Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: WTC 1 "Spire" points to CD rather than gravitional
I have been thinking recently about the "spire" which you can see after WTC1 collapses - it must be something like 80 floors high (edit: apparently only 40 stories high) - it hung in space for a few seconds before it too collapsed. This is another remarkable phenomenon - never seen before in other natural building collapse - explainable by Controlled Demolition (since the building support is surgically cut around the spire column) but how could it have occurred by gravitational collapse? (Since a random, pulverizing force could not possibly allow it to remain upright).
Perhaps I should email Richard Gage to add to his list of physical evidence.
Last edited by scienceplease on Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:40 am; edited 1 time in total
I've always thought the spire is very telling - especially the way that, if you watch it in highres, it slides it's body width to one side and down a little before dropping straight down vertically - perfectly consistant with angled shape charges.
Gordon Ross does use it in his theories. _________________
Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject: Just one problem
It was 40 stories.
Steel girders do not "collapse" they fall over. That is not a building; they are solid steel up to 4 inches thick ALL THE WAY AROUND. I was there, I am a witness and the spires demise haunts me every night.
LOL, Gage won’t use it, and they will claim it is dust falling, figment of your imagination.
I am the only one I know who has a real DVC original taken with Sony professional 3ccd high res digital video that day. They would rather it just stay dead. Amazing, should be in the Guinness book of records or steels greatest moments, or worst.
Maybe Gage will make a box for it. Sometimes I think he is sincere, but then how long will he be * before he realizes what we need cannot come from blogs, petitions, speeches or votes? I even wonder if Ventura is ready - even though he claims it. I have to try and talk to him; Fetzer has his brain right now. I bet he becomes a Fetzerite soon.
Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: Re: Just one problem
911Eyewitness wrote:
It was 40 stories.
Steel girders do not "collapse" they fall over. That is not a building; they are solid steel up to 4 inches thick ALL THE WAY AROUND. I was there, I am a witness and the spires demise haunts me every night.
LOL, Gage won’t use it, and they will claim it is dust falling, figment of your imagination.
I am the only one I know who has a real DVC original taken with Sony professional 3ccd high res digital video that day. They would rather it just stay dead. Amazing, should be in the Guinness book of records or steels greatest moments, or worst.
Maybe Gage will make a box for it. Sometimes I think he is sincere, but then how long will he be * before he realizes what we need cannot come from blogs, petitions, speeches or votes? I even wonder if Ventura is ready - even though he claims it. I have to try and talk to him; Fetzer has his brain right now. I bet he becomes a Fetzerite soon.
Youtube had a really great view of the spire (which I can't find any longer). Instead I found this
Which shows the spire "walking" as discussed above by Stefan.
I have also seen it "walking" on various videos - so if it was "walking" why didn’t it topple over? Instead it falls (more or less) through itself and turns to dust like the rest of the building!
Could it be that other factors were involved than simply thermate and/or explosives? Don’t get me wrong, I do not support Judy Wood or her followers, in their mindless pursuit against any theories but their own – but it seems to me that things other than thermate or explosives were also involved. _________________ "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: Just one problem
truthseeker john wrote:
I have also seen it "walking" on various videos - so if it was "walking" why didn’t it topple over? Instead it falls (more or less) through itself and turns to dust like the rest of the building!
Could it be that other factors were involved than simply thermate and/or explosives? Don’t get me wrong, I do not support Judy Wood or her followers, in their mindless pursuit against any theories but their own – but it seems to me that things other than thermate or explosives were also involved.
I don't think we can be definitive about the additional energy that brought the towers down but I would say that whether you are official supporter, CD supporter or Judy Wood supporter 9/11 was an inherently risky operation and I dare say any of the evil doers would have study the risks in great detail and plan to mitigate them.
Official Conspiracy
Official supporter would point out that only 3 or the 4 planes reached their targets. The hijackers risk management strategy was to strike simultaneously - or as near as they could. (Actually if this was their risk management strategy then the hijackers would have struck within minutes of each other in order to completely overwhelm and confuse air defenses).
