One of the WTC design engineers, Leslie Robertson, had denied that people saw molten steel in the Ground Zero rubble. A video surfaced recently showing that in 2002 he claimed he had seen "a little river of molten steel" himself.
I would imagine a nasty visit from the government would entail if someone was really speaking like the scalar weapons used. Many have died that where witnesses to this. Remember some collect 5 billion in insurance money, whether they where involved remains a unknown.
thermite will not throw debrie very far, it only cuts and melts there would need to be other explosives. Scalar technology was used that is why the oxygen tanks on the backs of the firemen where exploding, and metal was evaporating into thin air so to speak. Cars a 1/2 mile away where incinerated, or the engin blocks where missing and door handles where missing. Thermite will not cause this type of destruction, people are really to scared to bring up the real reason.
Inside Job.....Thermate prefabricated to fit beams and installed....large crew never needed, just access......Drone Planes with laser targeting.....Building 7 falls without losing it's shape.....Demolition.....WTC 1 and 2 turn to dust before even hitting the ground.....Demolition......Inside Job....."Pull it"
Who was the Saudi Prince that offered Guiliani millions after 9/11? Remember Guiliani refused to take the money? <------- I think it was all done for the masses and television.
0:31 - 0:36 this is not a picture of the spire collapsing, you can clearly still see the spire to the right of it. All of the video I have seen of the spire, it does not fall. it just turns into dust.
Well that's it folks, I am out of here, First Dustman (infoseek) tried to have us all beleive that nothing survived the collapse, it all truned to dust, I showed that actually 100'000's of artifacts were in fact recovered, so then he shifted the goaposts, and started claiming that he just wanted to see a smashed computer, so I showed him an image of a piece of motherboard, he shifted the goalposts again claiming he only wanted to see office furniture - the stuff that burns in hot ground fires...
So after repeatedly changing his story, he then offered up a picture of two revolvers found, claiming them to be mysterious, because the NYPD don't use revolvers, I pointed out it might have something to do with there being an indoor shooting range in the WTC complex. I must point out the small joke here, that Dustman has tried to use a picture of guns that have been in a fire, as a 'smoking gun'.
I call him Dustman, because of his daft claim that "everything was turned t dust"
@TheFlyposter You obviously haven't watched any of the interviews from the workers at Fresh Kills landfill. THey all claim the "Stuff" they sifted through looked like DIRT. Are you going to call all of them liars to? THis is so typical of you "Believers" to only investigate the claims that work in your favor. You NEVER investigate any of the claims that contradict the Official Story.
Dustman has failed to respond t several of my posts, one in particular in which I pointed out that the potential energy, when converted to kinetic energy of 1 of the towers is equivalent to 272 tons of TNT, that's why so much was smashed beyond recognition, that's without adding in the energy from the fires, which also destroyed a lot, and continued to do so after the collapse.
@TheFlyposter What potential energy? This is just more BS in an attempt to confuse others. You never answer anything directly. You keep using diversion tactics as ALL Believers do.
I have given a very good theory, as to why so much was damaged beyond recognition, Dustman has yet to. If he ever does, it is worth pointing out that neither thermite, nor explosives would turn stuff to dust as he claims happened. I can only guess he is a space beams/Directed Energy Weapons believer, which given his grasp of science, could well be true.
@TheFlyposter Think how STUPID you are. You sent me a photo of 2 revolvers as proof that they recovered police weapons from the debris pile. REVOLVERS??? You really are stupid.
Well it's over to Dustman, no doubt will reply to this, without addressing the points, and will basically make up stuff I have said, the classic "strawman" teqnique, as he has been doing all along.
So, I think I painted a pretty good picture of Dustman, and how he has tripped himself up repeatedly, now watch for more of the same in his reply.
@TheFlyposter It amazes me at how you think that it is perfectly normal for everything inside the building to be shredded into small pieced and dust (instead of being crushed), yet we see things that were sitting around the outside of the building CRUSHED. Why did it make such a difference if the stuff was outside of the building?
@infoseeker264 Most personal artifacts have been put on the marriot world trade center survivors site, and can be only veiwed by family members to claim them, to stop trophy hunters, I would say that 80% of stuff in the WTC were crushed or burnt beyond recognition, you have yet to grace us all with your theory on where you think this stuff went? space beams? time travel? Ufo's?
infoseeker264 has been claiming all along that NIST did not test, or investigate explosives. The International Center for 911 Studies (ICS) recently submitted a FOIA request for all of the data from NIST. Unfortunately for ICS who are truthers, and for infoseeker, they actually recieved data showing that NIST investigated and tested every possible conspiracy claim!
YT won't let me post the link, so google "conspiracies r not us" first result.
@infoseeker264 Fail! ICS uncovered that NIST had in fact done the investigation, read the FOIA released data sets, it's all in there, NIST FULLY investigated. ICS merely submitted the FOIA request, and in doing so shot you, and themselves in the foot.
NIST fully invetigated explosions, all daa has been released proving it. how about them apples?
@TheFlyposter This is right out of the REPORT. Read it carefully. See when this was done.
"In order to better understand these features of the destruc- tion, the authors initiated an examination of this dust. In June 2007, Dr. Steven Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips, with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust."
@TheFlyposter These quotes were from "The International Center for 9/11 Studies". You are the one that made the claim that these reports indicated that NIST did an investigation into the use of explosives. I simply pointed out you were WRONG as usual. This study was done is 2007.
No, no all good, understand you easy, however, you have not understood me, I am saying go look at the DATA SETS RELEASED BY NIST TO THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR 911 STUDIES AFTER A FOIA REQUEST THAT PROVE NIST INVESTIGATED FULLY, FOR EXPLOSIVES. not the IC911 studies own reports, has it sunk in now? Do you understand? Or am I going to have to repeat it another 5 times.
Please take your time reading this post, and understanding it, to prevent yourself looking stupid.
@infoseeker264 Just one more time to be sure you have got it, NOT THE IC911 STUDIES OWN REPORTS, BUT THE DATA SENT TO THEM BY NIST, AFTER A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST.
now run away and read them little one, as they prove NIST investigated and tested for explosives.
One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed.
This is from a GZ worker: "You have two 110 story office buildings. You don't find a desk. You don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad, and it was about this big: (makes a shape with his hand about 4 inches in diameter) The building collapsed to dust."
There were approximately 50,000 computers in the WTC complex yet we don't find ONE.
And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.
I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you."
@infoseeker264 "initial reaction" being the key word here...."was like" "sounded like"
Yup, the collapse sounded like a bomb going off, or a train. give me accounts from people convinced still to this day that secondary explosives went off, not accounts of people saying "it sounded like". of course it did!
Evidence of confusion, note: many people though the second plane strike was a bomb:
Bessler, Paul– Thought south tower collapse was secondary explosion or plane strike. Heard on radio, "Imminent collapse. This was a terrorist attack. Evacuate."
Borrillo, Nicholas– In north tower: south tower plane hit sounded like small explosion
Campagna, Frank– In north tower, didn't know plane had hit their building. From 30th floor, thought south tower collapse was explosion
Dixon, Brian– Heard second plane hit, thought was north tower explosion. Looked like bottom fire floor of south tower exploded out, then realized it was just a collapse. "Not that there was an explosion but that the windows blew out." Worried about secondary devices.
Fitzpatrick, Brian– Thought it was debris or an explosion or a secondary explosion or another plane. Warned that north tower leaning just before it fell.
Mecner, Edward– From north tower 23rd, sounded like a missile was about to come through the window. Didn't know south tower had fallen.
Mera, Wayne– Thinks they could lose top 15-20 floors. Second plane hit = massive explosion, thought it might be a bomb. Doesn't realize until later in the day that both towers totally collapsed.
Murphy, James– Thought south tower collapse was 3rd plane hit.
Murray, Kevin– Thought south tower collapse was 3rd plane hit. Heard report of 65th floor collapse.
O'Flaherty, Brian– Thought north tower collapse was plane strike.
Olszewski, Janice (E.M.S.)– Didn't know south tower collapsed. Thought might be a bomb, another plane, etc.
Ondrovic, Patricia (E.M.S.) – Didn't know planes had hit the buildings. Tried to enter lobby of 6. Thought 6 blew up on her. Cars exploding. Coat caught fire. Thought she saw a plane explode over New Jersey.
Sweeney, Frank– Some think second plane was a bomb. Didn't know north tower damage was caused by a plane. "The rest of the day we spent running from bomb scares and gas leaks."
