate exactly what you will believe and when you will believe it. The opposite of this would be to completely disregard NIST on a whim. Both are extreme standpoints and I would say it is debatable whether one is better than the other. A stance somewhere between would seem sensible.

This may surprise but generally I have a lot of confidence in the individual scientists and engineers at NIST. The actual investigation and analysis they carried out (not the assumptions) for the WTC collapses is extensive in some areas (not so in others) and provides a great deal of factual information. I do though wonder how many people put aside their bias and really understand what NIST present. The following two points for instance are very important: -

  • People accept the word of NIST when they say for example, “fire caused the WTC7 collapse”. Are those same people so receptive when NIST describe their own work only as a “hypothesis” that would be both “extraordinary” and a “new phenomenon”?

  • People accept the NIST line when told, “fire/impact caused the Tower collapses”. Do those same people take in that NIST admittedly used a situation beyond anything seen on the day to cause collapse in their computer simulations and indeed their very own best estimate showed no collapse?
I would say that if anyone is prepared to give up their freewill to trust in the politically predetermined conclusions of NIST, the least they can do is be objective and hear what the report up to that point tells us. What we discover, when assessed entirely without prejudice, is that the scientists and engineers of NIST are telling us that not one of the WTC buildings should have collapsed on 9/11, let alone three in one day.

Morale of the story: keep listening to NIST… but only if you listen real good.

It's entirely plausible that the fires (which were started by the damage-causing debris), which burned uncontrolled for 7 hours, brought the building down.

The very least you could do is replace “plausible” with NIST’s own description of “extraodinary” to bring a level of realism to your belief. It damages your credence and puts you out of line with NIST otherwise. Please allow me to amend for you to get to the truth: -

“It’s entirely extraordinary that the fires could hypothetically bring the building down.”

Now we are getting somewhere and remember this isn’t my opinion; behind the predetermined conclusion, the above is factual and precise based upon what NIST are telling us.

But, even I could somehow be convinced that "they" designed an explosive to bring down the building, and they made it much quieter than conventional explosives, and they made it so powerful that only one charge would be needed, and they used it for the very first time that day, questions still remain: how did it get there? Who willingly affixed it to the support, knowing it could easily kill thousands of people?

Those detached from the pain felt in New York, who were willing to make a sacrifice for the geopolitical aims and long-term pre-eminence of their country – at the order of ruthless individuals with the bigger picture in mind. You think you are indispensible to these people TK0001?

By the way, any way I can get this framed? Maybe bronzed? Aquatus?

Only if you add “sometimes” in brackets :lol:

Also, Q, NIST also said there is no evidence that explosives were used in the collapse of WTC7. Which I also believe.

Trust me or not, NIST never seriously investigated evidence of explosives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw nothing in all of that, Q, that lends any credence whatsoever to theory that explosives were used.

Tell me how they did it. You entire premise is based upon the existence of a mysterious demolition material which is many times quieter and and many, many, many times more powerful than what is considered conventional today. Also, this mysterious material can evade bomb-sniffing dogs and looks nothing at all like conventional demolition materials when detonated. Also, the mysterious material can withstand the impact of a 757/767 and is fireproof. It also leaves behind no residue which looks like conventional demolition materials. It was also detonated without chord and affixed to the buildings by people willing to become mass murderers.

Show me evidence of this mysterious material, other than a few booms picked up by hand held cameras. Convince me. You obviously feel NIST was completely wrong on their analysis (without of course, showing me the error of their ways, such as a missed calculation or a flawed computer simulation), so show me why I'm mistaken. Tell me what was used to bring those buildings down and why almost every structural engineer on earth who doesn't feel the need to make a buck off the deaths of Americans are mistaken.

Also, when are we ever going to get to that jet engine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw nothing in all of that, Q, that lends any credence whatsoever to theory that explosives were used.

There are two parts to this – first, understanding that the official story fails as a reasonable explanation and second, considering the wealth of evidence that shows a far more credible alternative. My post above is involved with the first step, just so we are clear that even the scientists and engineers of NIST find the official story to be highly improbable to say the least.

