Military C-130 Hercules plane crashed into tower block in Iran NO COLLAPSE !

bonkey

squod wrote: »

We should be able to accept - pretty-much with certainty -- that the designers of WTC 1 and 2 did not factor the use of thermite (or something similar) to cause a controlled demolition.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the claim that they designed the building to withstand plane impact.

The point is that the buildings withstood the impact of planes to the limits of any design capability of the day.

Whatever you believe brought down the building - and you'll notice I included explosives and thermal cutting charges (whichever youd' like to classify thermite as) in my post - there is no-one claiming that it was solely due to a plane-impact.

The design was calculated to withstand a plane impact...which it did in both cases.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

We should be able to accept - pretty-much with certainty -- that the designers of WTC 1 and 2 did not factor the use of thermite (or something similar) to cause a controlled demolition.

I imagine that's because thermite (or something similar) has never once been used in a controlled demolition of a steel framed building or otherwise.

In fact if the nonsense is to be believed, it would have been the first time in history that a building has ever been brought down by thermite.
And unlike the similar CT claim about fire and steel frames, this would actually be true.

squod

King Mob wrote: »

I imagine that's because thermite (or something similar) has never once been used in a controlled demolition of a steel framed building or otherwise.

In fact if the nonsense is to be believed, it would have been the first time in history that a building has ever been brought down by thermite.
And unlike the similar CT claim about fire and steel frames, this would actually be true.

Apart from the times it has been used you mean.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

Apart from the times it has been used you mean.

Can you actually show examples of any other buildings being demolished this way?

Because there hasn't ever been examples of it, because thermite is a stupid material to use in a demolition.

But I'd love to see some evidence to the contrary.

bonkey

squod wrote: »

Apart from the times it has been used you mean.

Times such as...when, exactly?

uprising2

While thermite is not the best material for demolishing a building, linear charges do exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/ThermiteDevicesMoore1.pdf

Similar charges would explain the horizontal cutting of the steel beams.

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

While thermite is not the best material for demolishing a building, linear charges do exist.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/ThermiteDevicesMoore1.pdf

Similar charges would explain the horizontal cutting of the steel beams.
<pic snip>

Except that linear charges aren't actually thermite and make loud bangs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqswVL0ZpPs

Bangs that are absent immediately preceding the collapse of the building.

And do you know what else causes horizontal cuts? Cutting beams horizontally during cleanup and rescue efforts.
You know what can't make horizontal cuts (without ridiculous contraptions)? Thermite.

uprising2

And maybe the plan was for the buildings to come down right away after the planes crashed into them, but they ran into some hitch and it didn't go down as expected, some bombs did go off in the lobby at the time of the impact. "maybe" the plane knocked the charges off the beams where the planes hit, the molten material that spilled from the building would be these knocked off thermite chaqrges.
Things can and do go wrong, but they righted the problem when they got the explosives and thermite to detonate in sequence.

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

And maybe the plan was for the buildings to come down right away after the planes crashed into them, but they ran into some hitch and it didn't go down as expected, some bombs did go off in the lobby at the time of the impact. "maybe" the plane knocked the charges off the beams where the planes hit, the molten material that spilled from the building would be these knocked off thermite chaqrges.
Things can and do go wrong, but they righted the problem when they got the explosives and thermite to detonate in sequence.

Or maybe there was no charges, thermite or otherwise?

Also do you notice the lack of examples of buildings being brought down by thermite?
Why is that exactly?

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

Except that linear charges aren't actually thermite and make loud bangs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqswVL0ZpPs

Bangs that are absent immediately preceding the collapse of the building.

And do you know what else causes horizontal cuts? Cutting beams horizontally during cleanup and rescue efforts.
You know what can't make horizontal cuts (without ridiculous contraptions)? Thermite.

Did you watch the video I posted?, there was no "BANG" in that thermite linear charge, your video is of some other kind of explosive, thermite doesnt make a bang!!!

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

Or maybe there was no charges, thermite or otherwise?

Also do you notice the lack of examples of buildings being brought down by thermite?
Why is that exactly?

See post 37.

OR

Maybe there was..............

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68383498&postcount=15

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

Did you watch the video I posted?, there was no "BANG" in that thermite linear charge, your video is of some other kind of explosive, thermite doesnt make a bang!!!

There was quite a loud pop and a fizz. And that was just a teeny tiny bit.

And the video I posted was on the type of linear charge actually used by demolition people. And that was the sound of a bang of the amount needed just to take out a thin tree.
I can't imagine the sound of what you'd need to cut a steel beam.

uprising2 wrote: »

See post 37.

