250 :pimp

Ok this video might splain alot to you guys.

http://media.putfile.com/WTC-Collapse-Part-ONE

Now watch the slide show on this site.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html

Im going to try and find the full program for the first link. This is the best explanation in straight speak Ive seen.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sund-flash.html

Watch the slide show seriously. If you cant get it from that you just will never get it.

en. wikipedia .org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

If I were a dead terrorist reading this thread and the 1000's of other similar threads, I would go straight to the big guy and ask for an increase in my "horny virgin"-salary. Not only did a lot of innocent people die, the entire western civilization is divided in half.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...53896774&q=WTC

I like this one - looks like forth of july sparklers - thermite burning

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...53896774&q=WTC

I like this one - looks like forth of july sparklers - thermite burning

dam double post sorry gfy lag

Wow, you're retarded. Im sure there's no chance that it's MELTED PLASTIC or any one of the other myriad building materials used in the WTC.... it's definitely molten metal caused by thermite burning, 100% undeniable.

YOU are part of the problem.

No it's just a box of sparklers one of the employee's had laying around. :winkwink:

Check this one out, a demolition expert see's tower wtc 7 and say's it's a controlled demolition, and he never knew it was from 9/11

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q&NR

ooh.. let's play the 'who can link to the most websites" game.

http://representativepress.blogspot....-on-south.html

here is a co-conspirators website with lots of information, quotes, etc from a bunch of co-conspirator firefighters / fire chief who were all paid/threatened by the gov't to say all this stuff, right?

What do you think of these Firemen ?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."


look at the goodies these guy got
New York City Responders Get $500M Wireless Network

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/art...2&sectionId=46

that's only a small fraction of the untold story.

Whoever posted that clip posted it as evidence that there was bombs planted... lol

I think this dead horse has already been beaten a little too long.

Of course theres going to be secondary explosions and subsequent collapses.. what do you think was in those buildings... it wasn't just newspaper.

I give up dude, you're right - Santa Claus IS real. Good luck with your mission of truth - im sure history will remember you.

Thread bookmarked just for you :winkwink:

Me again! :)

In a recent reply to me you say, "Saying the beams would even slow things down goes to show your total misunderstanding of the forces involved. This explains why alot of people out there think the way they do."

Then you link to a site where the guy said that the building lunges forward and falls; ....giving way first on the damaged side... which is what I said I thought should have happened when I said it should have given way at the weakest point and toppled a bit before falling..

So which do you choose to stick with?
The building fell straight down because the forces involved were too great to prevent any resistance from the undamaged side...?

Or the building gave way first on the damaged side, lunged forward and fell... where the opposing wall did offer resistance for a short time...?

THAT's why alot of people out there think the way they do..

If their findings are kinda the same as what I said should have happened.. my, "total misunderstand of the forces involved" would also apply to those that you bring as your reference.

Now that we've established that you seem to want it both ways...

It didn't happen the way they said it did.. If you watch the video again, and this one, you'll see that it started falling first, then toppled.. not lunge forward and fall... 2 quite different scenarios..

So you've linked to a site as your reference where their comments were a bit inaccurate..

This ought be good.. :)

Why are you even arguing with these nuts, they aren't about to change their minds over "facts" as sure as a creationist won't start believing in evolution when presented with hard evidence.

Thermite burns white nice try though. Its not red its pure white.

http://www.nnteenmovies.com/thermite.jpg

Pure white?

yeh he know's it all. :error :error :error :error

http://www.npss.prn.bc.ca/images/Thermite2.jpg

http://chris2x.com/wp-content/thermite.jpg

http://www.chem.psu.edu/ncs/Hallowee...3/Thermite.jpg


http://www.mtsu.edu/~mgt2d/raycharles.jpg

Time For Some Glasses :thumbsup

I won't say it's thermite.. but for someone to say it could be something else doesn't rule it out..

Watching the spray from the bldg, and the spray from thermite, there's a similarity, and any plastic I've ever seen burn... it just dripped and a flame usually accompanied those drips.. but.. doesn't mean plastic must be ruled out either..
Somethin else that the pro's need to research and guess about..

