Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
poppet

America Nuked 9/11

2,270 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

poppet

They said ,Pull the Firefighters ! Not the building. Looks like its going to be another Long year 2016 !

THats right Im skipping 2015 I gotz to Work !

thats very funny you seem to have replaced the word "it" with two words "the firefighters" here have another listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
flyingswan

thats very funny you seem to have replaced the word "it" with two words "the firefighters" here have another listen.

How about meaning pull the firefighting operation? That's an "it", and as you said in your earlier post, who would ask the firefighters to pull a building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

thats very funny you seem to have replaced the word "it" with two words "the firefighters" here have another listen.

Larry Silverstein meant to pull firefighters out of WTC 7 and he did not have the authority to order the demolition of WTC 7. In addition, "pull it" does not refer to explosive demolition in the demolition industry. Just thought that you would like to know that.

.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

thats very funny you seem to have replaced the word "it" with two words "the firefighters" here have another listen.

That's funny that you think "pull" means explosive demolition when it is used to actually pull the building over with cables. If he said "shoot it" then you'd have a point.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222

Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."

Here's a list of 306 demolition projects by Dykon Blasting Corp.

http://www.dykon-blasting.com/History/DemoJobList.htm

Not a single "Pull" in any of them.

Also funny that Silverstein was supposedly involved when he bought less insurance than recommended and had to be talked UP to that amount.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

But funniest is the idea that the fire department would have to be involved in the conspiracy. He was talking to the fire chief after all. When do firemen make a decision to implode a building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

hi Oniomancer

you forgot to mention stontium which is a common product of nuclear explosions.

http://education.jla...tal/ele038.html

EMP is common in nuclear detonations and yet computers and other electronic devices continued to work without failure. Damaging shock waves, mushroom clouds, noise, temperatures in the range of millions of degrees, a blinding flash, huge craters, and yet, nothing there that indicated a nuclear detonation at ground zero because that story was a hoax.

happy new year sky i see your still clinging to the belief that a small fire next to core column 79 on the 12th floor could cause a 47 story building to colaspe in under 10 seconds with the first 100 feet moving at free fall speed...

Happy New Year, and let's start the new year on the right foot and look what fire did to this piece of steel.

horseshoe_steel.jpgo/.

Now, examine this photo and tell us why the WTC building is not falling at free fall speed.

site1085-20120628-111320.jpg

Are there dust plumes and debris falling faster than the collapse of the building itself? Yes, or no.

buildings do not fall down by themselves. period .

Let's go to Mexico City where a 21-story steel frame building collapsed during an earthquake.

Earthquake Damage in Mexico City, Mexico, September 19, 1985

Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building

64700318.jpg

Total collapse of 21-story steel frame office building. Note building standing in background. Many tall concrete structures whose designs met the requirements of the building code performed well. When the magnitude and duration of the quake are considered, the performance as a whole of the one million structures in the city was very good.

http://911research.w...AA_mexico1.html

.and please find me a new york fire fighter who has ever been asked to pull a building ,...

Firefighters do not pull down buildings.

...fire fighters put fires out and rescue cats from trees there not in the business of pulling building despite what lucky larry will tell you.

Now, for the rest of the story.

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything.

So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess."

- Lieutenant William Ryan

----------------------------------------------------------------

A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on.So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

----------------------------------------------------------------

We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires.
Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
"

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

...it would seem that i'm not the only one who believes that this event had a nuclear signiture .

A nuke would have destroyed ground zero and the buildings surrounding the location. You might want to read the following message.

The Dimitri Khalezov "WTC was nuked" hoax

For years, various disinformation agents have been attempting to sabotage the 9/11 truth movement with claims that "mini-nukes" or "nuclear devices" were used to demolish the World Trade Center.

http://www.takeourwo...ukeddisinfo.htm

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Obviousman

What you cannot understand, it seems, is the ability that some of us have to remain NEUTRAL on any given question. That is, not commit to either side.

I do not know and cannot say with certainty that a nuclear device was used there, but it is obvious that SOMETHING special happened, and the simple factual evidence for that is that structural steel was in a molten state for more than a month. Jetfuel and gravity, and phone books and office furniture CANNOT do that.

