Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Empire State Building VS WTC


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#61    susieice

susieice

    December's Child

  • Member
  • 11,045 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pennsylvania

  • "Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice."
    .....Robert Frost

Posted 05 September 2010 - 06:47 PM

View PostQ24, on 05 September 2010 - 12:05 PM, said:

Good post susieice, I think that we should always remember those who died on 9/11 and their families.  It is upsetting to think about what those people went through; the final phone calls and people who jumped to escape the fires get to me especially.

I had to pause right there to put my mind back in logic mode.

Now, I can’t for the life of me understand why you think that discussing the method of the WTC collapses would be “demeaning” to those who lost everything on 9/11.  Can you explain your words that I quoted above any further?  It is disrespectful in my opinion not to question how those people died.

It is worth noting that Bill Doyle, head of the Coalition of 9/11 Families with approximately 7,000 members, has stated that around half of the relatives he represented believe there was a cover-up and inside complicity in the event.

Further, it was due largely to the work of four women known as the Jersey Girls, who all lost their husbands in the event, that the 9/11 Commission was formed.  This investigation was opposed by President Bush and even after the 9/11 report was released, the same women were left deeply unsatisfied in feeling that many of their questions had not been answered.

It is that your opinion is so at odds with all of the above that I question if emotions are clouding your judgement.  Please don’t think that is meant as an attack by the way; understandably this can be an emotional subject.  Just, maybe, something to think about in the links above.
I don't doubt that the US Government may have known more about an impending attack somewhere than they ever admitted to and NYC building codes were far to lax to have provided those people with the proper means of escape. The WTC was built with the purpose of maximun floor space which left all the stairways and supports in the center of the building. The ESB has 8 less floors than the WTC did and almost 1/2 the office space but it has 9 stairwells at it's base while the WTC only had 3, none of which were fire towers which were no longer required. The impact of the planes successfully cut off these core staircases. It was known that much of the spray-on fireproofing was substandard and much had already been shaken off in the 1993 bombing attempt on the north tower. They also knew from that event that the radio communications between firemen and their command posts was virtually non-existant. Their radios did not work in the WTC and those firemen were completely unable to remain in contact with the people on the ground. They never heard the order to evacuate the building, even after the south tower had collapsed. Helicopter crews from the NYPD reported they could see the upper floors of the north tower deteriorating to use their words and predicted the fall of the north tower long before the actual collapse, which would have given a lot of people advanced warning to get out. Non-existent communication between NYPD and FDNY, added to bad radio communications stopped firemen from getting out in time. The book goes on to relate a lot more details of how poorly prepared the authorities really were to handle this disaster. But still no one reported explosions. The city of NY had plenty of things to not want to talk about but I do not believe anyone planted charges to purposefully bring those buildings down. They came down on their own. By denying what went wrong it can't be fixed, if in fact it ever is.

These people told their stories as they experienced them and I for one would believe what they have to say over theories that show no evidence. There were many structural failures that day and lack of goverment ability to cope with the magnitude of what had happened, but I do not believe those buildings were the victims of demolition.

And I just want to add, it definitely was airplanes that struck the towers.

Edited by susieice, 05 September 2010 - 07:12 PM.

"The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to sharpen."  Eden Phillpotts

Opponere draconem est prehendere vitam

"I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here." Arthur C. Clarke

#62    NeoGenesis

NeoGenesis

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 450 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa

  • Living on Earth is expensive, but it does include a free trip around the sun.

Posted 05 September 2010 - 09:47 PM

View PostQ24, on 04 September 2010 - 07:57 PM, said:

NIST already spent $24 million on their official WTC1&2 investigation.

The findings according to their modelling were that, using best estimates for the building properties, the witnessed impact and the fire situation, the structures should not have even begun to collapse.  This is in absolute concurrence with earlier studies carried out by the very engineers who had led the WTC building project and who had found that the structures would withstand various airliner collision and fire scenarios.

Rather than looking for another method of collapse at this point, NIST instead chose to increase every single variable in their existing modelling to its maximum possible severity – they increased the aircraft speed, weight and strength whilst decreasing the building strength, they adjusted the impact angle to cause more damage, they made the fire situation even more severe.  In making these adjustments simultaneously, NIST succeeded in making the buildings initiate collapse in their model.  The only problem being in that doing so, they had not only moved far away from the best estimates but in fact had exceeded the reality of the situation on 9/11… the visual comparison of actual impact damage shows the initial base (non-collapse) case to be the best match.

Despite that Mark Loizeaux generally, in all of his comments, does not  appear to grasp no one is talking about a conventional demolition on  9/11, he does state the obvious here that the event is not quiet.  There  does exist though a mass of evidence in witness statements and video  footage of very loud explosions in the WTC buildings prior to their  collapse.  All that Loizeaux has proven is that he has either missed  this evidence or is being wilfully ignorant of it.

The standard  defence of the official conspiracy theorist to said evidence, is to  claim that explosions described as "bombs" or even thought by the FBI on  the day to be "secondary devices" were caused by the fires, squibs  matching those seen in known demolitions are created by air pressure at  the collapse fronts, a substance with no visible difference to thermite  flowing from the building must be ah I don't know… lead, aluminium,  batteries… etc, etc etc.  So we see there are individual disparate  excuses provided for each piece of evidence.  There is only one event  that can explain the full body of evidence in one fell swoop, and that  is controlled demolition.

Do you know what stands out to me here.