CD Conspiracy
If you believe that the WTC needed to be brought down in order to rebuild using the insurance money and saving the cost of stripping out the asbestos, then just crashing the planes would be insufficient to bring the towers down. A simple KE=0.5 x M x V squared calculation would show there was not enough energy to do this and in any case the architects were confident their design would withstand plane crashes. Hence, a back-up plan would be required: explosives: the only tried and tested way of bringing down steel structures. The exact type of explosive is unknown but video evidence, dust analysis and the huge quantities of molten steel would indicate that thermite or thermate would be included. Risk Management would suggest there must be duplicated CD methods: wired and radio controlled activation. The Spire may be an indication that maybe both one or both mechanisms failed. I would suggest that the delayed WTC7 collapse my also be due to technical failure. There is lots of evidence that the cell phone network was knocked out early in the morning of 9/11. If WTC7 was due to blown up using radio-controlled explosives (as per the Madrid Bombings) then that may explain why WTC7 didn't fall at the same time as the WTC towers collapses... just a thought...
Judy Wood Energy Ray Conspiracy
I have yet to have evidence of such weapons and if they did exist, the risk of such weapons not working or wiping out half of NY would be so high I cannot believe anybody would give the green light to such a plan.
Remember magic tricks: they look complicatedl!!! But behind the trick is something very simple...
Paul,
PM me, I will send you a hi res copy of 911 explosive reality and you can see for yourself it does not turn to dust - it is clearly cut at an angle half way down and falls downward into the basement, no doubt toppling when it hits the ground, but it is behind buildings by then in the angles we have shots of.
It falls directly down because that is exactly what the art of controlled demolition is designed to make it do.
It does not turn to dust, the dust surrounding it does not fall with it, and some people have tried to claim that dust hanging in the air is the columns itself, when in reality the columns have fallen, and the dust just hangs there, as is dusts wont. It's an optical illusion, a combination of compressed low res video and over active imainations. _________________
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:48 am Post subject: Re: Just one problem
scienceplease wrote:
911Eyewitness wrote:
It was 40 stories.
Steel girders do not "collapse" they fall over. That is not a building; they are solid steel up to 4 inches thick ALL THE WAY AROUND. I was there, I am a witness and the spires demise haunts me every night.
LOL, Gage won’t use it, and they will claim it is dust falling, figment of your imagination.
I am the only one I know who has a real DVC original taken with Sony professional 3ccd high res digital video that day. They would rather it just stay dead. Amazing, should be in the Guinness book of records or steels greatest moments, or worst.
Maybe Gage will make a box for it. Sometimes I think he is sincere, but then how long will he be * before he realizes what we need cannot come from blogs, petitions, speeches or votes? I even wonder if Ventura is ready - even though he claims it. I have to try and talk to him; Fetzer has his brain right now. I bet he becomes a Fetzerite soon.
Youtube had a really great view of the spire (which I can't find any longer). Instead I found this
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: Re: Just one problem
Samantha J Fox wrote:
Pretty sure that is not the spire but part of the central column.
I am not too sure how to respond to this...
It was part of the central column that remained standing for a few seconds after the rest of the building collapsed. I am not talking about the antenna.
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: Re: Just one problem
scienceplease wrote:
Samantha J Fox wrote:
Pretty sure that is not the spire but part of the central column.
I am not too sure how to respond to this...
It was part of the central column that remained standing for a few seconds after the rest of the building collapsed. I am not talking about the antenna.
Do accept my apologies, I instinctively assumed the spire to be the large pointy thing at the top of the tower, and when looking at the YouTube link I notice a couple of other people had made the same assumption..
Most of my stuff is no longer around. Ordered down by those who wish to be part of organizations. Even my mention of me is cause for removal at most forums. In fact Blue Star Media James Brewster took down the one high resolution one I created as he deleted the 911 Eyewitness Truth site without notice. I am surprised the truth now 911 bilderburger group is not pressuring Tony to stop putting up with my divisive (speaking truth) behavior?
The tape and its clones are all in lock up awaiting the court cases and I do not have the easy access as when I had them in hand. Two years ago I put them all over the place and people were asking these questions already. Mark Bilk and Professor Jones decided it was not to be.
The overly esteemed professing Jones has deemed it fine and dandy that under the dust the steel did what it should, fall all over the place. Original video ordered removed, with my name and posts are nowhere (other than outside the USA) anymore. How many remember the break up of 911 scholars as Jones deleted my account there? I had posted some damning stuff on Jones and he did not like it. That too is now erased from 911 toof.
The core spire collapse was marginalized mostly because DEW people picked it up and ran with it but also because I did not play ball when they exposed their 911-truthie scam.
Most of my stuff is no longer around. Ordered down by those who wish to be part of organizations. Even my mention of me is cause for removal at most forums. In fact Blue Star Media James Brewster took down the one high resolution one I created as he deleted the 911 Eyewitness Truth site without notice. I am surprised the truth now 911 bilderburger group is not pressuring Tony to stop putting up with my divisive (speaking truth) behavior?
