CNN 9/11 footage that offers good non-conspiracy evidence

Originally posted by esdad71
The incoherant rant was sarcasm. This has descended into a pissing contest that no one is winning. This thread was about the video, archived video, that brings to light many of the original rumors associated with 9/11. It has been derailed and by one person who screams in caps, and another simply trying to make a point.

Oh okay, because I honestly had no idea what you were talking about lol.

No offense.

Originally posted by Connected
This is why you are going on ignore. Even after I show you photo evidence, you claim you can't see it, and you want to see another picture.

Good bye.

Ignore me if you want, but I'm not going to ignore you for disagreeing with me.

In that picture you posted, the only column you can see clearly enough to make a judgement is the column in the smaller picture in the top right hand corner. I already told you that looks like a cutting torch did it.

The rest of them are too far away in the picture. You can see that they're obviously severed. That's about it. I need to be able to see a little more detail than that to tell you what happened. If there's slag all over them, it's thermite. If they're broken and bent, could be explosives. If they look like the picture in right hand corner, it's a cutting torch.

But I can't see those columns well enough to tell you which it is, and neither can anybody else.



[edit on 15-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

So, out of ALL of the columns, where are all the others cut at angles?

the problem with photos, and this goes for ANYONE who is trying to use them as proof of anything, that means for controlled demo OR against controlled demo is this.

its called chain of custody.

for a photo to be valid in court it has to have a date time stamp, it has to be documented in a report as to who took it, when they took it and where they took it. then every single person that puts their hands on that photo and the negatives (memory card) has to sign off on it as having held it for any length of time. when it is checked into evidence that is documented.

so, since we DONT have that for any of the photos, we cant find the photographer to give a deposition as to that photo being exactly as it is when he took it, when he took it, etc...its just not proof or even good evidence of anything.

the only thing its good for, and this goes for 98% of all photos we've seen, is for us to speculate on.

they really dont make a good case for anything.

connected can claim that its evidence of tampering, white rabbit can claim its not. either of them could be correct.

talk to anyone thats ever had to collect evidence or even a halfassed decent lawyer and they'll tell you the same thing.

im not a lawyer but any of these photos, even i could get thrown out of court.

so lets all take a breath, have a drink. smoke whatever ( i prefer my cigs or a good cigar) and lets try to remember we're adults DISCUSSING a topic cuz thats all we'll ever get to do. i dont see anyone hiring a lawyer to take this to court or go on the news anytime soon.

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by bsbray11
Show me your calculations on this one. If it used, say, 100x finer particles, show me the math that indicates to you that it'd take "about the same amount" of powder to accomplish the same mechanical work via heat. Namely, moving through the steel.

Don't have any. But I'll explain why I think that below.

Well, it was a pretty bad explanation, so let me try explaining why it wouldn't be necessary to have "about the same amount".

We've established that finer particles = more surface area in contact between the aluminum and oxidizer. Finer particles also = more reactions per amount of material.

If it takes 10 pounds of coarse thermite to produce enough heat to "cut" a column, a much finer reaction that produces 100x the heat per some standard amount of thermite would only require 1/10th of a pound of thermite. I would venture that the particle size is also directly proportional to the amount of heat put off by the heat given off by a standard amount of thermite undergoing a thermite reaction. Does that not make sense to you?

To survive being burned by the thermite itself, you'd need a big heavy device to force it sideways.

No you wouldn't. What do you think contains molten iron/steel when its being produced? There's insulation that will take the heat and not deteriorate. I can't remember what it is off the top of my head but I think it's something to do with carbon.

Each of those small amounts, if they were burning at all when they got knocked off, would be surrounded by a burn zone where they set fire to debris. They'd stand out like like pockets of unexplainable fire damage. You'd be able to see the black spots as they were digging it out.

Unexplainable fire damage? You mean like the tons of vehicles blocks away from the towers that caught on fire? A whole parking lot, pretty much. The debris piles themselves smoldered for months, and that was all exposed and extended to the above-ground as well immediately after the collapses. There are even multiples of reports of molten metal flowing in places after the collapses. You dismiss all of this kind of evidence to say that there was no evidence of extra heat. Don't even pretend you knew what the column ends looked like, because most of that was already hauled out before anyone got to examine anything as part of an investigation.

Well then only give me enough to counter my list 1:1.

