Thermite you tell me

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I expect they love these explosive theories drifting around because as they are more than likely untrue and hence can never be proven, people arn't looking at the more realistic explanations which would lead to countless lawsuits, losses of reputation and red-faces.
[edit on 25-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

I have to ask if the explosives theories are being used as a smoke screen to derail an investigation into the collapse. These rumors and theories kind of put a dent into the credability of anyone trying to look into this further. I buy NIST's explaination of the collapse, but after looking at the properties of the materials that were supposedly used in the construction I have to ask why the buildings collapsed so quickly. I do not buy the explosives theory for the simple reason that too many people would had to of had knowledge of it and it would have leaked by now.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Maybe I am being harsh, but all I saw was lists of his DVDs you could watch snippets from to buy from his online shop. But I guess you're right, he is popular and busy so he does have the bills to pay... I shouldn't be so quick to judge..

I do agree, it does take away some credibility when all you see on a site is buy this or that.

It seems highly likely to me, after all many people would stand to lose a lot of money if it was proven....

A lot of the 'evidence' pointing towards explosives being used, such as the removal of the debris so quickly without examination, can be easily and more realistically applied to the idea that there were defects in the construction methods and materials which they did not want discovered. I can imagine all sorts of issues with insurance payouts, family members suing the companies involved for 'killing' their loved ones through faulty engineering, etc.

I agree that this is a very plausable scenario. The only thing would be what everyone says about the demolitions. There would be a heck of a lot of people involved in an insurance cover-up. How can so many people be keeping this secret? Just something to think about.

Edit to add: I would think if the building had been constructed faulty, they would have no reason to immediately cover it up. It would take more than a few weeks to "discover" that the building was constructed faulty. Far longer than it took them to come up with the pancake theory etc. So, why wasn't the "evidence" more closely scrutinized to come to the conclusion that the building was faulty. Even if it was faulty, they could claim that the buildings were not designed for a terrorist attack of this nature and therefore you have no right in suing anyone for faulty construction. Just My opinion/thoughts.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Griff]

I just want to add. Why would the government have any interest in covering up a construction company's/engineering firm's/materials distributor's faulty work? It would have given the government an out. They (the government) knew they screwed up with intellegence reports. Why not let someone else take the blame for "faulty engineering" etc.? If I screw up on my designs or a manufacturer supplies faulty equipment, the government isn't going to come in and try to justify my mistake. They would let me fry. That is what they would have done in this case also, IMO. What does the government care about Silverstien Properties?

Probably similar reasons as to why they are so concerned to buy up useless supplies of Tamiflu to fight birdflu, which Donald Rumsfeld stands to make money on.
Or the clearing up of 9/11 by Halliburton, the rebuilding of Iraq by Haliburton, etc which was run by Cheney.

But even Haliburton cleaning up has nothing to do with a government cover-up of the building materials/designers/workers themselves. The only thing I can think of is the connection of the Port Authority being a government agency. Which is another possibility (highly likely). Remember that the buildings didn't have to meet NYC standards at the time because it was a Port Authority owned building. Or something to that extent.

So was WTC7 built with shoddy materials too? It fell faster than them all.


Now THAT'S shoddy...

[edit on 2006-4-25 by wecomeinpeace]

WCIP. Now there's a good question. One would think that being the disaster depot for NYC, that WTC7 would have been built more like a bunker than a normal building.

Well, actually WTC7 had a cantilever transfer girder setup in certain areas over the substation, which as we all know makes buildings implode perfectly at the drop of a hat. A lesson for the future: check the plans before you enter any skyscraper. You may be gambling with your life.

I remember watching a video about a year ago or so and it was an alternate camera angle with a noticable rumble and then the building collapsed just a moment later.

If someone here had the video or if its' already posted that would rock.

9/11 official story is too sketchy to be true. Those builings were a clear demolition. There is virtually no difference between Wtc 1 - 2 and then the demolition of WTC 7. With the former German Minister's comments about the military operating a demolition out of the military bunker in WTC 7 it kind's of obvious whats really going on. Operation Northwoods is not a high military document to take for granted thats for sure either. Lets not forget that one.

