FIVE QUESTIONS: The Twin Towers and a Controlled Demonlition: HOW?

Originally posted by Captain Beyond
Let's forget about towers 1 and 2 for the moment...

If the whole premise behind these theories is based upon '9/11/01' being a conspiracy, you would have to 'prove that every single building was brought down by demolitions'. You cannot focus on one building and dismiss all the others. Events that took place on '9/11/01' happened all at once. Regardless about what building you are talking about, they were all brought down by terrorists on the same day. In order for the collapse of WTC 7 to be a unique event, the building would have had to have fallen on another day. It did not.

Second, does anyone have definitive proof that the Bush Administration did anything? Photos, documents, recordings, 'inside' eye witnesses, 'administrative' confessions, etc..? Unless you folks can bring some seriously damning evidence, without subjective interpretation of events, the whole premise behind these 9/11/01 conspiracy theories will be based upon nonsense. If someone were to bring the Bush Administration (or anyone) to court, I would hope they would have more than subjective analysis. Since none of the conspiracy theorists can provide tangible evidence, they will never be able to credibly challenge the 'official public record'. Regardless about how theorists interpret anomalies, their subjective analysis will never-ever debunk 'reality'.

Events on 9/11/01 were carried out by a group of terrorists.

Originally posted by Varemia
The stuff dripping out of the towers was either from the lead batteries on that floor, or from melted aluminum mixed with office contents. It's stupid to think it was molten steel.

It's stupid to think aluminium or lead can be bright red. It can be a dull red at the hottest, otherwise it always stays bright shiny silver.



Not bright orange/red...



If you see pics of aluminium, or lead, bright red it is because it is reflecting light.

reply to post by downunderET


Easy. The steel didn't turn to dust, and not all the concrete was pulverized. Most of the dust came from sheetrock and fireproofing.

Originally posted by ANOK
It's stupid to think aluminum or lead can be bright red. It can be a dull red at the hottest, otherwise it always stays bright shiny silver.

You are pretending that your subjective analysis means something. Withing a court of law, your theory is just a theory. Nothing more.

Unless you have more evidence, your theory will fall limp where it once stood.

reply to post by ANOK


Don't you remember that if you mix burning office contents with molten material that it will glow bright red? We're not talking about pure lead or pure aluminum. Many impurities changes the colors.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by Captain Beyond
Let's forget about towers 1 and 2 for the moment...

If the whole premise behind these theories is based upon '9/11/01' being a conspiracy, you would have to 'prove that every single building was brought down by demolitions'. You cannot focus on one building and dismiss all the others. Events that took place on '9/11/01' happened all at once. Regardless about what building you are talking about, they were all brought down by terrorists on the same day. In order for the collapse of WTC 7 to be a unique event, the building would have had to have fallen on another day. It did not.

Second, does anyone have definitive proof that the Bush Administration did anything? Photos, documents, recordings, 'inside' eye witnesses, 'administrative' confessions, etc..? Unless you folks can bring some seriously damning evidence, without subjective interpretation of events, the whole premise behind these 9/11/01 conspiracy theories will be based upon nonsense. If someone were to bring the Bush Administration (or anyone) to court, I would hope they would have more than subjective analysis. Since none of the conspiracy theorists can provide tangible evidence, they will never be able to credibly challenge the 'official public record'. Regardless about how theorists interpret anomalies, their subjective analysis will never-ever debunk 'reality'.

Events on 9/11/01 were carried out by a group of terrorists.

edit on 12/6/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

Your a good little believer.
But You are most correct to say the events of sept 11 were carried out by terrorists.
They just happen to be very clever terrorists who are practised at creating terror.
And they just happen to hold all of the evidence in secure secret locations.

