Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition

clarky003 said:
There is nothing speculative about the confiscated tapes around the pentagon,

There is nothing speculative about fires not being able to collapse steel building's in a free fall demolition fashion

There is nothing speculative about the absence of debris from the plane around the pentagon

There is nothing speculative about the inconsistancies of fuel burn evidence between the pentagon and the WTC building's.

There is nothing speculative about the destruction of evidence at ground zero before proper forensic analysis

There is nothing speculative about the similarties of the WTC collapses to controlled demolishion

There is nothing speculative about how FEMA have misrepresented the building's layout, and have confiscated blueprint's. (not even an investigative organisation)

There is nothing speculative about how the whitehouse environmental agencey witheld correct knowledge of the toxicity of the air after the event, announcing the air was safe to breath.

There is nothing speculative about the lack of hard evidence on the flight's and the stone wall experianced by investigator's when trying to find such material.

There is nothing speculative about the entire lack of hard evidence showing any suspected terrorist's getting on the planes when there are security camera's close to, or at all terminal's.

There is nothing speculative about the lack / confiscation of black box recorder's

There is nothing speculative about the missing Flight data recorders (FDRs)

There is nothing speculative about the missing Cockpit voice recorders (CVRs)

There is nothing speculative about the destruction of recording's and the witholding of forenamed recorded evidence ie, cell phones.
Click to expand...

Actually all of those are speculative. And they're not even the fun kind of scientific speculation that governs the rational world we live in.

The fact that you don't understand something doesn't make it a conspiracy.
 
those points are not speculative, planes have black box's titanium cased insulted brick's that are almost indestructable.. its common freaking sense. They usually go public at some point, its well known there are many camera's pointing at the pentagon, yet only 5 frames that dont say much where released from a camera where the date reads wrong bottom left.

Fire's havnt caused steel building collapse before in history, theres nothing speculative about that, yet the media forwards the only theory that is biased against this consistancey.. stating the fires melted the steel, there has been no record of steel loosing its structural integrity enough to even get anywhere near collapse due to fire there's more evidence to suggest the jet fuel burned at a quarter of the temprature put forward in the media.. from oxygen starvation to the amount of fuel that was obsorbed outside, to the longevity of the fires.

the building's behaviour closely resembles controlled demolition, nothing speculative about that either, its logical comparison.

The site was cleared before proper forensic analysis could be conducted, nothing speculative about that, it happened.

FEMA's models are inaccurate, nothing speculative about that, you just have to look at them.

The whitehouse clearly said the air was safe to breath on the day, an outright lie that endangered peoples lives, nothing speculative about that.

Nothing speculative about the knowledge of security camera's being located at plane terminal's, its standard security procedure.

Theres nothing speculative about the FIA destroying tapes, as they themselves have told the New York times.

Any of those can be confirmed from stories reported with the New York times, so your lieing to yourself.

Outside of the fact that the site im using as reference isnt a conspiracey theory website (in the introduction it states it doesnt propagate conspiracey theory, which it doesnt it just anaylises and collect's), its logcial analysis of behaviour and comparison of all theories and there likelyhood in contrast to historical reference, the site references itself to the BBC, ABC news, New York Times, the Guardian.. etc, there are many reports of bomb's as many as those who report of not hearing anything. From people and indicator's from the seizmograph's, William rodriguez's story is the most compelling.

Id rather think about it all logically anyday than be a media peon, I take it all with a pinch of salt

Resurrected Hijacker's, the inconsistancies are vaste.. why are they simply ignored

and I cant believe some people can be such sucker's as to still believe the ideological motive of "arabs hating american freedoms / way of life" its so much deeper than that all you have to do is see what other people have gained from it, something far more real and tangable than an elusive man in a cave, where's people's common sense gone.
 
I cant believe people can be such sucker's as to still believe the ideological motive of "the US government killing their own people to justify....something"
 
Outside of the fact that the site im using as reference isnt a conspiracey theory website, its logcial analysis of behaviour and comparison of all theories and there likelyhood in contrast to historical reference, the site references itself to the BBC, ABC news, New York Times, the Guardian.. etc, there are many reports of bomb's as many as those who report of not hearing anything. From people and indicator's from the seizmograph's, William rodriguez's story is the most compelling.
Click to expand...

Produce the audio recording of the bombs that leveled WTC 7 then , it shouldn't be that dificult.
 
Until YOU start referencing and forming your own arguements aside from regurgitating it :p

I echo baxter's call for the audio recordings.
 
I WAS THERE on 9/11, and although I didn't read that professors paper until now, I have one thing to say. The whole thing was going in the WRONG direction.

He keeps discussing how every steel beam must have melted through, which was impossible.

What he DOESN'T discuss is how the damn gigantic jet flew into the building and EXPLODED! I'm sure the force of the plane flying through the beams would knock a bunch of them over, and the subsequent force of the massive explosion would probably knock over a bunch more. The result an hour and a half later was whatever steel beams were left probably couldn't support the weight of the building above, and combined with the massive heat, were weakened, and gave way.

There was no controlled demolition of the twin towers.

The explosions seen at the bottom of the towers were elevators from the top floors, probably burning up, crashing to the bottom with enough time to attain maximum velocity. (obviously would produce a huge crash and explosion)


As for the other building.. who knows, who cares? What's the significance of what he's saying? All I know is there was structural damage to plenty of surrounding buildings. They had to have been shaken to the core due to the twin towers collapsing!