Just more to argue about..

it's a long road till the truth comes out, time time time is on my side yes it is.

yup sure it was thermite. Planted months in advance maybe decades. Then they pointed the plane right at the floor the thermite was on. Precison. No doubt. Silly silly silly kooks.

Ok,you win! Here is the truth... it was a total setup.However,it wasn't the government that was behind it.It was a well-known NewYork Developer.He had new projects scheduled..very lavish highend residentials.The towers were blocking the view of the water.By taking the towers down,he was able to increase the price of each condo by nearly 400%.

Makes as much sense as everything else boucin' about.. :)

i want his wallet !!!!! :pimp

Ever stop to consider both 747 where remotely controlled and loaded with thermite onboard?

Operation Northwoods much?

Do you simply exist to be a petulant turd?

Do you think for yourself, at all?

Sorry one sec.... :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Ok carry on.

Thought so. Another runting message board kiddy without any critical thinking skills.

You represent the majority who have been sucked up into the great mind control spin.

If by critical thinking you mean believing that there is some big conspiracy out to get us all, then no I dont. Little kiddy. lol

I have to go though a black helicopter just flew over, and im not quite done covering the roof of my house with tinfoil.

Now to take this thread in a whole new direction.
These statistics might explain a lot.

More than 54 million Americans have a mental disorder in any given year, although fewer than 8 million seek treatment (SGRMH, 1999).
Depression and anxiety disorders ? the two most common mental illnesses ? each affect 19 million American adults annually (NIMH, 1999).
Approximately 12 million women in the United States experience depression every year ? roughly twice the rate of men (NIMH, 1999).
One percent of the population (more than 2.5 million Americans) has schizophrenia (Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1998).
Bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive illness, affects more than 2 million Americans (NIMH, 2000).
Each year, eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa affect millions of Americans, 85-90 percent of whom are teens and young adult women (NMHA, 2000).
Depression greatly increases the risk of developing heart disease. People with depression are four times more likely to have a heart attack than those with no history of depression (NIMH, 1998).
Approximately 15 percent of all adults who have a mental illness in any given year also experience a co-occurring substance abuse disorder, which complicates treatment (SGRMH, 1999).
Up to one-half of all visits to primary care physicians are due to conditions that are caused or exacerbated by mental or emotional problems (CFHC, 1998).

http://www.nmha.org/infoctr/didyou.cfm

Dont worry, you will be intimately familiar with 4 white padded walls before the 'truth' comes out.

Hey, while you're looking for 9/11 truth, can you also find me some shape-shifting reptilians.. and maybe Mulder's sister?

Critical thinking skills? WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

'Creative writing' is not the same as 'critical thinking'. Writing neat sci-fi scenarios about 9/11 is not critical thinking.

In fact, the one thing you are obviously not in possesion of is critical thinking skills - oh wait, actually you simply choose to apply your 'critical thinking skills' to 9/11 events. If you were to use your powers by critically analyzing the 9/11 conspiracy, you'd realize what a FUCKING RETARD you are.

You represent the mentally unstable minority who have been sucked into paranoia and sociopathy. And you will keep lots of sci-fi and conspriacy writers in business - but hey, it's a free country.

Hey this guy has critcal thinking. For instance he just had his thread he made tonight about paying a black man to ass rape him. :winkwink:

If you watch the new video, at 20:01 when tower 2 has fallen, you can see the center structural columns still intact up to atleast the 60th or 70th floor. That puts to rest the theory that the floors compounding on top of one another could possibly crush a steel ibeam lengthwise. The floors collapsed AROUND the center structure, with the center structure being last to fall. If you know anything about construction materials or about tube structures, which is what tower one and two were, you can see what happened.

When people say, "Well the towers were built to withstand so and so mile per hour winds" and "withstand being hit by a commercial jet" they are talking about sway. Can the building remain upright after taking a hit like that. In which case, the answer is yes. BUT...can each floor withstand the weight of 2 or 3 more floors resting on top of them? No.

The floors on the world trade center were prefab panels that were attached to the main outer structure with angle red iron and rivets. There is only so much shear pressure a rivet, bolt, nut or anything else can take. They were designed to hold more weight than the floor weight ofcourse, due to forseeing large volumes of people, equipment, etc. But they were not designed to withstand the weight and FORCE of overhead floors (consisting of more steel, more concrete, more equipment, not to mention the added weight of a 747) coming down on them. Slamming down on them.

