9/11 - More evidence it was set up by people in the shadows

[Lucky13]

The charges which in this case was thermite paint were done a couple of weeks prior when unscheduled maintenance happened and 100's of employees were refused entrance to areas they would usually be allowed access to, this info is varified by hundreds of people who worked at the towers, and easily found all over the net all ostories say the same, even from people who had minimal contact with each other

Areas were sealed of whilst teams gained access to the service tunnels or whatever you would call them (the areas where the weight bearing beams and girders were exposed).

This "painting" thus occured Employees when they asked questions were basically told to shut up and do their job.

Seen a couple of dvd's ( can't remember the names ) basically saying the same , the way those towers fell was too clean for me .

 

[rickmcfc]

Hey bud its a very volotile compound that burns at an extreme high heat, made from metals (most common is iron oxide and aluminium but theoretically you can use other metals) and is a highly restricted substance, i sometimes make it at work when im bored shitless hehe xD

Edit: just fyi its used to cut through metals mainly as the extreme heat it gives cuts through metal/steel/iron like a knife through butter.

Just an idea, several years earlier Osama Bin Laden was behind a bombing in the basement of the WTC, is it possible that some traces were left behind from the first attack?

Does Thermite spread if any trace is left undetected or does it stay the same size/mass?

I dont know the answer to these questions so just trying tio think outside the box of logical answers here. Would be interested in your opinion.

 

[TCIB]

@Lucky13 im in the same boat as you bud, one fact i forgot was that a cameraman had a flir camera and caught the event, which is a "foward looking infra red" camera.

The footage that again has been varified by multiple independant sources as real shows the thermite burning out of the sides well away from the source of heat given by the fuel fire and and also varified that nothing could burn at such temperatures besides thermite spewing out of the buildings sides, i repeat NOTHING in the building could have burned at that temp even if displaced or somehow mixed with other materials to create thermite.

I make no appologies for my views as scientific fact backs you, i and other doubters views with regards to this event.

Ill find the vids still available now and link them, ill have to hook up my old ide disks to get the older hard to find evidence, but i will have them soon as poss.

-- Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:45 am --

Hi rickmcfc,

Dont worry matey i only want answers also i wont rage at a different viewpoint unless its obviously narrow minded crap.

Yes he had links but they used a fertilizer bomb which has no way of possibly being linked via residual particulants.

Dont stop asking questions mate untill your satisfied i know i won't. Even if people don't agree with me.

While im looking for the vids (they are are hard to find due to feds killing hosting sites) read this please http://www.rense.com/general75/thrm.htm

 

[rickmcfc]

TCIB - For what its worth i think that what happened on that day, was as its reported. I belive that 4 planes were hijacked. Two of which hit the WTC towers, one into the pentagon and the other that crashed in the field in Pennsylvania.

I believe the reason that the towers fell and collapsed was due to extreme heat caused by the Jet fuel, plus all the things inside the towers being on fire. Also the damage the structure would have sustained with a plane hitting it at 400mph and wiping out several floors at once, weakening it and then causing a domino effect from top to bottom. The only bit of the WTC site that is rather alarming is that other building at the WTC site which "fell down". That collapse of the building (Think it may be WTC7?) looked like a controlled demolition. The building was damaged as a result of the 2 towers collapsing, but still, why would it be brought down to the ground within 2 hours of terrorism attack? This bit does look dodgy to me.

As for the Pentagon attack, i find it rather hard to beleive that someone with limited flying experience could hit a building at the exact spot to cause the most damage. There is no CCTV of the attack except the large explosion seconds after the plane had hit, i find this a little odd also.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

I think it had a major effect on it yes, basically in demolitions you have 2 charges at a set point.

1, A Cutter (thermite in this case)
2, A "kicker" which would push or "kick" the weight bearing girder out of place.

With regards to the twin towers my thougts vary to the norm as the kicker is innitiated after the cutter (usually you innitite the cutter then the kicker).

