Proof Positive: WTC-Controlled Demolition

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis

Tabloids? Holocaust deniers? What the hell are you talking about?

Sounds like a last ditch attempt, sad.

Edit, I just realized all the other fine posts by fellow ATSer's. Good on them, the cavalry arrived...at least that's how I've felt when dealing with Snoopy.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

Tabloids yes. you do understand what tabloids are correct? A couple examples would be Prison planet, Whatreallyhappened.com, etc etc.

Are you going to suggest that Chris Bollyn who is the author of the majority of the 9/11 conspiracy articles is not a holocaust denier? It sounds like you yourself may be in a little bit of denial here. i suggest maybe you do a little research on some of the people whom you are getting your information from.

Feel free to pretend this is some popularity contest if that's your desire, but I stick to simple facts and logic.

Originally posted by Trigger82

Could they have been set off on purpose at time of impact or did the planes somehow set the trigger from electrical shorts etc.

As I said it was just a theroy

That would be impossible. The impacts would destroy the demolitions and their critical locations. Not to mention the collapses occurred over an hour after the impact, not upon impact.

Also, the claim of explosives being built into a building made by some is unfounded. Even if it were possible, and done for legitimate purposes (as opposed to someone building the building with the intent of destroying it so as to go to war 30 years later), this would all be in the design and known by the many people designing and engineering the building.

Originally posted by Damocles
i have to agree with you on your points soloist. and ill even add as a response to the guys that are sure im a disinfo agent. IF the debris i circled in that pic i posted were being accellerated faster than freefall, um, wheres the corresponding explosions for that? do people realize just exactly how much HE it would take to do that? ive posted calculations no one wants to try to refute so their response is that im a disinfo agent.

Yes, where are the explosions for that, the ones shooting debris downwards, and where are the horizontal ejections of material (not the plumes) flying through the air, or shooting upwards? They don't exist because it's not explosives, it's debris falling down, faster than the building because the building is not falling at a"freefall" speed.

I'm laughing about someone calling you a "disinfo agent" , geez, will the madness ever end?

I guess with their mindset it's hard to fathom someone may disagree and have a different point of view on an anonymous forum on the internet.

Good work Nola213 and Spacevisitor, bringing the clear evidence of the explosions and so on. Without you I think the truth-debunk-squad here on ATS would have got their way with this thread. They are really denying every material that is presented to them and appair to in no way looking into the things that is crystal clear and only take up the matter they can use for their own benefit instead of looking at the WHOLE picture.

People who say that the towers just "fell" clearly overlooks:

*The rate which the towers fall
*The tons of explosions recorded on audio, not to mention also picked up on earthquake readers (note that!)
*The many people who where ON location and talking about the explosions they have heard. Even a reporter on live TV reported several explosions in the building
*The quite visible flashes all around the building.
*The lava like metal flowing out from one the first tower (Which only thermite can do)
*The fact that the airplanes where not airliners. With an unknown object mounted underneath.
*The fact that WTC 1 2 and 7 are the first steel buildings in history to fall due to fire, and in less then 2 hours. (official story that is...)

Originally posted by InSaneTK
*The tons of explosions recorded on audio, not to mention also picked up on earthquake readers (note that!)

Ohhh, noted! Now if you please don't mind giving us that evidence of "tons of explosions" recorded on audio, I would love to analyze it. Since there is none on this video, and the comparisons have the audio track taken out.

*The many people who where ON location and talking about the explosions they have heard. Even a reporter on live TV reported several explosions in the building

Were they in the building? Or were they at the base of the towers when the explosions were heard? I would love to see any evidence of this for analysis also, since the videos I have seen from the base of the tower have no explosions in the audio track, nor the one that the firecrews were filming from inside the first tower when it came down have no explosions in the audio, just a surprised look on their faces as the building started to rumble down as they ran for cover in the basement. (Yes, they survived)

*The quite visible flashes all around the building.

Yah see that's the ones I'm talking about the ones around the building, that are up in the air, and above the tower as it comes down and such, that cannot be demo charge flashes. Strangely enough they don't make any sounds either...

Someone should really patent the floating silent explosives!

*The lava like metal flowing out from one the first tower (Which only thermite can do)

Or lava can do...but I think the same chance of lava flowing out of a wall in the middle of the air is about the same as it being thermite - 0%.

Wasn't the thermite supposed to be placed on the core columns anyhow? At the base? Why in the world would it be on the outside of a wall?