Trojanowski, Stanley– Thought south tower collapse was bomb going off because north tower blocked his view.
Walker, Dan – Thought south tower collapse was north tower elevators falling.
Wall, William– Heard sonic boom from fighter plane: thought it was bombs.
I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building.
@infoseeker264 Thought the roar sounded like an explosion, people hear the sound of trains in tornado's, there are no trains in tornados. Nothing odd here.
@TheFlyposter OMG! THIS IS SO TYPICAL OF YOU "BELIEVERS". You have no way to discredit the eyewitness account so you try changing the subject. TORNADOS - SERIOUSLY? What about the eyewitness accounts of these first responders SEEING explosives. What are you going to say about that? You just keep getting worse. It's easy to understand how nobody believes anything you say.
you have nothing but a list of similies and arguments from incredulity. You have zero physical evidence of a controlled demolition. No det cord, No blasting caps, No devices that could hold thermite against a vertical surface, Hell. no thermite or blast residue even. And don't spit out that old canard that they weren't looking for it. they combed through the wreckage at Fresh Kills. It would be self evident, obvious, and impossible to conceal.
@infoseeker264 Talking to me? what was the challenge, I deleted all the emails.
any challenge from you will be easy, and will follow this format: I prove you wrong, you the without any comeback to this try to accuswe me of having no credibility, soley on the grounds that I disagree with you, and can prove you wrong and back it up.
Hey, do you still think none of the lifts traverse the building from top to bottom.... lol.
I think there is only one way to know for sure. Rebuild the WTC complex in the country away from people in exactly the same manner. Fly planes into it in the same manner, then watch it tumble to the ground, set building 7 on fire watch it fall after a few hours. If it doesnt then we know its a lie which is obvious anyway. Or next world war fly planes into our enemies sky scrapers, if they dont free fall to the ground after an hour then we know september 11 is a lie
Molten metal 6 weeks later? How can you possibly believe there was any way to maintain that temp for 6 weeks? A more likely explanation is that the massive amounts of combustables continued to burn in the pile and would flare up as more oxygen became available. The pic of the back hoe removing a red piece of debris is of poor quality and the object might be just a piece of burning carpet. The other "thermite proof" pic of the firefighter looking at "molten metal" was proved fake already.
@infoseeker264 I can believe debris pile fires burning for weeks however,one firefighter said "molten steel,like lava,flowing down channels".that just is not possible.
@mrtommynazi Sure its possible. We have all seen the videos of molten steel pouring out of the side of the Towers. Why do you say it is not possible. That doesn't make any sense.
@infoseeker264 The spewing metal was BURNING magnesium/aluminum alloy from the aircraft. Have you ever seen a survival match with magnesium and flint? You just shave a few magnesium flakes off with a knife and then strike the flint causing a spark to ignite the magnesium,you will get a white hot fire There is also an article online about the dangers of casting magnesium once it is melted,if it contacts iron oxide you will have a thermitic reaction which is near impossible to put out
@mrtommynazi Not at them temperatures. It is still a mystery what caused this intense heat. Some kind of accelerant was used. Keep in mind, the GZ workers sprayed water on the debris pile everyday starting on 9/11.
@TheFlyposter Does it matter? You seem to think for it to be brought down with explosives, there would have to be these HUGE explosions (like other CD). Since you actually believe the "Official Story" all they would have had to do is plant one cutting charge on column #79. Right? But that still doesn't explain the huge blast that were hear before the collapse.
@infoseeker264 the minimum explosion would be 130db, that did not happen.
It does matter, you are basing all of you evidence on explosions, and are now saying it was not explosives, but thermite. geez, make you mind up which was it?
@TheFlyposter My god you are a BONEHEAD. You are only saying that because NIST used this as there example. I cant believer you are still attached to this LAME example. The 130 to 140 db blast would only happen with C-4 type explosives. Who says they used C-4? SO LAME.
@TheFlyposter This poor "Believer" is still stuck on a HUGE explosion. I am starting to feel sorry for him. He obviously hasn't heard of a cutting charge.
These "Believers" actually believe that an office fire brought down WTC-7 but think Thermite, which burns much hotter and faster, couldn't have done the same thing. It's amazing how gullible these "Believers" really are. Its so SAD.
@TheFlyposter There are plenty of videos out there showing how thermite works and how much noise it makes. You obviously haven't done your homework. HOW LAME.
I said I HEARD several explosions. Many of us did. I'm sure you heard them to but you are just too hardheaded to admit it. There were TOO many accounts to ignore. Explosives should have been looked for.
Why do you believers think a LOW TEMP office fire could cause the collapse but a HOTTER and FASTER fire couldn't? It's just so stupid.
@infoseeker264 "Why do you believers think a LOW TEMP office fire could cause the collapse but a HOTTER and FASTER fire couldn't? It's just so stupid."
Point to where I have said that.
BTW, fires did not cause the collapses of 1 and 2, they were part of a sequence of events, do try to get it right old bean.
@TheFlyposter You believe the "Official Story" correct? NIST SAID WTC-7 COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. They went further and said the structural damage had NOTHING to do with the collapse. They said WTC-7 would have collapsed even if it had NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.
@infoseeker264 correct, thermal expansion of longspan beams, I was however refering to buildings 1 and 2 as fire not being the main reason Quote: "BTW, fires did not cause the collapses of 1 and 2"
- Do try to read, and take in what I write, else you will make yourself look silly old bean.... lol.
@infoseeker264 "There are plenty of videos out there showing how thermite works and how much noise it makes"
I tend to do my research reading scientific papers, that's how I run rings round your arguments, most of your research is watching youtube videos... lol.
@infoseeker264 where have I said that I think WTC7 collapsed due to structural damage? I was refering to buildings 1 and 2. do try to read my posts porperly old bean
@TheFlyposter WAY BACK, in our emails (before you got all childish and blocked me), I said it collapsed due to fire and you had to point out that the damage also added to the collapse. We both know you said this. NOW you have obviously researched it further and realized you were wrong. It is so typical for you "believers" to keep changing you stories.
@infoseeker264 specificaly, show me an email from me, whee I say trhe debris damage (this is what you are refering to?) of building 7 added to, or cause the collapse. Nice try making things up... lol
@infoseeker264 You are arguing that explosives definately went off, they were heard and witnessed ,but you also seem to be saying explosives might not have been used, it might have been thermite.
@TheFlyposter I am not arguing about explosives. I heard several of them in the videos and heard many eyewitness accounts. You are the one that doesn't believe there were explosives used on 9/11. I have all the proof I need to determine this.
@TheFlyposter I think its funny how "Believers" like you think you can have it BOTH WAYS. You discount eyewitness accounts of MANY First Responders saying the these eyewitness accounts are not reliable. BUT when there is an eyewitness account in your favor, you think it very trustworthy. All you believers are all alike. IT'S SO CHILDISH.
@infoseeker264 Since researching this I have found out that most of the eyewitness reports of explosives have been taken out of context. If you wish to post any of them on here, with name of who it was, I will show you the whole eye witness report, and prove they were not talking about explosives
Now, nothing childish about that eh?
I bet you dodge this, and don't post any of your witness reports.
@TheFlyposter I have a HUGE LIST OF NAMES AND TITLES and their explosive accounts. I cannot post it here as there are just too many. I wish I could post it here, then others could see that you are just making things up and/or cherry picking. So typical from you "Believers".
@TheFlyposter The vast majority of these accounts remained suppressed by the city until the New York Times won a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the City of New York in 2005, and announced the release of the records on August 8, 2005.
Why do you suppose they tried to keep these eyewitness accounts suppressed? I have a pretty good idea. I think you do to.
@infoseeker264 A perusal of some excerpts of these accounts containing recollections of the sights, sounds, and immediate observations of the destruction of the Twin Towers suggests the reason the city fought to keep them suppressed: the witnesses consistently describe loud bangs at the onsets of the events, and explosive features characteristic of controlled demolition.
@infoseeker264 again here you do the same thing you do with most of your posts:
insinuate it was a controlled demolition, post some vague "eye witness reports" without name, or sourse, and present it as proof.... science at it's worst.
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.
TELL ME how did that account get taken out of context? LOL
I'm an american and I believe the government staged these attacks. I'm moving to a free country like Germany where they don't kill there own citizens. I renounce my citizenship! I want to move to a superior country like Germany that has an Autobahn.
