WTC Collapses

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

I believe what Headspin is alluding to is that you're moving the goalpost .

i haven't moved anything.
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.

You sure that's a 'wooden barn'? Looks pretty big to me. I'm curious how you believe you know that it's wood as well. In any case, it's most definitely a building and not house size either. Thus the reference to moving the goal posts. But perhaps you're unaware of how the term is defined. Wikipedia can perhaps help out there:
***********************
1. Any man-made structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or continuous occupancy, or
2. An act of construction.
***********************

i also noticed you haven't responded to this:
Originally Posted by leopold99

speaking of evidence, have you seen any pictures of the steel core columns as they were being removed from ground zero?

I can certainly believe that I missed responding to it (many of my own posts have gone unresponded to as well; there are a lot of posts and it's easy to miss a few). However, I'd like to see the context within which this statement was made. Can you cite the post in question?

 

[Headspin]

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.

It wasn't a barn, and it wasn't wooden.

It was a steel framed multi storey floating casino that was washed inland by hurricane katrina.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

if you imagine that the casino in the above video is the central core of the towers, in what way is it inconsistent ? compare with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtUCK5DV9eg

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the first part of shaman_'s post 125 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

I'm making it clear that [he] wasn't sure that his conclusions were right. Reading his tentative conclusion one can see that not once does even state it is his belief. He only says it is his opinion.

What are you talking about?

Perhaps now that I've added the [he] it makes things clearer.

What’s the point of distinguishing between the two?

If his conclusion is tentative, it's clear that he had reservations about making it.

His opinion, based on the evidence and utilizing his years of experience was that the collapse was caused by the fire.

Don't you think it'd be good to know why he said it was his -tentative- conclusion instead of just his conclusion?

There may certainly be some details he is not completely sure of...

I would be most interested in knowing what details those might be...

...but at no point does he give serious consideration to explosives being responsible, something he makes even clearer in the interview I have linked to.

If memory serves, I believe he said he had no time for Steven Jones' work. Apparently, unlike a good scientist, his mind has already been made up. Either that or he doesn't want to get suspended from his job as Steven Jones did...

Your contention that because he uses the words ‘opinion’ and ‘tentative conclusions’, he’s not sure what happened and it may have been explosions is a hopeless attempt to minimize the damage that this expert does to your pathetic conspiracy theory.

I would argue that, far from damaging the conspiracy theory, he has leant it great credence with his claim of that some of the steel had vaporized. In a way, it lends it even more credence since, despite the fact that he believes that the fires took the buildings down, he still apparently stated this:
Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies

Now I know the argument has been made that perhaps the reporter merely misinterpreted his words. In fact, I even emailed Astaneh concerning this, but he never responded. Don't you believe that this issue should be investigated further?

 

[scott3x]

This is in response to the second part of shaman_'s post 125 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

What's more:
***************************
Astaneh resigned from the investigation team put together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers because he didn't agree with the group's decision to keep findings secret until the initial inquiry was complete. Without FEMA's backing, the National Science Foundation team was shut out.
***************************
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/6_APbuilding.html

He resigned because he did not want to sign a disclosure contract. The disclosure contract was to protect the owners of the buildings from having the findings used against them in a lawsuit

Ah, well, that's understandable. Larry Silverstein certainly wouldn't want any evidence that would make it clear that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions to come out I would imagine. The question of how the explosives were placed would inevitably come up, and I believe the answer to that question would not look good for him.

...If the construction of the buildings was found to be faulty then there would be legal implications because people could potentially be held responsible for the collapse. This would be an ugly can of worms.

Indeed. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't hold anyone legally responsible for the collapse. An... interesting conclusion.

In any case, there would be even -more- implications if it were found that the buildings couldn't have fallen down at all without the help of explosives. In a way, perhaps it was fortunate for Astaneh that he quit when he did; he may have found out so much that even he would have found it hard to deny that the WTC collapses were the result of controlled demolition. That, in turn, may have meant that he would have been suspended from his university, and seriously, who wants to lose their job? Perhaps this is why he never responded to me when I asked him about the vaporized steel. If he can just stay -quiet- enough about it all, perhaps he can continue his work as a professor.

 

[scott3x]

This is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 125 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

True. However, It does warrant a more thorough investigation. Instead, it got a less thorough investigation as Jonathan Barnett made clear in the above mentioned video.

There was an investigation. You just don’t like the results.

