Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ South Tower _ Controlled Demo Evidence

Posted by: johndoeX Aug 25 2006, 09:15 PM

The following thread shows flashes from the facade prior to explosive force being ejected, "pancaking" skipping floors, possiblities for flash and explosion suppression.. etc. Please also review 911eyewitness.com to hear the deep "boom.. booms" recorded from across the river in NJ. Be sure to have a stereo set up to hear it as you will not hear it on laptop speakers. Best audio from 5.1 speakers. It will shake your house.

Top picture courtesy of http://www.explosive911analysis.com/





I took the above right picture and blew it up. (no pun intended) wink.gif



And the video...

You can see the line of explosion wave starting downward. If anyone knows how to create a still of each frame, i'd love to analyze it. I bet we will see clearly the facade intact above each line of exploding floors.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799&q=WTC+2+collapse

Posted by: johndoeX Aug 25 2006, 09:15 PM

In the above video i pause/play/pause/play, the second explosive line is so plain to see... note the facade intact above the "pancake" line.

If anyone can get high res for this video and get every frame.. this is it. This is 100% proof of Controlled demo and not pancaking.

I did a print screen, so its not all that great. But you can see it easy in the video...


Posted by: johndoeX Aug 25 2006, 09:16 PM

Extremly noticable in this one...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5698034119107775039&q=WTC++collapse

This one is incredible...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1798029680029341757&q=WTC+Demolition

Look carefully at just before 5secs and onwards and you can see each floor blowing up one by one VERY rapidly.

Posted by: johndoeX Aug 25 2006, 09:16 PM

Its on all videos...

In this video, you can see an "angled" demo wave on a shot from under the South tower... starting at :23 seconds in to :30 seocnds. Its from Loose Change. But dont look at Dylans boxes (although they are important). Watch the fall line. The wave leads down the right side of the South tower.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3573187458623523477&q=WTC+1+collapse


Let me find a good one for North Tower...

Posted by: johndoeX Aug 25 2006, 09:18 PM

You guys need to check this out in google video player at full screen. That second explosion line is a good 3-5 floors below the fall line. hit play/pause/play/pause all the way thru. You can almost see that the top was trying to slow down and tip more until the second squib line blew that floor out. Unbelievable. Im 100% convinced it was controlled demo.

here is the video im talking about. Download it and go full screen.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799&q=WTC+2+collapse


if we can get the original, uncompressed, this should be in Final Cut, slowed down and highlighted... you can also see flashes from the North tower.

Posted by: johndoeX Aug 25 2006, 09:19 PM

Watch the whole video while focusing your eyes on the yellow center circle on WTC 2...




We need a loop about 10 times on that area... maybe expand it from :02 -:04.

Thanks for your work on this by the way.. its much appreciated.

Posted by: johndoeX Aug 25 2006, 09:20 PM

Explosion Suppression.

Although many people did hear explosions and see flashes... one argument it why there isnt more of it. Why isnt there clear evidence (aside from the hundreds of witnesses that heard explosions).

Here is your answer...


listen to this...
http://www.aquafoam.com/BlastingExplosions.html


then listen to this..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hun-UzHNxO0...=wtc%20collapse

Posted by: johndoeX Aug 25 2006, 09:21 PM

QUOTE (FromTheBalcony @ Jul 6 2006, 03:15 AM)
Great info, John. I took that video, cut to just the collapse, slowed it down to 10 frames per second, and added some indicators. Here's the result:

http://www.fromthebalcony.com/911/wtc2_collapse_camplanet.html

It's so obvious in this video.

Thank you\, Thank you,,, thank you!!!

Posted by: driver Sep 1 2006, 09:04 AM


Note the diagonal cut on the steel column.

It would be useful to identify the date of this photo to determine if the heavy equipment was in place necessary to facilitate this cut as part of the cleanup.

