Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: kwakakev


You

iron spheres found in dust samples.

So?

www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

www.metabunk.org...

The iron microspheres (as evidence for thermite) were debunked years ago, but they keep coming up. The bottom line is:

Iron Microspheres form from condensed vaporized iron or from molten iron
You can melt iron by igniting it with a Bic lighter, if the pieces of iron are thin enough.
There are several other sources of iron microspheres
Iron microspheres were expected in the WTC dust

Another tactic of the truth movement. Take something expected and sale it as exceptional.

a reply to: kwakakev

You

Close. Whatever hit the Pentagon was more missile like than plane like.

Blatant falsehood by you

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

The Missile Hypothesis
The missile hypothesis cannot explain the spatial characteristics of the physical damage. The light poles were effectively 100 feet apart, and the generator-trailer and low concrete wall were effectively 43 feet apart. These objects could not all have been impacted by a missile. The shape and size of the impact hole precludes a missile, the damaged internal columns were spaced apart over a wide area, and the bowed and abraded columns could not have been rendered in such a condition by a missile. A missile could possibly have created the C ring hole, but only plane parts were found in the debris in the AE Drive.

Donald Rumsfeld alluded to a missile, and eyewitness Mike Walter spoke of a missile, but in the metaphorical sense of a plane acting as a missile. These comments fueled the missile hypothesis. But no witnesses claimed to have seen a missile. Witnesses overwhelmingly described a large plane. The missile hypothesis fails the test of the scientific method and the analysis shows the hypothesis is false.

a reply to: kwakakev

You

Close. Plasma is a high energy state of matter. Dustification is a term getting used to describe steel turning to dust. I prefer the term evaporation.

Nope. No proof either.

Too bad you ignore the camera angles that show columns falling or dropping on themselves for you blatantly false argument.



Again....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

You

Now, you show a pic of lightning hitting the antenna of the north tower, again, I don't know why.

I asked:

To bad there was no plasm used on 9/11. No power source powerful enough. No way to port the energy required to the WTC. No indication of a source of energy powerful enough to create a containment field with the ability to create the resonance time required to direct enough plasma to contact enough steel of a single tower to cause collapse.

The truth movement itself said the fires were no hotter than normal office fires? Is that false.

What temperatures and what element of plasma are you claiming. Whatever element you claim was made into plasma would condense out into large deposits of that element on the WTC debris. Or if an gaseous element, some for of reaction?

What evidence do you have of a mechanism that plasma caused your proposed plasma induced collapse.


Then to put everything in prospective. I cited where lighting creates plasma.

Lightning is a naturally occurring electrostatic discharge during which two electrically charged regions in the atmosphere or ground temporarily equalize themselves, causing the instantaneous release of as much as one billion joules of energy.[1] This discharge may produce a wide range of electromagnetic radiation, from very hot plasma created by the rapid movement of electrons to brilliant flashes of visible light in the form of black-body radiation. Lightning causes thunder, a sound from the shock wave which develops as gases in the vicinity of the discharge experience a sudden increase in pressure. Lightning occurs commonly during thunderstorms and other types of energetic weather.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Then I showed lighting that creates plasma, had hit the Twin Towers with no adverse effects.

WTC hit by a lightning
m.youtube.com...

How much power does lightning have?

There's Way More Energy in a Bolt of Lightning Than We Thought

www.sciencealert.com...

Power is energy per time, and our measurements of fulgurites suggest that megajoules of energy make rock in thousandths to millionths of seconds. So a gigawatt is actually on the low side – lightning power may be a thousand times that, reaching into the terawatts, though the average is probably tens of gigawatts.

That’s enough energy to power about a billion houses, albeit only for a few millionths of a second. Unfortunately, given its sporadic and unpredictable nature, no power grid will ever be able to harness lightning effectively.

But with that much power, perhaps breaking the space-time continuum in a souped-up Delorean is not so unfeasible after all….

Soooo.

“lightning power may be a thousand times that, reaching into the terawatts, ” has no history of damaging the WTC with plasma.

So. Again...

To bad there was no plasm used on 9/11. No power source powerful enough. No way to port the energy required to the WTC.

a reply to: kwakakev

You

Dustification is a term getting used to describe steel turning to dust. I prefer the term evaporation.

Just right out pseudoscience crap from you!

Again. The truth movement itself said the fires at the WTC were no hotter than normal office fires.

Thermite only burns at 4000 fahrenheit

Iron boiling point 5182 °F
en.m.wikipedia.org...

There is no evidence people breathed in 5000 degrees Fahrenheit evaporated steel as in lung damage.

