WTC Challenge

WTF are you talking about?

I am talking about the plane only really damaged half of the south power, if you look at where the fire is, it is only on one side of the building.
So how can fire that is only on one side of the building cause a pan cake demolition?

BTW, have you ever worked an asbestos abatment project scraping sprayon from a beam?

No, why the hell would i work with asbestos! That stuff causes cancer.


[edit on 4-7-2005 by aelphaeis_mangarae]

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
The controlled demolition of the towers has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt.

How's that? Where's the proof of controlled demolition? The most televised event in history and not a single image of a placed charge being exploded in any of the buildings...?

No demolition crews placing charges - something that takes days or weeks for buildings that size, and means tearing down walls to get at the support columns.

No single person has ever come forward and said they were involved in the demolition, or knew someone involved. I don't believe anyone could rig an occupied office building with explosives, knowing that they could be causing the deaths of over 40,000 people, without a twinge of guilt. The dozens of people necessary to do a job this size all agreed and kept quiet about it? No way.

All of the months it took to clean up the debris and no investigator ever found a trace of explosives being used? The Fire Dept. was all over that place, they know what to look for and they have field tests for chemical residues that can detect parts per million. Nothing was ever found.

There were search and rescue dogs at the scene for weeks, some of them dual purpose explosive detection / SAR dogs. No handler ever reported their dog indicating explosives (an event that would have shut down the whole operation instantly).

I've never seen a convincing piece of evidence that anything except gravity brought down the towers and WTC 7. There's overwhelming speculation and theories on a million different websites, but not one piece of 'proof' supporting them. Not one qualified and credentialed 'expert' has ever come up with proof that the buildings were demolished, or even proof that it didn't happen the way all the engineers say it did.

I've come up with a way to make millions and millions of dollars of easy money. We all know that if you can provide a service of the same or better quality than your competitors, but at a much lower price, you are guaranteed to make it big, right?

That's why I'm going to start a company called Wecomeinpeace Demolition by Fire Inc.

What we will do is offer a building demolition service, capable of demolishing any building, no matter how strong, into its own footprint and snapping its massive steel beams into truck-length pieces, but for about 1/911th the price of those silly corporations that use explosives to do the job. How will we do it? Okay, I'll do a little demonstration, but stick with me because it gets a little bit complex...

Equipment needed:

Three cans of petrol - cost: approx. $2.20 each


One pack of matches - Cost: approx. $0.10
external image

One 47-story steel-frame building - Cost: unimportant (reimbursed via insurance, with profit)


Demolition method:

1. Spread petrol around liberally on a couple of floors.

2. Set match to petrol and allow to burn for 8 hours.

external image

3. Watch as building collapses instantly in a perfectly symmetrical manner.




4. Crack a beer and enjoy a job well done.




It's an absolute MONEY-MACHINE! We can't go wrong! Who would have thought that demolishing buildings would be so damn easy?

But I'm not proud. I know it wasn't really me that discovered the method, so a big shout out to the boys at FEMA for that one. Thanks guys.

I know a lot of you out there are now well aware that fire can completely destroy steel frame buildings in a manner precisely the same as controlled demolition by explosives, so I'm gonna share the love (and the profits) and invite you lot to invest in my company. Put your money where your mouth is, folks, a few dollars and we'll be on the way to riches! Who's with me?

[edit on 2005/7/4 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
I am talking about the plane only really damaged half of the south power, if you look at where the fire is, it is only on one side of the building.
So how can fire that is only on one side of the building cause a pan cake demolition?

Don't you realize the impact involved about 6 - 8 floors of the building and what you see on the outside is only a fraction of what was going on inside? It wasn't just a fire, it was a huge explosion that blew concrete and steel apart on several floors - look at some of the photo's inside the pentagon for an idea of how much damage there was inside, with so little external damage.

A little fire...


The concrete blasted off the support columns, right down to the steel inner re-inforcement...


Bent and detached support columns...


Oh look, it fell down...

Ok been reading all this stuff on how the buildings fell.....uhmmm....lets think about "all" the other stuff inside a building.

I have been a mechanical/electrical designer for over 20 years and have designed many High rise buildings.

MECHANICAL:
Have not read any info with regards to "mechanical" services in a building.
For example.....the Main GAS risers...for buildings this large, would be "big" full of Natural GAS (min. 12" diameter pipe).....so this would def. have an impact. Even if the Fire department turned off the incoming gas mains, there would be "lots" of natural gas in the pipes from the bottom to the top of the building. And you don't need to be a engineer to know that Natural Gas is very very flamable.

ELECTRICAL:
No an expert in this field...but I am sure building this big.....would require lots of Transformers.......throughout the buildings, and the effects of the planes cutting the main risers etc. would also effect the systems and cause fires "all" over the place (even in other building and transformers under the street)...and not to mention "transformers" have oil in em' to cool em' down.

