I Was Never 100% Sure Until I Saw THIS

[spooked]

Researching 911 as a MIHOP conspiracy has been a hobby of mine for years now, but it wasn't until last night, when I came across this video clip, that I became completely CONVINCED THAT THIS WAS AN INSIDE JOB.

The second clip down, of 2 squibs going off as one of the towers collapses literally brought tears to my eyes. There is NO DOUBT that this was a controlled demolition. God help us all.


http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/controlled.htm

[Frederik]

1. Not squibs

Spooked, it's just air being compressed and pushed out of ventilator shafts, elevator shafts, or whatever. As the towers "pancake", the air in the entire building gets compressed very fast.

[StrafingMoose]

2. Why isn't it doing it more often ...

If it's "just" that? Was there air only on one floor?

[philb]

10. pressure goes where the resistance is the least

that would be out the windows on the floor being compressed primarily. the lower slab contains the air pressure. Air being forced down a stairwell or elevator shaft would not necessrily exit just below the floor being compressed, but would spread below whereever an opening exists to other floor levels. The Danish videos offer more examples that the pattern is more like controlled demolition- not like a pattern that air forced out by collapsing floors would take. The pattern goes systematically down the building at a level several floors below the falling floors above- which appear to have been demolished by explosive force- pulverizing to fine particles. There does not appear to have been a solid mass above that is falling and causing the pulverizing, its not clear there is much mass that is stacking up- rather it seems to have disintegrated and much was exploded outward, and the resulting debris is not a stack of slabs or hardly any remains of the slabs.
Looking at early videos of what happened to the top section, it appears to have been destroyed by explosions, not that it fell in mass taking out floors below it.

[sabbat hunter]

3. if it was

if it was a controlled demolition (and i dont think it was) the "squibs" would not be right near the site of the crash. they would be at the base.
just think what if the plane came in lower than expected and destroyed the squibs?

you dont do a controlled demolition near the top.


david

[killtown]

4. Says who?

What better way to collapse a tall narrow skyscraper than have the top portion of the building act as a giant sledgehammer coming down and smash the rest -- which it did twice.

The "planes" hit exactly where BushCo planned them to hit. That's why both "planes" were direct hits and you saw neither of the "plane's wings" extend beyond the sides of the buildings.

It was military precision.

[hack89]

7. Because that is the mechanism in the NIST report...

so of course it has no scientific validity. Remember - it was "obviously" controlled demolition which means the idea that failure on just several floors was sufficient to create a hammer that could demolish the entire towers cannot be acceptable. For the next unthinkable step would be to imagine that the impact of a jet liner and massive fires could possibly to cause such a failure.

[philb]

15. Who said explosives had to be planted on many floors

experts said only a few plants were necessary to bring the buildings down

But it could have been done either way.
The videos to me look like explosive forces were the major factor.
But I haven't seen an example of a building falling by something other than explosions. Have there ever been any that are on videos or etc.?

[hack89]

18. What about all those squibs?

so they weren't all explosives?

[MellowOne]

41. Could there have been timed bombs on the planes?

Didn't the towers collapse a few minutes apart, which seems odd. Plus firemen said they say explosives in the basement...maybe they were timed the same as the bombs on the planes?

[savemefromdumbya]

42. Demolition

someone told me they were at the WTC and they saw explosives being used to drop WTC7

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

44. Someone told me...

that fires and structural damage led to the collapse of WTC 7

[RayUbinger]

5. Fruthermore, the demolition revealed the use of a secret technology

This is established by the fact that before 9/11, it was not publicly known that solid steel could fizz to dust during midair freefall, like an Alka-Seltzer through water:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/dust%20trails/


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[LARED]

6. Are you aware that the perimeter columns were filled with

vermiculite between the columns and the facade?

[RayUbinger]

8. No, why?

I mean is vermiculite something that is known to cause solid steel to fizz to dust, or what?

seriously, dictionary.com is down for me at the moment


" Dust trails <...> can be seen to maintain a fairly constant density for as long as they can be followed.

"The volume and density of these trails cannot be explained as the streaming away of dust that was somehow clinging to the columns of the outer walls at the moment of collapse, which would quickly dissipate as the pieces began to fall.

"The fact that the dust streams so exactly follow the contours of the wall fragments strongly implies that the dust is being generated from the steel columns themselves. The only alternative would be for dust to have been pushed or pulled from elsewhere... But we do not see any sign of these pieces pushing dust ahead of themselves and releasing it as they fall: the leading surfaces of the pieces are quite clean where they are visible, and could not have carried the amount of material needed to create such long and dense trails. And what we see here does not look like the pulling along of dust in the wake of falling pieces: that would involve dust being pulled into an area of low pressure and would create characteristic eddies behind the pieces. The dust in these pictures is flowing out, away from the pieces, appearing to start on the surfaces of the pieces themselves and streaming out behind them in a dense flow."