To be sure. But I'm not alone in not liking the investigation. Take Jonathan Barnett's statement regarding WTC 7, for instance:
"We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7"

Here's the video where he says it:
http://www.truveo.com/Jonathan-Barnett-forensic-engineer-for-WTC7/id/468939016#

With a religion such as yours, if there was another investigation and it found nothing you would still not believe it.

Personally, I believe I simply go where the evidence leads. Can you say the same?

 

[scott3x]

This is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 125 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Sorry to dissapoint you, but gravity simply couldn't have accounted for the amount of pulverized concrete. 9/11 Research, on its Concrete Pulverization page quotes 9/11 online researcher plaguepuppy who explains why:
****************************************
The researcher calling himself plaguepuppy articulated the thoroughness of the destruction and its incompatibility with the official explanation[:]

In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.

The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.

Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?
****************************************

That does nothing to explain that gravity wouldn’t be responsible.

Actually, it does...

His assertion appears to be that because the towers were near free fall speed there was no energy left to pulverize the concrete.

Yep...

The towers may have been near free fall speed but they weren’t at free fall speed.

The difference is insignificant.

When the collapse started the first floor was pounded. With each floor the collapse gained momentum and the force increased, crushing each as it went.

Your theory lacks evidence, sorry. Even NIST's hopelessly flawed computer simulation stops short of simulating the actual collapse. Perhaps NIST figured it was better to be thought a fool then to attempt to simulate the collapse due to fire alone and remove all doubt.

The claim that dust is shooting out the sides of the building at the very start of the collapse is a ridiculous exaggeration.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

He also claims that there is dust when nothing is moving very fast. When the top thirty floors of a building are crushing down on one it doesn’t matter if you have reached a great speed yet. There is an amazing amount of force there.

You can, ofcourse, continue to claim 'amazing' amounts of force did all kinds of things. However, if you really want to get into the math of it all, you may want to take a look at this page:
The Number ONE Smoking Gun of 9/11

It can also be misleading estimating speed when looking at something that large.

Well, atleast you're here debating with me; it seems many architects and engineers have come to the conclusion that the WTC collapses warrant further investigation. While we may not have the power to do the type of investigation that the government can do, we can do a little online sleuthing to attempt to make the truth clearer for everyone.

The mechanism for pulverizing the concrete is no mystery - the building’s weight, gravity and kinetic energy.

What I have heard time and again is that those factors simply weren't enough.

Watch the video, if there were explosions where are the blasts?

As I've mentioned elsewhere, it may be that the blasts were of a quieter nature; either that or it's simply that the camera was further away. In any case, as I've mentioned before, some people who were fairly close to the scene definitely did hear blasts.

 

[scott3x]

This is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 125 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

If that were true, the endless discussions we've had would have never taken place.

Scott, you think nuclear devices might have been involved, you thought a missile hit the pentagon and now think a plane flew over the pentagon instead. You blindly read everything these people write and have shown this time and time again.

I assure you that I'm not reading via braille . I read, but I don't just read. I analyze the reading for logical consistency and if it passes muster, I present what I've read in this forum. At times, after some criticisms here and further analysis on my part, I may come to the conclusion that a particular theory is mistaken or deserves more study before proposing it as what you might call my 'main' ideas. That is, the ideas that I feel most confident about. This doesn't mean that my ideas can no longer be challenged. It's clear that they are still challenged. Nevertheless, the fact that this dicussion has continued for years and, in sciforums' case, for thousands of posts, may make you consider the possibility that perhaps there really -is- something to these alternate theories regarding 9/11.

You are not after the truth, you just want to preach your religion.

Honestly, if I wanted to preach, I would do so in a 9/11 alternate story web site, where the crowd is much more amenable to such things. No, the reason I'm here is not to preach but to educate. And not just others, but myself. For while I have at times rolled my eyes at the official story support stories, I have -also- rolled my eyes at some alternate theory stories. What I tend to find is that the flakier stories tend to do best in environments where they are not challenged.

If you were generally after the truth you would visit debunking sites or the screw loose change guide.

I have actually done both, and done some rolling of the eyes before coming back here. Here, there are certainly official story supporters, but they are tempered by the alternate story supporters.

You will never stray from the comfort of your pitiful conspiracy sites.

Well, you might not like this 'conspiracy site', but I think it's not so bad myself

 

[scott3x]

This is in response to the 7th part of shaman_'s post 125 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

I would have simply referred you to my gurus if you wished to find enlightenment and left it at that.