The rescue attempts halted immediately after finding the gold, the thousands of dead or dying workers from ground zero, the 3 dozen or so protocol requirements for fire investigations that weren't done at WTCs, the hasty removal of evidence which led to hundreds of bodies being dumped in the landfill, the "pull it" statement, Bin Laden not being charged with 9/11, the amazing floating passport..
@audallas841 You present a lot of facts and figured into your comments to throw doubt on things. Do you ever try that with such subjects as norad failing 4 times, Bush's brother heading up security at WTC, Silverstein taking out insurance weeks before the attack, the missing pentagon footage sans airplane, reports of secondary explosions, footage of squibs, entire floor shutdowns for "renovations" and powerdowns in the months before 9/11, bush lying about seeing the planes hit....
@N1k1mon did the WTC really have large renovations not long before, thats the way they would do it, I was thinking that probably would have happened anyway. I work in an office building and you think nothing when the boss says yeah we are getting some electricians in, this type in etc, then there is shit loads of them crawling around making a racket for weeks and you think nothing of it because its normal., its obvious the government lied or they were not informed as they are puppets anyway,
Which helps a lot, since cameras would not be able to record charges going off in the middle of the building. Anybody planning this would obviously plan it to extremely high detail, far more planning and expertise than a regular demo. These would be the things they were preparing for, as little evidence as possible and maybe unsuspected means and methods.
If you watch the collapse of the Salomon bros building (WTC 7) you will see the structure on the top of the building collapse nearly 8 seconds before the entire building begins to drop. So here we have two instances of the cores failing first, then the outer shells coming down. The explosions talked about, constant explosions after the plane strike were probably systematic disabling of the core columns so that very little charges would have to go off at collapse.
you people still believe in your government? i am not american, but sometimes i think that i do know more about your land than you do. better read some more books of what happend the last 50 years to your land....its not the first time that the usa attacks there own people....
@AiresQX4 Maybe because he has no background in structural engineering or architecture. Maybe because the by-products of thermite, Aluminum Oxide and Barium Nitrate were not found in any amount? Maybe because the fires inside the building reached 1452 degrees? Maybe because aluminums's melting point is 1200 degrees? Maybe because the point where steel weakens is only 1100 degrees? Maybe because all the actual evidence gathered by thousands in their actual proffessions contradicts what he says?
@audallas841 OK if you believe yourself which you obviously do then there is nothing I can say to change your mind. In the mean time show me a tower fire where it made the entire structure pulverize into fine powder while falling at close to free fall speed. Just one example of a tower collapsing like 7 did. Just one.
@AiresQX4 The towers did not fall at near freefall speeds. You guys need to stop claiming that as it is not even close to what the seismic evidence shows. Collapse of the towers took 15 seconds. The time it took the DUST and SOME of the debris, the things we could see on camera was 10 seconds, not the entire structure itself.
@AiresQX4 And I can't show you examples of a building that had been hit by debris from a falling 110 story building, that had been burning ALL day, that had 25% of it's lower floors gutted because it's only happened ONCE.
Demolitions do not pulverize concrete into a fine dust, neither did the entire structure of the WTC. There were huge slabs of concrete left. I know this because I was THERE. Make sure you know what you're saying BEFORE you say it.
@AiresQX4 But I digress, there have been no buildings in history that took up a whole city block, was a "tube in a tube" design, came off it's core columns at the bottom floors, was struck by an airliner, weakened by fire over 6 hours, had trusses bolted with 5/8" bolts and survived.
Anyone claiming these events are separate is LYING to you or ignorant.
@audallas841 There has been many,many towers with much more significant damage and much hotter longer lasting fires that never collapsed into the path of the most resistance with 2.2 seconds of complete free fall. Anyone that can watch building 7 collapse and then lie to themselves that it was fire is an asshole that I choose not to converse with. I like honesty in my life!
@AiresQX4 AGIAN! Saying that ANY of those towers neared "Free fall" is INCORRECT. 15 seconds is more than enough time for a 110 story building to fall. In the case of WTC 7, it came closest, but was again nowhere near "free fall" speeds. It was a 40 story building that fell over 4 seconds. More than enough time for a building to fall over those conditions. If you want to believe the bullshit and live in your own La La land, fine. Tell the aliens I day hi while you ride the unicorns.
@audallas841 Watch David Chandlers videos. He can explain the impossibility of the tower collapses much better than I can. And just so you know, your very own Commission report states on page 305 that the towers collapsed in 10 seconds.
@audallas841 Actually bldg 7 did go through a stage of complete free fall for over a hundred feet. NIST hasn't denied it either. So what do you say about that.
@AiresQX4 And again, people do know believe Dr Jones, or any of his buddies in "scholars for 9//11 truth" because they are a few hundred "experts" against hundreds of thousands of Architects and engineers. So you're telling me that you're willing to believe the word of someone who worked on energy projects over someone who's occupation is the design and building of structures? That makes no sense.
@AiresQX4 you could say the same about the rest of the scholors as well. A software engineer, a philosopher of religion, an activist, a member of the Green Party (i mean, really?). I mean, some of these people are advocating that a satellite based weapon was used.... and you're going to take their word for it over 138,000 people who actually work in a relevant field?
@AiresQX4 No I can't and for that matter, nor can anybody else, the reason being it is impossible to scale down and recreate the events, you cannot scale down a fire,(a large fie in a big building will have different properties to a scaled version) and you cannot scale down the sand used in the concrete (which is what you would have to do).
There are only 2 possible ways here: recreate a full sized replica, or computer simulation.
@TheFlyposter With our technology today there is absolutely no reason they can't build a model tower. You could even leave the core out and use weaker materials and still they couldn't reproduce the same collapse. And the reason being is because bldgs DO NOT COLLAPSE STRAIGHT DOWN INTO THE PATH OF THE MOST RESISTANCE AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED. When towers catch fire chunks fall off gradually,asymmetrically and never all at once. What reason do they continue to use demo? Just use fire!!
Well, yes there is, you need to read up on physics and scaling. It can't be done.
BTW this statement of yours "DO NOT COLLAPSE STRAIGHT DOWN INTO THE PATH OF THE MOST RESISTANCE AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED"
Is false also, although the towers fell down( gravity has an odd way of doing that!) the towers did not fall into their own foot print, meaning some least resistance occured, and near "freefall speed" means not at feefall speed, don't insinuate.
@TheFlyposter My point is the fact you could make any type of tower model and never be able to reproduce a symmetrical collapse. Especially a complete global collapse. Answer me why don't demo companies use the damage and fire method considering how well it works? Wtc7 was a beautiful example of demo and yet damage and fire were able to do the same job. I find it odd why they continue to waste time and money using the conventional method.
@AiresQX4 "My point is the fact you could make any type of tower model and never be able to reproduce a symmetrical collapse"
- nonsense
Answer me why don't demo companies use the damage and fire method"
-ridiculous argument, not even gonna entertain this, although I have placed your post above on JREF forum under "twooferisms, just for laughs" as it is that ridiculous, it is laugh out loud.
@TheFlyposter That is the best you can come up with? You claim its so ridiculous that you won't entertain it. I'm thinking the truth is you cannot
reply with a answer because deep down inside you know the truth would completely change your entire world view and that would be devastating. Just face the fact that yes even the U.S Gov could,would and have killed innocent people as to them the ends justifies the means. You certainly aren't alone in your willful ignorance to the truth.
@AiresQX4 Well, given that I have already explained to you that scaling and models don't work in trying to recreate a collapse of a building, and that NO ONE uses this method, because it is floored, the best thing you can do, is to show me an example of when scientists in the past, have used a scaled model to try to understand a collapse. If you can't then my assetation that what you are saying is ridiculous stands. You are miles away from scientific method here.
@TheFlyposter You still haven't answered why Demo companies don't use the damage,fire method since it worked so well for WTC7. They would save so much time and money not having to install explosives. The reason demo experts would never use the fire method is because in the real world it would never work. You know that and I know that but for some reason fire,damage worked miracles on only 9-11-01
Because, whilst fire completely destroyed the Kader toy factory in Singapore, the fire affected sections of dogwood elementary school in virginia, the mumbai High north platform in India, and world trade center 7 - all steel-framed structures, many buildings have survived fires often due to concrete-reinforced steel. They wouldn't know if the building would definately collapse or not, they do know it will with explosives. Fire did not work miracles, fire collase is common.
