9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

Even hearing 30 bombs wouldn't be enough.

The building is held up, by vertical steel columns. These can't break, and kerosine is not enough to melt ... not even enough to weaken it.

And unless your mind has been totally asleep, through this entire debate ... people HAVE found evidence of bombs. Residue called "thermyte" ...

The kind of "bombs" you are referring to, are old style dynamite ... nobody uses this stuff anymore. Most bombs now, have selective usage, where they are muffled, and the energy output is directed. If you hear anything, it will only be a "whoof", if at all.

Originally posted by Varemia

How did they manage to ensure that there would be no accidental detonations or mistakes during the explosive placing procedures over the months before 9/11?

I really think you are overestimating the abilities of the government.

First of all, I seriously doubt anyone put up charges there ... the finding is concerning "thermyte", something that is designed to melt steel. It is the only logical explanation, as how the vertical columns could break ... and didn't just fall apart, or stay up as a skeleton ... as physics would require them to.

And, one thing that people also react to, and that is the enormous dust cloud. The concrede is turned to dust, which many suggest is an example of an explotion ... but, it may also suggest that the concrete was faulty, that the concrete was undercut in the building construction. It may also suggest that there were other undercut objects in the building construction.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by Varemia

How did they manage to ensure that there would be no accidental detonations or mistakes during the explosive placing procedures over the months before 9/11?

I really think you are overestimating the abilities of the government.

First of all, I seriously doubt anyone put up charges there ... the finding is concerning "thermyte", something that is designed to melt steel. It is the only logical explanation, as how the vertical columns could break ... and didn't just fall apart, or stay up as a skeleton ... as physics would require them to.

And, one thing that people also react to, and that is the enormous dust cloud. The concrede is turned to dust, which many suggest is an example of an explotion ... but, it may also suggest that the concrete was faulty, that the concrete was undercut in the building construction. It may also suggest that there were other undercut objects in the building construction.

Actually, if you consider that perhaps all of the horizontal support did not completely snap or break off perfectly, then the vertical supports would be taken down with them, twisting and breaking them apart.

They are only meant to resist vertical stress, not horizontal pulling and such. Once a few fail, they can all fail, as the more that fail, the more weight is placed on the burden of the rest, meaning the weaker of those will fail, and progressively, they will all fail, then falling downward and destroying all the floors below with the same manner of weight-crush dynamics.

Supposedly, the footage starting at 1:40 was found in an old digital camera. It shows close-ups of squibs just as the WTC 7 starts to fall.

And once again, it is impossible for the WTC's to fall into their own footprint at free-fall speed with all that resistance underneath it from the point of the collapse. Unless it is a controlled demo to weaken to lower floors.

I can't prove that this video is "legit". But how many of us have found old photo's and video's in our digital camera's that we forgot about?

reply to post by AgentC


No. No, no, no, no, no. That video has already been proven fake and put in the Hoax bin. It uses so much video trickery it's ridiculous, and now people are latching onto it and putting it with other footage!

This is what I hate about trolls that make these fake videos. They take the movement backwards for years. I swear, if the government is doing anything, they are the ones producing these fake videos every few years, to sidetrack people.

Originally posted by Varemia

Actually, if you consider that perhaps all of the horizontal support did not completely snap or break off perfectly, then the vertical supports would be taken down with them, twisting and breaking them apart.

Not a possibility, not even remotely.

These are vertical steel columns they are strong enough to keep up ... the entire building weight. Since this is a top down assymmetrical tear down, More weight on one side, would bend them to the side and draw the building sideways. But they don't, so they have to snap straight down, and that is IMPOSSIBLE

This is an experiment, you can do at home. You don't have to take my word for it, you can look on youtube and you'll find that just about everyone has done these experiements ... which is why people say "no". If you make the vertical columns out of tootpiks, then you'd be able to get what you are talking about. And that means, building construction failure, and an undercut project.

You have only two solutions to this, an undercut building project ... or a demolition. There is no third alternative.

Originally posted by Varemia

No. No, no, no, no, no. That video has already been proven fake and put in the Hoax bin. It uses so much video trickery it's ridiculous, and now people are latching onto it and putting it with other footage!

You can say the same thing about the CNN video footage of the plane crashing into the towers ... it's a fake. Which is why the lower fuselage of the plane, doesn't look normal ... the plane digitally becomes part of the building. That is a hoax too ... were there planes at all? or did they just create this footage, to have something to show to the people ... but knew there were planes.

You Americans are starting to look more and more sinister as this carries on. You go to any length to protect murderers of women and children, because they are your government.

One of my favorites here, about 9/11 is that its being referred to by people as Revelations 9/11.

"They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon."

Wow ... UBL would certainly pick a date from the bible ... or maybe he didn't have a chance to select, God picked it for him.

This retarded religious fanatism, on either side of this equation is tiresome to the extreme. CNN was covering WT7 as it occurred, and I remember very well what occurred that day. And WT7 was brought down, by demolition ... and the use of WT7 in the arguements, is merely to show the similarities between the two, and what they share. That WT7 was not a demolition, is just an aftermath stupidity ... as it occurred on TV, that day ... CNN was sitting there, for two or three hours, talking about that they would have to bring down WT7, and when it finally happened. It was referred to as something inevitable ...

So, you are talking out of ass here ...

reply to post by bjarneorn


# you. Look at this thread, where that video was ripped to freaking shreds. I'm getting so damn tired of you people acting like you are so high and mighty because you think unnamed masses of people are so evil.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read at least three pages. A lot of work is done, including showing the building side-by-side with a nearly identical angle. Only a moron would deny that it was faked.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by Varemia

Actually, if you consider that perhaps all of the horizontal support did not completely snap or break off perfectly, then the vertical supports would be taken down with them, twisting and breaking them apart.

