• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

September 11th: The History of 9/11

It's Thermite

I've made thermite and other similar mixtures. I've used them to weld too. I've also seen a guy mix up a big batch and having built a 10 metre model of the WTC and set off thermite charges. I'll try to get a copy of his film.

I'm telling you for a fact, that's clearly thermite going off. You think office paper or computers would shower hundreds of kilos of burning reaction mixture & sparks like the thermite showers shown in the video?

Obvious and clearly visible thermite reactions aside, how do you explain the hotspots and areas still burning far hotter than aviation fuel can burn and pools of molten iron days after the collapse? Aviation fuel can't melt steel and the WTC steel was tested to withstand 2000 degrees before even softening. Aviation fuel can't even burn that hot - even in perfect conditions. And the black smoke proves it was starved of oxygen so it would have been far colder. You only need eyes to see these things for yourself. Watch the videos in post 1.

These are facts. There is overwhelming evidence for thermite.

Having said that, the buildings could have been demolished using simple HE demolition charges.

But thermite would have helped and there is no other way to explain the thermite cascades and the hotspots at thousands of degrees days after the collapse. Watch the film.
 
Oil, if you hadnt instantly dismissed the screw loose change vid, you might have seen a few things there. I not once in any 9/11 footage see anything remotely looking like thermite.

The molten metal, as we know Steel needs to be very hot to melt, aluminium however melts at 660°C.
 
Aluminium?

1) Molten aluminium isn't hot enough to emit bright orange & yellow light like the thermite sparks and droplets gushing out of the towers as shown on the first video in the list. That's most likely iron.

2) Aluminium was not present in huge multi-kilo deposits in the buildings, so how could litres and litres of it have poured out from various places? Look at the size of the glowing cascades compared to the gigantic buildings.

3) Infrared imaging detected hot spots at thousands of degrees days after the collapse. Molten aluminium is vapour at those temperatures.

4) Aviation fuel doesn't burn anywhere near hot enough to heat any metal sufficiently to produce a molten mixture that glows yellow, let alone emitting showers of sparks.

Watch the video - the thermite section starts about 45% of the way through. You can scroll to it in 30 seconds:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 5910247150
 
Re: Demolition by Aircraft?

oilwar said:
(I'm pretty sure these are new points.)

No, they're I'm not, I'm sorry to say. These points, and your other ones about thermite, have been covered in the other threads.

You really should take the time to read through those other threads in their entirety IMHO, just to make sure you're not repeating what's already been discussed on these forums.
 
What's the difference?

OK so let's get down to basics, thermite deniers.

What's the difference between the controlled thermite demonstration emitting a cascade of orange and yellow sparks and droplets - and the WTC video and photos showing cascades of orange and yellow sparks and droplets?

And if you want to take it further can you suggest anything else that could have caused these cascades of glowing, sparking molten metal?

Answers please sceptics? These points have not been covered elsewhere, I checked fairly thoroughly.

Also keeping in mind that aviation fuel doesn't even burn hot enough to melt ordinary steel and the WTC supports could withstand 2000 degrees. Iron-Alum thermite burns at 2500 degrees and there are even hotter mixtures available. Even at optimum reaction aviation fuel could not melt any metal and make it glow yellow. And the black smoke indicates inefficient burning due to lack of oxygen.

Sorry, but I have checked the threads and I can't see these exact points covered. I'm starting to read "these points have been covered" as "we have no way to answer this point". Feel free to copy and paste any info already posted that addresses or seriously combats the thermite question. So far I've seen nothing. If somebody can just shoot down the simple points above then I promise I'll keep quiet about thermite. But nobody can. Because it was thermite and anybody who's seen thermite should know that.

I'll lay them out again for you:

1) Molten aluminium isn't hot enough to emit bright orange & yellow light like the thermite sparks and droplets gushing out of the towers as shown on the first video in the list. That's most likely iron.

2) Thermite aside, Aluminium was not present in huge multi-kilo deposits in the buildings, so how could litres and litres of it have poured out from various places? Look at the size of the glowing cascades compared to the gigantic buildings.

3) Infrared imaging detected hot spots at thousands of degrees days after the collapse. Molten aluminium is vapour at those temperatures.

4) Aviation fuel doesn't burn anywhere near hot enough to heat any metal sufficiently to produce a molten mixture that glows yellow, let alone emitting showers of sparks.

5) What's the difference between the controlled thermite demonstration emitting a cascade of orange and yellow sparks and droplets - and the WTC video and photos showing cascades of orange and yellow sparks and droplets? I propose that there is no visible difference. Look for yourself.