@TheFlyposter LOL! Very funny. Thats all you got? I knew you would give up again.
We shouldn't be so concerned what made these building collapse. We should be MORE concerned why everything was turned into dust. Do you research and you will see that not ONE computer was fount intact. NOT ONE. Where did they all go? WHat turned them into dust?
I see, so you now believe that computers have some magical property that means they don't get crushed into unrecognisable pulp by thousands of tons of falling building?
@TheFlyposter Over 100,000 computers, desks and chairs and many more file cabinets (among other things) and NOT ONE survived. It is ridicules to think every one of them would be destroyed. Some of them were on the FIRST FLOOR. How far did they fall? STUPID. If anything they should have been crushed (but still there).
@infoseeker264 Well that really depends on what that "something" is, if it was a feather, then I would have to say no, the computer would not be smashed, if it was thousands of tons of falling building, then I would have to say yes, the computer would be smashed to pulp.
In short it depends on the weight and velocity of the object(s) doing the smashing...
Do you have a theory as to why you can't see any computers in the debris piles in the photos?
@infoseeker264 Not one survived eh? You didn't look very hard did you? I forgot all I have to do is look into one of your ridiculous claims to find out it's not true. Listen all you have to do is go to the visitor center at ground zero, and you can view items that are recognisable yourself, some of them are electrical equipment.
Still beleive there was nothing recognisable?
Google the visitor centre in images. swallow that jagged pill. ha ha.
@TheFlyposter I didn't find any pictures of any of this. You just keep spreading your BS. Don't you get sick of it? You think you are so smart. Even ending you response with a "I Told You SO" type of remark but as usual, it only makes you look foolish.
@infoseeker264 For all reading this, as well as for infoseeker, I have just emailed the link to Him, seems he is too lazy to research it himself, hey infoseek, a few pictures down, is that a piece of circuit board? don't they come from computers?
Ha ha. lol
for all those who want to look themselves google wtc debris items, I can't post the link on here.
Once again, an epic fail by infoseek. Yes! ............ btw......
@infoseeker264 "The museum has tangible vestiges of the twin towers, including pieces of window glass, lobby marble and jagged beam steel. One display case holds a beer can from 1971, when construction workers building the new towers shoved it between two steel beams before sealing them. The can was pried from the metal at ground zero, twisted and rusty.One jarring item is a frozen clock, its simple black hands stopped at 10:02, and the small one at 14."
@TheFlyposter "you appear to able to debunk..." What is this supposed to say. Just calm down... Don't get so excited about this.
I do agree with the part about you "cant prove this". You haven't been able to prove anything yet. You still cant answer what caused everything to turn to dust.
@infoseeker264 everything was not turned to dust, there was lot's of rubble and steel columns and beams. The dust cloud you see in the videos is gypsum, andthere are pohto's of big lumps of flattened, crushed matter, now proven to be the pancaked floors.
@infoseeker264 are you saying that pancaking did not occur? I can easily prove you wrong on this, come on, it will be another in a long line of embarrasing claims you have made like "everything was turned to dust"
This has been flagged as spam show
Learn what caused the 2 spires ... watch: /watch?v=UlM5fC-awmY
See Dimitri Khalezov explain:
- How 2 "spires" survived the demolition of WTC 1 and WTC 2
- Where the detonation charges were placed at WTC 1,2 and 7
- Why WTC 2, which was hit 2nd, collapsed before WTC 1, which was hit first
- Why WTC 7 was also demolished
- Why most of WTC 4 was destroyed
Read the description of that video to get more info.
anthonyc31 4 months ago
So Steven Jones is carving chunks of metal off 9/11 memorials to prove his wackjob theories? Well, isn't that special!
911sausageman 7 months ago
Great explanation that the floors did not "pancake"
akmrmike 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One of the WTC design engineers, Leslie Robertson, had denied that people saw molten steel in the Ground Zero rubble. A video surfaced recently showing that in 2002 he claimed he had seen "a little river of molten steel" himself.
See my video:
The 9/11 "Deep Mystery" and the Crazy Engineers
punxsutawneybarney 7 months ago
I would imagine a nasty visit from the government would entail if someone was really speaking like the scalar weapons used. Many have died that where witnesses to this. Remember some collect 5 billion in insurance money, whether they where involved remains a unknown.
doughauf 8 months ago
thermite will not throw debrie very far, it only cuts and melts there would need to be other explosives. Scalar technology was used that is why the oxygen tanks on the backs of the firemen where exploding, and metal was evaporating into thin air so to speak. Cars a 1/2 mile away where incinerated, or the engin blocks where missing and door handles where missing. Thermite will not cause this type of destruction, people are really to scared to bring up the real reason.
doughauf 8 months ago
Concrete Into Dust, 9/11, The Demolition Job.
onedollarwill 10 months ago
Inside Job.....Thermate prefabricated to fit beams and installed....large crew never needed, just access......Drone Planes with laser targeting.....Building 7 falls without losing it's shape.....Demolition.....WTC 1 and 2 turn to dust before even hitting the ground.....Demolition......Inside Job....."Pull it"
Who was the Saudi Prince that offered Guiliani millions after 9/11? Remember Guiliani refused to take the money? <------- I think it was all done for the masses and television.
Born2Flesh 10 months ago
0:31 - 0:36 this is not a picture of the spire collapsing, you can clearly still see the spire to the right of it. All of the video I have seen of the spire, it does not fall. it just turns into dust.
DiabloUniverse 1 year ago
Oops I mean 3:31 - 3:36
DiabloUniverse 1 year ago
Well that's it folks, I am out of here, First Dustman (infoseek) tried to have us all beleive that nothing survived the collapse, it all truned to dust, I showed that actually 100'000's of artifacts were in fact recovered, so then he shifted the goaposts, and started claiming that he just wanted to see a smashed computer, so I showed him an image of a piece of motherboard, he shifted the goalposts again claiming he only wanted to see office furniture - the stuff that burns in hot ground fires...
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
So after repeatedly changing his story, he then offered up a picture of two revolvers found, claiming them to be mysterious, because the NYPD don't use revolvers, I pointed out it might have something to do with there being an indoor shooting range in the WTC complex. I must point out the small joke here, that Dustman has tried to use a picture of guns that have been in a fire, as a 'smoking gun'.
I call him Dustman, because of his daft claim that "everything was turned t dust"
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter This doesn't change the fact that they didn't recover the POLICE WEAPONS including the Batons that are basically indestructible.
SO LAME!!!
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter You obviously haven't watched any of the interviews from the workers at Fresh Kills landfill. THey all claim the "Stuff" they sifted through looked like DIRT. Are you going to call all of them liars to? THis is so typical of you "Believers" to only investigate the claims that work in your favor. You NEVER investigate any of the claims that contradict the Official Story.
LAME!
infoseeker264 1 year ago
Dustman has failed to respond t several of my posts, one in particular in which I pointed out that the potential energy, when converted to kinetic energy of 1 of the towers is equivalent to 272 tons of TNT, that's why so much was smashed beyond recognition, that's without adding in the energy from the fires, which also destroyed a lot, and continued to do so after the collapse.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter What potential energy? This is just more BS in an attempt to confuse others. You never answer anything directly. You keep using diversion tactics as ALL Believers do.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
I have given a very good theory, as to why so much was damaged beyond recognition, Dustman has yet to. If he ever does, it is worth pointing out that neither thermite, nor explosives would turn stuff to dust as he claims happened. I can only guess he is a space beams/Directed Energy Weapons believer, which given his grasp of science, could well be true.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter Think how STUPID you are. You sent me a photo of 2 revolvers as proof that they recovered police weapons from the debris pile. REVOLVERS??? You really are stupid.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter You haven't given me ANY theory as to how all the contents turned into dust. ARE YOU DREAMING?
You haven't explained anything. All you do is question everything. You obviously don't have a clue what happened.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
Well it's over to Dustman, no doubt will reply to this, without addressing the points, and will basically make up stuff I have said, the classic "strawman" teqnique, as he has been doing all along.
So, I think I painted a pretty good picture of Dustman, and how he has tripped himself up repeatedly, now watch for more of the same in his reply.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter All I can say is YOU ARE SO CHILDISH. Like i have pointed out so many times before. You need to get a life and move on. LOL!
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter Watch this! I dare you.