Tell me how they did it. You entire premise is based upon the existence of a mysterious demolition material which is many times quieter and and many, many, many times more powerful than what is considered conventional today. Also, this mysterious material can evade bomb-sniffing dogs and looks nothing at all like conventional demolition materials when detonated. Also, the mysterious material can withstand the impact of a 757/767 and is fireproof. It also leaves behind no residue which looks like conventional demolition materials. It was also detonated without chord and affixed to the buildings by people willing to become mass murderers.

Neither thermite or conventional demolition charges are “mysterious” by any stretch.

Infiltration and setup of the demolition materials would be carried out by a team of the profile I described above. I’m of the persuasion these would be some branch of intelligence service operatives more specifically. Detection could be avoided by an accomplice inserted into WTC security any length of time prior the setup.

The demolition materials at impact level would not require a great deal of resistance to damage or fire – people often seem to overestimate the impact severity. For instance, NIST simulations show that of the 47 core columns in WTC2, only 10 were damaged (ranging from ‘light damage’ to ‘severed’), leaving the remaining 37 columns (and attached charges) wholly intact. I believe this could be expected as building performance studies had been carried out previously. Also, fires in the actual core structure were relatively weak compared to those in the office areas. From this we can readily conclude that the majority of any such charges would survive the impact/fire damage.

All of the above is very achievable when put in context.

Show me evidence of this mysterious material, other than a few booms picked up by hand held cameras. Convince me. You obviously feel NIST was completely wrong on their analysis (without of course, showing me the error of their ways, such as a missed calculation or a flawed computer simulation), so show me why I'm mistaken. Tell me what was used to bring those buildings down and why almost every structural engineer on earth who doesn't feel the need to make a buck off the deaths of Americans are mistaken.

Evidence for thermite: -

  • A flow of molten metal, highly resembling a thermite reaction, is seen from the South Tower in the minutes prior to its collapse.

    linked-image

  • Thermetic material confirmed in WTC dust samples.

  • Previously molten iron spheres discovered at the WTC site which cannot have been created by the fires.

  • Molten steel ‘hot spots’ in the debris pile which also cannot have been created by the fires.

  • High temperature steel corrosion described by FEMA as “very unusual” and it is “possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure” - FEMA’s recommendation to investigate ignored by NIST.

Evidence for explosives: -

  • This previously discussed video footage showing a WTC
    .

  • Another video of a
    where a firefighter says, “It's blowin' boy” and someone else says, “The building is about to blow up”.

  • This video, Eyewitness & Media Accounts Of Bombs At The WTC on 9/11, gives many examples of explosions and FBI/FDNY references to “secondary devices”.

  • This paper, Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories, summarises firefighter and first hand witness accounts of explosions below the impact zones. A few excerpts: -

  • Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.

    Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.

    Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.

  • After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator. After they pried themselves out of the elevator, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I'm thinking, Oh. My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!??

  • She was on the 47th floor, she reported, when suddenly the whole building shook. . . . [shortly thereafter] the building shook again, this time even more violently." Then, while Veliz was making her way downstairs and outside: There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."

  • How about this BBC correspondent, Steve Evans, who says, “Then, an hour later, we had that big explosion, from much much lower. I don't know what on earth caused that.

  • As well as the sudden onset of virtually symmetrical, near freefall and total collapses, all only ever witnessed in history through controlled demolition, there were also visible squibs, suggestive of explosive charges, ejected from the Towers far below the collapsing areas.

All of the above is direct evidence without going into issues such as the Israelis detained in New York in direct relation to the attacks, Larry Silverstein’s insurance matter and comments, mishandling of the debris removal where samples marked for saving were ‘lost’, the thousands of professionals including architects and engineers who do question 9/11 or any of the other multitude of background circumstance and motive.

What I would ask TK0001, is that if a covert controlled demolition did take place using the methods I have described, what further evidence could there possibly be that we do not already have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this BBC correspondent, Steve Evans, who says, "Then, an hour later, we had that big explosion, from much much lower. I don't know what on earth caused that."

The facts must disagree with this casual reference to heat of the moment reporting, amidst the terrible attack by "Commander Atta's" gang of sorry a** SOBs. What kind of philosophy leads to this wreckless destruction in the stream of world history? Shame on them, and their roots!

