WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by Varemia

 

Sorry, here is one before the clean up...... even more damning. Look how little damadge to wtc 7 neighbours . This is a professional job. No doubt.

Controlled demolitions were used on WTC 7 at 5pm on 911. Fact.

edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

This is a faked photograph, as indeed all the rest of the rubble photos are.
The shadow cast by the building in the lower right corner does not gel with
other shadows and the apparent position of the sun.

Faking The Rubble

We really need to start thinking in terms of 9/11 'Movie'.

reply to post by Gando702


A further point to remember is the plane would not have been carrying a full fuel load, they only get max filled for an international flight.
So the plane would have been very much under the full laden strike weight of a 707 at max loads, this is what the towers were designed for.
It's also unfair to declare valid counterpoints to your reasoning as "semantics", they are FACTS which in an open mind would necessitate further critical reasoning of your understanding of the "Facts" as you currently see them.

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by Varemia

 

Sorry, here is one before the clean up...... even more damning. Look how little damadge to wtc 7 neighbours . This is a professional job. No doubt.

Controlled demolitions were used on WTC 7 at 5pm on 911. Fact.

edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

This is a faked photograph, as indeed all the rest of the rubble photos are.
The shadow cast by the building in the lower right corner does not gel with
other shadows and the apparent position of the sun.

Faking The Rubble

We really need to start thinking in terms of 9/11 'Movie'.

How is that a fake photo lol?

So do you now admit that that photo shows the building in its own footprint, so you now have to claim it's fake?

It's a trip how you guys argue something is not the case, and then when you fail in that argument you have to make up another excuse to dismiss the evidence.

I own and have used Photoshop for a long time, and I'd love to know how that pic was faked.

Is this one faked also...



This one from the same angle...



This one....



These





Photo's from different angles show the same thing, the outer walls on top of the rest of the collapsed building, evidence that the building collapsed mostly into its footprint.

So where are the original unaltered pics, and what do they show? You guys just get more desperate everyday as you are forced to defend against mounting evidence.

Originally posted by cartenz

I can't find any pictures of what the debris after a controlled demolition looks like, and I have to go to class. Could you help?

the little orange bus must have arrived

The hell? How is this in any way close to being polite and engaging in discussion?

I'm still trying to find video or pictures of the rubble after an implosion demolition, but people only like to film the collapse.

Originally posted by Varemia


I'm still trying to find video or pictures of the rubble after an implosion demolition, but people only like to film the collapse.

To be honest mate if you have to find a pic to compare then you really don't have the background make any claim for or against the OS.

If you can't see the obvious different simply from common sense then how can you be sure the OS is correct? You should spend some time learning something instead of just trying to find things that seem to support the OS.

The difference between a building in its own footprint from a controlled implosion demolition, and one that has collapses naturally is like chalk and cheese. The difference is so huge that is no doubt as to which is which, there is no question.

Here is one I found...



Compare that to WTC 7...

Originally posted by Gando702
reply to post by micpsi

 

Your comparisons of the two aircraft are noted. Still, the plane is bigger than the 707. Maybe not much bigger, but still bigger. Any further argument would be semantics.

If all of the concrete was pulverized, then how did some of it get thrown away from the building, as you've said? You said it would take massive force to throw these pieces of concrete away from the building, so they must have been pretty big and not pulverized. You can't have it both ways.

And I'm not missing any points, you're actually cherry-picking similar points.

I'm not going to battle with everyone, as I respect all of your opinions. I've done plenty of research, and I used to firmly believe in most of what you are all saying. The Twin Towers were a once in a millenium event, that really can't be compared to anything else, and by using examples of other demolitions or fires, it's not serving any analytical process honestly.

You can't just say he cherry picked similar points and be done with it. He examined each point you made and dissected it with extreme precision and explained why you were wrong. Basic science and physics back up each statement he made so you can not counter-argue.

Even you admit something fishy about Building 7. Something fishy about Building 7 means the entire event has to be called in to question.

Fragments of the Towers were EMBEDDED in to other buildings. That does not happen with a natural collapse. The ONLY way that occurs is if the pieces are jettisoned. The ONLY way they are jettisoned is with high explosives.

Thank you I will be here all night, be sure to tip your waitress.

Here's to the shill that thinks otherwise. The reality of the matter is that more soldiers have died in the current Iraq war than ever did in the Vietnam conflict. And that doesn't even count the thousands that have died in the other six wars we've got going on, all in muslim nations. Not to count the millions of civilian deaths, plus the hundreds of babies we've killed with drones.
Maybe if you'd check the facts sometimes, maybe you'd earn the big bucks the NWO pays you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ANOK


Yeah. That was the one I found as well, but it wasn't similar enough. I reasoned that since the construction was basically entirely concrete, it would not have a similar debris pile at all.

It's sad when people who are on opposite sides of the fence are finding the same information, but none of it is useful.

reply to post by ANOK


man, the wtc sure did have a hell of alot of drywall. definetly nothing like controlled demolition. great pics anok.

now, here is a rubble picture from controlled demolition:
www.flickr.com...

i don't believe there are any non-demo'd skyscraper collapses that look like that.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by ANOK

 

man, the wtc sure did have a hell of alot of drywall. definetly nothing like controlled demolition.

great pics anok.

now, here is a rubble picture from controlled demolition:
www.flickr.com...

i don't believe there are any non-demo'd skyscraper collapses that look like that.