I don't even know that I could enough statements to match that. So, go ahead and draw whatever from that.

At least take this opportunity to remember not to say scientists and engineers all buy the official story. Disregarding NIST's farce of a report, I would say most research literature into the events of 9/11 by this point has been pioneered by scientists, engineers, and others that disagree with the official story, whether you realize it or not. Most relevant information that's available in general has been fleshed out by people pushing for re-investigation.

NIST declared molten metal, sulfidation, etc., "irrelevant" to its investigation, and didn't even try to analyze a global collapse. Engineers that have come to disagree with the official story have now provided both despite NIST. NIST also failed to support its most critical hypothesis when it tested the WTC trusses in 2-hour fires and could not produce failure, let alone failure of a perpendicular support column simply by sagging. Even older fire research summed up in a 2000 report from the University of Edinburgh (following something like 15 years of research of the effects of fire upon steel structures) showed that run-away collapses in steel buildings were unrealistic for any steel frame building, contradicting an assumption that had been made previously in concerns of safety. This is the kind of stuff standing in the way of the "official story" that everyone is either totally in the dark about, or else ignores when I bring it up.

I think the fact that most civil engineers and scientists in the world aren't speaking out in support of the conspiracy theory (which could, if true, get them fame and fortune) is a testament to it not being true, though.

You don't get fame and fortune for exposing a massive conspiracy. You get fired, because engineering departments are federally funded, and there have been similar fiascos in the past. Kevin Ryan was fired from Underwriters Laboratories when he wrote NIST's investigators and brought up how fantastic their theory of massive column failure in

ok i have to ask cuz this question is just hanging out there like a lead balloon...and u know im not trying to be a smartass, im genuinly curious.

how, cuz this really puzzles me, did the thermite burn long enough to cut the beams (cuz even at 5000 degrees, it STILL has to burn long enough to cut through the steel, it wont be instant, caloric theory covers that one) and stil not consume itself so as to be able to somehow skip lots of things in the way and melt JUST the front half of some cars, or in the example you mentioned, set fire to a parking lot?

was it JUST the cars on fire or was even the asphalt on fire?

im kind of wondering if anyone anywhere has explained that one?

other than judy's "BIG FRIGGIN LAZERS!!!"

Originally posted by piacenza
Hey Coven once you write and speak 6 languages please come back to me and start criticizing my English.
Its kind of obvious why you stand on your position, I would do the same if I were on you.
There are obvious conflict of interest and you are doing what is best for you and the people like you.

As usual no one really answers any of the most obvious discrepancies of 911.
They are impossible to be answered:

Please give us an explanation of the Meteor found at the basement.
PLease give us a scientific explanation of why WTC7 felt. Or at least give us a credible source.
So do you agree that flight 93 was brought down?
Thats a first.
Please explain me the 5 Israelis jumping and having a blast on 911.
Did you as well made a party that night?
They were there simply documenting the event.
I repeat I do not care at all if 911 truth comes out it might actually be better to let the events unfold and just keep watching.
What I cant stand is that people like you that know very well the truth try to push their own agenda for political interest.
So just move on. Nothing you can prove in here. NOTHING.
This goes as well for your little friends with the same motive as yours.


By way of deception, thou shalt do war

[edit on 15-3-2007 by piacenza]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by piacenza]

Dude... you need to see a therapist for one of these three things... Godcomplex... Anger Control... and possibly Bi-polarity... nobody attacked you...

all I did was point out that people on this forum (like the original poster, and myself) do not believe 9-11 was a covert US Military/black op operation... For you to get so upset that you cannot form an understandable sentence in the English Language is not my problem...

if you would Like I could babelfish about 90 different languages for you... In this day and age claims of intellect over the internet are not validated by statements, and typing... Show me a degree, because even if you are European 9 languages is a bit much for a standard student.

I do not know any languages besides English and French. Sorry you must be better than me because you have a global dialect. I am a Physics Major, with a minor in Anthropology/ Archaeology. I have 3 years remaining of B.A. Studies,4 years of Masters work, and then 5-7 years of Ph.d work, I have no degrees and claim no knowledge that isn't available to anyone else.

so in a basic surmation dude lay off me, all I was saying was you've posted like 9 posts that nobody could understand what you were trying to say. Now all of a sudden your English is near perfect... INTERESTING...

