Thermite or Explosives ?

a reply to: sg1642

I could go on and on. False flag or not.

A false flag operation is not in the story.

"We were looking for them overseas.

Speaking of overseas, countries overseas were placing the blame on Osama bin Laden, and al-Qaeda for carrying out the 9/11 attack, not at the United States.

a reply to: sg1642

WMD's were eventually found that the UN and the US and UK knew about well before the 2003 invasion.

The WMD that I am talking about was found after the U.S. entered Iraq in 2003. Check it out.

WikiLeaks Dump Vindicated Bush and WMD's in Iraq

In 2008, our military shipped out on 37 flights in 3,500 barrels the last of what the AP called the major remnants of Hussein's nuclear program - 550 METRIC TONS OF YELLOWCAKE.


New York Post: US did find Iraq WMD

There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.
The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons arsenal — most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.

nypost.com...

Charles Duelfer has said as much. In any event the government lied about and exaggerated their claims to try and sway public opinion. I'm not sure if any of what was left was sold to him by our governments but there is every chance there was. The irony.

Yes, the irony, because it wasn't the United States that was responsible for Iraq's WMD after the first Gulf War, that was an Iraqi, code named "Curve Ball."

Iraqi defector Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi "Curve Ball"

n February 2011, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi admitted for the first time that he lied about his story regarding Iraq's secret biological weapons program. He also admitted to being shocked that his false story was used as a justification for the Iraq War but proud that the fabrications helped topple Saddam Hussein.

en.wikipedia.org...(informant)


The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush

The WikiLeaks de facto declassification of privileged material makes it case closed: Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- and intended to restart his program once the heat was off.

townhall.com...

Now, you know the rest of the story regarding WMD found in Iraq after the first Gulf War.

The white house was working before 9/11 on a strategy to deal with Bin Laden and the Taliban and had the opportunity to do so. But didn't.

Let me stop you there. Other than a number of countries around the world, the Taliban also issued a warning to the United States that OBL and al-Qaeda would carry out a huge attack on America.

Taliban 'warned US of huge attack'

An aide to the former Taleban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, has revealed that he was sent to warn American diplomats and the United Nations that Osama bin Laden was due to launch a huge attack on American soil.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Nothing in his warning about an upcoming American false flag operation.

a reply to: sg1642

WMD's were eventually found that the UN and the US and UK knew about well before the 2003 invasion. Charles Duelfer has said as much.

He lied. Saddam hussein violated 16 United Nations Security Council Resolutions. In other words, the United States didn't have to use WMD as an excuse to enter Iraq due to Saddam's repeated violations.

You break a contract, you pay the price.

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions.

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

* Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

* Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

* Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."


UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

* Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

* Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.


Additional UN Security Council Statements

In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The list of statements includes:

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14

2001-2009.state.gov...

To even begin to think, any one building could simply collapse,
in the perfect symmetry seen in the collapse of the two gargantuan
towers. And then another significantly sized building so much later
that same day. One must first prove that there has never been
any ligitimate need for a highly skilled demolition team trained
in the use of explosives, as the only way to bring buildings down with
that kind of symmetry.

So from day one there was no argument. Only those afraid of seeking
justice created one. Most likely because they couldn't allow even
a crime this diabolical. To disrupt the comfort of their asses as
they sit in their air conditioned homes and ride around in their
cadillac escallades. So really you aren't even worth arguing with.
Because justice never was in your best interest. Pathetic.

a reply to: randyvs

One must first prove that there has never been any ligitimate need for a highly skilled demolition team trained in the use of explosives, as the only way to bring buildings down with that kind of symmetry.

This steel frame building fell straight down without explosives.

Earthquake Damage in Mexico City, Mexico, September 19, 1985
Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building

911research.wtc7.net...

Fire alone dropped three (3) steel frame buildings in 2 hours in Thailand.

Kader Toy Factory Fire

At about 4pm on May 10th, 1993, a small fire was discovered on the first floor of part of the E-shaped building. Workers were instructed to keep working as the fire was thought to be minor. The fire alarm in this building did not sound.

The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

en.wikipedia.org...

Explosives were not needed to bring down this building

Verinage Demolition

a reply to: skyeagle409

This steel frame building fell straight down without explosives.

Sorry dude, the comparisons you make in some cases are a G-D joke.

a reply to: randyvs

Sorry dude, the comparisons you make in some cases are a G-D joke

No joke! After all, the CT folks are those who have made the claim that steel frame buildings cannot collapse without explosives. Never mind that a huge bomb failed to bring down WTC 1 in 1993.

It is peculiar that you would say something like that when you have been caught posting hoaxed and bogus videos and spewing disinformation from known truther websites that were discredited years ago.

It also proves my case that steel frame buildings have collapsed without the use of explosives while truthers claim that the collapse of the WTC buildings could not have occurred without explosives, which isn't true anyway.'