It seems a likely candidate for such an energy requirement would be a nuclear device or two.

Open-minded critical analysis OBVIOUSMAN, that's all. The consideration of all possibilities. You should try it sometime. :tu:

OHHH! So its more than one one nuke now.

You two are lunatics and your criticisms of skyeagle are

INVALID !

Edited by back to earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

How about meaning pull the firefighting operation? That's an "it", and as you said in your earlier post, who would ask the firefighters to pull a building?

The same people who would ask to pull our legs ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
poppet

Nerd wins challenge with 9/11 Truth physics

TBS reality show called "King of the Nerds" Episode 7, saw a challenge where the nerds had to guess the results of dropped weights onto layers of glass, having to guess how many glass sheets would be shattered.

Danielle a nerd girl gamer (sporting cotton candy pink hair), researched a number of 9/11 Physics sites to win the challenge beating 4 other nerds including a girl called “Moogega” who works as a Nasa Engineer!

Danielle thanks 9/11 conspiracy theorists for her win, thus proving on national TV the credibility of the 9/11 movement.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/57-news-releases-by-others/931-pink-haired-nerd-scores-win-thanks-to-911-truth-websites.html

simple physics disproves the pancake theroy and even a nerd gets it.

Edited by poppet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

Nerd wins challenge with 9/11 Truth physics

So she had to solve a problem involving dropping an object onto panes of glass and she found a "911 physics" website which showed the results of dropping objects onto panes of glass? All that proves is that the "911 physics" website got the right results for dropping objects onto panes of glass. Since glass and steel fail in very different ways, it has little relevance to the collapse of a steel-framed building.

Edit to add: Googling has failed to find me the site with the "911 physics" demo. Do you have a link? I did find some mainstream physics sites that mentioned the scenario. For instance, here is a way to get the same answer as the winner, with all the maths provided:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55633/how-to-calculate-the-number-of-glass-sheets-that-will-be-broken-by-a-falling-obj

Edited by flyingswan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations

Nerd wins challenge with 9/11 Truth physics

TBS reality show called "King of the Nerds" Episode 7, saw a challenge where the nerds had to guess the results of dropped weights onto layers of glass, having to guess how many glass sheets would be shattered.

Danielle a nerd girl gamer (sporting cotton candy pink hair), researched a number of 9/11 Physics sites to win the challenge beating 4 other nerds including a girl called “Moogega” who works as a Nasa Engineer!

Danielle thanks 9/11 conspiracy theorists for her win, thus proving on national TV the credibility of the 9/11 movement.

http://www.ae911trut...h-websites.html

simple physics disproves the pancake theroy and even a nerd gets it.

Also you dont need to be smart **** to know Psychics, all you need is a basic understanding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Nerd wins challenge with 9/11 Truth physics

TBS reality show called "King of the Nerds" Episode 7, saw a challenge where the nerds had to guess the results of dropped weights onto layers of glass, having to guess how many glass sheets would be shattered.

Danielle a nerd girl gamer (sporting cotton candy pink hair), researched a number of 9/11 Physics sites to win the challenge beating 4 other nerds including a girl called “Moogega” who works as a Nasa Engineer!

Danielle thanks 9/11 conspiracy theorists for her win, thus proving on national TV the credibility of the 9/11 movement.

http://www.ae911trut...h-websites.html

simple physics disproves the pancake theroy and even a nerd gets it.

False. The squibs seen in videos and photos proved that the floors were pancaking upon one another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Nerd wins challenge with 9/11 Truth physics

TBS reality show called "King of the Nerds" Episode 7, saw a challenge where the nerds had to guess the results of dropped weights onto layers of glass, having to guess how many glass sheets would be shattered.

Danielle a nerd girl gamer (sporting cotton candy pink hair), researched a number of 9/11 Physics sites to win the challenge beating 4 other nerds including a girl called “Moogega” who works as a Nasa Engineer!

