The real America! 9/11 and all. The thread you've been waiting for.

[Doctork]

Actually, my history professor did buy it, and told us about it for several days. And being the teacher, and having to believe the information he gave us was true, we believed it. He was off by alot though.

Wow......

That's one of those things that you'd like not to believe, but know better.

Nice when History Professors don't know history, isn't it? :shok:

 

[ogami]

just check out loosechange on google video 90% bullshit but it does raise a few questions.

 

[Bustaballs]

As far as controlled demolition goes... Ridiculous. For a variety of reasons. First, the tower collapse is actually quite consistent with the "pancake" theory. It's happened before, albeit never on that scale. Second, assuming demo was used... it couldn't have been in place before the crash. They'd have had to wire the entire building (as there was no way of knowing precisely where the plane would impact), which obviously wasn't the case as the demo would have almost undoubtedly detonated prematurely when the planes impacted the tower. So that would require someone to go INTO the building, after the crash, with demo, set it up in the blast area, in 500C minimum fires, under the eyes of emergency personnel and fleeing officeworkers.

Think about that for a second. Unlikely, to say the least. I imagine you'd have a hard time finding a single person willing to set demo under those conditions, much less TWO full teams capable of wiring a building that size, in a matter of MINUTES.

People who complain about the pancake theory forget one crucial point: It wasn't a case of one floor falling onto another floor, and so on. Previous incidences have been like that, and portray a certain pattern of debris and level of destruction. This, however, was a case of 30+ floors falling on one floor. 500,000 tons of steel and concrete impacting at, oh, call it 5 fps. Then 10. Then 20. Pulverizing not simply the floors beneath the falling segment, but the floors OF the falling segment. Twisting steel into red-hot pretzels, turning concrete into fine powder, and generally demolishing everything in the most direct path between it and the ground.

People say "Oh, but the fire couldn't have caused the collapse!". Perhaps, by itself, pumping a thousand gallons of jet fuel into the tower and setting it alight might not have.

Of course, the fuel was delivered by slightly more energetic means.

That is to say, someone crashed a FREAKING AIRLINER into the building at high speed. Destroying better than half the support beams on a particular facing, THEN setting a high-temperature fire inside it. The core of the building was obviously breached as well, given the well documented fires in the elevator shafts.

Changes the equation somewhat, no?

=) It's about time I got a post like this.

First off I'd like to mention a few facts. No steel frame concrete building has EVER collapsed in a fire. Not anytime before 9/11 and not anytime after. WTC 1, 2, and 7 all collapsed in the exact same ways. The twin towers were designed to be able to have a FULLY LOADED 707 crash into it. The WTC construction manager said that he believes they could have withstood multiple impacts. Hear him explain this for yourself. Let's compare a 707 with the 767.

Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition.htm

Next, I'd like to mention that a WTC construction certifier says towers should have easily withstood jet fuel temperatures. Even so, the south tower was hit 18 minutes after the north tower. The jet crash into the south tower at an angle so most of the jet fuel was released outside the side of the building. The south tower collapsed 39 minutes before the north tower did. The fire was supposedly so hot that it could weaken (or melt according to some) steel but yet it doesn't hurt this waving woman at all. Obviously the heat was so intense that helicopters couldn't save anyone. I just wanted to mention those things ahead of time.

You mention that it's not a case of floor falling on top of floor and so on. It's a matter of 30 floors falling on top of one and so on. Where is a 30 story high building top if that happened? As you can see in THIS PICTURE, the remains of the building was like a big ash tray that was only 3 storys tall. Two 110 story buildings pancake and there are no major parts. Just a 3 story tall ashtray that falls right in place.

As you can see in THIS PICTURE the top of the building leaning to the side as the building collapses. Where is the top part of that building? Even if the pancake theory happened, there would still have been some resistance preventing the towers from falling at freefall speed. The fall would slow down because some of the energy would be used to break the next floor. If it took one second to break the next floor, it would have taken 110 seconds. The north tower collapsed in 8.4 seconds. The collapse started at the ~94th floor. If you were to drop a rock from that high, it would take 8.4 second for it to hit the ground. 94/8.4 = 13. So 11.2 floors being broken through every second. Hmm..

