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

reply to post by pteridine

i already showed how the photo was manipulated, but then you want to base an argument for temperatures off of it? there are plenty of photos of molten metal in the 1300C+ range, and plenty of testimony to back those up.


notice how all the previously orange land becomes ocean. definitely legit.

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

Is this image being called a fake because it shows a very small rubble pile? This is an official image showing how small the rubble pile is. This is proof of controlled demolition.... am i missing something?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by pteridine

 

i already showed how the photo was manipulated, but then you want to base an argument for temperatures off of it? there are plenty of photos of molten metal in the 1300C+ range, and plenty of testimony to back those up.


notice how all the previously orange land becomes ocean. definitely legit.

edit on 22-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

Told you, that's a shadow. Tis not water at all, my friend.

reply to post by Varemia

The images (larger area shown below) also show vegetated areas as green. Water appears blue, and the smoke from the fires appears as a light blue haze.

vegetated areas as green...water appears blue....that quote is from the report on the images. it has been photoshopped.

people are meant to look at it, and say "wow, the orange really did disappear quickly", but most won't focus on the differences in land mass between the two.

why photoshop something if you're telling the truth?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

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

Is this image being called a fake because it shows a very small rubble pile? This is an official image showing how small the rubble pile is. This is proof of controlled demolition.... am i missing something?

It was taken four days after 9/11, when cleanup was already underway. It is not an accurate representation of the debris after the collapse.

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Varemia

 

The images (larger area shown below) also show vegetated areas as green. Water appears blue, and the smoke from the fires appears as a light blue haze.

vegetated areas as green...water appears blue....that quote is from the report on the images. it has been photoshopped.

people are meant to look at it, and say "wow, the orange really did disappear quickly", but most won't focus on the differences in land mass between the two.

why photoshop something if you're telling the truth?

That's not a picture of an island. That's a picture of Ground Zero. The dark areas are shadows of buildings, not bodies of water.

Edit: I mean, jeez, you can see the WTC buildings, specifically the one with the huge hole in its roof!

oops...i see what i did there.

I posted this image to give our hard working debunkers a break.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

in other news, bush bans the movie "ET the extra terrestrial" saying "we don't negotiate with aliens". he has proceeded to launch an attack against movie retailers.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

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

Is this image being called a fake because it shows a very small rubble pile? This is an official image showing how small the rubble pile is. This is proof of controlled demolition.... am i missing something?

This image is fake because all images showing the rubble pile are faked!
Faking The Rubble




How can the building shadows indicated be reconciled?

Please go through the link. It is pretty damning!

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Read the link and look at the image at the bottom of the page. The hot spots are not 1300C; they are false-colored orange so that they contrast.

reply to post by pshea38


Bigger picture time!



Notice, that the building casting the "impossible" shadow is actually positioned differently than the others, not perpendicular to the street. Other buildings are also structured and positioned non-linearly. The image is not fake.

Source

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Jeesh, they don't need to reconstruct it with a plane hitting the building. Using the same amount of jet fuel at the approximate scale ratio where the plane hit, would give us a good indication whether a steel high rise could collapse due to fire.

According to the OS. it wasn't the planes hitting the tower that caused it to collapse, it was the so called "intense heat caused by the jet fuel that weakened the beam supports that caused the "pancake collapse."

It would at the very least give us the amount of time it takes for a building to collapse (if it does collapse) due to fire. If it doesn't collapse, than I think the government owes the world an explanation on why 3 buildings collapsed due to fire.

There's no question it could be done. Where there's a will there's always a way. Unfortunately, our government has no will to ever reconstruct this event because they know if the building doesn't collapse, they'll all be in the hot seat and Americans will want their heads.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

If it does not make the noise, then it is not an explosive. An explosive is something that explodes, and the explosion is what causes the noise.

If it were to be thermite, then it would not be an explosive. It would be more along the lines of a chemical reaction. Still, without proof of the charges, there is no story.

The elements were already present within the tower to mix aluminum and rust in the dust. What is not clear is whether there were actual charges anywhere.

I have an open mind, but my brains have not yet fallen out. I need evidence to say conclusively one way or the other.

Also, I admit that I make mistakes. I make mistakes often, and I own up to them. For example, I was skimming the fire article, and missed the part where it said that in broad fires, the temperatures varied widely, but that the difference in temperatures still led to deformations within the steel.

Now you're just splitting hairs for the sake of arguing. Troll behavior.

Good day.

Ah the truther equivalent of pouting and stomping off when bested.