The experts have spoken and concluded that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, which is understandable considering that there is not a shred of evidence for explosives, thermite nor nano-thermite anyway. Accept it because we have evidence of fires and impact damage.

a reply to: skyeagle409

No joke!

It is a joke and your denial, ignorance and willingness to fabricate the
truth and even lie all for your own selfish reasons aren't exactly popular
by any stretch of even your imagination. All you can do now is defend
what sane people see as a big ass lie. There isn't any argument so take
your parting shot and make it a good one. My sides hurt from laughing.

a reply to: randyvs

It is a joke and your denial, ignorance and willingness to fabricate the
truth and even lie all for your own selfish reasons aren't exactly popular
by any stretch of even your imagination. All you can do now is defend
what sane people see as a big ass lie. There isn't any argument so take
your parting shot and make it a good one.

Reality is not with you, and it is peculiar that you would say such a thing without a shred of evidence, especially after you were caught posting disinformation and hoaxed and bogus videos. The fact that after 14 years, there is no evidence that supports anything you say, you have no case.

My sides hurt from laughing.

You must be laughing at the group that you identify with, (Truth Movement) which over years, has not only been discredited with facts and evidence, but has made itself the laughing stock on the internet that it is today

BTW, you can also laugh at this photo you posted thinking it supported evidence for thermite.

WTC Cut Steel Columns

Now let's take a look at the rest of the story.



In other words, you posted a photo of steel columns that were not cut by thermite, but by clean-up crews. If you keep committing such massive blunders, I might get the impression that you are just here to make the Truth Movement look sillier than it is.

After all, you have been doing a great job so far.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Disagree. It would not have been impossible to prepare the buildings for demolition without detection. Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible.

a reply to: samkent

I concede your point. It appears there were no concrete columns above street level. My mistake.

a reply to: Bedlam

I concede your point. Water not vaporized, but concrete would still be crushed into sand and dust by extreme pressure of charges placed next to the concrete.

The detonation wave pressure (1,000,000 to 1,500,000 pounds per square inch) from a high detonation velocity contact explosive sweeps into the column as a wave of compressive deformation. Since the pressure in the wave of deformation far exceeds the yield strength of the concrete (about 3,500 pounds per square inch) by a factor of approximately 300, the concrete is turned into granular sand and dust until the wave dissipates to below the yield strength of the concrete. This leaves a relatively smooth but granular surface, with protruding, bare reinforcement rods__a distinctive signature of damage by contact explosives. The effect of the contact explosive on the reinforcement rods themselves can only be seen under microscopic metallurgical examination. (The rods are inertially confined during the explosion and survive basically in tact because of their much higher yield strength and plasticity.)

When a reinforced concrete structure is damaged through air shock coupling and the pressure is below the compressive yield strength of the concrete, the failure mode is generally compressive structural fracture on one side and tensile fracture on the other__ both characterized by cracks and rough fracture surfaces. Such a surface texture is very different from the relatively smooth granular surface resulting from contact explosives.

whatreallyhappened.com...

a reply to: engineercutout

Disagree. It would not have been impossible to prepare the buildings for demolition without detection. Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible.

It would have been impossible. Let's take a look at what is required.

Construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily. In other words, there was no way that anyone could have accessed the steel structures of the WTC buildings and pre-weakened the steel columns without anyone noticing the debris generated to gain access to the steel structures and the noise generated during the pre-weakening process.

Buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material called RDX. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

To ignite both RDX and dynamite, you must apply a severe shock. In building demolition, blasters accomplish this with a blasting cap, a small amount of explosive material (called the primer charge) connected to some sort of fuse. The traditional fuse design is a long cord with explosive material inside. When you ignite one end of the cord, the explosive material inside it burns at a steady pace, and the flame travels down the cord to the detonator on the other end. When it reaches this point, it sets off the primary charge.

No detonation cords nor any hardware associated with demolition explosives were ever found at ground zero. So once again, it would have been impossible for properly prepare the WTC buildings for explosive demolition and not attract a lot of attention.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Charges could have been discretely placed, don't kid yourself. As to the blasting caps, a non-traditional device/devices might have been used, or an inside man may have been present in the initial aftermath to remove the incriminating material. I don't really care to argue the point because, as I stated earlier in the thread, I really don't claim to have any definitive theories as to what happened that day and how it happened. Unless you were inside the building, videotaping it as it came down, you can't say for certain what happened either. You can say it was highly unlikely this or that, or a near impossibility this or that, but that's about as far as you can really speculate, if you're going to be completely truthful in your assessment.

a reply to: engineercutout

Charges could have been discretely placed, don't kid yourself.

I don't think that you understand what it takes to bring down a steel frame building. If it is not done right, the building will remained standing and you will have something like this where steel columns of WTC 1 sit within the bomb crater.

Explosives Failed to Bring Down Steel Frame Building 1

And, this:

Bombed Building in Iraq

Remember, we are not talking about a building built of wood.

