Controlled Demo Evidence Options

[e-dog]

Check this one out.
you can see Molten metal pooring down on the streets, This is what you expect with Thermite/Thermate.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=54...&q=WTC+Thermite

This clearly prooves that Steel wasn't just "weakened" but It also got molten.
it is impossible for steel to melt Due to kerosine since the melting temprature for Steel is almost 2 times as high as the Maximum Burn temprature of kerosine.
By the way, Do you see the dark smoke coming from the buildings (Doh!), That means that the fire wasn't getting enough O2 and was sufficating.
This also means that the kerosine couldn't reach it's maximum burning-temprature of aproximatly 800 Degrees celsius.

( Do you see the white/grey ish smoke coming from the hole where the steel is pooring out? Well, That is exactly the same smoke that thermite/Thermate produce while burning.)

So We see Steel which has a meltingtemprature of 1800 Degrees celsius pooring out of the WTC in a liquid form (which means that it has been molten).. This is impossible because the fires weren't even at 50% of the required temprature to melt Steel.

Conclusion: There was something used to cut/melt the Steel collumbs of the World trade Center (presumably thermate/thermite.).



IT--

This post has been edited by e-dog: Nov 4 2006, 01:09 PM

[JerryB9105]

And let's not forget this short clip of all the activity surrounding WTC7 that day -- check out the obvious squibs running up the side of the building first as the building then starts it's collapse:

http://st12.startlogic.com/%7Exenonpup/Flashes/squibview.mpg

edited to apologize: I allowed this to become part of the South Tower evidence, when it clearly belongs with the WTC7 facts -- sorry for that -- I just find the entire three buildings so closely connected that ALL OF IT is obvious controlled demolition in my mind, ALL OF IT TOGETHER. Just look at it briefly and then go on with your specialized efforts. No harm intended by me.

This post has been edited by JerryB9105: Nov 4 2006, 02:28 PM

[Havey]

I red this paper .. or just skimmed true it, it surpriced me how low the quality of it is.
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
It was taken from a '911 consperacy debunk' page.

Is there any realy good 'debunking' pages?

[lederhosn]

I`ve found not one, Havey. Seems because reality is not debunked so easily

[Havey]

I`ve found not one, Havey. Seems because reality is not debunked so easily

hmm ... there must be, I guess ..

[waterdancer]

He cites Blanchard, so this thread at the new LC forum is probably relevant.

Blanchard says, among other things

Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure.

Just a few problems with that statement- work best when doesn't mean won't work unless. Concentrate their efforts doesn't mean always start a CD from the bottom. And finally, a video and slideshow of a CD which started from the top. Doh!

There are tons of other issues in the Blanchard paper, but there's one and a thread working on more.

[lederhosn]

As "Beached" writes on LC-Forum: Blanchards elaborations are highly inept. Filled with strange - for an academic and scientific analysis - useless points. I would call that a whitewash.

Yesterday a new video made it to the surface (to me it`s new, there`s already such footage but from other people) on 9/11Blogger. Watch the fires raising in the left tower while the right collapses. Watch the speed of desintegration - and also listen to the sound:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...825099435530591

There`s one more video from this angle (can`t find - searchin) showing that there`s no delay in regard to the collapse and the sound. At the distance of the camera, sonic needs quite a second to reach the reciever. But in this video and the one above (not as clearly), the sound can be heard from the beginning of collapse. That leads to the conclusion that something happened before the collapse initiated visually. Why no delay if the sound "only" came from "pancaking", uups, sorry, "progressively desintegrating"?

Does anybody know the video from just the same angle but filmed by another cam (perhaps N-Tower)? I can remember a reporter at first was on screen saying "...that`s how near we could get...." and then the rumble starts and the cam points to the tower.

This post has been edited by lederhosn: Nov 5 2006, 05:16 AM

[Havey]

Yesterday a new video made it to the surface (

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...825099435530591

The sound is fake - priiity sure.
Somone is making joke of this ...