The way to expose who those terrorists are, and why they organised this mass murder that nobody has been brought to justice over yet, is to expose their methods, and not been a believer in anything, you clearly are a believer in what has been indoctrinated into you very very cleverly, thus You are biased .
You are thus trying as many to justify this faith based belief in what they are told as been the truth, instead of pushing what they have been told to breaking point.
gravitor

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by downunderET

 

Easy. The steel didn't turn to dust, and not all the concrete was pulverized. Most of the dust came from sheetrock and fireproofing.

Sure seems to be a lot of sheetrock and fireproofing dust for the top third of the building. This is where the top portion commits hari kari:


Source

Originally posted by gravitor
Your a good little believer.
But You are most correct to say the events of sept 11 were carried out by terrorists.
They just happen to be very clever terrorists who are practised at creating terror.
And they just happen to hold all of the evidence in secure secret locations.

The way to expose who those terrorists are, and why they organised this mass murder that nobody has been brought to justice over yet, is to expose their methods, and not been a believer in anything, you clearly are a believer in what has been indoctrinated into you very very cleverly, thus You are biased .
You are thus trying as many to justify this faith based belief in what they are told as been the truth, instead of pushing what they have been told to breaking point.
gravitor

It is easy to make such an argument without evidence. Unless you have something that definitively supports your argument, I am only going to call your 'theory' and 'pipe dream on drugs'.

Originally posted by septic
Sure seems to be a lot of sheetrock and fireproofing dust for the top third of the building. This is where the top portion commits hari kari:

Here is my counter argument. What do you think caused the smoke and ash? ...and, do you personally have pieces to prove definitively that your are correct?

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by Captain Beyond
Let's forget about towers 1 and 2 for the moment...

If the whole premise behind these theories is based upon '9/11/01' being a conspiracy, you would have to 'prove that every single building was brought down by demolitions'. You cannot focus on one building and dismiss all the others. Events that took place on '9/11/01' happened all at once. Regardless about what building you are talking about, they were all brought down by terrorists on the same day. In order for the collapse of WTC 7 to be a unique event, the building would have had to have fallen on another day. It did not.

Actually you are wrong and backwards. Because all three buildings fell during the same event, all you have to do is prove one of them was a controlled demolition and that would be enough to suspect every building on that day was demolished by controlled actions.

If I sell you five paintings from famous painters and you find that one is a fake, that is enough reason to suspect the other four may be fakes. Lack of evidence proving the other four are fake doesnt make the one fake painting suddenly the real deal. If that makes sense to you : ) Thanks for your input though.

reply to post by Section31

and, do you personally have pieces to prove definitively that your are correct?

Sure do, I've got your pieces right here.

Originally posted by Wizayne
Actually you are wrong and backwards. Because all three buildings fell during the same event, all you have to do is prove one of them was a controlled demolition and that would be enough to suspect every building on that day was demolished by controlled actions.

Can you prove that George Bush and his administration were involved?

Definitively prove your case?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
This image will give you a sense for the length of undamaged structure for the north tower (which was destroyed from top to bottom to within about three or four seconds of ABSOLUTE FREE FALL. 95 floors: one, two, three, four.)

Re: the south tower tipping point

South Tower Tipping and Disintegration:

If the North Tower's antenna drop was anomalous from the perspective of the official theory, the South Tower's collapse contained an even stranger anomaly. The uppermost floors--above the level struck by the airplane--began tipping toward the corner most damaged by the impact. According to conservation-of-momentum laws, this block of approximately 34 floors should have fallen to the ground far outside the building's footprint. "However," observe Paul and Hoffman, "as the top then began to fall, the rotation decelerated. Then it reversed direction [even though the law of conservation of angular momentum states that a solid object in rotation will continue to rotate at the same speed unless acted on by a torque" (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 34).
And then, in the words of Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU, "this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!" This disintegration stopped the tipping and allowed the uppermost floors to fall straight down into, or at least close to, the building's footprint. As Jones notes, this extremely strange behavior was one of many things that NIST was able to ignore by virtue of the fact that its analysis, in its own words, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached" (NIST 2005, p. 80, n. 12). This is VERY convenient because it means that NIST did not have to answer Jones's question: "How can we understand this strange behavior without explosives?" (Jones, 2006).