The new video should dispell ANY myths about a controlled demo of those buildings. If you were going to demo a building, you would NOT leave the center support structure uncharged.

The problem still remains however, which members of our own political shit hole let it happen? That's the real question. It's the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century.

Yes you have it exactly right Nick. Well the last paragraph is up for opinion hehe. Anyone that has worked in construction can easily understand what went on.

Seriously dude, on page 2 of this thread you were saying that the fires were hot enough to melt the steel.

On page 3 you said that the force of the floors coming down would crush the steel and cause it to come down with the rest of the building.

Now you agree with what I say and not only that, you elude to the fact that you may have held a 2x4 in your hand once.

I shook your slimey little hand and I can tell you, you may have never even DRIVEN past a construction site. I worked construction a long time, and you just ain't what it takes on a construction site. Perhaps Dad hooked you up with a part time summer gig sitting in the air conditioned jobsite trailer and running to starbucks for him...but that don't count.

You are condescending to people with an alternate view of your own. You change your "well researched and thought out" opinions to suit your needs. You are quite possibly the most annoying person I have ever had the displeasure to meet in person or on the web. Your like that kid in school who would poke and prod, then go crying to mommy when you bit off more than you could chew.

My post was NOT me agreeing with you or any of your theories. Don't get all happy and agreeable with me. It was me watching the video and making my own assumption based on what I know from 10 years in commercial concrete and working in, on and around all the materials used in the construction of those towers. It is what makes sense to me.

Take your government and your god and your condescending bullshit and shove it up your ass. Just because a person questions something, it does not make them an idiot. You need to learn that.

Try listening to both sides of an argument. You are like the government you so love. You are an ideologist. You have your mind made up before you are presented with facts. You judge people based on your own little minds opinion of what the world is and should be.

Don't ever say anything else to me. I will do you the same honor.

P.S. Welcome to ignore spot #8. You're in good company with such heroes as SexEducation and Confucy...

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I thought John69 was the biggest retard in this thread but no...he isnt anymore.

You do know what thermite is, don't you? I would hope you didn't just read this from some site and decide it was thermite.

Thermite is not an explosive, it's an incendiary. In order for it to cut horizontally and be used in the way the conspiracy theorists have stated, it would had to have been applied to the actual steel beforehand. You also need a lot of it to get the desired result

Thus, for this to be true, thousands and thousands of pounds would have to have been placed directly on the steel beforehand, held in direct contact throughout, and remotely ignited. Considering the WTC was one of the most secure buildings in the world and housed the top financial companies, you would have to assume that they were in on it as well seeing as how they would have had to have gone in well before, exposed the steel, and placed the thermite in direct contact.

Not to be a jerk, but the thermite conspiracy is one of the most laughable ones out there. There are much better ones for you to choose from.

Do you know how many tons of thermite would be needed to do this? There is no way it would come close to being enough to do what people have asserted. Thermite is also not an explosive, it's an incendiary. Being on a plane would literally do absolutely nothing to help bring down the WTC.

Do some research on what thermite is before you post something that is completely wrong.

Thermite can be loaded and used as a catalyzing factor to compound the events. One of many to ensure the WTC's collapse. Too bad the debris was quickly carted off to China before any investigation can reveal molten metal pieces for inspection. Gubment couldn't have any of that now, couldn't they....

There are multiple inconvenient facts (that debaters here keep 'conveniently' ignoring) that point overwhelmingly in only one direction.

such as:

whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm <---- thermal hotspots underneith the collapse that are hundreds of degree's above any maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons (jet fuel).

Thermite is a plausable explanation backed by video footage.

Owned much? How do you like your ownage deep fried? (not as hot as thermite though)

Catalyzing what? Seriously, read one of the zillion pages on thermite, call a chemist, please dear God learn what thermite is.

It's not an explosive, it's an incendiary that would need to be placed on the exposed steel and ignited with a remote device. This is fact, and there isn't a human being alive who knows anything about thermite who disagrees with that. Even your conspiracy theorists know that, which is why they have said that thermite was planeted beforehand. You are the only one I've ever seen say it was on the plane. Does that tell you something?

