Explosive News

Ok. So the impact of the planes and the resulting fires didn't cause the collapse. The previously planted bombs did. So answer me one question. The collapse started at the impact points. How did they know where the planes were going to hit in order to place their charges on those floors?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Ok. So the impact of the planes and the resulting fires didn't cause the collapse. The previously planted bombs did. So answer me one question. The collapse started at the impact points. How did they know where the planes were going to hit in order to place their charges on those floors?

Israeli Mossad agents posing as art students had clearance in the towers

www.infowars.com...

As you can see, there were boxes set up which could have been explosives, the planes were radio controlled and so they were then directed at the exact location. www.youtube.com...

[edit on 24-2-2010 by ancient_wisdom]

All this talk of 'nano' thermite which, as far as I can tell, is simply thermite mixed to an ultimate fine state where molecules/atoms are in close association with each other to produce a faster & hotter reaction. Somewhat akin to very finely ground gunpowder which also burns faster than a coarse, poorly mixed version. Gunpowder is a good comparison because it's also a fuel/oxidizer mix (old fashioned KNO3 + S + C type powder not the nitrocellolose modern smokeless granular powder).

Perhaps someone here has some detail of the energy density of 'nano thermite' as opposed to coarser homemade thermite AL + Fe2O3. I don't think the energy density is at all different in the nano version but I welcome any solid info proving otherwise.

What am I on about you might ask. Well - if the nano version delivers the same amount of energy per gram as the normal version then the difference would be manifested in a higher temp being achieved at the cost of a much faster burn time but overall, the actual amount required to cause a measured amount of damage would still be the same with either. A paper thin layer of fast thermite is unlikely to have any effect on a massive piece of steel apart from surface damage which will only be cosmetic. The amount required for either type to melt a gram of steel should be pretty much identical for either type of thermite.

Basically, 'nano thermite' does not alleviate the need for massive amounts of it to achieve the claimed effects. It might conceivably take even more than 'normal' thermite to compensate for increased radiative losses and vaporization due to the higher burn temperature.

Most advances in thermite have been about making it easier to ignite (addition of extra oxidizers like barium nitrate for example).

If the total collapse of three steel frame buildings was due to fire and the construction of the buildings, why isn´t there any discussion of how to avoid this in the future?

Why isn´t there any discussion about the responsibility of the engineers who constructed the buildings?

What about the immediate shipment of the steel to china shortly after the attacks?

reply to post by DropMasta


what's funny is that there is discussion with the engineers who designed the building, and they all agree that the building should not have fallen, the buildings were designed to withstand multiple impacts from the largest airplane at the time the building was built.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by dereks



You have got to be kidding!!!!

What planet have you been living on?

Nobody disputes that the concrete floors turned to dust. It's obvious from the huge DUST clouds that chased people down the streets. No one disputes that both towers and building 7 fell at almost free fall speeds, far faster than the pancake collapse theory says they should have and building 7 didn't experience a pancake collapse, it just plain fell down. Even the mainstream media commented that it looked like a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
reply to post by DropMasta

 

what's funny is that there is discussion with the engineers who designed the building, and they all agree that the building should not have fallen, the buildings were designed to withstand multiple impacts from the largest airplane at the time the building was built.

www.youtube.com...

Of course it was build to withstand such forces.

But that would mean that the building company must have used cheap steel or other materials.

reply to post by rainfall


How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds?

I still think it had something to do with jetliners full of fuel crashing into them.

I'm not trying to be funny, there's nothing funny about it.
I keep hearing the line about jet fuel not being able to generate enough heat to melt or even soften steel.
That is simply false.
Ever see the remains of a simple structure fire where steel beams have collapsed under little more than their own weight?
I have, and I'm not a fireman. It is not rare.
I have seen steel deck plates melt in an engine room fire on a ship, fueled by diesel fuel (#2 heating oil) in less than 15 minutes.
Diesel is less volatile than jet fuel (kerosene).

