WTC Controlled Demo Flash Animation

Here is the link:

nic.emoh.net.au...

Mirror 1:

llamaslap.com...

Mirror 2:

202.58.54.105...

This isn't meant to be anything fancy, just something I worked on for a bit.
It is the final version of the animation.
Please distribute it.
Feedback welcome.

Great flash AM, simple, logical and to the point!

Can't wait to hear how the Coincidence Theorists try to refute it!

I think the biggest smoking gun that explosives were used (not in your flash, but from your site) comes from this pic that shows the squib shooting out well below the Skylobby that is well below the demolition wave:



Great work!

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Here is the link:

nic.emoh.net.au...

Mirror 1:

llamaslap.com...

Mirror 2:

202.58.54.105...

This isn't meant to be anything fancy, just something I worked on for a bit.
It is the final version of the animation.
Please distribute it.
Feedback welcome.

You have voted aelphaeis_mangarae for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

there brilliant, haven't watched fully yet but i'm just about to thanks

all the best... ian

hi aelphaeis_mangarae,
Did you do these yourself?

can you tell me what software or program i need to create SWF files plz
in other words how can i create a movie to play on the internet like yours do?

all the best

[edit on 1/14/2006 by iamian]

Why do they focus on the fire so much? From the animation you would think that no airplanes were even involved on 9-11. Not one of the fires they showed involved planes crashing into the buildings at high speeds.

It's almost as if they ignore the planes because it doesn't help their theory.

The Windsor building fire caused the upper steel portions to collapse, so parts of buildings have certainly collapsed from fire.

The 10 second fall time is wrong as well. It's closer to 17 seconds, showing that there was indeed resistance and contrary to their claims, did not fall at nearly free fall speeds.

The jets of air being pushed out do not seem strange to me, considering the forces involved.

The one paper I have seen that says more energy would have been needed, by Hoffman I think, gives a figure that would need somewhere around 500 tonnes of TNT IIRC.

How did they sneak that into the building?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Why do they focus on the fire so much? From the animation you would think that no airplanes were even involved on 9-11. Not one of the fires they showed involved planes crashing into the buildings at high speeds.

It's almost as if they ignore the planes because it doesn't help their theory.

The Windsor building fire caused the upper steel portions to collapse, so parts of buildings have certainly collapsed from fire.

The 10 second fall time is wrong as well. It's closer to 17 seconds, showing that there was indeed resistance and contrary to their claims, did not fall at nearly free fall speeds.

The jets of air being pushed out do not seem strange to me, considering the forces involved.

The one paper I have seen that says more energy would have been needed, by Hoffman I think, gives a figure that would need somewhere around 500 tonnes of TNT IIRC.

How did they sneak that into the building?

I think everyone knows what hit the wtc buildings
its talking about how and why they collapsed duh,

work was done before at the wtc prior to 9/11, parts of the buildings were closed to the public for unknown renovations.

17 seconds, ????? i didn't know that must check it out,

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Why do they focus on the fire so much? From the animation you would think that no airplanes were even involved on 9-11. Not one of the fires they showed involved planes crashing into the buildings at high speeds.

It's almost as if they ignore the planes because it doesn't help their theory.

LeftBehind, why do you post as if you're new to the subject? It's like you're four and a half years behind, man.

The impact damage was by far NOT ENOUGH to bring the towers down. The major contributing factor, according to the official story, was the set of fires. Less than 15% of the columns in either tower were damaged by impact. According to NIST figures an average of 75% would have to fail.

Less than 15% by impact necessitates over 60% of the damage being from fire. 15% to 60%. Can you see why they would find a higher priority in addressing the fires?

The 10 second fall time is wrong as well. It's closer to 17 seconds, showing that there was indeed resistance and contrary to their claims, did not fall at nearly free fall speeds.

The claim is that the buildings fell too fast. WTC7 fell close to, if not at free-fall. Certain proponents of the official story have also put forth figures, such as Eager (10 seconds), that do suggest physically impossible speeds, as WCIP has shown conclusively.

Again, how long have you been exposed to this information, LB? You really should consider learning what the arguments are if you're going to continue to try to debunk them.

The one paper I have seen that says more energy would have been needed, by Hoffman I think, gives a figure that would need somewhere around 500 tonnes of TNT IIRC.

How did they sneak that into the building?

You're implying 500 tons of TNT were placed into the WTC. This obviously did not have to go down, as more powerful military explosives could have been used, but asking for complete answers, ie describing the whole event in detail from the very planning and execution, is irrelevant and unreasonable anyway. It's like punching a blind man that doesn't know you're there. There is no way we would be able to know how they did it. But if you want a good suspect, look at the upgrades on the buildings' fireproofing, etc., which could have been easy fronts for placing explosives.

I think this will be the last time I post that information for you, LeftBehind, because you ignore it and post the same stupid questions later anyway. I'll just start saying "refer to the last post addressing this" or etc.

