Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition

[Pi Mu Rho]

oops i struck a nerve,

No, you resorted to a direct insult.

Im stating 'evidence' video, interviews, audio, and pictoral that wasnt included in the comission report.. as a focal point to this thread, I wouldnt mind addressing that question, but again it becomes conspiracey talk as soon as you do, even if you are 'curious' as to why it would be necessary it would probably derail the thread into conspirital blabber, where you get more wonderfully constructive comment's to the thread ... such as 'tin foil hat time'.

Everything you've posted so far has been speculation and, as speculation rather than facts, it has to be backed up with motive. Stating that the WTC towers were collapsed by controlled explosion is meaningless if you're unable to explain why

I created this thread for commenting on the dismissal of the other event's not included in the report, which is the subject matter's main conclusion in the artical.

Really? So why put it in the POLITICS section then?

 

[OCybrManO]

Speculating that there was more to the towers collapsing than the planes has to invite the questioning of why it would be necessary.

I invoke Occam's Razor.

If you look back in world history... there are several cases of a government attacking itself in order to goad its people into living under a police state and/or going to war. In such cases, the attack had to be so massive and horrific that the people wouldn't even consider the possibility of an inside job. It has to be so big that the "but why" makes the conspiracy seem to fall apart from the average person's view. Now, I'm in no position to make any claims about whether or not this was one of those cases... but to immediately dismiss even the thought of it is counter-productive. It has happened before. That, alone, should be enough to warrant the consideration of such an idea... as history tends to repeat itself. I sincerely hope it's all a bunch of coincidences stitched together by some nut-jub... because thinking about the consequences of it being true, frankly, scares the shit out of me.

Also, I'm sure there's some conspiracy theory nuts around here that have probably heard every piece of information even remotely connected to the WTC attacks. If so, what's the story with this Stanley Hilton guy? I vaguely remember something about a lawsuit involving him and the WTC attacks. Could someone fill me in (or at least provide some links)? I'm busy doing something else at the moment.

 

[clarky003]

No, you resorted to a direct insult.

The insult wasnt meant to offend, it wasnt specifically aimed at you it was generally directed, i apologise, just expressing my slight frustration at everyones lack of substantial constructive comment's on the WTC 7 collapse and the observable sequencial detonation's.

Everything you've posted so far has been speculation and, as speculation rather than facts, it has to be backed up with motive. Stating that the WTC towers were collapsed by controlled explosion is meaningless if you're unable to explain why

speculation based on observation yes, studying the actual video footage, the picture's the times, the comment's you know the general stuff for the most part that wasnt included that is factual especially if a large amount of structural engineer's on sight say it strongly resembles the characteristic's of a controlled demolition, edcuated speculation... you know just like the US government did with the official comission report, no solid evidence, just a plethora of suggestion and speculation.

The document always inlay's a line of suggestion then consequent speculation if youve seen the important parts of the report, infact it hardly focuses on the WTC event's atall, opting to favour focusing on Al Queda.

Really? So why put it in the POLITICS section then?

perhaps the subject matter not included in the reports is of a political nature.. :O, that and if this went in general topic, every post would be.. Tin foil hat brigade!, or poor resources, wheres my BBC report?

because thinking about the consequences of it being true, frankly, scares the shit out of me

tbh thats one of the main reason's why some people will fight alternative theory's to the grave, even if there is strong evidence to support that alternative, people think im nuts, i dont care im looking at these video's watching demolition examples.. knowing burning jet fuel or fire cant burn hot enough (even with office supplies as extra fuel) to cause entire structural failiure of the central column's, fire which hasnt collapsed any steel building's in the past.

