Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

We were all suprised, no doubting that, but as yet there is unsubstantial evidence backing your claims, the majority is easily debunked and the more people actually do self study instead of watching Avery or Jones, the quicker they will see for themselves that some of the allegations are ridiculous, and no wonder not taken seriously..
Some allegations i will say hold water, but with the " No Planers " and hologram peeps as well as the Thermite charges, the real truthers dont stand a chance.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
We were all suprised, no doubting that, but as yet there is unsubstantial evidence backing your claims, the majority is easily debunked and the more people actually do self study instead of watching Avery or Jones, the quicker they will see for themselves that some of the allegations are ridiculous, and no wonder not taken seriously..
Some allegations i will say hold water, but with the " No Planers " and hologram peeps as well as the Thermite charges, the real truthers dont stand a chance.

Its just too bad that poeple who beleive the official story do not do enough research to find out about the information that is missing or left out.

Like why the WTC buildings are the only steel buildings in history to collapse from fire when their hav been builidngs that have had longer lasting fires and suffered more structural damage and did not collapse.

And the following:

1. No FBI and NTSB crime scene reports on any of the 911 crime scenes

2. No official reason from NIST on why builidng 7 collapsed.

3. No report matching the parts found at the Pentagon to Flight 77.

4. No report on where the parts found at the Pentagon were taken.

5. No report on the 2 distinct debris fields left by Flight 93 and why they were so far away from the crash site.



[edit on 13-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I hope nobody in their right mind will start the almost inevitable discussion, that this video is a fake. But anyway.

To me there was never any denying that planes hit the towers, what type etc. I do not really care about, because no mather which I find the resulting way the building collapsed very suspicious(which doesn't really mean anything). Now this video should give me more proof that the building just collapsed on itself. But I see it this way:

If I show you a video of a Car crashing into another car and then ask you what you just saw. You might reply that you saw an accident caused by one car colliding with the other.

But when I then rewind the tape 10 sec. before the point I just showed you, You can see a car, being hit by a Truck which send the car slamming into the other car. Bang, the accident is suddenly caused by the Truck.

All I'm trying to say is, I think there is an great possibility that the towers did fall because of structual failure and this video is a good start. If we would be able to build op a collection of video's like this one, we could without a doubt prove what happend.

Until then, I'll still be looking for those 10 missing seconds


[edit on 13/6/2007 by LoDGiKaL]

Originally posted by LoDGiKaL
All I'm trying to say is, I think there is an great possibility that the towers did fall because of structual failure and this video is a good start. If we would be able to build op a collection of video's like this one, we could without a doubt prove what happend.

Until then, I'll still be looking for those 10 missing seconds

[edit on 13/6/2007 by LoDGiKaL]

Problem is the 3 buildings at the WTC that collapsed have been the only steel buildings in history to collapse from fires.

Thier have been other steel buildings that have burned for longer the 3 WTC buildings put together and suffered more structural damage and they did not collapse.

Just look at buildings 5 and 6, they were closer to the towers had more structural damage then building 7 and had worse fires but they did not collapse.

This was unprecedented in nature. We have nothing to compare this to.
Never before has a 100 story steel building been hit by a fully fueled up plane.
What research? This is the first of this magnitude. Nothing can be fact.

Maybe they should build a duplicate building in a desert and ram it with a plane so we can see what happens.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Its just too bad that poeple who beleive the official story do not do enough research to find out about the information that is missing or left out.

Like why the WTC buildings are the only steel buildings in history to collapse from fire when their hav been builidngs that have had longer lasting fires and suffered more structural damage and did not collapse.

And the following:

1. No FBI and NTSB crime scene reports on any of the 911 crime scenes

2. No official reason from NIST on why builidng 7 collapsed.

3. No report matching the parts found at the Pentagon to Flight 77.

4. No report on where the parts found at the Pentagon were taken.

5. No report on the 2 distinct debris fields left by Flight 93 and why they were so far away from the crash site.



[edit on 13-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by sandman658
This was unprecedented in nature. We have nothing to compare this to.
Never before has a 100 story steel building been hit by a fully fueled up plane.
What research? This is the first of this magnitude. Nothing can be fact.

Maybe they should build a duplicate building in a desert and ram it with a plane so we can see what happens.