When a building is prepared for controlled demolition, it takes a lot of time and effort. Not an easy thing to covertly.
Even then, the buildings don't always come down. There are plenty of videos on Utube of failures.
I don't trust our government, but I think the whole controlled demolition thing is a blind alley that folks shouldn't waste their time with. JMHO.

reply to post by butcherguy


But building 7 was not hit by any plane.

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
reply to post by DropMasta

 

what's funny is that there is discussion with the engineers who designed the building, and they all agree that the building should not have fallen, the buildings were designed to withstand multiple impacts from the largest airplane at the time the building was built.

www.youtube.com...

I think it would be more strange if you heard the engineers that designed the building say " Wow, that building we designed should have fallen!"

Hat's off to see the light for really getting at the truth of this nonsense.
Also, I hate to break it to you but in no way, shape, or form is The Washingon Times MSM, it's a moonie owned kookfest on paper.

reply to post by butcherguy


the fact remains the building was designed to withstand plane crashes.

If it were ever to come out publically that elements within our Federal Government were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, there would be chaos in the streets and a real threat that our nation would fall, particularly after everything that has followed.

There is no way TPTB will allow this to happen, so there will be no investigation and the people who may actually be "in the know" about involvement will disappear at an even greater rate than they already are. I don't relish the idea of what would result, but unfortunately it is the only way to cleanse ourselves of the criminals in our Government and put the people back into control of their nation.

reply to post by butcherguy


Of course, but that should have been investigated in detail.
If the buildings collapsed due to the fires, then similar constructions should be immediately strengthened to withstand such temperatures.

And if similar buildings should get demolished it is much cheaper to start a fire somewhere in the upper levels and the building collapses straight down without a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by DropMasta
reply to post by butcherguy

 

But building 7 was not hit by any plane.

No question there. I was speaking of the twin towers, but if the government dropped the twin towers through the use of explosives, why worry about little #7?

If any of the buildings were 'imploded', how long were the 'covert demo teams' at work in a crowded metropolitan area setting charges, removing structural members and the like?
Does anyone have any leads as to how they were disguised?

I am being serious, I would think someone developing a theory would have checked out what eyewitnesses in the preceding weeks remember. Packing tons of explosives into the sites would have required something out of the ordinary to have been happening, as a cover.

Originally posted by DropMasta

And if similar buildings should get demolished it is much cheaper to start a fire somewhere in the upper levels and the building collapses straight down without a controlled demolition.

I think it would be cheaper to set charges than to pump fuel into the upper levels of a building and set it on fire. Plus burning those quantities of fuel would require the demolition company meet federal emission standards.

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
reply to post by butcherguy

 

the fact remains the building was designed to withstand plane crashes.

Yes. I might remind you that the Titanic was designed to be UNSINKABLE. The Titanic sunk on its maiden voyage.

For all you "structural experts" claiming that the O/S is true, tell me why over 1000 engineers/architects, who have devoted their ENTIRE LIVES TO STUDYING BUILDINGS, have decided to commit themselves to a movement that could possibly destroy their careers?

I too sometimes feel that some of the truther claims are unstable or grossly exaggerated at sometimes, but these are the experts folks.

Why would they risk their careers and status into chasing something that is so "easily" debunk-able?

This isn't some kind of "jump on the bandwagon and get on T.V." adventure, this is serious stuff.

[edit on 24/2/1010 by Monts]

There will never be any arrests or even charges filed for that matter.

It wouldn't be the right people even if their were.

The perps were only so
blatantly obvious about this because they knew they could be.

I don't see anybody looking to worried.

To these people, being a millionare means being able to cover your azz a million times over.

There is something though.

If I were in law enforcement, I would feel a lot of anger for these people
and their double standards.

How do you even begin to address the moron mice of this country who still
choose to worship these " flute blowing rats".



[edit on 24-2-2010 by randyvs]

It doesn't take a structural engineer to look at the collapse of WTC 7 and see that you had a complete simultaneous failure of every vertical support in a 47 story rectangular building supposedly caused by fire. How is it possible to generate this type of collapse from random fires in various locations of a building that size. A fire would have had to create exactly equal degredation of the supports throughout a very large structure. Common sense says it just can't happen naturally.