The fact that the WTC 1 and 2 , being high rise where built to withstand airliner impact's, the fact that the central core shuts itself off in sections to stop acting as a vent in fire situations, stopping spreading, meaning burning material would of been blocked off by that built in safety mechanisim, leaving the maximum structural integrity below yet it all disintigrated. The way the wall pillars pushed and billowed outward's indicative of explosives, localised explosive sequences seen on the outside of the buildings on close study, the random evaporation of all floors above the impact area on WTC tower 2 , the fine dust, aspestos, radioactive compounds from smoke detectors in the air for months, the ENVIROMENTAL agencey for the whitehouse disclosed "the air was safe to breat", hundreds of firefighter's civilians now have serious respritory related illness's some fatal, 14 search dogs died, hundred's of civilians with similar illness's.

There's no detailed post analysis of how burning jet fuel could of got past these saftey block off's in the comission's theory and been able to affect the entire stability of the central core top to bottom, Its more likely to assume the mechanisim's confined the fire to the top floors leaving the bulk structural intergrity below at maximum, as this was how the building was designed. How did all of it put up so little resistance to the collapsing upper sections, how did the jet fuel get into the core and burn hot enough to melt steel enough to allow that to even happen if this is so?, why did the floors disintigrate into a major percentage of fine powder, where was the retrieval analysis of the left over central column pieces, the two that where recovered, just two.. only had heat fatigue of less that 250 C.

 

[Raeven0]

If the buildings hadn't collapsed, would so many of us have supported invasion of arbitrary sandy nations?

 

[Solaris]

Tinfoil hats, cheap! Get 'em while they're still here!

Pie he did insult you. But what about this ^

Ennui, where trying to have a discussion and as a moderator you should no better, youre like the 5th person to just say something like this. Can you not think for you self? Is it just instictive to dissmiss something, without consideration.

Comrade, its alot more schoking to have the whole building come down, have you seen the video footage, it was chaos, exactly what was needed as a pretext.

Whether it makes sense or not, 911 scared the American population into several actions.

-removal of rights
-Invasion of middle east
-future actions

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

Pie he did insult you. But what about this ^

Ennui, where trying to have a discussion and as a moderator you should no better, youre like the 5th person to just say something like this. Can you not think for you self? Is it just instictive to dissmiss something, without consideration.

Hey 15 year old, STFU.

Ontopic, this is just a conspiracy, just like the missle that "supposedly" hit the pentagon(instead of a plane). I don't really care about what hit what, all I care about are the lives that were lost.

People can keep saying: "this is how it happened blah blah blah..." it doesn't really ****ing matter anymore, THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. I do believe the planes are what caused the collapse, I mean they hit vital spots high in the building that would cause such damage.

EDIT: Those fires one the first few floors, how do you know it couldn't have been people making them? I mean you can clearly see glass broken out. Maybe a signal for help on that floor? Most likely.

 

[clarky003]

you make it sound like bands of people get together to shove this in peoples face for fun, of course its about the people who where lost, its the whole reason people want a better more thorough investigation!.

unthorough investigation and opinion base would definately constitute

I mean they hit vital spots high in the building that would cause such damage

, but all these opinions are derived from that intial linear hypothesis.

Solaris shouldnt shut up, he's right Im trying to be mature about it, Ennui should know better, but instead I was picked on, I apologised, but im not a moderator and id like to keep respecting the people who run this site, they do a great job for the majority of the time, but sometimes i get that glimpse of childishness, propped up behind that seeming facade of responsibilities.

 

[Adabiviak]

Doesn't matter? If the the government is in on this, I find that would matter very much. Even if it's not, we're obliged to do everything we can to find the truth. When the Oklahoma bombing happened, should we have not done an investigation because the people were dead?

Does the fact that he's 15 have anything to do with this at all?

 

[Ennui]

I'm rather sick of seeing these sort of topics and as such I tend to treat them with vitriol unbecoming of a moderator. So I apologize.

 

[The Mullinator]

Plane flies into building going far faster than the building was designed to stand. Building falls down. Hmmmmm.....

You know what it seems just a little to believable if you ask me. Also the steel structure did not melt, it was however severely weakened by the heat. Metal doesn't need to melt before its structural strength plummets. Also the buildings were designed to take a plane crashing into them, a plane travelling at landing speeds that is, NOT 500mph which is the speed the planes hit.

