9/11 Rare-New Evidence Of Controlled Demo?

Originally posted by Griff
Can you give me a sane reason why they would cut that column about 2 feet above a person's head? When it would have been easier to cut at a comfortable level? Why bring in a ladder or picker to cut that column when you can clearly see that a person can stand right there and cut it? Just doesn't make sense to me and so far no one has given a real answer as to why they did the extra steps in cutting that column.

Have you ever seen how they cut down trees in residential areas? They don't cut it from the bottom, they work from the top down for safety reasons. With people still working in rescue and recovery or just milling about, it's safer and less disruptive to cut a 40 foot beam three times than it is to fell it in one big cut.

Originally posted by PistolPete
Have you ever seen how they cut down trees in residential areas? They don't cut it from the bottom, they work from the top down for safety reasons. With people still working in rescue and recovery or just milling about, it's safer and less disruptive to cut a 40 foot beam three times than it is to fell it in one big cut.

I agree. But, we don't know how tall that column was. So, you may have the answer but we can't be positively sure at this point. Plus, where are the cut pieces? There's still collapsed columns laying there. Why would they cut more columns and haul them out but not the already collapsed columns first?

Captain, can I ask you a question, why do you not believe that people within your own country and with help from outsiders could not have done 9/11. History is replete with many such incidents where we the people are murdered by their own Goverments and their supporters.

Is it just your patriotism or something else, in your own country during the civil war Americans were killing Americans so again why do you believe they (the Goverment) could not have done it.


The net result of 9/11 id that your country is a war, a war in which the little peole are being killed and the big ones are making billions, does that not make you ask questions.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The complete image:
www.911truth.dk...

Makes a world of difference. Whoever originally cropped it engaged in intentional disinfo. They were cut by torches. Give it a rest.

And now, back to the topic...

Can you give me a sane reason why they would cut that column about 2 feet above a person's head? When it would have been easier to cut at a comfortable level? Why bring in a ladder or picker to cut that column when you can clearly see that a person can stand right there and cut it? Just doesn't make sense to me and so far no one has given a real answer as to why they did the extra steps in cutting that column.

Because there's no telling when they were "cut", or at what height the surrounding debris was when they were. Cleanup down there went on for a solid 6 months, and videos and photos from all during that time show firefighters still wearing their gear while down there.

s24.photobucket.com...

Can you explain how all of those firefighters and iron workers didn't s#($ when they seen that the still sticking up cores were cut by some mysterious pre-existing forces not resembling what their torches would do? Was everybody down there part of the coverup?



[edit on 3-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Because there's no telling when they were "cut", or at what height the surrounding debris was when they were. Cleanup down there went on for a solid 6 months, and videos and photos from all during that time show firefighters still wearing their gear while down there.

I agree and wasn't looking at it from that angle.

Can you explain how all of those firefighters and iron workers didn't s#($ when they seen that the still sticking up cores were cut by some mysterious pre-existing forces not resembling what their torches would do? Was everybody down there part of the coverup?

Maybe that was some of the "molten steel" reported? I'm just saying without a timestamp and a few other facts, no one can positively say it's this or that.

Although, I do tend to lean more on the torch cut side. I think I just like to argue.

[edit on 8/3/2007 by Griff]

Disinformation

Read that and I am sure it will be Obvious who may be an agent and what their intent is. There are more links elsewhere throughout the site. Reading those I have learned to pick them out very quickly, since their arguments fit into the pattern very well, and usually have little substance. To them, concrete turns to dust everyday and steel breaks like toothpicks 1000 ft from a fire ... pancaking takes no resistance ... and the moon is mad of cheese

When you read them refuting your accounts of witnesses saying something ... then back themselves up with witness claims ... It makes you wonder how they pick and choose which witnesses are credible. They seem to refute firefighters caught on video, but you are suppose to believe them about someone they cannot prove. Quite funny, really.

