World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Yep. I had the questionable honour of being banned from Balsamos site for raising simple questions myself, you run into open doors here.

Rob and I, went head-to-head in another forum until he eventually left.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Who on Ceres car... ah, whatever. He was never our topic in the first place.
That being said, let's have some fun again!

Explosives, Thermite or both, where should we go next?
Which residues are we supposed to find if anything of this would be the case?

I'm still waiting for an answer with regards to explosives. We have many different types and a pro like you should be able to name a few or/and to point out which residues we would find if there were any used. Tell me something I don't know, but explain it to me as if you were talking to a child, please.
A mere hypothetical question. There is no harm in answering that, if you will bear with me here.

Thanks in advance!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I'm still waiting for an answer with regards to explosives.

I have already stated for the record that no explosives nor even thermite, were responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

I knew that by the fact that no explosions are evident as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed, and there are no secondary explosions as the two aircraft strike the WTC Towers and there are no secondary explosions as the WTC Towers collapsed and there is no seismic data evidence supporting the use of explosives at ground zero, which explains why no evidence of demo explosives was ever found at ground zero.

I also knew that there was no way that demo explosives would have remained firmly attached to the steel columns since the impacts were violent enough to dislodge fire protection from the steel columns and if explosives are not firmly attached to steel columns, they are useless. Just ask any demolition expert.

To be frank, it is evident that the claim of explosives at ground zero was fabricated.

a reply to: skyeagle409
a reply to: intrptr

Ok guys, hate me!
Digged through some old postings and stumbled upon a lot of things. Time for some Dustification and Debralysis then.

1. Asbestos

Further, TEM analysis of dust in the Building also showed the asbestos concentration reaching over 70 million structures/cm2 (s/cm2) in TP-01 samples from the gash region, directly adjacent to the WTC site. An unprecedented level of 1 billion s/cm2 was also observed in the Building and 2 billion s/cm2 on the roof of the Building where debris was deposited from direct fallout as well as suspension, as the WTC Event occurred.

P. 12

We could explain this high amount of asbestos aka fireproofing with vanishing cores (due to explosions) whilst the building collapsed, which created this hazardous mixture of dust with highest concentrations of asbestos ever.


2. Dust Anomalies

[...]
Much of the organic or polymeric content of the WTC Dust has been heat hydrolyzed and partially consumed or burned. Therefore, a residual vesicular type of carbonaceous component persists in the WTC Dust. In addition to the vesicular carbon components, the high heat exposure of the WTC Dust has also created other morphologically specific varieties of particulate matter including spherical metallic, vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components
[...]
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTCEvent, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).
[...]
Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in combination. However, it is worth noting that fly ash and partially combusted products can occur in trace concentrations in ordinary building dusts, but not in the concentrations observed in WTC Dust.
[...]
The presence of lead oxides on the surface of mineral wool indicates the exposure of high temperatures at which lead would have undergone vaporization, oxidation, and condensation on the surface of mineral wool. In addition to the trace amounts of lead, (Table 2) indicates the presence of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sodium, silicon, sulfur, chlorine and calcium on the surface of the mineral wool.

P. 7, 17, 19 & 21

They can clearly see how the WTCEvent melted metal and formed spherical particles whilst condensing on the dust, mineral-wool most of the time. Which could've been fireproofing, probably. Nice mix, innit?


3. Composition

A Mineral Wool 13.70%
A Glass Fragments 0.50%
A Glass Fiber 1.27%
A Perlite 0.45%
A Vermiculite 2.36%
A Ca/Si 5.11%
A Fe Sphere 5.87%
A Vesicular Carbonaceous 1.23%
A Hi Temp Si/Al-rich 0.54%
A Vermiculite/Gypsum 2.72%
A Chrysotile 1.84%
C C fiber 1.02%
C C flake 1.14%

P. 24

Astonishing findings, 20% of the dust is composed of iron and fireproofing only! Fun-fact are those Si/Al-rich 0.54% I guess.


4. Molten Steel

[...]
- As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.

www.historycommons.org...