Also everyone seems perfectly willing to blame the government for being completely incompetent yet believes that it is capable of pulling off what could be the biggest conspiracy theory in history? All the required personel to keep quiet, the logistics involved, it would all be a massive coverup that would require a highly skilled and competent group of people. So please tell me what the government is people? Competent or not?

Also the sources for these conspiracy theories are all pretty bad as ComradeBadger already pointed out. Finally if this was a cover up then please tell me why havn't they done something like this again? Bush needs something like this now more than ever before.

 

[dream431ca]

OK! I've had Enough!! Let me clarify this for all of you ok?


There were no planted bombs in the Towers. First off, let me explain what happened:

When the planes hit, most of the central core structure was heavily damaged. I work on Aircraft for a living, so when a plane hits a tower like that with a FULL LOAD OF FULL!!, the plane will explode causing heavy damage to all that is around it.

Now, because the planes had full fuel tanks, the explosion was intense. Intense enough not to liquify metal, but to weaken it severly. (What about the fire proof?? The explosion completely blew off the fire proof stuff on the beams and supports of the structure of the central core.)

ONE IMPORTANT FACT THAT MOST OF YOU ARE OVERLOOKING!!

The central core was held up by trusses, the absolute worst thing to hold up something when there is extreme heat around it. The trusses get extremely weak when they heat up to extreme tempratures. They were coated with fire retardent..but guess what, the explosion got rid of that.

Now here's the kicker...remeber these pictures from a previous post...look at them before you read on:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/WTC-bomb-frame048_1.jpg

http://www.prisonplanet.com/WTC-bomb-frame105.jpg


See how they claim that they can see bombs exploding while the tower was collapsing?? Let me tell you something.

A LITTLE PHYSICS LESSON!!

You have a tower collapsing. What's in the tower: Smoke, Debris, Air. What happens when a Big mass falls down onto the smoke and air?? Displacement happens. The air and smoke have to get out of the way! So what you see in the pictures is not bombs of anysort. You see smoke pushing it's way out of the building because the top mass is falling down onto it: Hence, Displacement happens.

Now, some claim that the towers should have not collapsed completely. Well guess what:

PHYSICS LESSON #2!!

What happens when a huge mass is accelerating downwards onto another mass?? Well first of all you have to consider the momentum of the mass. The mass is accelerating and has a certain velocity. So, it would be right to think that, that mass has a ton of force. When the top of the tower hit the other floors below, it was already accelerating, (remeber the damaged trusses??). The momentum it had was very huge and when it started, it could not stop. It collapsed all the way down due to momentum.

All explained..this should clear up a lot of stuff for you guys....and prove that there were no bombs in the towers...or any insanely stupid other things.

Good day.

 

[clarky003]

I wish it was as simple as that, but with the WTC 7 building in light unfortunately its not quite as simple as it wasnt mentioned why this building was brought down, It would of had to of been planned well in advance to do properly and symmetrically, as happened.

If you look at the building plan the central core is split into sections designed to stop heat from fire reaching the upper and lower levels.. the heat would of weakend the core, yes, but Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to create a devasting complete structural collapse throughout, it would of needed to heat the lower sections of the core the same, near 800 C to give up so little resistance, symmetrical collapse is unlikey because well look at the 2nd law of thermodyamics , one side would of been exposed longer, the collapse would far more likley be offset, infact WTC 2 upper floors collapsed tilted in the opposite direction to the jets entry point (intital heat source) and then disintigrated in mid air as it fell.


If this is a cover up then they dont care, Wolfawitz , Cheney, Rumsfeld, all got what they wanted, bush is just their figure head.