Thats not correct, we can look at steel buildings that have had longer fires and suffered structural damage and see that they did not collapse.

Also the Empire State building was hit by a B-25 , had structural damage and fires and it did not collapse.

As stated by the NIST and FEMA reports the buildings withstood the impacts by the planes. Also most of the fuel was burned off in the intial exploston outside the buildings, what was left burned off quickly. So that only leaves normal office fires as the cuase of the collapse, and we can research and see that no other steel building has collapsed from fire.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse


Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things

[edit on 13-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

A very important piece of video tape . To anyone with good eyes and common sense , this shows and PROVES that the start of the collapse is
directly at the point of impact of the plane . 6 years for someone here
to post this particular video clip and to state the obvious . Thank you .
I , for one , applaud and appreciate this .. But im sure the nay-sayers will
turn a blind eye as usual .

[edit on 13-6-2007 by gen.disaray]

Molten steel for weeks underneath the structure,cant be aluminum.Its great that everyone will point out the melting temp.Keep in mind it cools with a similar ratio to the melting temp.Steel would stay molten much longer,aluminum wouls solidify almost instantly.As a welder,I see cooling metal and melted metal,all day every day,While it does not make me an expert here's a trick for you.Pull the aluminum foil from off a baked potato,notice its cooled before it hits the counter?Either a heat source was present in the basement for weeks or that was not aluminum.Or I am off base somewhere.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I have never seen it posted before, or seen this footage. It really does seem to debunk the CD theories.. For a CD of such magnitude the explosions would of had to be titanic..

First, I'd like to say that this is not "proof" that there was no CD.

Let me ask you some questions.

1. Theoretically, if somehow "they" were able to sever the core at certain locations, where do you think the collapse would initiate?

On the floors where the core was severed that had all exterior columns intact?

or

At the impact zone where the planes have damaged the exterior columns?

I'll give you my professional opinion (and you can find any engineer you want to dispute what I say). It would still collapse at the impact zone. Why? Because that is where the exterior columns were damaged and we all know that a chain breaks at it's weakest link.

To clarify. The loads were distributed fairly evenly I have heard between the core and the exterior columns. Take out the core and you are left with the exterior columns taking all the load. Since this and the plane damage would be enough for the tower to start to collapse, the collapse would initiate at the impact zones.

Without the core being taken out in some way (and I'll concede that it could have been the plane damage/jet fuel etc. that took out the core just for arguments sake here) the towers would not have globally collapsed.

Oh, BTW, it's an old video that I have seen a plethura of times.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
If it was CD, the twist is an uncanny coincidence that it happened milliseconds prior to collapse.

Not if the core was taken down to intentionally initiate collapse at the impact zone exterior columns.

If it was CD, there would of been massive explosions, noone would of been in any doubt to as what happened, but im afraid this did not happen.
Thankyou for your worthy contribution

So, you are a CD expert that knows for a fact all the things available to use for a CD? Not even Damocles would state such a thing.

[edit on 6/13/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
link
wtc.nist.gov...

NIST is wrong plain and simple. Dr. Jones has done many experiments trying to copy the so called organics in the aluminum. The aluminum and materials, in reality world, seperate and do NOT appear to be a homogeneous orange. Actually, the aluminum stays silver.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So your saying the witnesses that stated they saw molten steel (like the firemen, demo and excavation teams) are all wrong or lieing ?

Not to mention the main structural engineer himself, Leslie Robinson. But, I guess they are all idiots and don't know the difference between steel and aluminum.

[edit on 6/13/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by sandman658
This was unprecedented in nature. We have nothing to compare this to.
Never before has a 100 story steel building been hit by a fully fueled up plane.
What research? This is the first of this magnitude. Nothing can be fact.

For starters, try looking into the Cardington tests. They proved (pre-9/11) that steel framed structures (even without fireproofing) do not globally collapse due to fire.

[edit on 6/13/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by gen.disaray
A very important piece of video tape . To anyone with good eyes and common sense , this shows and PROVES that the start of the collapse is
directly at the point of impact of the plane . 6 years for someone here
to post this particular video clip and to state the obvious . Thank you .
I , for one , applaud and appreciate this .. But im sure the nay-sayers will
turn a blind eye as usual .

[edit on 13-6-2007 by gen.disaray]

Never turning a blind eye. It does not prove no CD. It is not obvious. It is common sense that the towers would initiate the collapse at the impact zones.