And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a member of FEMA’s WTC investigation team, will describe steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extremely high temperatures.

www.historycommons.org...

Evidence for demolitions. Heat hydrolyzed and partially consumed or burned dust, molten steel, expelled asbestos and 20% mineral wool/ iron in the dust. Did I forget something?

Ahja. Newtons 1. Law rounds it up, case closed.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

From yout link.

[...]
- As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.

How do you lift something with a machine that is in a molten state? Fact of the matter is, buried steel and iron generate high temperatures that can start fires.

Iron Burns

Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation.

That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

www.debunking911.com...

If you do a search on the Internet, you will find that fires that smolder for days, is nothing new. I might add that there is nothing in your post that suggest the use of explosives and thermite.

We could explain this high amount of asbestos aka fireproofing with vanishing cores (due to explosions) whilst the building collapsed, which created this hazardous mixture of dust with highest concentrations of asbestos ever.

You say fireproofing was dislodged due to explosions during the collapse, then please point out the time lines in this video where explosions are heard.



To sum it up, there were no demo explosions as WTC1 collapsed and you will have also noticed that debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are outpacing the collapse of WTC1, which effectively debunks the claim that WTC1 fell at free fall speed.

It's quite simple. Some of the terrorists already in the USA planted bombs in the towers. Then later, the planes crashed into them.

I have already stated for the record that no explosives nor even thermite, were responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

You stated your opinion, nothing for the record, or any fact, when will you accept the difference?

a reply to: arkmabat

It's quite simple. Some of the terrorists already in the USA planted bombs in the towers. Then later, the planes crashed into them.

That was not possible. There were no secondary explosions as the aircraft slammed into the WTC Towers nor were there secondary explosions as the WTC Towers collapsed.

Terrorist bombed WTC1 in 1993, so why was WTC1 still standing? In fact, why did the steel columns of WTC1 remain standing within that huge bomb crater?

a reply to: wildb

Let's just say that I know things from experience.

a reply to: skyeagle409

That was not possible. There were no secondary explosions as the aircraft slammed into the WTC Towers nor were there secondary explosions as the WTC Towers collapsed.

That is one of the best fallacies I have read so far.

a reply to: Informer1958

All you have to do is to post the time lines of secondary explosions in the WTC videos, and do so for us all. Short of that, you have no case.

originally posted by: arkmabat
It's quite simple. Some of the terrorists already in the USA planted bombs in the towers. Then later, the planes crashed into them.

It's quite simple. Some of the terrorists already in the USA planted bombs in the towers. Then later, the planes crashed into them.

Totally stupid .......

! if you have planted explosives why do you need to crash a plane into the building . It is an unnecessary
complication

Further why plant explosives 90 floors up - you want to plant them as low as possible to kick out the supports and let
gravity do the rest

If have planted explosives why crash a plane into them which would prematurely detonate them or destroy the
charges - to bring a building down requires a carefully sequence of detonations .

a reply to: firerescue

The airplanes crashing into the towers was great spectacle. So great that it completely eclipsed any rational assessment of what really happened.

These events were staged with TV coverage in mind. They played to the TV audience.

a reply to: Salander

These events were staged with TV coverage in mind. They played to the TV audience.

Evidence please. After 14 years, no such evidence has surfaced, and one reason is, a number of countries around the world issued their own intelligence warnings to the United States that Osama bin Laden, and al-Qaeda would carry out the terrorist attack on America using hijacked aircraft.

We can go here as well.

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people.

www.foxnews.com...

Even al-Qaeda named the 9/11 hijackers.



To sum it up, you either post the evidence of an inside job for all of us or you have no case.

a reply to: firerescue

Totally stupid .......

If have planted explosives why crash a plane into them which would prematurely detonate them or destroy the
charges - to bring a building down requires a carefully sequence of detonations

And, considering there were no secondary explosions as the aircraft slammed into the WTC buildings proves just how ridicules their claims are.

originally posted by: firerescue
Totally stupid .......

! if you have planted explosives why do you need to crash a plane into the building . It is an unnecessary
complication

... ... ...

