Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: 911 debunkers hide from evidence of controlled demolition
9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition
Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site proves thermate, proves collapse of twin towers was an act of deliberate arson
Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.
During a talk at the Rebuilding America's Senses event at the University of Texas last month, Jones laid out facts about steel samples recovered from the WTC site that Popular Mechanics dare not even attempt to debate. Debunkers are scared to even get near this information because the science behind it fundamentally contradicts the official story of what happened on 9/11.
Jones detailed his lab experiments in which he attempted to replicate NIST's conclusion that the lava like orange material flowing out of the south tower is aluminum from Flight 175, the plane that hit the building. Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum. Jones then explains that the material is in fact a compound that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter, thermite with sulphur added to make thermate.
The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on.
The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.
So having moved from a hypothesis that thermate was used to bring down the towers from using video footage and debunking the aluminum explanation of NIST, Jones now has empirical scientific proof, undertaken under laboratory conditions, that thermate was indeed used as an artificial explosive at the World Trade Center.
It has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 was an act of deliberate arson and not as a result of fires from crashing planes.
Jones' evidence offers no other conclusion that insiders planted thermite devices within the buildings to literally pulverize the supporting columns and cause the collapse of the towers and also WTC 7. Debunkers have uniformly failed to address the existence of thermite and also molten metal at the ground zero site because they cannot dismiss the scientific proof, and are forced to resort to ad hominem insults and smears.
We are issuing a challenge to Popular Mechanics to rebut Professor Jones' analysis of the sphere samples and the clear evidence of thermate at the World Trade Center. Address the focused scientific proof without resorting to ad hominem attacks or straying off topic.
We don't expect the progenitors of yellow journalism to have any answers for what constitutes the smoking gun of controlled demolition.
The slphur issue is a destraction. Molten aluminium or molten steel? It really doesn't matter. The fact is... whatever it was, the molten 'metal' contained so much heat energy that it was able to remain in molten state for weeks after the event. Hydrocarbon fires simply cannot deliver this volume of energy to achieve this result. This leaves the only sensible option on the table as being 'Some form of explosives'. (Once Judy Woods lunacy theories have been rightly rejected of course )
From what I witnessed, the only sensible argument is that the towers were 'imploded' or, conventionally speaking, "brought down by controlled demolition". There is no other plausible probability.
This fact alone proves guilt. As to the question of which explosives were used, Steven Jones' work is valid. However it remains a secondary issue once mass acceptance of the fundamental and overwhelming evidence of controlled demolition by explosives is achieved.
Molten aluminium or molten steel? It really doesn't matter. The fact is... whatever it was, the molten 'metal' contained so much heat energy that it was able to remain in molten state for weeks after the event. Hydrocarbon fires simply cannot deliver this volume of energy to achieve this result. This leaves the only sensible option on the table as being 'Some form of explosives'. (Once Judy Woods lunacy theories have been rightly rejected of course )
Agreed on some explosives and a kind of Demolition for WTC 1 & 2. However, can Bongo or anyone else present any actual pictures of these molten metal fires which "raged for weeks" AFTER the towers were gone?. APparently, Giuliani even spoke of molten metal (this clip is in the David Shayler film/BBC rebuttal). So perhaps, like the hijackers, it's yet another cover story.
Again, Bongo ignores hard evidence of varying kinds which shows Wood's analysis is anything but a "loony" theory. And again, the language used by you does not indicate your willingness to examine the pattern shown in many tens - even hundreds of diverse pictures Wood has presented for us.
Stefan: why is Thermite so controversial when the likes of Alex Jones is/are posting it on Infowars?
Can you list for us what is and is not controversial in 9/11 Truth, if possible please? Obviously, a brief list will be fine. Just curious. _________________ Andrew
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject:
Andrew,
Don't be an arse! Controversies includes thrmite/thermate as it is still a theory that cause controversy. I'm sorry, but I have taken(wasted) the time reading Wood's nonsense and I believe it to be mis/disinformation. I've read the Steven Woods shill theory that you bandy about and I'm afraid it holds no water for me at least. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Controveries (which I propose be renamed to "Heated Debate") is a section for issues which radically divide opinion.
It seems as many people find Dr Jones' work misleading as they do Woods', so EVEN THOUGH I consider Dr Jones' work to be along the right tracks (if imperfect) I was trying to be impartial! _________________
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject:
Plus NPT supporters have screamed rather load about Jones being controversial too: and he is: hes kept just as dodgy company as Fetzer and Wood. In addition, hes only a scientific mouthpeice for the bleedin obvious, after all
Controversies here we go _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Agreed on some explosives and a kind of Demolition for WTC 1 & 2. However, can Bongo or anyone else present any actual pictures of these molten metal fires which "raged for weeks" AFTER the towers were gone?.
Agreed on some explosives and a kind of Demolition for WTC 1 & 2. However, can Bongo or anyone else present any actual pictures of these molten metal fires which "raged for weeks" AFTER the towers were gone?.