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/dust%20trails/


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[LARED]

9. Because the vermiculite explains

the dust trailing from the perimeter columns as they fall.

They are not being vaporized.

As the perimeter columns came apart in sections the vermiculite starts to empty out of the space between the column steel and the facade. If memory serves me correctly there was 8 million pounds installed.

[Bryan Sacks]

11. 8 million pounds of vermiculite

It makes you sick to think about the fallout, if that's true.

http://www.highplainsfilms.org/

Libby, Montana

[philb]

16. Are you suggesting the WTC dust was primarily vermiculite?

Why did none of the major studies suggest this?

[LARED]

17. What makes you think I am suggesting vermiculite

was the primary constitute? I said there was 8 million pounds used in the construction.

It did make up a large percentage of the debris.

See here

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF

My point is that it's presence in the space between the perimeter columns and the column facade explain why we see dust trailing out of the columns as they fall.

[RayUbinger]

20. Yes and the article's point is that the pictures contradict that notion

> My point is that it's presence in the space between the perimeter columns and the column facade explain why we see dust trailing out of the columns as they fall.

"Notice the way the dust flows uniformly from the entire upper surfaces of the pieces, in places even tracing the outlines of individual columns. The fact that the dust streams so exactly follow the contours of the wall fragments strongly implies that the dust is being generated from the steel columns themselves.

"The pulling along of dust in the wake of falling pieces would involve dust being pulled INTO an area of low pressure and would create characteristic eddies behind the pieces. The dust in these pictures is flowing OUT, away from the pieces."

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/dust%20trails/


This indicates principles of physics not known to the publics.

Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[RayUbinger]

19. I already anticipated that that's what you were getting at

and I already quoted argumentation against it:

"The volume and density of these trails cannot be explained as the streaming away of dust that was somehow clinging to the columns of the outer walls at the moment of collapse, which would quickly dissipate as the pieces began to fall.

"The fact that the dust streams so exactly follow the contours of the wall fragments strongly implies that the dust is being generated from the steel columns themselves. he pulling along of dust in the wake of falling pieces ... would involve dust being pulled into an area of low pressure and would create characteristic eddies behind the pieces. The dust in these pictures is flowing out, away from the pieces<.>"

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/dust%20trails/

You ignored this part of the article, if you even read any of the article at all. By the way the author, Plaguepuppy aka Jeffrey King, is an M.D. as well as an MIT-trained engineer.


Before 9/11, solid steel in midair freefall was never known to behave this way (fizzing to dust like an Alka-Seltzer falling through water). Afterward, here's what it looked like under magnification:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/steel/

This indicates principles of physics not known to the public.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[LARED]

21. A correction

I am quite familiar with Plaguepuppy. He posted here frequently in the past. In fact I suspect he still does under a different moniker.

You are quite incorrect that he is an MIT trained engineer. He has stated that he is an MIT graduate in biology, not an engineer. I have asked him to correct his web page where that is indicated and he deletes my messages. (go figure) He also says he took some engineering courses, but that does not make one an engineer.

Him being an MD is interesting, as I cannot find any public listing for Jeffery King as a MD in California. When he did provide information about himself in the past he never mentioned he was a MD. Personally I think he's blowing smoke, but I can't prove it.


BTW, if you really believe the steel is vaporizing why does it not get smaller?

PS BTW; we agree

"The volume and density of these trails cannot be explained as the streaming away of dust that was somehow clinging to the columns of the outer walls at the moment of collapse, which would quickly dissipate as the pieces began to fall.

I said the vermiculite was inside the columns. During construction the perimeter columns had vermiculite packed between the facade on the column and the column itself. The dust streams you see are dust trailing out of the column/facade assembly, not from dust clinging to the outside.

[LARED]

22. I'm tossing my B.S. flag on the field for this

Before 9/11, solid steel in midair freefall was never known to behave this way (fizzing to dust like an Alka-Seltzer falling through water). Afterward, here's what it looked like under magnification:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/steel /

This indicates principles of physics not known to the public.

To what principle of physics are to referring?

Are you saying the steel in those magnified images is the same steel you think is vaporizing?