Look with your own eyes and ignore those who don't even try to see the truth. Intelligent people don't dismiss, they debate. The blind and deaf cannot argue but just refute, for they don't see or hear any evidence they wish not to, if it goes against their agenda.

You would think with all the videos as this, there would be little argument. Anyone that is a professional and independent would come to the same conclusion. If air goes to the path of least resistance, it would go up through the top, not blow windows out 100+ feet below ... if it was going to blow a window out, it would do it at the floor below not 20 floors below.

You can believe what you want ... but there is only ONE truth. One day, we will know it.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Disinformation

Read that and I am sure it will be Obvious who may be an agent and what their intent is.

Hey nice thread

I didnt relaize it existed when I did mine:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm beginning to think that the buildings were designed, if something like this were to happen, to be brought down on their own footprint. Either designed or modified to do so at a later date (perhaps after the '93 attack?)

I find it a little hard to believe that 3 buildings of this size would fall on their own footprints so easily.

Furthermore, with so many government agencies in Building 7, I believe it was brought down intentionally to destroy anything that may have been found in there if it had remained.

I mean...spies take cyanide pills, don't they? Wouldn't you want to "pull" a building that had the IRS, Secret Service, CIA and SEC in it? Can you imagine what kind of information may have been found if they hadn't?

I have several questions: People keep bringing up free fall speeds and the fact that there was no damage to surroundong buildings right? Why limit the damage to just those two buildings? Why not go for the dramatic mass destruction? Cause as much damage as possible. Would that not inflame the masses more to support the supposed "purpose" for the attacks if there was wide spread destruction?
The second question I have is, and please forgive me if I have missed it somewhere, That if concrete, which has been acknowledged to be a major part of the construction of the towers, is heated it will spall, sometimes explosively. Could that not be a cause of the low level "explosions" that witnesses heard?
As to the "squibs" that are seen in the videos, If I remember coreectly from a documentary that I saw, the tower basically collapsed from the core out. so if floors were collasping downward would that not create a downward pressure that will seek the weakest point to exit? Plus
video does not show the whole story as to what is going on inside the shell.
As to WTC7. ANY building that is burning for 8 hours will collapse unless is is specially designed not to. I serioulsy doubt that WTC7 was designed to those standards. Could not the fire be attributed to the 10's of thousands of pounds of jet fuel that each jet carried?
"Micro-Nukes".......Well that goes without saying.
About the molten metal, It was stated that jet fuel burns at 1500 degrees. Yes that is true..But what about the rest of the fire load in the building? All the plastics and wood and paper and furniture and foam and so on and so on. Could not the combination of all of the things burning at once account for the exteremly high temps? I know that this material was buring for days, if not weeks after the tragedy.
Now please understand that I dont belive that the whole story has been told and that there is some type of cover up going on. But I also dont belive that the US goverment had anything to do with the planning or carrying out of these attacks, no matter what it may have down in the past.
I post this in the intrest of purposeful discussion , which I belive is the purpose for this site, not to put down anybodys thought of beliefs. So if I have offended anyone please know that that was not my intent.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Not just to Griff but anyone....

If you believe airplanes actually impacted the buildings, why is any of the additional stuff necessary?

If "they" wanted the buildings to completely collapse, why crash airplanes into them? Why not jus blow them up. Especially if "they" is the US govt? Why chance destroying US financial infrastructure, the air travel industry, and tourism all at the same time? I think just blowing up the WTC (and or the Pentagon) and blaming it on Al Queda would have yielded the same popular response as crashing airplanes into it then blowing it up. Don't you? It would have been just as easy to frame Al Queda for the explosions as it was to frame them for taking "some planes".

Good question, well framed.

To go with simply blowing up the towers without planes would indicate such a staggering security breach that it simply would not have been believed. Those were after all among the very largest buildings in the world, and would have (and did) require massive amounts of explosives to take them down.

AQ and the planes were the beard, they simply made their destruction plausible.