[waterdancer]

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/911....south.below.mpg is the alternate version being linked to in the 911 blogger thread.

[Havey]

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/911....south.below.mpg is the alternate version being linked to in the 911 blogger thread.

Yes, thats more like it

[Beached]

He cites Blanchard, so this thread at the new LC forum is probably relevant.

Blanchard says, among other things

Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure.

Just a few problems with that statement- work best when doesn't mean won't work unless. Concentrate their efforts doesn't mean always start a CD from the bottom. And finally, a video and slideshow of a CD which started from the top. Doh!

There are tons of other issues in the Blanchard paper, but there's one and a thread working on more.

As Lederhosn said, Blanchard's paper is clearly a whitewash piece made to appear as an "expert's" report. The timing of it is quite suspicious. It would also be interesting to know if he received any large deposits around the time too!

I'm sure that the collapse was initiated by thermite charges cutting the core and the four corners of the impact site. If a calculation is made based upon how long it would take for thermite to cut through the steel based upon the size of the different columns then it could be carefully timed and sequenced appropriately.

Interestingly some of the steel members tested by FEMA exhibited corrosion consistent with thermite arson:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m...urgy/index.html

This post has been edited by Beached: Nov 7 2006, 02:05 PM

[Wibble]

From:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

CODE

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor.  Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.

5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion

CODE

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.  

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.  

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.  

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

And in answer to this

CODE

Interestingly some of the steel members tested by FEMA exhibited corrosion consistent with thermite arson:

CODE

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.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.  

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

[grizz]

We already know about the NIST FAQs Wibble. LOL!

Read Dr Jones' recently published '14 points of agreement' paper. It's quite illuminating for a newbie regarding the inconsistancies of the NIST and FEMA reports.

[Wibble]

We already know about the NIST FAQs Wibble. LOL!

Read Dr Jones' recently published '14 points of agreement' paper. It's quite illuminating for a newbie regarding the inconsistancies of the NIST and FEMA reports.

I may be a newbie to this site but do you think I have not read anything on the subject?

Dr Jones has yet to prove anything. Even he had where is the court case? If he has evidence where is the legal challenge to the OCT?

His experiments are insignificant compared to those of the NIST. He melts some aluminium with a gas torch and adds some plastic as proof the molten mettle in the WTC was meted steel from thermite. Get real.

[grizz]

Did you wish to debunk Dr Jones' new paper, which is published in an engineering journal? Or do you just want to blow smoke rings? Because that's all you've done so far. Debunking science requires science, not bullshit.

[KP50]

Dear Wibble,

You missed this gem from the very same NIST FAQ :-

The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

Suggest you read through that paragraph very carefully and then sit and think for a few minutes ........

[rob balsamo]

Most important part of the NIST FAQ's in my opinion...

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.

They didnt test for explosive residue. Speaks volumes

[Sanders]

I may be a newbie to this site but do you think I have not read anything on the subject?

Dr Jones has yet to prove anything. Even he had where is the court case? If he has evidence where is the legal challenge to the OCT?

His experiments are insignificant compared to those of the NIST. He melts some aluminium with a gas torch and adds some plastic as proof the molten mettle in the WTC was meted steel from thermite. Get real.

Actually, it was molten iron, one of the by-products of the Thermite/Thermate reaction (not melted steel) ... Jones came to the conclusion that it was the 'Thermate' reaction due to the presence of sulfur residue. His x-ray spectrometry results would stand up in any court - but who's going to bring the suit ? On behalf of what victims, and against whom? 9-11 related suits have been tried and have gotten nowhere - for a variety of reasons (the varacity of the evidence not being one of them).

[Leslie Landry]

This is of the south tower right before it collapses. If you put it to full screen...it shows that something is turning the building material into liquid and dripping from the impact area just before it collapses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP6MlrfbCvQ...showtopic=10451

This post has been edited by Leslie Landry: Sep 10 2008, 07:21 PM

[dMz]

Related threads are at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=5087

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13766