Scott, you do realize ole Geoff was semi-paying you a complement here..that I will second.
I think everyone has done a pretty good job of keeping it "above the belt"
9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
Scott, you do realize ole Geoff was semi-paying you a complement here..that I will second.
I think everyone has done a pretty good job of keeping it "above the belt"
He doesn't specify. In any case, these squibs, in my view, are conlusive evidence that the WTC buildings were, in fact, controlled demolitions.
Most likely according to whom? debunking911.com? I certainly haven't seen NIST comment on it...
Oh come on. There were explosives on every floor and no once noticed. … not likely.[/quote]
Not sure it had to be on every floor. Jerry Russel who has a master's degree in Engineering from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon, had this to say:
*************************************
The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity.
*************************************
http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm
The following link also intrigued me. At first, I thought, it couldn't be... but I'm not discounting it as a possibility at this time anyway-
"EXPLOSIVES PUT IN WTC CONCRETE WHEN CONSTRUCTED":
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/9-14-03/discussion.cgi.47.html
The idea of explosives built into the building certainly gets a lot of hits on google at any rate:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=explosives+built+into+wtc&btnG=Google+Search
You want to rethink that comment?
That is among the weakest and most dismal of all the conspiracy arguments. How many high rise buildings have been hit by 767s? How many high rise fires have been completely out of reach of the firefighters? How many high rise fires were started with a massive explosion across many floors?
The 'squibs' are a probably result of the air being pushed downwards. The last firefighters out described a gale force wind coming down the stairs when the pancaking started.
Yes NIST did address the puffs of smoke.
Is there any other source for this other than a 9/11 debunking forum? In any case, Kevin Ryan says this:
************************************
it is worthwhile to reiterate that nano-thermite materials were very likely used in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings, but most certainly played only a part in the plan. However, other high-tech explosives were available to those who had access to nano-thermite materials at the time. Like SDI, several other organizations with links to military, space and intelligence programs (e.g. In-Q-Tel, Orbital Science) have access to many types of high-tech explosives to cut high-strength bolts and produce pyrotechnic events (Goldstein 2006). These organizations also have connections to those who could have accessed the buildings, like WTC tenant Marsh & McLennan and former NASA administrator and Securacom director, James Abrahamson.
************************************
www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf , page 5
Perhaps effective, but I'm not so sure it would have been cost effective. You must consider the fact that most companies don't have the types of budgets that the U.S. military has, especially when you consider their 'waste' which could easily be a very large black budget. Donald Rumsfeld said this had to be addressed the day before 9/11, as can be seen here:
"Rumsfeld Sept 10, 2001: The Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 TRILLION"
http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/national/pentagon_missing_trillions
Not everything, but they can certainly synchronize some explosions. I was reading an article that was apparently written by a military expert. I had previously mentioned that some believed that mini nukes were used. There didn't seem to be much evidence for the theory, however, so I let it go. However, I just read a fair amount of the following article and now I'm not so sure. Here's an excerpt:
*********************************************
In video tapes taken of the so-called collapses of the WTC, more explosions of these cutting charges can be seen. The explosions advance quickly, with a gap of a couple of floors, cutting the strong steel pillars in the outer wall. The explosions are timed so that it appears that the tower collapses occur in the same timing as in a gravitational collapse.
The explosions are not completely synchronized in timing, probably a few charges are triggered by radio, and other charges explode out of the impulses of one of these charges (infrared, pressure wave). More challenging problems to the demolition men, however, were the central cores of the buildings and the 47 steel pillars more robust than the ones on the outer rounds. The pillars of the central cores were made of steel even 100 + 100 mm thick, thicker than the side armours of a battle tank. Cutting those, even with explosives, is extremely difficult. One would need to surround the whole pillars, every single pillar on every floor intended to get blasted, with powerful cutting charges. These charges would have needed to be placed in such a way that the users of the skyscrapers could not notice these preparations.
As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb. In the picture below, a hydrogen bomb explosion, the bomb having been placed in the cellar and directed to the core, has reached the roof of the tower and the upper parts of the outer walls. On its way up the waves of fire pressure partially penetrated about 100 floors of concrete and steel. Over ten million degrees of heat caused by a hydrogen bomb sublimised all water within the concrete in a moment. Water exploded extremely quickly into 1000-fold volume and totally pulverized the concrete.
