WTC lease holder admits WTC7 was intentionally demolished !

I know how much: Not enough to bring the towers down. 700�C is not enough to defeat the strength of construction steel. As the time passed, the heat got lower and lower. This is the case, most of the kerosine burnt outside the buildings, the furniture burning could not cause the collapse in such short time. Experts say, the WTC towers should have been standing for at least 2.5 hours, and that would be enough to fight the fire at the critical points.

Well it is really pretty simple. A group of Middle Eastern men hijacked four airplanes. They flew two of them into each of the world trade center towers.

Really? So I guess you've got a copy of 19 boarding passes with the alleged hijacklers fingerprints on them? Care to fax them over to the commission?

Originally posted by Istvan
I am still concerned asout those bombs set off during the collapse.

There is no evidence whatsoever, anywhere that any bombs were set off during any of the building collapses.

Have you ever been to an intentional building implosion? I have. In fact I have seen seven buildings brought down this way. In one implosion project, five buildings were dropped one after another. I was as close as a couple of hundred yard to two of the buildings and as far away as a quarter mile from three. Let me assure you that the sound of the explosives going off is very distinctive and very, very loud. The flashes of the explosives going off are very bright and very visible. There were no explosives involved in the WTC collapses, no matter how much you wish there were.

The video footage shows something very different. Some kind of explosion floor by floor. It can't be the part of a conventional collapse, the explosions followed one by another, as the building came down. I only say, what I saw, but many others claim it, so it is not a fiction.

"There is no evidence whatsoever, anywhere that any bombs were set off during any of the building collapses. "



Is that why explosions were reported by multiple sources including AP reporters and firefighters who ended up getting kicked out of the commission for heckling the ass-kissing commission members?

[edit on 19-7-2004 by roxdog]

Talking about the evidence:

There is no evidence, that the collapse of the towers was the result of the impact and fire. Up to date, it has not been proven. Also, it remains a mystery, how could those terrorists be so precise to fly those planes so perfectly.

Originally posted by Istvan
I know how much: Not enough to bring the towers down. 700�C is not enough to defeat the strength of construction steel.

Since you obviously failed to look at this graph before,



For this particular type of steel, at 700 degrees Celsius (which equals 1292 degrees Fahrenheit, BTW), the steel has lost almost 50 per cent of its tensile and yield strength.

Combine this with the fact that the structural integrity of the building was already compromised by the damage caused by the impact. And that the loads foremerly carried by the damaged columns had transferred to the damaged columns and you will understand that the collapse was inevitable.

As the time passed, the heat got lower and lower. This is the case, most of the kerosine burnt outside the buildings, the furniture burning could not cause the collapse in such short time. Experts say, the WTC towers should have been standing for at least 2.5 hours, and that would be enough to fight the fire at the critical points.

I hate it when people claim that most of the jet fuel burned outside the building because it simply is not true. In fact there are numerous accounts that indicate that some of the jet fuel spilled into the elevator shafts.

Remember that these planes had to carry enough fuel to fly from Boston to L.A. Sure some of the fuel spilled out of the building and burned on the outside, but not all of it, In fact I would venture to guess that only a small percentage of the fuel did. Look at the video and ask yourself does that fireball represent enough energy to propel a large jet airplane filled with passengers all the way from Boston to L.A.?

Originally posted by Istvan
I only say, what I saw, but many others claim it, so it is not a fiction.

Just because other people can not tell the difference between digital noise and a flash doesn't mean that they are right either.

Originally posted by Istvan
There is no evidence, that the collapse of the towers was the result of the impact and fire. Up to date, it has not been proven.

Cool, a new sig line.

Well, there are a lot of questions to answer...

first: if jetfuel burns, it is visible, since it is flaming. Witnesses and videos show, that the intense fire was lasting for five minutes (jetfuel from plane), then there was hardly any smoke and later the upper floors started burning... ( furniture, etc).

Tests showed, that the outer columns' temperature rose only slightly, they were able to support load.