Could you stand firmly next to the WTC collapsing? Whose to say which buildings could withstand it, and which buildings couldn't?

There's nothing to compare it to, because nothing like this has ever happened... Okay, it looked similar to a controlled demo. But when was the last time previously that two of the biggest buildings in the world collapsed, and we were able to examine surrounding buildings and accurately say what should happen to them? Never, obviously. Since there's no basis for comparison, it's impossible to form an opinion. The forces produced during the 2 collapses WERE larger than anything you could imagine!

Let's try dropping a huge weight, equivalent to one WTC tower, from a QUARTER MILE UP, into Times Square.

Would you be surprised if a couple of the surrounding buildings fell down? Cmon!! We are lucky that all of downtown didn't collapse like dominoes!
 
baxter said:
It seems a lot is missing.

How about audio?

See this is another problem I have with the demolition theory. You have argued that the wtc’s where brought down by controlled explosion.
On this I will again focus on WTC7.
According your sites this building was brought down by explosives. Now I am not explosives expert but I should imagine that to bring down a 47 story building you would need lots of explosives, probably tons.
Again I am not an explosives expert but I would have thought that tons of explosives going off would make lots of noise, i.e. boom, boom, and boom.
This building collapsed some 7 hours after WTC 1&2 collapsed.
The world’s media had descended on the area, there where probably hundreds, if not thousands of high quality video and audio devices all pointing in the general direction of the WTC, yet not one picked up the sound of tons of explosives going off.
Not one camera man whizzed his camera around as tons of explosives went off to capture the moment.
Not one reporter screamed into his mic that he heard explosions
This deafing roar was never captured and the collapse was only recorded by one or two cameras that was pointing in the general direction of WTC 7 at the time.

Basically explosives= very load bang=lots of noise.

So please produce any audio recording of the tons of explosives going off that brought down WTC 7 you can find.

No audio= no explosives.
Click to expand...


you're right...that you are not an expert...100-200kg is enough TNT to bring down a large building! the point is to use the least explosives to prevent damage to other nerby buildings and shrapnel...the TNT is placed in specific spots (structural weak links) with lots of precautions and calculations! is not even close to easy to make a good demolishment, especialy for large buildings!

so yes, even few charges can make a building colapse! i have to admit that the WTC was a very clean colapse...like a block of cards cards!
 
video footage showing smoke at the base 14 seconds before the collapse

panorama
zoom

explosion's tipped car's

bang bang bang

Matthew Levy co author - why buildings fall down



muslim's suspend laws of physic's

Audio:

commentary at the site seconds after the event.

Tower 2

Tower 1
.

"pull it" meaning confirmation

People knew about it

Silversteen

How did they manage to set up explosives in a matter of hours that would successfully and safely take down a 47 story building in a built-up and already chaotic area?

Load Bearing's collapse simultaniously, Amazing!

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
Click to expand...

Kevin Ryan writing to Frank Gayle of NIST, Envolved in the steel production for the WTC building's.
 
So in other words, you can't actually refute anything that baxter actually said?

Let's have some facts here people.

1) On 9/11, two planes flew into the WTC towers at high speed, exploding when they did so.

2) Later on, the two towers collapsed.

Now, using clarky003's much vaunted logic, can anyone see any kind of link between these two events?

To address one of clarky's points - no, no steel-structured building has ever been known to collapse due to fire. However, the simple fact that a big bastard jetliner, flying at high speed slammed into the structure and then exploded might have had some slight bearing on the strength of the load-bearing structure.
 
your ignoring WTC 7 again, and the fact that the fire would need to spread to the entire structure of the central columns to cause that uniform gravity collapse in all buildings (WTC 2 was almost missed, no centreal core columns where hit as a direct result, yet it collapsed first), I have a funny feeling you havnt even watched the video's or bothered to compare or study, so dont accused my logic of being vaunted.

Your the one addressing my point's with vaunted logic, your simply upholding the origional theory as the correct one. If you cant see the smoke at the base of the building 14 seconds before it collapses you truely must be blind.

If it was as simple as 1 , 2 in your opinion then why all the inconsistancies, in the media, reports and evidence, along with the amazing discovery that jet fuel fires and loaclised impact's can weaken entire column support structure to induce complete gravity free fall behaviour.

I dont know of any close to the source audio capture of WTC 7, so how can I address that, it isnt known recorded evidence, although im sure the sound is there to study in a media footage clip or two, but lack of audio evidence in the face of the building's manorisim of collapse is not enough to dismiss demolishion, lisen to silversteen's official interview.
 
I'm not ignoring WTC7. There was enough debris and seismic activity, along with the fire to have caused instability. There's absolutely zero compelling evidence to suggest that explosives were involved anywhere at all.

If I choose to uphold the original theory as the correct one, that's because it's what I choose to believe. There's is insufficient credible evidence to convince me otherwise.
I might not agree with you, but I respect the hell out of your ability to hold a reasoned argument.