Moving onto another thing. The core columns of the buildings were basicly the primary support of the building. As a MIT Enginner explains, those columns should have been left standing AT LEAST to some extent. They were not. Those cores were not even mentioned at all in the official stories. Neither was building #7 but I'll get to that later.

Next up, the dust clouds. There were very dense clouds ejected at high speeds that spead through out the town. It was so powerful that is would pick people up and carry them away. The pyroclastic flow of those dense clouds only happens naturally during one event. A volcanic eruption. Humidity currents make a similar effect. That alone is enough proof to show the towers wern't taken down by the fires.


The smoke ejecting from the towers were very dark which indicates that either the fire was low temperature and/or the fire was oxygen starved. This is another thing that proves the fires couldn't have been hot enough to weaken the steel to that point. Oh.. and did I mention the this waving woman in the impact area? You can see another view HERE

Explosions! Explosions! =) Fun stuff.

I'm trying to be as brief as possible about this so I'll skip all of the other million things and move onto building 7. Building 7 was never even mentioned in the official stories or the 9/11 Commission Report. Building 7 wasn't hit by any aircraft. It was very far away from WTC 1 and 2 compared to a lot of the other buildings surrounding them. It magicly caught fire and collapsed just like the other two towers making it become the third steel frame, concrete building to collapse from fire in the history of the world and possibly the entire future.

Let's take a look at some other buildings that have caught fire since 9/11. The Venezuela fire burned for 17 hours. The Spain fire that was (obviously) far hotter than the WTC buildings fires and it lasted for 20 hours.

The fact still stands. Steel frame, concrete buildings do NOT get destroyed from fires. Their frames will still stand no matter what happens and they will NEVER collapse at freefall speed.

Now let's go into some other things about WTC7. Silverstien admitted on PBS that they pulled the building. Later on in that same documentary, they were talking about pulling building 6. To "pull" a building is to take it down with demolition.

No demolition here either? Here's some more info on it.

I need to hurry this up because I've been working on it too long. I was going to go into the prior knowledge proof, but that'll have to wait.
I'm going to stop this here for now.

 

[alanon]

Did you even bother to read the links I posted? Everything you said in your above post is covered in those links.

 

[Raesvelg]

For the record, 767s come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, running from the smallest (which you mentioned) to ones 55,000 Lbs heavier.

The Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact of a 707, yes. A 707 largely without fuel, moving at low velocity. Not a fully laden liner moving at 500 mph. Period. It wasn't in the design specs in any way shape or form.

Yes, steel/concrete building don't fall down from fire. They fall down when you sever/degrade a certain percentage of their load-bearing members.

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK HAPPENS WHEN YOU FLY A 400,000lb PLANE INTO IT AT 500MPH?!?!

I find it amusing that you'll admit a regular fire reaching temperatures high enough to melt/warp steel yet seem to find it impossible to believe it could happen when you douse 3 floors of the building in 20,000 gallons of kerosene.

Where did the building go? A signficant amount of it fell into the foundation, obviously. BIG freakin' hole down there in case you didn't know. Some small percentage was pulverised, the rest simply settled down on top in a footprint considerably larger than the original structure.

Would the load-bearing supports of a single floor offer significant resistance to the weight of the building above it coming down? Not a chance. One floor, probably, depending on how fast it cut loose and fell. The buildings simply aren't engineered with that level of energy in mind.

Why all the dust, the incredible wind, and all that rot? Gee, I wonder. I don't suppose having a huge freakin' building collapse could have anything to do with that. Here's an experiment you can do at home kiddies! Get a sledgehammer and go out to the sidewalk. Hit it as hard as you can. Examine the result. Imagine that, but on a scale roughly, oh, a million times bigger. A related experiment! Pick up a book, put your hand on the ground, drop the book next to your hand. Feel that rush of air? Again, imagine that a million times bigger.