Your gurus are fools.

I mentioned the 'gurus' tongue in cheek. Listen, clearly I do believe there are certain luminaries in the alternative theory movement. This doesn't mean that I believe that their words are coming straight from God almighty; it simply means that I have read a fair amount of what they have said and found that their arguments to be logically consistent. It also helps if the luminaries in question agree with each other.

Anyway, you can, ofcourse, describe anyone you like as a 'fool'. But it's easy to call someone a fool. It's much harder to prove it.

 

[scott3x]

This is in response to the 8th part of shaman_'s post 125 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

As it is, I counter your 'conclusive' evidence on a regular basis.

Such is the nature of the internet and the phenomenon that is the desire to believe in conspiracies. There will always be plenty of links to keep you sure there was a conspiracy. Just as long as you don't think too much or accidentally digest the work of the debunking sites.

I could, ofcourse, turn this logic against you. However, I simply don't want to buy into this cartoonish view that you don't want to 'digest the work' of alternative theory sites. To reduce a person to how good their digestion is drastically oversimplifies the matter in my view.

So instead, I will continue to offer my own reasoning and attempt to understand why yours differs from mine.

 

[shaman_]

I already dealt with that argument:
http://67.205.94.94/showpost.php?p=2065357&postcount=1747

That aluminium is glowing as it is poured out. Stop the video as it is being poured and look.

Aluminium can glow when heated enough.
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html

With most photos of aluminium being poured out they just take the temperature to melting point because that is all they need to do for the pouring. The fires in WTC were not so precise.

Wouldn’t you say that the drops look silver towards the bottom of this picture? http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg

As to Jones experiment, all he did was mix in some wood and plastic and declare it wouldn’t mix. That is not a good replication of what was happening in WTC. There were many materials in there. That flow of material was a soup of everything in the building. The truth is we don’t know exactly what it is. It may be aluminium mixed with lead, it could be aluminium with some dissolved iron (metals can become soluble in a molten metal of a lower melting point), who knows. However if it is aluminium then it is unlikely to be pure, and it is very unlikely to be steel.

If there were temperatures that high then there would have to have been some molten aluminium. Where was it?

 

[shaman_]

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. ...

It is you that is moving goalposts here Scott. You and the truthers claim it was a controlled demolition because supposedly it looked like one. When pointed out that controlled demolitions do not look like that you then switch the argument to "well it is possible isn't it?". Keep dodging.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
I already dealt with that argument:
http://67.205.94.94/showpost.php?p=2065357&postcount=1747

That aluminium is glowing as it is poured out. Stop the video as it is being poured and look.

As I said in the post above:
********************
The fact that it -appeared- orange when it was in the container validates what I had read somewhere; that it's the -container's- color that is giving it its orange color, a color that dissapears once it is outside of its container.
********************

It's the container that's orange. It stays that way even when the aluminum is poured out. As soon as the aluminum leaves the container, it's clear that its color is silver.

 

[shaman_]

This post is in response to the first part of shaman_'s post 125 in this thread.

Perhaps now that I've added the [he] it makes things clearer.

No you are still trying to assert that his conclusion was different from his belief. It is a desperate and dishonest tactic.

If his conclusion is tentative, it's clear that he had reservations about making it.

He made it clear that he had not doubt whether fire or bombs brought the building down.

Don't you think it'd be good to know why he said it was his -tentative- conclusion instead of just his conclusion?

Irrelevant. There was nothing tentative about his comments on the 911 conspiracies. It’s amusing that conspiracy theorists keep referring to an expert who supports the official story. By all means keep bringing him up.

I would be most interested in knowing what details those might be...

The exact details of the collapse. Even now some speculation is involved. However this has absolutely nothing to do with explosives.

If memory serves, I believe he said he had no time for Steven Jones' work.

Jones’ work is flawed. He has shown that he is a hack scientist who is led by his belief and not evidence.

Apparently, unlike a good scientist, his mind has already been made up.

He actually analysed the steel. He was the one at ground zero. His conclusions are based on the evidence. Your assertion is a foolish one.

Either that or he doesn't want to get suspended from his job as Steven Jones did...

Ah still in a fantasy land I see. Jones lost his job for writing a hopelessly flawed paper outside his field of expertise which presented bad science and dishonest investigation. You can speculate that Astaneh-Asl is scared of losing his job but you would be deluding yourself based on your religious belief.