/me salutes
 
jverne said:
you're right...that you are not an expert...100-200kg is enough TNT to bring down a large building! the point is to use the least explosives to prevent damage to other nerby buildings and shrapnel...the TNT is placed in specific spots (structural weak links) with lots of precautions and calculations! is not even close to easy to make a good demolishment, especialy for large buildings!

so yes, even few charges can make a building colapse! i have to admit that the WTC was a very clean colapse...like a block of cards cards!
Click to expand...

Oh well I guess 100-200kg of TNT would going off would never have been recorded by the surrounding media.

I dont know of any close to the source audio capture of WTC 7, so how can I address that, it isnt known recorded evidence, although im sure the sound is there to study in a media footage clip or two, but lack of audio evidence in the face of the building's manorisim of collapse is not enough to dismiss demolishion
Click to expand...

The entire area was surrounded by the media; this was seven hours after the collapse of the towers.
I'll let you in a secret.....there are no audio files.
They never recorded what never happened.

NJspeed thanks for the account of what happened.
 
Pi Mu Rho said:
I'm not ignoring WTC7. There was enough debris and seismic activity, along with the fire to have caused instability. There's absolutely zero compelling evidence to suggest that explosives were involved anywhere at all.

If I choose to uphold the original theory as the correct one, that's because it's what I choose to believe. There's is insufficient credible evidence to convince me otherwise.
I might not agree with you, but I respect the hell out of your ability to hold a reasoned argument.

/me salutes
Click to expand...

/salute back

I respect everyones belief's, to me any a hell of alot of other people the comission report is a far from satisfactory review, its completely biased toward the bush administration's word of event's, which isnt fair to the people who want difficult question's answered thoroughly.

the simple fact that a big bastard jetliner, flying at high speed slammed into the structure and then exploded might have had some slight bearing on the strength of the load-bearing structure.
Click to expand...

you would think that, but lisen to one of the engineer's envolved in the study of the building's design

In 1966, Robertson designed the structural elements of the WTC towers to withstand the impact of the largest airliner then in service, the Boeing 707.
Click to expand...

There was no 'inferno'

why the collapse was physically impossible under the present theory

Pull it!

lol, try and contact Larry yourself to ask what he meant by letting them 'pull it'

everyone is boycoting Larry Silverstein's new building

for people saying it was displacement that caused the localised squibs..

energetic squib's are seen over 10 floors below supposed pancaking compression. http://wtcsquib2.0catch.com/

http://hereisnewyork.org/jpegs/photos/6502.JPG

bursting squib under impact area seen just before collapse http://hereisnewyork.org/jpegs/photos/2089.JPG

left over steel and concrete spire turns to dust..?

http://wtcsquib.0catch.com/spire.html
 
baxter said:
Oh well I guess 100-200kg of TNT would going off would never have been recorded by the surrounding media.
Click to expand...


Well..that's true...100kg TNT would be quite a bang! The building would colapse seconds after the bang...it would be quite noticable!
 
If it was a Demolishion, Professional Demolishionist's would be requird who would use proper cutting charges in sequence, not just crude clumps of TNT that make almighty bang's. Although CNN has commented on what they thought where bang's.. its the after suggestion that seems to have stopped everyone from considering that possibility.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.
Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.
[...]
Dispatcher: Battalion 5, be advised we're trying to contact Battalion 3 at this moment to report north tower just collapsed.
Click to expand...

http://www.americanfreepress.net/10...ombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html

CBS news eyewitness audio: 1, 2


"There has been a hudge explosion" realmedia: http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/11/ab.jm.timed.attac.cnn.low.ram

http://www.mrbellersneighborhood.com/sec9/theashenguy
"I was almost out. I got down to the lobby, right near the Border’s book store. And then there was this explosion. I don’t know, I just got thrown to the ground and all this stuff fell on top of me."
Click to expand...

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/survivor3.htm

"So they escorted us thru the exit of World Trade 2 and I had just reached the revolving door of the building that I heard a loud explosion and the whole building collapsed. [...] When that explosion took place and the building was crumbling over me I could see the pics of my wife, my parents, grandmother loved ones flash thru my mind and now what a relief that we are alive."
Click to expand...

http://fotophile.com/news0009.html

David Handschuh: "Instinctively I lifted the camera up, and something took over that probably saved my life. And that was to run rather than take pictures. I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave — a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet, and I wound up about a block away". "Handschuh was thrown under a vehicle, which probably saved him from the falling debris, he said," according to the PDNonline story.
Click to expand...
Don Halasy: "As I turned to run, a wall of warm air came barrelling toward me. I tried to outrace it, but it swept me up and literally blew me into the wall of a building. By the time I regained my footing, a hailstorm of debris was falling from the sky."
Click to expand...

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/story23301.asp

2:59:08 PM [GMT]

A huge explosion has occurred at the second of the two twin towers hit by planes in New York.

The tower is now covered in smoke.
Click to expand...

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/story23302.asp

There are reports that a part of the second tower has collapsed after the new explosion.
Click to expand...

looking at the footage the event's defy all logic of gravity free fall.

3 Elements that strongly indicate demolishion.

The towers fell faster than they could have if they were crushing themselves.
The volume of dust was too great to have been the product of a gravity-driven collapse.
The South Tower's top shattered before falling, and so its breakup was not a result of gravity-driven crushing.
 
i've just watched the http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.1.demolition.nj.1.wmv video:

it really looks suspicious!

take a good look at the events!