*The fact that the airplanes where not airliners. With an unknown object mounted underneath.

Yah, no way they were airliners. I mean not like there's any video or photo's or dead passengers, or eyewitnesses or plane parts that contradict all of that. Oh wait...

*The fact that WTC 1 2 and 7 are the first steel buildings in history to fall due to fire, and in less then 2 hours. (official story that is...)

Actually I think the "official story" as you call it, or reality as it's better known to some, states the the towers fell from airplanes carrying fuel smashing into towers 1 and 2, causing structural damage and fires on several floors which eventually led to their collapse, and building 7 fell due to debris from the previous 2 towers landing on it and causing fires as well.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

reply to post by InSaneTK


Thanks InSaneTK, but I am only an supporter of this excellent post of Nola213.
If he not had started this thread, I probably missed this in my view very important information.
And therefore he deserves all the credits for it.

reply to post by Soloist


Hi Soloist,
There are only three reasons why you can’t here the explosions.

1. You don’t want to here them.
2. You have hearing problems of what I really not hope.
3. You don’t believe all those people, reporters, civilians, fire-fighters, policemen and on who speaks about explosions.

www.youtube.com...

youtube.com...

Even the reporters on CNN hears them.

www.youtube.com...
Even people in the building hears them.

video.google.nl...

How many footage do you want with explosions?



[edit on 31/10/07 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 31/10/07 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 31/10/07 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by spacevisitor
reply to post by InSaneTK

 

Thanks InSaneTK, but I am only an supporter of this excellent post of Nola213.
If he not had started this thread, I probably missed this in my view very important information.
And therefore he deserves all the credits for it.

Thanks for the thought Vis. Though I think InsaneTK and yourself, and Twitchy have taken this thread to where it is now,you all seems to have better debating skills than I, and much thicker skin to deal with people who cannot see right whats in from off their eyes.

I will not name names, but points like it was an bad electical main that caused molten steel to pour out of the corner of near exactly where the plane with the "unusual" pod attachment hit?

1)Electric shorts will not melt steel, they will short out and blow and that will be the end of it, they WILL NOT continue to melt steel for over 30 minutes, thats what breakers are for. I've worked in constructionfor 15 years, although as a plumber, but I have knowledge of what goes where. In large buildings, they do not put electrical mains on the outside corners or walls of the bulding. all that "important" stuff goes in the basement, and up through the middle of the building. The middle where all these explosives were placed, that are well conceled when the building starts to fall. As the movie said they did a decent job of covering up the CD, but not good enough.

2)They found Molten steel, chuncks, balls of the stuff, they even have one the size of friggin Pee-Wee Hermans tinfoil ball on display for anyone to see, solid Molten steel. Kerosene does not burn hot enough to do this. My guess is that pod was filled with Thermite/thermate. I bet the first plane had a similiar pod, but it was only captured in the Naude't film, and its not clear enough to say for sure something nefarious is attached to that plane. But If I was a better man....

-so give credit to Soloist, because he's debating with these people . I cannot debate with for one reason or another.

I swear the whole hologramand Fake plane nonsense has really ruined the truth movement. I've been here only a few months and when i first got here it seemed 80% of the board was a truther, until they gave Mr. Lear his own forum, and he started talking about holograms. that was about 6-8 weeks ago. Now it seems only 30% if that of the people on this board are with the truth movement.

Disinfo anyone?



[edit on 31-10-2007 by Nola213]

[edit on 31-10-2007 by Nola213]

[edit on 31-10-2007 by Nola213]

As usual, people are associating explosions with demolitions. As I have stated time and again there is not one single piece of physical evidence to support the demolition theory. Obviously there are going to be explosion sounds in a collapsing building. The sources to cause these sounds are abundant. The only source that there is no evidence of what so ever is explosives.

So simply saying that explosion sounds proves there are explosives is not a valid argument. It's nothing more than far out assumption. Just as there is no evidence of molten steel, only metal and a lot of people assuming it must be steel because that's what they want to believe.

Originally posted by snoopy
As usual, people are associating explosions with demolitions.

LOL... Ya think? What are demolition charges made of? Jig Saws?

And another thing, there was MOLTEN STEEL in the WTC rubble, sorry, but that's not even debated anymore except by those who refuse to listen to the experts who were contracted to clean up the WTC complex, it is one piece of physical evidence that DOES exsist. Sorry but you're waaaaaay off there. Not metal, Steel. Molten steel.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by twitchy]

Originally posted by twitchy

LOL... Ya think? What are demolition charges made of? Jig Saws?

