Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

reply to post by Varemia


I'm pointing out your obvious contradicitons. YOU say it was reduced to rubble and dust but provide pictures disproving the claim.

reply to post by waypastvne


1,579 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 13,140 other supporters, i did overestimate a little, the message is the same though, if there is a 1% chance the government did it, they should do everything they can to prove it isn't, a growing number of americans want the truth.
They are not some "elite" body beyond the law of the land..
Exactly the opposite, we know they are a corrupt bunch of shysters with pretty much no honesty and greed problems.
They also have a bunch of people in the background telling them to do stuff that they cannot say NO to, only the guilty have something to hide.
Isn't that the reasoning behind the TSA pat downs and the reduction of our privacy, if we are not guilty we have nothing to hide?.
Well what have they to hide by denying a full and open investigation with the leadership of an independent panel chosen by the public and protected with laws to ensure people can be charged and tried for perjury if they lie, put everyone on oath including bush and cheney, preferably before his heart gives him up to satan.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia




" who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?"

If you keep up this level of professionalism and work i see many stars and flags coming your way, even though i know your not in it for the stars. I hope you keep hammering out the ignorance that the paid pundits display here.

Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by Varemia

 

I'm pointing out your obvious contradicitons. YOU say it was reduced to rubble and dust but provide pictures disproving the claim.

Ok, I give. What about those pictures disproved it? And please, answer my question this time.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
I hope you keep hammering out the ignorance that the paid pundits display here.

So are you agreeing that there were two 8.5 kilo ton explosion on the morning of september 11, that no one noticed ?

How many kilo tons did they place in WTC 7 ?

reply to post by humphreysjim


No i agree it doesnt provide an answer as to why both were needed, who knows, facts are facts though and both were used as witnessed by firemen stating the "floors were popping out BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM, like a controlled demolition".
And
Steven joneses evidence of thermite residue and a preponderance of the by products of a thermitic reaction taking place.

An interesting point is wether or not the WTC towers 1and2 had been designed with "Planned obsolescence" in mind, i have come across testimony from people who worked on the towers stating that an explosive compound was placed in the concrete floor pans during construction to make the eventual destruction, in case of an emergency, to stop it falling uncontrollably onto other buildings after an earthquake or other unforseen event.
Not beyond the realms of possibility.

Take all your questions, and look at them from all the angles, try hard to attempt to envisage all possibilities, you know what happened before, during, after, there are to many coincidences and blatant outright lies with the pressure to let them stand as the lies they are without any further investigation, for this event to have happened the way the OS says it did.
Look at it all ways and when you believe you have an understanding of what happened, share it, because there are an awful lot of us who do not know what happened, but, we are looking for the one explanation that fits all the known outcomes.

Google Video Link

Originally posted by The X
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

No i agree it doesnt provide an answer as to why both were needed, who knows, facts are facts though and both were used as witnessed by firemen stating the "floors were popping out BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM, like a controlled demolition".
And

Facts are indeed facts, but we are seeing in this thread that the vast majority of what is being touted as "fact" is simply something that mildly resembles a fact from a distance. Just as something resembling a fact is not necessarily a fact, something that seems "like a controlled demolition" in one guy's opinion is not necessarily a controlled demolition in actuality.

By the way, that's not quite the actual quote from the fireman, is it.

reply to post by humphreysjim


Im sorry do you have difficulties understanding things you see or read or hear, or, are told?.
When presented with witness testimony, what you dont do is think that you yourself are in a position to call that person a liar, especially when said witness testimony is backed up by a professional knowledge, and, other professional witness testimony, in a court of law if this guy was on the stand this testimony would go quite someway towards convincing a jury he had just seen explosions that killed people.
A fireman, a professional person, eminently qualified to tell if what he is seeing is an explosive event or not.
His eyewitness testimony states, he saw multiple consecutive explosive events, that looked and sounded like a controlled demolition event.
what you say now is just insignificant background whine whose accuracy is only good for splitting hairs.

Originally posted by The X
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

Im sorry do you have difficulties understanding things you see or read or hear, or, are told?.
When presented with witness testimony, what you dont do is think that you yourself are in a position to call that person a liar,

I didn't call anyone a liar.

Many eyewitness are mistaken, however, especially in such carnage, and many of their quotes are manipulated by those with an agenda, and/or taken out of context.

I am not aware of the majority of firefighters campaigning against the murder of the US government, are you? If they are all so sure it was a CD, where is their outrage for their fallen comrades?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Totals; *One Tower*:

All 1750: 77,885,500 kg (85,854.0676 short tons)
Inner 2400, outer 1750: 85,800,550 kg (94,578.9167 short tons)
All 2400: 106,814,400 kg (117,742.721 short tons)

I'm not entirely sure how I came up with less than you did... I suspect that I didn't do the thickness right or something...

A couple of issues.

I stated 169,000 metric tons for both. 75,000 for one then.

My floor area is smaller. It's provided in the earlier link.

Floors inside the core were 2400 and 5''/12.5cm.

and I do not believe

I provided a link, to a truther site, that says exactly what I'm saying. Virtually none above grade other than the floors. There was some extra on mechanical floors...

Furthermore, the Amount of Structural Steel used in the ENTIRE COMPLEX was 200,000 tons

You have no reason to state that there was 200,000 tons in the entire complex.