As to the blasting caps, a non-traditional device/devices might have been used,...

Such as?

... or an inside man may have been present in the initial aftermath to remove the incriminating material.

Impossible. Even a large clean-up crew cannot cover up evidence of explosives and if a steel frame building is not properly pre-weakened, it cannot be expected to collapse as planned as was the case in 1993 when terrorist tried to topple WTC 1 onto WTC 2.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: engineercutout

Charges could have been discretely placed, don't kid yourself.

I don't think that you understand what it takes to bring down a steel frame building. If it is not done right, the building will remained standing and you will have something like this where steel columns of WTC 1 sit within the bomb crater.

Explosives Failed to Bring Down Steel Frame Building 1

And, this:

Bombed Building in Iraq

Remember, we are not talking about a building built of wood.

As to the blasting caps, a non-traditional device/devices might have been used,...

Such as?

... or an inside man may have been present in the initial aftermath to remove the incriminating material.

Impossible. Even a large clean-up crew cannot cover up evidence of explosives and if a steel frame building is not properly pre-weakened, it cannot be expected to collapse as planned as was the case in 1993 when terrorist tried to topple WTC 1 onto WTC 2.

As the thread says you can't have both. So why does it have to take precision and time consuming work to bring a building down with explosives when an aircraft causing random and asymmetrical damage can cause a neat, symmetrical collapse?

a reply to: sg1642

As the thread says you can't have both. So why does it have to take precision and time consuming work to bring a building down with explosives when an aircraft causing random and asymmetrical damage can cause a neat, symmetrical collapse?

Impact damage that was suffered by WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 was the pre-weakening process and fire-weakened steel columns soon failed setting their collapse into motion.

We can take a look here.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, numerous structural engineers and experts spoke to the media, describing what they thought caused the towers to collapse. Hassan Astaneh, a structural engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley, explained that the high temperatures in the fires weakened the steel beams and columns, causing them to become "soft and mushy", and eventually they were unable to support the structure above.

We can take a look here to see how vulnerable steel is to fire.

Photo 1: Fire-Weakened Steel

Photo 2: Fire-Weakened Steel

Take a look at this video and focus from time line 1:20 to 5:00 and see how steel rails are bent by hand after a soaking in fire.


Considering the construction of the WTC Towers, thermite is out of the question as well because there was no way to plant numerous truckloads of thermite in the WTC buildings and not be detected.

At temperatures of normal office fires, steel exhibit characteristics of soft plastic. We can take a look at this image to understand why neither thermite, nor explosives, were responsible for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and why WTC 2 collapsed before WTC 1.

WTC 1 and WTC 2

As you can see, WTC 2 collapsed before WTC 1 because at the impact zone, its structure was supporting far more weight above than the structure of WTC 1 at its impact zone.

Remember, the collapse of each of those buildings commenced at their impact zones and any explosives planted in the impact zones would have been detonated, yet there are no secondaries in any of the WTC videos and any thermite planted in the impact zones would have been rendered useless especiallly since the impacts were violent enough to dislodged fire protection from the steel columns of WTC 1 and WTC 2 and if thermite is not firmly attached to steel, it becomes useless.

Let's also remember that the Veringage demolition method does not use explosives to make a building fall straight down.

Verinage Demolition

In other words, the claim that only explosives can make a building fall straight down is false. BTW, cables have been used to facilitate the collapse of steel frame buildings as well, and without the use of explosives or thermite.

can you give me a theory on what caused this?

originally posted by: sg1642
can you give me a theory on what caused this?

I saw nothing I would classify as an explosion.
Maybe a wall partition fell and blew smoke out the window.
Maybe a can of Dust Off went off.

a reply to: sg1642

lin.contrailscience.com...

Since the inside of a building is mostly air, a collapsed ceiling cover fixture can cause air to be expelled though a path of least resistance. What you saw in the video is compressed air, not a blast wave from an explosive, because the velocity is much too slow to have been caused by an explosive, but well within the velocity of expelled compressed air.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: sg1642

lin.contrailscience.com...

Since the inside of a building is mostly air, a collapsed ceiling cover fixture can cause air to be expelled though a path of least resistance. What you saw in the video is compressed air, not a blast wave from an explosive, because the velocity is much too slow to have been caused by an explosive, but well within the velocity of expelled compressed air.

I suppose the roof fell and knocked the man out the window too then.

originally posted by: sg1642
can you give me a theory on what caused this?

That's easy. This event happened on the 76 floor, east side of WTC 2. The 76 floor is a mechanical floor which contained the HVAC units. A large heat exchanger for the AC units is sitting inside the building at that position it contains a large volume of compressed freon.



The black cloth you see flying out of the window frame is a bird screen used to keep birds from nesting in the AC units. Heat from the fires caused a soldered copper tube connection to fail and the AC unit dumped it's freon out the window blowing out the bird screen.