And another thing, there was MOLTEN STEEL in the WTC rubble, sorry, but that's not even debated anymore except by those who refuse to listen to the experts who were contracted to clean up the WTC complex, it is one piece of physical evidence that DOES exsist. Sorry but you're waaaaaay off there. Not metal, Steel. Molten steel.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by twitchy]

So you are claiming that all explosion sounds are made by explosives, and nothing BUT explosives can cause the sound of rapidly moving air? Can you go on record and state this to be clear?

And as for your MOLTEN STEEL claim, go ahead and prove it. Show us the proof there was molten steel. Show us the proof that you didn't see pictures o molten metal and just assume it was steel. Or that you heard from a witness that simply assumed it was steel.

Please oh please, tell us which "experts" are making these claims. And while listing their names, please show us their metalurgy credentials as well.

If I am so way off, then this should be pretty easy for you. I am really excited to hear your theory on how only demolitions can cause an explosion sound.

You can twist what I said around all you like, you're the one making ridiculous analogies. As to the presence of molten steel, who has more credibility, you or these guys?
"Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center."
"AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. ... He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC"
Quote are so well known I didn't even bother to source them in the hopes that snoopy might actually bother to look them up.

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by snoopy
As usual, people are associating explosions with demolitions.

LOL... Ya think? What are demolition charges made of? Jig Saws?

Made of Jig Saws , that's a good one twitchy.
But serious, even that must be possible if they dipped them in nitro first right?

Originally posted by twitchy
You can twist what I said around all you like, you're the one making ridiculous analogies. As to the presence of molten steel, who has more credibility, you or these guys?
"Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center."
"AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. ... He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC"
Quote are so well known I didn't even bother to source them in the hopes that snoopy might actually bother to look them up.

So then what are you saying about the explosions? You claim the proof is that people heard explosions. So how do you know those sounds were from demolitions and not the 100s of other sources there which cause explosion sounds? How is that twisting your words? I would like your explanation of how you can know that the explosion sounds came from demolitions.

Let's look at your molten Steel sources.

"I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with." - Mark Loizeaux

So Mark didn't see any molten steel. Someone reported it. but who? And what testing did they use to determine the makeup of the material as opposed to just assuming it was steel? Clearly he wouldn't have the need to hire a metalurgist. So we're talking about a demolition crew most likely. And what expertise would they have on determining the material make up of a melted metal. How can you know that someone didn't just assume it was steel? How can you verify that it was actually steel? Someone claiming to report it, is not going to hold up on a scientific level.

And for Tullly? He's just repeating what Mark said. So now you have the telephone game to make things worse. you have a source that got it from a source that got it form a source, etc. Who knows how many people it went through and how much the claim was miscommunicated in the process.

So I ask again, what is this evidence of there being molten steel. And more importantly, how is this suspicious? I assume this goes to the good old thermite conspiracy theory as evidence. However, metal staying melted for months is not a trait of thermite. Quite the opposite in fact as while thermite can quickly raise the temperature of a metal, it also drops just as fast. Even the examples of thermite explosions used on conspiracy tabloid sites prove this.

So clearly some clarification is needed if this isn't all just based on assumptions.

Ok snoopy, proove there WAS NOT molten steel at ground zero. As to what I'm saying about explosives, do you know how absolutely ridiculous you're being?

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by snoopy
As usual, people are associating explosions with demolitions.

LOL... Ya think? What are demolition charges made of? Jig Saws?

Now that's all i said, and somehow you were able to construe...

Originally posted by snoopy
So you are claiming that all explosion sounds are made by explosives, and nothing BUT explosives can cause the sound of rapidly moving air? Can you go on record and state this to be clear?
If I am so way off, then this should be pretty easy for you. I am really excited to hear your theory on how only demolitions can cause an explosion sound.

Originally posted by snoopy
So then what are you saying about the explosions? You claim the proof is that people heard explosions. So how do you know those sounds were from demolitions and not the 100s of other sources there which cause explosion sounds? How is that twisting your words? I would like your explanation of how you can know that the explosion sounds came from demolitions.