If have planted explosives why crash a plane into them which would prematurely detonate them or destroy the
charges - to bring a building down requires a carefully sequence of detonations .

---

Aha, very well done. That is the core of the matter .
You've got to the core of everything yourself without anyone helping you.
You've got to 100℅ of the most important element (though, while it's staring you in the face, you can't quite see it yet).
The very simple, operations reason why airplanes would be needed to crash into the towers.
(To be clear, also separating the other, very, very important effect reason which was in itself also essential. That is, simply to create real, live, tremendously effective terror, fear, incredible anger and unthinking wilful submission to any new agenda and rights reducing laws made domestically.)

"! If you have planted explosives why do you need to crash a plane into the building . It is an unnecessary
complication"

Very much the opposite. If you have prepared to have the buildings demolished, through a prepared demolition which did not include or physically need a plane crash, how on earth are you going to get away with that afterwards, publicly? Considering you are not an Arab with special, secret access to the building for your (white, American) teams of riggers? (Which Arab terrorist groups did or do have the extremely special access to such buildings over a longish time to rig the whole building? None.)

What you're not - you're really just not ever, going to do is allow the buildings to blow up with your rigged demolition system and stand around waiting for America's and the world's attentions to fall on you and investigate how on earth you managed to make a sudden, world class (award winning professional style) demolition of the 2 !ost world famous skyscrapers.

It seems clearly what you are going to do is invent a cover up.

Although most of us who see things so easily clearly simply cannot believe, after nearly a decade and a half, you and so many other blinded sheep simply cannot see the downright, sheer impossibility of your contention that those buildings fell down at roughly free fall rate from fire caused by high-up airplane strikes.

Though you even got to the core of the whole matter, and the reasoning was staring you blindly in the face, it's hard to accept you cannot see the reasons behind the need for the planes, and that they were indispensable to the purposes. But in no way for the physical destruction of the towers. Come on?

I should be more sympathetic, though, I guess.

Since first watching the towers come down on TV at the time, I instantly realised there was no way on earth that that could be a consequence of the plane crashes. I remember swallowing in fear and realising I had to put the truth out of mind. Just so distant I would never even think about it. That's what I did for years and years.

I had no choice. I could not deal with the truth and what, deep down I truly knew it meant, in any shape or form. I never thought about 9/11. If you asked me what it was during those years, and this happened on a number of occasions, I'd reply in genuine confusion, "What's that? What do you mean?". " What's 9/11?". And then, to the response about "the towers", I'd ask, "What towers?" Then I'd retort, "There are no twin towers which I know of", when told about twin towers. Eventually when someone would occasionally make some memory quickly penetrate, I'd always say, "Oh that. I don't want to know about that."

But, eventually I had to come around to the real world. I realised you couldn't shut out at least the most undeniable elements of the real truth for ever.

---
"If have planted explosives why crash a plane into them which would prematurely detonate them or destroy the
charges - to bring a building down requires a carefully sequence of detonations . "

Obviously not if riggers have worked out a perfect plan in the first place. And, seeing the fall of the twin towers, we can see what endless experts say can only be a controlled demolition, but what everyone who recognises that knows - that it is one of the best set of rigged demolitions of our age. Therefore, there's little sense in asking questions like - wouldn't the planes crash into the explosives and detonate them? Not with that type of planning.

As for the planes themselves, systems (NOT in any private domain on earth but only in official, national, state authorities' possessions) systems have existed which allows jet airliners to be taken control of from a certain GPS point and flown by remote control to another certain GSP, by automated oin point accuracy.

This indeed describes the kind of OBVIOUS manoeuvres made by the planes - as if computer controlled. When all official reports of the alleged highjackers' flying ability have been that there is no way on earth that they had the skills to perform the flying seen on 9/11. (This applies not just to the Pentagon crashed plane, but also the 2 New York plane missiles.)