I dont claim this to be the truth, this is just physics speaking here and chemistry and in my mind this is what i personally believe.

@Bulgarianpride if memory serves 9.6 seconds which eqauted freefall speeds i.e. nothing interupting the collapse which indicates skilled demolitions.

If you are going to quote demo tactics then you should also know that to collapse a building on to itself also takes months of manually removing supporting structures and other various load bearing parts from the center of the building otherwise all you would do is unstabalise the building with the explosives also in general the theory is not to drop the building from the top downwards. It would take 2 years and an empty building to control drop 1 of the twin towers. Not 2 months with some dodgy blokes painting thermite on exposed beams

 

[TCIB]

I think it had a major effect on it yes, basically in demolitions you have 2 charges at a set point.

1, A Cutter (thermite in this case)
2, A "kicker" which would push or "kick" the weight bearing girder out of place.

With regards to the twin towers my thougts vary to the norm as the kicker is innitiated after the cutter (usually you innitite the cutter then the kicker).

I dont claim this to be the truth, this is just physics speaking here and chemistry and in my mind this is what i personally believe.

@Bulgarianpride if memory serves 9.6 seconds which eqauted freefall speeds i.e. nothing interupting the collapse which indicates skilled demolitions.

If you are going to quote demo tactics then you should also know that to collapse a building on to itself also takes months of manually removing supporting structures and other various load bearing parts from the center of the building otherwise all you would do is unstabalise the building with the explosives also in general the theory is not to drop the building from the top downwards. It would take 2 years and an empty building to control drop 1 of the twin towers. Not 2 months with some dodgy blokes painting thermite on exposed beams

Military dems could easily have done what you say in the given time frame, it would not take months at all with proper prior planning, they had the access needed to place all the thermite needed. I don't believe you are talking from experience as it takes a lot less time (not to say i am im using known physics as a guide) to create such a circumstance.
There were whole floors reinforced to support the weight of server equiptment that was extremely restricted, which included thousands of batteries used to negate power loss to servers aka uninteruptable power supply which if you read below create more questions that were never answered and outright disregarded in the official report.
You do not need the access you suggest to create the effect needed to sufficiently weaken a structure to the point of catastrophic failure.
You say they would need to "months of manually removing supporting structures"
That is simply false, as i stated, there are documented reports of people who are leaders in this field who totally prove your idea to be wrong, their are sections of the military trained to do this well within 2 weeks, and that being generous with regards to time alowed.
These are not no mark crazies but heads of science at some of the worlds leading institutes.

This again has been varified by various experts in the field of demolitions and the physics of such actions, i am willing to provide info if you cant find it via google.

I have not given all info as that is not done in a few short paragraphs. A detailed rebuke for all the current reasons would run into hundreds of pages.

The server rooms i speak of were never used, yet were fully equipt not as a backup but as primary usage, the techs for the company that owned them didn't even have access to them, is that not strange ?

You answer your own query when you talk about destabilization, not one person with detailed knowledge of demolition has said anything other than it appears to be an extremely well conducted controlled demolition not ONE. That strikes me at minimum as strange.

@rickmcfc
Hey bud thats cool i like others point of view i encourage it, the fault with your logic here though lies with the combustion temperature of the fuel which is considerably higher than what you would put in your car i still far below even if it was sustained which it wasn't is no where near enough to affect the molecular structure of the steel in question bud (even with the load bearing it had to cope with), i though the sam at first thought.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

I think it had a major effect on it yes, basically in demolitions you have 2 charges at a set point.

1, A Cutter (thermite in this case)
2, A "kicker" which would push or "kick" the weight bearing girder out of place.

With regards to the twin towers my thougts vary to the norm as the kicker is innitiated after the cutter (usually you innitite the cutter then the kicker).

I dont claim this to be the truth, this is just physics speaking here and chemistry and in my mind this is what i personally believe.