Buildings fall down. The WTC was particularly vulnerable to the precise kind of attack that was made upon it, given the nature of the load bearing skin, the large open floors, etc etc. It ain't news, and *thousands* of reputable engineers and scientists have gone over the data and found no evidence of anything out of the ordinary.

And finally, the glorious inconsistency of all the conspiracy theorists. Do you really think that, after engineering this perfect attack, these brilliant minds would BUNGLE the resulting situation so thoroughly? Piss away all the capital gained by the event to.... what? Get bogged down in a profitless war in Iraq? Put Afghanistan on the ever-so-slow road to recovery maybe, but again, no short-term profit?

Politicians would have to be the ones to engineer this, and politicians don't think in the long term. They can't. They have to think in terms of the next election, because even if the long-term effects are beneficial, the guy in office when that actually happens will be the one to get the credit, NOT the man whose policies made it possible.

For the love of god, people leaked the truth about Watergate, and that was just the relatively harmless bugging of the DNC! Do you honestly think that the requisite thousands of people that would be involved in a conspiracy of this magnitude would be willing to keep quiet about a government plot to murder thousands of its own citizens?

 

[Bustaballs]

For the record, 767s come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, running from the smallest (which you mentioned) to ones 55,000 Lbs heavier.

The Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact of a 707, yes. A 707 largely without fuel, moving at low velocity. Not a fully laden liner moving at 500 mph. Period. It wasn't in the design specs in any way shape or form.

Yes, steel/concrete building don't fall down from fire. They fall down when you sever/degrade a certain percentage of their load-bearing members.

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK HAPPENS WHEN YOU FLY A 400,000lb PLANE INTO IT AT 500MPH?!?!

I find it amusing that you'll admit a regular fire reaching temperatures high enough to melt/warp steel yet seem to find it impossible to believe it could happen when you douse 3 floors of the building in 20,000 gallons of kerosene.

Where did the building go? A signficant amount of it fell into the foundation, obviously. BIG freakin' hole down there in case you didn't know. Some small percentage was pulverised, the rest simply settled down on top in a footprint considerably larger than the original structure.

Would the load-bearing supports of a single floor offer significant resistance to the weight of the building above it coming down? Not a chance. One floor, probably, depending on how fast it cut loose and fell. The buildings simply aren't engineered with that level of energy in mind.

Why all the dust, the incredible wind, and all that rot? Gee, I wonder. I don't suppose having a huge freakin' building collapse could have anything to do with that. Here's an experiment you can do at home kiddies! Get a sledgehammer and go out to the sidewalk. Hit it as hard as you can. Examine the result. Imagine that, but on a scale roughly, oh, a million times bigger. A related experiment! Pick up a book, put your hand on the ground, drop the book next to your hand. Feel that rush of air? Again, imagine that a million times bigger.

Buildings fall down. The WTC was particularly vulnerable to the precise kind of attack that was made upon it, given the nature of the load bearing skin, the large open floors, etc etc. It ain't news, and *thousands* of reputable engineers and scientists have gone over the data and found no evidence of anything out of the ordinary.

And finally, the glorious inconsistency of all the conspiracy theorists. Do you really think that, after engineering this perfect attack, these brilliant minds would BUNGLE the resulting situation so thoroughly? Piss away all the capital gained by the event to.... what? Get bogged down in a profitless war in Iraq? Put Afghanistan on the ever-so-slow road to recovery maybe, but again, no short-term profit?

Politicians would have to be the ones to engineer this, and politicians don't think in the long term. They can't. They have to think in terms of the next election, because even if the long-term effects are beneficial, the guy in office when that actually happens will be the one to get the credit, NOT the man whose policies made it possible.

For the love of god, people leaked the truth about Watergate, and that was just the relatively harmless bugging of the DNC! Do you honestly think that the requisite thousands of people that would be involved in a conspiracy of this magnitude would be willing to keep quiet about a government plot to murder thousands of its own citizens?