I would argue that, far from damaging the conspiracy theory, he has leant it great credence with his claim of that some of the steel had vaporized. In a way, it lends it even more credence since, despite the fact that he believes that the fires took the buildings down, he still apparently stated this:
Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies

He was not quoted saying that. Those are the words of the reporter.

So you have an expert that believes that the fires took the buildings down. He made it clear that he didn’t believe the conspiracies. He never actually said the word vaporised. His testimony for the commission and his peer reviewed document supports the official story. Yet you keep bringing him up! Hilarious.

Now I know the argument has been made that perhaps the reporter merely misinterpreted his words. In fact, I even emailed Astaneh concerning this, but he never responded. Don't you believe that this issue should be investigated further?

Are you serious?

 

[shaman_]

As I said in the post above:
********************
The fact that it -appeared- orange when it was in the container validates what I had read somewhere; that it's the -container's- color that is giving it its orange color, a color that dissapears once it is outside of its container.
********************

It's the container that's orange. It stays that way even when the aluminum is poured out. As soon as the aluminum leaves the container, it's clear that its color is silver.

1. It turns silver when it hits the plate and cools.
2. Aluminum can glow when heated enough. Look at the photos.
3. It was unlikely be pure aluminium flowing out of the building anyway.

 

[scott3x]

Aluminium can glow when heated enough.
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html

I see no evidence that what is being poured is aluminum. The book is about building an oil fired furnace. The metal in the picture could easily be iron.

With most photos of aluminium being poured out they just take the temperature to melting point because that is all they need to do for the pouring. The fires in WTC were not so precise.

I can agree with that; If FEMA's report is to be believed, the fires should never have even reached the temperature to melt aluminum. Apparently, however, NIST managed to get the numbers higher, using some highly questionable methods.

Wouldn’t you say that the drops look silver towards the bottom of this picture? http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg

Not really. Try this out- take a piece of orange paper. Cut it bigger and smaller pieces, then put them against a grey background. I have found that smaller pieces tend to look more grey then the bigger ones; the eye essentially averages the colors in a given area. It may also be that the smaller bits cooled a bit more then the larger flow. But people may forget that the metal didn't just drop and then dissapear. Apparently a video was made of the metal -on the ground-. Here's a frame from the video:

And here is the video where the frame was taken, from 5:04 to 5:23:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-0ZIrAfCI0

As to Jones experiment, all he did was mix in some wood and plastic and declare it wouldn’t mix. That is not a good replication of what was happening in WTC.

What more would you have him do? And surely you realize that official story supporters didn't do anything more? And that the results they got from the only test I know of were just as bad for the official story? Perhaps -that's- why they didn't do any more testing on the matter?

There were many materials in there. That flow of material was a soup of everything in the building. The truth is we don’t know exactly what it is.

The most likely explanation is that it was molten iron. Steven Jones' logic, is, in my view, unnassailable on this count.

It may be aluminium mixed with lead, it could be aluminium with some dissolved iron (metals can become soluble in a molten metal of a lower melting point), who knows. However if it is aluminium then it is unlikely to be pure, and it is very unlikely to be steel.

Well, I'm glad you are atleast considering that it had some iron in it.

If there were temperatures that high then there would have to have been some molten aluminium. Where was it?

In the building itself I would imagine. The real issue, in my view, is the whole issue of thermate signatures and unexploded thermate. Seriously, I don't understand why you can't contemplate the possibility that thermate is what brought down the buildings.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

I would argue that, far from damaging the conspiracy theory, he has leant it great credence with his claim of that some of the steel had vaporized. In a way, it lends it even more credence since, despite the fact that he believes that the fires took the buildings down, he still apparently stated this:
Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies

He was not quoted saying that. Those are the words of the reporter.

And yet, Astaneh never said that he had been falsely interpreted.

So you have an expert that believes that the fires took the buildings down. He made it clear that he didn’t believe the conspiracies.

Except the official one, ofcourse...

He never actually said the word vaporised.

Prove it. The New York Times article makes me believe he may well have said just that. I find it doubtful that the reporter is the one who chose the word.

His testimony for the commission and his peer reviewed document supports the official story.

And yet there is a lot of evidence which shows that his belief on this count is mistaken.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Now I know the argument has been made that perhaps the reporter merely misinterpreted his words. In fact, I even emailed Astaneh concerning this, but he never responded. Don't you believe that this issue should be investigated further?