The tape and its clones are all in lock up awaiting the court cases and I do not have the easy access as when I had them in hand. Two years ago I put them all over the place and people were asking these questions already. Mark Bilk and Professor Jones decided it was not to be.
The overly esteemed professing Jones has deemed it fine and dandy that under the dust the steel did what it should, fall all over the place. Original video ordered removed, with my name and posts are nowhere (other than outside the USA) anymore. How many remember the break up of 911 scholars as Jones deleted my account there? I had posted some damning stuff on Jones and he did not like it. That too is now erased from 911 toof.
The core spire collapse was marginalized mostly because DEW people picked it up and ran with it but also because I did not play ball when they exposed their 911-truthie scam.
Hi 9/11eyewitness,
I can see that you've been in the 9/11 investigation business somewhat longer than me so a lot of what you are saying is new to me. I am unaware of the DEW 9/11 truthie-scam. As per my previous posts I am not very sympathetic towards DEW mainly because of the amazingly high risk of failure for such an approach even if such a weapon existed (which I also doubt).
I have always assumed that since 9/11 was a giant PysOp that the Dept of Homeland Security, CIA or whoever would be trying to sow seeds of division within any "opposition" to the official story. So whatever route you've taken to get where you are, the earlier you started in the investigation, the more pushed and pulled around you're going to be.
I must say that the fading of the spire into dust is a very dramatic image but it could be just the layer of dust which was resting on the columns being suspended in the air as the steel disappears behind it. I can see this is an amazingly controversial area which is used by all sides to support their own theory. My main interest is establishing the weakness in the official story rather than being prescriptive on how it was all done.
Thanks for the video. Do you know whether any video exists of the spire from other angles?
[quote="scienceplease"] My main interest is establishing the weakness in the official story rather than being prescriptive on how it was all done.
Imagine you had finally done this. What? You have not been in this long at all. It is a fruit loop. You have to get out of it and focus on changing our circumstance. Chasing your tail is something to keep you busy.
scienceplease wrote:
Thanks for the video. Do you know whether any video exists of the spire from other angles?
Mine, better quality. There are others on google video. Many took the hi-res and used it. Must be somewhere.
I must say that the fading of the spire into dust is a very dramatic image but it could be just the layer of dust which was resting on the columns being suspended in the air as the steel disappears behind it.
I must say I've reviewed this a hundred times, and it is quite clear, that the spire or, is it core?, does not fall behind a cloud of dust but converts, and not only from this shot, but from others _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:08 am Post subject:
Stefan wrote:
It falls directly down because that is exactly what the art of controlled demolition is designed to make it do.
One problem with that. When buildings are demolished to come down vertically they are not wobbling like the 'spire' was. _________________ "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
I must say that the fading of the spire into dust is a very dramatic image but it could be just the layer of dust which was resting on the columns being suspended in the air as the steel disappears behind it.
I must say I've reviewed this a hundred times, and it is quite clear, that the spire or, is it core?, does not fall behind a cloud of dust but converts, and not only from this shot, but from others
Well I would be interested in seeing the spire (which is part of the core) from other directions. Most images are taken from the North (or West - these are long range). Since the towers were almost at the tip of Manhattan, it's a shame there were not more images from south or east which may shed more light on the matter. I hesitate to build any theory up from just a few frames of disputed video (cf missile launches before impact or the pod under the aircraft).
If you really believe the steel turned to dust then what agent of change do you propose? It must very exotic. And what would be the purpose of zapping the spire when it clearly looked like it was just about to topple?
My main interest is establishing the weakness in the official story rather than being prescriptive on how it was all done.
Imagine you had finally done this. What? You have not been in this long at all. It is a fruit loop. You have to get out of it and focus on changing our circumstance. Chasing your tail is something to keep you busy.
I am still tail chasing since the fruit loop is the only hope for civilized society. I guess I still want a pension and some hope for my kids.
I must say that the fading of the spire into dust is a very dramatic image but it could be just the layer of dust which was resting on the columns being suspended in the air as the steel disappears behind it.
I must say I've reviewed this a hundred times, and it is quite clear, that the spire or, is it core?, does not fall behind a cloud of dust but converts, and not only from this shot, but from others
Well I would be interested in seeing the spire (which is part of the core) from other directions. Most images are taken from the North (or West - these are long range). Since the towers were almost at the tip of Manhattan, it's a shame there were not more images from south or east which may shed more light on the matter. I hesitate to build any theory up from just a few frames of disputed video (cf missile launches before impact or the pod under the aircraft).
