The Twin Towers: The Proofs Of Demolition

Originally posted by earth2


Its not a fireball its a electrical static discharge.

You cant touch a hovering helicopter until you discharge the static or it could kill you. When I say hovering heli. im talking about hooking up equipment and such while it is hovering over.

I never said it was a fireball, I was saying it could be metal hitting metal causing a short brief spark of some kind.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by earth2

That fireball is a static discharge. Planes build up static when they are flying through the air.

Could be metal on metal. It was very brief before it disappears. Fireballs don't disappear.

Ok sounds good to me, im a helicopter man by military standards so fixed wing im dumb as rocks. Thx DB and E2

Now I don't like to use this video because its poltically motivated in the first part (its only 50 seconds long in whole video), but you can just watch the rest of the video and you see a brief spark when the plane makes contact with the building before it disappears.

Originally posted by earth2

You cant touch a hovering helicopter until you discharge the static or it could kill you. When I say hovering heli. im talking about hooking up equipment and such while it is hovering over.

now your talking my language, Acually you can touch teh helicopter while its hovering done it many times. you can even attach things to the cargo hooks.

Its refueling that poses the static threat. you refuel while its ideling on the ground or shut down, most helos can refuel in air to. You are spot on about grounding you, the plane and the tanker truck prior to refuleing aircraft whether they are turning or not. It goes back to my earlyier post about JP4 and JP5 jet fuels. They are highly explosive and I have seen movies where one minute the guy is refueling the bird and seconds later the aircraft , tanker truck and him explode.

Very bad stuff

Originally posted by geemony

now your talking my language, Acually you can touch teh helicopter while its hovering done it many times. you can even attach things to the cargo hooks.

Its refueling that poses the static threat. you refuel while its ideling on the ground or shut down, most helos can refuel in air to. You are spot on about grounding you, the plane and the tanker truck prior to refuleing aircraft whether they are turning or not. It goes back to my earlyier post about JP4 and JP5 jet fuels. They are highly explosive and I have seen movies where one minute the guy is refueling the bird and seconds later the aircraft , tanker truck and him explode.

Very bad stuff

You have to touch a static discharge to the hovering helicopter or you can get bit......101st Airborne training taught me that..home of the screaming eagles

[edit on 28-6-2007 by earth2]

Originally posted by deltaboy


Now I don't like to use this video because its poltically motivated in the first part (its only 50 seconds long in whole video), but you can just watch the rest of the video and you see a brief spark when the plane makes contact with the building before it disappears.

wow bad day wasnt it.. damn i had not seen that video in a long time. but im glad casue one thing I think we can all agree on is, we must never forget.

Originally posted by earth2

You have to touch a static discharge to the hovering helicopter or you can get bit......101st Airborne training taught me that..home of the screaming eagles

[edit on 28-6-2007 by earth2]

your right have to touch the hook or the skid so yes your right accually been 22 years.... 67N Attack and Utility helicopter Mechanic and crew chief. I used to push you guys out, most of the time i didnt casue you guys were always ready. Glad to meet you ( hand shake)

I was wondering if kinetic energy is capable of turning concrete to dust that was inches deep all through Manhattan
.Also would kenetic energy cause this damage to this firetruck and the cars that were there?

Originally posted by crowpruitt
I was wondering if kinetic energy is capable of turning concrete to dust that was inches deep all through Manhattan
.Also would kenetic energy cause this damage to this firetruck and the cars that were there?

Cant answer that however has the truck been moved from its original spot casue it looks like the bldg came down on it. maybe the fuel in the truck exploded casueing the charring. Check the right front tire its still sticking to the street.Looks like a bull dozer is pushing it. Where is this picture taken at ground zero, looks like it from the surroundings.

Heres another pic taken a half a block away.
Notice the tailights,completely melted,do you realized the heat that was needed to do this destruction?

[edit on 28-6-2007 by crowpruitt]

Originally posted by crowpruitt
I was wondering if kinetic energy is capable of turning concrete to dust that was inches deep all through Manhattan
.Also would kenetic energy cause this damage to this firetruck and the cars that were there?

I looked at it again heck that truck was at GZ looks like to me. look its got a huge chunk of bldg on the roof of it and what appears to be bldg rubble all through it. id say this truck was being moved out of the way from the site. also the tire had melted so thats why it appears to be sticking to the street, its trailing cooled tire which had been melted and stringed. thats my guess....

