Visual evidence for explosives @ WTC1 - De-bunk this !!!

LeftBehind. Read the aluminothermics thread.

As far as the hand picking.

I'm wrong. They were allowed access and examined the steel. My bad.

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please show us one demolition that used thermite or even better "nanothermate." Unconventional or otherwise.

Just because it has never been done before (I'm not sure...I'll have to look into it) doesn't negate the fact that it could have been. Or are we forgetting that a plane had never flown into a building before 9/11. Does that negate the fact that on 9/11 it DID happen?

Or that no steel skyscraper has ever failed due to fire. By your reasoning, the WTC 1, 2 & 7 should have never fallen.

Originally posted by Griff
LeftBehind. Read the aluminothermics thread.

I have, and there is no source there either.

Just because it has never been done before (I'm not sure...I'll have to look into it) doesn't negate the fact that it could have been.

Nor does it count as evidence towards it being used that way. There's lots of things "it could have been". However there is no positive evidence pointing towards its use.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
However there is no positive evidence pointing towards its use.

I know this doesn't prove anything but how about the negative evidence that it couldn't have been impact, fire and gravity alone? That does prove that it was something.

Well, so far I have seen nothing to lead me to believe that fire, imapact and gravity could not have brought down the building.

Nor has anyone proven that it is impossible. If anything the vast majority of evidence points to the collapses being caused by impact, fire, and gravity.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Well, so far I have seen nothing to lead me to believe that fire, imapact and gravity could not have brought down the building.

Nor has anyone proven that it is impossible. If anything the vast majority of evidence points to the collapses being caused by impact, fire, and gravity.

Actually, no one has proven that it could have. Not even the NIST. They surmise that that is what happened but have not proven it.

I would like to prove it either way but without certain needed construction documents, I can't. I'm contacting the Port Authority and see what they say as to why they aren't public knowledge. We'll see what they say.

Originally posted by doctorfungi
1. The camera is paused and then starts filming again once the tower starts falling.

The camera woman has obviously paused the camera and started it again.

2. The smoke you see is a result of WTC2 collapsing.

3. The fact that the building still hasn't completley fallen after 20:07 disproves the theory of controlled demolition. Look closley. The tower is still partially standing.

Evidence of a PANCAKE COLLAPSE

[edit on 21/10/2006 by doctorfungi]

Number 1, The camera is not obviously pause, the film is obviously edited, as the crossover fade is completly visually presented.

Number 2 the smoke you see is not a result of WTC2 collapsing, because A) smoke rising, B) Bri is not freaking out until it starts collapsing, but due to the convenient edit, we dont know the lapse of time. C) You can obviously hear the sound of the collapse because of the close proximity between her and the building. D) When the building does collapse she films it, not the smoke on the ground that originally caught her attention.

Number 3) if i see what your talking about, which is also shown in other footage, it is a single column. Not evidence of Pancake collapse.

BTW NIST recalled their Pancake Theory Collapse because its impossible.