The Twin Towers: The Proofs Of Demolition

Originally posted by earth2
You see I may be wrong, but im using my head instead of running around gathering other peoples facts on www. Use your head for a minute and think for yourself. To me thats were all these loonie conspiracy theories are coming from, he said she said. Get back to the basics. I used to jump on the conspiracy train but know im just trying to really figure out what happen.

Actually im using logic and basic common sense.

Great way to dodge and weave the the issue at hand with your inability to answer the question

BeZerK

to An Urban Legend (OP)

the points you make are well taken and the pic of explosions before impact startled me but a from what i've seen so far, videos and single frames, well they are far from reliable. it's been approx 6 long years and people with goofy and sinister motives had more than enough time to produce a lot of faked footage.


some pics are still interesting, though:



WTC#6 apparently explodes upon 2nd hit.

from www.911studies.com...


i don't know if the 'impact flash' at WTC2 was real, something tells me it's genuine, but that doesn't help in the least, because it does not make much sense if any. the same applies to the total disintegration of the twin towers, and to a lesser degree WTC#7. there is no readily available method that i'm aware of which could possible cause destruction on such a low level or melt vast amounts of metal so that everything remained red hot for weeks on end. nothing we know could cause this without awkward bends of logic, neither nukes nor thermite, nothing. the building must have literally been made of explosives to exhibit such a mode of destruction.

unless someone on this planet has his hands in sophisticaed DEW research, these disintegrations remain unsolved and unreal. That is why so few are able to wrap acknowledge it was a demo, becuase they appear to block out the unfathomable, that something extremely violent happened for reasons we can only guess, with the use of tools and technology we don't fully understand (if at all), while officials are doing all they can to confuse (NIST?, earthquake sensor data timestamps?) and keep it all under the rug. it's their modus operandi, after all, that's why everything was shipped away and recycled, that's why the pentagon tapes are all either under seal or have been destroyed. to be fair, i'll have to admit that i would expect more thorough preparations from black ops of this scale...

[edit on 28.6.2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by earth2

Originally posted by BeZerk

You still failed to explain how the windows just above the impact area, where people smashed computers into to gain oxygen, did not break?

According to your theory, the impact of the plane on the 80th floor managed to shatter the windows and blow off marble panels on the ground floor of the lobby.

How is this possible?

BeZerK

Im not a collision engineer how should I know. Tell me this, why could that have not happened?

It seems to be like I am running around in circles.

Ok let me go over this again. According to YOUR theory, the impact of the plane on the 80th floor managed to shatter the windows and blow off marble panels on the ground floor of the lobby... are your following...If the your theory is correct then why on the 104th floors and lower were people smashing windows to gain oxygen. It's quite obvious your theory does not make sense. How can the plane hitting the tower on the 80th floor demolish the lobby but yet keep windows in tact a few floors up from the lobby?

BeZerK

I remember when it happened like it was yesterday!
My friends in maintainance called me and told me a plane had hit the world trade center and they had a tv set up to watch it. I left my office and got there about five minutes before the second tower was hit.

We watched the entire episode and I remember telling everyone that it looked like a controlled demolition. The engineers all agreed. We decided to shut the plant down because we were located beside an airport.

The way the towers fell bothered me all day because the buildings didn't seperate where they had been fractured but pancaked all the way down.

Also, the collapse started at the very top of both towers downward, not at the place where they had been fractured. I waited for an official explaination, and I was very dissappointed that they came up with the amount of jet fuel caused such a tremendous amount of heat that the steel girders lost all their tensile strength and couldn't support the weight.


Naw! 911 was an inside job and we are still seeing the results today!

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by earth2
...The Lobby windows could have been broken from a giant airplane that slammed into the side of the building though...
...When you tell me these thing please give me a link or I might think your making it up.

How does an aircraft hitting a building at the 80th floor (south tower), cause windows to smash on the ground floor.

In context with the size of the towers a 757 is not massive.

If you've done any research you should know about the people burned in the basement, it's a well known story and has been discussed to death here like the rest of the 9-11 debate.