That was actually a surprising request, given Andrew's obvious and apparent in-depth knowledge of 911. The video link Bongo supplied is a well viewed bit of footage and the most obvious response to such a demand. I find this turn of events a bit weird.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 8:49 am Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Quote:
Agreed on some explosives and a kind of Demolition for WTC 1 & 2. However, can Bongo or anyone else present any actual pictures of these molten metal fires which "raged for weeks" AFTER the towers were gone?.
That was actually a surprising request, given Andrew's obvious and apparent in-depth knowledge of 911. The video link Bongo supplied is a well viewed bit of footage and the most obvious response to such a demand. I find this turn of events a bit weird.
Possibly, but not to me.
Anyone outside the Cult of L Rick Siegal is now suspect.
And that's everyone. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
here are some more arguements that are not bush science, and prove it is impossible for the top section to accelerate during the collapse without the use of some form of explosive, in the words of the maker its grade 10 basic science and should be obvious to anyone.
its worrying then that it isnt obvious to most that the collapse of the towers were impossible from fires and plane impact alone, they were simply to fast and accelerated into the path of most resistance which is only possible using explosives to remove the material out the way.
mmmm it worked, i copy and paste music files into other folders all the time, i dont get why it never crossed my mind on web addresses ....doh
Watch it carefully - this video is a truther video, and a clever one at that.
He is basically saying physics changed on 911... _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
mmmm it worked, i copy and paste music files into other folders all the time, i dont get why it never crossed my mind on web addresses ....doh
Watch it carefully - this video is a truther video, and a clever one at that.
He is basically saying physics changed on 911...
i think the video say's more than what the maker was originally trying to say, he seems convinced his arguement is right in the begining, but as he try's to demonstrate it he soon realises that his arguement is wrong and trys his best to mask it, and then ends up admitting that to believe what he is saying would change the laws of physics.
he basically proves to everyone it is impossible to explain without explosives.
mmmm it worked, i copy and paste music files into other folders all the time, i dont get why it never crossed my mind on web addresses ....doh
Watch it carefully - this video is a truther video, and a clever one at that.
He is basically saying physics changed on 911...
i think the video say's more than what the maker was originally trying to say, he seems convinced his arguement is right in the begining, but as he try's to demonstrate it he soon realises that his arguement is wrong and trys his best to mask it, and then ends up admitting that to believe what he is saying would change the laws of physics.
he basically proves to everyone it is impossible to explain without explosives.
FFS, do you have absolutely no sense of sarcasm? !
Of course he's taking the piss
quite amusing too _________________ 'To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.' Oscar Wilde
mmmm it worked, i copy and paste music files into other folders all the time, i dont get why it never crossed my mind on web addresses ....doh
Watch it carefully - this video is a truther video, and a clever one at that.
He is basically saying physics changed on 911...
i think the video say's more than what the maker was originally trying to say, he seems convinced his arguement is right in the begining, but as he try's to demonstrate it he soon realises that his arguement is wrong and trys his best to mask it, and then ends up admitting that to believe what he is saying would change the laws of physics.
he basically proves to everyone it is impossible to explain without explosives.
FFS, do you have absolutely no sense of sarcasm? !
Of course he's taking the piss
quite amusing too
if your talking about the guy in the video, i dont think so.
people unfortunatly believe what they are saying or will spout anything so they dont have to accept 9/11 being anything but what we were told.
i would like to think he was being sarcastic but somehow i really dont think he was. ive heard to many arguements like his for it just to be sarcasm or to be obvious sarcasm, so chill out a bit.
mmmm it worked, i copy and paste music files into other folders all the time, i dont get why it never crossed my mind on web addresses ....doh
Watch it carefully - this video is a truther video, and a clever one at that.
He is basically saying physics changed on 911...
i think the video say's more than what the maker was originally trying to say, he seems convinced his arguement is right in the begining, but as he try's to demonstrate it he soon realises that his arguement is wrong and trys his best to mask it, and then ends up admitting that to believe what he is saying would change the laws of physics.
he basically proves to everyone it is impossible to explain without explosives.
FFS, do you have absolutely no sense of sarcasm? !
Of course he's taking the piss
quite amusing too
if your talking about the guy in the video, i dont think so.
people unfortunatly believe what they are saying or will spout anything so they dont have to accept 9/11 being anything but what we were told.
i would like to think he was being sarcastic but somehow i really dont think he was. ive heard to many arguements like his for it just to be sarcasm or to be obvious sarcasm, so chill out a bit.
I am always chilled out Marky 54
However, you are wrong here. Why not follow the +200 comments from the start to see the position of 'proudfootz' who made and appears in the video. In particular, follow his debate with 'debunkthejunk', 'sylvester1592' and 'volantare'. _________________ 'To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.' Oscar Wilde
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
)
!