The thermite section starts about 45% of the way through. You can scroll to it in 30 seconds:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 5910247150

.
 
Interestingly the photo's of the guy who destroyed the speed camera reminded me very much of the wtc attack and the mythbusters episode and my own experience of welding and cutting steel, he used thermite. ;)
 
My Point Exactly

Anybody who has seen thermite in action would recognise the distinctive thermite reactions on the towers, gushing cascades of sparks and what must have been many kilos of molten iron in some places.

Moments later there was an initial very large detonation near the top of the tower followed by literally hundreds of smaller detonations moving at approximately freefall speed down the tower, clearing the way for the blasted and melted debris already falling from above, pulverising concrete into a gigantic column of dust and shrapnel (pieces were found up to a mile away).

The malestrom of small demolition explosions rattled on down the tower, slicing through thermite-weakened steel and producing a freefalling hail storm of neatly-sliced steel sections each of exactly the same length (precisely the size of a truck's trailer - which was very convenient for the cleanup operation - as was the perfect collapse into the building's footprint which is what always happens when a demolition is properly and very expertly carried out using explosives.)

On building 7 the demolition detonations were even clearer.

This is what happens during serious fires in skyscrapers:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi ... fires.html

This is what happens when buildings collapse:
http://specials.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/23sld1.jpg

This is what happens when buildings are demolished with explosives:

http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxpro ... ion300.jpg

http://www.findaproperty.com/library/libp0250.jpg

http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/urbs3 ... erBldg.jpg

http://www.pastpeak.com/clips/wtc7_kink.jpg

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/911-4-500C.jpg

http://www.miraesoft.com/karel/images/wtcexplosions.jpg

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg

Can you spot the difference?

Notice that some of these images are from 9/11 and others are from other demolitions.

The unique thing about the 9/11 demolitions is that the charges were detonated - albeit very quickly - from top to bottom. It was important to do this at the right speed. It's also worth noting that for some reason the demolition explosions and collapse of building 7 also started at the top floor. There's no way a fire could have done this even if fire was capable of demolishing buildings.
 
At the risk of again repeating what others have said - this really has been covered in existing threads - don't scan them - take some time to read them and the links therein. That's going to take you more than a day.
 
Re: Aluminium?

I've seem thermite in action. There's no way you could use it to simultaneously cut dozens of columns. If for no other reason it's bulky and it's not particularly easy to ignite.
You could probably burn through a speed camera post with homemade device, but there's easier and safer way of wrecking a camera.

oilwar, why do you insist on posting the links that everyone's seen a dozen times before on the other WTC threads?

Don't you read anything or do you think it you say it often enough it makes it true?

*EDIT*

Since we're posting links try reading the paper on this one READ IMPLOSIONWORLD'S PAPER ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE'S and ignore the punctuation....it's written by someone involved in the controlled demolition industry...so it's probably suspect from our CT'er's point of view...
 
'Not new' maybe, but the CT is gaining ground:
Full house as leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist has his say

Audrey Gillan
Saturday September 9, 2006
The Guardian

They call it the 9/11 for Truth Movement, and tonight those who believe the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were carried out by the American government and not jihadist hijackers will gather in London's Conway Hall to listen to one of the biggest figures among a growing number of disbelievers.
Two days before the fifth anniversary of the attacks, David Ray Griffin, emeritus professor of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont graduate university, and author of The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, will ask his audience: "Was 9/11 an inside job?"

He will be joined on stage by the ex-MI5 officer David Shayler, who will introduce the talk, for which tickets have almost sold out. Prof Griffin is a founder member of the 9/11 Scholars for Truth movement in the US. He is joined by 75 academics who write in books, journals and essays that they have overwhelming evidence that shatters the official version of events on that September morning.

And it seems that a growing number of people are listening to them. A recent poll in the US found that 36% of Americans believed it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that their government was involved in allowing the attacks or had carried them out itself. There are many people in the UK who agree with them.


The theories as to what happened on that day, when almost 3,000 people were killed, differ but their unifying theme is that a neo-conservative cabal within the US government staged the events as a pretext to wage wars, become a dominant force in the world and establish "the new American century". The attacks, it is said, were not carried out by al-Qaida terrorists but were a "false flag" event used to justify invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Films have been made on the subject, websites show countless images that "back up" the claims, chatrooms are screaming with conspiracists and there is a plethora of published material. Much of this argues that the collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by a controlled demolition and not by the aeroplanes which slammed into their sides.

Ian Neal helped form the British 9/11 for Truth Movement, which he says is a "loose network of campaigners who have grown up over the past two years". The official 9/11 commission investigation into the attacks firmly dismissed the conspiracy theories, but those who expound them say this is precisely why there needs to be an independent inquiry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/s ... 79,00.html
 
Re: Aluminium?