So to you, the fact that thermite sounds nothing like a stck of TNT or C4 exploding is "splitting hairs"? Its no wonder the truther movement is regressing.

Bested? Hardly. Did you watch the video of the thermite test that engineer did to prove that thermite could cut steel beams instantly? Loud hissing, lots of sparks, but no KABOOM like you'd get with C4 or TNT.

Explain the molten steel flowing in the sublevels, and the pools of molten metal the firefighters saw. Jet fuel can do that? Burning furniture can do that? No, and no. Wise up to the fact that the 9/11 commission was a whitewash top to bottom. Please, you and all the rest of you get your heads out of your donkeys.

Oh yeah, isn't also interesting how all you people who believe the official fairytale never mention building 7 in your arguments. Very interesting indeed.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Bested? Hardly. Did you watch the video of the thermite test that engineer did to prove that thermite could cut steel beams instantly? Loud hissing, lots of sparks, but no KABOOM like you'd get with C4 or TNT.

Explain the molten steel flowing in the sublevels, and the pools of molten metal the firefighters saw. Jet fuel can do that? Burning furniture can do that? No, and no. Wise up to the fact that the 9/11 commission was a whitewash top to bottom. Please, you and all the rest of you get your heads out of your donkeys.

Oh yeah, isn't also interesting how all you people who believe the official fairytale never mention building 7 in your arguments. Very interesting indeed.

edit on 22-9-2011 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

Now wait. I remember that video, and I don't recall him able to make molten metal. It just locally cut where the charge was placed. Did he make molten metal with his charges?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Bested? Hardly. Did you watch the video of the thermite test that engineer did to prove that thermite could cut steel beams instantly? Loud hissing, lots of sparks, but no KABOOM like you'd get with C4 or TNT.

Explain the molten steel flowing in the sublevels, and the pools of molten metal the firefighters saw. Jet fuel can do that? Burning furniture can do that? No, and no. Wise up to the fact that the 9/11 commission was a whitewash top to bottom. Please, you and all the rest of you get your heads out of your donkeys.

Oh yeah, isn't also interesting how all you people who believe the official fairytale never mention building 7 in your arguments. Very interesting indeed.

edit on 22-9-2011 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

Now wait. I remember that video, and I don't recall him able to make molten metal. It just locally cut where the charge was placed. Did he make molten metal with his charges?

Trying to spin what I said? You know full well where the molten metal was, and it wasn't in the video. Nice try. Do you get paid by the post or are you salaried?

reply to post by Varemia


Any more excuses for why those pics don't show controlled demo?

This is ridiculous and desperate lol. Clean up is not going to make the buildings outer walls be on top of the rest of the building, and be in its footprint.

How long has this been discussed, and now you're all claiming fake pics? What happened to the pics not showing what we claim? Why has the argument changed now? Because you have failed in proving us wrong, so now you are trying another lame desperate attempt to support the OS.

Again why are ALL the pics of WTC 7 the same? Shadows prove nothing. Did no one take any real pics that you can show us? Have every pic of WTC 7 been faked? Who did it and how? I can tell you that couldn't be done in photoshop.

You have lost the plot mate, and anyone else jumping on this bandwagon. And after this please explain why we shouldn't think you're just shills?

Just laughing hard at the poor tard calling the truther movement "receding", that may be the reason OSrs have to put up a new thread day in day out. Ignorance must really be bliss.

So, anyone has something new? Has the official straw not been beaten enough?

Originally posted by ANOK
...
If you understand basic physics, it's not hard to understand why WTC 7 had to be a controlled implosion demolition.

In the several years I have been a member of ATS, when someone gives the excuse of "if you understand basic physics this wouldn't happen" normally it is those people who don't understand physics at all, and instead just give this, or other non-sensical phrase, trying to make it look like they have an intelligent, and concise argument.

WTC7 was not "blown up in a controlled demolition". The fact that the roof and penthouse can be seen collapsing 8 seconds before the rest of WTC 7 is proof enough that there was no "controlled demolition".

Originally posted by ANOK
Any more excuses for why those pics don't show controlled demo?

This is ridiculous and desperate lol. Clean up is not going to make the buildings outer walls be on top of the rest of the building, and be in its footprint.
...

Just because the outer walls collapsed last does not mean it was a controlled demolition, it just means the collapse started in the inside, which in fact disproves the controlled demolition claim. More so when even in the videos where we can see the collapse of the roof and penthouse it is clearly seen that there was no symetrical collapse, but that WTC7 collapsed in stages. Which rules out "controlled demolition".