So if the buildings where brought down by explosion

reply to post by jfj123


Man jfj123, i've seen you on so many 9/11 threads defending your theory it's getting tiresome. You speak to everyone like there Develpemently Delayed. Why don't you take some time and research witnesses and videos, audios and notice something is wrong!!

Oh wait i know why you don't, cause the language of sheep is so much easier.. Maybe i'll speak to you in terms you'll understand.

bahh bahh bhahaa bhahaaa...

Wake up you *edit by me before a mod does*

reply to post by jfj123


what about the fact that these buildings were built to withstanda direct hit from a fully loaded 707?
a;so the buildings were actually 3 buildings on top of one another,so there were 3 reinforced lobbys. how did all that go away in 3 buildings for the first time in the history of construction?
now we're suing the saudis for the attacks...lets see what they have to say in court

link

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Spectre0o0]

reply to post by jfj123


The building were 1/2 full and were constantly under renovation. They, (whoever They were) had all sorts of time. As a structural engineer who will remain anonymous due to job security. The demo looked exactly like a controlled demo because it was. If a collapse would have happened due to the aluminum airliner impact the tops above the impact areas would have fallen off. This did not happen because these buildings were steel fortresses.

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Yes....there where explosions...two main natural gas mains ran under the street and into the towers. there where at least 25 differant kitchens for the many companies in that building. When the first plane hit it ruptured the lines and also one main. Thats where the explosions came from in the elevator shafts. I was siting in a tractor trailer not a mile from the towers in the traffic jam and saw the second plane hit the other tower. I watched as the floors of both buildings where the heat was collapse under the weight and heat from the flames and the top half of the building fall into the bottom halves of BOTH buildings. I have seen building being imploded. I work in reclamation of the steel from these type buildings. I had a load of steel in my trailer at the time from a building we imploded and dropped. This whole conspiracy of 911 being a government action is crap. I sat in the traffic and dust for 9 hours during this attack. I'm not an ignorant observer of this. I am in the business of demolition and ALL its paramiters! The building fell because they got hit by massive energy of two large airliners flown into them..nothing else!


Zindo

Sorry but that makes no sense. I've worked as a plumbing mechanic in Manhatten for 7 years, and have run many gas lines into high rise buildings.

You really think that damage to a small line in an upper floor is going to have any effect on the MAIN line in the basement and under the street?

Sorry, there are check valves, and backflow valves to prevent that sort of thing.

If not, some Joe Schoe could open up his half inch in gas line behind his stove, and blow his apartment on the 40th florr, and destroy the basement and street? and possibly bring down the building, is that what your saying?

Theres plenty of video of ground level smoke from explosions due to explosives in the basements. This smoke can be seen rising before the second plane hit.

The link I had of the video has "mysteriously" been removed of course.

"This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

Gotta love it.



[edit on 2-6-2008 by Nola213]

Originally posted by jfj123
well there is no evidence of controlled demolition.

That being said, it would take a team of CD professionals several months per building, to wire it up. Doing so includes removing any material covering load bearing components. In other words, they would need to strip the building down to the framework to place all the charges. Nobody saw anybody doing any of this????

In addition to that, they would need to run calculations that would time perfectly with the plane impacts, explosive fuel spill from the planes, any volatile material in the buildings themselves such as fuel for boilers, etc...

All this seems INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY unlikely.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jfj123]

This is a report written by Dr. Steven Jones. ( Dr. Jones Report ) I am not sure if this has been discussed here, but it brings up evidence, experiments and great logic as to these buildings being controlled demolitions. In my opinion, there is probably more (and better) evidence to the fact that these were controlled, as opposed the the "official story". By the way, I have worked in the structural steel industry for going on 10 years now, so I also have a little experience in the matter.

reply to post by Maya432


Why do you have to drag people down that smoke weed. There are plenty of crazy people that were born that way with no help from mother nature. I think people that drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes are crazy.

As for the buildings coming down, CD or something more exotic had to be used. The website that proposes micro nuke makes a good case for that as well. I think that footage when the metal just vaporizes is very strange. I also wonder where all the file cabinets went. But really in the end none of this will matter. We still are trying to figure out how many bullets were fired when JFK died. I think events like these are not able to be solved they just keep us busy talking about it.

Why use Explosives

There's a JUMBO Jet resting on top of the Building and flames spreading over
10 floors!

I understand why people come up with all these weird theories, to sell books.
What I don't understand is why so many believe them.

Originally posted by LEAP STICK
I understand why people come up with all these weird theories, to sell books.
What I don't understand is why so many believe them.

The only weird theory I don't understand is how the slow degredation of the strength of the structural steel of the columns holding up the top caps giving way being able to destroy the rest of the building on it's way down. Even the computer simulations by NIST are baffled by this. Even after ramped up variables. Hmmm....