Even people and computers that were in the buildings disappeared turning into heat and light. That is why almost nothing of them was found in the ruins. Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F). In the pictures down below, super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure wave, are sublimized.
They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding heat as quickly as possible. Bursts upwards, even visible in the picture below, are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges which are used horizontally.
From SuanaLahti.net
*********************************************
http://911lies.org/WTC_collapse_demolition_explosions.html
Ok, can you explain to me (or link to it if you feel you already have) how the twisted steel, alleged bowing and other examples conclusively prove he was wrong?
As to the twisted steel:
******************************
The company named Controlled Demolition Inc., the market leader in the blow up and removal of multi-floor buildings, was chosen to remove the rubble from the WTC buildings. (Such as the twisted steel columns at the base of the structures) This carefully collected material (remember the police guards always surrounding the site for months?) was then ordered to be sent promptly to China where it was melted.
******************************
http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/who-pulled-911.htm
And if you don't agree with the official story, hey, you can always get fired like Kevin Ryan. Anyway, can I see this list please?
You're right; there was a fair amount of steel too (steel's a little harder to pulverize) but most of that was quickly taken away as has been made clear above. And a lot of paper as well; I guess its ability to move away quickly from the explosive blasts saved it.
As I make clear in the following article, 'access' is not the same thing as 'having time to properly analyze':
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2067319&postcount=1771
Firemen were hit with a gag order, but I have a strong feeling that the loss of so many of their own and the suspicion that the government was, at the very least, not being completely honest with them as to what happened that day caused some of them to speak anyway. There is also the issue of time- we're 7 years from the event now and people have had more time to think about what happened that day.
Thinking about it isn't good enough; I'd need to have expertise in such things, which I don't have. I have seen some numbers as to how many people would have been required, but I don't think it even got to the 100 mark in terms of the WTC collapse.
From what I've read concerning the pentagon attack, few witnesses are suspected to be plants (the only one I remember hearing of was a certain taxi driver). In thepentacon.com, a clear case is made for what you might call 'leading the witness'. It looked like the pentagon -might- have hit the pentagon and the media -said- it did; so witnesses can easily come to the conclusion that it in fact did so. However, as I've mentioned before, atleast one witness claims to have seen a plane bank away from the pentagon...
9/11 isn't my 'religion'. I simply feel that the culprits who committed the 9/11 attacks should be brought to justice. I also feel that if continuous efforts to do this aren't made that they will continue to employ the same tactics in order to propagate more and more wars until we have more pressing issues to deal with (such as the worsening mess of the environment).
You say that I believe everything I am 'fed'. And yet, if I see a claim that doesn't seem to fit with the data, I dismiss it, even if it comes from a 9/11 guru. I believe that a good case in point is Steven Jones' belief that Jesus came to America. It's not really of any importance to me, but I'm not persuaded just because Steven Jones said so.
I'd say that's what a 110 building looks like when it -explosively- collapses from the top.
I see what the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth have said, namely what can be seen on the right hand on their main page:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Why would that matter? You can't just discard it because it came from a debunker and you don’t want the conspiracy theory tarnished. Then again you refuse to watch SLC...
Yes yes future technology and different type of explosives, yet no credible evidence whatsoever.
So they had all this money and the best they could do was some explosives that could be noticed by morons with internet connections and theologians. .. right. That’s the contradictory nature of your super conspiracy. You believe that they could pull of the most intricate and expensive conspiracy of all time yet you accuse them of making it obvious.
That page is littered with blatantly stupid, debunked theories. You need to learn to think critically.
He is claiming that the fires did not go over 500C. The bowing and particularly the twisted steel prove him wrong. The other fires which caused steel to weaken and collapse are precedents which prove it can happen.
I clicked on that link and I saw “Footage of Possible *Missile Exiting the World Trade Center Building September 11, 2001 A.D.” Clearly those who are most qualified to speak in the subject agree with the official story. Perhaps they are all in on it.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3789983&postcount=317
Plenty of steel samples were ‘properly analyzed’. It was enough to determine what happened. The evidence was clear and left no room for doubt. Unfortunately later on the tinfoil hat brigade put together their pathetic claims.
