The documentary that explains how the explosives were planted the weekend before...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
you wish to say that charges were set on the outside walls, where such activity would be readily seen by the tenants.

You say the above while I said in my last post:

"The exterior columns wouldn't need explosives."


Are you not fully reading my posts, Weed?

reply to post by redgy


We do not have all the answers. The questions that you've raised could be answered with a new, independent, international investigation into 9/11.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Yessir, I fully read your post....here's where I got the notion that you agree there were explosives on the outer walls:

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
....and there are several firefighters that did see the flashes associated with explosives going "up, down and around" both towers while making "popping or exploding" sounds.

See? I took your statement that firefighters saw flashes, "up, down and around" to mean that they saw them from outside (since they are still alive, thankfully, to report).

IF they saw them from outside the buildings, then that would imply that the flashes were on the outer walls, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
IF they saw them from outside the buildings, then that would imply that the flashes were on the outer walls, wouldn't it?

No it would not. The walls were not solid or windowless. And if the flashes were on the outer walls, we would see them in every video of the collapses. Since we do not, the flashes were coming from the cores and being seen through the windows since the cores are the only part of the towers that would've needed explosives.

Unless, of course, you would like to call several of FDNY's firefighters flat-out liars. That would be easier for most faithers in denial.


*edit to add* Please, never assume that someone "agrees" with something when they explicitly post the exact opposite. That would amount to twisting one's words.




[edit on 12-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

reply to post by _BoneZ_

....the flashes were coming from the cores and being seen through the windows....

That's quite a reach, there. I have a little problem with that explanation, sorry. Wouldn't all of the charges be inside, say in elevator shafts and such? (to follow your assertions)

Also, the leased office space had walls, doors, was partioned into offices, etc.

To suggest that charges buried deep in the core could have been seen through the windows from the street below beggars incredulity.

I'm not calling FFs liars, but as Humans they can be just as mistaken "eyewitnesses" as any other person.

BTW....you repeatedly say 'explosives'....how does that fit with other CTs who claim "nano-thermite"?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
To suggest that charges buried deep in the core could have been seen through the windows from the street below beggars incredulity.

The flashes that numerous firefighters saw weren't strobes or position lights from an aircraft that can be easily covered up by partitions and walls. Do you think an explosive is just going to flash inside the core and be done? Explosives explode.

The following were from the cores as well. Do you see them being blocked by partitions, walls, elevator shafts or windows?


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm not calling FFs liars, but as Humans they can be just as mistaken "eyewitnesses" as any other person.

That is true. A witness can be mistaken. It happens. But numerous firefighters reporting flashes "going up, down and around" both towers while making "popping or exploding" sounds isn't being mistaken. Numerous witnesses, both towers, same exact thing.

When numerous witnesses report the same exact thing, it tends to lend credibility and facts to an argument. If one person says they saw you shoot someone, then it's your word against his word and the jury would have to rely on other evidence. If FOUR people say they saw you shoot someone, you're going to prison.

To be honest, who knows exactly where they placed the charges. They could've been in the floors as well as the cores. We may never know for certain. I doubt they would need to place explosives anywhere else besides the cores and the mechanical floors, but then I'm not a demo expert either.

Flashes going up, down and around both towers, ejections coming from the sides of both towers, new NYPD images showing the ends of the columns smoking from being cut with explosives. All evidence of demolition by explosives and not a single one of these are found in fire-induced collapses.

The only ones reaching here are those that continue to try to make up every excuse in the book to explain the evidence away so that they don't have to believe in a controlled demolition, when it's much simpler to admit all available facts point to controlled demolition, no matter if you can grasp the logistics or not.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Some things need to be cleared up in this thread, so I will attempt to do so:

Originally posted by Diplomat
The documentary that explains how the explosives were planted the weekend before...

There's no possible way the towers could have been wired for explosives in one day unless you had two very large teams in each tower. It would literally take months.


[edit on 12-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Ok first of all, if we want to get real technical, you are saying there's no way it can be done in ONE day, but I originally referred to the "weekend" before 9/11.

Second of all, how do we know that the towers weren't rigged with the explosives months in advance? Maybe they had been rigging the buildings for awhile and then on the last weekend before the attacks they did some finishing touches?

By the way, I downloaded this documentary the other night and played it for a friend. Before the film started he was rambling on about how jet fuel burns really hot and that was all there is to the story. After the film ended he was pretty much speechless other than saying he was "angry." lol

reply to post by Diplomat

By the way, I downloaded this documentary the other night and played it for a friend. Before the film started he was rambling on about how jet fuel burns really hot and that was all there is to the story. After the film ended he was pretty much speechless other than saying he was "angry." lol

The old "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel" crap

1) The jet fuel acted as an accelerent in the worlds largest arson fire -
it set fire to the building contents on multiple floors . It was these fires
which doomed the building

2) Dont have to melt steel to cause building to collapse - just heat it
enough to soften and lose strenght. Heating steel to 1000F and it loses
1/2 original strenght, 1500 F - 1/4 , 1800 - 1/10. The WTC fires at most
intense reached 1800 F

Don't know who is biggest losaer - you for pushing this crap or your friend
for believing you....

reply to post by thedman


Yeah the free fall without resistance definitely proves the fuel was hot enough. thanks.

Originally posted by thedman
It was these fires which doomed the building

Yet no other steel-structured highrise has ever been doomed before 9/11 or after because of simple office fires. How ironic....

Originally posted by thedman
Dont have to melt steel to cause building to collapse

But there was molten steel and that's what you're not grasping. Office fires and kerosene don't melt steel. You as an alleged firefighter should know this.