If you really believe the steel turned to dust then what agent of change do you propose? It must very exotic. And what would be the purpose of zapping the spire when it clearly looked like it was just about to topple?
Again, I recommend a hi-rez version of "9/11 Explosive Reality" - it is essentially just a collection of newsclips from the day without any narration or backing music, but is a very useful resource for anyone interested in 9/11 - there are multiple angles of the "spire" collapse. _________________
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject:
Stefan wrote:
Again, I recommend a hi-rez version of "9/11 Explosive Reality" - it is essentially just a collection of newsclips from the day without any narration or backing music, but is a very useful resource for anyone interested in 9/11 - there are multiple angles of the "spire" collapse.
OK, can you get us high-res clip (or clips) of that to look at? _________________ "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:05 am Post subject:
scienceplease 2 wrote:
The Harit & Jones paper conclusive provides thermite as an explosive so the spire is the result of CD as suggested, IMHO.
Not saying thermate wasn't involved but to me it looks like something else might have been involved as well. The 'spire' was wobbling but instead of toppling over (as would be expected), it falls vertically and appears to turn to dust. It was if the molecular structure was fragmented so it fell into bits instead of toppling over. Saying that, I do not support the idea of directed energy from space (which would take an awesome amount of power) but perhaps something closer - perhaps in building seven and if so, that would be one of the reasons they brought that tower down as well. It could also explain why people were jumping out of the building(s) because electromagnetic energy of that intensity (so as to effect steel) would be very painful on the body (like being in a microwave oven) and it would confuse the mind as well.
Anyway, no matter what was involved the towers could not have come down through planes crashing and the fires that followed. And they could not have come down at near free fall speed, unless they were deliberately brought down through a controlled demolition of some sort, involving thermate and/or explosives or perhaps other means as well.
Thing is, to show that the official story is a lie we do not have to prove exactly what brought the towers down, when it is impossible for them to come down as they did if only plane crashes and fires were involved.
After the planes crashed, the towers stood for about an hour (by which time the fires were almost out) - so why did the towers come down? And at near free fall? So who are they trying to fool? Well, the gullible believe-what-you-are-told-by-authority public of course. But it didn't work for us all because not all of us are as stupid as they thought. _________________ "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
Not saying thermate wasn't involved but to me it looks like something else might have been involved as well. The 'spire' was wobbling but instead of toppling over (as would be expected), it falls vertically and appears to turn to dust. It was if the molecular structure was fragmented so it fell into bits instead of toppling over.
Are you sure this effect wasn't caused by dust providing a smoke screen as the support below was removed?
truthseeker john wrote:
Saying that, I do not support the idea of directed energy from space (which would take an awesome amount of power) but perhaps something closer - perhaps in building seven and if so, that would be one of the reasons they brought that tower down as well. It could also explain why people were jumping out of the building(s) because electromagnetic energy of that intensity (so as to effect steel) would be very painful on the body (like being in a microwave oven) and it would confuse the mind as well.
Radio controlled ignition from WTC7 is a possiblity but microwaves are easily blocked - hence why microwave ovens are safe.
truthseeker john wrote:
Anyway, no matter what was involved the towers could not have come down through planes crashing and the fires that followed. And they could not have come down at near free fall speed, unless they were deliberately brought down through a controlled demolition of some sort, involving thermate and/or explosives or perhaps other means as well.
The spire is an artifact that destroys the "natural fire" argument - the spire was strong enough to support itself - it should have been dragged down by the floors it was supporting. Except that the floors had to have been cut away eg by thermite!
truthseeker john wrote:
Thing is, to show that the official story is a lie we do not have to prove exactly what brought the towers down, when it is impossible for them to come down as they did if only plane crashes and fires were involved.
After the planes crashed, the towers stood for about an hour (by which time the fires were almost out) - so why did the towers come down? And at near free fall? So who are they trying to fool? Well, the gullible believe-what-you-are-told-by-authority public of course. But it didn't work for us all because not all of us are as stupid as they thought.