There is no evidence of remains or injuries acted upon by 5000 degree Fahrenheit evaporated steel. Or coated with condensed steel vapor.

There is no evidence in the WTC dust that 5000 degree Fahrenheit evaporated steel condensed out.

There is no evidence anywhere of 5000 degree Fahrenheit evaporated steel condensing on nearby objects.

There was no steel evaporation as proven by the recovery and examination of smaller and thinner metal objects such as the floor connections.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

app.aws.org...

Summary

Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

The WTC vertical columns were installed with ID numbers. Now. State which columns were not recovered by ID number because the were “evaporated” away when much small and thinner floor connections were recovered.

a reply to: kwakakev

So.

How the hell do do you go from “squibs” as proof of detonations which in reality is the collapsing building pushing out air as proven by a hydraulic demolition?


From explosives creating “too” much dust. Something you have no ability to quantify. And large amounts of dust are expected from any building collapse



And you falsely claiming ejected sections of building that are explained by sections of building topping outward?


To thermite and evaporation which would not cause dust/squibs and lateral ejection you attribute to explosions? With there being no evidence of either thermite nor evaporation?

Now your just contradicting yourself, using blatantly false claims, and right out using pseudoscience.

a reply to: Lykan

Thank you, I appreciate you saying that.

It's a part of what I'm aiming at actually, working on some reflective thinking skills as well as or in the course of, trying to figure some specific thing out. There will likely be no end to global shenanigans and big future problems so best to hone your skills and try always to think clearly as best you can, could be useful in daily life too.

In the following post I'm going to explain why I'm not a CD guy.

Take a look at this photograph and the background info above.



This is the Controlled Demolition of a 26 (some list it at 26, some 28) story reinforced steel frame building.

It was done by CDI in OKC in 1977.

They placed some 900 main charges in it. A lot doubled up because the steel was so massive that they had to pair a lot of charges around columns and set them off simultaneously just to cut some of them.

Keep in mind this is a controlled demolition of only a 26 story reinforced steel frame building.

By comparison the towers were 110.

They put 900 charges in 7 floors, between the basement and 14th floor. Perhaps every second floor. Plus it appears many others higher up. And they blew them over 5 seconds. For the WTC with more floors wired would that be 20 seconds? Timing is important you can't go too long while faking a gravity collapse after all.

In a loose ratio comparison, if CDI were going to CD a Twin Tower, then roughly how many charges might they first have to place? And where?

Let’s crudely guesstimate.

Biltmore: Main 900 charges on 7 floors or 25% of building.

WTC:110/4=27.5 floors for 25%.

900 charges on 7 floors works out to 3600 charges on 28 floors.

Let’s array them in a similar way as well. 3600 charges from basement to 53rd floor, plus more added in higher up.

Now can you even imagine 3600 (roughly), main charges on the bottom half of each tower? I can’t.

Wait, what? “Too many,” you say? Or maybe “Not enough?” See that’s one of the first big problems. Before you do it you got to know how many and right where to place them. But how could you?



The towers were unique. Where do you even successfully place all those charges? With offices, drywall, furniture, dropped ceilings all in play etc. And employees, many, many employees.

You got to ask yourself could they plant that many charges? In each tower? Even with security in their pocket is it feasible? How long would that even take? Wouldn’t they risk being found out? So many things could go wrong. Plus that whole issue of the plane crashes screwing up the sequencing or destroying some charges or preventing some from not firing correctly.

Or worse, causing pre-planted explosives to accidentally go off! (Didn’t happen right?)

The next thing you have to ask yourself is could you make it look like a fire induced gravity collapse using that many charges? Starting from where the planes entered but miraculously didn’t set anything off. Might have been easier to have the planes both crash into the bases of the towers!

Wouldn't it screw with the timing? Wouldn't it take longer than gravity to sequence blow 3600 charges? How you going to get it timed to a gravity collapse? Right?

I mean it can’t very well look like a building demolition.

So you mass blow 53 floors like a conventional demolition, but whoops, the plane crashed on floor 92! That means to do CD on the towers you have to deviate from standard practice CD demolition. Who even does that? (And then you’re going to add thermite on top of all that? Not likely.)

It would take too long and be too obvious, there’s too many ways to just simply fail.

Or just one video camera or one witness catching or saying “Hey look at the burning end of that one beam! That’ ain’t right!” Right? One camera, one person and you’re Done.

