WTC7, 9/11 first terror message, explained last - worldwide first by M

No disconnect: the top of WTC twin towers DID explode outwards. They didn't just fall downward! Recheck and double check the explosions from different point of views and angles. Watch 911mysteries documentary part 1, for example. Maybe no small hydrogen bombs, forget it. But doe anybody really know what caused the big explosions on top of the buildings? This is a never-before seen event. Very different from the WTC7 classical demolition indeed. And anyway the planes don't have anythig to do with the collapse of the twin towers, that's for sure.
Well forget this thrend if it sucks.
Abort discussion.
too much things being questionned.
stop.
!
Bye

Veille
 
veille said:
No disconnect: the top of WTC twin towers DID explode outwards. They didn't just fall downward! Recheck and double check the explosions from different point of views and angles. Watch 911mysteries documentary part 1, for example. Maybe no small hydrogen bombs, forget it. But doe anybody really know what caused the big explosions on top of the buildings? This is a never-before seen event. Very different from the WTC7 classical demolition indeed. And anyway the planes don't have anythig to do with the collapse of the twin towers, that's for sure.
Well forget this thrend if it sucks.
Abort discussion.
too much things being questionned.
stop.
!
Bye

Veille
Click to expand...
This brings up something that I think is most telling (and I have mentioned it in another thread): there is a shot from the video (in the aforementionened 911 mysteries video) where steel girders are freefalling away from the building, yet 10 floors or so beneath them, there is smoke being ejected from the floors. It seems that the smoke is assumed to be from the "pancaking" of the floors, velocity officially, scientifically less than freefall, but yet, steel girders from "above" are obviously still falling slower than the "pancaking" floors.

So: did the steel girders in this video actually have an upward trajectory, reach apogee, and then start falling in accordance with the laws of gravity in sync with the nearly instantaneous "pancaking" floors? How does a building falling down eject materials upwards in a mechnical sense?

How much simpler can the evidence be, and still be misconstrued?
 
To me it looks like the building was collapsing and, at the same moment, the top of the building was blown up (upward, then falling downward). So it makes it very difficult to evaluate the speed of the fall because there are two events occuring simultaneously: the collapse of the building on itself (demolition) and the big explosions on top (pulverisation). It is those explosions that trew bone debris on top of nearby buildings.

Could you precise the thread where you mentioned it, Azur?

thank you.

Veille
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c&mode=related&search=

Matt, you musn't have seen those pictures before you wrote this 'no plane' theory. This is another footage that wasn't shown. This is not the 3 seconds CNN showed us all.

Veille
 
yeah, I think there's actually quite a lot of different footage (including amateur) of the WTC impact, seen from all different angles and distances.

but none of the pentagon, eh? nudge nudge. absolutely not a single one.
 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3211807290597119388

use of nuclear bomb in WTC demonstrated by documentary 'WMD at the WTC' ?

Maybe, maybe not.

some on the forum said most of these 'evidences' were proven to be wrong, but I ask: 'by whom were they proven wrong?'
 
Actually it was Anart who said that the theory of mini 4rth generational H-bomb use in WTC twin towers have been proven wrong.

I have doubts about Steven Jones (who supposedly refuted this h-bomb theory), as I have doubts about Alex Jones and many 911 truthers frontmen...

Veille
 
veille said:
Actually it was Anart who said that the theory of mini 4rth generational H-bomb use in WTC twin towers have been proven wrong. Veille
Click to expand...
Actually, veille, I did not, at any time, say that anything was 'proven wrong' -

In regard to the 'no plane theory', this is what I said,

anart said:
Actually, Veille, all indications are that the 'no plane theory' is a red herring designed to make people who question the official version of events appear to be 'looney'.
Click to expand...
And, as far as the nuclear detonation, this is what I said,

anart said:
Please seriously think about this for a moment - picture the images you may have seen from Hiroshima and then picture images you have seen from 911. This is an absolutely ridiculous assertion. I will admit, however, that the exact mechanism and source of energy used to bring down those towers the way they were brough down is very likely exotic - as in not conventional or usual; as in 'cutting edge technology' - but the idea that it was an H bomb is just silly, imo.
Click to expand...
followed by -

anart said:
Yes, Matt's theories have been discussed elsewhere on this site - to which you have been previously directed. All available evidence points clearly to the fact that many, if not most of them, are disinformation.
Click to expand...
As I've mentioned to you elsewhere, clarity of thought and expression are very important here - please pay more attention to what you are saying.
 
Sorry Anart, maybe you will forgive me if I tell you that I actually speak French and that English is my second langage, which I do not master at all. So my phrasing in English is poor. Also I write very fast to not lose my ideas.

;)

But still, you consider that the theory of mini 4rth generational H-bomb use in WTC twin towers have been proven wrong? Do you? Well, if it is Steven Jones who 'proved' it, it is no proof to me, because I categorize him in the same cointelpro case as Alex Jones.
Do you agree that Steven Jones (and so other 911 truthers frontmen) could be misleading?

To me the H-bomb theory is plausible: I checked the whole dossier and thought I maybe a plausible explanation.
Perhaps I should provide the websites adresses beforehand:http://verdade.no.sapo.pt/destruction/finnish_military_expert_hydrogen_bomb.htm
http://www(dot)saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm
http:(2slsh)arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0510/0510071.pdf
http://www(dot)saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier1.htm
http://www(dot)saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier2.htm
http://www(dot)saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier3.htm
http://www(dot)saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier4.htm
http://www(dot)saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm
http://www(dot)saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/evidence.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4-biQWV7iQ&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnbysiDFjNQ&mode=related&search= (flashes)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4731051210315608217
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk
http://www(dot)911eyewitness.com/truth/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=55
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7531394871094916669&q=9%2F11+footage
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3211807290597119388

I watched or read them all. Did you?

Bye,

Veille
 
veille said:
But still, you consider that the theory of mini 4rth generational H-bomb use in WTC twin towers have been proven wrong? Do you?
Click to expand...
You are not listening. When you learn to listen, let me know.
 
ok, you didn't say 'proven wrong' but 'disinformation', right?
Same to me: disinfo is necessarily proven wrong, otherwise it wouldn't be disinfo but just another unproven theory. Am I right?

Veille
 
Don't get mad at me Anart. Aren't you the moderator here?

BEst,

Veille
 
http://www(dot)saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm

some pictures comparing big H-bomb explosions with the smaller one on top of WTC twin towers.
 
veille said:
I have doubts about Steven Jones (who supposedly refuted this h-bomb theory), as I have doubts about Alex Jones and many 911 truthers frontmen...

Veille
Click to expand...
What's wrong with thermite? Have you seen what it can do? And who needs to 'refute' a 'theory' when something alternative is suggested and it makes more sense?

This is a rather interesting clip of what might be (and probably is) a thermite reaction in one of the WTC towers just before it collapses. It looks like the type of reaction you get when welding. I believe that they also use thermite in welding as well as for many other things. I wonder if the fact that some of the thermite in the building was starting to react is what prompted the quick use of controlled demolision?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk&search=thermite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
 
I see the molten metal caused by the use of thermite. But this is different form the big explosions that precede the great collapse. what i found the most cnvincing were the pictures comparing thermo-nuclear bomb (H bomb) (soe underground) with picts of WTC twin towers big explosions and subsequent collapse. I posted them in previous replies.

Thermite cuts trought steel like it were butter, but doesn't vaporize it.

Veille
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom