how did you distinguish between core and perimeter columns?
so he was surprised it came down so fast and so completely from an ordinary building fire?
hmmm...
WTC Collapses
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
hmmm...
so if it was aluminium flowing out of the building, why did it not cool and turn silver when it flowed over the steel and concrete before it fell out of the window?
do you mean the photos of molten iron? they do not demonstrate anything about molten aluminium in daylight, or have you retracted that point now?
aluminium has been experimentally shown not to mix with other materials. Why have the anti-truth movement not been able to produce a simple youtube experiment that shows how impure aluminium can glow orange in all these years? the answer is obvious.
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.
Dude you wouldn't need a nuke. Look at the massive world war 2 battleships, those things had an incredible amount of steel in them 12 inches at the thickest part. And i don't mean hollow twelve inches i mean solid twelve inch blocks of armor. Yet all it took to obliterate a chunck of the ship was a well placed torpedo. Now fast forward to the wtc. Those towers were significantly less fortified in the area of the attack. Now if a several hundred pound torpedo can take out 12 inches of solid steel, is it not hard to see a multi ton airplane taking out 1 inch of steel?
Now here is my reasoning for why it wasn't a conspiracy.
One, when a plane going 400-500+ some odd miles per hour slams into a solid building its not like throughing a rock through a window where the window is broken and the rock is okay. The plane gets shredded into pieces the largest being around the size of a table the average being the size of a binder. So this would have likely obliterated any explosives inside the plane.
Two, when there is a 3000+ degree fire raging around the inside of a building, specifically around C4 in the building. Something awesome happens. The C4 actually catches fire and burns, it doesnt explode. This is because there are no more than two ways to detonate C4, heat AND pressure, and electrically. And since your explosions didn't go off until hours later, the C4 would have burned to a crisp.
three, Thermite burns when it is in the proximity of a 3000+ degree fire. If the explosion did not go off until a few hours later than the thermite would have burned after 10 minutes, which means that the thermite or thermate (truly there is practically no difference other than thermate is easier to ignite) would never have existed. Also, thermate would burn horzantally into the steel than vertically downwards, gravity does not change just because it needs to explain something.
by their size and thickness of the steel perhaps?
They could have disguised the explosives to look like arab passports.
alaska1976
Registered Member
Here's a more honest computer simulation of the twin towers' core:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ&feature=related[/QUOTE]
Your link was fairly informative untill the author began to reveal what did not happen to the inside of the towers where the impact happened. I guess he has secret videos he is not sharing somewhere?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ&feature=related[/QUOTE]
Your link was fairly informative untill the author began to reveal what did not happen to the inside of the towers where the impact happened. I guess he has secret videos he is not sharing somewhere?
well. A passport bomb would be tiny. It probably could not even blow up a plane let alone a tower.
This post is in response to fedr808's post 263 in this thread.
Not hard at all. However, taking out an inch of WTC steel wouldn't bring it down. No one believes that the planes alone could have taken the buildings down and there is ample evidence that the ensuing fires weren't going to do it either.
Even if there were explosives in the plane, it clearly wasn't enough to bring down the buildings.
Whoa, hold the press. Where'd you get this 3000+ degree fire from?
First of all, in the case of WTC 2, the collapse occured 56 minutes after the plane crash. For WTC 1, it was less then 2 hours (102 minutes to be precise). And second of all (and most importantly), I have seen no hard evidence that explosives were in the planes...
First of all, not even NIST is claiming that the fires reached 3000+ degrees. This would invalidate the idea that the thermite burned up after 10 minutes. Not sure where you're getting this idea of the thermite burning up in 10 minutes. Perhaps you had read that the -jet fuel- burned up in 10 minutes. This is something that is widely believed to have happened, both from NIST -and- the alternative theory movement. As to thermate (not to be confused with thermite), it can indeed burn horizontally, as Steven Jones has demonstrated.