Timble2 said:
Since we're posting links try reading the paper on this one READ IMPLOSIONWORLD'S PAPER ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE'S and ignore the punctuation....it's written by someone involved in the controlled demolition industry...so it's probably suspect from our CT'er's point of view...

Very interesting! One wonders how this is going to be rubbished by the various armchair 'experts' ;)
 
Well you cant convince someone that absolutely will not change their mind once they have an idea, no matter how much proof you show.

I assume that the basis of your thermite theory is also the base cause of your name, Oilwar, we are at war for oil and brought those towers down to enable us to go take the oil, its all down to the joooo's.

I just saw this terrifying clip of 9/11, never saw it before, take a good look and ask yourself could this probably be the reason we went to war?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Y3r36PZBk

Its extremely graphic, nightmare inducing, so be warned.
 
I hope the 36% of sensible yanks get organised and vote the neo cons out presuming this is still possible. ;)
 
Come and get your Voting machines yells Jeb Bush from the back ground.

Perhaps an audit trail would be a good idea this time, and maybe allowing everyone to vote ?


More importantly doe'snt anyone else on here have any concerns over Bushes/Cia secret 4 year torture of alleged terrorists ?

didnt we have this sort of thing with Hitler ? and we all know what he was
 
techybloke666 said:
More importantly doe'snt anyone else on here have any concerns over Bushes/Cia secret 4 year torture of alleged terrorists ?

I think most of us assumed it was true before he confirmed it so it's not really that surprising.
 
But its ok ???????? :shock:

Surely theres something very very bad abvout this.

Shouldnt the west be up in arms about it ?

Demand that its stops at once and enquires take place as to how this can happen, don't we have laws that forbid this sort of thing ?
 
Doesn't mean that no-one's annoyed but the US is the 400lb gorilla here, there's not a lot anyone can do...laws or not

And there were complaints from other European countries over the extraordinary rendition business, which were basically ignored.

So it's a case of hang in until the next election and hope that whoever gets in next, Republican or Democrat, wants to distance himself as far as possible from Bush (which I'd think is quite likely).
 
Good report and could be clincher

just one thing regarding siesmographic evidence tho

how come Columbia university had spikes before the towers started to fall when Protecs equipment didnt pick up any till during ?

just a thought ;)
 
PM magazine saves the day ;)

Ok I'm happy with poor buildings that were poorly built crap.
 
Former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh slammed the 9/11 Commission Thursday saying it ignored – or "summarily rejected" – the most critical piece of intelligence that could have prevented the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001.


Writing in the Wall Street Journal's opinion page, Freeh gave a blistering review of the Commission and says new revelations indicate it is "a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself."


The former Bureau Director, who resigned his position just months before Sept. 11, 2001, points out that the U.S. government had learned of the identity of Mohammed Atta the year prior to the attacks. Atta was one of the ringleaders of the group, and piloted an American Airlines plane that slammed into one of the Twin Towers.


Freeh recounts that military intelligence operation code-named "Able Danger" concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Atta as an al-Qaida agent operating in the U.S.


"Subsequently, military officers assigned to Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents," Freeh writes. "Why?" he ponders, suggesting the failure to share such intelligence may be a smoking gun pointing at federal malfeasance in the case.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 2900.shtml

Its far more interesting to look at how intelgence reports were ignored that related to the Hijackers before 911

It involves the discovery by Able Danger operatives that Ali Mohamed was a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle. Mohamed turned up in FBI surveillance photos as early as 1989, training radical Muslims who would go on to assassinate Jewish militant Meir Kahane and detonate a truck bomb at the World Trade Center. He not only avoided arrest, but managed to become an FBI informant while smuggling bin Laden in and out of Afghanistan, writing most of the al-Qaeda terrorist manual and helping plan attacks on American troops in Somalia and U.S. embassies in Africa. Finally arrested in 1998, Mohamed cut a deal with the Justice Department, and his whereabouts remain shrouded, unknown.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/40693/

Do we believe that they didnt know anything at all about Atta and his crew ?
 
techybloke666 said:
didnt we have this sort of thing with Hitler ?

No, we didn't. Please don't start with the crass comparisons ;)
 
techybloke666 said:
PM magazine saves the day ;)

Ok I'm happy with poor buildings that were poorly built crap.

Hardly. How about two very, very large buildings being hit by fuel-laden planes, burning, failing at the impact/fire point, and then collapsing?
 
Jerry are you feeling a little Troll like at the moment ?