If you listen to the YouTube clip, and then listen to the rest of his story, you can see he is trying to recollect things like plane crashes, destruction of building infrastructure, amidst an imperfect view of it all.

Shame on Atta, and the rest of those terrible, anti-humanist criminals!

BBC Interview

BBC 9-11 Timeline of the Middle Eastern Lowlife Murderous Thugs Attack On The U.S.

Edited by merril
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.

Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.

These are events interpreted by D.R. Griffin.

He weaves all the reports of explosive sounds into a conspiracy theory, and none of them are on tape when the buildings collapsed. What about buses? Cars? Floors collapsing?

Where are the building collapses with explosions recorded?

And, why do people argue about explosions, then silent thermite, one or both, or what?

The towers had a history of terror attacks from Middle Eastern terrorists, already.

You think they would give up, just because they failed, the first time? They have a long string of related acts. People can not re-write history, and pretend 9-11 was an isolated incident.

Edited by merril
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the above is direct evidence without going into issues such as the Israelis detained in New York in direct relation to the attacks, Larry Silverstein’s insurance matter and comments, mishandling of the debris removal where samples marked for saving were ‘lost’, the thousands of professionals including architects and engineers who do question 9/11 or any of the other multitude of background circumstance and motive.

What I would ask TK0001, is that if a covert controlled demolition did take place using the methods I have described, what further evidence could there possibly be that we do not already have?

I couldn't think of any more evidence you would need. Some people dont want to believe those in charge could do something like this though. No amount of evidence will change their mind. Burying their heads in the sand is much easier then trying to get justice for the deceased

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't think of any more evidence you would need. Some people dont want to believe those in charge could do something like this though. No amount of evidence will change their mind. Burying their heads in the sand is much easier then trying to get justice for the deceased

Yes, burying my head into the only plausible version of events that has ever been proposed, backed up by actual scientific data published by actual experts in their respective fields and support by the vast majority of their peers.

Take your justice for the deceased comment and shove it, too. Come up with a plausible alternative theory or kindly butt the hell out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Neither thermite or conventional demolition charges are “mysterious” by any stretch.

I didn't say they weren't, but the material you propose did this certainly is mysterious.

Infiltration and setup of the demolition materials would be carried out by a team of the profile I described above. I’m of the persuasion these would be some branch of intelligence service operatives more specifically. Detection could be avoided by an accomplice inserted into WTC security any length of time prior the setup.

Nice story, but care to elaborate? "Some branch of intelligence service operatives" - are you saying the CIA or FBI planted the explosives? Who trained them? There are only a handful of controlled demolition companies in the world with only a handful of people qualified to train. Wouldn't it be simple enough to locate these individuals and see if they've been contacted by the government to train their people?

Detection "could" be avoided by an accomplice, so who was it? Have you dug into this? What new hot shot employee decided to turn all the cameras off for weeks? Did anyone complain or think something was fishy?

The demolition materials at impact level would not require a great deal of resistance to damage or fire – people often seem to overestimate the impact severity.

This is just laughable. If you believe someone would wire a building up with explosives then fly a plane into those explosives and not expect the explosives to be damaged or prematurely detonated, you'll believe anything. Except for the official story, obviously. Even if it was achievable, what idiot would propose such a plan? What idiot would agree to such a plan?

All of the above is very achievable when put in context.

If the context is to suspend disbelief enough to assume the existence of a material as of yet unknown to the public and covert members of the FBI or CIA who are willing to kill innocent Americans who somehow stupefyingly placed explosives in the path of 767s and miraculously those explosives survived the impacts, that is. Oh, and the security for the entire complex collectively looked the other way for weeks while explosives were affixed to the columns. Oh, and no one reported workers attaching explosives to the columns.

That's some "context".

What I would ask TK0001, is that if a covert controlled demolition did take place using the methods I have described, what further evidence could there possibly be that we do not already have?

You have tried to prove two different methods of bringing the buildings down. Care to choose one? Which was it - explosives or thermite?

Have you ever seen (and heard) a building being brought down with explosives? Do you really want me to post a few?

Do you care to guess how much thermite it would take to burn/explode it's way through an un-cut vertical beam? Do the calculations and let me know. Because after that you could figure out how much of each ingredient would have to have been used. Then you can find out if a purchase of this massive amount of material occurred anywhere near 9/11/01.