Now, because the planes had full fuel tanks, the explosion was intense. Intense enough not to liquify metal

wtf i dont weither to believe you or qualified physic's professor's who say combustion of jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to reach anywhere near 800 C, the critical structural weakening point of steel.

oh btw dream youve ignored WTC 7, and 5 again, which collapsed due to conventional fires, the other's where sat on by WTC 1 and 2

displacement would push the contents uniformly around the exterior of the building, rather than in small localised puff's that dont last more than 4 seconds..

secondly you cant determine that unless you know the structural integrity of the larger extent of the lower floor's, at maximum integrity even with weight and acceleration they would put up more resistance than is shown, the collapse begins at the core uniformed as the mast dipping first on WTC 1 shows the building below offers little rsistance even when the first floors impact.

It really comes down to no more than what i think happens when big buildings fail lessons, the comission ignore description's and possible causes for these event's even.

your debunking attempt doesnt get rid of anything, the intial report is still inadequet

 

[dream431ca]

I wish it was as simple as that, but with the WTC 7 building in light unfortunately its not quite as simple as it wasnt mentioned why this building was brought down, It would of had to of been planned well in advance to do properly and symmetrically, as happened.

If you look at the building plan the central core is split into sections designed to stop heat from fire reaching the upper and lower levels.. the heat would of weakend the core, yes, but Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to create a devasting complete structural collapse throughout, it would of needed to heat the lower sections of the core the same, near 800 C to give up so little resistance, symmetrical collapse is unlikey because well look at the 2nd law of thermodyamics , one side would of been exposed longer, the collapse would far more likley be offset, infact WTC 2 upper floors collapsed tilted in the opposite direction to the jets entry point (intital heat source) and then disintigrated in mid air as it fell.


If this is a cover up then they dont care, Wolfawitz , Cheney, Rumsfeld, all got what they wanted, bush is just their figure head.

May I point out that Jet full burns roughly around 900 degrees centigrade...and yes it did have enough heat, because the fire retardent was blown off. (did you read about the trusses??).

 

[Adabiviak]

Doesn't the professor from the original post address this (lesson 1), saying that the collapse isn't sufficient to make the "squibs" as he calls them, particularly in the pattern shown on the pictures from his website?

I'll buy that the metal doesn't need to evaporate to weaken sufficiently to allow a collapse, that a full load of jet fuel would be enough to heat these up enough to lose structural integrity, and certainly (lesson 2) that once the collapse began, the entire building was doomed. I think all the guy is saying is that the initial pattern of "squibs", their timing, and their accompanying flashes are worth a further look.

I don't buy this guy's theory as proven, I think the planes took the buildings down too, but I would like a better explanation for the "squibs" he mentions with the accompanying physics. (I've seen no math from any party, by the way).

 

[dream431ca]

Doesn't the professor from the original post address this (lesson 1), saying that the collapse isn't sufficient to make the "squibs" as he calls them, particularly in the pattern shown on the pictures from his website?

I'll buy that the metal doesn't need to evaporate to weaken sufficiently to allow a collapse, that a full load of jet fuel would be enough to heat these up enough to lose structural integrity, and certainly (lesson 2) that once the collapse began, the entire building was doomed. I think all the guy is saying is that the initial pattern of "squibs", their timing, and their accompanying flashes are worth a further look.

I don't buy this guy's theory as proven, I think the planes took the buildings down too, but I would like a better explanation for the "squibs" he mentions with the accompanying physics. (I've seen no math from any party, by the way).

It's hard to do the math..all we have is theory..and mine is a theory. It's a well based theory though. I'm not saying it's definate proof, but no one will really know.

EDIT: The building is a very complex structure. The squibs could have been going out windows that were only broken. My theory is that in lesson 1. I would like to see if anyone else can come up with an explanation.

 

[Adabiviak]

...different from his? Not me - I certainly don't know enough about this to make my own proposition (and am trying to be respectful enough not to come up with a comedic reason for laughs).

 

[Raziaar]

Are you suggesting that they designed these skyscrapers to fall down? Do you know something you're not telling us?

*Kirovman grills Raziaar*

LOL. Come on man, don't make me explain it in baby english.