Leaving us with 160,000 tons of steel for both towers, or 80,000 tons of steel per tower.

No. 100,000 tons/tower.

So, that puts the concrete as heavier than the steel in the tower....

No.

However, that still leaves at least half of the mass of the tower unaccounted for

I'll leave a link to Greg Urich's analysis here for you to read through.

It's the best analysis I've seen. His estimates put the total weight/tower at around 325,000 tons.

and I absolutely refuse to believe that Gypsum and fireproofing weighs as much as the tower itself.

How about when we include ceiling, flooring, mechanical equipment? Cuz he covers that

So, I'm thinking Ducting, Machinery, Elevators, etc.... although actually adding all of that up would be tedious, and darn near impossible.

It certainly looks like it was....

911research.wtc7.net...

Note that there's a couple of links in that pdf to follow too.

reply to post by Cassius666


I imagine the planes themselves were that outside energy.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Yes, but this does not mean that all of the dust is fireproofing as you claim.

Well, if you concede the point that the concrete made 40% of the dust, then 60% was something else.

Drywall serves 2 purposes in the towers - fireproofing and the finish wall.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

The vast majority of the airborne dust drifted off down wind after the collapse, and landed in the Hudson. Most of the airborne dust was fire proofing. This would lower its percentage in the WTC dust samples.

Originally posted by The X
Personally i doubt it was more concrete that turned the other concrete to dust, get 20 concrete blocks stack them up and drop another 5 blocks on top, will the 5 blocks vaporize the 20 underneath and turn them all to powder as they drop to the floor?.
you really think it is possible?.

Nope. I think that the concrete was fractured upon initial collision into chunks. These chunks were largely contained by the flooring(carpeting, etc) and steel floor pans and so the dust seen isn't from concrete.This would be especially true for the outside the core areas. For inside the core areas, I would expect more dust and smaller fragmentation since there would be core columns and mechanical equipment spearing through the concrete found there.

I believe that the majority of the dust - 60% - is from a much more brittle material, of which there are several sources - drywall, ceiling tiles, and SFRM would be the main ones.

In all cases, I think it's logical that during the fall, that the concrete chunks that are trapped between the steel floor pans and carpeting would be chuirned into smaller pieces.

And then when it all hits the ground, which estimates put it around 70 mph, whatever was left would be broken up further to complete the fragmentation process.

What will turn concrete to a fine powder?.
Or do you refuse to ask yourself that question because you don't like the direction the answers take you?.

I have no problem asking that of myself.

I believe that a gravity driven collapse of a 325,000 ton, 1/4 mile building works just fine...

Originally posted by Partisanity
I never knew people were this caliber of ignorant.

Kay, I'm sure nobody here is exactly a lumberjack, but let's say you cut down a tree. When you hack away at the bottom with force, what happens? Does it fall straight down and crush the stump it is sitting on? No, it falls over, and there is usually at least 20 times the weight at the top of the tree compared to the bottom. To suggest that the towers' collapse was legitimate is like saying if you chopped the top 1/5th of a tree and placed it back on top of the other 4/5ths of the tree, the weight of the top 1/5th would be enough to take down the other 4/5ths of the tree.

This really isn't rocket science, people. Give me a break.

Buildings, with very few exceptions, are built like a tree.

Ignorance indeed....

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

everything glows the same color at the same temperatures. it's pretty constant, especially so between metals.

Agreed.

it could be aluminum, sure, but it shows that the temperature to melt steel is present.

No.

Liquid molten steel isn't orange.

Liquid molten steel is beyond the range of your chart, higher than yellow.

therefore, your own evidence has debunked the argument that the material falling from the towers is liquid molten steel

I am sitting on the fence with this one.

I believe fundamentalists did instigate the events, but they did not have the resources to do what they did so were assisted by outside (and internal) forces.

That being the case, I am still sceptical as to exactly how the buildings fell however I had an interesting chat with my boss at work and he put across a view I hadn't thought about about (but it sounds mostly plausible).

Now my boss likes photography so he travels a lot, mainly around the US and has visited ground zero a lot more than anyone I know.

He proposed that the buildings, when they were built, were not built very well and pointed to historical facts where contractors were bought in cheaply or corners were cut to maximise profit by using cheap labour and cheap components.

This approach led to the towers being critically weak in some areas. Fly a plane into a weak area and start a fire, where there is no fire proofing and you have everything you need to create a self propelled fire (yes I questioned his view when I stated "if the jet fuel burn't up so quickly how could the fire keep going").

Combine the above with some fundamental flaws in the structure of the WTC Towers (where contractors had done shoddy jobs) and you have the makings of a building collapse.

However...

I still have my doubts, two buildings, falling in perfect free fall, without causing any other damage? The dilema of WTC7 which won't go away and the reports from the fire fighters and other witnesses of explosions...add to this the strange deaths of some witnesses like Barry Jennings and it leaves a lot of questions.

reply to post by old_god


Actually, to correct you, the buildings fell somewhat slower than freefall, and caused damage to almost every building in the complex and around the complex. The Deutsche Bank had to be deconstructed and caught fire on a later date while being torn down.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by Varemia

 

YOU said rubble and dust not me!

So what is in those pictures then? Magic?

This is just ridiculous. I'm leaving.

adios