What further evidence? What evidence have you provided that can't be explained by things burning and exploding in a fire and air pressure? Molten metal? If thermite was melting the columns in the center of the building, how did this molten metal flow all the way to the window? Any chance, in your mind, of it being molten aluminum? There was aluminum all over the place in the buildings.

Like I said before, though: you guys need to huddle up and figure out what you believe. Explosives or thermite? Figure it out already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't think of any more evidence you would need. Some people dont want to believe those in charge could do something like this though. No amount of evidence will change their mind. Burying their heads in the sand is much easier then trying to get justice for the deceased

That is true but I will say it seems to be a subconscious denial that these people cannot control rather than anything intentional.

I didn't say they weren't, but the material you propose did this certainly is mysterious.

No, thermite has been around for a long time and I really don’t find it to be mysterious.

Nice story, but care to elaborate? "Some branch of intelligence service operatives" - are you saying the CIA or FBI planted the explosives? Who trained them? There are only a handful of controlled demolition companies in the world with only a handful of people qualified to train. Wouldn't it be simple enough to locate these individuals and see if they've been contacted by the government to train their people?

It’s hard to pinpoint as there are multiple intelligence services tied into 9/11.

We have the CIA who created Al Qaeda and in the late 90s began infiltrating (or re-infiltrating) that group, plus reports of CIA agents meeting with Bin Laden on more than one occasion. We have the NSA who some of the ‘hijackers’ happened to live right nearby. There is the Pakistani ISI and British MI6 double agent, Omar Sheikh, who funded the attacks and had links to Al Qaeda. There is the Israeli Mossad with false flag attacks on record and of which one agent was related to one of the ‘hijackers’ and we know that five men who worked for Israeli intelligence were detained at the scene of the crime.

Overall, 9/11 appears to be a multinational plot but I would say, due to the last point, that Mossad agents are the most likely culprits for actual setting up of the demolition.

As for training – that would be to enter the paradox official liners so often do, whereby chaotic damage and random fire can bring down the WTC buildings as seen… but for demolition charges to do the same, placement had to be by trained demolition professionals. Do remember we are not dealing with a professional controlled demolition here where attention to the clear-up operation and absolute safety must be planned – the WTC demolition was unconventional and could afford to be a lot more rough around the edges.

Detection "could" be avoided by an accomplice, so who was it? Have you dug into this? What new hot shot employee decided to turn all the cameras off for weeks? Did anyone complain or think something was fishy?

Who? Anyone within security. Anyone who could legitimately book a ‘maintenance’ team into the building, perhaps inform that team of raised security areas, maybe tip them off on the best route into the building and core structure to avoid detection. If the accomplice has been in position for a time then he will know the security routine and the best ways around it. I don’t think any cameras would need to be turned off for weeks as no one is going to be interested in a few ‘maintenance’ men amongst the thousands passing through the buildings every day.

This is just laughable. If you believe someone would wire a building up with explosives then fly a plane into those explosives and not expect the explosives to be damaged or prematurely detonated, you'll believe anything. Except for the official story, obviously. Even if it was achievable, what idiot would propose such a plan? What idiot would agree to such a plan?

At the impact level the evidence suggests thermite charges were used. As I have already pointed out, the large majority of the columns were not damaged by the impacts and there is no reason to believe the fire, which was not a great temperature in the core, should have set these devices off - lookup the ignition temperatures required for thermite. If it was me, I would even propose a fire resistant covering to the devices just to make sure. So laugh away but there’s really nothing funny or surprising.

That's some "context".

What I mean is that you put phenomenally, stupefying, miraculous, unbelievable twists on suggestions that are quite mundane. The demolition is easily understood if you calm down and think about how it could be achieved.

You have tried to prove two different methods of bringing the buildings down. Care to choose one? Which was it - explosives or thermite?