Originally posted by thedman
Don't know who is biggest losaer - you for pushing this crap or your friend for believing you

How about you for calling it crap and not doing the actual research?

I'm going to take a look at this documentary in the next few days and make a post more on topic, but I'd like to say this...

9/11 conspiracy theorist are not all lumped into the same camp. We have people who think there were no planes at all, who think it was thermite, controlled demo and pretty much any other possibility

All that means is different people have different thoughts on this. And there is nothing wrong with that.

We should not lump all people into the same "truther" category, just like we shouldn't lump all "trusters" in the same either.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


the flashes could have been something other than just charges going off, as some of these same firefighters have also stated as.

www.debunking911.com...

reply to post by redgy


You're continuing to make things up to explain away the evidence. "Could have been this", "could have been that". But when tied in with the other evidence, there's only one conclusion.

See the definition of "denial disorder" in my signature.

reply to post by redgy


The full context quotes of the firemen on the link you gave make the statements look confused. They are saying that they don't know what the flashes were from, not that the flashes we not CD.

I was only trying to quote what some of these firemen actually stated, not disproving that some did see flashes as you did post. there was a lot of confusion to thier posts, wether true or not.
they also said it could have been from electrical sources or from just the collapse itself.

sorry for all the edits.
[edit on 12-3-2010 by redgy]

[edit on 12-3-2010 by redgy]

[edit on 12-3-2010 by redgy]

"He's not MY de-bunker!!!"

My apologies; he's the debunker you advocate, as if that makes a difference.

"You fail in your criticism."

Your opinion is noted.

"And you focus on that one little aspect, ignoring all of the rest??? Why not comment on that, instead???"

Because if he can't get one little detail correct (such as no columns being present in the offices), why should I comment on the remainder of the crap being peddled?

"For the record, that's how people talk, when they have a conversation! Sheesh!"

I don't give a damn how they talk, as long as they provide accurate information.

"You don't suppose Mr. Johnson was just trying to make a point?? Or, he was thinking, in his mind, about explosives having to be planted on the exterior walls, as well as the interior columns???"

Then maybe he should have made his point by sticking to the facts.

"I mean, we have SPreston on here talking about how the outer sections were "flung by explosives over 600 feet"...and trying to make us swallow that somehow that all happened solely from what was in the central core?? That is ludicrous. We even have _BoneZ_, who advocates CD claiming 'explosions'....yet, we see none, hear none...."

Sorry, unlike you, I can't speak for SPreston or BoneZ.

"And, of course, there are the "nano-thermite" people, who use that because it's "silent"....even SPreston likes that stuff, I think....but then he contradicts himself with the "blasting the outer walls 600 feet" comments!!"

Please see my previous comment about not being able to speak for others.

"It's hard to get a straight story out of you guys....."

I was being pretty straight when I said that the debunker whom you advocate is full of crap because he can't get his facts straight.

"In any case, Mr. Johnson's PRIMARY and most important point was the sheer size of the buildings. To insist that they could have been "rigged" for CD in one weekend is ridiculous."

Where in my post did I insist they were rigged in one weekend?

reply to post by _BoneZ_

But there was molten steel and that's what you're not grasping. Office fires and kerosene don't melt steel. You as an alleged firefighter should know this.

No, but it causes steel to lose its strenght and become plastic - where it deforms and warps

Seen that after fire is extinguished - warped steel

You as alleged engineer should know this....

Just in case dont here is link showing effect of heat on steel

Steel strength is reduced at high temperatures. A36 steel’s high-temperature strength and its stress-strain relationship at high temperatures are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively (FEMA Report). A36 steel’s yield point lowers by nearly half at 550°C, as shown in Fig. 4 (A36 steel [6]).

The fire resistance of columns and beams can be verified by a fire test. There are two methods for fire test: one is to obtain the time of failure (fire resistance hours) through loaded heating (the loaded heat test) and
the other is to obtain the period of fire resistance from the temperature of steel materials only through At High Temperatures
heating (the heat test). The condition of failure immediately after a loaded heat test made on a column is shown in Photo 6. The proof stress of steel frames decreases with the increase of temperature, leading to the loss of the frame’s load-bearing capacity.

Here is complete article

www.pwri.go.jp...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Diplomat

 

Well...hope you find the film, but in the meantime here's the de-bunk....

And heres the fallacy;

equating no drop in security into no explosives planted.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Come on whacker; don't you think these photos at the bottom are good evidence that the core columns were sheared with explosives or incendiaries of some kind? Or do you AVOID such evidence?

I don't know precisely what they used because I wasn't in on the planning stage. Some explosives are quite silent. Something heated up the ends of those core columns, causing them to smoke heavily as they fell.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/870606a20bd4.jpg[/atsimg]

There is a distinct measurable pattern with the hundreds of 4 ton external wall sections hurled for up to a 600 feet radius around each tower. Since the core structures are centered in the towers, it is sensible to theorize that the explosive forces originated from the core structures.

That's why we and millions of other people are calling for a new 9-11 investigation.

Not another cover-up or whitewash. Do you get it now?

Why are you so dead set against a real investigation? Is it personal?

NYPD photo taken from NorthEast

NIST NYPD gjs-wtc030.jpg

Massive core columns from the WTC1 top-down demolition, very hot and smoking on the end as they fall to the ground.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2525be89b475.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is another photo of the North Tower smoking core columns taken from a different angle. (west or northwest) This should be definitive proof that the core columns were sheared by explosives or incendiaries of some kind.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3d2965a2410f.jpg[/atsimg]

Smoking Heavy Core Column hi-rez image

WTC6 and WTC7 are hidden behind the building on the left.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/83bd8a5f6fb1.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 3/13/10 by SPreston]