Title: WTC video's plus Thermite demo video Source:
WTC videos URL Source:[None] Published:Oct 14, 2006 Author:??? Post Date:2006-10-14 05:01:38 by Neil McIver Ping List:*9-11*Subscribe to *9-11* Keywords:None Views:549 Comments:19
This is a peculiar video I didn't see until the other day, and thought it peculiar enough to do a little comparison video surfing.
The above is right before the south tower collapse.
Here's a stabilized version of a few seconds of the above: (on google.... can't find a youtube version):
Once we know what to look for, it's easy enough to see the thermite/thermate cutting going on here.
I guess we all have our perspectives and different standards of things that we find convincing. Call me slow on the subject, but for me, this molten material flowing out is very significant as it doesn't have any plausible alternative explanation, as this stuff could hardly be anything other than molten metal, and as such would have to be not just heated to the melting point of the metal, but heated very far above that.
I'm kind of surprised this wasn't even mentioned on the loose change or other 911 videos. Am I missing something?
I'm kind of surprised this wasn't even mentioned on the loose change or other 911 videos.
i do believe that issue is covered in LooseChange 2. in fact, yesterday, this topic was discussed on Jason Bermas's new show on RBN. Dylan Avery was on too and i'm pretty certain that he said they covered the molten metal pools under all three buildings in their film. it's been a long time since i watched it and i don't remember now.
Okay, well maybe I missed it then when I went back to find it, but I did find it on the net. The stabilized one is a good fix.
The red hot metal found weeks after the fact, while certainly demanding some research, has some possible explanation with the shear amount of of energy released in the building collapse. Without question that amount of energy was huge, supposedly equivilent to 20% of an atomic bomb or something like that. Asbestos insulation might account for the lingering heat for weeks. I'm not sure, though, that even thermite alone would explain the heat's longevity.
....possible explanation with the shear amount of of energy released in the building collapse....
What energy release are you talking about that would account for running flows and pools of molten iron at all three buildings? Remember WTC 7 wasn't hit by a airliner.
Gravity, pancaking and a progressive collapse, fall much, much short of explaining how the towers were exploding as they came down, ejecting girders and dust at hundreds of feet per second, hundreds of feet away.
No way can jet fuel or diesel fuel(in the case of WTC 7) and a conventional office fire account for metal running like flows from a volcano in Hawaii. This was confirmed by many witnesses. There just wasn't red hot metal, this iron was flowing like streams and eventually formed giant slag meteorites.
The energy can be explained by explosives. Specifically, thermate and nano-thermite.
In two separate samples, Dr Jones has found the following in the molten metal; iron, aluminum, sulphur, fluorine, zinc, manganese, potassium and barium. These are traces of military explosives.
In the dust was found a plastic molecule; 1,3- DPP or 1,3 diphenylpropane that could be associated with a sol-gel compound that would stabilize the nano thermite.
This nano aluminothermic compound is around 1000% more powerful than conventional demo explosives. One wouldn't need much to pulverize everything into talc, just like we saw at the towers.
This was a first of its kind, top down demo explosion. It would take much more powerful explosives to keep the building coming down at near freefall speeds. WTC 7 was a conventional bottom up implosion.
After the "probable collapse initiation", NIST dosen't explain how the twin towers continue to collapse. NIST never tested for explosives.
Giant pools of metal were found at thousands of degrees MONTHS later buried in an oxygen deficient environment. This is a pure chemical reaction.
Structual steel was evaporated. It takes almost 5000 degrees to do this. This was a military high tech opperation.
Keep searching, you will unfortunately find the truth.
What energy release are you talking about that would account for running flows and pools of molten iron at all three buildings? Remember WTC 7 wasn't hit by a airliner.
I was only stating that when things fall, they release energy in the process. It's the reverse of what happens when things are taken from the ground and raised into the air, of course. The laws of thermodynamics state that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, so when something high up falls, it converts the potential energy stored in it when it was raised into some other kind of energy. A certain amount of that energy would be converted to heat when the object impacts the ground, as well as sound energy and air movement, etc.
With the WTC's there was quite a bit of potential energy released at the time of collapse due to both their height and mass. I don't know how much, but supposedly it's been calculated at some 20% of an atomic bomb. I think that figure came from a government sympatheizer so verification would be in order. Was sufficient energy in the falls converted to enough heat, concentrated, to melt steel as you describe? I can't imagine it would, but mathematics would provide an answer. Would the presence of thermite or related compound? Again, math would show. Would asbestos insulation, which I think was used in the construction, along with concrete dust provide sufficient insulation to prevent the heated metal from cooling for weeks/months afterwards? Off the cuff I strongly doubt it, but again, mathematics/physics would be the final authority in providing a list of plausible causes of these effects.
I really don't like to lean on hunches or get into the habit of either dismissing things out of hand, or accepting things without analysis. How often are we surprised at how much different reality is from what we'd have guessed? Like how hard it is to break a pencil a certain way, or surprised that a tennis ball really could have broken a window and that kind of stuff?
Those who blindly have faith in government, such that they refuse to consider things like the molten metal sparks, or why WTC7 fell are guilty of this, but so are those who blindly sign on to every theory that is put forth that accuses the government of conspiracy. In the case of a government conspiracy, the government would most certainly have an interest in discrediting its accusers, one way being to covertly seeding it's ranks with people who make all kinds of outlandish claims that eager rebels are too quick to accept. I don't want that to happen to us, and the only way in the case of 911 is to do the math homework and let the statistics do the talking, so we can focus on the real issues and drop the fake ones.
Some might criticise me for giving too much benefit of a doubt. (In fact some do). But I guess I'd prefer to err on that side than the alternative. It gives my conclusions, even if they are more rare, more credibility.
I'm not really writing this to you, Kam, but everybody, I guess.