@Bulgarianpride if memory serves 9.6 seconds which eqauted freefall speeds i.e. nothing interupting the collapse which indicates skilled demolitions.

If you are going to quote demo tactics then you should also know that to collapse a building on to itself also takes months of manually removing supporting structures and other various load bearing parts from the center of the building otherwise all you would do is unstabalise the building with the explosives also in general the theory is not to drop the building from the top downwards. It would take 2 years and an empty building to control drop 1 of the twin towers. Not 2 months with some dodgy blokes painting thermite on exposed beams

Military dems could easily have done what you say in the given time frame, it would not take months at all with proper prior planning, they had the access needed to place all the thermite needed. I don't believe you are talking from experience as it takes a lot less time (not to say i am im using known physics as a guide) to create such a circumstance.
There were whole floors reinforced to support the weight of server equiptment that was extremely restricted, which included thousands of batteries used to negate power loss to servers aka uninteruptable power supply which if you read below create more questions that were never answered and outright disregarded in the official report.
You do not need the access you suggest to create the effect needed to sufficiently weaken a structure to the point of catastrophic failure.
You say they would need to "months of manually removing supporting structures"
That is simply false, as i stated, there are documented reports of people who are leaders in this field who totally prove your idea to be wrong, their are sections of the military trained to do this well within 2 weeks, and that being generous with regards to time alowed.
These are not no mark crazies but heads of science at some of the worlds leading institutes.

This again has been varified by various experts in the field of demolitions and the physics of such actions, i am willing to provide info if you cant find it via google.

I have not given all info as that is not done in a few short paragraphs. A detailed rebuke for all the current reasons would run into hundreds of pages.

The server rooms i speak of were never used, yet were fully equipt not as a backup but as primary usage, the techs for the company that owned them didn't even have access to them, is that not strange ?

You answer your own query when you talk about destabilization, not one person with detailed knowledge of demolition has said anything other than it appears to be an extremely well conducted controlled demolition not ONE. That strikes me at minimum as strange.

@rickmcfc
Hey bud thats cool i like others point of view i encourage it, the fault with your logic here though lies with the combustion temperature of the fuel which is considerably higher than what you would put in your car i still far below even if it was sustained which it wasn't is no where near enough to affect the molecular structure of the steel in question bud (even with the load bearing it had to cope with), i though the sam at first thought.

Too much to talk about while im at work i will come back to this thread later

 

[Maintainin]

The charges which in this case was thermite paint were done a couple of weeks prior when unscheduled maintenance happened and 100's of employees were refused entrance to areas they would usually be allowed access to, this info is varified by hundreds of people who worked at the towers, and easily found all over the net all ostories say the same, even from people who had minimal contact with each other

Areas were sealed of whilst teams gained access to the service tunnels or whatever you would call them (the areas where the weight bearing beams and girders were exposed).

This "painting" thus occured Employees when they asked questions were basically told to shut up and do their job.

Seen a couple of dvd's ( can't remember the names ) basically saying the same , the way those towers fell was too clean for me .

'9/11 Ripple Effect' dvd fella !



<a class="postlink" href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3969310749489496889#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 489496889#</a>


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpE2xr09QHk&feature=related[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7WWgnQ-9iU&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg&feature=related[/youtube]

 

[rushts]

TCIB, let me know when you put the vids on your torrent site and their titles, cheers bud.

 

[TCIB]

Will do matey im making a pack now.

I must stress a lot is easily explained away but the few i plan to host are fully scientific in production and have no sensationalism involved.

Edit: I would like to add to the guys who dont share my view who would not want to not look at the massive links between the bush admin and isi etc. I still stand with the solid SOLID fact of the thermite was present in quantities that easily would have weakened the structure to a point of catastrophic failure.

I have still heard nothing NOTHING that would explain this besides controlled explosion. I am not looking for a reason to be a conspiracy guy im looking for a reason not to be, and all have in reply (not here i may add) is people resorting to personal insults whilst disregarding the issue at hand.