WTC Collapses

[Tony Szamboti]

i believe saddam was fully capable of transferring WMD to the terrorists.

How could he do that if he didn't have them? Let's not forget there were UN inspectors in Iraq for quite some time after the first Gulf War and the WMD was destroyed. They had been back in Iraq since November 2002 and had found no WMD. George W. Bush refused to give them the additional three months they requested in March 2003.

Of course, the argument then goes (with no evidence to back the claim) that Saddam could have hidden them.

The bottom line is that if WMDs were used by terrorists Saddam Hussein would be a dead man. Do you think he was suicidal?

This is all hocus posus though as it wasn't foreign terrorists who took down the WTC buildings. With that one has to be foolish at this point to not see that 911 was a false flag attack to justify going into Afghanistan and then Iraq or to fight the disguised Wars for Oil, err, I mean the War on Terror.

 

[leopold]

How could he do that if he didn't have them?

he had them,and used them, at one time.

Let's not forget there were UN inspectors in Iraq for quite some time after the first Gulf War and the WMD was destroyed.

if i remember correctly the UN inspector stated they couldn't find any.
this is different than saying they were all destroyed.

George W. Bush refused to give them the additional three months they requested in March 2003.

Of course, the argument then goes (with no evidence to back the claim) that Saddam could have hidden them.

i've heard(also with no evidence) some went to syria.

The bottom line is that if WMDs were used by terrorists Saddam Hussein would be a dead man. Do you think he was suicidal?

huh? dead man? how would saddam be a dead man?
no, i dont think he was suicidal. i do believe he was ruthless.

This is all hocus posus though as it wasn't foreign terrorists who took down the WTC buildings. With that one has to be foolish at this point to not see that 911 was a false flag attack to justify going into Afghanistan and then Iraq.

it wasn't foreign terrorists?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

he had them,and used them, at one time.

if i remember correctly the UN inspector stated they couldn't find any.
this is different than saying they were all destroyed.

i've heard(also with no evidence) some went to syria.


huh? dead man? how would saddam be a dead man?
no, i dont think he was suicidal. i do believe he was ruthless.


it wasn't foreign terrorists?

The WMD that Saddam had after the first Gulf War were destroyed by them under the oversight of UN weapons inspectors in the early 1990's. They said they couldn't find any after going back into Iraq in late 2002.

If someone attacks the United States with a rare item given to them, that can be tracked to the provider, then that would be considered by many to be suicidal for the provider. That would have been justification for the U.S. to invade Iraq.

Foreign terrorists could not gain access to WTC 7 to set the charges for it's obvious controlled demolition. The fact that those charges could not be set on Sept. 11, 2001 proves they were pre-positioned. This then lends credence to the notion that charges could have been pre-positioned in the twin towers. We have shown that there is no deceleration of the roof of WTC 1 in it's fall through 114 feet that can be tracked. This means there was no mechanism for a natural collapse since deceleration is necessary to get an amplified load and overcome the factor of safety in the tower's columns. Those three buildings were rigged for demolition by people with access and it wasn't foreign terrorists.

 

[leopold]

the case of WTC 7 bugs me but that doesn't mean it was a controlled explosion.
don't forget that the front of WTC7 was constructed over a con edison substation.

 

[MacGyver1968]

So if WTC7 was an obvious controlled demolition...why in the hell did the insiders wait 8 freaking hours before setting off the charges? when they only waited 45 minutes for the 2 towers?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So if WTC7 was an obvious controlled demolition...why in the hell did the insiders wait 8 freaking hours before setting off the charges? when they only waited 45 minutes for the 2 towers?

What you are saying here is a non-sequitur.

What does it matter how long they waited that day. The point is that the upper block of the building has been proven to be in freefall for the first 100 feet of it's fall, which can only happen if columns are removed simultaneously and there is no resistance. The charges could not have been set that day.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

the case of WTC 7 bugs me but that doesn't mean it was a controlled explosion.
don't forget that the front of WTC7 was constructed over a con edison substation.