It’s quite sad if we can’t stretch our minds to include both conventional explosives and thermite. For a long time I have been suggesting three steps to the demolitions; two involving conventional explosives and the initiation using thermite: -

  1. Conventional explosives (witnessed by numerous firemen, workers and reporters) weakened the structure.
  2. Thermite charges (apparent from evidence presented by Professor S Jones and visible flowing from WTC2) initiated the collapse.
  3. Further conventional demolition charges (evident through explosive ‘squibs’ during collapse) removed resistance from the structure, resulting in a symmetrical, near freefall collapse.
The above removes the need for an obvious string of explosions as audible in conventional demolitions immediately prior to collapse.

Do you care to guess how much thermite it would take to burn/explode it's way through an un-cut vertical beam? Do the calculations and let me know. Because after that you could figure out how much of each ingredient would have to have been used. Then you can find out if a purchase of this massive amount of material occurred anywhere near 9/11/01.

I’m not aware that iron or aluminium stocks had to be monitored on public record.

What further evidence?

Yes, come on, I can’t think of any further evidence we should have available of the WTC demolitions. Can you? If all the evidence that should be expected is present then it makes a strong case and leaves no grounds to be doubting the idea.

What evidence have you provided that can't be explained by things burning and exploding in a fire and air pressure?

Plenty – read through my last post again.

Molten metal? If thermite was melting the columns in the center of the building, how did this molten metal flow all the way to the window? Any chance, in your mind, of it being molten aluminum? There was aluminum all over the place in the buildings.

For your first question about the flow location, please see my post here.

Regarding aluminium - no, this would appear silvery at its melting point. Please check my post here for why thermite is the leading contender before carrying on with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

linked-image

linked-image

linked-image

linked-image

It just looks like simple debris flow from fires in tall buildings. It is a wonder how anyone makes the leap to numerous conspiracy theories, although that is par for the course.

I wonder if anyone has questioned the use of the media or internet by Al Qaeda. We all know who the suspects are, and what they have said. They have implicated themselves in the plot and the attack. They and their confidants.

Care to dispute that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just looks like simple debris flow from fires in tall buildings.

In the pictures of the Madrid fire I agree we can see simple debris flow. A whole section of the structure is deteriorating and pieces can actually be seen falling away. The debris matches that seen of the burning building.

In the WTC2 images the molten flow is localised to one spot and not surrounded by a large area of burning structure. The flow does not at all match the fire that can be seen on the left hand side. The yellow colour indicates a far higher temperature than can be seen in the rest of the building.

linked-image

When viewed in any sort of detail, the two have nothing in common.

Incidentally the warping and gradual deterioration of the Madrid building is what we should generally expect to see of fire damage – not like the sudden, virtually symmetrical, near freefall, demolition imitating collapse of all three WTC buildings.

I wonder if anyone has questioned the use of the media or internet by Al Qaeda. We all know who the suspects are, and what they have said. They have implicated themselves in the plot and the attack. They and their confidants.

I have seen little evidence of Al Qaeda admitting responsibility; Bin Laden even denied he had anything to do with 9/11 shortly after the event. Perhaps in the first place though you should be looking at who Al Qaeda are in more detail. There was the CIA creation and infiltration of Al Qaeda with agents reportedly meeting Bin Laden, one of the hijackers, Ziad Jarrah, is a known relative of a Mossad agent, another Al Qaeda member, Omar Sheikh, is an MI6/ISI agent. I think Al Qaeda were certainly involved in some capacity, though who are Al Qaeda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q,

You believe this flow is molten structural steel, melted by thermite, correct? First, how did thermite, which is designed to melt through metal using gravity, melt vertical columns? Seems like a pretty poor choice of demolition material for the all powerful NWO or whatever to use.

The molten metal flowing from the window could most definitely be aluminum, which actually does glow orange when melted:

linked-image

linked-image

linked-image

The following is from Judy Woods' site. Although she is a moonbat who believes lasers in outer space "dustified" the towers, even she does not believe aluminum is silver when it melts:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminu...inum_Glows.html

Getting back to the explosives: how is it no one heard them going off? Better worded - how is in EVERYONE didn't hear these explosives going off?

To gain understanding of the power and volume of controlled demolition charges being detonated, please consult the following video:

World Trade Center: Not A Demolition

Actual buildings and structures being demolished with explosives starting at 2:30.

At 9:38 you can view what it looks and sounds like when structural steel is demolished using explosives (this would be what would have to be used at the WTC). Note that the demolition happens only after the steel is significantly weakened.