Thousands of people? I think not. I'll mention some other things now. Tampering with the evidence of a crime scene is illegal. Yet, the main evidence (the steel) was very quickly hauled away and sold to foreign countries so it could be melted down and recycled.

The dust clouds. It wasn't a normal dust cloud. It was a pyroclastic flow. The effect it had, the way it moved, and it's speed and power proves it. A normal dust cloud, even a 110 story building collapse, could not cause that. Let's look at this:

Dust Cloud Expansion Energy Sink Vastly Exceeded Gravitational Energy Source

* Dust cloud of North Tower expanded to about 5 times building volume by 30 seconds from collapse start.
* Heat energy is required to produce expansion:
Ideal gas law: PV = nRT where:

P = pressure
V = volume
T = absolute temperature

* Heat required over 10X gravitational potential energy.
o Energy required for 3.4X expansion is on the order of 1,500,000 kWH.
o Gravitational energy was about 100,000 kWH.

Now the dust itself:

# The concrete, glass, drywall, insulation, and other non-metallic building parts were pulverized to mostly sub-100 micron powder.
# Nearly all office contents were pulverized beyond recognition.
# 1000 bodies were "vaporized", preventing identification, even with advanced DNA techniques.

Here's an experiment for you. Take any non metalic piece of furniture and drop the heaviest thing in the world on it. It's going to break apart and flatten but it won't turn into fine dust.

The south tower, as it began to fall, was falling off to the side. The top part of that building should have taken out a few buildings and been easily visible and partly intact. But no.. it disintegrated as it fell. Here's another experiment. Drop a brick from the top of the Sear's tower. It's going to break into a bunch of pieces. It's not going to turn to dust. How did 30 floors of concrete magicly turn to dust?

Now the towers were designed to take a fully loaded (23,000 gallons of fuel) 707 crash into it at full speed (607 mph). The 767 is slower and a large amount of the fuel was used up during the flight. The south tower had very little in it at all. It's a fair comparison. But just like the man said, it isn't going to really hurt it much.

The dark smoke clearly showed that the fire wasn't very hot. There were no signs of:

# Steel glowing red-hot
# Extensive window breakage
# Big bright emergent flames
# Light smoke (not seen after first few minutes)

# Fires continued to burn deep in the rubble pile for 100 days, despite the spraying of water onto the pile.
# When the rubble was cleared, pools of previously melted steel were discovered at the foundations.
# Temperatures needed to melt steel (~1400ºC) could not have been caused by residual hydrocarbon fires. Usually one needs a blast furnace to melt steel.

How does this happen? Thermite? THERMITE??!!

Here's what thermite does.

The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to.

That was on the 18th. Let's look at some thermal hot spots. But that's not all. Check out this short video.

Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert, on the jet fuel fires which burned in the WTC buildings:

"Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt." [Firehouse.com]

Molten steel did not exist in the WTC buildings prior to the collapses, but...

Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. [American Free Press]

Anyways.. reguardless of what happened, the core columns should have been left standing. They were not. Not even to any extent. All of these theorys are impossible.

Your explination didn't explain building #7's fall at all. Can you can watch WTC7's fall and tell me a fire brought it down with a straight face? Also, look HERE.

There was enough physical evidence left of WTC7 to prove it was demolition.

That's all for now.

Since you guys are so certain that the official story is true, I have a way for you to make a LOT of money.

Jimmy Walters is offering $ 1 Million to the first person who can prove that the WTC towers collapsed without explosives. Details at

http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

That's $400,000 more than was put into the investigation which took place a year and a half after 9/11.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The dust clouds. It wasn't a normal dust cloud. It was a pyroclastic flow. The effect it had, the way it moved, and it's speed and power proves it. A normal dust cloud, even a 110 story building collapse, could not cause that.

The "dust cloud" was, indeed a sort of thin pyroclastic flow - just what you would espect from thousands of tons of concrete tumbling violently from a considerable height.

Here's an experiment for you. Take any non metalic piece of furniture and drop the heaviest thing in the world on it. It's going to break apart and flatten but it won't turn into fine dust.