Now maybe you can explain to me how you got all that out of what I said about jigsaws?
As to molten steel, again your arguing out of your tail end unless you can proove there wasn't molten steel there. The people that were contracted to clean up the site said there was, they do it for a living and I would think they would know a pool of molten steel when they see one. Do you honestly think your word is to be taken above the word of demolition experts and clean up crews that were actually there? They said there was molten steel there, I've seen pictures of the molten steel from the clean up, and they have pieces of steel that show exposure to sufficient temperatures to melt it.
As to your claim about how fast thermate cools down, you do know that the WTC site was hot for months and months afterwards? You demonstrate a profound ignorance here with that little diddy.

Ok snoopy, proove there WAS NOT molten steel at ground zero. As to what I'm saying about explosives, do you know how absolutely ridiculous you're being?

You want me to prove something that doesn't exist? That's a double-negative. The burden o proof lays on the person making the claim. That would be you. You are calling me ridiculous yet you are asking people to prove something that doesn't exist? I think you may need to re-think your logic here.

Now that's all i said, and somehow you were able to construe...

Great. So then you agree that the sounds of explosions are not evidence of demolitions. Can you confirm that?

Now maybe you can explain to me how you got all that out of what I said about jigsaws?
As to molten steel, again your arguing out of your tail end unless you can proove there wasn't molten steel there. The people that were contracted to clean up the site said there was, they do it for a living and I would think they would know a pool of molten steel when they see one. Do you honestly think your word is to be taken above the word of demolition experts and clean up crews that were actually there? They said there was molten steel there, I've seen pictures of the molten steel from the clean up, and they have pieces of steel that show exposure to sufficient temperatures to melt it.
As to your claim about how fast thermate cools down, you do know that the WTC site was hot for months and months afterwards? You demonstrate a profound ignorance here with that little diddy.

Again, with my now having to prove there wasn't something that didn't exist. Nice. LOL!

Yes people were contracted to clean up the site. How does that qualify them to determine the contents of a molten metal? What equipment did they use? Why would you think they would know what type of metals are contained in a pool of molten metal? Even a metalurgist couldn't do this by site. Yet somehow you believe people with no expertise in this area somehow can? You have seen pictures of molten steel. And you know it's steel how? Perhaps you can share the pictures and show exactly how you are the first person in the world to be able to determine material makeup from just a photo.

Yes I do know that the WTC was hot for months. As I was pointing out, that pretty much alone debunks the claim of thermite. So you seem to think that this metal which you can't prove is steel is suspicious. What does it show? And what happened to all the metal which melts at a much lower temperature? How did all those other metals simply disappear?

Again, please provide us with proof of molten steel. If you do, you will be the first person ever to do it. And please prove there were demolitions causing the explosion sounds.

Originally posted by snoopy
You want me to prove something that doesn't exist? That's a double-negative. The burden o proof lays on the person making the claim.

So you're not making any claims then? That's an excuse snoopy, a poor one that just doesn't fly here, or anywhere else except for your own perceptions perhaps, but in all honesty, do you have anything besides excuses and demands? Can you proove what you are saying? Do you have any evidence at all to the contrary, or are you doing the same damned thing you go around accusing others of?
Look no further than your own meanderings here on this thread, you're trying to tell me a metallurigst doesn't know what steel looks like? you're telling me that the people who clean up controlled demolitions for a living don't know what molten steel is? Your saying that thermite cools rapidly, and that's how the site stayed hot for months, thereby disproving thermite? Thermite burns up snoopy, it heats the steel and the steel stays hot... LOL you're not even really worthy of debating here if your logic can't support it's own conclusions, and I absolutely dispise being misquoted.

Here's some other people you can misquote...
"everything from molten steel beams to human remains."
-Waste Age quoting New York Sanitation Department

"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel"
-Greg Fuchek as quoted by Government Computer News

'some of the beams were ' "dripping from the molten steel."
-Messenger-Inquirer quoting Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat."
-Herb Trimpe

"In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
-Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine quoting Alison Geyh, Ph.D.

"Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster"
-National Environmental Health Association quoting Ron Burger, public health advisor for National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
-The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah paraphrasing Leslie Robertson, one of the engineers who worked on the World Trade Center design

One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.
-anonymous member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing

"or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole."
-Book entitled American Ground describing conditions at ground zero.

"heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
-New York Post

If you need some pictures, some people do, here's a good start...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
or google it
images.google.com...