 

[Raziaar]

Steel - Reinforced Concrete WAS MELTED? You cant be serious? Kerosene is a HYDROCARBON FUEL
It only burns at 1000 degrees C!!!! There is no way it caused the building STEEL to melt.

Umm... that was really in the morning. I didnt catch that. I didn't mean melted, I meant, the structural steel was weakened.

Can't believe I didn't notice that error. But, it was because I was sleepy, man. Typo.

 

[Pauly]

Look back in history, eh? What about 1930's ? when hitler put the reichstag on fire and blamed it on those RUSSIANS(terrorists) so then Germany INVADED russia..... and then launched campaigns into poland and France. (Afghanistan, then Iraq)

No similarities??

and

The internet is not a valid source of information - it's too easy for any moron to write up whatever they feel like.

How about a video from a mainstream media talking about an important fact in the 9-11 case...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/bushsawfirstplane1.ram Real media player is only i could find :\

 

[clarky003]

May I point out that Jet full burns roughly around 900 degrees centigrade...and yes it did have enough heat, because the fire retardent was blown off. (did you read about the trusses??).

Im far more interested by what you just said.. there are 47 columns, very complex to contemplate how many of them with their thosands of upper and lower trusses throoughout the building would fail if a plane exploded next to them inside a few floors of cavity made of concrete and steel, again why did they collapse symmetrically in a fashion of disintigration, not addressed.

doesnt that also depend on the amount of oxygen it recieves aswell... are you lieing? cause i know it has an average ignition temprature of 210 C depending on conditions

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

 

[The Mullinator]

Look back in history, eh? What about 1930's ? when hitler put the reichstag on fire and blamed it on those RUSSIANS(terrorists) so then Germany INVADED russia..... and then launched campaigns into poland and France. (Afghanistan, then Iraq)

No similarities??

and

How about a video from a mainstream media talking about an important fact in the 9-11 case...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/bushsawfirstplane1.ram Real media player is only i could find :\

Learn something about debating and proving a point. If it can be a coincidence then it can't be used as evidence proving your point of view. Almost every man-made disaster in history can be viewed as being planned by some group to benefit themselves if you want to look at it the way you are viewing 9/11.

 

[satch919]

First off, I don't believe in the hypothesis being presented here.

You use the example of people saying that it looked like charges went off in the building. Well, lets think here for a second. There's this mass of concrete and steel that's in the process of collapsing. Isn't it possible that these "charges" were just pieces of the building giving way under tons among tons of pressure. When that happens, energy is released.

Do you ever notice when there's a disaster, everyone acts like they're an expert on what just happened? You show 1,000 people a complex event like this and you're going to get a different story from each one.

And another thing, those planes that hit the towers were travelling extremely fast! That alone would have crippled any building. Like someone has said before me, the impact probably tore off a lot of the fire proofing material on the steel. That material is supposed to be nearly fire proof, not impact proof.

People are looking to make sense out of this whole tragedy. These are very confusing and uneasy times right now. In some people's minds, they may not be able to understand that a terrorist group pulled this off without any interruption. Some might want to believe that it's more complex than it really is when, in reality, it's not.

If our own government is behind this, which I doubt, then I think it would be the time for a revolution. I would demand public executions of the individuals responsible.

 

[spookymooky]

If you look back in world history... there are several cases of a government attacking itself in order to goad its people into living under a police state and/or going to war.

There's definately a case of a Greek king who had himself attacked and cut up and beat up, so he could get a powerful bodyguard which he used to seize more power. That said, I find this theory unlikely. I really can't believe what I hear on the internet, using numbers which I can't see backed up over the government and media.

 

[spookymooky]

You use the example of people saying that it looked like charges went off in the building. Well, lets think here for a second. There's this mass of concrete and steel that's in the process of collapsing. Isn't it possible that these "charges" were just pieces of the building giving way under tons among tons of pressure. When that happens, energy is released.

There certainly is a hell of a lot of potential energy in a skyscraper.