Explain the upper block accelerating at the rate of gravity for the first 100 feet of it's fall. That is equivalent to eight stories.

The Con Edison substation was two stories tall and there were deep trusses from the central core out to the perimeter columns spanning over the substation. This had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7 and the NIST didn't even try to go there.

 

[John99]

So if WTC7 was an obvious controlled demolition...why in the hell did the insiders wait 8 freaking hours before setting off the charges? when they only waited 45 minutes for the 2 towers?

yes, and everyone is entitled to their ideological beliefs but this should not infringe on common sense.

The controlled demo theory is a contradiction. If you dont believe that the floors came down under the weight of the other floors like a dominoe effect then you would NEED to lay charges at every floor and at each corner to bring them down evenly. The reason is because as is obvious from the videos each floor gave in and collapsed. Therefore it is logical to see that charges could not have been placed at say ever tenth floor or every twentieth floor. This would be noticeable and impossible to hide, and on the other hand each floor collapsing onto the next is very obvious and clear to see on the videos.

The problem then is how is it even remotely conceivable that charges could be placed on every floor or even every other floor? Not in one 100+ level buiilding but two buildings. The charges would need to go beyond rooms themselves and placed onto strategic areas of the infrastructure. This would have to be done with magic or supernatural ability for no one to notice and is a massive undertaking in and of itself.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

yes, and everyone is entitled to their ideological beliefs but this should not infringe on common sense.

The controlled demo theory is a contradiction. If you dont believe that the floors came down under the wight of the other floors like a dominoe effect then you would NEED to lay charges at every floor. The reason is because as is obvious from the videos each floor gave in and collapsed. Therefore it is logical to see that charges could not have been placed at say ever tenth floor or every twentieth floor. This would be noticeable and impossible to hide, and on the other hand each floor collapsing onto the next is very obvious and clear to see on the videos.

The problem then is how is it even remotely conceivable that charges could be placed one every floor or even every other floor? Not in one 100+ level buiilding but two buildings. The charges would need to go beyond rooms themselves and placed onto strategic areas of the infrastructure. This would have to be done with magic or supernatural ability for no one to notice and is a massive underttaking in and of itself.

Another no-sequitur. The fact that a number of floors would need to have charges set is not proof against a covert controlled demolition.

There would not need to be charges placed on every floor and every column over the entire building. Most of the work done in a controlled demolition is due to releasing the gravitational potential energy. This is done by cutting columns on enough floors so that the building above develops enough kinetic energy that upon impact crushes the part it impacts and itself. Take a look at this newly posted video of a demolition done in France without explosives. They used hydraulic jacks and cut the columns on three consecutive floors and then pulled the jacks.

http://www.dailymotion.com:80/video/x17lks_demolition-tour-abc-balzac-vitry_news

In the twin towers, the first few floors to collapse would have been done with thermite to keep the sound level down and there it would be every floor. Do you know about the molten metal flowing out of the damaged corner of WTC 2 just before collapse. Explosives would have been used further down every third or sixth floor on the outer core columns for reliability in maintaining the collapse. This would also conceal most of the detonations, as these columns were 35 to 60 feet from the perimeter. These columns were all accessible from the elevator shafts. There was an elevator modernization program going on for eight months prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

 

[John99]

That just proves my point. You can clearly see where the charges are and where the building was compromised but in with the WTC collapse this does not happen as every single floor comes down evenly just as it would be expected to if the compromise was consistent failure of support points at each floor.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That just proves my point. You can clearly see where the charges are and where the building was compromised but in with the WTC collapse this does not happen as every single floor comes down evenly just as it would be expected to if the compromise was consistent failure of support points at each floor.

You apparently didn't read what I said. There were NO explosives in the building in France shown being demolished in that video. The three floors which collapsed had hydraulic jacks put in place of the columns and they took out those three floors. The upper part of the building then crushed the lower part and itself.

In the towers the collapse zone floors would have been taken out with timed thermite charges to give the apearance of a natural collapse. The problem for the towers is that there is no deceleration afterward to show a natural mechanism for destroying the lower portion. We measured the roof fall for 114 feet and there is no deceleration. In the above video we have measured deceleration when the upper block hits the lower block.