-Modelling
-Best estimates

3 Years of engineering study which it does not have to apply to Architectual engineering only for the rule of thumb is true for any other case in engineering has shown me the gap that exists between theory [numerical models] and practicall outcome studies.
Going to the eyewitness and photographed reports of the second tower impact. The outside frame work of the Towers [Vertical trus] was sliced by the plane like chop sticks that leaves the penetration into the building. The numerical model can only guess what attitude the plane will take from then on with a simulated scenario of the plane breaking up as it enters the building yet the model can not predict what the load barring beams [cross brassing of plane fusselage and the main back bone] of the plane will do to the structure of the building inside, that coupled with the engins main shaft one solid hunk of aircraft grade steel alloy and all the ad-ons, aircraft grade materialls should not be underestimated thus for that eyewitness, numericall impact simulation and vidoe accounts can not pear into the core of the building to see what it Really looks like in there. This was why I said in my earlyer post that numericall investigation coupled with video effidence can not say that the building would have survived that impact or even more impacts also for neither the two of us or NIST were there walking around the structure at the point blank impact of the buildings to asses the damage up close and personal while the towers were still standing.
For that finite reason accepting the numericall study as a argumentive deffencive barrier to say that the building withstood the impact [which it did but to which I would add that it was crippeld] thus the global collapse had to be initiated by "covertly used explosive charges" is a fallacy of the highest accord . The squibs that is such a loved argument of those who say that the towers were brought down using placed charges fail in one criticall category. They are only issolated random occurenceses for the pancake collapse debri can not be a near flat event from the top down going from one floor to another the puffs are the indications of debri that are moving down close to windows, the spread of debri inside that event can only be said to be caotic  at best as looking at the WTC floor design you think that this will stop a 500 plus kilogram beam:



Basically the above is the same or might be a bit more that what the NIST conclueded.
http://wtc.nist.gov/...faqs_8_2006.htm

Wat is evident of a secondary CD charge source that you provide Q24 is thermite. Note the specific cutting property of this element buy use of thermal melting. The amount that would be needed to cutt the Main supports for the towers would be so much that the funnel used to guide the molten metal flow would overflow [this is a fact for the initiation reaction for thermite is fast] thus negating the ideal cutting effect wanted. Another thing needed to take into account would be to placing of the thermite charge, placement of the first charge series at the point of impact would prematurely initiate the charge due to fire but that in my opinion would not be ideal due to the shotgun effect of the plane debri.

The above really is complete hogwash beyond compare be it "covert" or not.

In this I have a final bit to add:

Q24 the weakest link in any construction is where the construction pieces are connected together.You would know that Yes. Take that and the factor of radiant heat, thus will cause the naked steel beams to expand in essence a thermal-jack effect would be generated beween main support pillars and floor trusses ad in the factor of the main beams or floor beams beign bent by the impact. Take that link that would be a cross shaped conection that is the floor beams being bolted or the worst cases puddle weld joined at the main beam with every part bent. Can you see in which dirrection that force being applied to the structures thermal expansion is being forced - It is in every direction instead that which the building design plan calls for.

Right now that is the heated part taken care of, Now the burnable feul dries up and the expanded beams from the heat cools thus it starts to pull on the overstressed links that hold everything together.

Emagine to yourself what happens next.....

Q24 said:

Still, without a definitive conclusion provided by the NIST investigation (they needed to simulate more cases to achieve this), I would say you are correct that, "We are thus locked in a continuous loop of whose argument has the sharpest point".  It is due to the failure of NIST that we are in this position.

I don't think that spending a further $2 million would change any of the above.

Q24 do understand that the amount that I stated was for discussion purpouses only it does not have any link the the real sum that must be spend. Please do take that into account in future discussion.

<It is due to the failure of NIST that we are in this position> - Its not Q24. NIST only went as far as there numericall study took them in the search for a answer. Its is silly to hold them responsible for the actions took be other members of the public just because they do not agree.

Wat was the catalist here?.
The sounds in the Towers and WTC7 that sounded like explosions.... I would figure that you will find it hard to agree here for what I am going to tell you. It is a rather simple matter - The explosion sounds that were hear on various video tapes cought the snaping sounds of beams letting go at the joints due to the overstressed conditions they were subject to.

Hard to believe yes....Take a good look at this link of a famous heavy lift crane called Big Blue:


Pay particular attention to the 0:41 second marker. The sound relation are really prominent to that heard on the WTC tapes.

Q24 said:

I provide numerous examples of severe and long-lasting high-rise building fires which in cases caused deformation of the steelwork with not one previous known case of sudden, near freefall, virtually symmetrical, complete collapse and you would like to counter this with…… a bridge.

I can only refer back to your mention of "whose argument has the sharpest point".

Q24 focus your mind here a bit more and see what was the core argument to that what I said.

You use normal high rise fires that burn that which can be found in a building, but the structure still stands after the fire is put out with some large structure deformation witnessed
I use a feul based fire occuring on a structure in open air - the structure being concrete and steel construction fails and collapses

The core argument points to the difference between a normal object fire [paper, wood and fabrick] and a feul driven fire on a structure that has the same construction method - Steel in poured concrete.

As for the collapse sequence of the WTC towers: I have one tid bit to add that is that building construction being that in the WTC towers held there weight with a stationary movement excluding the swing that the building will have in the wind.
The tops of the WTC towers when the collapse was initiated droped two stories or more through the part structure that was damaged - I will sign to white paper here what I take that the structure was crippled -
thus the redundant load baring capasity was compromised - . The result of that drop imparted a extreme amount of pressure on the collums below that which you can imagine a 20 story intackt structure with x-weight being increased by y-factor [momentum] during the 2plus story drop due to the beams that had the plane impact and the heating and cooling during the ordeal with the feul driven fire giving way - The sounds heard in the tapes -. No base structure that I know can withstand that type of force.