[edit on 14-1-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11


I think this will be the last time I post that information for you, LeftBehind, because you ignore it and post the same stupid questions later anyway. I'll just start saying "refer to the last post addressing this" or etc.

[edit on 14-1-2006 by bsbray11]

So we shouldn't question how the bombs got there?

What makes it a stupid question, because you deem it irrelevant?

Just stop posting the same answer and actually adress the issue of how bombs were placed in the building.

It is, IMHO the biggest flaw with any demlition theory, but go ahead continue with the double standard of evidence, I won't lose any sleep over it.

the bombs were planted and detonated (i think), in a simular way as maintainace crews spotted working on a levvie(s) the day before
katrina struck new orleans.

Weeks before 9/11 Marvin Bush who was in charge of security for the WTC Towers removed bomb sniffing dogs from the complex.
Followed was numerous power downs in both WTC Towers where everything was turned off so they could supposedly upgrade their cabling system and other such things.

According to Scott Forbes, who I have seen evidence that he doesn't even exist, the power was cut for approximately 30 hours on the 8th into the 9th. Here are a few flaws with the bombs in the building theory based on that information. To demo a SMALL building, the demo crew takes sometimes WEEKS to place the charges, so that they are placed exactly right. When they are placed, the columns are cut first, to enable the charges to cut through them easier, and in concrete columns, the rebar is either cut through, or removed where possible. For it to be done in two buildings (and there's no evidence that both buildings had power downs) in 30 hours,would take probably hundreds of people working in both buildings, to get the charges placed. You would think that SOMEONE would come forward, probably feeling incredibly guilty for helping kill thousands of people, out of those hundreds.

Once the detonators are placed, it is possible for a cell phone, or any other kind of transmitter to detonate the charges at any time. I even found a memo from a lab manager from an explosives research lab in Canada that states there have been accidents attributed to this happening. Now unless they told eveyone working thereturn off thir phn, and cut power to all the trsansmitters in the bulding, they were risking at least some of th charges going off early, and giving the game away. The only other option would be to go in the night before, or even the morning of, and set the detonators.

[edit on 1/14/2006 by Zaphod58]

Marvin Bush was no longer a director of Statesec in 2001.

www.commondreams.org...

Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000.

Not all bomb sniffing dogs were removed. The extra bomb sniffing dogs were removed when they stepped down from high alert right before the disaster.

There were dogs in the buildings.

www.dogsinthenews.com...






Edit: Just looked up an old post where I tried to calculate how much explosives would be needed according to Hoffman's figures.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It would have taken over 500 tons of PETN to produce that much energy, one of those "more powerful military explosives".

[edit on 14-1-2006 by LeftBehind]

It's funny you mention cell phones because I remember reading somewhere that everyones cell phone cut out just before the Towers came down.
Forget where I read it.

I don't think it's likely someone would come forward and say

"I rigged the WTC with explosives"

Because first no one would believe them, well most people wouldn't.
Second the government would kill them if they came forward.
And of course most importantly the major media would not pay attention, so it would be hard for anyone to really "Come Forward"

Marvin Bush was no longer a director of Statesec in 2001.

www.commondreams.org...

External Source

Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000.

I believe the company changed it's name.

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
It's funny you mention cell phones because I remember reading somewhere that everyones cell phone cut out just before the Towers came down.
Forget where I read it.

Even if they went out right before, there were TWO DAYS with cell phones and radios going right next to the explosives, if there were any. The odds of going that long, with rigged explosives, and NOT having at least one go off aren't that great.

[edit on 1/14/2006 by Zaphod58]

They must of used some special type of explosives for the job then.
I don't know how they would of rigged those buildings so well, the way those buildings came down...it seems that each floor of the building was rigged with explosives (Quite an incredible task.)

The explosives aren't the problem. It's the detonator. Detonators by nature are unstable. It's very easy to set one off, even accidentally, and once they're in the explosive, if the detonator goes off, there goes the explosive with it.

We can argue all day about how they got the damn stuff in their (if they put anything in there atall). Their are facts that just don't add up.

Alot of these things can't ever be put to bed unless we get a whole load of new evedance which either doesn't exist or is being hidden from us.

I just would't put anything past the government of the United States, i bet they ahve more power than nayt6hing most of us can even get close to understanding.

If you claim that the tower wouldn't collapse whitout explosives, why there aren't any signs of explosives at the beging of collapse? If explosives made the tower to collapse, there should be FIRST explosion and AFTER THAT tower would start to fall down.

Check this: koti.mbnet.fi...

Explosives explode 1st, after that building begings to collapse. At WTC those "explosions" can be seen only after it begun to collapse. That means, that tower would atleast started collapsing whitout explosives, right?

precisely. and the dimension of that power they are using, tied
the installation of such devices and the main construction of the building.
put to bed.