the Controled Demolition of WTC 1,2,7 and the pent

[Sunofone]

here are a few details to start this thread i could not possibly include all the evidence in one post--please post any images that you feel are relavent but are missing from here

*******************************************************************

WTC1 --

video of collapseshowing flashes

*****************************

videos of collapse showing balls of fire erupting from the tower as well as ground tremor affecting the tripod and shot

*****************************

video of squibs or evidence of cutting charges

*********************************************************************

WTC2 --

video of flashes from wtc 2

******************************

images of balls of fire from WTC2

**********************************************************************

WTC 7 --

video of WTC 7 collapsing showing the center building on top and center collapse first-evidence of a technique known as "crimping" or taking out the middle support first

*******************************

video showing squibs in the collapse of WTC 7

****************************************************************************

pentagon evidence soon to follow

[Hans Dolbrook]

i do'nt see anything but the building collapsing my friend.but i'm not gonna tell you you do'nt see it!

[Sunofone]

south tower evidence of demolition--this sequence begins a few seconds prior to collapse--the fires were out according to firefighters yet unbelievably rows of cutting charges can be seen igniting and erupting flame and then a larger explosion bellows out huge balls of fire afer which the tower collapses in on itself--it didnt tip over as you would expect from a building that has had some of its supports buckle

********************************************************************

more cutting charges from WTC 2

*****************************

south tower

north tower

[Shaftsbury]

the fires were out according to firefighters

The fires were out ? I have done lots of searching on this subject, and NEVER have I found any evidence that the fires were out prior to the tower collapses.

In fact the information I have found suggests that fire department communications were so severely crippled that they couldn't tell what was happening in the upper floors of the towers.

And also the main focus of the initial emergency response was on search and rescue, NOT fire fighting.

Source

Also:

Police Department helicopters circling the Twin Towers reported that the North Tower, the second to fall, was glowing red on the outside, an indication that it was in danger of imminent collapse. Cops inside the building heard the warnings and most of them got out. Firefighters, who had inferior radios that were incompatible with the NYPD’s system, did not, and scores of them were killed when the skyscraper gave way.

Those pictures you provide, to me show only evidence of the floors sequential collapse as postulated in the official accounts and subsequent reports.

Since you suspect the US government of falsifying the events and reports, how do you feel about external reports?

Role of fire resistance issues in the collapse of the Twin Towers - Institute for Research in Construction National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada

Edited June 12, 2005 by Shaftsbury

[Neo2005]

A 747 hit the towers.

Your reading to much into it.

There were no squibs.

It was a 747! that if anything was the "squib"

[Dr_Strangelove]

A 747 hit the towers.

Your reading to much into it.

There were no squibs.

It was a 747! that if anything was the "squib"

671457[/snapback]

I'm sorry but I'm not sold on the idea of a government conspiracy to knock the towers down. It's going to take a lot more substantial evidence to prove this theory out.

[Neo2005]

A 747 hit the towers.

Your reading to much into it.

There were no squibs.

It was a 747! that if anything was the "squib"

671457[/snapback]

I'm sorry but I'm not sold on the idea of a government conspiracy to knock the towers down. It's going to take a lot more substantial evidence to prove this theory out.

671507[/snapback]

Why did you quote my post to say that?

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

Some people hate the government so much they will believe anything that makes it look bad.

[Monkyburd]

A frigin plane nailed into the building traveling close to the speed of sound. I would fall down from that if I were a building too. Moron.

[Hans Dolbrook]

may i please ask a simple question please?if these dynamite charges were set off in the building,who put them there and set off the charges?has anybody that planted or detonated any of these charges,came forward?

[Dr_Strangelove]

A 747 hit the towers.

Your reading to much into it.

There were no squibs.

It was a 747! that if anything was the "squib"

671457[/snapback]

I'm sorry but I'm not sold on the idea of a government conspiracy to knock the towers down. It's going to take a lot more substantial evidence to prove this theory out.

671507[/snapback]

Why did you quote my post to say that?

671512[/snapback]

Sorry Neo, I'll watch more closely where I post next time.

[Sunofone]

A 747 hit the towers.

Your reading to much into it.

There were no squibs.

It was a 747! that if anything was the "squib"

671457[/snapback]

WRONG!!

a plane never touched WTC 7 !!

and no engineering manual or expert can explain the collapse of WTC 7 --fire cannot produce these results\/

or these "SQUIBS" \/

just look at the video included for WTC 7 --fire cannot cause a building to collapse in this manner --for sol's sake "the emporer is naked" --you people can sit there and gloat over his new clothes but i will always insist he is naked!!!!!!!!

ps---A PLANE NEVER BREACHED THE SUPPORTS OF THIS BUILDING!!!!

pss---NEVER!!!!

[Sunofone]

A frigin plane nailed into the building traveling close to the speed of sound. I would fall down from that if I were a building too.    Moron.

672136[/snapback]

not if you were "designed" to withstand multiple impacts from planes with "more" potential energy(ie-larger fuel tank and higher top speed)--your the only moron stickin you turd where it dont belong--rationalize your statement or quite trolling

[Sunofone]

A 747 hit the towers.

Your reading to much into it.

There were no squibs.

It was a 747! that if anything was the "squib"

671457[/snapback]

I'm sorry but I'm not sold on the idea of a government conspiracy to knock the towers down. It's going to take a lot more substantial evidence to prove this theory out.

671507[/snapback]

if a 7 billion dollar insurance payoff and a pipeline through afg worth trillions doesnt sell you "nothing" will--plus,if you believe the "official story",you may even sympathize with the israeli war crimes against palestinians

[aquatus1]

Yes, he must be a war crime sympathizer. Heaven forbid he's an intelligent individual with his own opinion on the matter.