I am not claiming to be a specialist, but I am allowed my opinion formed by my research (watched almost every 9-11 conspiracy documentary there is, only one has shown me anything truly valid, and that was Farenheit 9-11...) it shows the real conspiracy, but more that bush is an idiot than that bush is evil and allowed 3000 americans to die to jusify a war throughout the Middle East... This is my OPINION... I'm allow to have it... If you don't like it, NOT MY PROBLEM.

ohhh and as a southerner, let me get redneck for a moment...

Don't ever question my patriotism you ****DEEP BREATH*****, My family has spilled more blood for this country (and likely YOURS) than you could fathom. I have documentation my family was one of the PILGRIMS of this Country, like MAYFLOWER... I AM A REAL AMERICAN.... 25% Welsh (mayflower group) 25% Native American 25% German (5th Generation American) 25% Dutch (questionable, have heard 10th Generation American,
Nothing to proof part of Leif Garrets first canadian settlement.figure 5th there as well)
Don't EVER QUESTION MY LOVE OF MY COUNTRY...


Coven


~a True patriot loves his country, but fears his government~

Originally posted by coven
Don't EVER QUESTION MY LOVE OF MY COUNTRY...


.............


~a True patriot loves his country, but fears his government~

cant say i disagree with you anywhere but your last sentance and thats where all of our problems lie (i mean the population of the us)

its the govt that should fear us. they are our servants not the other way around. somewhere along the line both the govt and the citizens forgot that.

Connected,

I admire your passion. You are fearless. I appreciate people who aren't afraid to speak out.

Troy

CNN's own video PROVES there were no boeing planes

see here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by bsbray11
If it takes 10 pounds of coarse thermite to produce enough heat to "cut" a column, a much finer reaction that produces 100x the heat per some standard amount of thermite would only require 1/10th of a pound of thermite. I would venture that the particle size is also directly proportional to the amount of heat put off by the heat given off by a standard amount of thermite undergoing a thermite reaction. Does that not make sense to you?

Did you read that somewhere? Because I'm like 99.99% sure that's not true.

The thermite producing 100 times more heat, won't mean you can use 1% of it as normal. Because it's also going to burn proportionally faster and require more of it to make up for that.

No you wouldn't. What do you think contains molten iron/steel when its being produced? There's insulation that will take the heat and not deteriorate. I can't remember what it is off the top of my head but I think it's something to do with carbon.

It's going to be big enough that you wouldn't be able to hide it inside a wall around a column easily.

Unexplainable fire damage? You mean like the tons of vehicles blocks away from the towers that caught on fire?

I mean like, every time they turned over a debris pile, they'd find half-burned thermite surrounded by a huge burned area of debris and melted stuff. They didn't find that. There would have been pictures. Hundreds of people were watching the cleanup, taking pictures, etc.

Don't even pretend you knew what the column ends looked like, because most of that was already hauled out before anyone got to examine anything as part of an investigation.

I've never seen a steel column cut by thermite, but I have seen it used. I would be able to tell the difference between a column that was cut with a cutting torch, and one with thermite. It would be obvious even to someone who has never heard of thermite in their life. It would look REALLY OBVIOUS.

Not to mention, all these dozens of cut columns would still have their incendiary devices attached (or nearby in the rubble), and would have the super-secret device that allows thermite to burn sideways there as well.


So why weren't dozens of columns pulled out of the debris during cleanup that had incendiary devices attached to them, with the column melted off just above or below them, and a huge burn area surrounding them? And don't give me any stuff about they got it out of there too quick. Hundreds of people, if not more, observed the cleanup. SOMEBODY would've noticed that. They couldn't have pulled all the columns out of the rubble, surrounded by witnesses, without anyone seeing or getting a picture.

I don't how it can be any plainer. Thermite could not have been used and covered up in a million years.

I mean, you guys should be happy. I'm a debunker that's conceding that explosives are at least possible. I don't believe it for a second, but at least explosives are theoretically possible. Thermite isn't--not even close.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Originally posted by piacenza
You guys are super funny the rules should be enforced for spreading known false informations.
You do that in purpose.
Plus how can you be at work at make all those posting.
I am very positive you must be a minor otherwise I have no clue how you can write what you do.

Some of us work in self owned businesses where we get a check for sitting behind a computer half the day... eventually if you had the chance you'd end up on here a lot too...