"Netiquette Guidelines"

What is an Internet Troll/ Forum troll?
An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

A classic CureZone troll is trying to make us believe that he is a skeptic. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. Troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them.

While he tries to present himself as a skeptic looking for truth ... his messages usually sound as if it is the responsibility of other forum members to provide evidence that what forum is all about is legitimate science.

http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp
 
Meet the No Planers
Brendan O'Neill
Monday 11th September 2006


They believe there weren't any planes on 9/11, just missiles wrapped in holograms - and there weren't any London terrorists on 7/7 either. The new-wave conspiracy theorists aren't green-ink types: they're educated; they have secret service connections; they live in Highgate.

By Brendan O'Neill

At first sight, David Shayler and Annie Machon's home in Highgate - the leafiest of London's leafy suburbs - looks like a picture of middle-class respectability. There are Japanese landscape paintings on the living-room walls. Shelves groan under the weight of hardback novels and books on politics. An Alsatian with a well-kept, glossy coat looks on curiously as Belinda McKenzie - the grandmotherly landlady of the house - serves tea in china cups with a plate of delicious shortbread biscuits. "Enjoy," she says in a soft, plummy English accent.

Then you notice the curiosities. On the table sits a document about the "controlled demolition" of the twin towers. The shelves hold books titled The 9/11 Commission Report: omissions and distortions and The New Pearl Harbor: disturbing questions about the Bush administration and 9/11. There's a stack of colourful leaflets advertising a club night called Truth 9/11, to take place in Brixton in a week's time, the "11" in "9/11" represented by two tall stereo speakers. DVDs litter a work desk. One is called 7/7: mind the gap. The cover of another, titled Loose Change, asks: "What if 9/11 were an inside job rather than the work of al-Qaeda . . . ?"

This cluttered house in the heart of respectable, latte-drinking Highgate doubles as the hub of the British and Irish 9/11 Truth Campaign. It's a loose group, founded in January 2004, which suspects precisely that 9/11 was an "inside job", organised and executed by a "shadowy elite" made up of individuals from the FBI, the CIA, the arms industry and politics. Shayler and Machon - the boyfriend-and-girlfriend former spies who famously left MI5 in 1996 after becoming disgruntled - are its leading lights. They've gone from being the Posh and Becks of the whistle-blowing world to something very like the Richard and Judy of the 9/11 conspiracy-theory set.

Sitting on the comfy couch, their cups of tea in hand, they try to convince me that the 11 September 2001 attacks were executed by elements in the west who wanted to launch wars and "make billions upon trillions of dollars".

"We know for certain that the official story of 9/11 isn't true," says Shayler. "The twin towers did not collapse because of planes and fire; they were brought down in a controlled demolition. The Pentagon was most likely hit by an American missile, not an aeroplane." Machon nods. In black trousers and black top, this sophisticated blonde in her late thirties comes across more like a schoolmarm than a 9/11 anorak. "The Pentagon's anti-missile defence system would definitely have picked up and dealt with a commercial airliner. We can only assume that whatever hit the Pentagon was sending a friendly signal. A missile fired by a US military plane would have sent a friendly signal." She says this in a kind of Anna Ford-style newsreader's voice, as if she were speaking the truth and nothing but the truth. She takes another sip of tea.

Say the phrase "conspiracy theorist" (but don't say it to Shayler and Machon if you can help it, because they angrily deny being conspiracy theorists) and most people will think of those nutty militiamen in redneck areas of America who hate Big Government, or of taxi drivers with possibly anti-Semitic leanings in some hot, dusty backwater of the Middle East who revel in telling western clients in particular: "America and the Jew did 9/11." Yet, here in Highgate, I am talking to a man and woman who have worked in the British secret services and who, together with their landlady Belinda, a professional linguist, truly believe that American elements facilitated 9/11 in order to "justify their adventurism in oil-rich countries in the Middle East", in Shayler's words. Here we have a new kind of conspiracy theorist: the chattering conspiracist, respectable, well-read, articulate, but, I regret to report, no less cranky than those rednecks and misguided Kabul cabbies.

The 9/11 Truth Campaign tries to distance itself from the green-ink loons who have been spreading rumours about 9/11 ever since the first plane slammed into the World Trade Center. "In London we meet socially on the first Monday of every month, and for a discussion on the third Monday of every month," says the ever-chirpy Machon, as if describing a Women's Institute get-together to discuss knitting, rather than a meeting of individuals who think a dark cabal of nutters controls the world. Its activists - many of whom are fairly well-to-do, and who include lecturers, film-makers and other whistle-blowers - pore over footage and photos of the events of 9/11, furiously debate them online, and argue that, scientifically, the official version of events doesn't add up. For Belinda - who describes herself as the "tea-maker and dishwasher of the movement" and allows activists from outside London to stay at her home - this is about "getting to the historical truth of what happened".