Not hard at all. However, taking out an inch of WTC steel wouldn't bring it down
. No one believes that the planes alone could have taken the buildings down and there is ample evidence that the ensuing fires weren't going to do it either.Even if there were explosives in the plane, it clearly wasn't enough to bring down the buildings.
Whoa, hold the press. Where'd you get this 3000+ degree fire from?
First of all, in the case of WTC 2, the collapse occured 56 minutes after the plane crash. For WTC 1, it was less then 2 hours (102 minutes to be precise). And second of all (and most importantly), I have seen no hard evidence that explosives were in the planes...
First of all, not even NIST is claiming that the fires reached 3000+ degrees. This would invalidate the idea that the thermite burned up after 10 minutes. Not sure where you're getting this idea of the thermite burning up in 10 minutes. Perhaps you had read that the -jet fuel- burned up in 10 minutes. This is something that is widely believed to have happened, both from NIST -and- the alternative theory movement. As to thermate (not to be confused with thermite), it can indeed burn horizontally, as Steven Jones has demonstrated.
This post is in response to fedr808's post 267 in this thread.
Quite right. Don't mind Headspin, he's just being sarcastic
Quite right. Don't mind Headspin, he's just being sarcastic
Last edited:
This is in response to alaska1976's post 266 in this thread.
What did he reveal that you don't believe happened?
What did he reveal that you don't believe happened?
We are talking about two buildings 1360 feet tall with 210 foot square footprints that were supposedly totally destroyed by machines that could fly. This partly has to do with the relative density of the objects. The NIST says the south tower stopped the plane in 0.6 seconds. The people who designed that barge knew it had to float even if they also knew they would use a steel frame. That frame did not have to be strong enough to support 25 stories so bringing it up in relation to this issue is nonsense.
psik
This is in response to the first part of shaman's post 256 in this thread.
At times it can be difficult to accept the fact that others see things differently then oneself. If you wish, you can take a break from this conversation and reflect upon the fact that people will not always agree with your way of seeing things.
Look, why don't we just agree on what merriam webster says concerning the term 'tentative':
************************
1 : not fully worked out or developed <tentative plans>
2 : hesitant , uncertain <a tentative smile>
************************
He said that afterwards. I'm quite interested as to why he hardened his position after his report. I'm also interested in his apparent claim that steel vaporized in the twin towers. As you know, I've emailed him concerning this matter. As I believe you also know, he has yet to respond.
Certainly. I can easily imagine that Steven Jones would have said the same had he been in Astaneh's position. What's your point?
At times it can be difficult to accept the fact that others see things differently then oneself. If you wish, you can take a break from this conversation and reflect upon the fact that people will not always agree with your way of seeing things.
Look, why don't we just agree on what merriam webster says concerning the term 'tentative':
************************
1 : not fully worked out or developed <tentative plans>
2 : hesitant , uncertain <a tentative smile>
************************
He said that afterwards. I'm quite interested as to why he hardened his position after his report. I'm also interested in his apparent claim that steel vaporized in the twin towers. As you know, I've emailed him concerning this matter. As I believe you also know, he has yet to respond.
Certainly. I can easily imagine that Steven Jones would have said the same had he been in Astaneh's position. What's your point?
Last edited:
I'm not so sure about that. Put another way, as someone once said, if it were so simple to demolish even far weaker steel framed buildings (as opposed to one floor warehouses whose roofs don't need to support much weight), why not just set it alight and watch it self destruct? The madrid tower burned for many hours and yet, despite the fact that it was weaker in construction then the WTC buildings, it only suffered a partial collapse.
This is in response to the second part of shaman's post 256 in this thread.
Then surely you agree that the group's decision was appalling?
What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
Then surely you agree that the group's decision was appalling?
What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
This is in response to the 3rd part of shaman's post 256 in this thread.
No. I'm asking -you- if that's what -you're- claiming.
No. I'm asking -you- if that's what -you're- claiming.