As for destroying the financial infrastructure, it's well-documented that a pre-set agenda of war in Afghanistan and Iraq was all ready to go, just waiting in the wings. War is money, and you simply have to look at who profited, as so much of what the military once did on its own--supply, base security, transport, etc.--has been "privatized" in no-bid contracts given out to the likes of Halliburton & co.

Yes, in the aftermath the airlines took a hit, but they soon got gov't subsidies and anyway flying today is an essential service, there was no question that it wouldn't bounce back.

And the great bonus was that you could create a never-ending "Global war on terror" to fuel the MIC for a generation, and set in place all the slew of rights abridgments we now have.

It was win all around, depending on your perspective and agenda.

Originally posted by six
I have several questions: People keep bringing up free fall speeds and the fact that there was no damage to surroundong buildings right? Why limit the damage to just those two buildings? Why not go for the dramatic mass destruction? Cause as much damage as possible. Would that not inflame the masses more to support the supposed "purpose" for the attacks if there was wide spread destruction?

This assumes incredible resources on the part of AQ, which no one would believe they had. This was, officially, 19 terrorists with box cutters and a mastermind with a laptop in an Afghan cave. Armageddon was beyond their scope. Other side, inside job, why would you want to do more damage than necessary? The explosive destruction of the tops of the towers, as they began to fall, is pretty clear evidence there was an attempt to limit the destruction to the towers themselves.

The second question I have is, and please forgive me if I have missed it somewhere, That if concrete, which has been acknowledged to be a major part of the construction of the towers, is heated it will spall, sometimes explosively. Could that not be a cause of the low level "explosions" that witnesses heard?

Those explosions in the bases of the towers were of such a magnitude that they registered 2.3 on the Richter scale at Columbia Univ in upper Manhattan. No amount of spalling concrete is going to produce an effect rivaling a small earthquake. That is a massive, explosive energy source.

As to the "squibs" that are seen in the videos, If I remember coreectly from a documentary that I saw, the tower basically collapsed from the core out. so if floors were collasping downward would that not create a downward pressure that will seek the weakest point to exit? Plus video does not show the whole story as to what is going on inside the shell.

You are right, the towers did collapse from the cores' destruction, but the cores were destroyed at their bases, with those aforementioned "seismic" blasts that occurred 10 secs before actual collapse. If the cores had not been undermined, they would still have been standing, as they were massive structures. If you look again at the video, you will see an enormous "squib" coming out of all faces of the lower skylobby of the tower, well before the collapse wave. These areas were the most reinforced floors in the upper towers, and these huge blasts simply indicate the necessity of critically undermining them to allow the "collapse" (destruction) to proceed.

As to WTC7. ANY building that is burning for 8 hours will collapse unless is is specially designed not to. I serioulsy doubt that WTC7 was designed to those standards. Could not the fire be attributed to the 10's of thousands of pounds of jet fuel that each jet carried?

WTC 7 was not hit by a jet. There was no fuel to burn. It was only suffering scattered office fires. A modern high rise will not collapse from office fires. It collapsed at near free-fall speed--meaning the highly reinforced steel structure that made up the first eight floors, necessary because the building was partially built around a ConEd substation, and the upper band of two floors of heavy reinforcement added for the NYC emergency bunker--all gave up simultaneously. This is structurally impossible. At best, the building would have toppled to its side, with the lower floors intact. Instead, if fell into its footprint in a heap, and had the same thermal hotspots in its basements as did the WTC towers. That indicates a massive energy source that simply did not exist. Likewise, nearly 6 years later, the gov'tal body charged with explaining the physical collapses, NIST, has never issued a report explaining the destruction of WTC 7. Why? because they can't and hold to the official story.

About the molten metal, It was stated that jet fuel burns at 1500 degrees. Yes that is true..But what about the rest of the fire load in the building? All the plastics and wood and paper and furniture and foam and so on and so on. Could not the combination of all of the things burning at once account for the exteremly high temps? I know that this material was buring for days, if not weeks after the tragedy.