Still not quite what we need, since I don't see enough steel in that construction. Still, compare it to WTC 7's

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by piotrburz

Gosh, this is such a fallacy it is absurd. Jet A burns at less than 600 degrees F. Structural steel has a melting point of 1000-1200 degrees F. Let's also remember that the steel was covered in fireproofing material. Not to mention that most of the Jet A was consumed in the fireball that EXITED the building, burning up in mere SECONDS. Contrary to popular myth, it didn't continue burning after the initial fireball. So this argument is just hogwash top to bottom.

Ever heard of material creep? It occurs in every steel or other material, used in construction. Even a 4 inch thick steel rod, under stress of let's say 10kg[98 N of force] will deform slowly. But to notice this deformation you would need millions of years. But under more stress and with higher temperature, creeping of material is serious problem.
I'm chemical engineer but i also have a "engineering materials" course.
en.wikipedia.org...

See my reply about the jet fuel burning. If you notice the fireball created by the impact of either plane, the fuel was consumed almost instantly in a gigantic fireball. Nothing else but the jet fuel could create a gigantic fireball, either, and it stands to reason that close to 100% of the fuel was consumed in that fireball.

Allow me to quote to the wiki article you referenced:

Creep is more severe in materials that are subjected to heat for long periods, and near melting point.

Heat for LONG periods.. The fireball had exhausted its jet fuel source in seconds. I doubt that qualifies as a "long period". Also, the fireballs were forced outward to the exterior of the building. Notice the words "near melting point" as well - as I stated before, the steel was never brought close to melting point by the jet fuel. It is impossible.

Fail.

Not even a good try.

reply to post by Gando702


sorry, and I agree everyone has a right to their own opinion... but this was more than a perfect storm, and when you have the feelings you have about building 7, and other feelings I have about the stock market, the rate of gravity, the hijackings themselves, the passport found in the debris, the hole in the pentagon, the unreleased footage, the secret hearings, etc etc... then the perfect storm senario simply feels manufactured....
and thats exactly what I think the whole thing was.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


What if the jet fuel saturated furnishings and carpet? Wouldn't that make it last for longer?

Check this out:

www.vulcan-solutions.com...

The maximum temperatures recorded were 1213°C (atmosphere) and 1150°C (steel beams).

Those are normal office fire temperatures, not jet fuel fed fires.

reply to post by Varemia


judging from what you've previously said, i'm guessing if such a photo could be produced to theoretically satisfy you, you'd call it fake.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Varemia

 

judging from what you've previously said, i'm guessing if such a photo could be produced to theoretically satisfy you, you'd call it fake.

No, I only state that the audio in some videos is fake, and it has been proven previously numerous times over the time I've been on this site.

I would not claim pictures to be false unless there was evidence for manipulation, which is surprisingly easy to find. Usually, the only manipulation done on photos is cropping, so that you are simply not getting the whole picture, or taking it out of context, so that you are not in the know about when the picture was actually taken.

I too once believed the lose change theories, because the propaganda is convincing. However, I researched their claims and guess what they don't stand up, it's all based on lies. Think about how many people would have to be in on it for it to work. Every news station, news paper, magazine, all of the government a huge percentage of New York city, Washington DC who saw it happen.

Now lets look at how well the government keep secrets that only a few people know about. The abu graib scandal or WIKI leaks. Hell even look at the Watergate scandal.

The government is not capable of keeping a secret... Seal team 6 is secret, no one should know about it, yet the Vic president said it on national news and even gave the commanders name away.

But go on keep believing the US government is all powerful...

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


The more times I watch these buildings go down, the more it becomes blatantly obvious that they were brought down by controlled demolition. Anyone with a moderate understanding of engineering and physics like I have, would know better than to think otherwise. I have to believe that people who stand by the official story are just plain stupid, or they are employed by people who want the truth to remain hidden.

reply to post by Varemia

fair enough. i've discussed 9/11 with less amiable people i must say...

what is your opinion on operation northwoods and the project for a new american century? specifically the "lets stage a hijack and blame it on the cubans as a premise for invasion" and the "lets shoot mortar shells at our own bases and blow up some of our ships in the harbor and blame it on cuba."?

reply to post by AwakeinNM

very true, although there is another catagory of people that just won't accept that our government would do it. earlier today i had success convincing my mom after almost a year. i printed out the whole "operation northwoods" text and told her to read it.

she finally accepted that our government would do it, and did do it.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Varemia

 

fair enough. i've discussed 9/11 with less amiable people i must say...

what is your opinion on operation northwoods and the project for a new american century? specifically the "lets stage a hijack and blame it on the cubans as a premise for invasion" and the "lets shoot mortar shells at our own bases and blow up some of our ships in the harbor and blame it on cuba."?

I don't see anything about rigging things to make an attack seem worse than it would normally, but it is not a far fetched idea to me.

In my opinion, it is likely that the government "allowed" or "assisted" the terrorists in being able to carry out their plan. I don't mean assisted as in blew the towers. I just mean let them get flight training and then get on the flights with knives and such. I imagine those guys felt like Allah must have been on their side the whole time.

I just don't think the buildings were rigged is all.