You're forgetting that the furniture, et al, didnt simply fall or have things fall on it. It fell and tumbled through thousands of tons of other falling and tumbling debris.

Lets try a more relevant experiment - take that same piece of furniture, put it in a large unbreakable box with bricks and concrete blocks and hunks of steel and other heavy things, and then roll it down several hundred feet of staircase.

Will that piece of furniture be simply broken and flattened or will it be pulverized?

The south tower, as it began to fall, was falling to its side. The top part of that building should have taken out a few buildings and been easily visible and partly intact. But no..

Only if it was falling with some lateral vector, like it were tipping over. The South tower stated to collapse on one side before the other, but once the other side started to collapse, the lateral forces were gone and the rest of it fell straight down. The initial material that did fall with a lateral vector did damage buildings to that side.

Here's another experiment. Drop a brick from the top of the Sear's tower. It's going to break into a bunch of pieces. It's not going to turn to dust. How did 30 floors of concrete magicly turn to dust?

See "furniture", above.

Now the towers were designed to take a fully loaded (23,000 gallons of fuel) 707 crash into it at full speed (607 mph). The 767 is slower and a large amount of the fuel was used up during the flight. The south tower had very little in it at all. It's a fair comparison. But just like the man said, it isn't going to really hurt it much.

707 max gross take-off weight: 333600lbs (707-320)
767 max gross take-off weight: 351400lbs (767-300)
707 max speed: 545kts
767 max speed: 488kts

The aircaft that hit the WTC buildings had just taken off for long-distance flights. They had not burned off that much fuel.

How does this happen? Thermite? THERMITE??!!

Show, with direct physical evidence, that thermite was involved at all.
Note that "It had to be, because" is not direct physcial evidence.

Anyways.. reguardless of what happened, the core columns should have been left standing. They were not. Not even to any extent. All of these theorys are impossible.

The core column require the outer structure to provide lateral support of their vertical members. Once the outer shell of the building started breaking away, the core columns lost that support and buckled under the load above; once the core buckles, it loses all strength and collapses from a load it can no longer carry.

Stand on an empty pop can. Same effect.

Jimmy Walters is offering $ 1 Million to the first person who can prove that the WTC towers collapsed without explosives

Ah. Prove a negative. How convenient.
I wonder - who is offering anything for proving that the towers fell --with-- explosives?

 

[Bustaballs]

The "dust cloud" was, indeed a sort of thin pyroclastic flow - just what you would espect from thousands of tons of concrete tumbling violently from a considerable height.

A pyroclastic flow like the one in the 9/11 collapse can only happen naturally during a volcanic eruption. It can only happen otherwise through demolition.

You also ignored the ideal gas law equation. The dust traveled ~15x faster than it should have.

You're forgetting that the furniture, et al, didnt simply fall or have things fall on it. It fell and tumbled through thousands of tons of other falling and tumbling debris.

The building collapsed straight down. There wasn't as much tumbling around as you're making it out to be.

Lets try a more relevant experiment - take that same piece of furniture, put it in a large unbreakable box with bricks and concrete blocks and hunks of steel and other heavy things, and then roll it down several hundred feet of staircase.

Will that piece of furniture be simply broken and flattened or will it be pulverized?

It wouldn't turn into dust very fine dust. There would still be tons of easily visible chunks and parts.

1000 bodies were "vaporized", preventing identification, even with advanced DNA techniques. Explain that one.

Only if it was falling with some lateral vector, like it were tipping over. The South tower stated to collapse on one side before the other, but once the other side started to collapse, the lateral forces were gone and the rest of it fell straight down. The initial material that did fall with a lateral vector did damage buildings to that side.


See "furniture", above.

You're ignoring everything. That entire thing disintigrated in mid air. It fell right in place just like the other two buildings. The damages to the other buildings wern't that major.