"9/11 Debris: Investigation of Ground Zero, Pt. 1"
watch?v=QnnXTrw88P4
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter It amazes me at how you think that it is perfectly normal for everything inside the building to be shredded into small pieced and dust (instead of being crushed), yet we see things that were sitting around the outside of the building CRUSHED. Why did it make such a difference if the stuff was outside of the building?
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter You are using your diversion tactics again. I sent you a list of things that should have been recovered and weren't. You are pathetic.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
45,000 desks & chairs, 245 Acres Carpet, 40,000 File Cabinets, 40,000 Cubicles, 75,000 phones, 20,000 miles wiring, 300 Mainframes, 45,000 Computer & monitors & Keyboards, 650 Fire Extinguishers, 3000 Copiers & Printers, 20,000 doors & knobs, 450 Refrigerators, 5000 Vending machines, 3000 Wallets & purses, 3000 ID s, 3000 cell phones, 3000 Employee's, 6000 shoes, 347 Fireman & Coats & boots & hats,
3 titanium Boeing engines, Watches, Earrings, Necklaces, Belts, AND MORE!
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 Most personal artifacts have been put on the marriot world trade center survivors site, and can be only veiwed by family members to claim them, to stop trophy hunters, I would say that 80% of stuff in the WTC were crushed or burnt beyond recognition, you have yet to grace us all with your theory on where you think this stuff went? space beams? time travel? Ufo's?
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 Over 54000 personal items such as identification cards and driver licenses recovered from World Trade Center debris ...
nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
infoseeker264 has been claiming all along that NIST did not test, or investigate explosives. The International Center for 911 Studies (ICS) recently submitted a FOIA request for all of the data from NIST. Unfortunately for ICS who are truthers, and for infoseeker, they actually recieved data showing that NIST investigated and tested every possible conspiracy claim!
YT won't let me post the link, so google "conspiracies r not us" first result.
That's you done infoseek.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter Bla Bla Bla, THat is so LAME. LOL!!!
NIST and/or FEMA didn't do this investigation, The International Center for 911 Studies did the investigation. This only demonstrates you ignorants.
Keep spreading it, you will eventually get someone to believe you (maybe).
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 Fail! ICS uncovered that NIST had in fact done the investigation, read the FOIA released data sets, it's all in there, NIST FULLY investigated. ICS merely submitted the FOIA request, and in doing so shot you, and themselves in the foot.
NIST fully invetigated explosions, all daa has been released proving it. how about them apples?
ha ha.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter This is right out of the REPORT. Read it carefully. See when this was done.
"In order to better understand these features of the destruc- tion, the authors initiated an examination of this dust. In June 2007, Dr. Steven Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips, with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust."
Try again.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
What are you talking about? this is not from the NIST data released.
the data which shows NIST investigated, yes investigated fully for explsovies.
Read the data sets released by NIST, come back when you have.... run along, and stop quoting the wrong bit of info. lol.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter These quotes were from "The International Center for 9/11 Studies". You are the one that made the claim that these reports indicated that NIST did an investigation into the use of explosives. I simply pointed out you were WRONG as usual. This study was done is 2007.
You want me to slow down so you can catch up?
infoseeker264 1 year ago
No, no all good, understand you easy, however, you have not understood me, I am saying go look at the DATA SETS RELEASED BY NIST TO THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR 911 STUDIES AFTER A FOIA REQUEST THAT PROVE NIST INVESTIGATED FULLY, FOR EXPLOSIVES. not the IC911 studies own reports, has it sunk in now? Do you understand? Or am I going to have to repeat it another 5 times.
Please take your time reading this post, and understanding it, to prevent yourself looking stupid.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 Just one more time to be sure you have got it, NOT THE IC911 STUDIES OWN REPORTS, BUT THE DATA SENT TO THEM BY NIST, AFTER A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST.
now run away and read them little one, as they prove NIST investigated and tested for explosives.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
name and link to this please.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
This is from a GZ worker: "You have two 110 story office buildings. You don't find a desk. You don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad, and it was about this big: (makes a shape with his hand about 4 inches in diameter) The building collapsed to dust."
There were approximately 50,000 computers in the WTC complex yet we don't find ONE.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264
No shock here, as thousands of tons of falling building smashed everything to unrecognisable peices.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
Another;
Albert Turi -- Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
"Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.)
I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you."
-
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter Trains did it!
lol. same failed logic applied.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "initial reaction" being the key word here...."was like" "sounded like"
Yup, the collapse sounded like a bomb going off, or a train. give me accounts from people convinced still to this day that secondary explosives went off, not accounts of people saying "it sounded like". of course it did!
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
Evidence of confusion, note: many people though the second plane strike was a bomb:
Bessler, Paul– Thought south tower collapse was secondary explosion or plane strike. Heard on radio, "Imminent collapse. This was a terrorist attack. Evacuate."
Borrillo, Nicholas– In north tower: south tower plane hit sounded like small explosion
Campagna, Frank– In north tower, didn't know plane had hit their building. From 30th floor, thought south tower collapse was explosion
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
Cassano, Salvatore– Thought 2nd plane was secondary explosion from north tower.
Conzo, Joseph (E.M.S.)– Thought collapse of south tower was another plane strike.
Delgado, Manuel (E.M.S.)– Didn't know about 2nd plane until evening. Thought it was a secondary explosion.
Diaz, Jr., Roland (E.M.S.)– In #5, thought south tower collapse was airplane strike
Dorritie, Robert– Thought south tower collapse was secondary device.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
Dixon, Brian– Heard second plane hit, thought was north tower explosion. Looked like bottom fire floor of south tower exploded out, then realized it was just a collapse. "Not that there was an explosion but that the windows blew out." Worried about secondary devices.
Fitzpatrick, Brian– Thought it was debris or an explosion or a secondary explosion or another plane. Warned that north tower leaning just before it fell.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
Galasso, Joseph– Didn't know both buildings had come down. South tower, sounded like a waterfall
Ippolito, James– Thought south tower collapse was another plane. Second plane hit sound like train derailing
McCabe, Kevin– Thought south tower collapse was 3rd plane hit
McGimpsey, Jason– south tower collapse sounded like a plane or bomb or something like that.
McNeur-Mccarthy, Linda (E.M.S.) – Thought south tower collapse was another plane hit.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
Mecner, Edward– From north tower 23rd, sounded like a missile was about to come through the window. Didn't know south tower had fallen.
Mera, Wayne– Thinks they could lose top 15-20 floors. Second plane hit = massive explosion, thought it might be a bomb. Doesn't realize until later in the day that both towers totally collapsed.
Murphy, James– Thought south tower collapse was 3rd plane hit.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
Murray, Kevin– Thought south tower collapse was 3rd plane hit. Heard report of 65th floor collapse.
O'Flaherty, Brian– Thought north tower collapse was plane strike.
Olszewski, Janice (E.M.S.)– Didn't know south tower collapsed. Thought might be a bomb, another plane, etc.
Ondrovic, Patricia (E.M.S.) – Didn't know planes had hit the buildings. Tried to enter lobby of 6. Thought 6 blew up on her. Cars exploding. Coat caught fire. Thought she saw a plane explode over New Jersey.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
Orlando, Thomas– In north tower, thought south tower collapse was missile attack.
Piambino, Thomas– In north tower: didn't know "explosion" was the south tower falling.
Puma, Frank (E.M.S.) – Thought first plane strike was a bomb.
Reilly, Gerard– Thought south tower collapse was explosion in Vista Hotel. Didn't know tower had collapsed.
Smiley, Gary (E.M.S.)– FBI people saying there were bombs in different parks and just running from one area to the next.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
Sweeney, Frank– Some think second plane was a bomb. Didn't know north tower damage was caused by a plane. "The rest of the day we spent running from bomb scares and gas leaks."
Trojanowski, Stanley– Thought south tower collapse was bomb going off because north tower blocked his view.
Walker, Dan – Thought south tower collapse was north tower elevators falling.
Wall, William– Heard sonic boom from fighter plane: thought it was bombs.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
Walsh, William– Didn't know south tower fell. Rumors of federal buildings being hit.
Wernick, Michael– Thought south tower collapse was airplane strike.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
Here is another one.
James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building.