Added to this. When viewing the start initiation of I think the south tower the Top of the building during the second phase of the collapse topells to one side but the collapse has begun as the rest on the top structure rips and shears its way down. What many say that a building will want to fall to the path of least resistance on its own are right in one respect and wrong in the next. The skeleton of the WTC towers did not house light beams to keep everything up. Those same beams if given a small distance to pick up speed the intermediate floors reinforced or not will have a hard time to slow them down. The above picture illustrates this rather well

Q24 said:

It was NIST who effectively confirmed through their computer simulations that the initial impacts did little to the integrity of the structures.  Along with all of the photographic and video evidence that is available today, it would make no difference to our understanding of the damage situation if we had been present at the WTC on 9/11.

hmm... Dont know where you read that document as the real NIST docet disagrees with you here

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST  concluded that the WTC  towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes  severed and  damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating  the  steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel  over  multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel  ignited  multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000  degrees Celsius)  significantly weakened the floors and columns with  dislodged fireproofing to  the point where floors sagged and pulled  inward on the perimeter columns. This  led to the inward bowing of the  perimeter columns and failure of the south face  of WTC 1 and the east  face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the  towers. Both  photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New  York  Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to   collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://wtc.nist.gov/...faqs_8_2006.htm

Q24 you might have misunderstood me here thus I will phrase that line again and take it from there.

My earlyer post that numericall investigation coupled with video  effidence can not say that the building would have survived that impact  or even more impacts also for neither the two of us or NIST were there  walking around the structure at the point blank impact of the buildings  to asses the damage up close and personal while the towers were still  standing.

Right. I have for all my life taken a practical based outcome more than any other. What was the reason for me saying the above is rather simple:

Real data of plane impact into a building, all the complicated bits frozen right there to be anylised and researched that makes a rock hard report possible- no numerical guess work.
But reality intervenes with fire, building collapse ens...
So what is evident here: A ideal situation to solve all the problems, troubles and rumours. But reality its not.

Q24 said:

As I explained in my post #34 (you quote it below so I don't know why you are trying to make this particular point), NIST eventually confirmed that the debris impact damage was superficial to the WTC7 collapse initiation.  Those who accept the controlled demolition had been arguing this point for years and amusingly it was official conspiracy theorists who were forced to back down when the final WTC7 report was released.

You are going to have to be more specific.  As in, how does the failure  of one single column lead to a complete chain reation of failures across  the structure that within seconds results in the entirety of this huge  building entering a symmetrical, freefall, complete collapse?  It cannot  be done - they are effectively claiming that this one all important  column supported vital loads across the entire building - it is madness!

Well to be fair Q24 I am no structural engineer and now expert on the matter as I only have knowleage of this particular field studied through the years for my own interest. I can only work and give based on that which I read but due to the specific nature of this topic and the research made by beuros linke NIST from the only source to which information can be sourced for study purpouses the result of my observation can easly be made out as controversial to other parties. Thus I leave you with these two pictures only with the hope that you will use these as a foundation for understanding and the pdf docet provided in my earlier post as the field of research to help you understand

Attached File  WTC7 investigation.jpg   75.5K   2 downloads

Attached File  Collapse initiation.jpg   72.85K   2 downloads

This one collum might not have supported the weight of the building persay but it was just one part of a larger network that had to work together to get the work done.
But for reasons unclear to me in the fisrt place why build a structure of a substation that by having to construct a special support frame over the station to hold the WTC7 structure.

Q24 said:

Noted you agree that the WTC7 collapse did look like a "CD stunt".

At first when I saw the raw footage Yes but after some time No.

Q24 said:

I don't have time to write an essay now and would like to go much further than the footage alone if I did – there is the witness testimony, the NIST investigation, precedent of building fires, etc, even the seismic data indicates that the WTC collapses were not natural failures.  Remember that the controlled demolitions of tower blocks that we see use conventional methods, unlike the necessarily more covert nature of the WTC demolitions.

Why should there be a "telltale puff" at "every column" in the WTC demolition?  As you appear to believe that no charges were necessary whatsoever, this would be a double-standard in evaluating the opposing theories.  There are however a number of visible squibs during the collapses – charges which were used to ensure that the collapses were not arrested.

I'm unsure of the relevance of your third point.  The charges required inside all three of the collapsed WTC buildings could reasonably have been placed within the month prior to 9/11.  In the type of unconventional demolition used at the WTC there would be no preparation work, no large scale drilling of columns, no detcord involved and no safety requirement thus speeding up the setup process.  Please see top of my post here for the estimate.

Interesting what you say here:

- no preparation work
- no large scale drilling
- no detcord involved and no safety requirement

Must be some explosive used. That and the fact that there are just before the collapse and during to keep things rolling, no blown out windows and a warehouse amount from the blast wave generated by these "special" explosives be it in even in the middle of the building.

With all due respect Q24 you are trundling over a lot of air here.

Edited by NeoGenesis, 05 September 2010 - 10:05 PM.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

There comes a point when a person may no longer be focusing on the merits of the argument, and simply be arguing for the sake of arguing - aquatus1

#63    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 06 September 2010 - 02:08 AM

View Postsusieice, on 05 September 2010 - 06:47 PM, said:

These people told their stories as they experienced them and I for one would believe what they have to say over theories that show no evidence. There were many structural failures that day and lack of goverment ability to cope with the magnitude of what had happened, but I do not believe those buildings were the victims of demolition.
I agree with practically everything you say above, susieice, even if you did not attempt to answer the one question I asked.  The only area where you are not quite correct is in claiming that “no one reported explosions”.  I accept they may not have done in the book which you read but then it obviously doesn’t include this selection of witness statements: -


  • Eyewitness, “When we got down to the 6th floor there was like another shake or another explosion and everyone started panicing…”

  • Eyewitness, “It just went ba-boom, it was like a bomb went off and it was like holy hell coming down them stairs…”

  • Eyewitness, “We were stuck on the stairs for a while and finally got down to the lobby then when we get to the lobby there was a big explosion.”

  • Eyewitness evacuating from 47th floor, “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons.  There was another explosion.. and another.. I didn't know where to run.”

  • Firefighter on 24th floor of WTC1 after hearing an explosion “I'm thinking, Oh. My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!??”

  • Firefighter, “As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway there was a heavy duty explosion.”

  • Firefighter, “I got an eyewitness who said there was an explosion on floors 7 and 8, 7, 8.”

  • Firefighter, “Battalion 3 to dispatch, we’ve just had another explosion.”