What the 9/11 commission left out of the report could fill volumes.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

Steel, Like most Metals will SNAP under immense Pressuer/Weight, usually in Straight lines.

Thats what I thought When I fiest saw the pic, So I did A little Googleing

www.ideers.bris.ac.uk...


so it lookes like the Steel they used was too Brittle I guess

what do you say?

as for the Melting stuff ,well that could be anything that fell on it rubber? i dunno

as far as the shoddy construction bit, I'm pretty sure that not a whole lot of buildings pre 9/11 were built with a fully fueled 747 impact in mind, if any.

btw, I seem to recall something about the wtc building being constructed with a steel "skin". since the outside was to supply most of the rigidity of the building, they used weaker materials on the interior of the building. I'm sure just about everybody here has seen footage of the wtc falling. it looks to like the interior materials gave away and "pancaked" straight down and the "skin" of the building collapsed inward on top of the wreckage. no pre-demo prep here. the cuts IMO were created by torch during cleanup.

This one is easy. In my youth I worked as a laborer and an electricians apprentice on large scale industrial construction projects in the Wyoming area. One of the jobs the Journeymen like to pawn off on laborers is using a cutting torch because it is simple to learn and easy to teach. The welders themselves do the precision cutting and laborers often are recruited to cut up the scrap for transport. I spent many days and weeks doing just that.

The engineers would not be much help with this one as they spent their days in air conditioned offices fixing their errors.

What the picture shows is a quick cut done for demolition, salvage or possibly to free a trapped person(s). The angle of the cut was purposeful to cause the upper part to fall toward the highest side of the cut. Someone made the comparison of cutting down a tree earlier in this thread. Exactly right. You can even see where the metal fatigued and broke before the cut was completed.

I'm not surprised that this would look unusual to someone who had never been around this type of work and it was certainly worthy of being checked out. I'm afraid there is nothing to be learned from this though. Just part of the normal demolition process.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Quite how you would control something burning that hot in such a way I'm not really sure

www.guzer.com...


[edit on 25-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

LoL indeed Agent Smith, watch the video and see how they control it.
They don't actually show you how the flow is controlled in that clip.
So it does not suprise me you are not really sure.




[edit on 25-4-2006 by The Links]

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Well, actually WTC7 had a cantilever transfer girder setup in certain areas over the substation, which as we all know makes buildings implode perfectly at the drop of a hat. A lesson for the future: check the plans before you enter any skyscraper. You may be gambling with your life.

Unfortunately, many people on 9/11 DID gamble with their lives, Too bad that they didn't realize that the deck was stacked against them with a pair of 767's

Who are you talking about Howard?

To gamble is a choice.

People did die yes, you say "Too bad" ?

[edit on 25-4-2006 by The Links]

No, WCIP, made the statement that it was a gamble to go into a modern high rise building.

I merely pointed out that his flippant remark ignored the reality that people did die on 9/11.

I DID NOT SAY "TOO BAD."

Don't try to put words into my mouth, link, you aren't smart enough

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Unfortunately, many people on 9/11 DID gamble with their lives, Too bad that they didn't realize that the deck was stacked against them with a pair of 767's

I am repeating the words you used Howard. You should have perhaps used the term "little did they know"

What you wrote shows little respect to people who died on 9/11. Shame on you.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Unfortunately, many people on 9/11 DID gamble with their lives, Too bad that they didn't realize that the deck was stacked against them with a pair of 767's

Howie,
If you don't mind me saying, I can see your out of aces.
For a taste of your whisky, I'll give you some advice

You got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em....

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
A lesson for the future: check the plans before you enter any skyscraper. You may be gambling with your life.

A lesson for the future of who exactly?

I'm not the one trying to divert the subject of this thread. The photo shows a column cut with a conventional torch. If you need any more convincing, just look at the source of the photo, Chris Boylan.