[edit on 6/2/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Nola213

Theres plenty of video of ground level smoke from explosions due to explosives in the basements. This smoke can be seen rising before the second plane hit.

FYI - that smoke is coming from some cars that were set on fire after the first plane hit.

If I provide a video, would you retract this statement and never repeat it again?

Originally posted by Griff

The only wierd theory I don't understand is how the slow degredation of the strength of the structural steel of the columns holding up the top caps

Please provide the quote from NIST that says this or retract this claim.

Or is this a strawman?

First off the core columns were cut and molten steel and traces off thermate were found at the bottom of ground zero.


molten steel is impossible to achieve with burning kerosine and thermate is a special blend of thermite used in the demoliton industry.

Secondly WTC7 was brought down by a few fires?
It had the classic crimp were central columns are blown out and the penthouse fell first while the building fell from the bottom up afterward.
On top of that... 20 minutes before the WTC7 collapse bbc new reported that it was already down, with the building in the background!



Also the trade centers were designed to take a 707 hit and many experts believe they could have taken up to 3 impacts.

How were there explosions in the basement? How was there smoke coming from below before the second plane even hit?

Weeks before the actual event many office workers reported people working on the building without the office workers knowing what they were doing. Also evacuations were performed a few weeks before in the same area.

well if anyone who is new to these discussions would like some numbers from a guy who's actually worked with high explosives, go here link

its a bit of a read, its a debate i had on this subject last year, i did some math based on what is considered by some to be legit schematics of the towers.

not saying i dont think the USG wasnt complicit, just saying i dont think there were any preplaced HE charges in the buildings.

i threw out some of my thoughts on dr's jones' "research" here

anyone wanting to quote that video that claims they seizmic data shows massive explosions, just ask ill link to my opinions on that as well. (short version is no one is going to convince me that there was a 12ton explosive set off just before impact or collapse, but the maths in the thread)

Anok: i want to make sure i understand finally, youre saying that the lean of the top of the tower was something that HAD to continue along its path right? why then did the zip feeds tower start to fall then stop? i mean i know why it stopped but doesnt this case also violate the laws of physics? link

most of the long time readers of the 911 forums know my backround and my opinions, but as this is a new thread on something i have experience in i figured id chime in. just my opinions based on what i do know.

take it for what its worth.....or dont.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


IMHO Griff is one of the last guys on either side of the debate thats likely to throw out straw men. unless of course it is a halloween decoration of course...

just my opinion

reply to post by Seymour Butz
I for one would love to see this video as it is one that I have not seen in my three years of research into this topic. Thank you in advance.

Originally posted by Nola213

Theres plenty of video of ground level smoke from explosions due to explosives in the basements. This smoke can be seen rising before the second plane hit.

which is a good theory, save that most modern high explosives produce very little smoke...

not really a one line post

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Damocles]

reply to post by jfj123


Hahaha, you just gave me a vision.

Imagine, they detonate the wrong one. Imagine what would happen!
Woah, I wonder what they would come up for something like that.
IF, in this case they did use explosives to bring down the towers.
Thanks, nice thread.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS



can anyone provide me with a link to a manufacturers site where i can look at the tech specs for these thermate/mite "cutter charges" that are supposedly so predominant in the demo industry? just for educational purposes of course, see us dumb grunts only used thermite in our incendiary grenades and they werent so great for cutting huge chunks of steel. id love to expand my knowledge base.

id be particularly interested in seeing the companies promo videos for these devices and maybe an explaination of why they leave marks in their cuts that so strongly resemble the marks made by an OA torch.

purely for educational purposes of course.
thanks

reply to post by LEAP STICK


because it was built to withstand the airliner impact. why would an aluminum plane crush the building? if it would have, it would have collapsed under its own we still are the only ones that benefitted from this attack. and what about the firemen that were injured from the blasts in the basements?


basement explosions

refute these and i will never mention them again

The building were 1/2 full and were constantly under renovation. They, (whoever They were) had all sorts of time. As a structural engineer who will remain anonymous due to job security. The demo looked exactly like a controlled demo because it was. If a collapse would have happened due to the aluminum airliner impact the tops above the impact areas would have fallen off. This did not happen because these buildings were steel fortresses.

1/2 full???? Buildings were actually about 90% full. If you are structural
engineer as you say - then you should know that demolition experts
blow out the bottom columns, not 1000 ft above street....

Originally posted by jfj123
well there is no evidence of controlled demolition.

This statement floors me. WOW. How can you say there's no evidence when every single characteristic of the collapse can be explained as fitting of a controlled demolition scenario much more easily than a pancake collapse scenario?


How can you explain the top of the building reaching the ground in the same amount of time it would fall through thin air, even though there was a building standing underneath it? IMPOSSIBLE without explosives.


The collapse itself is the evidence!