  • Firefighter, “… Warren Street, because of the secondary explosion.  We’ve got numerous people covered with dust from the secondary explosion.”

  • Firefighter, “We got another explosion on the Tower, 10-13, 10-13.”

  • Firefighter, “I was involved in the secondary explosion at tower one.”

  • Firefighter, “It was a secondary explosion probably a device either planted before or upon the aircraft that did not explode until an hour later.”

  • Firefighter, “So we’re standing there in the lobby getting all together, all of a sudden we hear [simulates explosive sound], I look down to my right and the elevator has exploded like something like out of a Bruce Willis Die Hard movie.”

  • Police officer, “There were numerous secondary explosions taking place in that building, there were continuous explosions.”

  • Doctor comment on patient, “He was actually on the 78th floor of the second tower and was evacuating the tower and experienced all these explosions and made his way back down.”

  • News reporter, Rick Sanchez, “I spoke with some police officials moments ago Chris, and they told me that they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Centre may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it.”

  • News reporter, Jack Kelly, “Apparently what appears to have happened was that at the same time as the two planes hit the buildings that the FBI most likely thinks there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down.”

  • News reporter, Pat Dawson, “Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he received word of a possibility of a secondary device; that is another bomb going off, there was another explosion which took place, according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.”

  • News reporter, “At 10:30 I tried to leave the building but as soon as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble, then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave because if there was a third explosion this building might not last.”

  • News reporter, Steve Evans, “Then an hour later than that, we had that big explosion from much much lower.  I don’t know what on earth caused that.”

  • News reporter, “We’ve heard reports of secondary explosions after the aircraft impacted, whether in fact there wasn’t something else at the base of the building the coup de grâce to bring them down.”

  • News reporter, “We presume because of the initial explosion there may have been secondary explosions as well that were detonated in the building by these terrorists.”

  • News reporter, “We’re obviously having a bit of trouble right now maintaining our location because we just heard one more explosion… do you know anything about those extra explosions we heard?  Were they car bombs?”

No links I’m afraid because these quotes are taken from all over the place though you will be able to confirm each of them with a quick search of Google and/or YouTube – I actually recommend this as there are plenty more reports than I have listed here (I thought those above were probably enough to make the point).

Anyhow, that dispels the idea that “no one reported explosions”.

Yeah I know… all of the explosions were caused by the fires… far below the impact/fire zones, which fooled trained firefighters into thinking they were bombs and led the FBI and media to believe they were caused by secondary devices on the day, before the official story kicked in.

On top of all this we have Israeli agents arrested on the scene on 9/11 in direct relation to the attacks and whose van appeared to have contained explosives (if sniffer dogs are anything to go by).  There is a very obvious connection to be made here.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#64    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,846 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 06 September 2010 - 04:17 PM

View PostQ24, on 06 September 2010 - 02:08 AM, said:

The only area where you are not quite correct is in claiming that “no one reported explosions”.  I accept they may not have done in the book which you read but then it obviously doesn’t include this selection of witness statements: -
.
.
.
The thing is, these reported explosions didn't cause the building to collapse, and when the buildings did collapse, there were no explosions immediately beforehand.  Anyone who has been near a burning building knows that explosive sounds occur, any sealed container of liquid will explode when heated, and plenty of other things make loud noises when they break.  However, a controlled demolition of a building involves a lot of very loud explosions in a carefully devised sequence, and there is no evidence of anything like that on 9/11.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#65    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 06 September 2010 - 07:09 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 06 September 2010 - 04:17 PM, said:

The thing is, these reported explosions didn't cause the building to collapse, and when the buildings did collapse, there were no explosions immediately beforehand.
This is important because…

… a covert demolition would benefit from loud explosions immediately prior to collapse.*
… no one has ever mentioned that the collapses would be thermite initiated.*


View Postflyingswan, on 06 September 2010 - 04:17 PM, said:

Anyone who has been near a burning building knows that explosive sounds occur, any sealed container of liquid will explode when heated, and plenty of other things make loud noises when they break.
This is important because…

… if there is fire in a building there can never be dedicated explosives.*
… any fire in a building can cause explosions in an area where there is no fire.*
… firefighters always jump to the conclusion that explosions are caused by “bombs” and “secondary devices”.*


View Postflyingswan, on 06 September 2010 - 04:17 PM, said:

However, a controlled demolition of a building involves a lot of very loud explosions in a carefully devised sequence, and there is no evidence of anything like that on 9/11.
This is important because…

… it is so often claimed that the WTC demolitions were precisely like conventional demolitions.*



*In the deranged fantasies of flyingswan.


Why do I even bother responding to such illogic and irrelevance?

Tell you what flyingswan, if I don’t respond to your posts then you can assume it’s because you’re talking rubbish.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#66    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,846 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 06 September 2010 - 11:01 PM

View PostQ24, on 06 September 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

This is important because…

… a covert demolition would benefit from loud explosions immediately prior to collapse.*
… no one has ever mentioned that the collapses would be thermite initiated.*
.
.
.
Ah yes, the theory that since the collapses didn't really look like controlled demolitions after all, if you look a bit harder at the evidence, they must therefore be covert controlled demolitions.  This enables you to claim that any evidence that does look like a controlled demolition is evidence for a controlled demolition and any evidence that doesn't is evidence for a covert controlled demolition.  You thus rule out anything ever being evidence against a controlled demolition and make your theory unfalsifyable.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#67    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 September 2010 - 11:08 PM

View Postsusieice, on 05 September 2010 - 06:47 PM, said:

I don't doubt that the US Government may have known more about an impending attack somewhere than they ever admitted to and NYC building codes were far to lax to have provided those people with the proper means of escape.
So you already belive in a government conspiracy and a subsequent cover up?

