9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

reply to post by justbrowsing


Steel structures with concrete?
The concreted acted like a oven. It is a great insolator keeping the heat in and well melting the steel.

Originally posted by justbrowsing
A fire would not have cut it clean, according to them, it weakened, stretched and distorted and failed. That beam was not distorted, it was a clean 45 degree cut.

Just on this one thing... I know what picture you're talking about. Probably most of us do, because it's been posted everywhere, like you said.

Anyways, that picture is actually of a beam cut by a cutting torch. There are other pictures of the same time frame of workers cutting beams with them.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by whiterabbit]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by justbrowsing

 

Steel structures with concrete?
The concreted acted like a oven. It is a great insolator keeping the heat in and well melting the steel.

Excuse me - exactly where was this concrete that was trapping the heat in? There were concrete slabs on the top of the floor trusses, but where exactly was it trapping things in?

See if you go with your speculation then you've got the problematic issue of the concrete on top of the floor trusses acting as a barrier to the transmission of the fire upward. And if you're going to make those towers fall, you better let that fire run wild.

So, exactly what concrete was insulating what?

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by justbrowsing

 

Steel structures with concrete?
The concreted acted like a oven. It is a great insolator keeping the heat in and well melting the steel.

Melting the steel (at suspected multiple places) at 45 degree angles? It would be the darndest concentrated flame not unlike...a cutting torch. So, in this oven, the actual fire was so hot to cut in certain places and then melt it all to liquid everywhere else? Hmmm. Tricky fire there. Got a link to that phenomenon? I'd like to read up.

Cuhail

reply to post by Cuhail


You leave out the fact that they were load bearing structures.
The weight of the stuff on them would bend them.


And as I said in my other thread I am not completely sure we aren't getting undistorted information at all.

And there is that condecsendation I was talking about.


[edit on 28-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant



No no no, cut. Not bent. Cut.




Here's one of the many photos out there of this phenomenon of heat melting at perfect 45 degree angles.

Cut.
Cuhail

reply to post by OrionStars


Im curious as to what you think the Government's official report was then. Because the 9/11 Commission Report was issued July 2004 and PM did their article March 2005.

Please allow the photo, on the following website, to give the same information. It appears to be basically the same picture of WTC 1 hole viewed on many Internet websites. Please scroll down to the picture of the hole, If more of the same photo, without the woman are needed, I can aceess them. The steel is still going to be in the same wrong condition, for what is alleged to be an impact hole from the outside in, on many Internet sites:

www.geocities.com...

Concrete acts as an oven on steel? Exactly in what way does that happen?

Originally posted by Valhall

I didn't say it made sense. I just said Mr. "let's accept the reports" is contradicting the official story. That's all.

I did not say you did. It was my personal observation comment, concerning what you commented NIST stated, not against the personal you.

reply to post by whiterabbit


I have heard that....where did you hear it, and how can you prove it to be true?.....we have the evidence....steel showing cut charges without an iron worker in sight....now show me how that was because an iron worker cut the beam that way
as oopsed to a CD. You cant...just like 90% of the theory we are seeing.

reply to post by Jeff Riff
It's just more of that inconclusive evidence that leads us deeper into a quagmire of speculation. The cuts on the columns could well have been made with a thermal lance during cleanup operations but we can't prove that can we.

Originally posted by Valhall
Yeah, where did the "molecular disintegration" come from? Is some one speculating again?

From repeatedly watching the buildings drop.

Pyroclastic flows which should never have happened with buildings falling on their own or under conventional control demoltion circumstances.

Metallurgy and water testing found overabundant radioactivity in the granulated debris, soil, and water.

There was not nearly enough intact steel to account for two redundantly built steel and concrete buildings, each over 1350' high.

www.drjudywood.com...

pubs.usgs.gov...

www.wtcnuke.com...

www.nuclearfiles.org...