There's nothing there about a building that was taken down by thermite.
Having a little trouble finding examples?

uprising2 wrote: »

Maybe there was..............

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68383498&postcount=15

And nope, nothing here either.
Odd, you think there'd be a whole quote wall for you to copy pasta listing all the other buildings that where demolished with thermite....

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

There was quite a loud pop and a fizz. And that was just a teeny tiny bit.

And the video I posted was on the type of linear charge actually used by demolition people. And that was the sound of a bang of the amount needed just to take out a thin tree.
I can't imagine the sound of what you'd need to cut a steel beam.


There's nothing there about a building that was taken down by thermite.
Having a little trouble finding examples?


And nope, nothing here either.
Odd, you think there'd be a whole quote wall for you to copy pasta listing all the other buildings that where demolished with thermite....

The teeny tiny bit I posted made butter of steel without a bang, your big bang bit demolished a thin "tree" that I'd snap with a kick.
I thought thermite wasn't used in demolition??, changing your story now?
Look at the video I posted and you won't have to imagine anything, its there to see.

I never said thermite alone was used, explosives and thermite would be a better description.

Heres more thermite without the BANG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a2OeWS3G-A

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

The teeny tiny bit I posted made butter of steel without a bang, your big bang bit demolished a thin "tree" that I'd snap with a kick.

And I'm pretty sure I could break that thin piece of steel with a kick. And do you not actually hear the pop it makes?

uprising2 wrote: »

I thought thermite wasn't used in demolition??, changing your story now?

No that's det cord, not thermite. I believe it's a string of semtex encased in a plastic tube.
It's what demolition people actually use.

uprising2 wrote: »

Look at the video I posted and you won't have to imagine anything, its there to see.

I did. and there's nothing to see. It's not a building demolished by thermite.

uprising2 wrote: »

I never said thermite alone was used, explosives and thermite would be a better description.

So then no, you can't actually find an example of a building being taken down with thermite.
Fair enough, then can you please show an example of a building that was taken down by a combination of explosives and thermite?

(Also note, if I was to really turn all the CTer tactics against you, I'd be insisting that you where solely relying on thermite despite you saying distinctly otherwise.)

uprising2 wrote: »

Heres more thermite without the BANG
Vid snip

Funny how you argue here for no bangs and in another thread for loud ones...

Also that's not exactly controlled, nor whisper quiet...

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

And I'm pretty sure I could break that thin piece of steel with a kick. And do you not actually hear the pop it makes?

No that's det cord, not thermite. I believe it's a string of semtex encased in a plastic tube.
It's what demolition people actually use.

I did. and there's nothing to see. It's not a building demolished by thermite.


So then no, you can't actually find an example of a building being taken down with thermite.
Fair enough, then can you please show an example of a building that was taken down by a combination of explosives and thermite?

(Also note, if I was to really turn all the CTer tactics against you, I'd be insisting that you where solely relying on thermite despite you saying distinctly otherwise.)


Funny how you argue here for no bangs and in another thread for loud ones...

Also that's not exactly controlled, nor whisper quiet...

That just shows your knowledge, you couldn't break that steel with a kick, haha.

I said thermite and explosives.

No read my posts in either thread, take time and study them, if you want quote my posts and show where I have contradicted anything I said, I havent.

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

I said thermite and explosives.

If explosives were used, then where was the explosive signature? There was no evidence of an airborne shockwave, no ground-carried seismic signature, and no audio signature.

Sure..thermite doesn't have those signatures, but if you believe explosives were also used then some/all of those features must have been present....despite no-one being able to find them.

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

That just shows your knowledge, you couldn't break that steel with a kick, haha.

And that doesn't actually address the point that it was a very very small piece of steel, that wasn't actually baring any weight like it would in the WTC and it needed a chunk of thermite greater than it's thickness and then it didn't even cut all the way through.
Also note how it's not the example I've asked for and you've failed to provide.

uprising2 wrote: »

I said thermite and explosives.

Yes I know. Then can you show an example of a building that was taken out by such a combination.
Why exactly would they need to use both when you obvisiously think they had no problem having explosives heard?

uprising2 wrote: »

No read my posts in either thread, take time and study them, if you want quote my posts and show where I have contradicted anything I said, I havent.

Er... the fact you explain away the holes in the explosives idea with thermite and the holes in the thermite idea with explosives.
Which leads you into this weird circular contradictory loop.

uprising2

bonkey wrote: »

If explosives were used, then where was the explosive signature? There was no evidence of an airborne shockwave, no ground-carried seismic signature, and no audio signature.