Try taking this one out of context. LOL
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 Thought the roar sounded like an explosion, people hear the sound of trains in tornado's, there are no trains in tornados. Nothing odd here.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter OMG! THIS IS SO TYPICAL OF YOU "BELIEVERS". You have no way to discredit the eyewitness account so you try changing the subject. TORNADOS - SERIOUSLY? What about the eyewitness accounts of these first responders SEEING explosives. What are you going to say about that? You just keep getting worse. It's easy to understand how nobody believes anything you say.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
you have nothing but a list of similies and arguments from incredulity. You have zero physical evidence of a controlled demolition. No det cord, No blasting caps, No devices that could hold thermite against a vertical surface, Hell. no thermite or blast residue even. And don't spit out that old canard that they weren't looking for it. they combed through the wreckage at Fresh Kills. It would be self evident, obvious, and impossible to conceal.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "What about the eyewitness accounts of these first responders SEEING explosives."
This is what I asked for, with names of who said it, you have not posted any yet.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
I left you with a challenge in one of my last emails. Why don't you take this challenge? Is it because you don't have the answer? LOL
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 Talking to me? what was the challenge, I deleted all the emails.
any challenge from you will be easy, and will follow this format: I prove you wrong, you the without any comeback to this try to accuswe me of having no credibility, soley on the grounds that I disagree with you, and can prove you wrong and back it up.
Hey, do you still think none of the lifts traverse the building from top to bottom.... lol.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
I think there is only one way to know for sure. Rebuild the WTC complex in the country away from people in exactly the same manner. Fly planes into it in the same manner, then watch it tumble to the ground, set building 7 on fire watch it fall after a few hours. If it doesnt then we know its a lie which is obvious anyway. Or next world war fly planes into our enemies sky scrapers, if they dont free fall to the ground after an hour then we know september 11 is a lie
binomialbeard 1 year ago
Molten metal 6 weeks later? How can you possibly believe there was any way to maintain that temp for 6 weeks? A more likely explanation is that the massive amounts of combustables continued to burn in the pile and would flare up as more oxygen became available. The pic of the back hoe removing a red piece of debris is of poor quality and the object might be just a piece of burning carpet. The other "thermite proof" pic of the firefighter looking at "molten metal" was proved fake already.
mrtommynazi 1 year ago 7
@mrtommynazi The pictures might not tell you everything but if you listen to the GZ worker, he says that is has been burning for 6 weeks.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 I can believe debris pile fires burning for weeks however,one firefighter said "molten steel,like lava,flowing down channels".that just is not possible.
mrtommynazi 1 year ago
@mrtommynazi Sure its possible. We have all seen the videos of molten steel pouring out of the side of the Towers. Why do you say it is not possible. That doesn't make any sense.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 The spewing metal was BURNING magnesium/aluminum alloy from the aircraft. Have you ever seen a survival match with magnesium and flint? You just shave a few magnesium flakes off with a knife and then strike the flint causing a spark to ignite the magnesium,you will get a white hot fire There is also an article online about the dangers of casting magnesium once it is melted,if it contacts iron oxide you will have a thermitic reaction which is near impossible to put out
mrtommynazi 1 year ago
@mrtommynazi You actually think the aircraft was burning for 2 months? Amazing!!! Another First.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 HUh? The debris pile fires were just fires.
mrtommynazi 1 year ago
@mrtommynazi Not at them temperatures. It is still a mystery what caused this intense heat. Some kind of accelerant was used. Keep in mind, the GZ workers sprayed water on the debris pile everyday starting on 9/11.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 but you have been arguing the toss with me that it was explosives, not acellerants, which do you think it is?
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter Does it matter? You seem to think for it to be brought down with explosives, there would have to be these HUGE explosions (like other CD). Since you actually believe the "Official Story" all they would have had to do is plant one cutting charge on column #79. Right? But that still doesn't explain the huge blast that were hear before the collapse.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 in which video is there a huge explosion heard before the collapse?
One cutter charge on column 79 would not do it, there were many other things going on in the building as part of the progressive collapse.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter There were several HUGE blasts before the towers collapsed. If you deny this you are just being STUPID.
If you don't think ONE cutting charge on column 79, you don't believe the official story. Read the report.
You "Believers" think you can have it both ways. SO CHILDISH!
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "There were several HUGE blasts before the towers collapsed"
No blasts directly before collapse.
some small explosions long before building collapse explained.
-prove it, video evidence, just another one of your myths.
"If you don't think ONE cutting charge on column 79, you don't believe the official story. Read the report"
-Have done, NIST don't say one cutting charge could bring down building 7, prove it. links.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 Are you going to post that video with the faked sound a third time as evidence.... lol.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 the minimum explosion would be 130db, that did not happen.
It does matter, you are basing all of you evidence on explosions, and are now saying it was not explosives, but thermite. geez, make you mind up which was it?
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter My god you are a BONEHEAD. You are only saying that because NIST used this as there example. I cant believer you are still attached to this LAME example. The 130 to 140 db blast would only happen with C-4 type explosives. Who says they used C-4? SO LAME.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 Post examples of explosives that could blow a collumn the size of 79, and that would be quieter than C4. proof needed.
You won't find any btw.
Glad this is public now, everyone can see you trip yourself up. he he.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter This poor "Believer" is still stuck on a HUGE explosion. I am starting to feel sorry for him. He obviously hasn't heard of a cutting charge.
These "Believers" actually believe that an office fire brought down WTC-7 but think Thermite, which burns much hotter and faster, couldn't have done the same thing. It's amazing how gullible these "Believers" really are. Its so SAD.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 cutting charges are loud, huge in fact for columns the size of B7's, prove otherwise.
"but think Thermite, which burns much hotter and faster, couldn't have done the same thing"
No, it probably could, but it didn't, there is no evidence.
I thought you thought it was explosives, not thermite anyway?
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter There are plenty of videos out there showing how thermite works and how much noise it makes. You obviously haven't done your homework. HOW LAME.
I said I HEARD several explosions. Many of us did. I'm sure you heard them to but you are just too hardheaded to admit it. There were TOO many accounts to ignore. Explosives should have been looked for.
Why do you believers think a LOW TEMP office fire could cause the collapse but a HOTTER and FASTER fire couldn't? It's just so stupid.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "LOW TEMP office fire"
- oxymoron... lol. (online dictionary for the meaning).
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "I said I HEARD several explosions. Many of us did. I'm sure you heard them to but you are just too hardheaded to admit it"
Post proof, videos.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "Why do you believers think a LOW TEMP office fire could cause the collapse but a HOTTER and FASTER fire couldn't? It's just so stupid."
Point to where I have said that.
BTW, fires did not cause the collapses of 1 and 2, they were part of a sequence of events, do try to get it right old bean.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter You believe the "Official Story" correct? NIST SAID WTC-7 COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. They went further and said the structural damage had NOTHING to do with the collapse. They said WTC-7 would have collapsed even if it had NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.
YET YOU BELIEVE THIS CRAP.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 correct, thermal expansion of longspan beams, I was however refering to buildings 1 and 2 as fire not being the main reason Quote: "BTW, fires did not cause the collapses of 1 and 2"
- Do try to read, and take in what I write, else you will make yourself look silly old bean.... lol.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "There are plenty of videos out there showing how thermite works and how much noise it makes"
I tend to do my research reading scientific papers, that's how I run rings round your arguments, most of your research is watching youtube videos... lol.
That said, post links! (bet ou won't, ha ha).
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter So you don't use YouTube? LOL You are so stupid. DONT YOU REALIZE WHERE YOU ARE POSTING THIS? LOL! What a FOOL.
You are still think WTC-7 Collapsed due to structural damage even though NIST said otherwise. LOL! You are just showing your STUPIDITY!
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 where have I said that I think WTC7 collapsed due to structural damage? I was refering to buildings 1 and 2. do try to read my posts porperly old bean
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter WAY BACK, in our emails (before you got all childish and blocked me), I said it collapsed due to fire and you had to point out that the damage also added to the collapse. We both know you said this. NOW you have obviously researched it further and realized you were wrong. It is so typical for you "believers" to keep changing you stories.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
I have not changed my story one iota, prove it with quotes from my emails I sent you.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 specificaly, show me an email from me, whee I say trhe debris damage (this is what you are refering to?) of building 7 added to, or cause the collapse. Nice try making things up... lol
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "So you don't use YouTube?"
- never said I didn't, did say I base my arguments on reading scientific papers. nice try.... lol.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 You are arguing that explosives definately went off, they were heard and witnessed ,but you also seem to be saying explosives might not have been used, it might have been thermite.
lol.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter You obviously don't know how to READ. I said there was PLENTY of evidence and explosives should have been investigated.