Edit...

Oops beat me to it Bezerk. I'll back off for now, finish him off mate lol. I gotta hit the sack anyway. Great discussion...

[edit on 28/6/2007 by ANOK]

Well if you'd of done any research it was a 767-200 that hit the towers not a 757... LOL! Just kidding.... Thursday night is smartass night for me.

Originally posted by twitchy
I'd buy that if it weren't taking place sporadically, what, forty some odd stories below the collapsing debris field.

I agree. I'm a conspiracy believer. Granted those horizontal plumes could have been caused when the metal was weakened and began to collapse from the center. But, I could only buy that if it was within – giving more than I should - maybe 10 floors below the initial impact floors. But 25 floors or more? I just don't see jet fuel burning through 15 floors in order to weaken the steel that far below. NO WAY those plumes were caused by internal floors collapsing or air concussions. I'd be more apt to believe in a case of spontaneous concussion, than the accepted theory.

Originally posted by ANOK
You are seeing explosives going off out of sequence.
Nothing unusual about this in demolitions, some of the explosives often go off out of sequence.

Excellent point my friend.

Regardless of whether or not this is THE conclusive proof (which it doesn't hopefully claim to be, because it certainly is not) it does point to some very interesting issues regarding eyewitness testimony, physics and controlled demolition scenarios.

Personally I'm leaning toward the deliberate demolition of the buildings and not the work of terrorists in planes although it's still possible it could likely be one in conjunction with the other. Something just doesn't seem right about the whole thing.

It's not that I don't think Bin Laden would have loved to have directed such an attack (no love lost on his part) but I just don't believe he did. Initially he denied it, but the video tape "found" by the USA months later shows him admitting he did it. Very odd.

All in all, 9-11 still ends up being the "new pearl harbor" the PNAC desired as a rallying point for Americans to support potential world domination endeavors, whether an inside job or not.

Nice thread IMO, thanks.

Can anyone illustrate/describe how the towers should have collapsed if indeed the plane impact and fire was sufficient to cause one?

Would it look the same way but NO squibs?

Would only the floors above the impact break apart and fall?

If someone could explain how they think it should look if it was a non-CD, would be much appreciated.

Originally posted by earth2
You see I may be wrong, but im using my head instead of running around gathering other peoples facts on www. Use your head for a minute and think for yourself. To me thats were all these loonie conspiracy theories are coming from, he said she said.

This excuse is getting really old. Basically your saying the web has no good information? No, that's all wrong. Websites that aren't credible are a different story. There is a wealth of information on the web and it's a shame you haven't learned that yet. I'm curious, is this why you rarely ever post a link to back up your information? No, loony conspiracy theories come from people who don't use facts to back up what they say.

Originally posted by An Urban Legend

Has anyone found any other angles of this picture? I don't think I've ever seen this one, I'm going to have to do some searching.

First off , all your " proofs " is only a copy and paste job of someone else's
work . And in theory , an elephant can hang off a cliff with only it's tail
wrapped around a daisy , but just use your eye's and your common sense
and you know that it just doesn't fit . Btw , i stole that too .
No one will EVER prove that 911 was an " inside " job . And i'd bet my
life on that . It will NEVER happen . Really , we're 60 years past Roswell ,
almost 45 past Kennedy and their no closer now as they were then on proving those two things , and those two things REALLY DID HAPPEN ,
unlike 911 , that's not an inside job . As ive said before , i used to think it
was an inside job , their just not that smart . Too many people would have to have been involved and there's no keeping a lid on that kettle .

good post,lots of info i wasnt privy on... thx for the work... keep it up.

Originally posted by DoomX
Can anyone illustrate/describe how the towers should have collapsed if indeed the plane impact and fire was sufficient to cause one?

Would it look the same way but NO squibs?

Would only the floors above the impact break apart and fall?

If someone could explain how they think it should look if it was a non-CD, would be much appreciated.