Posted by: Lights Oct 24 2006, 12:58 PM

I am no expert in controlled demolition but from what little I do know, it does seem to me that the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions. Here is a question...a couple actually. If the South Tower was a simple pancake collapse, why did it not collapse asymetrically as the damage was to one corner? If the collapse was a simple pancake collapse, why did the top of the tower not end up hitting other buildings as it would if the building had tipped over as I think it would do in a normal collapse?

Lights

Posted by: broorno Oct 25 2006, 09:45 PM

Hey John Doe a couple of the links you posted are busted... think you could fix those pleaase

Posted by: johndoeX Oct 25 2006, 09:56 PM

QUOTE (broorno @ Oct 25 2006, 09:45 PM)
Hey John Doe a couple of the links you posted are busted... think you could fix those pleaase

all of them work for me.

Posted by: broorno Oct 25 2006, 10:50 PM

I can't access the LC thread you linked for some reason.. and the Youtube video was removed

Posted by: johndoeX Oct 26 2006, 01:46 AM

QUOTE (broorno @ Oct 25 2006, 10:50 PM)
I can't access the LC thread you linked for some reason.. and the Youtube video was removed

youtube seems to be down now.. and the LC thread is gone.. but the same information is posted right below it.

Posted by: Havey Nov 3 2006, 01:32 PM

Hi.
I agree with you guys that the towers were demolished, but .. I dont get why you focus on the 'demolition waves' below the falling fasade.
If the flores were panncaking inside the exteriour walls they would creat dust clauds bursting out the windows all around the building becaus the pancaking flores would push the ear inside the building out.
The fasad would fall later, when the flores are disconected ... and the mass akumilated inside would push it out.
But, in order that the flores can pancake, ore fall down inside the core has to give in first, and that cant happen with out explosives.
I dont find the vid right now but one vid showes clearly that the antenna gives in first, then the flores .. then the exterior coloms.
The thing that proves that the building was blown down is the timeframe in witch it happens.
If you calculate the conservation of momentur, and watch all the material that falles out of the towers, and take into acount all the energy that is needed to pulverice the concrete .. ther isnt enough in all to do all that.
But I dont understand why the smoke coming out the windows proving so mutch .. part from mebbe the smoke that exits FARE below the falling parts of the building ... like, in flore 25 when the fall is at flore 80

Posted by: lederhosn Nov 3 2006, 06:51 PM

Hello Havey.

Because the floors DID NOT pancake on each other. Even NIST investigated it and came also to that conclusion - 4 years after the truthers (more to this from Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones, they will answer your questions - watch my signature please).

The plumes of smoke definitly do not only occur under the falling floors, but even 20 to 30 floors deeper - and that`s no air compression. And would the air blowing out being filled with debris and dust when it only came from a compression effect? Surely not.

And calculate the time of collapse - it`s almost freefall. Not possible with pancake.

Here`s a video of the sinking antenna
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782

And you should watch this one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782

For more scientifical information and detail please visit "journalof911studies.com":
- http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_2_Evidence_for_demolition_20.pdf
- http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

Posted by: Havey Nov 4 2006, 04:57 AM

QUOTE (lederhosn @ Nov 3 2006, 05:51 PM)
Hello Havey.

Because the floors DID NOT pancake on each other. Even NIST investigated it and came also to that conclusion - 4 years after the truthers (more to this from Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones, they will answer your questions - watch my signature please).

The plumes of smoke definitly do not only occur under the falling floors, but even 20 to 30 floors deeper - and that`s no air compression. And would the air blowing out being filled with debris and dust when it only came from a compression effect? Surely not.

And calculate the time of collapse - it`s almost freefall. Not possible with pancake.

Here`s a video of the sinking antenna
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782

And you should watch this one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782

For more scientifical information and detail please visit "journalof911studies.com":
- http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_2_Evidence_for_demolition_20.pdf
- http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

Hi lederhosn
You have a point about the smoke bursting out under the falling part of the building, you know the plumes of smoke. I havnt thought that mutch about the plums being smoke, and not just air, but still that air is compresed withinn the building and that it findes the easiest way out, and that being somwhere below the falling debre and building I dont find that imposible. Atleast I would not take that to be important or profe.