[RayUbinger]

23. Principles like making solid metal effervesce to dust in air

And yes I meant to imply that I find the magnified images strange in a way consistent with the strangeness I see in the falling pieces. As if the steel bubbled away from itself. Another strange effect is the pieces that were bent like horseshoes:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/horseshoe.htm

As for getting smaller, I think the falling pieces get -thinner-, shedding dust from their broad inside surface. I agree with Plaguepuppy's perception that the dust trails closely follow the contours of the individual beams and that the pieces look more worn at the edges farther down in their fall.

I abandon my statement about Plaguepuppy's credentials since I was just sharing hearsay from my fallible memory, vs. your firsthand research about him. By the way who here do you think he is under a different name?

In your explanation how are we to understand how all that volume of vermiculite fit into the relatively thin walls? And what was its structural purpose? Also why are the dust trails so uniform in apparent density from top to ground level, with no eddies (if they are from air mixing in with vermiculite during freefall), and with close following of the contours of individual columns? And was the vermiculite also a powdery substance when the towers were standing?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[LARED]

24. Explanation

In your explanation how are we to understand how all that volume of vermiculite fit into the relatively thin walls?

They did not fit into the walls. The perimeter column were covered on three sides with an facade.

see here for an image http://www.john-knapton.com/wtc.htm about 2/3rd down

Based on the link, there is an annular space of 2 inches between the column and the facade. This space was filled with vermiculite plaster for fireproofing and insulation purposes.

And what was its structural purpose?

None that I know of.

And was the vermiculite also a powdery substance when the towers were standing?

As far as I know vermiculite plaster is always a dust, unless something is added. During the construction of the towers the vermiculite was poured into the annular space so it had to be a powdery substance.

[RayUbinger]

36. Vermiculite coarser than dust in dust trails, which traced column contours

> The perimeter column were covered on three sides with an facade. see here for an image http://www.john-knapton.com/wtc.htm about 2/3rd down.

I take you to mean


> Based on the link, there is an annular space of 2 inches between the column and the facade. This space was filled with vermiculite plaster for fireproofing and insulation purposes.

How would the vermiculite have gotten out? And then how did IT fizz to dust, if it wasn't the steel that fizzed to dust? Vermiculte normally looks pebbly, not fine and dusty, correct?


Also how did it form so densely and distribute so uniformly throughout the dust trail, with no eddy currents, and how did it so closely follow the contours of individual steel columns?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[LARED]

37. The space was filled with vermiculite plaster for fireproofing

The picture is not vermiculite plaster. Vermiculite plaster is a much finer material.

[RayUbinger]

38. Why bother posting when you ignore so much?

> How would the vermiculite have gotten out?

LARED: No answer.


> Also how did it form so densely and distribute so uniformly throughout the dust trail, with no eddy currents?

LARED: No answer.


> And how did it so closely follow the contours of individual steel columns?

LARED: No answer.


Please point us to some photos of the kind of vermiculite you're talking about. Preferably with the vermiculite emanating from a building column during midair free fall.


That article again is
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/dust%20trails/
by Jeffrey King aka Plaguepuppy


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
S11: VAST HIGH-TECH MAGIC SHOW

[LARED]

39. I usually ignore questions that are ridiculous

> How would the vermiculite have gotten out?

You can't figure out how vermiculite escaped? Really. Ok, The vermiculite was packed between the perimeter columns and the facade. When the building collapsed the perimeter columns broke into small pieces where they were joined together. The vermiculite can now escape. Seriously, you can imagine all sort of wild things about vaporizing steel, but you can't imagine the vermiculite escaping from between the column? Who are you trying to kid?


> Also how did it form so densely and distribute so uniformly throughout the dust trail, with no eddy currents?

You have no clue as to what it's density was, or its distribution, or even if there were eddy currents. All strawman arguments.

> And how did it so closely follow the contours of individual steel columns?

What the hell are you talking about?

So course rather than accept the obvious, one can continue to believe the steel was vaporized as it fell. If you want to believe fairy tales created by Jeff King or your own, have fun. I am only trying to shed some light on the subject.

[LARED]

29. I'm curious

What do you find strange about the steel specimens?

You see I frequently work with metallurgists and have seen hundreds of similar images performing failure analysis, and I see nothing that seems overly strange about them.

On what are you basing your opinion?

[RayUbinger]

35. They look normal on one half but disintegrated on the other

Only took one course of materials sciences, for whatever it's worth to you. Please point to some of the hundreds of other similar images you know of.