"The Effects of Nuclear Weapons

The destructive effect of nuclear weapons is the result of the enormous energies released by the fission of uranium or plutonium atomic nuclei (in an atomic bomb) which (in a thermonuclear bomb) cause the fusion of deuterium, tritium, and lithium nuclei with a still more massive energy release. Classified until the publication of the Glasstone Report in 1957, the horrendous damage caused even by a “small” nuclear explosion is the result of this energy release.

But the most insidious effect of a nuclear weapons explosion has no counterpart in a chemical or volcanic blast, however large. A nuclear explosion results in the release of enormous amounts of ionizing radiation. First, there is the “prompt radiation” produced by the blast itself. For very large bombs, without protection this radiation can be lethal well outside the blast radius. But the bomb produces so – called “secondary radiation” as well. The ultra – energetic nuclear particles released by the explosion radiate the surrounding material, and the intense heat causes this debris to rise upward in a giant cloud. Much of this cools when it reaches the stratosphere, falling back to earth as intensely radioactive “primary fallout”. Many of those who managed to survive the heat wave and blast will succumb to the effects of “radiation sickness”. Destruction of the DNA in the body’s rapidly – growing cells leads to hair loss, diarrhea, soft tissue and internal bleeding, pulmonary edema, and severe damage to the immune system. If the exposure is great enough, it can fatally impair the vital functions of the liver, lungs, heart, and nervous tissue, leading to a lingering, painful death described by one doctor as “cancer of the everything”."

www.nytimes.com...

"Illness Persisting in 9/11 Workers, Big Study Finds"

reply to post by Pilgrum


You are correct, we cannot prove it, thus leaving this as inconclusive evidence. We Truthers would LOVE to say LOOK LOOK its a demo charge cut....CD happened....

We cannot do that, just as you cannot say it was from the cleanup. Frightening...... that is what comes to mind
The reason that I am frightened is because someone knows the truth behind this picture...perhaps the someone that is usuing it for their own personal disinfo gain.

This is the type of "evidence" that is pulling us into this proverbial bull$*it disinfo blackhole of non truth freedom war 9-11 conspiracy...................... *out of breath*



[edit on 29-1-2008 by Jeff Riff]

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Jeff Riff]

quick to reply....


IMHO the same kind of theories and ideas popular mechanics supports.........

Originally posted by justbrowsing

Pentagon. I have read that some think it was a missle and not a plane. I do not believe that. It was a plane and it did some major damage.

The hole at the Pentagon has been reported as 18' x 20'. Could you please explain how a wingspan of over 150', with an engine on each wing, managed to get through that reported hole without leaving any evidence of any damage? All done without leaving any debris on the very pristine campus lawn shown, in videos showing explosions, with no sight of any impact contact or penetration made between a 757 and a Pentagon wall.

Then there is the report by Michael Walter, of USA, who said he witnessed
"fold-back wings" on the alleged Pentagon 757 impact. He did not mention he actually saw any contact with a 757 and wall for impact or penetration.

I know cruise missiles have fold-out and fold-back wings. However, I am not familiar with any fold-back wings on any civilian commercial jetliner. Are you?

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by Cuhail

 

You leave out the fact that they were load bearing structures.
The weight of the stuff on them would bend them.

What's your source for this theory that columns failed first from enough of them being critically heated? It isn't FEMA, and it isn't NIST, I know that much.

reply to post by Jeff Riff
You might have the same feeling I do - that this black hole of inconclusive evidence is being maintained intentionally.

reply to post by Pilgrum



You might be right...I didnt start this thread for any reason but to grasp why people feel the way that they do. I want to know what evidence there is that people hold true that allows them to "know" the truth....

reply to post by Cuhail

As was said before, any number of reasons for that picture.
How can you be sure that particular part wasn't built like that and fell to where it was sitting?
Can you prove it is what you say it is?
That site was a tangled mess.
It feeds into what you yourself seem to want to believe.
All the supposedl evidence open to interptetation I was talking about.
I see it differently.