What if the timing was off? And like the picture above, they all blew at once?
What if the sequencing was 3600 charges in 4 seconds?
What if half the 3600 blew and then in the middle of floor 22 the charges just fizzled out?
What if it wasn’t wired correctly and it began to blow in sequence from the bottom up and not start where each tower was damaged by a plane?

You see, there are many ‘what ifs’ and potential problems with Conventional Controlled Demolition. Indeed, I contend, too many.

See how they set the structure off at the bottom? Must be a good reason for that, CDI are Professionals. There's no trying to time it to gravity. There's no, oh it starts falling at the weak parts. There's no it starts at the top and progresses to the bottom even.

Even if they used explosives the damage down method is not the usual way, they blow out the bottoms on regular CD jobs.

The Biltmore Hotel is an actual reinforced steel frame controlled demolition using actual explosives done by CDI in 1977. I really don't think it's fake or someone is pulling a fast one with it.

Look at it, study it, think about what I’m saying. Does it even look like the twin towers? Really?



Not even close. I mean look, if they did use regular explosives as ‘CD’ implies, on the towers, they used way too many and were blowing up way too much! Let me get this straight, they don't want to be found out and must ultra plan and be careful, but on the day, screw lt! Let's go for overkill! Sure Ok.

Look at it. Just look. Like I joked before, if the towers were CD that’s some really shoddy work.

I also don’t think it’s CD because it’s not loud enough. It should be louder. Conventional explosives are LOUD etc. You can’t blow 3600 charges per tower to mimic gravity speed all while it sounds like the Fourth of July! Or some Civil War battle.

3600 loud sequenced charges is far too loud, far too impractical, far too revealing and far too prone to glitches, problems, discovery and failure etc.

Even Occam’s Razor says it wasn’t Conventional Controlled Demolition! (Too complex, too time consuming, too prone to discovery, error and failure.Too noisy etc. Not the simplest answer at all.)

It's the Hindenburg Disaster Theory, destroy the airship completely in midair and the wreckage falls to the ground at the speed of gravity. Instant 'gravity collapse.'





Wait. Was the Hindenburg Disaster a CD job? “What?!” No it was a Hydrogen gas that got ignited job. What’s the point? Point is, you can blow stuff up, sometimes real good, with things other than regular ‘explosives’.

IMO, people who reject fire induced gravity ‘collapse’ (It wasn’t a collapse, stop saying collapse.) in favor of CD just aren't thinking it through. They need to reject too complicated, too tedious, too risky CD for something more UCD.

3600 charges along with thermite, trying to mimic gravity's timing?! Forget about it. Too much work. Too prone to mishap or failure.

So why, you ask, are all these people going around doing seminars and presentations and going on about CD and things like thermite all the time then? For like 18 years?! It doesn’t matter, let them carry on.

Conventional Controlled Demolition is not the mechanism of 9/11.

a reply to: NWOwned

Neither is plasma.

a reply to: NWOwned

You're very welcome. I come to this side of ATS almost daily. I come for new insights new discussions and new ways of looking at the events of the day.

Most days I'm met with the same voice. Occasionally a short lived argument followed by a dissenting opinion I've read many a times over. Its refreshing to hear a confident new voice.

I'm with you on your opinion of a controlled explosive demolition. A well researched and thought out argument. I would tend to agree with.

There's no denying it was a world changing event. Liberties and freedoms of citizens all over the world were curtailed that day. Some very personal to me.

To completely understand the happenings that day without being force- fed a plastic sterile explanation means a lot to me, and i'm sure many others.

I look forward to following your line of investigation and seeing where it goes. Hopefully I can add some valued thoughts myself.

a reply to: NWOwned

I class flying an aircraft of 100 000+ kg at over 200m/sec into the upper floors delivering 50 000+ litres of accelerant (jet fuel) which ignited on impact as being pretty unconventional for the mainstream demolition business.

a reply to: NWOwned

No, the OKC hotel in 1977 did not exactly resemble the towers because OKC used conventional explosives while the towers had a mix of nuclear devices.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: NWOwned

I class flying an aircraft of 100 000+ kg at over 200m/sec into the upper floors delivering 50 000+ litres of accelerant (jet fuel) which ignited on impact as being pretty unconventional for the mainstream demolition business.

Yes, and as effectively as that jetfuel and gravity utterly demolished the towers (according to NIST), the demolition industry learned a new way to utterly destroy buildings. The only downside, of course, is that the method mysteriously left molten iron in the belly for 3 months.

Take a look at this pic.



What do you see?

Bumps right? Separate bumps right? Big bumps, you know, like bumps in a sweater.

So what are you looking at and what does it mean?

