Pictures Speaking For Themselves

[Roadrunner]

Here are 4 satellite pictures showing very clearly the gigantic amount of material that rose in to the upper atmosphere from the WTC. These pictures come from NON-NASA sources.

These towers did not 'collapse'. The evidence is overwhelming that they were turned in to dust even before the lowest floors were destroyed. The energy to convert these half million ton structures in to little more than dust cannot come from acts of 'controlled demolition'. Nor does controlled demolition account for wholesale destruction by fire of some 1400 cars and trucks parked city blocks from these towers. These buildings were destroyed by energy weapons. The criminals added explosions and small charges to convince us these were acts of controlled demolition and to conceal the true cause of tower destruction. But judge for yourself from these amazing pictures. Virtually the whole mass of these towers was turned in to dust.

[truthseeker john]

[Roadrunner]

These are pictures showing vast masses of matter ascending in to the upper atmosphere from the Twin Towers. Kilometres above Manhattan. The mass of these towers ascended. It did not fall to Ground Zero.

[truthseeker john]

[Roadrunner]

Truthseeker John,

You ask,

Q. 'Did any of us say that it did' ??

My answer is as follows -

A. Yes, YOU just did. Less than an hour ago. Have you forgotten already ? You wrote (and let me quote you in full) -

For instance it asks, "where did the rubble go?" as though such a question proves anything other than what we already know - that the material went into the sky and fell for miles around. What caused that dispertion of material is another thing...

Your own words.

'what WE already know'.

So we already agree that the rubble went in to the sky and fell for miles around. But what caused it is another thing.

Right ?

[truthseeker john]

No I do not agree that "the rubble went in to the sky and fell for miles around" before the buildings collapsed! What do your pictures show? Smoke, stupid! Where is the city coverend in dust and rubble on your pictures?

[Stefan]

Is this a photo of trees in Greece "turning to dust" taken from space?



Or is it the smoke from trees burning?

The twin towers both housed oxygen starved fires which resulted in a LOT of smoke - you say the pictures speak for themselves and you're quite right - they're saying "Roadrunner is gullible".

[alwun]

Each tower 100 floors of steel and concrete.

Here are the before and after pics of one tower's remains. If anyone here on this forum(or anywhere else) can successfully explain how 100 floors can 'collapse' to a pile this high, or low as it happens - i.e. without being pulverised in mid-air , then I will eat a bowl of your shoit. If you take the challenge, and fail, then you must eat my shoit. We'll do it down the Cornhill pub some Monday to come. So - put your money where your mouth is.

before clean up




and after clean up



100 floors - hah - you gullible folks. - for folks read whatever!


thanks to malaprop for the original comparison of these images.


cheers Al...

[chek]

[alwun]

chek,

the challenge is to explain clearly and cogently why a 100 storey building, with floors of concrete, full of furniture and ancilliary office equipment, leaves a 'pile' not much more than 10 feet high. Look at the photos.

Instead of an answer you ask three nonsensical questions.

Why did somebody call these remains 'the pile'. How should I know? Why the eff should I care. The evidence is staring out from the photos. The 'pile' is between ten and twenty feet high at most. No slabs of concrete in view.

What's the radius of something? The height of the debris is about ten to fifteen feet high.

And there are no basements in the photos. Neither before or after. Plus the basements were empty of debris.

I'm afraid you have failed the challenge. Nothing to be ashamed of. There is no explanation other than the one which is displayed in many videos and photos. The towers were vapourised into a pyroclastic cloud which came to rest in part in the streets of Manhatten, the rest went skyward. Some unusual energy was brought into play that day, and no amount of your deliberate pollution of the threads in this forum can keep this fact from being realised by an increasing number of people as the days and months go by. Your disinfo team will lose chek, no doubt.


cheers Al..

[chek]

[KP50]

[alwun]

KP50

Hi there,

many of the people in and around the towers at the time spoke very confidently and without doubt that there were a number of explosions in the towers before they came down, so in short, yes I believe that conventional explosives were around and used. However it was not conventional explosives which vapourised the towers in mid-air.
Have a look at the video called 'explosive reality', which has been around for a few months now. In there you will hear the testimonies of many people speaking of huge explosions at the base of the towers leading up to the final catastrophic destructive phase.

[KP50]

[Ningen]

Roadrunner, it appears Stefan has a good point -- it's smoke. Do you have a response?