Yet, for all their forensic pretensions, their views remain crankily conspiratorial and unfounded. Take the claim that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, which has been doing the rounds since the French journalist Thierry Meyssan published 9/11: the big lie in 2002. "Just look at the news footage," says Shayler. "You won't see any plane debris on the Pentagon lawn."

Truth-seekers on a mission

True, but there was plenty of plane debris inside the Pentagon, where Flight 77 entered and exploded. There are numerous photographs of the blackened belly of the Pentagon crash site, taken by officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other rescue workers, which clearly show airliner wheel hubs, landing gear, part of a nose cone and bits of fuselage in the smouldering rubble (I hate to have to do this, but if you don't believe me take a look here: [http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm]). What kind of warrior for historical truth doesn't pay attention to basic photographic evidence?

Or consider the claim that the twin towers were brought down in a controlled demolition (which would have involved sinister individuals planting tonnes of dynamite in the weeks prior to 9/11 without being spotted by any of the good citizens of New York). The US National Institute of Standards and Technology investigated the cause of the collapse - during which "some 200 technical experts reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs [and] analysed 236 pieces of steel" - and it found "no corroborating evidence" that the towers had been toppled by dynamite. There is a lot of scientific evidence there, yet it is ignored or discounted by the apparently scientifically minded truth-seekers of this campaign.

At times, the line between these middle-class campaigners' apparently "scientific investigations" and old-fashioned conspiracy-mongering seems uncomfortably thin. One of their leaflets has a web address for David Icke, the former sports presenter-turned-"Son of God" who thinks the world is run by a race of reptilian humanoids. Shayler says: "There is a Zionist conspiracy; that's a fact. And they were behind 9/11." Machon intervenes diplomatically: "Not everyone in the campaign shares that view."

Then things really go off the rails. I ask Shayler if it's true he has become a "no planer" - that is, someone who believes that no planes at all were involved in the 9/11 atrocity. Machon looks uncomfortable. "Oh, ---- it, I'm just going to say this," he tells her. "Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/11." But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch the footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." He must notice that my jaw has dropped. "I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe."

The 7/7 photo "forgery"

What about 7/7? Some in the 9/11 Truth Campaign aren't "really into 7/7", in Belinda's words. But Shayler is. He recently finished making 7/7: mind the gap, a film in which he suggests that, given the late running of trains on that fateful day last year, the four bombers could not have blown themselves up in London at the times claimed. He also believes that the closed-circuit TV image of the four men entering Luton Station is a "Photoshop job - a forgery, and a bad one at that". He goes so far as to argue that those who forged the photo did it badly in order to send a signal to the rest of us. "This could be elements in the New World Order saying, 'Look, we're sick of lying. We've had enough.'"

So have I. The thought of behind-the-scenes suits being cajoled by their evil paymasters to create an image of four rucksack-wearing terrorists in order to cover up their own bombing of London is just too ludicrous. These 9/11 truth campaigners merely add a supposedly scientific gloss to already existing conspiracy theories, trying to make the ridiculous seem respectable. In the process, they actually do a disservice to "historical truth". History gets reduced to a mysterious force beyond our control, and politics - real politics - is imagined to be the preserve of unknown, faceless puppet-masters whom we can never hope to influence. And the rest of us are reduced to the status of helpless spectators, searching amid the rubble of 9/11 and the aftermath of 7/7 for signs of truth and meaning.

This article first appeared in the New Statesman.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028
 
techybloke666 said:
Jerry are you feeling a little Troll like at the moment ?

No, not at all :confused:

Take it up with a mod if you think I am, of course.
 
techybloke666 wrote:
didnt we have this sort of thing with Hitler ?


No, we didn't. Please don't start with the crass comparisons

explain your answer please
 
Now this may be pure speculation, but the WTC was built in the laste 60's/early 70's, at a time when the construction industry in NY was run by the mob. Now these construction companies were notorious for cutting corners, shoddy work and deliberate use of substandard materials. Combined with bribes/threats to various city officials.

So isn't it possible that the buildings may have been vulnerable than their published design suggests? It doesn't matter how well designed anything is if it's put together by a bunch of bodgers. Might this possibly be a contributory factor?
 
misterwibble said:
So isn't it possible that the buildings may have been vulnerable than their published design suggests? It doesn't matter how well designed anything is if it's put together by a bunch of bodgers. Might this possibly be a contributory factor?

If there was a cover up I'd have to agree that that would be favourite.
 
Back
Top