I contend that what you are looking at is a Giant Mistake. Not that the pic itself is a mistake no, rather, it's a mistake caught on film that the Perps of 9/11 missed.

This pic is an enlarged single frame from the Naudet "Fireman's Video" shot from the perspective of Duane Street. It's supposedly of the chance filming of the first plane strike on the North Tower early on 9/11.

You've probably seen it a 100 times. But today you're going to see it all again in a whole new light.

"I don't get it. What's the Big Deal?"

Ok, look at the picture, as I said it's a frame from the Naudet film of the first plane strike - or is it?

You got to understand that a frame from a clip is a snapshot in time. Yes? Ok. Well with this frame at this time there's separate bumps. You got that? Ok. Now focus on the right most isolated bump.

Ask yourself, "Why is that isolated?" Aren't planes all one thing? Process that first.

Next, think about an airplane, how is it shaped?

There's a nose in the front center that sticks out first, ahead of the engines and wings right? Ok. So the nose of the plane would hit the tower first right? Ok what next? Well the engines would strike next. Ok. What then? Then each wing at the same time then the rest of the plane then the tail. That's right.

Now think about this. The wings of a plane are angled back from the fuselage yes? Yes. In fact, where the wings meet the body in a plane, that part on each wing, is actually ahead of the wing tips on each side> Right?

By that I simply mean the part of the wing at the fuselage would impact the face of the tower before the wing tips because the wing tips are sloped back. Isn't that correct?

Well that's NOT what the Naudet video shows at all!

It shows a 'bump' on the right where the right 'wing tip' is BEFORE it shows damage from the right engine!

AND THAT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

I made this diagram, have a look.



Ok, tell me you understand what I'm saying here. If the Naudet clip is Real, while they claim it shows a plane striking the North Tower, when you examine it closely, what it actually shows is that whatever hit the North Tower it wasn't a Boeing 767.

Their own video disproves the OS Claim.

Here is the video.


Do me a favor, watch this video very closely and tell me what you think. Watch the guy on the grate in white with the gas meter. Just before the 'plane' arrives he's just standing there holding the gas meter like he seems to be waiting for something. Do you get that too? What's he waiting for?

He must have something on his mind. Wonder what it could be?



Don't get me wrong, something did impact the North Tower on 9/11 it's just that the video evidence Naudet shot only shows what it is not.

Here is a pic of the North Tower hit not often seen. It shows that whatever it was shot right out the back leaving a long streaking destructive trail. Which is a bit weird because it's one trail in the center and on a plane the center is where all the passengers sit. I wonder why there's a single central trail at all because the fuel tanks on a 767 are in the wings and there's two of them to the left and to the right of center?

I mean if it's not a plane, as the Naudet video proves, I wonder what it could be?

a reply to: NWOwned

originally posted by: NWOwned
Take a look at this pic.

What do you see?

A slightly out of focus picture that is grainy/pixilated and not the original image, but one that has been repeatedly compressed and recompressed as it has been posted and reposted on the Internet.

With you having no explanation for the explosions caused by the jet. Where were the 180, 55 gallon drums of fuel to simulate the fire ball from 10,000 gallons of jet fuel? They were not strapped to the outside of the tower.

Nor any evidence that explosives and jet parts staged to create the backside passage of jet wreckage.

Then radar tracked the jet to the towers

Then you have actually jet wreckage and items which were recovered from the debris.

Then the remains of the people aboard the jet were identified by DNA testing.

Hijackers' remains found at World Trade Centre site

The discoveries were made during the gruesome ongoing process of identifying all those who perished in the 9/11 attacks

www.thetimes.co.uk...

a reply to: NWOwned

You

I wonder why there's a single central trail at all because the fuel tanks on a 767 are in the wings and there's two of them to the left and to the right of center?

You might look up where all the tanks are, and what tanks are drawn from first? As in what tanks sit higher and what tanks sit lower.

And the whole chain of imagines might clarify yiou assertions?

a reply to: Salander

It's easy to understand how your mind might be blown.

Yes , I explained why,

you quoted me asking a question to show just one example and responded to that with something that has nothing to do with the question I asked.

That is rather what happens to some individuals when they are confronted with facts and reality that conflict with their view of the world, their idea of reality.

Are you OK?

If someone asks you a question, let say someone asks what the time is, you reply by saying Dogs wag their tails is what will blow or more correctly boggle someone mind, they will think you have lost the plot.

This is what you did when you replied to my question you quoted.

The same thing happened to me in 2006 when I realized for the first time that the official story I had believed in since 2001 was shattered.