Not a possibility, not even remotely.

These are vertical steel columns they are strong enough to keep up ... the entire building weight. Since this is a top down assymmetrical tear down, More weight on one side, would bend them to the side and draw the building sideways. But they don't, so they have to snap straight down, and that is IMPOSSIBLE

This is an experiment, you can do at home. You don't have to take my word for it, you can look on youtube and you'll find that just about everyone has done these experiements ... which is why people say "no". If you make the vertical columns out of tootpiks, then you'd be able to get what you are talking about. And that means, building construction failure, and an undercut project.

You have only two solutions to this, an undercut building project ... or a demolition. There is no third alternative.

edit on 19-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

That's your opinion, but I don't think it would stand up to scrutiny. Once the initial floor has broken from its connections, it is impossible for the vertical supports to hold any influence on the debris collapsing above. It is now predominantly collapsing onto horizontal supports. It doesn't make any sense to assume that they can hold extreme vertical stress which has accelerated and impacted. Maybe I'm crazy for seeing it this way, but I can't think of any way that the vertical supports could magically pin-point all the weight and prevent it from falling. Once the initial collapse has started, there is nothing to stop it.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by AgentC

 

No. No, no, no, no, no. That video has already been proven fake and put in the Hoax bin. It uses so much video trickery it's ridiculous, and now people are latching onto it and putting it with other footage!

This is what I hate about trolls that make these fake videos. They take the movement backwards for years. I swear, if the government is doing anything, they are the ones producing these fake videos every few years, to sidetrack people.

You will probably note that I said I had no way to know if it was legit. But then again, point me to exactly where it has been proven fake. Seriously, I want to know.

Anyhow,



I am sure this guy, like William Rodriguez, is full of BS too.

No. No, no, no, no, no. That video has already been proven fake and put in the Hoax bin.

Aaahhhh yes...the old ATS hoax bin...which, of course, is beyond reproach.

It uses so much video trickery it's ridiculous, and now people are latching onto it and putting it with other footage! This is what I hate about trolls that make these fake videos. They take the movement backwards for years.

Your concern for the progress of the truth movement is bringing tears to my eyes. Quite touching. Should I cue the violins?

I swear, if the government is doing anything, they are the ones producing these fake videos every few years, to sidetrack people.

So you admit the Government would hatch plans and be devious enough to "sidetrack people"? Quite an admission from an OSer.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Please name something else you could describe a 100 story building falling? I would think the first thing 99% of people would say is explosions. However, in no video I have ever seen, do we see/hear explosions leading up to the collapse.

reply to post by esdad71


Dude there were dozens of witnesses that reported explosions. There are countless testimonies in the OP of this thread where they explicitly state "explosions" and not "loud sounds of a building collapsing". I advise you to watch all 27:00 of this video just to hammer those accounts of explosions into your head.

reply to post by TupacShakur


No, I asked you. What else would it sound like? Almost every news person that morning called them explosions. That does not make them demolitions.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Oi, read it for yourself if you don't believe me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's all there, within the first three pages it is completely debunked and proven to be fake.

Also, apologies to AgentC. I know you couldn't verify it, but I was trying to prevent other users from blowing it up into exactly what the creator of the fake video wanted. Ignorance is able to spread like wildfire if you don't put it out immediately.

reply to post by esdad71

No, I asked you. What else would it sound like? Almost every news person that morning called them explosions. That does not make them demolitions.

Explosions would be heard in a controlled demolition, and they were heard during the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7. If you think the explosions are just the loud sounds of the collapse, that's fine, and is completely logical because obviously during the collapse energy would be transferred to sound. I heard them report explosions, not a building loudly collapsing, so I'm going to take their word that what they all heard were explosions.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by esdad71

 

No, I asked you. What else would it sound like? Almost every news person that morning called them explosions. That does not make them demolitions.

Explosions would be heard in a controlled demolition, and they were heard during the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7. If you think the explosions are just the loud sounds of the collapse, that's fine, and is completely logical because obviously during the collapse energy would be transferred to sound. I heard them report explosions, not a building loudly collapsing, so I'm going to take their word that what they all heard were explosions.

Everything was called an explosion, though. You don't hear someone describe a building collapsing around their ears as "sounds of building collapsing," they describe it as "it was like boom, boom, boom all the way down! The whole tower exploded!"

Check this out:

ex·plo·sion (k-splzhn)
n.
1.
a. A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.
b. A violent bursting as a result of internal pressure.
c. The loud, sharp sound made as a result of either of these actions.
2. A sudden, often vehement outburst: an explosion of rage.
3. A sudden, great increase: a population explosion; the explosion of illegal drug use.
4. Linguistics See plosion.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

An explosion is exactly what it sounds like, an outward bursting of energy. The tower was "exploding" debris outward and collapsing.

Explosion does not automatically equal explosives.

reply to post by TupacShakur


So energy was transferred to sound but still caused the collapse? I am a little confused here...help me out being the expert and all...

reply to post by esdad71

So energy was transferred to sound but still caused the collapse?

Energy would have been transferred to sound in a natural collapse, which is what you believe occured. Explosions would have created those sounds in a controlled demolition, which is what I believe occured.

I am a little confused here...help me out being the expert and all...

I have never referred to myself as an expert.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I do not even know how to respond. I know where you stand, I am asking you a question. Why is it so hard to answer a question. Are you saying that the energy was dissipated as sound yet still caused the collapse? I can quote you if you forgot what you said. Also, I did not state you are an expert but if you are going to play like one you should be prepared to back it up with more than a movie review and the newly coined "breaking wind" theory you have presented that shows how you believe the energy must have converted itself to sound...