First of all, by all engineering calculations, the towers SHOULD NOT have collapsed from an impact of one plane this size since they were designed to take an impact from a 707, a plane that was of similar size.

Source
"A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”

Crazy that planes have changed so much in 30 years that they could bring down one of the most amazing engineering feats of it's time.

But, given unforseen circumstances and the advancement in commercial jet design and jet fuel quality (?) the buildings did collapse. No buildings of this calibre have collapsed like these did. I don't think anyone knows how it would look if it was a controlled demo, or if it was an actual pancake collapse. Many claim that there should have been no pancake collapse - that if any collpase were to happen, it should have happened to only a few floors being burnt hollow by the fuel and if anything from that, maybe the top and above should have tumble to the side, rather than disintegrating.

The Construction and Project Manager of the World Trade Centers, who made the claim of multiple impacts, died in the towers collapse.

Read More



[edit on 28-6-2007 by tyranny22]

After reading much of this thread I can agree that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence for explosions taking place in unusual locations in relation to the impact or the collapse. I don't know the cause.

My question is this, if there were squibs or explosions in pivotal locations & even in the lobby or basement, why conclude that it was our government that placed them there? Is it not possible that the terrorists had a back up plan in case the airliners missed or did not cause the damage they intended? The explosions could have been set in such a way as to trap people in the building preventing their escape.

Or it could just be due to the collapse. I don't know of a collapse of this scale has ever happened before. The dynamics of the collapse & all the variables are too complicated for any computer to accurately simulate.

I know that throughout history governments have been known to take action against their own citizens from time to time, but I can't help but feel that this would have been too bold a plan, too complicated a plan, & too dangerous a plan for our government to pull off successfully.

The potential for error is just too great. How would the existence of the squibs have been explained if the Aircraft missed its target? Or if the top floors failed to collapse? I can't see any government official no matter how corrupt capable of doing this.

Why would the government need to go to such great lengths to justify going to war with Afghanistan anyway? The president could have done what other presidents in the past did and make it an unofficial war.


[edit on 28-6-2007 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by Sparky63

Why would the government need to go to such great lengths to justify going to war with Afghanistan anyway? The president could have done what other presidents in the past did and make it an unofficial war.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Sparky63]

A just question.

Most people believe the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were just icing on the cake for the administration. The real point was to change the international agenda for the United States. The administration enacted the Patriot Act as well as numerous bills/directives that altered the US contitution and excluded the US from International Treaties. This paved the way for A New American Century.

This is an agenda which boost America above international politics to accomplish goals it otherwise would not have been able to had such an attack not taken place. By the destruction of the World Trade Centers the administration gained the support of the American people as well as the Congress to proceed with it's agenda of creating it's "New American Century". It also boosted the money invested in our Military Industrial Complex and budget spending as well as private research and development and security agencies. The Homeland Security Agency was created as well - which is basically a gestapo aimed at policing the american people.

Bascially it made the Administration unaccountable to the rest of the world and to the American people.

Do you think that Bush would have been allowed to pass NSPD 51 and HSPD 20 had the attack on the WTCs not happened?

If it was terrorists, I'm sure the administration was thanking them more than they were cursing them. They inadvertantly set the foot hold for the New Amercian (World) Century (Order).

edit:
For this recent new article that further demonstrates this administrations "above the law" attitude.

White House refuses to turn over subpoenaed papers
"The doctrine of executive privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the president's interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress's interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications," Fielding said.

So your president is more concerned with covering his and the administrations ass and protecting thier confidentiality than he is maintaining the American people's Right to Privacy

Countries such as France protect privacy explicitly in their constitution (France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen), while the Supreme Court of the United States has found that the U.S. constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Other countries without constitutional privacy protections have laws protecting privacy, such as the United Kingdom's Data Protection Act 1998 or Australia's Privacy Act 1988. The European Union requires all member states to legislate to ensure that citizens have a right to privacy, through directives such as Directive 95/46.
...
More recently, it has been revealed that the United States National Security Agency has been warehousing the call detail information of billions of individual phone calls for pattern analysis. Whether this was done in violation of law or through powers granted by Congress as part of the broader "War on Terrorism" is the subject of debate.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by tyranny22]

I still believe its quite likely it was mostly a foreign operation carried out by 'terrorists' but there are certainly rogue elements in the government giving a helping hand, and they are probably considered as spies and double agents. There was certainly a whitewash so the US government are hiding something, but what that is exactly could be a number of things.