You don’t have reliable evidence for that claim.
Who is speaking up? You keep mentioning the same person over and over who doesn’t actually know anything. He just heard that others did. Your evidence is pitiful.
We can clearly say that the gag order is meaningless seven years later for reasons I have repeated over and over.
Scott I do actually try to avoid ad hominem but I can’t help but question your grip on reality at times.
Heh. You see now that your complaint is a little silly, I hope.
?? Because it was warped by the temperature, that's why. Because it was in imminent collapse. Do you think the explosives warped it? The thermite first heated up, then exploded?
That is arrant nonsense - the building's upper stories fell down onto the lower. They didn't bloody explode.
Best,
Geoff
The kind of people that would do it as a conspiracy like the Us government aren't total morons. They know that jet fuel will burn at 8,000+ degrees and they won't bother with explosives because they simply are not necessary. We are talking about the greatest special forces and explosives units in the world. Every single one of them would say explosives would be too obvious and totally unessecary. We are talking about explosive genius's. There would have been no bombs in the building. More than likely they would've been on the plane because any strange signatures afterwards could be explained by the complete annihalation of any evidence.
What all people assume is that the kind of techniques used would be as crud as a car bomb. These explosives engineers that would do it would have done something ingenious. just to show how good they are here's an example. An Israeli explosives team of around the same skill level made a cell phone equivalent to the one used by that of an enemy terrrorist leader. On a spec ops mission they replaced the leaders cell phone with that one. When the right number was dialed there was a shaped charge that blasted his head apart.
Ive said this numerous times and no one has bothered to reply their opinion. also the smoke does not ever, ever, ever, ever indicate how much oxygen there is. It indicates the efficiency of the fire. Oxygen is 30% important to the coloration, heat is 20%, and the actual material is 50%. Like crude oil will pour out and incredibly dark smoke plume even when there is high oxygen.
What all people assume is that the kind of techniques used would be as crud as a car bomb. These explosives engineers that would do it would have done something ingenious. just to show how good they are here's an example. An Israeli explosives team of around the same skill level made a cell phone equivalent to the one used by that of an enemy terrrorist leader. On a spec ops mission they replaced the leaders cell phone with that one. When the right number was dialed there was a shaped charge that blasted his head apart.
Ive said this numerous times and no one has bothered to reply their opinion. also the smoke does not ever, ever, ever, ever indicate how much oxygen there is. It indicates the efficiency of the fire. Oxygen is 30% important to the coloration, heat is 20%, and the actual material is 50%. Like crude oil will pour out and incredibly dark smoke plume even when there is high oxygen.
Not sure it had to be on every floor. Jerry Russel who has a master's degree in Engineering from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon, had this to say:
*************************************
The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity.[/QUOTE]
Wel no sh*t Sherlock. I mean duh, of course the fastest way to destroy a building is explosives in key places. I mean what kind of retard doesnt no that. And also you guys wanna know an awesome fact about concrete. Is that it does two things as it dries. It heats up to around 400 degrees in the core of it. And it expands. So any explosives would have been crushed.
And once more if this is a conspiracy the US government has explosive, investigation and all around genius's. They would not have done a half fast job. If they did have some kind of influence they did not sure as hell do it so obviously. Also the whole claim that the US government knew what was coming is false. The US government specifically the world trade center gets 10 threats, potential bombings, killings, etc. a month. how the hell do you know which is real.
I particularly liked the one where they stated that they set off a small nuclear bomb to take out the middle of the buildings.
except for one thing.
the buildings fell in a manner totally inconsistent with a controlled demolition.
if you would watch the videos you would know that.
before you even start, i'll mention that squibs are a part of a normal CD.
why you read stuff from other sites and pass it along like it's a fact is a mystery. if you will notice, those sites do not compare the collapse of the WTC towers with known CDs. why is that?
so, how is it scott?
can you at least explain why you believe it was a CD when in fact the collapse does not resemble a CD?
Hi Voyager, take a look here - building demolished top down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8
- Status