 

[Adabiviak]

..what about the Jingoists and the Spanish-American war? Although it's not probable, it is possible. I personally don't think the government is behind it. That would surprise me. If some businessmen turned up to be behind it, that wouldn't surprise me. (Note: not a valid argument here, just my thoughts).

 

[Raziaar]

First off, I don't believe in the hypothesis being presented here.

You use the example of people saying that it looked like charges went off in the building. Well, lets think here for a second. There's this mass of concrete and steel that's in the process of collapsing. Isn't it possible that these "charges" were just pieces of the building giving way under tons among tons of pressure. When that happens, energy is released.

Exactly what I had said. The building, in its collapse, crushed and gave way, splitting and cracking, disrupting the straight 90 degree angle, giving way to any persons imigination on what it could be.

*BUT* like I said, if you LOOK at the front of the building as it happens, its perfect example of what i'm talking about. THe building gives way in certain areas, as it doesnt collapse uniformly. Are people also saying that the things in the front are explosion squibs too? No, of course not, because its plainly, visibly clear what is happening there, and so they go to the least visible aspect of the same situation and try to say these silly things.

 

[Pauly]

Hey 15 year old, STFU.

Ontopic, this is just a conspiracy, just like the missle that "supposedly" hit the pentagon(instead of a plane). I don't really care about what hit what, all I care about are the lives that were lost.

People can keep saying: "this is how it happened blah blah blah..." it doesn't really ****ing matter anymore, THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. I do believe the planes are what caused the collapse, I mean they hit vital spots high in the building that would cause such damage.

EDIT: Those fires one the first few floors, how do you know it couldn't have been people making them? I mean you can clearly see glass broken out. Maybe a signal for help on that floor? Most likely.

The point is that people died from their own government
in a recent poll over 50% of people who lost relatives in 9-11 believe the government had involvement in the case.

 

[The Mullinator]

Also I would like to point out that just because a couple physics professors claim this could have been a result of planted explosives over a plane crash causing the buildings to come down really means absolutely nothing at all. Why? Because in every field there are a few "experts" who are completely against a lot of the time the general opinion of everyone else in that field. Look at the Biology professor who is currently arguing that "intelligent design" is the truth rather than evolution. He has already given his opinion in court in the US.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

The point is that people died from their own government
in a recent poll over 50% of people who lost relatives in 9-11 believe the government had involvement in the case.

Link ?

 

[clarky003]

but they base their opinion's on substantiated evidence, evidence that isnt included within the 9/11 omission's report similarity to proffessional demolition exercises (WTC 7 in particular) that fact that these arnt even considered in the omission's report show it completely biased and suggestive approach, anomalies under the aircraft's clearly captured from multiple angles, not mentioned whole event's not mentioned, detail analysis not mentioned, It may be vital to further understanding all the events that took place, and give further clarity to victims of the events whatever the final discovery, thats the point!.

Its more shameful to deny these inquiries, in the light of insufficient conclusion's and biased Al Queda suggestive explaination's.

 

[Raziaar]

but they base their opinion's on substantiated evidence, evidence that isnt included within the 9/11 omission's report, which may be vital to further understanding all the events that took place, and give further clarity to victims whatever the final discovery, thats the point!

The VIDEO they use as 'evidence' of the squibs, is not evidence at all... I've already debunked that theory with my own explanation. See? :cheese:

 

[Adabiviak]

...and both the physics professor and ID preacher deserve to have their cases heard.

 

[OCybrManO]

I personally don't think the government is behind it. That would surprise me. If some businessmen turned up to be behind it, that wouldn't surprise me.

Coincidentally, we happen to be in a predicament in which our government is currently run by a businessman (who ran all of his previous businesses into the ground and may have been involved in an Enron-like scandal) who appointed his other businessman friends into positions of power, then gave massive contracts to the businesses they worked for...

 

[Adabiviak]

It's like Jeckyll and Hyde, except both of them are monsters! lol

 

[Pauly]

OK! I've had Enough!! Let me clarify this for all of you ok?