The thing is about this operation is that it makes the US government look guilty and it looks like an 'inside job' because most likely the 'inside' has been penetrated and compromised in various ways by foreign spies and the likes, so they were literally working from the inside (like rats on a ship).

Originally posted by BeZerk
How can the lobby windows, panels on the wall be ripped out when the plane hit many floors above? The plane hit about the 90th floor the lobby is on ground level

I am by no means trying to debunk this issue; I do think a lot needs to be proven though beyond a shadow of doubt. When the plane hit the bldg, it would have caused a swaying motion to the whole bldg; it could very well have blown out the lobby windows. Those buildings were very tall and the base of the bldg is solid and can not move. However if you get a swaying motion even the least bit from the building then absolutely it could cause the big windows in the lobby to blow out because the energy needs to go somewhere usually towards to base.

Take a pencil and stick it in a vice, then move the pencil back and forth , now notice where the cracks in the pencil are they are at or near the base, which is solid and can not move to distribute the energy of the pencil being moved. This may not be a perfect example but I hope you can understand what I mean by the force needing somewhere to go.

The explosions or non explosions at places on the tower below the impact. I don’t know, they could be explosions they could be force distribution. I can’t make a good decision one way or the other.

As far as heat melting the steal well jp4 and jp5 jet fuels are very volatile and can be set off by mere static electricity. My proof for this is my experience with those fuels while in the military and the many films the army showed us on how volatile the stuff is.

As far as all these eyewitnesses, seems to me a lot of people want their 15 minutes of fame.

So to prove it to me I need way more then a few pictures and someone's hearsay...... Sorry

Originally posted by VicRH
The thing is about this operation is that it makes the US government look guilty and it looks like an 'inside job' because most likely the 'inside' has been penetrated and compromised in various ways by foreign spies and the likes, so they were literally working from the inside (like rats on a ship).

I have the same feelings. We need to look into Israel more in my opinion.

Originally posted by geemony
Take a pencil and stick it in a vice, then move the pencil back and forth , now notice where the cracks in the pencil are they are at or near the base, which is solid and can not move to distribute the energy of the pencil being moved. This may not be a perfect example but I hope you can understand what I mean by the force needing somewhere to go.

You make a great observation. Does anyone have knowledge of the earthquake design of the towers? I believe they had absorbers for the motion. Not sure.

As far as heat melting the steal well jp4 and jp5 jet fuels are very volatile and can be set off by mere static electricity. My proof for this is my experience with those fuels while in the military and the many films the army showed us on how volatile the stuff is.

No offense but what does the volitility of the fuel have to do with the steel melting/weekening?

So to prove it to me I need way more then a few pictures and someone's hearsay...... Sorry

That's fine. I'm not here to prove anything. Just to discuss things and find the truth of the matter.

Originally posted by Griff

You make a great observation. Does anyone have knowledge of the earthquake design of the towers? I believe they had absorbers for the motion. Not sure.

Very valid point i did not think of that, and i do remember something about shock systems being built into the towers, but not sure of how they would work in this scenario. i wouldnt think they would have taken planes impacting as a testing angle. But its very possible.

No offense but what does the volitility of the fuel have to do with the steel melting/weekening?

The point would be that these types of fuels burn at very high temps, again I dont know at what temp steel melts but a full fuel load would have introduced a very high amount of fuel into the initial hit.



[edit on 28-6-2007 by geemony]

I saw the collapse of the twin towers which was pretty close from where I live and I noticed right away that the cause of their downfall was by demolition.The way they quickly came down ,even building 7 ,made me believe in my mind that it was all a plot or pretext for war on some terror -organization.