Re: that people cannot believe that the modern USA's leaders would actively (or maybe more passively, as part of a larger group) allow the 9/11 events as a kind of planned, "false flag" mega-situation to bring war. (Similar to the USA's previous Operation Northwoods plan):

Just in the British press today. A top secret Presidential Memo in which SOS Powell summed up meetings, statements and current positions for Bush. Only released now due to the court order over Hilary Clinton's emails, which this Memo ended up being within:

As Bush's close allies prepare for war with Iraq a year in advance, using Blair to kind of enforce the UK to be an equal partner, they consider how to persuade the British to join them in war against Iraq.
(At the time, the British public, through polls, were known to be very strongly for diplomatic approaches and strongly against war.
Mostly, the same feelings were found in the UK parliament, excepting Blair himself and a few allies.
Blair had privately agreed with Bush to go to war against Iraq if Blair could manage it.)

---

Written by Powell in the Presidential Memo:

'Some [British] MPs would endorse action if they had proof that Iraq has continued to develop WMD since UN inspectors left.

‘More would follow if convinced that Iraq has succeeded in developing significant WMD capability and the missiles to deliver it.

'Many more would follow if they see compelling evidence that Iraq intends and plans to use such weapons. A clear majority would support military action if Saddam is implicated in the 9/11 attacks or other egregious acts of terrorism’.


Daily Mail, UK: "Smoking Gun Emails reveal Blair's 'pact in blood' with George Bush'
---

We already knew that, in the years before 9/11, Dick Cheney and cronies, with support from Bush, discussed and published potential plans for actually making a terrible Operation Northwoods style "false flag" attack on US soil against US people.

The purposes were said to be for a more "cohesive" world, meant to include more world control, US commodity and access interests overseas, US economic interests, and adjustments to the domestic "situation" (new laws) for a new type, a new vision of society.

---

Here, clearly, from Hilary's emails comes more proof in the memo of the very use of 9/11 in a false flag sense against Iraq which was known to have nothing to do with 9/11.
This clear, obvious "false flag" use of 9/11 is undeniable.
There it is, unquestionably in black and white.
While this does not prove in itself that 9/11 involved members of US politics actively or more passively as members of a group.

But, considering everything which isn't kept Top Secret, it's no major leap at all to make.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Salander

These events were staged with TV coverage in mind. They played to the TV audience.

Evidence please. After 14 years, no such evidence has surfaced, and one reason is, a number of countries around the world issued their own intelligence warnings to the United States that Osama bin Laden, and al-Qaeda would carry out the terrorist attack on America using hijacked aircraft.

We can go here as well.

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people.

www.foxnews.com...

Even al-Qaeda named the 9/11 hijackers.

To sum it up, you either post the evidence of an inside job for all of us or you have no case.

Common Sense provide the evidence. If you do not possess common sense, you will never be able to understand how the goal of propaganda is to influence and manipulate the public perception. TV is a most useful tool for manipulating the public perception.

The airplane striking the tower was "reality TV" at its best. The goal was to inspire fear in the mind of the public, and that tool accomplished the goal. Humans are very easily fooled.

a reply to: bw1000

We already knew that, in the years before 9/11, Dick Cheney and cronies, with support from Bush, discussed and published potential plans for actually making a terrible Operation Northwoods style "false flag" attack on US soil against US people.

What "false flag" attack? Countries around the world issued intelligence warnings to the United States prior to 9/11 that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would be responsible.

a reply to: Salander

Common Sense provide the evidence.

Which explains why after 14 years, not one piece of evidence support a 9/11 "false flag operation.

If you do not possess common sense, you will never be able to understand how the goal of propaganda is to influence and manipulate the public perception. TV is a most useful tool for manipulating the public perception.

You must mean how conspiracy websites have duped conspiracy theorist over the years. Case in point, conspiracy theorist claiming that United 93 landed at Cleveland Airport and that its passengers and crew were seen boarding a bus at the airport.

Now, for the rest of the story. Conspiracy theorist misidentified Delta 1989, a B-767, as United 93, a B-757 and mistaken scientist from a KC-135 as crew and passengers of United 93.

Such blunders is why the Truth Movement is a laughing stock that it is today.