 

[John99]

You apparently didn't read what I said. There were NO explosives in the building in France shown being demolished in that video. The three floors which collapsed had hydraulic jacks put in place of the columns and they took out those three floors. The upper part of the building then crushed the lower part and itself.

In the towers the collapse zone floors would have been taken out with timed thermite charges to give the apearance of a natural collapse. The problem for the towers is that there is no deceleration afterward to show a natural mechanism for destroying the lower portion. We measured the roof fall for 114 feet and there is no deceleration. In the above video we have measured deceleration when the upper block hits the lower block.

Jacks or charges make no difference because they would both be used for the same purpose and now you post a collapse that did not even use explosives or have a 767 Jet (big bomb) loaded with 38,000 l of fuel - to prove what? The elevators in the WTC were not built to facilitate a controlled demo, this is not a hollywood movie.

 

[psikeyhackr]

767 Jet (big bomb) loaded with 38,000 l of fuel

.
Where did this number for the fuel come from?

I have seen 10,000 gallons which is 34 tons. Real bombs don't need oxygen to explode.

psik

 

[John99]

10,000 US gallons equals what?

 

[John99]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

 

[John99]

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...+10,000+US+gallons+=&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Jacks or charges make no difference because they would both be used for the same purpose and now you post a collapse that did not even use explosives or have a 767 Jet (big bomb) loaded with 38,000 l of fuel - to prove what?

I posted that collapse to show that your point about needing explosives on every floor was not necessary. Only enough floors would need to be taken out to develop enough kinetic energy. In the towers that would have been about nine floors and that is why we don't see any deceleration in the initial fall through those first nine floors. They were demolished. Without deceleration there is no natural mechanism to collapse the floors below the initial collapse floor.

The aircraft impacts had nothing to do with the collapses, there wasn't enough damage. The jet fuel burned off within minutes. Now you have office fires. NIST even admits this and then says the office fires caused the collapse because of sheared off fireproofing. However, they have no physical evidence of this or high temperatures being experienced by the little steel they did get.

The elevators in the WTC were not built to facilitate a controlled demo, this is not a hollywood movie.

The core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts without being seen. Elevator maintenance mechanics work in elevator shafts all the time. Your disbelief is not justified and certainly does not make it improbable.

It sounds like you don't believe covert actions are done either, as they would be too much like a Hollywood movie, and nothing could be done in a secret way without people noticing.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

10,000 US gallons equals what?

One gallon of jet fuel actually weighs 6.875 lbs. so 10,000 gallons would equal 68,750 lbs. You might have meant to say 68,000 lbs.

However, about half of it would have burned up in the fireball leaving about 5,000 gallons. This is equivalent to the volume of one nine foot cubicle in the twin towers, or an eighteen foot diameter backyard pool filled to 2.5 feet deep. The tower floors were one acre in area and spreading the fuel, that didn't go up in the fireball over just one floor would leave a 3/16" thick film. It was certainly aerosolized upon impact at the speeds the aircraft were travelling at and that is why it would have off in minutes.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

Popular Mechanics doesn't want to get into the fact that there is no physical evidence for the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to weaken it let alone melt it.

The irony here is that the reason for the rapid recycling would have been to get rid of the steel that did get really hot from incendiaries since those temperatures would have been way beyond what jet fuel or office fires could reach. This is why the NIST only got 236 pieces of steel from both towers out of 50,000. They got none at all from WTC 7. Doesn't that make you just a little bit suspicious?

 

[psikeyhackr]

10,000 US gallons equals what?

.
I told you the tons you can convert that to pounds if you want. I prefer tons because it puts things into perspective relative to the steel. The towers averaged 862 tons of steel per level.

What is 34 tons of kerosene going to do to 862 tons of steel?

That is one of the reasons we need to know the steel on every level. Presumably the levels in the impact zone had less than 862 tons. But how much less?

psik