[edit on 31-10-2007 by twitchy]

So you're not making any claims then? That's an excuse snoopy, a poor one that just doesn't fly here, or anywhere else except for your own perceptions perhaps, but in all honesty, do you have anything besides excuses and demands? Can you proove what you are saying? Do you have any evidence at all to the contrary, or are you doing the same damned thing you go around accusing others of?
Look no further than your own meanderings here on this thread, you're trying to tell me a metallurigst doesn't know what steel looks like? you're telling me that the people who clean up controlled demolitions for a living don't know what molten steel is? Your saying that thermite cools rapidly, and that's how the site stayed hot for months, thereby disproving thermite? Thermite burns up snoopy, it heats the steel and the steel stays hot... LOL you're not even really worthy of debating here if your logic can't support it's own conclusions, and I absolutely dispise being misquoted.


[edit on 31-10-2007 by twitchy]


My claim is that until you can offer proof of your claims, then they are not valid claims. You need to step up and stop making excuses. Or you need to admit that you have no proof of your claims and that they are nothing more than your opinion. I'm not making excuses because I am not the one who isn't able to provide any evidence of a claim that is baseless such as saying there was molten steel.

I DON'T NEED EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. You do realize that you demanding evidence of something that doesn't ecxist is absolutely absurd right? Imagine if you were brought to court for murder and there was no evidence against you, yet you had to prove you didn't commit murder. Guilty until proven innocent is what you are doing. Is that how you feel this country should be run? You aren't making a valid argument, you are simply trying to avoid the FACT that you don' have a valid claim and you cannot back up your claim. It's an opinion, nothing more that you have. You can't face up to it.

Can you prove the easter bunny doesn't exist? How about Santa Claus? This is the logic you are using and it's not valid.

I am ABSOLUTELY saying that a demolition crew does not know what molten steel is simply by looking at it. NO ONE DOES. What part of this don't you understand? Please show us your proof o how you know that a clean up crew is trained to determine melted metal contents. What course is this part taught in? You again are making the claim, so show us some proof. And then you say I am saying that a metallurgist doesn't know what molten steel is? Did you even read what I wrote? Go back and read it again. And also note that a clean up crew does not consist of metallurgists. You go on to claim that I said thermite cools quickly and that that's how the site stayed molten for so long? DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT I WROTE?? Seriously?? Go back and read it again.

Tell you what there. You show us an example where thermite was used and the metal it was used on stayed molten for months. Just one single example please. I would enjoy seeing this. But seeing as you have yet to provide any evidence for any of these absurd claims, I somehow suspect you are going to ask me to prove the opposite. But that would be very easy. You see, one of the 9/11 cults went to burning man and use thermite to cut metal for a demonstration. yet the metal cooleed off quickly and didn't stay molten.

Here's some other people you can misquote...
"everything from molten steel beams to human remains."
-Waste Age quoting New York Sanitation Department

So what did they do to determine is was steel? Let's see the proof.If I said it was cotton candy, does that prove it was cotton candy?

"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel"
-Greg Fuchek as quoted by Government Computer News

So what kind of testing did they do to determine the metal was steel? How do you know it wasn't assumed?

'some of the beams were ' "dripping from the molten steel."
-Messenger-Inquirer quoting Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole

What testing did they do to determine it was steel?

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat."
-Herb Trimpe

And the contractors already said they didn't actually see molten steel.

"In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
-Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine quoting Alison Geyh, Ph.D.

Again, what testing was done to determine it was steel?

"Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster"
-National Environmental Health Association quoting Ron Burger, public health advisor for National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

What testing was done to determine the metal was steel?

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
-The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah paraphrasing Leslie Robertson, one of the engineers who worked on the World Trade Center design

What testing was done to determine it was steel?

One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.
-anonymous member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing

So how would a fireman know that it was molten steel and not one of the many other metals present that melt at much lower temps? And it's from an anonymous person at that. Nice...


So it looks like your only evidence of molten steel is 2nd hand quotes from people. None of whom have any expertise in being able to determine what kind of metal it was and none of whom did any actual testing to determine what kind of metal it was. You're gonna have to do better than that.


But nice of you to try and avoid the whole explosions issue. Are you going to tell us if you think that the sounds of explosions proves there were demolitions or not, as per the actual subject being sicussed when you interjected? Or will you continue to dodge the issue just as you do with your inability to provide any physical evidence of molten steel?

Originally posted by twitchy


If you need some pictures, some people do, here's a good start...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
or google it
images.google.com...

Perhaps you can share the techniques you use while examining the pictures to determine the metal type? Please teach me so I can learn how to determine what metal is what simply from pictures.

Originally posted by snoopy
I DON'T NEED EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

Well, then that's all I ever need to know about your opinions of 9-11, I'm done with you. Thanks for playing.