707 max gross take-off weight: 333600lbs (707-320)
767 max gross take-off weight: 351400lbs (767-300)
707 max speed: 545kts
767 max speed: 488kts

The aircaft that hit the WTC buildings had just taken off for long-distance flights. They had not burned off that much fuel.

Reguardless, it is a similar comparison. The damages wern't that major. There are audio recordings where the firemen were saying that the fires were almost out. The buildings were standing for an hour and 44 minutes (north) and 47 minutes (south) even though the south tower was struck second and most of the jet fuel ejected out of the side of the building and yet it fell first.

Even still, if the building collapsed the way they said it did, the entire floor would have had to been equally heated to the point of weakening the structure to cause it to collapse straight down. The fires were not very hot at all as you can tell from the firemen admitting it, the people standing in the windows waving, the dark smoke, and the woman waving at the impact area.
(Note: this is completely ignoring air conditioning and the sprinkler systems along with other things.)

Even IF the floor that began the collapse just magicly happened to be equally heated enough to weaken the entire floor enough to cause the collapse, it would not have fallen at freefall speed.

Neither plane nor fire could have taken down those buildings. The WTC 1975 fire was most likely more severe than the south tower's fire.

Show, with direct physical evidence, that thermite was involved at all.
Note that "It had to be, because" is not direct physcial evidence.

Did you not look at my links? There was enough physical PROOF in them. Molten steel caused by fire alone does not last weeks or even days whether buried or not. It most certainly does not STAY molten.

The core column require the outer structure to provide lateral support of their vertical members. Once the outer shell of the building started breaking away, the core columns lost that support and buckled under the load above; once the core buckles, it loses all strength and collapses from a load it can no longer carry.

Stand on an empty pop can. Same effect.

That's completely impossible. The core columns had the ability to hold the entire stucture alone. The building was built AROUND them. There was nothing there to crush them. If the floors collapsed, they would have collapsed AROUND the core columns leaving them standing. Even if they were crushed, in a magical zig-zag for 110 floors, there would have been a large amount of it laying around to prove that.

How come FEMA nor the 9/11 Commission Report NEVER mentioned those columns OR building 7? They still don't have an explination for #7's fall.

Ah. Prove a negative. How convenient.
I wonder - who is offering anything for proving that the towers fell --with-- explosives?

There's more than enough proof that the towers fell from explosives. Many many different styles of proof. Just because science doesn't exist to you, doesn't make it not real.

This is the 3rd? person to come out of no where and try to falsify reality in this one thread.

 

[Raesvelg]

First off, the engineers/architects in charge of designing the towers have long since admitted that the "707 impact" was, as I said, minimal burden at very low velocity. The people who say otherwise are, oddly enough, the conspiracy theorists who latched onto the statement (made in the 70s) and simply assumed.

Secondly, that kind of "pyroclastic flow" (I love how that term gets abused) actually happens to a variety of materials under a variety of conditions. Earthslides, avalanches, etc, all betray that same sort of startling quickness that comes when you mix tons of air with tons of anything and move it along at high speed. It's not only a volcanic issue and it's certainly NOT something that would have been caused by explosives.

Thirdly, 30 floors did not "magically turn to dust". They fell. On top of the other floors. Watch the damn video, you can SEE THE UPPER SEGMENT FALLING INSIDE THE CLOUD. It certainly eroded as it went, and was utterly destroyed at impact, but it didn't "turn to dust".

Fourth, anyone that tells you the core columns could support the entire weight of the building is LYING to you. Period. The outer skin (all those fancy steel columns, no?) was a major load bearing structure in WTC1/2. It was designed that way so as to permit massive open spaces between the core and the skin.

Fifth, the "main evidence", as you put it, was in fact hauled away to a LANDFILL where it sat for months, underwent signficant testing, sorting, and ultimately allocation for disposal. Some of it remained in the US, some of it to form the bow of a new Marine assault ship, oddly enough.

Screw numbers.