View Postsusieice, on 05 September 2010 - 06:47 PM, said:

The WTC was built with the purpose of maximun floor space which left all the stairways and supports in the center of the building. The ESB has 8 less floors than the WTC did and almost 1/2 the office space but it has 9 stairwells at it's base while the WTC only had 3, none of which were fire towers which were no longer required. The impact of the planes successfully cut off these core staircases. It was known that much of the spray-on fireproofing was substandard and much had already been shaken off in the 1993 bombing attempt on the north tower. They also knew from that event that the radio communications between firemen and their command posts was virtually non-existant. Their radios did not work in the WTC and those firemen were completely unable to remain in contact with the people on the ground. They never heard the order to evacuate the building, even after the south tower had collapsed. Helicopter crews from the NYPD reported they could see the upper floors of the north tower deteriorating to use their words and predicted the fall of the north tower long before the actual collapse, which would have given a lot of people advanced warning to get out. Non-existent communication between NYPD and FDNY, added to bad radio communications stopped firemen from getting out in time. The book goes on to relate a lot more details of how poorly prepared the authorities really were to handle this disaster. But still no one reported explosions. The city of NY had plenty of things to not want to talk about but I do not believe anyone planted charges to purposefully bring those buildings down. They came down on their own. By denying what went wrong it can't be fixed, if in fact it ever is.
The fire proofing was "shaken" off in the 93 bomb? All the way up there at the impact site? The firemans radios did not work and they lost contact? All of them? I agree with you that we need to understand what went wrong so we can fix it, starting with the government.


View Postsusieice, on 05 September 2010 - 06:47 PM, said:

These people told their stories as they experienced them and I for one would believe what they have to say over theories that show no evidence. There were many structural failures that day and lack of government ability to cope with the magnitude of what had happened, but I do not believe those buildings were the victims of demolition.


The book was biased as Q4 has already pointed out. That's not saying it's a lie, it just used half the truth to make a point.


View Postsusieice, on 05 September 2010 - 06:47 PM, said:

And I just want to add, it definitely was airplanes that struck the towers.
Agreed. Now what made them fall?


#68    susieice

susieice

    December's Child

  • Member
  • 11,045 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pennsylvania

  • "Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice."
    .....Robert Frost

Posted 07 September 2010 - 02:28 AM

View PostW Tell, on 06 September 2010 - 11:08 PM, said:

So you already belive in a government conspiracy and a subsequent cover up?


The fire proofing was "shaken" off in the 93 bomb? All the way up there at the impact site? The firemans radios did not work and they lost contact? All of them? I agree with you that we need to understand what went wrong so we can fix it, starting with the government.





The book was biased as Q4 has already pointed out. That's not saying it's a lie, it just used half the truth to make a point.



Agreed. Now what made them fall?
I know how much you want to believe there was a government conspiracy that brought down the WTC on 9/11. Things like that can't happen here. There has to be an explanation and there is. Plain old government SNAFU and greed. I truly do believe that our government knew a lot more in advance of 9/11 than we will probably ever know, but I don't think GW (if anyone it would have been Cheney and his cronies) planted explosive devises in the WTC. And WTC7 wasn't the only building damaged so badly it collapsed. WTC3 started to collapse when the south tower went down. That would be the Marriott Hotel building.

Now to answer your questions as best I can. I'm not an expert on demolition or an engineer so please bear that in mind. As far as a cover-up is concerned there was plenty enough to hide. They don't need my help for reasons.

The spray-on fireproofing did indeed fall off much of the lower part of the north tower in 93. It was never fully replaced. That's just a fact and since it was the cheapest way to go, it was used throughout the buildings. It certainly came off when the planes hit those buildings. Now you have no fire protection and nothing but wide open spaces for that plane to go through. No friction, no concrete reinforced walls to slow that plane down or cause it's disintegration like there was at the Pentagon (or the Empire State Building to get back on topic). Those planes cut through there like a hot knife through butter.

Unfortunately, and this is one of the saddest stories of the day, the answer to your question about the firemen's radios is yes. They knew from the 93 bombing that their radios did not work in the WTC and they were the same radios that they carried that day. Read their story sometime. Over 95% of the firemen in those buildings could not contact their ground command or each other unless they physically came into contact. They couldn't even get a proper frequency. Nor was there communications between the FDNY and the NYPD who's radios did work. After the south tower collapsed, survivors coming out of the north tower reported that they saw a group of about 100 firefighters on the 19th floor. They were exhausted from carrying 100 pounds of equipment in full gear up all those flights of stairs and some where having breathing problems. They never heard the orders from their commanders to evacuate. A lot of them that did come out said they didn't even know the south tower had collapsed. As I said in an earlier post, the NYPD helicopter crews reported the deterioration of the north tower before the collapse and the police got their evacuation orders. They did warn all the firemen they passed. How's that for SNAFU? That's pathetic and unexcusable to me.

A lot should be done. And if so many people seriously believe someone in our government deliberately brought those buildings down then another investigation should be in order, but I've heard a lot of talk and seen no evidence or an indication that anyone in a position to call for that investigation has. Surely there are powers that be in NYC that could demand one if they felt this scenario is a possibility. They have enough of their own to worry about but surely if they think those buildings came down as a half-cooked excuse to go to war with Iraq they'd be livid.

I'll be thinking twice before I go way up in one of those modern high-rises. When you breed a bigger mouse as cheaply as you can, you better spend some bucks to build a better mousetrap. If one of them goes wild on ya, things can get real bad, quick.

Edited by susieice, 07 September 2010 - 02:52 AM.

"The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to sharpen."  Eden Phillpotts

Opponere draconem est prehendere vitam

"I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here." Arthur C. Clarke

#69    susieice

susieice

    December's Child

  • Member
  • 11,045 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pennsylvania

  • "Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice."
    .....Robert Frost

Posted 07 September 2010 - 05:29 AM

Here is a link to some of the info given out about radio communications that day. Will post what I can find.

http://en.wikipedia....mber_11_attacks

Scroll down to the Fire Dept. It talks about the radios.

http://www.9-11commi...1Report_Ch9.htm

Again, keep scrolling.

http://www.mishalov....c_firedept.html

This link specifically mentions the police helicopters mentioned above and lack of communication between NYPD and FDNY. I had seen this stuff in books other than the one I linked to. Please also note that when the pilot makes his call he warns the ground that about 15 floors down (from the top) the building is "glowing red". He then says that the collapse is inevitable.

http://findarticles....9/ai_n29358404/

Edited by susieice, 07 September 2010 - 05:48 AM.

