WTC 1,2 & 7: building collapse: Thermite theory

[Pikey]

Thanx to Andria who has posted the following.

http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentifie d.htm

http://www.rense.com/general70/whitehot.htm

What do you reckon?

[freddie]

Just my 2 pence worth,

I think Thermite would explain the red hot pools of Iron weeks after the collapse. The problem is Thermite would not provide the 'mechanism' to pulverise the concrete to dust - It does not explain the reports of explosions - and it does not explain the highly localized 'squibs'.

My personal take is that the official story believers think that just one floor collapsing will cause the whole thing to telescope down - and most people who believe in demoltion think that the there were bombs on several of the floors.

My question to the official believers: "Surely if it only takes one floor to collapse, then the bombs/thermite would only need to be on one floor"

My question to the demo believers: "If thermite / bombs were set of on the floors beneath the crash zone, (in order to create the quick collapse) then why did the building perfectly telescope and not break up below"

The second question is weaker but it still troubles me -- If it was 'free fall' acceleration then where was the resistance? - The resistance that would have been there from the standing floors.

[alkmyst]

Hello again Freddie,

It looks as though www.nineeleven.co.uk is under 'Freddie attack'!

Three vacuous posts in less than an hour!!

Before anybody wastes time and/or energy responding to Freddie's question, I suggest they check out this link and see how he has previously dragged out vacuous debate by refusing to acknowledge or respond to any counter proposition.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=1313&start=60

Freddie's MO is to drag a thread out for as long as he can before he gets rumbled...or everyone gets bored. Then he backs off for a few weeks, before attempting to start another thread by asking an apparently open question, then totally ignoring objective response. He is usually rather more polite than another serial poster on the 7/7 thread but he sucks energy in much the same vein.

Once he gets rumbled, he and Scar enter into exchanges of rambling verbiage in an attempt to deflect the fact that they have been sussed.

Freddie originally arrived on our site asking how he might get hold of 100 copies of Loose Change II, claiming he ran a small circulation publication and wanted to send out a copy of the DVD with his next issue.... he was put in touch with a couple of sources but neither ever heard from him again.

Of course I may be very wrong about Freddie but my shill detector sets the alarm bells ringing when I see him posting another non-question:

[freddie]

hahaha - wow Alkmyst, you hate me so much you felt the need to do a cut and paste job on two threads?!?! - I don't want to divert this thread away from the subject of thermite so here http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=1466 you can read his almost carbon copy hit piece on me and my reply.[/quote]

[alkmyst]

Freddie,

I used 'cut & paste' three times; once in response to each of your random questions. Each of which follows your previous MO of asking BS questions and then totally ignoring any objective response.

The onus is on you to prove me wrong. Make a meaningful contribution and I will readily retract my comments.

Other forum contributors can make up their own minds but the least that I can do is alert them to the time-wasting tactics that you have employed previously.

Anyone remotely interested in your earlier posts can use the search facility.

Meanwhile, anyone ever seen or heard of 'Ctrl' magazine?

Al K Myst

[freddie]

"Anyone ever heard of Ctrl magazine" - I'd be shocked if anyone has because we produce between 500-1000 an issue and have only made 3 issues ... You need to take a deep breath and face the fact that you've got carried away with your suspicions and this time you've made a big mistake -- and seriously - if you want to bash me properly, by all means, start a thread, but don't keep diverting threads from the topics at hand.

[Andrew Johnson]

Hi,

I will attempt to answer Freddie's question, for his and the benefit of others.

We know that the demolition of the towers was a very complicated job and had to be meticulously planned. The perpatrators needed to buy themselves enough time to build momentum and further their agenda - so they needed to make the demolition look good - but not like a demolition.

One of the key differences between the CD of 1, 2 and 7 is that 7 collapsed in the traditional CD sense - the sequence of explosives triggered on the lower levels 1st and then went upwards.

The sequences for 1 & 2 were different - perhaps even "top down" (although the top and bottom halves may have been demolished in their own sequence - I was thinking particularly of the way the top of 1 of the towers started to topple over, but then became dust).

So Freddie's observation is an intelligent one - but the evidence for thermate/thermite usage is pretty damning.

However, it is a fallacy to assume that they ONLY used thermite. It seems safer to assume that a cocktail of explosives were used because:

1) They needed to destroy/cut all the steel girders
2) They needed to pulverise the concrete (not really sure why - but it might be that they were testing some new type of advanced explosives, or just wanted to destroy as much of the evidence as possible)

It's quite possible that different types of explosives were needed to achieve 1 & 2 in the best (for them) way.

They wanted to make piecing together the left-over evidence a difficult task - otherwise they would just have come up with some more outlandish OCT and used a nuclear device. I bet they'd've done this as well if Wall Street hadn't been so close by.

[freddie]

Cheers for the reply Andrew

[catfish]

I think something has to explain why this was the absolutely best controlled demolition ever staged. I've seen tapes of probably 20 controlled demos including a recent one in New York in March, and none of them come down as perfectly as the twin towers. I think some new technique for demolishing buildings was used, or the buildings had always been designed to be destroyed in this way as part of a grander scheme. The whole idea for Manhattan was peddled by Fabian and his friends... http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html

[catfish]

Here is the link for the skyscraper demolition in March, notice how it's nowhere near as good a demo as the twin towers http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/news/archive/0318implosion1/index.ht ml