[Dr_Strangelove]

Yes, he must be a war crime sympathizer.  Heaven forbid he's an intelligent individual with his own opinion on the matter.

672462[/snapback]

Thanks Aquatus,

I probably stomp around conspiracy theory more than most but in order to support this I'll need to see more evidence. It really doesn't bother me that somebody should attack my opinion; it just helps me come to a conclusion.

[mrmonsoon]

Yes, he must be a war crime sympathizer.  Heaven forbid he's an intelligent individual with his own opinion on the matter.

672462[/snapback]

Everyone is intitled to their own mind and opinion on this and all subjects. I think the only prequesite would be to have proof of what you say, when you say it here.

[turbonium]

Why is it that whenever the WTC 7 collapse is proven to be a controlled demolition, as in sunofone's earlier post with the video, that there is never a provable counter argument made? All you do is pick on a comment he makes outside the evidence he has presented. That speaks volumes to me about the "methodology", as aq1 likes to say, about those buying the Gov't story.

If you can't provide actual EVIDENCE to support the story that Bin Laden and 19 Arab 'hijackers' did everything on 9/11, then you're just blowing smoke. We put up links and evidence to support our case. So to you I say the same - put up or shut up.

[Dr_Strangelove]

Why is it that whenever the WTC 7 collapse is proven to be a controlled demolition, as in sunofone's earlier post with the video, that there is never a provable counter argument made? All you do is pick on a comment he makes outside the evidence he has presented. That speaks volumes to me about the "methodology", as aq1 likes to say, about those buying the Gov't story.

If you can't provide actual EVIDENCE to support the story that Bin Laden and 19 Arab 'hijackers' did everything on 9/11, then you're just blowing smoke. We put up links and evidence to support our case. So to you I say the same - put up or shut up.

672557[/snapback]

All I'm saying is that I still have an easier time buying that terrorists knocked the towers down. Keep working at it, you might get enough evidence someday.

[turbonium]

All I'm saying is that I still have an easier time buying that terrorists knocked the towers down. Keep working at it, you might get enough evidence someday.

We DO have enough evidence

Molten Steel

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.

“Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.”

These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Molten steel cannot be the result of these fires - period!! The melting point of steel is 2800 F. Hydrocarbon fires such as this can only reach a MAXIMUM temperature (in ideal controlled conditions) of 1520 F.

From this link is shown that NO steel framed structure has collapsed in either actual fires OR in controlled experiments....

Tests of Steel in Fires

In the case of the fire at One Meridian Plaza, the fire burned uncontrolled for the first 11 hours and lasted 19 hours. Contents from nine floors were completely consumed in the fire. In addition to these experiences in fire incidents, as a result of the Broadgate fire, British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington in the mid-1990s to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beam reaching 800-900 degrees Centigrade (1,500-1,700 degrees Fahrenheit) in three tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 degrees Centigrade [1,100 degrees Fahrenheit]), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.

At 3 PM, not long before the virtual free-fall collapse (as the video shows), this photo shows how much the fires were "raging" in WTC 7! Not that it would matter if they were all-encompassing fires - as I have proven with the above source, no such fires can cause the collapse of the steel frame, and these fires certainly cannot create molten pools of steel, as were found in the basement of the builiding (as with WTC 1 and 2).

This evidence alone is proof that the WTC 7 building did not collapse due to the fires within it.

Where is your proof to counter these points of evidence?

Molten steel. Free fall collapse. Fire temperatures. First ever steel framed collapses.

Back up your case that Bin Laden and his gang could defy the laws of physics and change the properties of steel and fire.

Links and sources are required, as I have done here in my post.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Edited June 13, 2005 by turbonium

[Dowdy]

i'm not going to be bothered reading everything that was said here but if you want a very good convincing 45min doco that said the WTC was controlled demolition download it here

[Dr_Strangelove]

i'm not going to be bothered reading everything that was said here but if you want a very good convincing 45min doco that said the WTC was controlled demolition download it here

672702[/snapback]

Okay, I did what you asked, Pretty impressive. Now lets say I buy into all this. This is not to say I accept it but lets say I do buy into it. What are we going to do? I'm a American citizen, pay my taxes, have one son in the military, personally work as a federal contractor, I even vote and carry the card for a political party.

What do you recommend I do?

[Sunofone]

What do you recommend I do?

672804[/snapback]

get your child out of the military-- it has been hi-jacked by oil cartels--he should be defending the homeland --start spreading the truth --our govt has also been hi-jacked by people who strive for a one world govt--they are posessed with destroying the constitution and defacing america--its going on right now under everyones noses--only by spreading the truth and awakening others can we summon the beast that is the mob and that "it" may seek swift vengence and justice--

[aquatus1]

And then?

Mob rule?

[Shaftsbury]

What do you recommend I do?

672804[/snapback]

get your child out of the military-- it has been hi-jacked by oil cartels--he should be defending the homeland --start spreading the truth --our govt has also been hi-jacked by people who strive for a one world govt--they are posessed with destroying the constitution and defacing america--its going on right now under everyones noses--only by spreading the truth and awakening others can we summon the beast that is the mob and that "it" may seek swift vengence and justice--

672915[/snapback]

Hehe ya that's a good one, pull all the honest people out of the military so the only ones left in control, and with the good weapons are the corrupted.

Then when they least expect it attack them with rocks and bottles?

I think you might want to rethink that strategy just a bit.

Edited June 13, 2005 by Shaftsbury