1. only smoke comes from the damaged part but no fire is visible...therefore the fire si relatively small (contained inside the offices)!
2.when the upper part starts to fall down, there are visible flames mixed with the smoke! this lead to two possible outcomes...the upper part "squezzed" the flames out of the inner part where the burning was taking part (remember the fire was relatively small)...or...that those are flames of an explosion explosion!
BUT!!! look closely to the lower left part of the damaged area just before the upper part starts to fall! you can see smoke is blown out!

so...how can smoke be blown out if the upper part is not forcing it out?? in this case i belive it was some sort of explosion! you can see that smoke is sorounding the whole damaged area and when something from within expands, it is the smoke who has to move first...that's basicaly what's happened...before the upper part started compressing the inside out smoke was already expanding!


and besides...metal cannot be melted with jet fuel...altough i saw oil burning forges (for blacksmithing) that could bring the steel to a high temperature ( to around 850-900C, of course with the right air-fuel mixture) but that is still far from the melting point of steel! and besides tall structures are designed to sustain high temperatures (in case of fires), the support columns are made with higher fire resistant steel (alloyed with wolfram, Si,...)!


IMO...there was undoutebly an explosion...altough i cannot tell if it was a precharged or random?!

if it was a random explosion caused by the plane the upper part would fall in a diffrent angle, not so vertical!
 
I noticed it while slowing it down, that is why im suspicious, enough so to be yet another person to want these issue's properly investigated, by the New York public if need be, and to have all the confiscated evidence available to them.

Also if you replay the end, there is a black more solid looking shape in the centre behind the bulk of dust as it starts to moves away, its a still standing piece of the core or outer wall both made of steel and concrete... 3 seconds it tilt's right and all the material disintigrate's, like its made of sand!

also half way down its really noticable.. Largish chunks of debris are physically thrown on an upward arc against the freefall energy momentum, and outward about 500 feet, gravity alone cant be acting on the building, they are displaying characteristic's of explosive force.
 
baxter said:
It seems a lot is missing.

How about audio?

See this is another problem I have with the demolition theory. You have argued that the wtc’s where brought down by controlled explosion.
On this I will again focus on WTC7.
According your sites this building was brought down by explosives. Now I am not explosives expert but I should imagine that to bring down a 47 story building you would need lots of explosives, probably tons.
Again I am not an explosives expert but I would have thought that tons of explosives going off would make lots of noise, i.e. boom, boom, and boom.
This building collapsed some 7 hours after WTC 1&2 collapsed.
The world’s media had descended on the area, there where probably hundreds, if not thousands of high quality video and audio devices all pointing in the general direction of the WTC, yet not one picked up the sound of tons of explosives going off.
Not one camera man whizzed his camera around as tons of explosives went off to capture the moment.
Not one reporter screamed into his mic that he heard explosions
This deafing roar was never captured and the collapse was only recorded by one or two cameras that was pointing in the general direction of WTC 7 at the time.

Basically explosives= very load bang=lots of noise.

So please produce any audio recording of the tons of explosives going off that brought down WTC 7 you can find.

No audio= no explosives.
Click to expand...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/Tower2Pulled.mp3
That Mp3 is from WTC2 at 9:59
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/story23301.asp is the conjuction with the explosion report.

http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/11/ab.jm.timed.attac.cnn.low.ram
Video directly from CNN.com - just for you badger. When the tower begins to collaspe the reporter says they heard A loud explosion. He does not know the building collapsed and there is quite a difference between a collapse and an explosion.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/Tower1Pulled.mp3
Here is the WTC collapsing and before it collapses the reported said they Heard/saw an explosion, and THEN it collapsed, Just like the first one.

Here is an archived version of the breaking news press
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/story23302.asp
About the explosions.

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042704secondaryexplosions.htm
2 audio clips from the collapses both saying an explosion then a collapse.

Video clip of short interview with eyewitness IN the WTC
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv
He says BANG BANG BANG BANG, then 3 huge explosions.

I also have a video of after the First plane crash you hear it, then about 7.5 seconds later you hear a louder explosion. It was a video camera in an office building i believe.
I also have a video which was taped on a tripod, exactly 8 seconds before the collapse the tripod shakes/rumbles and a visible piece of debris is knocked off the right hand side of the WTC, then the building starts to collapse 8 seconds later.
These 2 videos are with a longer Documentery that I dont feel likke cutting and hosting... ill let you know if i find them seperately.
 
emm...found another piece of evidence that shows that the jet fuel couldn't possibly melt the steel columns!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/woman_wtc.jpg


as the author already mentions, there is no visible heat!

i know that from experience...i have a propane forge i work with, it has a very good controled gas/air mixture, it burns at aroun 900C! let me tell you it blows out flames that can easily burn you from half a meter away! the forge is very small 250*120*120 (mm) the hole from which the fire comes is around 50*50 (mm)! and it blows a flame almost half a meter away! of course that temperature is far away from the melting point (1510C)! so yes...how the hell, can a fire that is not even visible, doesn't even have a good mixture of air, melt fire resistant steel (and lots of it)!!?? something is really strange there!


edit: i'm not entirely sure if that is a core fragment or bad image quality, that you're reffering to clarky!?


edit #2: i watched it once more...yes it really looks like a remaining core fragment! you can see it that is slowly moving right and the it falls really fast! altough if that piece of the core would be still fixed to the ground it wouldn't move so linear to the right...it would angle a bit...but still...looks very possible!
 