"The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to sharpen."  Eden Phillpotts

Opponere draconem est prehendere vitam

"I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here." Arthur C. Clarke

#70    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Commander in the Secret Space Fleet

  • Member
  • 24,478 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 07 September 2010 - 07:02 AM

View PostW Tell, on 06 September 2010 - 11:08 PM, said:

So you already belive in a government conspiracy and a subsequent cover up?
That's a very enormously different kettle of fish - that the govt. may have had some advance knowledge but didn't act on it, either through incompetence or maybe even deliberately - from saying that they actually did it themselves. This is what I mean when I say that these leaping to the most dramatic conclusion possible doesn't do the truth movement any favours at all.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#71    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 September 2010 - 12:23 AM

View PostNeoGenesis, on 05 September 2010 - 09:47 PM, said:

3 Years of engineering study which it does not have to apply to Architectual engineering only for the rule of thumb is true for any other case in engineering has shown me the gap that exists between theory [numerical models] and practicall outcome studies.
Ok, so you do not trust the accuracy of NIST’s computer simulations and their underlying physics.


View PostNeoGenesis, on 05 September 2010 - 09:47 PM, said:

The squibs that is such a loved argument of those who say that the towers were brought down using placed charges fail in one criticall category. They are only issolated random occurenceses for the pancake collapse debri can not be a near flat event from the top down going from one floor to another the puffs are the indications of debri that are moving down close to windows, the spread of debri inside that event can only be said to be caotic  at best as looking at the WTC floor design you think that this will stop a 500 plus kilogram beam:
You characterise the squibs as “isolated random occurrences”.  If this were true then we would expect to see numerous ejections at random heights and various spacings across the building façade.  As we know the office space was open plan, it would also make sense for pressure from the collapse to build at the corners of each floor rather than on one of the flat faces.  What we actually see are distinct squibs that appear at approximately equal  intervals toward the centre face of the building.  This is too consistent by far for what you claim is a “chaotic” event.

There are many videos but this one shows two sets of squibs at approximate 10 floor intervals below the impact zone before the collapse front overtakes where the charges are occurring: -




Just to clarify, these would be the explosive charges used to ensure that the collapses completed.


View PostNeoGenesis, on 05 September 2010 - 09:47 PM, said:

Wat is evident of a secondary CD charge source that you provide Q24 is thermite. Note the specific cutting property of this element buy use of thermal melting. The amount that would be needed to cutt the Main supports for the towers would be so much that the funnel used to guide the molten metal flow would overflow [this is a fact for the initiation reaction for thermite is fast] thus negating the ideal cutting effect wanted. Another thing needed to take into account would be to placing of the thermite charge, placement of the first charge series at the point of impact would prematurely initiate the charge due to fire but that in my opinion would not be ideal due to the shotgun effect of the plane debri.
Separate to the above, thermite charges would be used to initiate the collapses.

If we were dealing with a commercial controlled demolition, using conventional shaped charges and blasting caps, then premature initiation could certainly be a problem in a fire.  In this case we are dealing with thermite which has a high ignition temperature that cannot be achieved by conventional methods or diffuse flames as in the WTC.  The ignition method could have been some form of electrical or chemical detonator that would be destroyed in any direct impact rather than ignited – still remember, there were limited columns which took the impact.  There are further/alternative methods which could safeguard the demolition set-up such as constructing the units from a durable, fire resistant material, attaching them to the columns facing away from impact or even a level below where the known impact will occur.  The impact and fire are really not a problem if you use your initiative and the masterminds of the operation would be infinitely more resourceful than any of us.

You mention that the amount of thermite needed would cause an overflow and indeed it may have done inside the elevator shafts where we could not see.  There was however a charge displaced by the impact in WTC2 which came to rest in the North East corner of the building: -




This flow began only in the minutes prior to collapse.


View PostNeoGenesis, on 05 September 2010 - 09:47 PM, said:

Right now that is the heated part taken care of, Now the burnable feul dries up and the expanded beams from the heat cools thus it starts to pull on the overstressed links that hold everything together.

Emagine to yourself what happens next.....
…… the thermite charges are initiated?   :mellow:


View PostNeoGenesis, on 05 September 2010 - 09:47 PM, said:

The sounds in the Towers and WTC7 that sounded like explosions.... I would figure that you will find it hard to agree here for what I am going to tell you. It is a rather simple matter - The explosion sounds that were hear on various video tapes cought the snaping sounds of beams letting go at the joints due to the overstressed conditions they were subject to.

Hard to believe yes....Take a good look at this link of a famous heavy lift crane called Big Blue:
That is actually not a bad sound comparison to some of the WTC explosions.

However, there is enough evidence from witnesses inside and outside of the buildings that explosions were occurring far below the fire zones and neither could all of the reported events have been caused by breaking connections.  For instance one of the firefighters I listed above mentioned the elevator exploding and another said that the elevator doors were blown off – breaking connections cannot do that.  Furthermore, I trust that the FDNY and FBI, aware of the fire situation, would not jump to the conclusion of “secondary devices” without good cause.  There was even one interesting episode where a group of firemen discussed if a controlled demolition brought WTC2 down immediately after its collapse.


View PostNeoGenesis, on 05 September 2010 - 09:47 PM, said:

The result of that drop imparted a extreme amount of pressure on the collums below that which you can imagine a 20 story intackt structure with x-weight being increased by y-factor [momentum] during the 2plus story drop due to the beams that had the plane impact and the heating and cooling during the ordeal with the feul driven fire giving way - The sounds heard in the tapes -. No base structure that I know can withstand that type of force.