These things burn at much lower temperatures than jet fuel, which was mostly consumed in the fireballs upon impact. The molten steel was found immediately after destruction, and endured for weeks on end. This indicates massive energy sources that duplicated the conditions of a foundry. A foundry. Office furnishings cannot spontaneously melt structural steel in an open-air building collapse. It is pure fantasy.

And no offense at all taken, just answering your questions.

Thank you gottago.

I am in the fire business and have been for many years, so on some things I can speak from first hand experience. I have been in a structure fire where ceiling temp registered at 2000 degrees f off of ordinary combustibles, so I think that it is entirely possible to attain the temps required to melt steel from the combination of jet fuel and the sheer amount of combustible material in the buildings at the time of the tragedy. Also with the amount of combustible material present, it would take days if not weeks to burn keeping what ever had melted molten

Could the floors/core collapsing be the cause of the 2.3 magnitude quake? The force from the collapse would have also been transfered downward through the remaining structure. If there were explosions at the base of the towers, it woud seem to me that the amount of explosive required to remove enough of the supports would have created a very large explosive "signature", for the lack of a better term, with large amounts of debris/material thrown outward from the base. From the videos I have seen from people at the towers when the first one fell, I did not note any such explosion or debris.

As for WTC7 you do have several good points. To be honest I have not really taken a hard look at the WTC7 material out there

AT 1:38 in the movie www.metacafe.com... is it possible the core columns are already severed?

Someone needs to contact the NYC permitting office and get copies of any permits that were pulled from 1993 til Sept. 2001.

Originally posted by elderban
Someone needs to contact the NYC permitting office and get copies of any permits that were pulled from 1993 til Sept. 2001.

The permits would be from the Port Authority. I have tried to look into the permits for all 3 buildings in the Department of Buildings website for NYC. Here's the website.

www.nyc.gov...

For some reason, the permits for the WTC buildings have not been entered.

WTC 1 has one permit I believe pre-9/11.

WTC 2 has none listed pre-9/11.

WTC 7 has I think 3 or 4 pre-9/11.

So, after 30+ years, the buildings didn't need any repair?

I ask all to look into other buildings as well and see what types of permits there are for other buildings. There are pages worth for a building that is 5 years old. Let alone 30+. Something just doesn't seem right with that.

Can someone explain this video?

www.metacafe.com...

Originally posted by elderban
Can someone explain this video?

There are no corner columns, only where the two perimeter walls meet.




Taking out the core could probably cause the exact failure you see, just from all the loads being redistributed to the outer wall, and the outer wall just not being able to take them.

Originally posted by six

As to WTC7. ANY building that is burning for 8 hours will collapse unless is is specially designed not to. I serioulsy doubt that WTC7 was designed to those standards. Could not the fire be attributed to the 10's of thousands of pounds of jet fuel that each jet carried?

WTC7 had a few fires scattered about over a couple of floors, nothing to the extent of towers 1 and 2. it would have been fine. from the video clips i have seen of it it looks like a regular fire extinguisher might have done the job...but then again, thats probably to do with how far away the camera was, none the less no steel building has EVER collapsed due to fire...before, during or after 9/11. period.

as already mentioned...that was a good post mate, i liked it, and also mucho respect for being a firefighter got more stones than i do.

Originally posted by bsbray11
There are no corner columns, only where the two perimeter walls meet.

Ah I forgot about that angle, it's been many months since I worked on this video.

From my findings of the finished corners, there were no windows there, which creates a scenario of, if we're to take this video and that event as literal evidence, then it comes down to either that the video indeed shows the use of explosives, or well we're to not take the event as actual evidence.

I hate to play absolutes, however unless someone can come up with a photo showing windows there that's the way it is. Below are all the images of the corners that i could find, mostly from the interior anyways, and believe me i spent 2 days scouring the internet looking for interior photos for this project"
s24.photobucket.com...