I have been saying this since I registered here. Talk about turning a blind eye.

The name of this thread is "Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo" but I only saw the video. What am I missing?

Before you can say there wasn't a demo because charges didn't go off before they fell, you have to prove for 1 that there weren't any explosions beforehand (something witness accounts dispute), and for 2 that it logically follows in all cases that when one cannot plainly see multitudes of explosives of any sort going off, then therefore none are inside a very massive building.


As Griff implied, if you simply cut all the core columns on a certain floor, what do you think would happen? You would initiate a demolition from the inside of the building and the outer columns would not be able to support their loads anymore and would fail also. It would also look very natural from the outside.

As the collapse progressed down floors, there were many rows of very tidy expulsions that came out in uniform lengths and in rows simultaneously or barely offset, often in what appeared to be a pre-timed, regular sequence. Most of these were probably obscured by free-falling debris, but there exists video from ground-level and also other video and photographs of larger expulsions from earlier on in the collapses.

The original said video does not even come close to proving "no demolition", so im not going to waste my time on this thread.. evidently the OP still has some things to learn, or some agendas to deal with

The evidence clearly points to a controlled demolition. Videos of the towers collapse clearly show the buildings simply disintegrating into powder and steel beams.. and a small portion of the core remaining, then collapsing 10 seconds or so after the rest of the building is already pulverized.

The molten metal in the basement is evidence of extreme heat being produced. Logic will tell you that this was not from any plane impact or jet fuel fire.. its in the basement, some 70 floors below the impact zone. Not possible, no debate.

Was it thermite/ate? IMHO, no. I do not think that is capable of reducing two 110 story office buildings into powder and steel.. nor do i think conventional explosives could have achieved such thorough pulverization. Your looking at some exotic demolitions, that you can be sure of. My opinion, micronukes were responsible, provided by Israel.


WTC 7 was clearly demolished.. yet you claim that WTC 1 and 2 were NOT..

Yeh, im sure your intentions are really honest

Griff
Please show me one done on a 100 story steel building setup like the WTC and the same WTC like "events" occurring. I don't think you can really compare.
That is my point.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by sandman658
This was unprecedented in nature. We have nothing to compare this to.
Never before has a 100 story steel building been hit by a fully fueled up plane.
What research? This is the first of this magnitude. Nothing can be fact.

For starters, try looking into the Cardington tests. They proved (pre-9/11) that steel framed structures (even without fireproofing) do not globally collapse due to fire.

[edit on 6/13/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by sandman658
Griff
Please show me one done on a 100 story steel building setup like the WTC and the same WTC like "events" occurring. I don't think you can really compare.
That is my point.

It doesn't matter if it was 1,000 stories. the tests concluded that in a fire, steel frames will bend and warp but they will NEVER globally collapse. That is my point.

a plane, full of jet fuel, slams into a building at 500 mph, and you do not think that i "might" collapse?? To me it is almost like when a car crashes into a house and knocks it off its foundation a little. Then to have such an intense fire, with the building not 100% structurally sound anymore, of course it might collapse. And no we really do not have anything to compare this to. No event like this has ever happened before, so we need to figure out why, scientifically how and why they fell, if at all possible. Like a previous post stated, build a WTC in the desert and crash some planes full of fuel, going 500mph into the heart of the building and tell me it is not coming down!!!

Originally posted by Cosmocow
a plane, full of jet fuel, slams into a building at 500 mph, and you do not think that i "might" collapse??

You misunderstand me. I said globally collapse. I would except partial collapses and such but a global collapse, I have a hard time with.

To me it is almost like when a car crashes into a house and knocks it off its foundation a little.

When did the plane knock the building out of it's foundation?

Then to have such an intense fire, with the building not 100% structurally sound anymore, of course it might collapse.

Exactly, collapses but not a global collapse.

And no we really do not have anything to compare this to. No event like this has ever happened before, so we need to figure out why, scientifically how and why they fell, if at all possible. Like a previous post stated, build a WTC in the desert and crash some planes full of fuel, going 500mph into the heart of the building and tell me it is not coming down!!!

And what happens when the structure doesn't globally collapse? I know. You guys will say "it wasn't the perfect replica, so we can't use it as a comparison".