Just because we can state the obvious that the dynamic load is more than the static load, this does not automatically mean that the upper block should overcome the lower intact structure indefinitely.  You mention the 20-storey intact structure as though this was an indestructible hammer that smashed its way down through the building.  This idea of the building ‘crushing itself’ is quite ridiculous because the upper block itself must be deteriorating as it falls (“every action has an equal and opposite reaction” and all that).  After the upper block has fallen through its own height what remains is largely debris that is more fluid than the original intact block and much of which is now falling outside of the building footprint…. and at this point there is still a 70-storey fully intact section of the building to go…. yet the debris cloud continued to crush down through it all with no loss of momentum?  No – the lower structure was clearly compromised by the explosives indicated by the squibs discussed above.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#72    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,846 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 08 September 2010 - 10:19 AM

View PostQ24, on 08 September 2010 - 12:23 AM, said:

Just because we can state the obvious that the dynamic load is more than the static load, this does not automatically mean that the upper block should overcome the lower intact structure indefinitely.  You mention the 20-storey intact structure as though this was an indestructible hammer that smashed its way down through the building.  This idea of the building ‘crushing itself’ is quite ridiculous because the upper block itself must be deteriorating as it falls (“every action has an equal and opposite reaction” and all that).  After the upper block has fallen through its own height what remains is largely debris that is more fluid than the original intact block and much of which is now falling outside of the building footprint…. and at this point there is still a 70-storey fully intact section of the building to go…. yet the debris cloud continued to crush down through it all with no loss of momentum?  No – the lower structure was clearly compromised by the explosives indicated by the squibs discussed above.
Are you claiming that the upper block somehow evaporates?  Whatever happens to it structurally, the falling mass is still there and getting larger all the time as debris from the lower block is added to it.  "Much is now falling outside the building footprint"?  Whatever happened to the claim that the building falls through the path of greatest resistance?  Have you actually read the paper of Bazant et al that models the way the crush fronts spread through the upper and lower blocks?
http://www.civil.nor...ot Cause It.pdf

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#73    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,558 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 08 September 2010 - 03:26 PM

There was a 9/11 special the other night on Nat Geo...much clearer video of the collapses. The "squibs" appeared to be air being expulsed through windows and such, lasting a second or so...it was not like a sudden blast, much more like a "whoosh"...you could see the smoke/dust being blown out through the opening over a short period of time. Not just an instantaneous pop.


#74    NeoGenesis

NeoGenesis

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 450 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa

  • Living on Earth is expensive, but it does include a free trip around the sun.

Posted 08 September 2010 - 08:04 PM

Q24 said:

…… the thermite charges are initiated?   :mellow:

You sir owe me a fresh cup of coffee :lol:.

You obviously know what I would have said, but some humour are appresciated

Q24 said:

Ok, so you do not trust the accuracy of NIST's computer simulations and their underlying physics.

No I trust them to give a interviewed research document to aid in the explenation of the WTC inccident.
More can not be asked from numerical studies.

Q24 said:

You characterise the squibs as "isolated random occurrences".  If this were true then we would expect to see numerous ejections at random heights and various spacings across the building façade.  As we know the office space was open plan, it would also make sense for pressure from the collapse to build at the corners of each floor rather than on one of the flat faces.  What we actually see are distinct squibs that appear at approximately equal  intervals toward the centre face of the building.  This is too consistent by far for what you claim is a "chaotic" event.

Q24 the point that I was trying to shed light on here is the difference between a random puff from any window to that of a planned detonation of a building in which a initiation pattern is clearly visible.
Watching the sourced videos and that on You-Tube I see no such pattern exist but at most 3 puffs eminating from some point on a facade of the building during the collapse phase.

For that I give a comparison video of a CD event:


Q24 said:

<  pressure from the collapse to build at the corners of each floor >

Pressure if a static condition does not know a corner from a flat surface nor a straight hallway from a bend at the end. Static pressure generates a force on every cubic milimeter of a structure. The only condition that can influence Static pressure is Area ratio. A increase in Area ratio will favour a static pressure with a blocked flow condition [closed windows] a decrease in Area ratio will favour a dynamic pressure [ moving air ] condition in a structure with venting to outside atmospheric. The Static condition will show dust puffs eminating from blown out windows as the dynamic condition will be more promenent in the elevator shafts.

The falling debri face in the WTC towers will not fall in a flat faced cylindrical manner down the square apperture of the building nor in a square attitude. Therefore I describe the entire event as a chaotic system.

Q24 said:

There are many videos but this one shows two sets of squibs at approximate 10 floor intervals below the impact zone before the collapse front overtakes where the charges are occurring: -
Separate to the above, thermite charges would be used to initiate the collapses.
Just to clarify, these would be the explosive charges used to ensure that the collapses completed.

< These would be the explosive charges used to ensure that the collapses completed > Q24 is this your opinion on the observed condition or that of the "Cell's" that supposedly planted the devices. Because I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that if this was the work of the Cell that did it they are nothing but ameture, untrained thugs in CD thus comes the core object to light through the use of thermite to bring the towers down. Really is that the difficulty they went to using the most inefficiant, ineffective method known for cutting structure components.

Q24 said:

If we were dealing with a commercial controlled demolition, using conventional shaped charges and blasting caps, then premature initiation could certainly be a problem in a fire.  In this case we are dealing with thermite which has a high ignition temperature that cannot be achieved by conventional methods or diffuse flames as in the WTC.  The ignition method could have been some form of electrical or chemical detonator that would be destroyed in any direct impact rather than ignited – still remember, there were limited columns which took the impact.  There are further/alternative methods which could safeguard the demolition set-up such as constructing the units from a durable, fire resistant material, attaching them to the columns facing away from impact or even a level below where the known impact will occur.  The impact and fire are really not a problem if you use your initiative and the masterminds of the operation would be infinitely more resourceful than any of us.