Pi Mu Rho said:
So in other words, you can't actually refute anything that baxter actually said?

Let's have some facts here people.

1) On 9/11, two planes flew into the WTC towers at high speed, exploding when they did so.

2) Later on, the two towers collapsed.

Now, using clarky003's much vaunted logic, can anyone see any kind of link between these two events?

To address one of clarky's points - no, no steel-structured building has ever been known to collapse due to fire. However, the simple fact that a big bastard jetliner, flying at high speed slammed into the structure and then exploded might have had some slight bearing on the strength of the load-bearing structure.
Click to expand...

and the building that got hit DIRECTLY by the plane( first hit) was teh second one to collapse... while the building that got hit second (plane came in at a poor angle which is shown by the fireball... 90% of the jetfuel burningb up outside the building) came down first.

Pi makes a great point about the jet liner acting as an explosive. The only problem is 1. ) WTC7 2.) 9/11 commission reported fire caused the steel to melt not the plane as the reason.

Has anyone said anything about the Pentagon yet?

A french citizen (Messan) wrote a book called Le'pentage Imposture (SP?)
Claiming that the lack of debris and other very strong points, point to the fact that a truck bomb caused the damage. AFter this book was released the government was angry at his statement then quickly released fire frames from a security camera at the pentagon. Messan was proved wrong. A truck bomb did not explode. But now they suspected it was a missile. The 5 frames from the footage 1.) The date is incorrect on the left hand corner. (But of course the media cropped the photos to take that part out and used a nice photoshop fade to change the 5 frames to a short 23FPS video to show on AIR.. 2.) Requests for the gas station video (by the owner and others) were denied by the FBI. 3.) Request for any other security camera footage from the pentagon was denied as well. 4.) A few employees at a Sheraton Hotel who watched the security cam tape of their camcorder which is on the roof were all given a warning not to talk about anything they witnessed on the video and the FBI still has that tape.

The government knows of all us lunatics out here... If they released a video CLEARY showing a Boeing 757 ramming into the Pentagon I would be ashamed of thinking otherwise and would agree with Terrorists. Untill they decide to release the many films they have easy access to, I will believe otherwise.


emm...found another piece of evidence that shows that the jet fuel couldn't possibly melt the steel columns!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/woman_wtc.jpg


as the author already mentions, there is no visible heat!

i know that from experience...i have a propane forge i work with, it has a very good controled gas/air mixture, it burns at aroun 900C! let me tell you it blows out flames that can easily burn you from half a meter away! the forge is very small 250*120*120 (mm) the hole from which the fire comes is around 50*50 (mm)! and it blows a flame almost half a meter away! of course that temperature is far away from the melting point (1510C)! so yes...how the hell, can a fire that is not even visible, doesn't even have a good mixture of air, melt fire resistant steel (and lots of it)!!?? something is really strange there!
Click to expand...

Yea I already posted that pic from before... but thats a crucial photograph. And not only the visible heat... but the fact that She can hold onto the steel that is supposedly ready to weaken, that steel would have to be very close to red hot temperatures. her skin would be cauterizing to the metal. o.0
 
I also have a video of after the First plane crash you hear it, then about 7.5 seconds later you hear a louder explosion. It was a video camera in an office building i believe.
I also have a video which was taped on a tripod, exactly 8 seconds before the collapse the tripod shakes/rumbles and a visible piece of debris is knocked off the right hand side of the WTC, then the building starts to collapse 8 seconds later.
These 2 videos are with a longer Documentery that I dont feel likke cutting and hosting... ill let you know if i find them seperately.
Click to expand...
pauly , host those video's at www.filefront.com its free, and fairly painless.


edit: i'm not entirely sure if that is a core fragment or bad image quality, that you're reffering to clarky!?


edit #2: i watched it once more...yes it really looks like a remaining core fragment! you can see it that is slowly moving right and the it falls really fast! altough if that piece of the core would be still fixed to the ground it wouldn't move so linear to the right...it would angle a bit...but still...looks very possible!
Click to expand...

Ive just realised that is the same left over piece from the opposite angle, its a steel and concrete section of the outer wall.. it just seems to evaporate as it tilt's, which is quite amazing and odd to watch, it suggest's disintigration, the question is how can steel and concrete far away from what fire's there where, just disintigrate into dust?.

http://wtcsquib.0catch.com/spire.html
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Oh noes!

Of course, there's the hyper-obvious question of how the government managed to plant so many explosives in the building's key structural supports without anyone knowing.
Click to expand...
copy machine repair dudes offcourse
 
clarky003 said:
Ive just realised that is the same left over piece from the opposite angle, steel and concrete section of the outer wall.. it just seems to evaporate as it tilt's, which is quite amazing and odd watch, it suggest's disintigration, the question is how can steel and concrete disintigrate?.

http://wtcsquib.0catch.com/spire.html
Click to expand...


well...they dont just desintegrate...concrete like shaters if the steel reinforcment is loose, it is very important that the steel and concrete dont come loose otherwise the concrete just dusts away, and the smaller amount of steel bends away! i belive that the faling wreckage of the building destroyed the cores upper part of the foundation and that's why the core manages to fall last, because it was the most solidly built! the outer concrete just fell away like dust damaging the core foundation upon impact to the floor...try to imagine if somebody would pour a very big amount of water on your head...until the water wouldn't reach the floor you wouldnt be able to move, once the water interacts with the floor it would just sweep your feet away!


edit: studying this it's quite interesting, i might even make a very simplefied simulation of the tower collapsing with source physics engine, just for fun!



edit: this pic shows very good what happens if the steel and concrete come loose...steel bends...the concrete cracks away until it can sustain itself http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif
 
I cant accurately see whats steel and whats concrete, but i wouldnt imagine that even if the steel columns broke at the weld, all of the concrete would just blow away into dust, which is what appears to be happening if you watch carefully.