The video explains that the bombing of the WTC in '93 did not destroy a single building column. This is significant. In '93, an equivalent of 1,000 pounds of TNT were used and it failed. How much explosive would have to be used to successfully blast through a column? Do you suppose that could've been achieved silently?

12:08 - 66 pounds of RDX detonated. Note the crowd reaction.

12:48 - 75 pounds of RDX detonated. Note the camera shake from the shockwave.

Are you still convinced that conventional demolition materials were used?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You believe this flow is molten structural steel, melted by thermite, correct?

No, I believe the flow is the actual thermite reaction.

First, how did thermite, which is designed to melt through metal using gravity, melt vertical columns? Seems like a pretty poor choice of demolition material for the all powerful NWO or whatever to use.

Maybe poor in conventional terms but useful if you want something quieter to initiate collapse. For how thermite can melt columns horizontally, please see my post here where the same question was asked.

Also please don’t try to implicate me with that NWO stuff.

The molten metal flowing from the window could most definitely be aluminum, which actually does glow orange when melted:

Sure aluminium can glow orange at very high temperatures but at its melting point when the material would begin to flow, aluminium alloys appear silver (images shown in the post I linked to above).

The following is from Judy Woods' site. Although she is a moonbat who believes lasers in outer space "dustified" the towers, even she does not believe aluminum is silver when it melts:

Judy Wood sure is a moonbat, or more likely a professional disinformation artist.

Getting back to the explosives: how is it no one heard them going off? Better worded - how is in EVERYONE didn't hear these explosives going off?

I’m not so sure that EVERYONE didn’t hear explosions. There are too many witnesses on record to count who heard explosions and it wasn’t for no reason that the FBI were working on the assumption there were secondary devices planted in the buildings.

To gain understanding of the power and volume of controlled demolition charges being detonated, please consult the following video:

Yes, the video shows examples of what happens when you detonate many charges all at once or over a very short period. This noise level would be negated by the WTC demolition charges being detonated over a far more drawn out period and thermite used for the collapse initiation.

The demolition of the Glasgow tower blocks at 5:16 is notable in that the explosive ‘squibs’ or ejected smoke plumes as I have been told to call them, look very similar to those of the WTC collapses.

The video explains that the bombing of the WTC in '93 did not destroy a single building column. This is significant. In '93, an equivalent of 1,000 pounds of TNT were used and it failed. How much explosive would have to be used to successfully blast through a column?

The 1993 WTC bombing bears no comparison to 9/11 in that regular explosives (not dedicated demolition charges) were loaded into a parked truck (not placed directly against the columns) and detonated.

Are you still convinced that conventional demolition materials were used?

Absolutely - I see no reason to explain why not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

Clearly nothing will penetrate this fantasy of yours, Q. You seem to be able to dismiss any piece of logic and throw common sense out the window at all turns. When you start breaking out terms like "disinformation agent", I know all hope is lost.

I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

Clearly nothing will penetrate this fantasy of yours, Q.

No, it would be like trying to penetrate the ‘fantasy’ that the Earth is round.

You seem to be able to dismiss any piece of logic and throw common sense out the window at all turns.

Can you expand on that?

I do try my best in all instances to give explanations for what I am saying. You say, “look, this video shows the noise volume of conventional demolitions”, I say, “The WTC demolitions were not conventional and could be configured to reduce the volume with explosions over a drawn out period and the use of thermite.” I have not dismissed your video, but shown how common sense and the evidence indicate that 9/11 was different.

When you start breaking out terms like "disinformation agent", I know all hope is lost.

Judy Wood is intelligent enough to hold a Ph.D in Engineering subjects… yet aligns herself with a former Bush administration official and spouts off about space lasers and abnormal weather effects taking down the WTC buildings. Come on, that has disinformation written all over it.

I’m not saying Dr. Judy Wood is a part of the false flag attack by the way. I just envision that someone decided the 9/11 conspiracy was getting out of hand and Wood was tasked with putting her moonbat theories out there to discredit the Truth Movement somewhat.

I see no reason to continue this discussion.

You don’t need my permission to stop. :P

Edited by Q24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.