Another One That Didn't Bite The Dust

a reply to: Kester

You specify Ground Zero when in truth the Fresh Kills landfill is the relevant location. NIST specify steel when all building materials, particularly the concrete, are relevant.

Have you seen negative test results published somewhere? If so where? All I'm aware of is a complete avoidance of any testing.

Brent Blanchard, whose company operated seismic machines during 9/11 and whose team was requested to provide assistance during the clean-up process at ground zero, has stated that no one found evidence of explosives at ground zero. At the Fresh Kills Landfill, WTC steel was further examined.

Brent Blanchard: Leading Demolition Expert

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

www.popularme...ld-trade-center...


'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

www.implosionworld.com...


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

www.implosionworld.com...


Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, wtc.nist.gov.... This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

www.webcitation.org...

a reply to: skyeagle409

The physical evidence is on the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island.

The average particle size indicates extraordinary demolition.

Tell Brent.

a reply to: Kester

The average particle size indicates extraordinary demolition.

That is false! Such particles can be created by slamming steel beams against one another. In fact, you can even create the same particles using a lighter and steel wool, or, you can place two steel beams about three feet long into a barrel of wood to create the particles you are speaking of. Just set the wood on fire and when the fire burns itself out, you can collect the same particles you claimed could only be produced by explosives.

To let you know, I have often slammed truthers for not doing their homework and here is a case where you were unaware of the rest of the story.

I forgot what sub I was in!

Carry on.

I hope you all find peace.

a reply to: Domo1

No problem!

a reply to: skyeagle409

Concrete particles can be created by slamming steel beams together? I think you are mistaken.

a reply to: Kester

The steel structure support the concrete floors where upon structural failure, the floors slam against one another creating large amounts of dust as in the following demolition videos where explosives are not required.



A large bomb failed to reduce this building into a pile of dust.

Photo: Bomb Strike

5 JDAM bombs failed to reduce this building into a pile of dust.

Photo: Bomb Strikes

a reply to: skyeagle409

how can i create topic?

a reply to: Kadagraks

Can i create topic?

in 1979-1980 I was stationed in Iwakuni Japan as a USMarine. Often i visited Hiroshima only 45 miles away. The peace dome was 160 meters from epicenter of Little Boy the first atomic bomb dropped during war. It sustained less damage than buildings of world trade center farther away.
? did two jet airliners create more energy than WW II atomic bomb?
If not where did that energy come from?
NIST? National Geographic? Popular Mechanics? can you offer me some numbers?

a reply to: thegimprider

did two jet airliners create more energy than WW II atomic bomb?

I don't think you can compare the two.
How do you think the building in Japan would hold up to a B29 hitting it?
Here is a paper produced regarding the energy released in the impacts.
You don't need to be understand all of the paper to see where they ended up.

a reply to: thegimprider

Apples and Oranges .....

Hiroshima Peace Building was built of concrete and brick - the force of the bomb, which exploded almost directly overhead
was directed downward into the buildings columns. It was not a steel structure hit by a jet airliner which then burned
and collapsed from heat weakening the steel supports

Intended for the Aioi Bridge, the bomb instead exploded directly over the Shima Hospital, which was very near to the Genbaku Dome. Because the atomic bomb exploded almost directly overhead, the building was able to retain its shape. The building's vertical columns were able to resist the nearly vertical downward force of the blast, and parts of the concrete and brick outer walls remained intact. The center of the blast was displaced 150 m (490 ft) horizontally and 600 m (2,000 ft) vertically from the Dome, having slightly missed the original target, the distinctive "T"-shaped Aioi Bridge. The Dome was 160 meters from the hypocenter of the atomic blast. Everyone inside the building was killed instantly

Building 7 was not hit by planes. How did it turn into powdered rubble below ground level?
NIST report carefully avoids this question

Building 7 was protected from planes impact and fires yet it turned into powdered rubble and fell at complete free fall speed. How many pages of paper NIST reports explain that little mathematical problem?

originally posted by: thegimprider
How did it turn into powdered rubble below ground level?

What makes you think it was "powdered rubble" below ground level?

a reply to: hellobruce
Powder is what was most often loaded and carried out of NYC for months. Powder is what flowed all over Manhattan several inches thick just like a volcano eruption. Fires burned below ground zero for months. Few bodies were found, no desks, no computers, no file cabinets. I've seen so amy photo's of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and very little was reduced to tiny rubble, If it did not burn it lay there intact and recognizable. A doll, a brick, a shoe and whole human bodies.
Debris was not hauled away and destroyed without forensic examination.

originally posted by: thegimprider
Powder is what was most often loaded and carried out of NYC for months.

Your evidence for that claim is what exactly?

Debris was not hauled away and destroyed without forensic examination.

True, it was not. It was examined on site or Fresh Kills.

True, it was not. It was examined on site or Fresh Kills.

Yeah all 0.03% of it..

a reply to: wildb

All the debris recovered from WTC was taken to Fresh Kills in Staten Island for examination

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: firerescue
What about the airplanes? What about black boxes? How much heat and energy does it take to vaporize Rolls Royce jet engines? And yet a terrorist passport is found nearby.
Santa Clause' sleigh veered off course and its impact destroyed WTC? How many lies and coverups does it take before one begins to doubt every word of official story?