Evil, That quote is an obvious question definately , and that would need to be addressed.. but if it is true these building's where taken down with cutting charges or other explosion's, then they had to of gotten there sometime.. meaning those people would of had access to the building at some point, and their are window's of recorded opportunity.

Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower.

How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on.
Click to expand...
 
Pauly said:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/Tower2Pulled.mp3
That Mp3 is from WTC2 at 9:59
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/story23301.asp is the conjuction with the explosion report.

http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/11/ab.jm.timed.attac.cnn.low.ram
Video directly from CNN.com - just for you badger. When the tower begins to collaspe the reporter says they heard A loud explosion. He does not know the building collapsed and there is quite a difference between a collapse and an explosion.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/Tower1Pulled.mp3
Here is the WTC collapsing and before it collapses the reported said they Heard/saw an explosion, and THEN it collapsed, Just like the first one.

Here is an archived version of the breaking news press
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/story23302.asp
About the explosions.

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042704secondaryexplosions.htm
2 audio clips from the collapses both saying an explosion then a collapse.

Video clip of short interview with eyewitness IN the WTC
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv
He says BANG BANG BANG BANG, then 3 huge explosions.

I also have a video of after the First plane crash you hear it, then about 7.5 seconds later you hear a louder explosion. It was a video camera in an office building i believe.
I also have a video which was taped on a tripod, exactly 8 seconds before the collapse the tripod shakes/rumbles and a visible piece of debris is knocked off the right hand side of the WTC, then the building starts to collapse 8 seconds later.
These 2 videos are with a longer Documentery that I dont feel likke cutting and hosting... ill let you know if i find them seperately.
Click to expand...


This is all good and well but you didn't actually address my post.
As yet nobody has brought forward the audio recording of the explosions that brought down WTC 7, which my post was about.
The reason I linger on THIS particular building is because it collapsed seven hours after the twin towers came down and in the full glare of the worlds press.
The point I am making is that if a building could be demolished with all these high quality video and audio recording devices around ........why has nobody produced the concrete prove that this building was demolished by explosives? I.e. audio recordings.
Unless you can prove that this building which is part of this theory was brought down by explosives what chance do you have of ever convincing anybody the towers were?
Please no conspiracy websites, no more hear say, no more assumptions simply produce the goodies and lets all hear the sounds of the explosions that brought down WTC 7.
 
clarky003 said:
I cant see accurately see whats steel and whats concrete, but i wouldnt imagine that even if the steel columns broke at the weld, all of the concrete would just blow away into dust, which is what appears to be happening if you watch carefully.

window's of recorded opportunity.
Click to expand...


you got half of it right...the steel columns at the flor apparently broke and the upper part of the spire just fell down crushing everything below, the top of the spire remained less damaged due to less presure from the weight above (literally there is only the weight of itself)

here:

wtccolla138715.jpg



the red is the steel with casted concrete spire, the blue are the floors, the black is the tubular outer net and the grey is the concrete!

edit: hope the pic works...altough is not very detailed
 
baxter said:
This is all good and well but you didn't actually address my post.
As yet nobody has brought forward the audio recording of the explosions that brought down WTC 7, which my post was about.
The reason I linger on THIS particular building is because it collapsed seven hours after the twin towers came down and in the full glare of the worlds press.
The point I am making is that if a building could be demolished with all these high quality video and audio recording devices around ........why has nobody produced the concrete prove that this building was demolished by explosives? I.e. audio recordings.
Unless you can prove that this building which is part of this theory was brought down by explosives what chance do you have of ever convincing anybody the towers were?
Please no conspiracy websites, no more hear say, no more assumptions simply produce the goodies and lets all hear the sounds of the explosions that brought down WTC 7.
Click to expand...
The only audio sample i have is from a 9-11 documentery and it would be a lot of work to get it out, then compress, then host. Ill look for it on the net. It does not have wtc7 explosives sounds but it has an explosion after the plane hit (9 seconds seperate from the plane exploision) WTC7 I dont know of any audio that has the sound of bombs... Mainly because there was not much concern with building 7.
 
Not much concern? A 47 story building as just been demolished by explosives and there's not much concern?

This theory puts forward is that WTC1, 2 & 7 was demolished by controlled explosive devices.

The amount of chaos and panic there must have been when the two towers fell must have been unimaginable and has such events went unseen, events may have been missed.

BUT WTC 7 happened seven hours later. Plenty of time for the world’s media to gather, plenty of time to record all the events on one of the most infamous days in history.

So why did they miss the sounds of explosions in WTC 7?

It's really simple. The entire theory holds together, or some of it doesn't, in which case the entire theory is flawed.
 