There were no planted bombs in the Towers. First off, let me explain what happened:

When the planes hit, most of the central core structure was heavily damaged. I work on Aircraft for a living, so when a plane hits a tower like that with a FULL LOAD OF FULL!!, the plane will explode causing heavy damage to all that is around it.

Now, because the planes had full fuel tanks, the explosion was intense. Intense enough not to liquify metal, but to weaken it severly. (What about the fire proof?? The explosion completely blew off the fire proof stuff on the beams and supports of the structure of the central core.)

ONE IMPORTANT FACT THAT MOST OF YOU ARE OVERLOOKING!!

The central core was held up by trusses, the absolute worst thing to hold up something when there is extreme heat around it. The trusses get extremely weak when they heat up to extreme tempratures. They were coated with fire retardent..but guess what, the explosion got rid of that.

Now here's the kicker...remeber these pictures from a previous post...look at them before you read on:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/WTC-bomb-frame048_1.jpg

http://www.prisonplanet.com/WTC-bomb-frame105.jpg


See how they claim that they can see bombs exploding while the tower was collapsing?? Let me tell you something.

A LITTLE PHYSICS LESSON!!

You have a tower collapsing. What's in the tower: Smoke, Debris, Air. What happens when a Big mass falls down onto the smoke and air?? Displacement happens. The air and smoke have to get out of the way! So what you see in the pictures is not bombs of anysort. You see smoke pushing it's way out of the building because the top mass is falling down onto it: Hence, Displacement happens.

Now, some claim that the towers should have not collapsed completely. Well guess what:

PHYSICS LESSON #2!!

What happens when a huge mass is accelerating downwards onto another mass?? Well first of all you have to consider the momentum of the mass. The mass is accelerating and has a certain velocity. So, it would be right to think that, that mass has a ton of force. When the top of the tower hit the other floors below, it was already accelerating, (remeber the damaged trusses??). The momentum it had was very huge and when it started, it could not stop. It collapsed all the way down due to momentum.

All explained..this should clear up a lot of stuff for you guys....and prove that there were no bombs in the towers...or any insanely stupid other things.

Good day.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/survivors.jpg Raging fires? wait a second... zoom in... http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/still-alive.jpg
oh She can touch the sides of the metal that is supposedly weak enough to collapse.

 

[OCybrManO]

Link ?

I don't have the link either... but I do remember seeing the poll. It was nearly 50/50. Also, IIRC, in Canada it was a little over 60% and somewhere in Europe (don't remember the specifics) it was more than two-thirds. I'd also like to see that link again... because it's starting to fade from memory.

 

[clarky003]

and if it was really that hot all over in there wouldnt their clothes be on fire from the convection of a supposed 1500 C?

not only that, but from the get go the smoke quickly becomes black, indicating a starving low temprature fire

 

[Raziaar]

I don't have the link either... but I do remember seeing the poll. It was nearly 50/50. Also, IIRC, in Canada it was a little over 60% and somewhere in Europe (don't remember the specifics) it was more than two-thirds. I'd also like to see that link again... because it's starting to fade from memory.

is there any question foreign populations always believe the worse when it comes to the americans? Their opinion doesnt change anything.

 

[spookymooky]

I don't have the link either... but I do remember seeing the poll. It was nearly 50/50. Also, IIRC, in Canada it was a little over 60% and somewhere in Europe (don't remember the specifics) it was more than two-thirds. I'd also like to see that link again... because it's starting to fade from memory.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

 

[Pauly]

I don't have the link either... but I do remember seeing the poll. It was nearly 50/50. Also, IIRC, in Canada it was a little over 60% and somewhere in Europe (don't remember the specifics) it was more than two-thirds. I'd also like to see that link again... because it's starting to fade from memory.

I couldnt find it :| I forgot where i saw it, sorry.... But I do have

Cnn took it down.



http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041111195501242