This behavior is, however, not strange to experts in controlled demolition. Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said:

"By differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance . . . . We'll have structures start facing north and end up going to the north-west." (Else, 2004)

Who can examine this and in their right mind still believe the official story about what happened to the twin towers, I don't understand..

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Limbo
Even with outer structure intact it still would not fall freely yeah? (Or am I missing something)?

That is correct. It would not fall freely. It would fall at near free fall speeds. The falling floors impart momentum to the floors that they are tearing loose.

OOPS!!!

The conservation of momentum just disappeared.

The energy lost needed to break the connections just disappeared.

This propaganda physics is just so cool.

psik

It's the billiard ball principle.

Newtons cradle.

Drop an anvil on a pine board supported at the ends. let me know how much the anvil slows down. Better yet, put your foot under it.

WRONG!!!

Newton's Cradle is a PERFECTLY ELASTIC COLLISION. The impacting ball STOPS! No energy is expended doing damage!

That is not what happened in to the north tower. In order for the tower to come down damage had to occur. Those were INELASTIC COLLISIONS.

More Fantasy Physics to maintain people's delusions. Newton's birthday is coming up. Maybe he is laughing at the nation that put men on the Moon.

psik

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by ANOK
It's stupid to think aluminum or lead can be bright red. It can be a dull red at the hottest, otherwise it always stays bright shiny silver.

You are pretending that your subjective analysis means something. Withing a court of law, your theory is just a theory. Nothing more.

Unless you have more evidence, your theory will fall limp where it once stood.

Are you saying you have proof that the building came down without help or pre-planning? Please link us to the actual documents that overwhelmingly prove that gravity alone collapsed the towers. You know, the evidence you would give the judge showing him/her how the building gave way each second of the collapse.

You do admit the buildings look like they are being demolished by controlled means? Right.

reply to post by septic

Some of you are making arguments for and against 9/11 conspiracy theories (at the same time), and the overall debate is turning into a massive mess of colliding theoretical ideas.

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by gravitor
Your a good little believer.
But You are most correct to say the events of sept 11 were carried out by terrorists.
They just happen to be very clever terrorists who are practised at creating terror.
And they just happen to hold all of the evidence in secure secret locations.

The way to expose who those terrorists are, and why they organised this mass murder that nobody has been brought to justice over yet, is to expose their methods, and not been a believer in anything, you clearly are a believer in what has been indoctrinated into you very very cleverly, thus You are biased .
You are thus trying as many to justify this faith based belief in what they are told as been the truth, instead of pushing what they have been told to breaking point.
gravitor

It is easy to make such an argument without evidence. Unless you have something that definitively supports your argument, I am only going to call your 'theory' and 'pipe dream on drugs'.

Could you clarify that description...."PIPE DREAM ON DRUGS"

If You are insinuating that I am on "DRUGS" then you are a LIAR, and completely wrong.
gravitor

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

Don't you remember that if you mix burning office contents with molten material that it will glow bright red? We're not talking about pure lead or pure aluminum. Many impurities changes the colors.

So you are speculating? Or do you have a sample that was collected from the mess?

Ahhh, youre doing the same thing you accuse others of doing, guessing what it may have been. Let me know when you KNOW what it was pouring from the towers, thanks.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

Don't you remember that if you mix burning office contents with molten material that it will glow bright red? We're not talking about pure lead or pure aluminum. Many impurities changes the colors.

Huh? Really?

The aluminum just happened to be mixed with enough other burning material to make it bright red like melting steel?

Another amazing coincidence to add to the long list of incredible coincidences needed for the OS to be correct.



How about some proof, instead of your excuses? Even a maybe this happened, but nooooo everything Varemia comes up with is the final answer..