It's really simple. The entire theory holds together, or some of it doesn't, in which case the entire theory is flawed.
Click to expand...

Far more appropriate a comment for the origional theory you suscribe to, which is far more unlikely.. that being it's major flaw. Even FEMA have stated the investigation is on going due to the unlikeliness of their origional theory in the WTC 7 case, not only that but images of a clean north face with a few fires after the collapses proved they have lied about the stated damage to that face.

again compare it to the madrid hotel burning this year.

audio would definately contain some proof, but the largest amount is visually the way it goes down, symmetrically, I cant see any raging fires inside at the time it goes down and no one seems to know otherwise.. all that is known of the fires, is that they where localised on the lower floors of that building.. There are sequential squibs going up the building on the right side characteristic of cutting charges.. if you look closely at the video, its enlarged here, the windows and face nearest are also distorted by something tremendously hot and focused, near bottom left of whats viewable in the enlarged video.

Streamer's, characterisitc of demolishion start coming out of the west face even when the compression between floors hasnt properly started to happen. Also Silversteen's comment's on getting a phone call to have the building pulled

the building falls into its own footprint at freefall speed's ie, lower part's dont resist its own upper weight, every support column inside would have to fail at once throughout the height, width and depth of the building.


Audio would help, if no one has taken any theres no hope in proving that to you if your trying to hinge the whole proof aspect on obtaining audio.
 
Having read and seen your evidence, I see no reference to refutable evidance to support your theory.


THEREFORE I ASSUME THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BLEW UP THE WTC TO GAIN SUPPORT FOR TEH WOR ON TERROR... LAL!"!!11111!!1111

Oh wait, I still have a brain. I've read your arcticles and I've yet to eno****er any actual EVIDENCE support by noted acedemics.
 
Audio would help, if no one has taken any theres no hope in proving that to you if your trying to hinge the whole proof aspect on obtaining audio.
Click to expand...

Actually I hinge my entire beliefs on the fact that no American Administration would in anyway plan and carry out mass murder of its own citizens, which these ridiculous conspiracies suggest.

Until any of these theories come up concrete, undeniable, unquestionable evidence this took place, you are correct you will never convince me other wise.
 
Why does it have to be the US government who caused the buildings to collapse if it wasn't the aircraft? Proving that the building was brought down by explosives DOES NOT PROVE that Bush was somehow responsible.
 
baxter said:
Actually I hinge my entire beliefs on the fact that no American Administration would in anyway plan and carry out mass murder of its own citizens, which these ridiculous conspiracies suggest.

Until any of these theories come up concrete, undeniable, unquestionable evidence this took place, you are correct you will never convince me other wise.
Click to expand...

totally fine with me, but im not delving into any kind of conspiracey, just what is presented in the material of the event, the origional theory for the event is just as ridiculous, theres even more of a of lack rationality, logic and evidence... the bin laden video looks horrifically fake, anyone who watches it now would agree its sketchy, Its just another conspiracey theory, only difference being that one constantly made it into the mainstream media.

Why does it have to be the US government who caused the buildings to collapse if it wasn't the aircraft? Proving that the building was brought down by explosives DOES NOT PROVE that Bush was somehow responsible.
Click to expand...

I really dont know I havnt said that once yet they still imply that im somehow accusing the bush administration. They all keeping coming back to that, I assume because they feel irrationally threatened by any such thought, or its logically the first thing that actually pops into their head for a milisecond.

But even still its important to ask could democracey go wrong in a different way to the way communism did? and be set up in such a way that it would be possible for megalomaniac criminal's to get to the highest authority level's. Could what we call 'democracey' be encouraging corruption to manifest itself in different ways to communisim, Its all valid food for thought.
 
baxter said:
Actually I hinge my entire beliefs on the fact that no American Administration would in anyway plan and carry out mass murder of its own citizens, which these ridiculous conspiracies suggest.

Until any of these theories come up concrete, undeniable, unquestionable evidence this took place, you are correct you will never convince me other wise.
Click to expand...

AWWW dude, don't you forget! Us Government workers, like mailmen, etc, are not human! THey don't have families, they don't have kids, they don't care that they murder innocents of their own country. They don't have a conscience.

Everybody knows the government recruits nothing but cold hearted, uncaring, unflinching, mindless dreg of society automatons without a shred of humanity in them.



So.... maybe they did in fact orchestrate this.



/sarcasm.
 
BREAKING NEWS!

Reptillians blew up the WTC with their POWERES.

Evidence:

Background on reptilians:

http://www.librarising.com/archives/grandconspiracy.html
http://www.librarising.com/archives/under.html
http://www.librarising.com/archives/CM1.htm
http://www.librarising.com/archives/CM2.htm
http://www.librarising.com/archives/covenant.html
http://www.librarising.com/archives/myth.html
http://www.librarising.com/archives/prophecy.html
http://www.greatdreams.com/reptlan/reps.htm
http://www.greatdreams.com/thelie.htm

Evidence of REPTILLIANS CAUSE 911

http://www.greatdreams.com/political/911-411.htm

OFFIFICAL DOCTOR PHD SAYS WAS REPTILLIANS
9-11 was based on secret weapons of the U.S. shadow government (false planes for deception purposes, bombs and ray weapons that melted thousands of tons of steel in bright flashes). These weapons used knowledge derived over decades from contacts with other species of higher intelligence than our own, such as Reptilians and ET Grays.
Click to expand...
http://www.gallerize.com/039 9-11 AND THE ALIEN QUESTION.htm

Ronald Reagan knew this warning!:

http://www.reptoids.com/images/ReaganUNspeech.wav

I beleive Clarky. Now it all makes sense!