This is in response to the 4th part of shaman's post 256 in this thread.
Why, because I want some clarification on his apparent statement regarding vaporized steel?
Why, because I want some clarification on his apparent statement regarding vaporized steel?
This is in response to the 5th part of shaman's post 256 in this thread.
shaman, you really should be a bit more careful with what you conclude. Where did I say that he was quoted saying it?
shaman, you really should be a bit more careful with what you conclude. Where did I say that he was quoted saying it?
This is in response to the 6th and final part of shaman's post 256 in this thread.
True, but I wouldn't automatically disbelieve him either. I -would-, however, like a clarification as to why he didn't say anything concerning the New York Times report. But this is speculation. At present, he has never denied that he saw evidence of vaporized steel.
Not regarding his apparent claim that steel was vaporized.
True, but I wouldn't automatically disbelieve him either. I -would-, however, like a clarification as to why he didn't say anything concerning the New York Times report. But this is speculation. At present, he has never denied that he saw evidence of vaporized steel.
Not regarding his apparent claim that steel was vaporized.
This post is in response to shaman_'s post 186 from this thread.
It is in great part the arguments of these 'blind' men that have been steadily countering your claims.
I did. Apparently it's you who wasn't looking closely...
That's in another list on their site- another 2889 people at last count. Here's the list you're thinking of, which includes architects, engineers and some if not all of the 2889 other supporters.
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
It is in great part the arguments of these 'blind' men that have been steadily countering your claims.
I did. Apparently it's you who wasn't looking closely...
That's in another list on their site- another 2889 people at last count. Here's the list you're thinking of, which includes architects, engineers and some if not all of the 2889 other supporters.
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 103 from this thread.
The only error he may have made was due to NIST's interim report as I mentioned before.
This I think I can agree to- it seems clear that his employer was either in on the 9/11 deception or (perhaps more likely) a coward and was stuck between a rock and a hard place- either he had to admit that their testing of the steel was flawed or they had to contradict the government's cronies. Neither option would look good to a coward, and so they chose a third option- firing the person who was bringing up the issue to begin with and denying that they tested the steel.
He was perhaps desperately trying to hold on to the idea that fire was indeed the only cause of the collapse, something that NIST's Frank Gayle was apparently also trying to do at the time. Any higher temperatures simply weren't credible in terms of being induced by jet induced fires alone and would necesitate another explanation- such as explosives.
How so?
It does nothing of the sort. It only makes clear that the demolition had to have been planned well in advance of September 11th. I have already presented a story wherein 9/11 was being planned 11 months before 9/11.
He had excellent qualifications, having read a lot on the subject of steel, that being the area that the company he worked for had played a part in, in regards to the WTC towers. How much of the above article did you read? I think that article is a powerful testament to his knowledge regarding the WTC collapses.
The only error he may have made was due to NIST's interim report as I mentioned before.
This I think I can agree to- it seems clear that his employer was either in on the 9/11 deception or (perhaps more likely) a coward and was stuck between a rock and a hard place- either he had to admit that their testing of the steel was flawed or they had to contradict the government's cronies. Neither option would look good to a coward, and so they chose a third option- firing the person who was bringing up the issue to begin with and denying that they tested the steel.
He was perhaps desperately trying to hold on to the idea that fire was indeed the only cause of the collapse, something that NIST's Frank Gayle was apparently also trying to do at the time. Any higher temperatures simply weren't credible in terms of being induced by jet induced fires alone and would necesitate another explanation- such as explosives.
How so?
It does nothing of the sort. It only makes clear that the demolition had to have been planned well in advance of September 11th. I have already presented a story wherein 9/11 was being planned 11 months before 9/11.
He had excellent qualifications, having read a lot on the subject of steel, that being the area that the company he worked for had played a part in, in regards to the WTC towers. How much of the above article did you read? I think that article is a powerful testament to his knowledge regarding the WTC collapses.
- Status