Sure..thermite doesn't have those signatures, but if you believe explosives were also used then some/all of those features must have been present....despite no-one being able to find them.

Ask the FDNY about the explosives, and its a bit too much to expect that the commission cover up would implicate themselves or others by showing explosives or evidence of such.

Look at the other thread and dont be wasting time asking silly questions, plenty of witness accounts of explosives going off, just dont expect to see it in "official" accounts.

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

And that doesn't actually address the point that it was a very very small piece of steel, that wasn't actually baring any weight like it would in the WTC and it needed a chunk of thermite greater than it's thickness and then it didn't even cut all the way through.
Also note how it's not the example I've asked for and you've failed to provide.


Yes I know. Then can you show an example of a building that was taken out by such a combination.
Why exactly would they need to use both when you obvisiously think they had no problem having explosives heard?

Er... the fact you explain away the holes in the explosives idea with thermite and the holes in the thermite idea with explosives.
Which leads you into this weird circular contradictory loop.

Look at the fukking video again, IT DID CUT ALL THE WAY THROUGH!EDIT: sorry it left a mm, but still made butter of it, a milisecond more exposure and nothing would have been left, but your dragging away from the fact that thermite doesnt bang like you claimed


No I cant show another case of both been used, can you show another example of a small fire bringing a building like WTC7 down in such spectacular fashion by a little fire.

If GW bush showed a camel on tv and said it was a donkey, I guess you'd be here telling us all it was in fact a donkey.

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

Look at the fukking video again, IT DID CUT ALL THE WAY THROUGH!

I did and it didn't. there was a bit left with is why the top part of the bar folded on to itself and not fell to the ground.
And even then there's still the other points you are ignoring.

uprising2 wrote: »

No I cant show another case of both been used,

Why not?

uprising2 wrote: »

can you show another example of a small fire bringing a building like WTC7 down in such spectacular fashion by a little fire.

No because that's not what I actually believe.
Much like if I insisted that you were arguing that it was just a little thermite that brought them down.

uprising2 wrote: »

If GW bush showed a camel on tv and said it was a donkey, I guess you'd be here telling us all it was in fact a donkey.

And I can make a similar and equally stupid strawman of you by replacing GW with Alex Jones or the prick who made Loose Change.
But that would exactly help my argument.

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

Ask the FDNY about the explosives, and its a bit too much to expect that the commission cover up would implicate themselves or others by showing explosives or evidence of such.

Look at the other thread and dont be wasting time asking silly questions, plenty of witness accounts of explosives going off, just dont expect to see it in "official" accounts.

They report explosives going off at random times all over the building and often well before the collapse.

This is the complete opposite of what happens in an actual controlled demolition, which has a series of rapid (and very ****ing loud) explosions in a set pattern in the building, going off in sequence and followed immediately by the collapse.

Now can you provide an example of a single demolition that has a similar pattern of explosions(at random intervals, well before the collapse and not in sequence) as the ones you think where in WTC?

uprising2

I dont have much respect for Alex Jones, he's more interested in his bank balance than anything else, the prick who made loose change I have a bit more respect for, I have more respect for the architects and engineers for 9/11 who have risked their professions to voice their concerns and actually live in the US making their sacrifice all the more meaningful to me.

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

They report explosives going off at random times all over the building and often well before the collapse.

This is the complete opposite of what happens in an actual controlled demolition, which has a series of rapid (and very ****ing loud) explosions in a set pattern in the building, going off in sequence and followed immediately by the collapse.

Now can you provide an example of a single demolition that has a similar pattern of explosions(at random intervals, well before the collapse and not in sequence) as the ones you think where in WTC?

I'm sure the ones who planted the explosives didnt intend for them to go off randomly as they did, I have stated that I suspect they were all supposed to go off as the plane hit making the illusion that bit more realistic, but something went wrong and they didnt, for a while, then BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM etc

Yitzhak Rabin

uprising2 wrote: »

I'm sure the ones who planted the explosives didnt intend for them to go off randomly as they did, I have stated that I suspect they were all supposed to go off as the plane hit making the illusion that bit more realistic, but something went wrong and they didnt, for a while, then BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM etc

You think they planned for the plane to hit, and the building to immediately fall??

Now if that had happened, I would be asking serious questions!

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

I dont have much respect for Alex Jones, he's more interested in his bank balance than anything else, the prick who made loose change I have a bit more respect for, I have more respect for the architects and engineers for 9/11 who have risked their professions to voice their concerns and actually live in the US making their sacrifice all the more meaningful to me.