Danielle thanks 9/11 conspiracy theorists for her win, thus proving on national TV the credibility of the 9/11 movement.

http://www.ae911trut...h-websites.html

simple physics disproves the pancake theroy and even a nerd gets it.

The experiment by no means apply to the collapse of the WTC towers. For an example, have the weight of the ball multiply itself each time it breaks a single pane of glass and then, you will understand the insignificance of that experiment.

The floors of the WTC towers were supported by attachment clips, which can support only a limited amount of weight. Let's take a look here. Why does the following depiction debunk the experiment you have presented?

fig5-sm.gif

"As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips." In other words, those little support clips were unable to arrest the momentum of multiple floors crashing down from above.

I might add that the WTC Towers were not solid at all, but in fact, 95% air.

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
poppet

The experiment by no means apply to the collapse of the WTC towers. For an example, have the weight of the ball multiply itself each time it breaks a single pane of glass and then, you will understand the insignificance of that experiment.

The floors of the WTC towers were supported by attachment clips, which can support only a limited amount of weight. Let's take a look here. Why does the following depiction debunk the experiment you have presented?

fig5-sm.gif

"As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips." In other words, those little support clips were unable to arrest the momentum of multiple floors crashing down from above.

I might add that the WTC Towers were not solid at all, but in fact, 95% air.

sky this would only be true if you ignored newton's Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

https://en.wikipedia..._laws_of_motion

Edited by poppet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

sky this would only be true if you ignored newton's Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

https://en.wikipedia..._laws_of_motion

What you have presented doesn't apply to the WTC buildings because they are not solid objects. Remember, their interiors composed 95% air. The focus must be on the floor supports because ground-based observers and observers in the sky watched as the WTC buildings buckled prior to their collapsed which was a clear indication that fire, not explosives, was slowly weakening their steel structures.

nova-1.gif

nova-2.jpg

Earlier skyscrapers (top) had columns spaced evenly across every floor. The World Trade Center (bottom) broke with tradition by having columns only in the central core and along the exterior walls.

nova-3.jpg

nova-4.jpg

As you can see, if a number of floor clips fail, there is no way the momentum of several floors could have been stopped and the result will be a pancake collapse. Air between floors will be laterally forced out the buildings or through a path of least resistance..

.

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

sky this would only be true if you ignored newton's Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

https://en.wikipedia..._laws_of_motion

Could you explain exactly how, preferably with the maths, you think that Newton's Third Law is being violated when one object drops on to another object and damages it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Empty Garden

The towers were not solid objects?

What were they then? Using your standard, every building has air inside of it. People occupy them, after all, and they must breathe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

The towers were not solid objects?

That's right! Look at the construction of the WTC tower.

What were they then?

95% air, and the remainder consisting of steel, aluminum and other materials used in its construction.

Using your standard, every building has air inside of it.

That's right, otherwise, you would be looking at a solid block of steel or concrete.

People occupy them, after all, and they must breathe.

That is why buildings are not solid objects. Do you consider a balloon as solid as a bowling ball?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Montmorency the Dog

The towers were not solid objects?

What were they then? Using your standard, every building has air inside of it. People occupy them, after all, and they must breathe.

what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

you mean the thermal expansion on the 13th floor girder attached to column 79, this one column's failure resulted in total building failure in 10 secounds.

http://www.nist.gov/...c_qa_082108.cfm

From your link.

Before 9/11, no high-rise building had ever collapsed as a result of fire. High-rises are built to withstand all types of office fires, including that which occurred in World Trade Center 7, which is why its collapse has great significance for architectural and engineering professionals in New York City and across the globe. There are valuable lessons to learn from its collapse, lessons that can and will save lives.

Those buildings were not constructed in the same manner as the WTC buildings and they did not suffer the massive impact damage as was the case on 9/11. Fire protection of those other buildings remained intact unlike the WTC buildings, which was evident when witnesses reported the buckling of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 just before they collapsed. That was evidence that fire was weakening their steel structures to the point of failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

As this topic was taking a long time to load, the more recent posts have been split into a new thread, which you can find here.

This thread will remain for archive purposes.

Tiggs

[Forum Mod Team]

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.