I have said all along, I am not sure what happened but I DONT BUT THIS FAR FETCHED "OFFICIAL STORY".
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "I said there was PLENTY of evidence and explosives should have been investigated."
- So we can rule out thermite, as all the evidence points to explosives in your view then?
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter I thought you already ruled out Thermite. Make up your mind (If you can).
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 Thermite and explosives... correct.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@infoseeker264 "I have said all along, I am not sure what happened "
Finally!!!!!!!
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
I might add that you have not said tha all along, not one bit.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "Some kind of accelerant was used"
So no need for explosives then, why are you arguing that explosives were heard if you think it was accelerants?
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter I am not arguing about explosives. I heard several of them in the videos and heard many eyewitness accounts. You are the one that doesn't believe there were explosives used on 9/11. I have all the proof I need to determine this.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 just none you can post on here, video proof.... lol
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter I think its funny how "Believers" like you think you can have it BOTH WAYS. You discount eyewitness accounts of MANY First Responders saying the these eyewitness accounts are not reliable. BUT when there is an eyewitness account in your favor, you think it very trustworthy. All you believers are all alike. IT'S SO CHILDISH.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 Since researching this I have found out that most of the eyewitness reports of explosives have been taken out of context. If you wish to post any of them on here, with name of who it was, I will show you the whole eye witness report, and prove they were not talking about explosives
Now, nothing childish about that eh?
I bet you dodge this, and don't post any of your witness reports.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter I have a HUGE LIST OF NAMES AND TITLES and their explosive accounts. I cannot post it here as there are just too many. I wish I could post it here, then others could see that you are just making things up and/or cherry picking. So typical from you "Believers".
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 post a few of them, pick five.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter The vast majority of these accounts remained suppressed by the city until the New York Times won a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the City of New York in 2005, and announced the release of the records on August 8, 2005.
Why do you suppose they tried to keep these eyewitness accounts suppressed? I have a pretty good idea. I think you do to.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 A perusal of some excerpts of these accounts containing recollections of the sights, sounds, and immediate observations of the destruction of the Twin Towers suggests the reason the city fought to keep them suppressed: the witnesses consistently describe loud bangs at the onsets of the events, and explosive features characteristic of controlled demolition.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 again here you do the same thing you do with most of your posts:
insinuate it was a controlled demolition, post some vague "eye witness reports" without name, or sourse, and present it as proof.... science at it's worst.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 really?, so the eye witnesses were payed off too then, and never spoke about it after NIST interviewed them?
lol.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter Here is one.
Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.
TELL ME how did that account get taken out of context? LOL
infoseeker264 1 year ago
Untill today I didnt even know there were three buildings!!! Crazy
pondsj01 1 year ago
I'm an american and I believe the government staged these attacks. I'm moving to a free country like Germany where they don't kill there own citizens. I renounce my citizenship! I want to move to a superior country like Germany that has an Autobahn.
LifterOn 1 year ago
100% inside job.
Geistertramper 1 year ago
The rescue attempts halted immediately after finding the gold, the thousands of dead or dying workers from ground zero, the 3 dozen or so protocol requirements for fire investigations that weren't done at WTCs, the hasty removal of evidence which led to hundreds of bodies being dumped in the landfill, the "pull it" statement, Bin Laden not being charged with 9/11, the amazing floating passport..
N1k1mon 1 year ago
@audallas841 You present a lot of facts and figured into your comments to throw doubt on things. Do you ever try that with such subjects as norad failing 4 times, Bush's brother heading up security at WTC, Silverstein taking out insurance weeks before the attack, the missing pentagon footage sans airplane, reports of secondary explosions, footage of squibs, entire floor shutdowns for "renovations" and powerdowns in the months before 9/11, bush lying about seeing the planes hit....
N1k1mon 1 year ago
@N1k1mon did the WTC really have large renovations not long before, thats the way they would do it, I was thinking that probably would have happened anyway. I work in an office building and you think nothing when the boss says yeah we are getting some electricians in, this type in etc, then there is shit loads of them crawling around making a racket for weeks and you think nothing of it because its normal., its obvious the government lied or they were not informed as they are puppets anyway,
binomialbeard 1 year ago
Which helps a lot, since cameras would not be able to record charges going off in the middle of the building. Anybody planning this would obviously plan it to extremely high detail, far more planning and expertise than a regular demo. These would be the things they were preparing for, as little evidence as possible and maybe unsuspected means and methods.
N1k1mon 1 year ago
If you watch the collapse of the Salomon bros building (WTC 7) you will see the structure on the top of the building collapse nearly 8 seconds before the entire building begins to drop. So here we have two instances of the cores failing first, then the outer shells coming down. The explosions talked about, constant explosions after the plane strike were probably systematic disabling of the core columns so that very little charges would have to go off at collapse.
N1k1mon 1 year ago
why does this guy say the official theory is a pancake theory? The NIST report actually says in it that it doesn't support the pancake theory.
raythetse 1 year ago
you people still believe in your government? i am not american, but sometimes i think that i do know more about your land than you do. better read some more books of what happend the last 50 years to your land....its not the first time that the usa attacks there own people....
55758 1 year ago
"debunkers" will never understand a single word Dr Steven Jones says. PERIOD!
They just don't get it.
AiresQX4 1 year ago
@AiresQX4 Maybe because he has no background in structural engineering or architecture. Maybe because the by-products of thermite, Aluminum Oxide and Barium Nitrate were not found in any amount? Maybe because the fires inside the building reached 1452 degrees? Maybe because aluminums's melting point is 1200 degrees? Maybe because the point where steel weakens is only 1100 degrees? Maybe because all the actual evidence gathered by thousands in their actual proffessions contradicts what he says?
audallas841 1 year ago
@audallas841 OK if you believe yourself which you obviously do then there is nothing I can say to change your mind. In the mean time show me a tower fire where it made the entire structure pulverize into fine powder while falling at close to free fall speed. Just one example of a tower collapsing like 7 did. Just one.
AiresQX4 1 year ago
@AiresQX4 The towers did not fall at near freefall speeds. You guys need to stop claiming that as it is not even close to what the seismic evidence shows. Collapse of the towers took 15 seconds. The time it took the DUST and SOME of the debris, the things we could see on camera was 10 seconds, not the entire structure itself.
audallas841 1 year ago
@AiresQX4 And I can't show you examples of a building that had been hit by debris from a falling 110 story building, that had been burning ALL day, that had 25% of it's lower floors gutted because it's only happened ONCE.
Demolitions do not pulverize concrete into a fine dust, neither did the entire structure of the WTC. There were huge slabs of concrete left. I know this because I was THERE. Make sure you know what you're saying BEFORE you say it.
audallas841 1 year ago
@AiresQX4 But I digress, there have been no buildings in history that took up a whole city block, was a "tube in a tube" design, came off it's core columns at the bottom floors, was struck by an airliner, weakened by fire over 6 hours, had trusses bolted with 5/8" bolts and survived.
Anyone claiming these events are separate is LYING to you or ignorant.
audallas841 1 year ago
@audallas841 There has been many,many towers with much more significant damage and much hotter longer lasting fires that never collapsed into the path of the most resistance with 2.2 seconds of complete free fall. Anyone that can watch building 7 collapse and then lie to themselves that it was fire is an asshole that I choose not to converse with. I like honesty in my life!
AiresQX4 1 year ago
@AiresQX4 AGIAN! Saying that ANY of those towers neared "Free fall" is INCORRECT. 15 seconds is more than enough time for a 110 story building to fall. In the case of WTC 7, it came closest, but was again nowhere near "free fall" speeds. It was a 40 story building that fell over 4 seconds. More than enough time for a building to fall over those conditions. If you want to believe the bullshit and live in your own La La land, fine. Tell the aliens I day hi while you ride the unicorns.
audallas841 1 year ago
@audallas841 Watch David Chandlers videos. He can explain the impossibility of the tower collapses much better than I can. And just so you know, your very own Commission report states on page 305 that the towers collapsed in 10 seconds.
AiresQX4 1 year ago
@audallas841 Actually bldg 7 did go through a stage of complete free fall for over a hundred feet. NIST hasn't denied it either. So what do you say about that.
