Thermite or Explosives ?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I disagree. Care to add proof to your claim?

I'm going against the claim that the micro spheres are due to thermite.
So if they say thermite did the deed then they have to disregard the sounds of explosions.

originally posted by: ecapsretuo
You can have both, and /or something else.
The technology and resources to pull off an event like 9/11 came from industry behind and beyond even US military.

And here we have a perfect exmaple of widening the goalposts to include entirely fictional items to explain away the complete lack of evidence supporting their theory, while completely ignoring all the real evidence proving their theory wrong.

If the suspected thing didn't do it, just INVENT something instead! lol

Don't just "suspect it", prove it.

originally posted by: ecapsretuo
We have seen evidence of gigantic beams cut precisely, as by a compound such as thermite.
We saw gigantic steel girders blown parallel to the ground for a distance of blocks.

No, you didn't.
You saw one photo of a steel column with a diagonal cut and just believed the bs that it was "proof" of thermite, while completely ignoring the REALITY that the photo was taken AFTER the site had begin to be cleared, and that the cut was a diagonal cut made by the crew to remove the dangerous obstacle.

And girders blown parallel to the ground for a distance of blocks? No, again more bs.
There was debris scattered due to the collapse, yes, but unless you can present evidence of girders "blown parallel" then it's nothing but more complete and utter bs.

I swear you guys just believe everything your fellow conspiracy theorists tell you without actually checking anything.

originally posted by: ecapsretuo
I do not know what may have caused the buildings to be pulverized to dust before they hit the ground.

They didn't pulverize to dust before they hit the ground.
The concrete was pulverized by the thousands upon thousands of tonnes of weight crashing down on them, as any SANE person would expect. How can the steel have been pulverized, while you also claim that it was blown parallel to the ground, and while you claim that it was seen having been cut by "thermite" too? You can't have it both ways.

And yes, the videos and photos we have all seen clearly show the outside of the building falling faster than the collapse of the towers, but I guess you conveniently overlook that, right?

a reply to: samkent

Are not all spheres a (by-)product of great amounts of heat?

How can we differentiate between C4 produced spheres and thermite-produced ones? Differences in size and concentration, for example comparatively more and comparatively bigger iron-oxide spheres (slag) as a result of thermite ignition?

a reply to: redchad

Lol!

Ridiculous "hypothesis" (Ooh Directed Free-Energy Technology!) for the laughable sum of only $39.95 to find the truth!

I guess if someone is dumb enough to believe such claims, they're dumb enough to buy the book.

Dooooh! Don't have to buy the book there's plenty of free material including the author giving a presentation all free on YouTube lol just trying to point people in the right direction you can take a horse to water! Maybe best bury your head back in the sand.

a reply to: redchad

Are you shilling for this person? How much do they pay you to promote the book?

Being likely one of the few people on ATS that has worked with both Thermite and Explosives for a living i never saw any proof that ether was used on the trade centers.

I worked as both a blaster in the mining industry and did cad-welding (a form of Thermite welding)as a industrial construction electrician.

Lol I've never read the book wouldn't pay that much for it maybe when it's out in paperback but I've seen the authors presentations on you tube and can't question her evidence. Richard D Hall gave her a lot of TV time on richplanet. Out of interest where do you think the towers went to. The debri from that much material would have left a substantial mountain as opposed to what was actually left. And the cars in the car parks a block away half incinerated half untouched, please explain?

a reply to: GetHyped so please explain?

Watch for your self

www.richplanet.net...

originally posted by: redchad
Out of interest where do you think the towers went to. The debri from that much material would have left a substantial mountain as opposed to what was actually left.

The buildings weren't solid blocks of concrete or steel, obviously, and they collapsed mostly into the basement. There was a lot of crap above ground as well, it took quite some time to clear it all out afterwards. You don't see a lot of photos of it because they didn't allow the random observer to wander around in it, obviously, but I have run across some.

And the cars in the car parks a block away half incinerated half untouched, please explain?

Some of those were used to temporarily hold cars that were towed out of the streets around the buildings. If you look at photos of the burned cars before they moved them, you will have noticed that these were cars that were left running when the dust cloud came through, the car sucked in the dust and some got into the engine.

a reply to: Bedlamlol are you serious two one hundred plus storey buildings collapse into a pile of debri less than five stories high, there are lots of photos of the debris taken within the hour of the collapse showing how little there is as there are photos taken in the basement below which are clear of debris. As for the half incinerated vehicles lined up in car parks with the burn marks in the same line are you really trying to say that whilst one of the biggest rescue operations of modern times was going on, some one arranged for cars to be towed into a car lot and lined up. I think you should think again.

a reply to: Chadwickus

You obviously didn't even bother to read it. Which means you are happy inside your shell.

READ THE POST, before you make a comment. The very first line of it states, "You might say you can't compare", and the first think you said was 'You can't compare'.

*Sigh*

The physics are exactly the same. If you don't understand that I can't help you, and I don't want to.

I don't care if you find me ridiculous, as I find those like you irrelevant.

Take care.

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: Bedlamlol are you serious two one hundred plus storey buildings collapse into a pile of debri less than five stories high

Yes. Buildings are essentially hollow boxes. And when all that concrete falls that far, it tends to be pulverized, as seen.

As for the half incinerated vehicles lined up in car parks with the burn marks in the same line are you really trying to say that whilst one of the biggest rescue operations of modern times was going on, some one arranged for cars to be towed into a car lot and lined up. I think you should think again.

You couldn't get in and out of there without towing them. So, yes, one of the first things to do is clear the surrounding streets that weren't blocked by rubble so you can get rescue vehicles in and out. Never been in a cleanup operation, have you?

I know, you want to think it's EMP because Judy says so, or Ted. But that's obviously not what happened. There are some nice photos showing some cars in the street burning and some not, the burny ones are obviously the ones that were running at the time. When this came up here years ago I posted a wad of them. I'm sure you could find a few if you look.

a reply to: SONOFTHEMORNING

I did read it.

And I stick by what I said.

The physics are not the same.

a reply to: Bedlamha ha but I've seen tall buildings demolished many times and some we're only twenty or thirty stories high and left a taller debri field. As for tow trucks lol I've been part of a cordon on a major incident on many occasions one in particular was the bombing of the Arndale centre in Manchester city centre in 96 where an IRA lorry bomb dropped a shopping mall in amongst congested city streets and guess what no tow trucks never mind first hour they couldn't get in for days, because at the end of the day the site is after all a crime scene why would you allow vehicles to be towed away? There's no point arguing with me I'm only pointing people to alternatives because at the end of the day an aluminium plane didn't bring down those towers. as for you keep the blinkers on and your head in the sand my friend.

originally posted by: redchad
There's no point arguing with me I'm only pointing people to alternatives because at the end of the day an aluminium plane didn't bring down those towers. as for you keep the blinkers on and your head in the sand my friend.

So...I notice you've carefully danced around what you are espousing. Do enlighten us.

a reply to: Bedlam erm not sure what your getting at "say again over"

This is interesting
THE E-TEAM stunt of March 2001.
mediahoaxes.tumblr.com...

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: SONOFTHEMORNING

Jenga?

Really?

I've seen a few of your posts today, and they're all equally ridiculous.

Besides the fact that you're comparing a table top kids game with a multi story building, how a Jenga tower is built is completely different to the WTC Towers, there is absolutely no comparison.

You sound prejudiced against gravity?
It effects everything the same way.

What goes up must come down?
So the towers were built to come down, were they?

Jenga teaches us how to determine weight displacement?
If my left knee broke, my right knee ain't designed to carry that side of my body...
I would not drop straight down either, I would fall over onto my side?