Yes, its trud that NIST has abanden the ide of pancaking, but they havent replaced the teory with anything realy ... as of what I know.
We agree on that the faaling time is important, my point is that it is the most important thing.
http://www.911speakout.org/CollapseCalcs.zip

I will check out the link you provided, thanks.

Posted by: Havey Nov 4 2006, 05:04 AM

Hi again lederhosn, your links are both to same documentary in video.google ... there is a shore video of the falling antenna somwhere, if you have a link I would apriciate it.

Posted by: lederhosn Nov 4 2006, 05:36 AM

Havey, sorry, here`s the right link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8808631439471226055

And you said it, NIST replaced the pancake-theory with nothing. Only the tweaked computer model brought the results needed, but the kind of tweaking (which parameters) wasn`t publicated. Besides the plumes there are so many other "coincidences" worth looking for, these NIST never investigated. nonono.gif

Posted by: Havey Nov 4 2006, 07:05 AM

QUOTE (lederhosn @ Nov 4 2006, 04:36 AM)
Havey, sorry, here`s the right link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8808631439471226055

And you said it, NIST replaced the pancake-theory with nothing. Only the tweaked computer model brought the results needed, but the kind of tweaking (which parameters) wasn`t publicated. Besides the plumes there are so many other "coincidences" worth looking for, these NIST never investigated. nonono.gif

ehh .. I was about to ask if the soundtrack was original ... it is not.
Knowing that the antenna is falling first it is visible in that fottage, but there is a mutch clerar fottage showing the hole antenna falling, from a different angel ... I will post it if/when I come acros it again.

thanks

Posted by: e-dog Nov 4 2006, 12:57 PM

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=545886459853896774&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--

Posted by: JerryB9105 Nov 4 2006, 02:23 PM

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.

Posted by: Havey Nov 4 2006, 03:50 PM

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?

Posted by: lederhosn Nov 4 2006, 04:16 PM

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

Posted by: Havey Nov 4 2006, 05:34 PM

QUOTE (lederhosn @ Nov 4 2006, 03:16 PM)
I`ve found not one, Havey. Seems because reality is not debunked so easily biggrin.gif

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

Posted by: waterdancer Nov 4 2006, 09:57 PM

He cites http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf, so http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=213 at the new LC forum is probably relevant.

Blanchard says, among other things

QUOTE
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 http://www.zippyvideos.com/8482885496096576/implosion/ and http://www.nbc11.com/news/5002599/detail.html of a CD which started from the top. Doh!

There are tons of other issues in the Blanchard paper, but there's one and http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=213 working on more.

Posted by: lederhosn Nov 5 2006, 05:14 AM

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 http://www.911blogger.com/node/4298. 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=-5860825099435530591

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.

Posted by: Havey Nov 5 2006, 07:40 AM

QUOTE (lederhosn @ Nov 5 2006, 04:14 AM)
Yesterday a new video made it to the surface (

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5860825099435530591

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

Posted by: waterdancer Nov 6 2006, 09:49 PM

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/911.wtc.2.demolition.south.below.mpg is the alternate version being linked to in the 911 blogger thread.

Posted by: Havey Nov 7 2006, 05:33 AM

QUOTE (waterdancer @ Nov 6 2006, 08:49 PM)
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/911.wtc.2.demolition.south.below.mpg is the alternate version being linked to in the 911 blogger thread.

Yes, thats more like it

Posted by: Beached Nov 7 2006, 02:02 PM

QUOTE (waterdancer @ Nov 5 2006, 01:57 AM)
He cites http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf, so http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=213 at the new LC forum is probably relevant.

Blanchard says, among other things
QUOTE
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 http://www.zippyvideos.com/8482885496096576/implosion/ and http://www.nbc11.com/news/5002599/detail.html of a CD which started from the top. Doh!