The silent explosions were alien technology (lasers)! The planes and the fake dead people inside are UFO illusions and the fires and the inwards falling shown in that blurry photo is clearly the result of a singularity!

See the evidence:::
Blurry photo - Building falls QUICKLY like explosive - No explosive exists therefore SINGULARITY GENERATOR IS INSIDE THE BUILDING AND sucked the toweres into a black hole!.

Why?? Because they needed to cover up their CAVE-BASE beneath New Y city!

New York City, I can confirm, is one of the largest draconian nests in the world. Or rather the ancient underground 'Atlantean' systems that network beneath that area. Revelation chapter 18 describes Wall Street / New York City as the nest or lair of "every foul and hateful bird", or one might conclude every foul and hateful ALIEN. They literally control the entire Wall Street pyramid from below... with more than a little help from reptilian blood lines like the Rockefellers, etc.
Click to expand...
http://www.reptilianagenda.com/exp/e012500a.shtml

This logic is undeniable. Thank you clarky and ronald reagan for showing us the truth!!
 
Mechagodzilla said:
BREAKING NEWS!

Reptillians blew up the WTC with their POWERES.
Click to expand...
You're missing the blatantly obvious... or are you?
Wait... now, I see what's going on. It's so clear!
You're trying to shift the attention off of... Mechagodzilla!
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!​
 
hehe, wow mech, gone to quite alot of trouble to post that shit, I didnt realise you read conspiracies.. i dont believe in any of that wild suggestion.

comment's from a former bush administration member.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm

the sounds depend on the type and amount of charges used, many smaller charges may of been used.

in this demolishion the characteristic's are similar, the squibs seen a few seconds before the collapse.. as is seen in photographs, and video of the WTC building's, the only sounds that can be heard clearly are the starting detonations before fall. the explosions are relatively quiet and are muffled when the building starts to fall, these may not even be cutting charges.. not to mention the surrounding environment isnt bustling with other noises over the top, and then upto 3 times the volume in dust of the building's starting area develops.

The difference in this video is they are all located around the belly and base of the building, because of its relatively low height and clear bad condition.

video of squibs upto 20 floors below collapse.

upto 40 floors below the collapse

image

explosive squibs before the collapse



hi res tripod camera video pauly was talking about - must watch.

sudden hot points melt the facade , of WTC 7

Super human precison flight path into Pentagon, illogical.. and supposedly done by someone who was having trouble landing a Cessna.

CNN news "there appears to be no evidence of a 757", pentagon, most secure building, air defence systems.. "I cant believe what these people have gotten away with" 2:50 into this video

Interviews.

8th floor explosion

Heavey duty explosion's

Basement explosion

Lobby

explosion's
 
clarky003 said:
hehe, wow mech, gone to quite alot of trouble to post that shit, I didnt realise you read conspiracies.. i dont believe in any of that wild suggestion.
Click to expand...

I posit that the above wild suggestion I googled in three minutes contains evidence (evidence in quotation marks, natch) that is just as valid as whatever crazy you're presenting here on a regular basis.

Notice how I presented funny things like 'underlying motive', and at least the semblance to a logical coherency to the random 'facts' presented, and not:
Lots of strange internet things happened that only the bush administration could have done but I AM NOT IMPLYING THAT THEY DID I AM MERELY STATING RANDOM FACTS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT OBVIOUS AND ALSO STUPID IMPLICATION SO LET US PRETEND THAT THE STUPIDEST PART OF WHAT I AM SAYING DOES NOT EXIST
Click to expand...
(Hint: the above paraphrased quote is you, except less subtle about it and in caps.)

Shit, I have blurry Jpegs with red arrows drawn onto them and vague claims about how steel 'should' react coming out the seams here.
Quotes taken out of context, laymen's opinions presented as fact, scientific recreations made in MS FLIGHT SIMULATOR 2003 and more.
Thirdhand eyewitness accounts? I got 'em!
Watch as I claim that imaginary evidence contains proof that I am right but is missing!
Watch as I quote all manner of websites written by 'doctors' and 'religious leaders'.
Check out enough pseudoscience and logical hurdles to choke a buffalo.

I, with enough boredom, can match you point for point and crap for crap.

Only I'm proving the world-shattering reptillian agenda, while you've apparently got nothing to prove here except that you're comically gullible. :O
 
Oh I bet that was fun, get any good video of these reptiles.. ? please stop being daft your acting like a childish Fox news peon.

Its the actual video footage with objective analysis, better than anything you have posted towards the discussion so far full stop, you clearly subscribe to the origional theory with religious commitment even though that theory's complete abundance of missing evidence doesnt seem to bother u, and Im obviously so gullable for putting forward to people the actual unlikelyhood of the origional theory *sarcasm* and the strong suggestion of explosives in alot of evidence recorded by the media. So do us all a favour and stop trying to derail the thread into mindlessness please, like your obviously trying to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top