Originally posted by crowpruitt
I was wondering if kinetic energy is capable of turning concrete to dust that was inches deep all through Manhattan
.Also would kenetic energy cause this damage to this firetruck and the cars that were there?

I can imagine it was the kenetic energy spreading fire all over the place. There was a lot of burning material and the collapse spread it many blocks.
It is still possible Bush was involved but to use demo. in the buldings would have been to risky.
That plane broke many columns and the heat weakened many columns. When the one side of the buildings shell gave way it instintaniously snapped the other columns, they can only bend so much. After that it was a snowball effect.

Originally posted by crowpruitt
Heres another pic taken a half a block away.
Notice the tailights,completely melted,do you realized the heat that was needed to do this destruction?

[edit on 28-6-2007 by crowpruitt]

Does look very midevil.... there was lot of heat present. tight streets in NY the bldg coming down sent consentrated shoots of smoke and concussion energy and loose debris in set directions rather than being able to spread out and disapate. Seems to me anyway

Originally posted by earth2

I can imagine it was the kenetic energy spreading fire all over the place. There was a lot of burning material and the collapse spread it many blocks.
It is still possible Bush was involved but to use demo. in the buldings would have been to risky.
That plane broke many columns and the heat weakened many columns. When the one side of the buildings shell gave way it instintaniously snapped the other columns, they can only bend so much. After that it was a snowball effect.

Not to mention the controlled direction of the energy with the tall bldgs around the WTC. I agree with everything you said, and if Bsh didnt know somebody did have intelligence it was going to happen. That i do feel confident in saying.

Originally posted by crowpruitt
Heres another pic taken a half a block away.
Notice the tailights,completely melted,do you realized the heat that was needed to do this destruction?

[edit on 28-6-2007 by crowpruitt]

Here is an interesting link i found - Source

Many pictures of melted cars a mile away. What force would be necessary to travel a mile away from the collapse area to melt cars?

Worth having a look.

BeZerK

[edit on 28-6-2007 by BeZerk]

I think a lot of these cars were taken to other places when they were cleaning things up.
Personaly I dont think you should believe every thing you read on the www.
Just because there is a website with a pic doesnt make it true.

Originally posted by earth2
I think a lot of these cars were taken to other places when they were cleaning things up.
Personaly I dont think you should believe every thing you read on the www.
Just because there is a website with a pic doesnt make it true.

If you bothered to have a look at the link and look at some of the pictures you will notice a parking lot that was know where near the WTC Collapse.

Im still waiting for your response in further posts back. I guess you jumped ship once again

BeZerK

Originally posted by BeZerk


Many pictures of melted cars a mile away. What force would be necessary to travel a mile away from the collapse area to melt cars?

Worth having a look.

BeZerK

[edit on 28-6-2007 by BeZerk]

See this is where I don't get this. Cars are supposedly melted from miles away but not people? Since when did we become invunerable to heat that supposedly melt cars from a mile away? I sure didn't see people screaming "I'm melting!!!" or "I'm burning!!!!"

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by BeZerk


Many pictures of melted cars a mile away. What force would be necessary to travel a mile away from the collapse area to melt cars?

Worth having a look.

BeZerK

[edit on 28-6-2007 by BeZerk]

See this is where I don't get this. Cars are supposedly melted from miles away but not people? Since when did we become invunerable to heat that supposedly melt cars from a mile away? I sure didn't see people screaming "I'm melting!!!" or "I'm burning!!!!"

I agree it does not make sense it bewilders me. Although i do remember there being reports of vans being packed with explosives in and around New York. Could it be a possibility a Van exploded while the collapse was in full effect covering the city in dust. When running for your life and the loud crashing sounds from steel around you one would not realize a bomb exploding for that matter, just a suggestion i guess, nothing to make of it.

I am the first to admit i do not have all the answers but there is enough evidence to warrant a new investigation from evidence of CD to the collapse of WTC7 and many more.

BeZerK

Originally posted by BeZerk

I am the first to admit i do not have all the answers but there is enough evidence to warrant a new investigation from evidence of CD to the collapse of WTC7 and many more.

BeZerK

BeZerk, i agree 100% that a new investigation needs to be done. i dont have the answers either.