There are tons of other issues in the Blanchard paper, but there's one and http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=213 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/metallurgy/index.html

Posted by: Wibble May 3 2008, 03:19 PM

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.

Posted by: Oceans Flow May 3 2008, 03:25 PM

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.

Posted by: Wibble May 3 2008, 03:51 PM

QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ May 3 2008, 03:25 PM) *
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.

Posted by: Oceans Flow May 4 2008, 04:45 AM

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.

Posted by: KP50 May 4 2008, 06:25 AM

Dear Wibble,

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

QUOTE
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 ........

Posted by: rob balsamo May 4 2008, 12:48 PM

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

QUOTE
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

Posted by: Sanders May 4 2008, 06:47 PM

QUOTE (Wibble @ May 7 2008, 02:51 PM) *
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).

Posted by: Leslie Landry Sep 10 2008, 07:21 PM

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&eurl=http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10451

Posted by: dMole Sep 10 2008, 09:24 PM

Related threads are at:

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

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

Posted by: Leslie Landry Oct 21 2008, 10:03 PM














http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/

Posted by: SPreston Oct 23 2008, 11:21 AM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Oct 22 2008, 11:40 PM) *
This is a new still shot that I found tonight. Naaaa, this building isn't exploding... rolleyes.gif






Posted by: Paul Nov 8 2008, 01:30 PM

QUOTE (Wibble @ May 4 2008, 06:21 AM) *
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.


Yes and that's right your just a newbie shouldn't you have better things to do than making an ass of yourself.

Just because he doesn't have a legal team to challenge the OCT, doesn't mean he doesn't have any evidence.

Well you seem to think you know better, why don't you conduct a better experiment, to prove that thermite was used in the WTC to melt the steel.

Posted by: dMole Nov 11 2008, 07:24 PM

Wibble is a troll Paul. He/it probably won't be back (at least as "Wibble" anyway). rolleyes.gif

Here's a Good Morning America video that I don't remember seeing. The witness talks (from his hospital bed) about repeated explosions:

9/11: Three WTC survivors in explosive interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ5qVkJ0-hs&feature=related

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tQ5qVkJ0-hs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tQ5qVkJ0-hs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Of course, I've already downloaded this clip for our our YTikc's. I don't see the embedding options either.

Posted by: BADBURD Feb 11 2010, 04:31 PM

QUOTE (driver @ Sep 1 2006, 07:04 AM) *

Note the diagonal cut on the steel column.

It would be useful to identify the date of this photo to determine if the heavy equipment was in place necessary to facilitate this cut as part of the cleanup.


I found a picture of a support that looks just like that. I have been watching for something like this. All the others I have seen have been debunked as being part of the salvage clean-up. This photo was taken during the rescue operation. Clearly no salvage operation is underway in this photo. My girl friend broke out a couple of magazines of 911. She had them put back. This one is Time magazine special issue. Dated September 24, 2001. On page 60. 6 inches from the left and 5 3/4 inches from the top. There is also one in the upper left hand corner. If anybody feels this is important let me know and I will see if I can get it scanned and posted. I have looked through the site and have never read anything talking about this.

Posted by: BADBURD Feb 12 2010, 10:32 AM

QUOTE (BADBURD @ Feb 11 2010, 02:31 PM) *
I found a picture of a support that looks just like that. I have been watching for something like this. All the others I have seen have been debunked as being part of the salvage clean-up. This photo was taken during the rescue operation. Clearly no salvage operation is underway in this photo. My girl friend broke out a couple of magazines of 911. She had them put back. This one is Time magazine special issue. Dated September 24, 2001. On page 60. 6 inches from the left and 5 3/4 inches from the top. There is also one in the upper left hand corner. If anybody feels this is important let me know and I will see if I can get it scanned and posted. I have looked through the site and have never read anything talking about this.


Here's the magazine with the photo's.

They always say the perp. returns to the seen of the crime. Might as well hog some glory!

Maybe somebody can post these for me. I can't seem to post them.

http://s216.photobucket.com/albums/cc58/badburd/911/

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)