It seems incredible to me that the physics of the tower collapse! Not natural, the response of the fighters - far too slow, the targets destroying fraud data and DoD budget data in the pentagon - amazing coincidence, the lack of a convincing story wrt to hijackers motivation and association, the hijackers planning their attack across the road from CIA HQ - amazing coincidence, the obviously false planted evidence - including the cell phone calls, the foreknowledge (including by Tony Blair scheduling his least favorite event: a speach at the TUC), and the COMPLETE LACK of rigorous investigation all screams: INSIDE JOB!
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:18 am Post subject:
[quote="scienceplease 2"]
truthseeker john wrote:
Not saying thermate wasn't involved but to me it looks like something else might have been involved as well. The 'spire' was wobbling but instead of toppling over (as would be expected), it falls vertically and appears to turn to dust. It was if the molecular structure was fragmented so it fell into bits instead of toppling over.
scienceplease 2 wrote:
Are you sure this effect wasn't caused by dust providing a smoke screen as the support below was removed?
Sure isn't the same as fact. All I can say is that it looks like what I described.
truthseeker john wrote:
Saying that, I do not support the idea of directed energy from space (which would take an awesome amount of power) but perhaps something closer - perhaps in building seven and if so, that would be one of the reasons they brought that tower down as well. It could also explain why people were jumping out of the building(s) because electromagnetic energy of that intensity (so as to effect steel) would be very painful on the body (like being in a microwave oven) and it would confuse the mind as well.
scienceplease 2 wrote:
Radio controlled ignition from WTC7 is a possiblity but microwaves are easily blocked - hence why microwave ovens are safe.
Really? So how would a person put up a shield in that situation?
truthseeker john wrote:
Anyway, no matter what was involved the towers could not have come down through planes crashing and the fires that followed. And they could not have come down at near free fall speed, unless they were deliberately brought down through a controlled demolition of some sort, involving thermate and/or explosives or perhaps other means as well.
scienceplease 2 wrote:
The spire is an artifact that destroys the "natural fire" argument - the spire was strong enough to support itself - it should have been dragged down by the floors it was supporting. Except that the floors had to have been cut away eg by thermite!
Steel is cut by termite/thermate, not concrete floors - although it is possible to melt concrete, it would take longer because the concrete would be melting away from the heat of the termite or thermate source of heat. _________________ "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
With the WTC2 collapse you can see what looks like demolition flashes coming from many of its windows but their are no similar flashes when WTC1 'collapses'. The WTC1 'collapse' dust cloud fallout is credited with causing the curious lower Manhatten 1400 vehicle fires, many with engine blocks and door handles eaten away.It may be heresy round here but it looks to me like that 60 storey central core 'spire' turned to dust.
With the WTC2 collapse you can see what looks like demolition flashes coming from many of its windows but their are no similar flashes when WTC1 'collapses'. The WTC1 'collapse' dust cloud fallout is credited with causing the curious lower Manhatten 1400 vehicle fires, many with engine blocks and door handles eaten away.It may be heresy round here but it looks to me like that 60 storey central core 'spire' turned to dust.
Do you have photographic evidence of flashes in WTC2 collapse?
Do you have photographic evidence of vehicles with engine blocks eaten away?
Has anyone ever mapped the distribution of burnt out vehicles around WTC?
YES there are several youtubes of what looks like detonation flashes from WTC2 windows when it 'collapses' (Xenomorphwtc911)AND they synch with each other , I'm informed, so they're not gliches in the film. There are also many photographs of the 1400 burned out vehicles from several official sources plus video , it seems unlikely 1400 vehicles were parked in the service roads directly under the towers before 9AM 9/11 and that the quite small fires could have fallen 80 and 90 floors to ignite them...but not more combustible paper and other objects around these vehicles.
I tried googling Xenomorphwtc911 and found only one hit! This blog. I haven't seen these flashes so I don't know what I am looking for (and I have viewed the collapses hundreds of times) - I would really appreciate if you could locate a good video that demonstrates the effect.
Also I haven't come across this figure of 1400 vehicles before. Do you know where you got that from? I think it would be highly significant to see where these vehicles are located. I agree that it would be unlikely that 1400 vehicles were parked in the service roads directly under the towers or fires from the towers could have ignited them.
As for the paper and objects - I don't think I've seen the photos that show that.
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:42 am Post subject:
truthseeker john wrote:
Steel is cut by termite/thermate, not concrete floors - although it is possible to melt concrete, it would take longer because the concrete would be melting away from the heat of the termite or thermate source of heat.
Let me clarify that. Concrete is not as good conductor of heat as steel is, so whereas concrete would melt on the surface with it not being a good conductor it wouldn't melt through as with steel. _________________ "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