Are you serious?

I am.

 

[Headspin]

That aluminium is glowing as it is poured out. Stop the video as it is being poured and look.

no the aluminium is not glowing orange when it is poured. It maybe reflecting some of the orange glow from the container as a mirror or mercury would reflect the surrounding environment, but when it exits it very quickly changes to silver. it hits the pan silver. if you are going to claim that the heat is removed by the pan immediately and sufficiently for it to cool to a silver state, then bear in mind the stuff pouring from the wtc was flowing over a floor surface and between steel perimeter beams before falling from the window, yet it still exits into daylight and remains yellow on the way down.

Aluminium can glow when heated enough.

of course it can if the temperature is high enough so that its very low (compared to other metals) 5% radiance outshines its very high (compared to other metals) 95% reflectivity. You will not get this glow in the orange spectrum in any kind of daylight though. In daylight any glow will be in the white spectrum and only when the temperature is way above what was possible in the wtc.

http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html

Those pictures are not aluminium, they are iron! Whoever is putting out that information is simply lying to you.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/Glowing-Aluminum-Disinformation-by-brian-vasquez.pdf

With most photos of aluminium being poured out they just take the temperature to melting point because that is all they need to do for the pouring. The fires in WTC were not so precise.

this is a fair point but doesn't apply with the experiment i have shown you, this experiment heats it to 1800F (1000C), way above the melting point of aluminium (1200F). it still pours out silver!

Wouldn’t you say that the drops look silver towards the bottom of this picture? http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg

you have small orange material droplets moving fast over a uniform grey background, mpeg compression works by blending in frames of data and blurring sharply contrasting colors. I would conclude those droplets are still orange. some are even orange despite mpeg color loss.

As to Jones experiment, all he did was mix in some wood and plastic and declare it wouldn’t mix. That is not a good replication of what was happening in WTC. There were many materials in there. That flow of material was a soup of everything in the building. The truth is we don’t know exactly what it is. It may be aluminium mixed with lead, it could be aluminium with some dissolved iron (metals can become soluble in a molten metal of a lower melting point), who knows. However if it is aluminium then it is unlikely to be pure, and it is very unlikely to be steel.

how do you know it is unlikely to be steel? or residue from a thermite reaction (as would be more accurately claimed by the other side of the debate)? why unlikely?
are you arguing from personal incredulity? or do you have actual evidence that it is unlikely? What Jones experiment has done has disproven (debunked) NISTs speculation of what it was.

If there were temperatures that high then there would have to have been some molten aluminium. Where was it?

You presuppose that the extreme temperatures would have been caused by the office fires (and you conclude there would have been molten aluminium). You did not consider that the extreme termpature was a highly localised event (chemical reaction/thermate) that did not melt any aluminium. In any event, if there were molten aluminium in the vicinity it would have flowed away from the heat source at its melting point and still remained silver, way before managing to magically glow orange.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

As I said in the post above:
********************
The fact that it -appeared- orange when it was in the container validates what I had read somewhere; that it's the -container's- color that is giving it its orange color, a color that dissapears once it is outside of its container.
********************

It's the container that's orange. It stays that way even when the aluminum is poured out. As soon as the aluminum leaves the container, it's clear that its color is silver.

1. It turns silver when it hits the plate and cools.

I believe it was always silver and the only thing that was orange was the container it was in.

2. Aluminum can glow when heated enough. Look at the photos.

I have heard that it can, yes. But it has to be heated a lot and because of its low emissivity, it can only be seen as orange in dark conditions.

3. It was unlikely be pure aluminium flowing out of the building anyway.

Steven Jones couldn't make aluminum look that way even with impurities. I haven't seen any official story supporter do so either, despite an attempt I saw on youtube.

 

[leopold]

However, I'd like to see the context within which this statement was made. Can you cite the post in question?

post 209.

headspin,
where are the squibs that are clearly visible in your video?
the structure in your video is not surrounded by any other building.
also, if we "imagine" that this was the steel core columns then how did the outer walls come down?
and if you want to "imagine" things let's "imagine" aliens did it.
i'm not going to argue these points with you any further.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to leopold99's post 209 in this thread.

speaking of evidence,
have you seen any pictures of the steel core columns as they were being removed from ground zero?

I think I have. Why?