Do you know how ridiculous the above sounds.
Firstly the only locations where the hopelessly ridiculous thermite charges could be placed
- Floor beams
Why?..... The main beams are encased in concrete, Thermite can not burn through concrete. A fact. If the claim were to be true then steel smelters will ceas to function as the molten steel would burn through the kettle. Thermite is just that - molten metal - with no difference in temprature between the two.
If what you say is true that the charges were placed at the back side of the pillars to affoid being knocked down by the aircraft the crumbled concrete with the strapped on charge on in anyway be dissloged from the pillar.

The former is obvious the latter ridiculous.

These "Masterminds" look more like uneducated, untrained backally thugs

Q24 said:

You mention that the amount of thermite needed would cause an overflow and indeed it may have done inside the elevator shafts where we could not see.  There was however a charge displaced by the impact in WTC2 which came to rest in the North East corner of the building: -
This flow began only in the minutes prior to collapse.

Q24 that stream of molten metal evident in the video might just as well be aircraft aluminium.

Q24 said:

  
Just because we can state the obvious that the dynamic load is more than the static load, this does not automatically mean that the upper block should overcome the lower intact structure indefinitely.  You mention the 20-storey intact structure as though this was an indestructible hammer that smashed its way down through the building.  This idea of the building 'crushing itself' is quite ridiculous because the upper block itself must be deteriorating as it falls ("every action has an equal and opposite reaction" and all that).  After the upper block has fallen through its own height what remains is largely debris that is more fluid than the original intact block and much of which is now falling outside of the building footprint…. and at this point there is still a 70-storey fully intact section of the building to go…. yet the debris cloud continued to crush down through it all with no loss of momentum?  No – the lower structure was clearly compromised by the explosives indicated by the squibs discussed above.

I disagree about the "squibs" in the lower structure.
The shockwave from the charge that went off in the deeper collumns will not shoot out one single window but multiple windows on the same floor. Simple logic are needed here.

The dust cloud seen in the videos are not the remnants of the tops when first it hit the lower sections of the towers but is only a piece of the total amount of material. The main beams, trusses, roof structure and various other bits that made out the the top parts that came down would still be moving down the towers interior. The path of least resistance there would be the horizontal floor trusses and the gaps between that even if it was made rienforced concrete would be off little barrier to the main beams coming down the tower.

Attached File  WTC skeleton.jpg   13.77K   0 downloads

The result of this chaos would be unsupported main beams that would get batterd by the material moving down thus sway and  buckle or break so contrebuting to the total mass moving down the  tower.
The towers were not made of lightweight leggos that would break to bits almost instantly after the first moment of collapse.

Really Q24. I know that you posses a much more soffisticated mind to let something like this be a impassible mind barrier.

Edited by NeoGenesis, 08 September 2010 - 08:56 PM.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

There comes a point when a person may no longer be focusing on the merits of the argument, and simply be arguing for the sake of arguing - aquatus1

#75    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 September 2010 - 11:37 PM

View PostNeoGenesis, on 08 September 2010 - 08:04 PM, said:

Q24 the point that I was trying to shed light on here is the difference between a random puff from any window to that of a planned detonation of a building in which a initiation pattern is clearly visible.
Watching the sourced videos and that on You-Tube I see no such pattern exist but at most 3 puffs eminating from some point on a facade of the building during the collapse phase.

For that I give a comparison video of a CD event:
Yes of course there are differences between conventional demolitions and the non-conventional WTC demolitions.  I’m not sure why so many people expect to see a carbon copy of conventional demolitions on 9/11 as this would completely defeat the object of the intended deception.  

Specifically regarding the pattern of detonations that you mention, this was simply not required in the Twin Towers – being top down demolitions, only removal of columns at intervals were needed to ensure the upper block could continue the collapse with minimum resistance.


View PostNeoGenesis, on 08 September 2010 - 08:04 PM, said:

I disagree about the "squibs" in the lower structure.
The shockwave from the charge that went off in the deeper collumns will not shoot out one single window but multiple windows on the same floor. Simple logic are needed here.
I would actually expect the shockwave from a column cutting charge to be far more focussed than the air pressure of a chaotic collapse.  You think that the first cannot be focussed but the second can… despite it being seen that squibs in demolitions are focussed ejections.   :hmm:


View PostNeoGenesis, on 08 September 2010 - 08:04 PM, said:

Really is that the difficulty they went to using the most inefficiant, ineffective method known for cutting structure components.
I could think of much more inefficiant ways of causing the core columns to fail… office fire for instance.  Whilst thermite would obviously not be the choice in commercial demolitions, it is ideal for the purpose on 9/11 – causing the structure to fail through heat weakening of the steel (mirroring the official story though more effectively).  How would you initiate what is meant to be a covert controlled demolition?


View PostNeoGenesis, on 08 September 2010 - 08:04 PM, said:

Do you know how ridiculous the above sounds.
Firstly the only locations where the hopelessly ridiculous thermite charges could be placed
- Floor beams
Why?..... The main beams are encased in concrete, Thermite can not burn through concrete.
The WTC columns were not encased in concrete.


View PostNeoGenesis, on 08 September 2010 - 08:04 PM, said:

Q24 that stream of molten metal evident in the video might just as well be aircraft aluminium.
The WTC2 molten flow cannot be aluminium.  With a relatively low melting temperature, molten aluminium (at the point it would begin to flow) appears a silver colour in daylight conditions.  The actual colouration of the flow indicates temperatures in excess of 1,000oC.   There is no way that the aluminium could have been contained whilst a near perfect heat transfer from the fire took place before it was released from the building.

WTC2 flow: -

Posted Image


Molten aluminium at melting point: -

Posted Image


Thermite reaction: -

Posted Image


View PostNeoGenesis, on 08 September 2010 - 08:04 PM, said:

The towers were not made of lightweight leggos that would break to bits almost instantly after the first moment of collapse.
I agree, which is why there should have been loss of momentum during a natural collapse.  It is the official story which treats the towers like lego, matchsticks, cards, etc.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users