Erm... it doesn't matter cause I don't actually have any respect for GW, dispite your insistance and also strawmen are a stupid and dishonest tactic.
That was the point I was making.

uprising2 wrote: »

I'm sure the ones who planted the explosives didnt intend for them to go off randomly as they did, I have stated that I suspect they were all supposed to go off as the plane hit making the illusion that bit more realistic, but something went wrong and they didnt, for a while, then BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM etc

So the more you look at your claims the further and further you get away from it looking like a controlled demolition.

So then just to sum up, the WTC buildings would then indeed be the first buildings ever to have been demolished by thermite (or in part by thermite) as well as the first building to have been demolished by explosives going off at random times and well before any collapse?
Right?

Divorce Referendum

uprising2 wrote: »

While thermite is not the best material for demolishing a building, linear charges do exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/ThermiteDevicesMoore1.pdf

Similar charges would explain the horizontal cutting of the steel beams.

That would be a picture of a column cut by the cleanup crew. Shown here on youtube, notice diagonal cuts


:

And in this photo:




You do also realise that tons of thermite would be needed to burn through that one column and it very volatile it wont cut in a straight line like that and how exactly would it be held to all the columns?

King Mob wrote: »

Er... the fact you explain away the holes in the explosives idea with thermite and the holes in the thermite idea with explosives.
Which leads you into this weird circular contradictory loop.

This is a good observation of your theory uprising.

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

So the more you look at your claims the further and further you get away from it looking like a controlled demolition.

So then just to sum up, the WTC buildings would then indeed be the first buildings ever to have been demolished by thermite (or in part by thermite) as well as the first building to have been demolished by explosives going off at random times and well before any collapse?
Right?

Here's a Prof who agree's with me

Prof. Steven E. Jones from BYU Brigham University and co-founder of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" examined the substances of WTC-steel pieces and found all clues indicating thermite/thermate was one of the used substances to do bring down the WTC at nearly freefall speed with molten metal smoldering for month in the basements. These melting can not result alone from cerosin fires burning for approx. 1 hour. NIST DID NOT investigate if thermite/thermate could be used


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904

How would you know if explosives or thermite was used?, NIST didn't check for it......
"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? . . . NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." -- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

One of the most intriguing aspects of NIST’s diversionary posture has been their total lack of interest in explosive or pyrotechnic features in their explanations. Despite the substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC (Jones 2006, Legge and Szamboti 2007), and the extensive expertise in explosives among NIST investigators (Ryan 2007), explosives were never considered in the NIST WTC investigation. Only after considerable criticism of this fact did NIST deign to add one small disclaimer to their final report on the towers, suggesting they found no evidence for explosives.

The extensive evidence that explosives were used at the WTC includes witness testimony (MacQueen 2006), overwhelming physical evidence (Griffin 2005, Hoffman et al 2005, Jones and Legge et al 2008) and simple common sense (Legge 2007). There is also substantial evidence that aluminothermic (thermite) materials were present at the WTC (Jones 2007), and the presence of such materials can explain the existence of intense fire where it would not otherwise have existed. Additionally, despite agreement from all parties that the assumed availability of fuel allowed for the fires in any given location of each of the WTC buildings to last only twenty minutes (NIST 2007), the fires lasted much longer and produced extreme temperatures (Jones and Farrer et al 2008).

uprising2

Open wide, hold your nose if its hard to swallow.......

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble Stephen C. Webster
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Published: Saturday April 4, 2009[/FONT][/FONT]

A team of scientists claim to have unearthed startling data from dust and debris gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.

In a study published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal -- a peer-reviewed, scientific publication -- Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit level a stark allegation: that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lays evidence of "a highly engineered explosive," contrary to all federal studies of the collapses.

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center," reads the paper's abstract. "One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)."

Divorce Referendum

uprising2 wrote: »

Here's a Prof who agree's with me


How would you know if explosives or thermite was used?, NIST didn't check for it......
"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? . . . NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." -- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

Thats cause these compounds exist within the structure of the building. Aluminium and Iron Oxide. Lets see I will test for the presence of thermite. Whoa! Aluminium and iron oxide. Oh wait sure its contained in the concrete dust, paint, gypsum slabs. Why would you test for compounds that are already there?

uprising2

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Thats cause these compounds exist within the structure of the building. Aluminium and Iron Oxide. Lets see I will test for the presence of thermite. Whoa! Aluminium and iron oxide. Oh wait sure its contained in the concrete dust, paint, gypsum slabs. Why would you test for compounds that are already there?

READ THE QUESTION AGAIN............EXPLOSIVES...

And did you read my post after that???
Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble

Just hold your nose and swallow....