Also found was a seat cushion and a life vest.
http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/image/1459719/medium
http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/image/1459719/medium
WTC Collapses
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
Some people like Frank Greening try to explain the energy requirement for disintegration with the Potential Energy of the building. I emailed Richard Gage and Greening about that in June of 2002.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316
Frank Greening is Apollo20 on JREF I have not seen him respond to that yet.
psik
This post is in response to shaman_'s post 188 in this thread.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Perhaps. There's certainly a case for buildings 5 and 6 at any rate:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html
As a matter of fact, WTC 4 holds quite an unreported story, as 9/11 Research explains:
****************************************
WTC 4 was demolished as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero. WTC 4's basement housed precious metal vaults, the apparent disappearance of most of whose billion-dollar contents has gone curiously unreported.
****************************************
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Perhaps. There's certainly a case for buildings 5 and 6 at any rate:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html
As a matter of fact, WTC 4 holds quite an unreported story, as 9/11 Research explains:
****************************************
WTC 4 was demolished as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero. WTC 4's basement housed precious metal vaults, the apparent disappearance of most of whose billion-dollar contents has gone curiously unreported.
****************************************
It seems you would like to see Jerry Russell's calculations. I have just emailed 9/11 Research asking if they could provide them to me for your sake or atleast provide me with a way to contact Jerry Russell directly.
Actually it was WTC5 not WTC4. http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnstobu
Why would it be such a surprise? It has demonstrated over and over that steel can weaken in normal fires, leading to collapse.
Oh please. Some dust was seen and there are holes in the roof so explosives must have been used.
Right. 911research is a pitiful source for people not interested in thinking. So they loaded up 4 and 5 with invisible explosives to partially collapse them? Yeah Ok.Here is an analysis of those claims.
I assume you meant of WTC 5. You've certainly made no analysis of WTC 4's missing millions. If you'd like to learn a bit more about that, you can go here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html
9/11 Research cites publications you probably trust, such as the New York Times.
Well obviously I forgot to post the link.
http://www.911myths.com/loose_change_2nd_ed._a_critical_review_of_the_gold_story_segment.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/loose_change_2nd_ed._a_critical_review_of_the_gold_story_segment.pdf
alaska1976
Registered Member
Good point. I had to look up information but the melting point of Aluminum is 1220.666 °F. That is plenty hot enough to affect steel and when there are hundreds of thousands of tons of weight above the sections of floor burning the inevitable is obvious.
molten aluminium is silver, not yellow-orange. it's been dealt with here:
http://67.205.94.94/showpost.php?p=2065349&postcount=1745
Molten aluminum can be orange. Look at that video again. It is glowing as it pours out and when it hits the pan and cools it turns silver.
There were also quite possibly many other materials from the offices mixed in with that river of molten material flowing out of the building. So it is probably not pure aluminum anyway.
There were also quite possibly many other materials from the offices mixed in with that river of molten material flowing out of the building. So it is probably not pure aluminum anyway.
What does the word CONTROLLED mean?
In a NORMAL Controlled Demolition the objective is to MINIMIZE DAMAGE to all surrounding structures. This would require greater time and calculation to put the MINIMUM amount of explosive force in EXACTLY the right places. Whoever did this did not give a damn how much external damage was done so that is why tons of material hurled 600 feet into the Winter Garden. That is the flaw in the argument of people saying a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION takes a long time to set up. If you put in 5 or 10 times as much explosive power then placement isn't so critical.
Just because it was not controlled to accomplish the NORMAL objectives does not mean it was not CONTROLLED..
If you see a man drive a car into a tree you assume he was out of control because people don't normally do that. But if he did it deliberately then it was CONTROLLED.
This is one reason I prefer focusing on getting people to understand what an airliner COULD NOT POSSIBLY DO.
psik
I already dealt with that argument:
http://67.205.94.94/showpost.php?p=2065357&postcount=1747
Quoting from 9/11 Research's article Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions:
***************************************
NIST's explanation for the orange color of the spout is dubious given that the various materials to whose combustion it attributes the orange glow would have been extremely unlikely to have remained mixed with molten aluminum to the degree needed to produce the homogeneous color seen in the videos.
Physicist Steven E. Jones has performed a number of experiments mixing various combustibles into molten aluminum. In all cases the aluminum exhibited its normal silvery color, while the added combustibles separated.
***************************************
"Federline" wtf does that mean? Yah ive been on vacation in new york city for thanksgiving and im back. but still you haven't answered my question. How did ur pilots manage to hit where the explosives were placed so accurately. They wouldve had a fraction of a second to aim the plane accurately.
The reason i have the theory of explosives on a plane is this. One as i said above it is impossible to hit that exact spot precisely with human vision.Two, onboard explosives would eliminate the need for aiming the plane. Three, think about it, sneaking a bomb aboard the wtc that is very hard even if ur from government, it is significantly easier to sneak a bomb on a plane, specifically the cargo hold.
The reason i have the theory of explosives on a plane is this. One as i said above it is impossible to hit that exact spot precisely with human vision.Two, onboard explosives would eliminate the need for aiming the plane. Three, think about it, sneaking a bomb aboard the wtc that is very hard even if ur from government, it is significantly easier to sneak a bomb on a plane, specifically the cargo hold.
Ah, ye of little tabloid knowledge
...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Federline
You made no question in your previous response to me.
I did actually answer that question, even though it wasn't asked in your previous response. From post 117:
******************************
"The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based radio-navigation system that generates accurate positioning, navigation and timing information for civil use at no cost."
I'll give you a hint where you should focus your attention: accurate
******************************
From what I know, there is no evidence which suggests that the plane had to hit a precise spot, but furthermore, with what I've mentioned above, I believe it could have been fairly precise.
Not unless the explosives on the plane include a nuke of some sort. You can't just take down a steel framed high rise with explosives in only one particular spot unless the blast is from a nuclear weapon. There have been arguments made that a nuclear weapon -was- used, but it certainly didn't go off when the plane hit. Lesser explosives may well have gone off at that time, but not nearly enough to bring the building down.
I never said the operation was an easy one. But there's a fair amount of evidence that those who had the capability to do it may well have done it:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2099339&postcount=137
Sure. However, as I mentioned, unless the bombs were nukes, it simply couldn't have brought down the WTC buildings.
not even close. wasn't steel, high rise, nor similar in construction, nor verifiable.
I believe what Headspin is alluding to is that you're moving the goalpost
. Also, what do you mean that it's not verifiable? Even assuming that that video was faked (is that what you're alluding to), ofcourse it's verifiable. Costly, perhaps, but verifiable. Bulidings are taken down via controlled demolition on a fairly regular basis; it might be more costly to do it from the top down as the video showed, but not impossible.Seriously, no one to my knowledge has ever said that explosives couldn't have done it; not even NIST. Only that it would so difficult to do as to be unfeasible. Journal for 9/11 studies has a pdf article regarding NIST's "too difficult to do" argument:
Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1 - Robert Moore, Esq.
Last edited:
i haven't moved anything.I believe what Headspin is alluding to is that you're moving the goalpost
i merely stated i haven't seen any verifiable controlled demolitions that fell a manner consistent with WTC 1 and 2. i'm sorry but a wooden barn just doesn't cut it.
i also noticed you haven't responded to this:
leopold99 said:
- Status