An interior example:

Exterior:

Find the corner-windows!!!

Solid corners ladies and gentlemen... So did the compressed air push thru the drywall/marble-exterior aluminum cladding to make the event in the video occur, or do we just refuse to accept the video anomoly as being any at all????

[edit on 3-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by six
Thank you gottago.

I am in the fire business and have been for many years, so on some things I can speak from first hand experience. I have been in a structure fire where ceiling temp registered at 2000 degrees f off of ordinary combustibles, so I think that it is entirely possible to attain the temps required to melt steel from the combination of jet fuel and the sheer amount of combustible material in the buildings at the time of the tragedy. Also with the amount of combustible material present, it would take days if not weeks to burn keeping what ever had melted molten

There are some basic problems with your scenario. First, jet fuel. It had for all purposes burned off. In fact, you had people on the impact floors who were photographed in the open holes just before the towers fell. So there was little if any fuel left to ignite these fires. And the melted steel was in the sub-basements, not among the upper wreckage.

Secondly, much of the building contents were pulverized by the towers' destruction--i.e., the cascading demolition wave that brought them down. The concrete turned to micronized dust, and an analysis of its make-up showed that it contained metals from wiring and computer components, etc. So actually very little combustible material survived; it was mostly the structural steel itself left over at ground zero.

But nonetheless you have FDNY reporting molten steel in the sub-basements "like in a foundry, like lava," and NASA/USGS satellite photos of the thermal hotspots in wtc 1, 2 & 7. How can a building collapse cause such an inferno, even a building on the scale of the WTC towers? The temperature needed to deform structural steel is about 2000 degrees, applied constantly for well over an hour. That is simply to get it to weaken, not to melt it and make it flow like lava. There are massive unaccounted-for energies that created that molten steel. Foundry conditions, instantaneously created, that lingered for weeks.

Could the floors/core collapsing be the cause of the 2.3 magnitude quake? The force from the collapse would have also been transfered downward through the remaining structure.

The seismic events came before the towers' collapses. Also, the collapse was explosive--the building's structural members were literally being hurled hundreds of feet away in that grey blossom of destruction. The tops exploded shortly after the onset of collapse. So there was basically very little structure to push down on the remaining building and force further collapse.

By simple logic, the collapse should have ended with the initial toppling of the upper floors, because the towers had held their weight since their construction, and were then unburdened of them. End of story, if only the planes had somehow initiated collapse.

If there were explosions at the base of the towers, it woud seem to me that the amount of explosive required to remove enough of the supports would have created a very large explosive "signature", for the lack of a better term, with large amounts of debris/material thrown outward from the base. From the videos I have seen from people at the towers when the first one fell, I did not note any such explosion or debris.

The signature was the the "earthquakes," which also coincide with the camera-rumble seen on many videos taken from tripods that day, just before collapse. The blasts were deep in the sub-basements and did leave evidence, as several videos record white smoke coming from the base of the towers just before the onset of collapse. Explosive technology is highly advanced and the required yields can be precisely calculated. Certainly this was the case with the WTC, as it had to look convincing. This was no brute-force operation, but meticulously planned.

As for WTC7 you do have several good points. To be honest I have not really taken a hard look at the WTC7 material out there

WTC 7 is the most disturbing part of the WTC attack, as it is most obviously a CD, and with no official attempt to explain it. As I said, because they can't. I'd encourage you to dig deeper and ask tough questions and to remember these buildings, none of them, were the house of cards the government wants you to believe. All of them were exceedingly well-designed, robust structures, and the nature of their destruction is totally incompatible with the collapse mechanisms as officially explained. The most damning evidence? Simply remember the molten steel, in WTC 1, 2 AND 7. Officially impossible. But there it is.

A bitter pill, it unmoors many, but so it is, no one in their right mind wished this, but we should not flinch and turn away in the face of the evidence.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by gottago]