What do you find normal about the wall pieces fizzing to dust during midair freefall, dust which closely follows the contours of the individual steel columns?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[LARED]

40. Those are images from

an atypical specimen of steel found that experienced eutectic corrosion. It was not typical of the other steel samples. It was not disintergrated, it was corroded. It the steel was vaporized the images would look quite different.

As for the hundreds of images you seem to think are avaialbe. Here's a news flash, not everything under the sun is on the internet. My work with failure analysis is not published on the internet, it is the property of the company I work for, and I am not going to post it on the internet.

What do you find normal about the wall pieces fizzing to dust during midair freefall, dust which closely follows the contours of the individual steel columns?

There would be nothing normal about that at all. That's why it is fiction.

[LARED]

31. Where did you go RayUbinger? n/t

[IndyOp]

34. Any explanation of pools of molten steel

found in the sub-basements more than a month after 9/11?

From "Loose Change"

Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, told the American Free Press that in the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of “literally molten steel” were discovered more than a month after the collapse. These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels” Loizeaux said. “The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, NASA used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer to locate and measure the site’s hot spots. Dozens of hot spots were mapped, the hottest being in the east corner of the South Tower where a temperature of 1,377 degree F was recorded. This is, however, less than half as hot as the molten steel in the basement.

[HamdenRice]

12. Thanks Spooked -- I go back and forth on that one...but look up, right

I'm more convinced by the video of WTC 7, which the 9/11 Commission hasn't even tried to explain.

But what I do find very, very intriguing about the video link you posted here is what appear to be squibs on the upper right side of the tower in the video on the "First Demolition Close" page -- even more intriguing than the horizontal squibs that are most prominent, here:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/close.htm

In other words, the tower collapsed over on its side a bit -- to the left in this video. So air compression would most likely be on the left side.

There are, bizarrely, jets spewing UP and to the RIGHT on the upper part of the tower in this video, causing the tower to DISINTEGRATE, even though there should be little air pressure there.

<edited to explain which video>

[thefool_wa]

32. Bear with me on this one..

I have an explanation for you. As the upper floors (everything from the bottom of the smoke cloud up in the images we are discussing) collapse on the left side (where the plane wreckage is) they are going to pull the attached structures down crossing from left to right forcing air and debris out. Kinda like emptying a ziplock bag of all the air.

The time frame on the videos in question is minuscule (less than a second) to the point where the collapse and the "squibs" are as close to simultaneous as possible, as they should be in either case (collapse or demo), so timing really proves nothing. What is telling is that they work their way from the damaged floor(s) to the top, as they should if the collapse starts on the floor(s) the plane hit, causing the top to fall on the rest of the building then causing the rest to collapse.

[spooked911]

13. If you watch this video, I think it is very convincing for controlled demo

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc.2.demolition.south.air.mpg

Chgeck out the multiple black squibs that come out of the top chunk before it turns into dust and smoke.

No fucking way that is "venting".

Also, if you watch 911 eyewitness (http://www.911eyewitness.com/), it is clear the towers underwent fairly conventional controlled demo-- along with WTC7

[spooked]

14. Thanks...I had never seen those lack squibs from the top before

Yes, when you look at WTC 7, there is NO DOUBT that it was another controlled demolition.

[vincent_vega_lives]

25. Really? None?

I would think that evidence of explosives, explosive residue, or spalling would leave NO DOUBT of controlled demolition.

[spooked]

26. If the WTC debris hadn't been so quickly carted away and destroyed

it could have been properly examined for explosive residue...

[vincent_vega_lives]

27. Define Quickly

and how long would a proper examination for explosive residue take?

[FogerRox]

28. the WTC7 video is plain enough

the others dont come as close-- but the Building 7 video is worth saving to my HD.

[thefool_wa]

33. I seem to remember

On 9/11, around the midway point between the collapse of 1&2 and the collapse of 7 (about when I got home from work)I seem to remember structural engineers were discussing the need to bring down WTC7 AND WTC3 because of damage sustained during the collapse of 1&2 (I watched so many broadcasts that day that day I couldn't tell you who or what channel said it).

So, IMO, either they pulled the fastest demo set up in history (which is possible, desperate times and all) - OR - the CIA already had it rigged so they could scrub whatever they were doing in there and blew it for both purposes (safety and secrecy).

Either way, to me, this sounds more like sound planning and less like conspiracy theory. Why not tell us? Do you think all the people working in CIA buildings around the country would want to come to work if they thought their office was lined with explosives? Not all CIA employees are hardened field agents, some are 20 year old secretaries. Its easier to let us believe it was too damaged to stand.

[LARED]

30. I meant to tell you thanks for the video

it's an excellent example of venting due to building drift.

Again thanks