Coven Out

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by coven
Don't EVER QUESTION MY LOVE OF MY COUNTRY...


.............


~a True patriot loves his country, but fears his government~

cant say i disagree with you anywhere but your last sentance and thats where all of our problems lie (i mean the population of the us)

its the govt that should fear us. they are our servants not the other way around. somewhere along the line both the govt and the citizens forgot that.

True... But the reason Thomas Jefferson Said the quote I used is because he was making the point that the Government is always the point of Corruption in the country.
I agree they should fear us. They Should fear me at the very least because I intend to take the machine apart from the inside out.

I think the government mainly has forgotten it... I believe a majority of the citizenry don't trust the government.

Coven out

Use the Ignore feature. It really does help to filter out the noise.
I don't know how you all can stand to even read (insert italian sounding twits name)



[edit on 16-3-2007 by Smack]

Originally posted by Smack
Use the Ignore feature. It really does help to filter out the noise.
I don't know how you all can stand to even read (insert italian sounding twits name)



[edit on 16-3-2007 by Smack]

Haven't Used one yet... just for the point blank statement/helper to us Noobs...

Way Above Top Secret Award Vote!


Coven

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79
I don't listen to all these people trying to counter claim what the other guy says

You should, man. There is no merit to the controlled demolition stuff. None whatsoever.

and see that two buildings came down at freefall speed

And that's because a single floor of the WTC isn't strong enough offer almost any resistance to the mass and inertia of 20 stories of building falling onto it all at once. They gave out instantly. It's like the entire floor got hit by a falling building all at once. Buildings' floors are strong, but they aren't that strong.

two of which are the only two in history to do so due to the cause.

They're also the only two in history to have their load-bearing columns sheared by a crashing aircraft. They're also the only two in history to have the fire-proofing ripped off the columns by an aircraft and left to burn.

Two buildings came down in a perfect demolition pattern, without collapsing all those around them, and building 7 came down, not being hit by a plane at all.

The collapse started 3/4 of the way up the building. Why would you expect it to fall anything but straight down considering that?

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

This is the first time I've seen these points brought about on this board. It's really a shame that people get so wrapped up in their "fire has never caused the collapse of steel framed buildings" arguement to realize that not only was there fire, but a great impact that preceded it...
And the freefall speed point...as you said, do you honestly think that one floor will support the weight when twenty floors above it just collapsed on top of it? And remember, as each floor collapses more and more weight is placed on the floor beneath that. So it may have started off as a slower collapse, but gained momentum as more and more weight was added...

I'm still undecided as to what exactly happened on 9/11, but I do know there are a lot of crazy people out there who are way to eager to spew out any "facts" that an internet conspiracy video feeds them.

Originally posted by DOcean
And the freefall speed point...as you said, do you honestly think that one floor will support the weight when twenty floors above it just collapsed on top of it? And remember, as each floor collapses more and more weight is placed on the floor beneath that. So it may have started off as a slower collapse, but gained momentum as more and more weight was added...

Whether or not the floor would ever collapse is irrelevant for two reasons: we're not considering it, and even if we did, we would consider the loads on support columns, not floor loads. Floors don't hold buildings up. Columns do. Columns will not fail dead even with floors simply because the floors are falling.

But anyway, we're not considering whether or not the floor (ie all the support columns WITHIN a floor area, not the floor itself per se) could fail at all with the acceleration point, but how such a building's supports could telescope down into itself without any force acting upwards to resist it. It takes a lot of force to fail steel. Taking the energy out from the falling mass's kinetic energy to do so would necessarily cause the velocity of the collapse to decelerate. This is dictated by physics! So then why isn't this fact reflected by the collapse acceleration? The building accelerated downward as if nothing but air or less was beneath it.

That being just one issue. The symmetry is another problem, because you can't throw crap anywhere onto a building, and set fires anywhere, and just have all the supports fail simultaneously in all 4 corners so that they all come down together at the same time.

It was on fire, and it was damaged, but that doesn't mean anything goes and we're not going to worry about it anymore. That building did not fall as it should have if it was falling purely because of its own kinetic energy gained from columns weakened from fire. I don't guess any of you are read-up enough to realize that the projected impact damages aren't anywhere close to the structural components they would've had to have hit to have caused the responsible failure that NIST is still trying to imagine up.