AiresQX4 1 year ago
@AiresQX4 And again, people do know believe Dr Jones, or any of his buddies in "scholars for 9//11 truth" because they are a few hundred "experts" against hundreds of thousands of Architects and engineers. So you're telling me that you're willing to believe the word of someone who worked on energy projects over someone who's occupation is the design and building of structures? That makes no sense.
audallas841 1 year ago
@AiresQX4 you could say the same about the rest of the scholors as well. A software engineer, a philosopher of religion, an activist, a member of the Green Party (i mean, really?). I mean, some of these people are advocating that a satellite based weapon was used.... and you're going to take their word for it over 138,000 people who actually work in a relevant field?
audallas841 1 year ago
@AiresQX4 True that, debunkers tend to come from a scientific background, and Stephen Jones writes twaddle.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter Can you reproduce the collapse of the towers using a model?
I didn't think so.
AiresQX4 1 year ago
@AiresQX4 No I can't and for that matter, nor can anybody else, the reason being it is impossible to scale down and recreate the events, you cannot scale down a fire,(a large fie in a big building will have different properties to a scaled version) and you cannot scale down the sand used in the concrete (which is what you would have to do).
There are only 2 possible ways here: recreate a full sized replica, or computer simulation.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter With our technology today there is absolutely no reason they can't build a model tower. You could even leave the core out and use weaker materials and still they couldn't reproduce the same collapse. And the reason being is because bldgs DO NOT COLLAPSE STRAIGHT DOWN INTO THE PATH OF THE MOST RESISTANCE AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED. When towers catch fire chunks fall off gradually,asymmetrically and never all at once. What reason do they continue to use demo? Just use fire!!
AiresQX4 1 year ago
Well, yes there is, you need to read up on physics and scaling. It can't be done.
BTW this statement of yours "DO NOT COLLAPSE STRAIGHT DOWN INTO THE PATH OF THE MOST RESISTANCE AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED"
Is false also, although the towers fell down( gravity has an odd way of doing that!) the towers did not fall into their own foot print, meaning some least resistance occured, and near "freefall speed" means not at feefall speed, don't insinuate.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter My point is the fact you could make any type of tower model and never be able to reproduce a symmetrical collapse. Especially a complete global collapse. Answer me why don't demo companies use the damage and fire method considering how well it works? Wtc7 was a beautiful example of demo and yet damage and fire were able to do the same job. I find it odd why they continue to waste time and money using the conventional method.
AiresQX4 1 year ago
@AiresQX4 "My point is the fact you could make any type of tower model and never be able to reproduce a symmetrical collapse"
- nonsense
Answer me why don't demo companies use the damage and fire method"
-ridiculous argument, not even gonna entertain this, although I have placed your post above on JREF forum under "twooferisms, just for laughs" as it is that ridiculous, it is laugh out loud.
"
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter That is the best you can come up with? You claim its so ridiculous that you won't entertain it. I'm thinking the truth is you cannot
reply with a answer because deep down inside you know the truth would completely change your entire world view and that would be devastating. Just face the fact that yes even the U.S Gov could,would and have killed innocent people as to them the ends justifies the means. You certainly aren't alone in your willful ignorance to the truth.
AiresQX4 1 year ago
@AiresQX4 Well, given that I have already explained to you that scaling and models don't work in trying to recreate a collapse of a building, and that NO ONE uses this method, because it is floored, the best thing you can do, is to show me an example of when scientists in the past, have used a scaled model to try to understand a collapse. If you can't then my assetation that what you are saying is ridiculous stands. You are miles away from scientific method here.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter You still haven't answered why Demo companies don't use the damage,fire method since it worked so well for WTC7. They would save so much time and money not having to install explosives. The reason demo experts would never use the fire method is because in the real world it would never work. You know that and I know that but for some reason fire,damage worked miracles on only 9-11-01
AiresQX4 1 year ago
Because, whilst fire completely destroyed the Kader toy factory in Singapore, the fire affected sections of dogwood elementary school in virginia, the mumbai High north platform in India, and world trade center 7 - all steel-framed structures, many buildings have survived fires often due to concrete-reinforced steel. They wouldn't know if the building would definately collapse or not, they do know it will with explosives. Fire did not work miracles, fire collase is common.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter THIS GUY is at it again. Hw always changes the subject to avoid the facts of 9/11. This childish tactic is so typical from him.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
Look I know your angry, because I keep dispelling your myths, and you are losing faith, I understand.... there there.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter LOL! Very funny. Thats all you got? I knew you would give up again.
We shouldn't be so concerned what made these building collapse. We should be MORE concerned why everything was turned into dust. Do you research and you will see that not ONE computer was fount intact. NOT ONE. Where did they all go? WHat turned them into dust?
infoseeker264 1 year ago
I see, so you now believe that computers have some magical property that means they don't get crushed into unrecognisable pulp by thousands of tons of falling building?
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter Over 100,000 computers, desks and chairs and many more file cabinets (among other things) and NOT ONE survived. It is ridicules to think every one of them would be destroyed. Some of them were on the FIRST FLOOR. How far did they fall? STUPID. If anything they should have been crushed (but still there).
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "Crushed but still there"
rofl, this one is going in the "dumb twooferisms" over at JREF.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "Some of them were on the FIRST FLOOR. How far did they fall? STUPID"
Wow, just wow!
Think about this, how much mass above the first floor fell onto the first floor, and what did that do th the first floor and it's contents.
I can't beleive you posted that, lol.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter LIKE I SAID BEFORE. Show me one SMASHED computer. If something fell onto it, wouldnt it be smashed? Prove it.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 Well that really depends on what that "something" is, if it was a feather, then I would have to say no, the computer would not be smashed, if it was thousands of tons of falling building, then I would have to say yes, the computer would be smashed to pulp.
In short it depends on the weight and velocity of the object(s) doing the smashing...
Do you have a theory as to why you can't see any computers in the debris piles in the photos?
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 Not one survived eh? You didn't look very hard did you? I forgot all I have to do is look into one of your ridiculous claims to find out it's not true. Listen all you have to do is go to the visitor center at ground zero, and you can view items that are recognisable yourself, some of them are electrical equipment.
Still beleive there was nothing recognisable?
Google the visitor centre in images. swallow that jagged pill. ha ha.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter I didn't find any pictures of any of this. You just keep spreading your BS. Don't you get sick of it? You think you are so smart. Even ending you response with a "I Told You SO" type of remark but as usual, it only makes you look foolish.
It is no wonder that nobody believes you.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 For all reading this, as well as for infoseeker, I have just emailed the link to Him, seems he is too lazy to research it himself, hey infoseek, a few pictures down, is that a piece of circuit board? don't they come from computers?
Ha ha. lol
for all those who want to look themselves google wtc debris items, I can't post the link on here.
Once again, an epic fail by infoseek. Yes! ............ btw......
I told you so.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "The museum has tangible vestiges of the twin towers, including pieces of window glass, lobby marble and jagged beam steel. One display case holds a beer can from 1971, when construction workers building the new towers shoved it between two steel beams before sealing them. The can was pried from the metal at ground zero, twisted and rusty.One jarring item is a frozen clock, its simple black hands stopped at 10:02, and the small one at 14."
what's this infoseek.. lol.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "The clock came from a room with a weightlifting bench used by PATH train workers."
Nothing survived eh infoseek?
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter I dont see any CLOCK. You are making this crap up.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 How about this?
Over 54000 personal items such as identification cards and driver licenses recovered from World Trade Center debris ...
nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter You keep posting these links and bogus claims. When I try searching for these I get nothing. Are you just wasting my time?
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 "We shouldn't be so concerned what made these building collapse"
- Translation: you appear to able to debunk my claims of it being a CD, I can't prove this, so instead let's concerntrate on irrelevant minutiae.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFlyposter "you appear to able to debunk..." What is this supposed to say. Just calm down... Don't get so excited about this.
I do agree with the part about you "cant prove this". You haven't been able to prove anything yet. You still cant answer what caused everything to turn to dust.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 everything was not turned to dust, there was lot's of rubble and steel columns and beams. The dust cloud you see in the videos is gypsum, andthere are pohto's of big lumps of flattened, crushed matter, now proven to be the pancaked floors.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter The f'n pancake theory was ruled out years ago. Get on with it.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 As the cause of the collapse, yes, but pancaking still occured, you don't read the science on this much do you?
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
@TheFlyposter You gotta be smoking crack. LOL get with it man.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 are you saying that pancaking did not occur? I can easily prove you wrong on this, come on, it will be another in a long line of embarrasing claims you have made like "everything was turned to dust"
Your not very bright are you?
TheFlyposter 1 year ago