Thermite would have been a rather poor choice for your mythical demo crew. It's dangerous as all hell, could easily have been ignited prior to the desired point, and in general displays rather poor characteristics for severing vertical support members, which would have been quite necessary under your theory. Shaped cutting charges would have been far more likely. Of course, ANY demo would have required people to go into the blast area, expose the necessary beams, set the precision charges necessary for a controlled drop, and then make it out.

All without the use of elevators.

All in, hmmm, let's call it an hour.

Think about that for a second.

Bodies ground into paste and mixed with flaming concrete are hard to identify, oddly enough. DNA isn't the most resilient molecule in the world.

Meh, time for Dynamis. For the record, I'm not trying to convince you, since you're obviously so far gone into your little world that there's no point trying to salvage you. I'm just here to make sure there's a counterpoint to your ranting.

 

[alanon]

There's more than enough proof that the towers fell from explosives. Many many different styles of proof. Just because science doesn't exist to you, doesn't make it not real.

You obviously don't understand enough about science, so please don't use that as an argument. All you conspiracy nuts have are theories that fit only part of the evidence, you have absolutely ZERO proof. Where are your thermite traces? You don't have any. All you have is speculation and theory, you have no proof.

 

[Bustaballs]

I've given plenty of endless physical proof over and over again.

Just the thermite thing alone, I've shown a ton of proof of. How can you deny a video of thermite spewing out of the window or the pictures of thermal hot spots 5 days after and NBC news saying that the firemen were pulling out molten pieces of steel on the 18th or the pictures where studys prove that only thermite could have done damage to the steel they took from WTC7?

If that isn't proof then I don't know what is. Pyroclastic flows can only naturally happen during a volcanic eruption. The dust clouds in "Earthslides, avalanches, etc" don't travel at the same speed nor do they give the same effect of a pyroclastic flow. It also traveled ~15x faster than it should have if it collapsed from a fire alone.

Anyways, I'm done with that. I've given plenty of hard evidence and proof. I just can't believe how many people there can be that can just completely deny science and reality. You don't even take into consideration that never has a steel frame concrete building ever collapsed from a fire and three buildings did in the same area at freefall speed right in their footprints. Instead, you believe everything your government tells you like nice little sheep and believe these completely false theorys that have already been proven wrong many times.

No wonder they are able to do things like this and get away with it. It's people like you.

I'm not replying to anymore comments similar to the recent ones. If someone wants to make a real post then I'll reply. Otherwise, I'm not wasting my time.

 

[Raesvelg]

Your "hard evidence and proof" is mostly debunked by the article you decry in the very first page of this post.

Ultimately it boils down to this: You describe a vast criminal conspiracy, wherein the entirety of the WTC is wired with explosives and brought down after a highly-trained CIA pilot flew a skyliner into it. Explosives that magically appeared, complete with sophiticated detonation methods, albeit with the WRONG KIND OF EXPLOSIVES for that kind of drop (ie, Thermite), with not a single person present in the building in the weeks it would have taken to accomplish noticing the strange men moving in, taking off the interior wall facings, setting explosives, installing detonators, sealing it all back up again exactly like it was before (Complete with matching paint!), and then lying in wait for the day of destiny.

Alternately, you could have a much smaller demo crew move in and blow the building up on top of themselves.... Twice. While magically jumping to the upper levels to make them explode because god knows, that's what must have happened in that impenetrable dust cloud. Can't forget that part.

Apparently you don't shave with Occam's Razor.

I do.

Your theory is, sadly, ludicrous, which is why it's primarily resident on the internet, with a few opportunists out to make a quick buck by suckering gullible fools into buying their books/tapes/whatever.

 

[alanon]

You don't even take into consideration that never has a steel frame concrete building ever collapsed from a fire and three buildings did in the same area at freefall speed right in their footprints.

Just how many steel frame concrete buildings like the WTC have fallen, period?

I just can't believe how many idiots there can be that can just completely deny science and reality.

Neither can we.