WTF are you talking about,

My mind was blown because I asked a simple question and your reply had nothing to with the question I asked that you quoted and replied too.

Is it really that hard to grasp?

I experienced the same cognitive dissonance then that you seem to be experiencing now.

I was asking a question to show any example of controlled demolition that began half way or more up the building, your reply was mind boggling as it had nothing to do with the question I asked.


What ever you are or were or have experienced can be helped and resolved and you can be of sound mind, you need to take the first step to get the help.

Spouting nonsense that has noting to do with what is asked when replying to the question is a clear sign of a delusional mindset.

a reply to: kwakakev

He does show where you can see all the timed charges going off quite well. It does take a little to know what to look for with each charge puffing out, but when you see it, it all adds ups.

You just perfectly described how a persons perception is manipulated by an illusionist

a reply to: openedeyesandears

It could not have come from the planes as MOST of it should've burnt in that explosion on impact. Only logic, so there had to be something else to make 2 TOWERS, NOT 1 BUT 2 TOWERS collapse as they did. Weird... 2 towers on the same day and they both fell the very same way. Coincidence? Nah, the very same people did the controlled demolition on the 2 towers. You are blind or have an agenda... pick one

yeah office building are usually completely empty and people just stand in empty rooms all day when they work in office buildings.

Oh and there is no air so fires cannot burn with no air , people have ..... they just hold their breath for 8 hours.

One must be stupid or delusional to create an argument that fits this logic, pick one.

It must have been explosives, no air and empty office buildings, there is no possible way any fires could have started from a plane impact.

I don't care where some columns landed, you can shove them up... you know where. Watching the towers go down is enough proof for me.

Then why argue one way or another?

I'm not the one pushing an agenda here

Stupid can be an agenda, you seem to doing a great job at expressing it, when you reply to answers to your vague questions you seem really push it.

Unreal how you get away with all your BS on here.

call the cops, let the FBI know, send a letter to you congressman.

Only idiots would post the same copy/paste pictures and posts a thousand times. Instead of posting very selective pictures of the collapse, why don't you show us an ACTUAL VIDEO of the collapse? You won't because then it would be too obvious of a CONTROL DEMOLITION and then you would look like a fool.

and there it is again

you are really good at pushing the stupid

Is this an act or are you really this challenged towards basic logic?

You wonder what created the explosion when the planes hit the building, jet fuel you ask.

NO NO NO.

It was pixie dust, the planes were holographic projections and it was really a fairy riding a unicorn that attacked the US that day.

The reasons are still classified but shouldn't be too hard figure out with such great minds at work exposing all evils of the world.

AGAIN: Where did the extreme heat come from is MOST of the fuel burnt in the initial impact?

The unicorn had a big breakfast and had a lot of flatulence, this is still part of the classified parts so keep this info hush hush.

CONTROL DEMOLITION still did the job.

So can you show any other example of a controlled demolition that initialed collapse that high up the building?

There is no way on earth that 3 buildings would collapse the very same way, on their own footprints all on the same day, same event and 1 building never got hit by a plane. Go figure.

You mentioned a parrot an dhow images are posted over and over.

I guess that was just you projecting your own parroting of this that doesn't fit what actually happened.

Do you know what a buildings foot print is or is this simply as you say to other a cut and past expression you repeat from numerous YouTube videos that say this hoping you are too stupid to not realize its actually false?

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

Copy and paste is getting boring mate.

3 building falling into their own footprint and only 2 get hit planes is too.

Its sounds juicy when you are new to all the conspiratorial ideas pushed about 9/11 but just some basic critical thought should be enough to squash such ignorance.

yet some keep parroting it over and over

Grow up and stop trolling

a perfect example of no leg to stand on

Stupid question... get a life

Oh my.


What causes explosions when planes with just about full fuel hit buildings high speed.

a reply to: NWOwned

You

Just before the 'plane' arrives he's just standing there holding the gas meter like he seems to be waiting for something.

It looks like they were sampling to go into the space under the grading. Looks like the man in white, I think the battalion chief, was waiting for one the firefights that was geared up to lift up the grading. Or trying make sense of the reports of a gas leak if the testing was proving no evidence of a gas leak? Then they all were confused by the sound of a jet in lower Manhattan.

Jules and Gédéon Naudet

en.m.wikipedia.org...édéon_Naudet

On the morning of September 11, Jules accompanied several firefighters as they headed out to investigate reports of a gas leak in Lower Manhattan, leaving Gédéon in the firehouse to continue filming with Benetatos.