Anyway, why does the video show the start of the collapse without advancing first? Those buildings collapsed, as if the entire structure suddenly vanished from underneath...

HR: I am not talking about any sound, or noise. I am talking about videos showing the blasts from underneath, as the buildings fall.

Of course, I have seen several videos of airplanes crashing. And I would surely say, that fireball was enough energy for the plane to take the journey. After the explosion, the remaining jetfuel burns rapidly, and the airplane parts begin to burn.

Oh, before I forget: Some photos were taken of the airplane parts surviving the blast, and the collapse. Perhaps, they prove that the WTC fire wasn't that intense...

The video of the south tower collapse clearly shows the collapse starting in the impact zone. You take an object weighing millions of pounds and drop it ten feet. The energy from that first floor collapse was enough. Nothing was going to stop that mass. The shock of the falling mass ripped open the bottom of building as the top portion fell straight down in an essential free fall. This is perfectly logical given the way these buildings were put together. Why is this so hard to understand?

Originally posted by Istvan
HR: I am not talking about any sound, or noise. I am talking about videos showing the blasts from underneath, as the buildings fall.

Digital video noise has nothing to do with sound. Digital video noise is an artifact present in digital videos. Think of it as static or �snow.�

But since you brought up the issue of sound, like I said, explosive charges strong enough to sever steel columns are very loud. Do you have any recordings of them?


[edit on 19-7-2004 by HowardRoark]

Just for fun, why don�t you calculate the heat energy in watts that would be released if you were to burn 5,000 gallons of jet A fuel in 12 minutes.

You won�t because you can�t.

I believe that those photos of the airplane parts were of pieces that passed though the towers and landed on the nearby rooftops.


[edit on 19-7-2004 by HowardRoark]

I have seen that video, too. It is clear that the collapse sterts at the impact points. Anyway, you got to know, I am just playing a game, to see how far we can go with this topic.

The claim, that the collapse sterts above the impact points has been written down by several websites, bzt I cannot see that myself. Same with the bombs being set off, or the invisible hijackers.

I understand very well, what you say, I also think that terrorists have done it, but why not make a little turn?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob
the william cooper plan for illuminati world domination under a technotheocracy is the puzzle. all my pieces fit. where are you?

Yeah it must be tough for someone who believes in chemtrails to accept an explanation based on science and engineering over a wild ass conspiracy theory.

love those wild ass conspiracy theories!! YEEEEEHAAA!

ADMIT IGNORANCE

i love that new meme from majic.

eyewitnesses report explosions. LOTS of witnesses. including firemen. (click me)

wow, a gag order to stop firemen's opinions from being published. that's weird! i thought they were the heroes of the day?

where's the fire? (click me)

god loves science. so do i.
i don't know if those links are already on this thread, but they're great links.

seismic spikes match eyewitness testimony. that is, first explosions, then towers fall. (click me)

DENY DISINFO

don't fall for howard's excellent obfuscation tactics. you rule, howard!

step right up, step right up, and watch the WTC tower 7 fall. notice the perfect symmetry and suddenness.
yeah. fuel oil from a generator did this. amazing that not one, but THREE towers fell just like that that fateful day.
they were demolished!!!! it's so obvious, a kid can see it.

edited, cause 'they' stole my image from freewebs. or maybe it's just a coincidental glitch. i just posted this great animated gif. that shows the tower fall perfectly straight down, and now, a few minutes later, and the image is missing. oooooo, i'm scared.

i'll find(or make) another source for the link. good spookage, spooks.

[edit on 19-7-2004 by billybob]

okay, it was just my browser glitching out. paranoia off.

[edit on 20-7-2004 by billybob]

19 boarding passes with the alleged hijacklers fingerprints

No one has addressed this. The fundamentals of the most notorious murder in history and no one can get their hands on this stuff. It's all "national security". They've shown us their pictures why not the boarding passes they all used to board the planes. My guess is they don't exist.

www.prisonplanet.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...