 

[alanon]

Explosives that magically appeared, complete with sophiticated detonation methods, albeit with the WRONG KIND OF EXPLOSIVES for that kind of drop (ie, Thermite), with not a single person present in the building in the weeks it would have taken to accomplish noticing the strange men moving in, taking off the interior wall facings, setting explosives, installing detonators, sealing it all back up again exactly like it was before (Complete with matching paint!), and then lying in wait for the day of destiny.

Don't forget that for a controlled demolition like the one sheep boy wants to believe happened, you would have to saw 90% of the way through the support structure.

 

[Bustaballs]

I'd like to once again suggest this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3453261789658676035
"What I've Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy: The War Against the Third World"

It's an amazing documentary. It proves there are US government cover-ups and have been for many decades. I also reccomend the book called "Addicted to War". It exposes the truth about the US government as well. Except it goes into detail about how the US has been invading countries non stop since we came here.

This video was made over a year before 9/11.

Don't listen to these people. The makers of these movies ENCOURAGE the copying and distribution of their videos. That's why you see most of them on video.google.com and youtube.com.

 

[Sculli]

Ok, even though we are reviewing the QCDN Community Standards and you can provide feedback on that review at What is wrong with the QCDN Community Standards? that doesn't mean they are suspended.

It also doesn't mean that any changes made will remove the clause that you can simply not treat another user like shit just because you disagree with his or her opinion, no matter how outlandish that opinion may be.

I suggest that those of you who need to, go back through their posts and edit them as needed, if I have to do it, then it won't be pretty and the points you (you as in you the poster) were trying to make will likely be lost.

 

[Bustaballs]

=( Sorry Sculli. You can only take so many insults and mockings before getting upset. I changed my insults to things less insulting and removed certain direct insult sentences from recent posts.

 

[Torqameda]

Don't forget that for a controlled demolition like the one sheep boy wants to believe happened, you would have to saw 90% of the way through the support structure.

Okay, does anyone know how many explosives were in the WTC 1993 bombing? And those weren't enough to take it down. So, if it was a controlled demolition, it would've taken a hella lot of explosives to take down a steel structure like that. Because even causing explosions at the base, it doesn't necesarily mean the whole building will collapse. Buildings have been reinforced to prevent a collapse of that kind.

For example, buildings in California along the Juan de Fuca Plate, or the San Andres fault or whatever, buildings were built to be "earthquake" proof, because they reinforced the buildings' bases and structure.

In Japan, there is an airport in which has a steel reinforced structure to it (it's elevated?), what I've read on it (only God knows if it was true or not), there were a huge payload of explosives cases at the base of the airport, and went off. But it didn't affect the structure at all.

 

[Bajaratt]

Okay, does anyone know how many explosives were in the WTC 1993 bombing? And those weren't enough to take it down. So, if it was a controlled demolition, it would've taken a hella lot of explosives to take down a steel structure like that. Because even causing explosions at the base, it doesn't necesarily mean the whole building will collapse. Buildings have been reinforced to prevent a collapse of that kind.

For example, buildings in California along the Juan de Fuca Plate, or the San Andres fault or whatever, buildings were built to be "earthquake" proof, because they reinforced the buildings' bases and structure.

In Japan, there is an airport in which has a steel reinforced structure to it (it's elevated?), what I've read on it (only God knows if it was true or not), there were a huge payload of explosives cases at the base of the airport, and went off. But it didn't affect the structure at all.

Controlled demolition = shaped charges, which means you don't need shitloads of explosives, just enough to punch through the supports once the blast is focused. Just parking explosives next to a building is a horribly inefficient method to bring it down, since most of the blast will be directed away from the building.

 

[Sculli]

Controlled demolition = shaped charges, which means you don't need shitloads of explosives.

You don't need a whole lot of explosives, but you need to place those at a whole lot of structurally important locations.

I don't know the first thing about it, but I saw this show recently where they were following demo experts around some hotel in Vegas that needed to be brought down. It took hundreds of charges, miles of wire, lots of drilling to place those small charges in the right spots, etc.

No matter what anyone says, the odds of preparing the WTC for controlled demolition without anyone who is not supposed to know noticing it are astronomically low.