This still doesn't account for the mass amounts of thermite that would be needed and on the exposed steel to do the job. You would need thousands and thousands of pounds of thermite placed directly on the steel columns to get that reaction. How did they possibly manage to do that as well as setup remote detonators while people worked for months leading up to the attack?

Now it's China? It was Europe a week ago from someone else? Would you guys pick a fucking country already?

The fact is that the steel was sold all over. Some of it was also kept. They have a giant hangar that has tons of parts from the building in it, including some that were deemed as memorable (the last piece removed that everyone signed, original front columns, etc). They just had it on TV.

Not to mention that it wasn't really the US that sold it all. A bunch of NYC and New Jersey scrap yards had the steel, they sold some of it to China, some to India, and so on. They built ships with it, memorials with it, it's everywhere. The US didn't sell the steel, the scrap yards did. If you want to say they were in on it, go ahead, but the US didn't cart shit off to China.

Of course this is why no credible scientists have concluded this?

Seriously, if you are going to hoist a few pics and automatically determine it is from thermite (thermate) when you don't even know how it works, you are crazy. First, thermite/thermate burns down, with gravity, not across like it would have to to sheer the metal. Second, it takes a shitload of thermate, something to ignite it, and it has to be in direct contact with it to do so. You would have to plant it way in advance. It also doesn't explode which kills all your "he heard an explosion" quotes. Lastly, almost every credible engineer and scientist concluded that it was probably aluminum with the jet feul that caused anything you may be seeing in those photos.

Seriously man, not even the real conspiracy theorists buy this one. :1orglaugh

You do realize this contradicts your other thermite theory. Thermite doesn't explode, it melts.

Look, stickyfingerz, you are, obviously, from personally meeting you, an intelligent and reasonable guy.

The initial video you showed as proof that it was a natural or spontaneous building collapse was close-up and could stand as proof of either scenario.

The post with this link http://media.putfile.com/WTC-Collapse-Part-ONE explicitly states that the building was hit from the east side. Besides the problem that this doesn't explain why the whole core collapsed as well, it states that the whole thing influenced/heated one side over another.

Which would mean that the building, if not the other, would have tipped rather than gone down straight.

Now I would agree with you if at least one of these buildings had an assymetrical collapse. That means parts of, or the whole, building going down to one side or another... but that didn't happen, right?

But even the latest explanation video you posted states one side or another and ignores the fact that the whole building, all three of them, went down vertically. That would mean each one would have to have had exactly spread-out fuel and fires burning equally from the point of impact all the way to the bottom, which i'm sure you'll agree they didn't or couldn't have.

And the second building "collapsed" from the top down - but the fire wasn't up there, and there weren't any fires below that. How then could the building go down in an uniterally parallel way? It was too smooth, and logistically didn't make sense.

Beyond all theories, to short-circuit any conspiracy crap, I thought I'd mention that it looked like the buildings were built with the charges integrated in the structures - which would make sense in case the things could have somehting awful happen to them. Better 3000 dead than 30,000 which is what would happen if the towers toppled one way or another, which is vastly most likely in the logistical or physical sense.

Beyond all this there's nothing else that can explain ALL the cement, concrete, whatever, of the two towers, being pulverized beyond all ability to analyze and help understand the dynamics of the collapse - IF it's accidental.

Nothing explains the collapse of world trade building seven, too... and all of the official reports admit it.

I don't know what happened; when it gets political, I know even less, it's too convoluted.

All I know is that if three demolition companies try to unilaterally bring down three buildings simultaneously, they won't achieve the almost perfect results that occurred on september 11th, 2001...


All I could say is we obviously don't agree, sorta like different religious nuts who love and respect each other but not on doctrine... and leave it at that.

history will show us all hopefully.

Someone needs to tackle the question of why the Firemen said what they did about additional explosions nowhere near the upper levels of the towers and the Janitor stating that there was an explosion in one of the sub-levels and how some dude(s) came UP all burnt.

Sure would be nice to have all the news footage from all the networks on 9/11

Why does it have to be about engineers and scientists concluding what it probably was?

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.
He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC..
Hmm.. no jet fuel or aluminum there..

And on a different note..

While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.

So much for thorough testing by good ol' Uncle Sam..

[Awaiting cocky comebacks and a drawn out philosophical reply... ]