Just wanted to put my experience/thoughts to everyone to take this into account, hope it helps.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

well this is the problem. everyone theorize what caused what.
If you dont think there was a cover up then presumeably you accept the NIST report, which states that the aircraft impact and whatever damage it did was not the cause of the collapse.
NIST say that the fires weakened the components in the towers, casuing the floors to sag, dragging in the perimiter coloums inwards and a collapse ensued.
So saying anything else is a conspiracy theory isnt it? i mean if you dont accept the NIST report, They made a reconstruction and decided that the aircraft impact wasnt the cause. So there you have it, pictures of pentagon damage or not.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by AdamJ]

You don't think those explosions reported in the towers could be little things like transformers blowing, or gas pockets blowing.... Like he said, the impact would severely damage the pipes with the gas in it, and cause leaks, at least on the floors that were hit. And I've heard a few transformers going off, and they DO sound like all the bomb videos I've watched.

so, a transformer exploding would account for the eyewitness accounts of explosions?
and the gas main added some energy to the energy sink?
and whenever you cut a main electrical feed(riser?) you get fires everywhere? or is a riser a transformer?

this is funny. the 'debunkers' have repeatedly stated in no uncertain term that there were no explosions.
the gas main was not mentioned as a source of signifigant concern by any of the official reports(that i've read so far. some of us know that these online argument s will serve to shore up most of the holes in the official lie. good luck on your mission, jim)

what causes a transformer to explode? i've heard a few go off. it sounds more like a really loud pop than a bomb's boom. i don't find the transformer explanation very satisfying.

and there are tons of images of bomb-like ejections and flashes, so don't do that inane, "where's the evidence, where's the pictures, where's the eyewitness reports?", because they all over the web, and they are all over ats, too.

this will be fun to watch, if the official story changes now to include massive additional fires from gas mains, and exploding transformers.

"yes"(in an officious voice), "the sounds that many witnesses heard, and thought were bombs, were in fact exploding transformers!",
(in a slimy voice), "eenya, dat's it! explodin' transformas!".

there was a specific eye witness testimony i saw, where they talked about no walls in the basement, and a 40 ton something or other disappering,

This thread has been everywhere so um yea, I found this video that I never seen before.

It's almost 300mb

Video

The exterior box columns of WTC 1 and 2 were each 3 floors high (36 feet), welded and bolted to spandrel plates at every floor (12 feet). Each column had a cross-sectional area of 21.5 inches, making 1.792 cubic feet of steel per column per floor.
Source 1
Source 2.

A cubic foot of steel weighs 490lbs (223Kg), thus each 12 foot floor-length of box column weighed approximately 880lbs (400Kg).

Exterior box colums and spandrel plates
external image


When the towers fell, pieces of the box columns were ejected outwards for distances of hundreds of feet. Not only were the columns ripped from the spandrel plates they were welded and bolted to, but they were sliced into 12-foot lengths.




The government's explanation for this is "compressed air" expelling outward as each floor collapsed down on the next. Well, let's take a look at one of the plane impacts. 395,000 pounds of plane striking the building at 530 mph (777 ft/s) and the explosion of 23,980 gallons of jet fuel managed to throw heavy debris 300-350 feet. Light debris did fly further, but remember we're talking about the steel pieces. I've put a scale in here showing the 208 feet wide tower and the debris being thrown a further 300-350 feet beyond it.



In fact, I'm being very generous. Most of what you see above is glass, aeroplane bits and office debris being expelled out. I don't see many pieces of steel columns. Do you?

But when the towers collapsed, 36 foot long pieces of steel were sliced into 12 foot segments, ripped from welded and bolted spandrel plates, and, now weighing 880 pounds each, expelled horizontally outwards for distances of up to 300 feet (conservative estimate).










What possible force could snap steel beams like twigs and throw 880-pound pieces of them hundreds of feet sideways? Do you HONESTLY think "compressed air" could do...

THIS??



Neither do I......

The only explanation for such EXPLOSIVE FORCE is...EXPLOSIVE CHARGES.

Wake up, folks. People in the government and the miltary slaughtered over three thousand of your countrymen in cold-blooded, premeditated murder. And they are smirking in your faces about it on the television, laughing all the way to the bank, and sending your sons and daughters to die for their oil.

[edit on 2005/7/4 by wecomeinpeace]

That's some great work. Probably the best collection of reasons I've ever seen for it not to be controlled demolition.

You have voted wecomeinpeace for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Here's an actual building demolition so you can see how different it would look when charges are set.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
That's some great work. Probably the best collection of reasons I've ever seen for it not to be controlled demolition.

Different buildings, different desired effect, different methods. Regardless, compressed air will never be able to do what some people want it to do.

You have voted wecomeinpeace for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Do you get off on baiting people or something?

Here's an actual building demolition so you can see how different it would look when charges are set.

That's very pretty. Here's another one.

[edit on 2005/7/4 by wecomeinpeace]

Can you conclusively proove that those are steel columns sections flying through the air and not pieces of the aluminum facade, which you are comparing them to on the side of the building?

No.

I can't recall a single post of mine where I said there were no explosions. I don't believe that they were squibs, but I don't recall ever saying there weren't explosions. And I've heard some transformers go off here that sounded a LOT like a bomb going off. One went off two streets behind my ex-gfs house one night, and we all started looking for the fireball thinking it was a house instead of a transformer.

I am sorry, I have to ask why.

Why are you people still debating the events of that day?

If you believe it was anything other than an act of terrorism brought on our nation by Al Qaeda. who else can it be?, and why?

If I am to believe these many conspiracy discussions related to the events of September 11 2001, it was all staged.

Why?

How in god's name could or would a government create such a plan and pull it off just to go to war in Iraq?

I think anyone who falls for this BS is insane.

Wake up people.

Before it is too late and sanity escapes you forever.

Originally posted by AdamJ
there was a specific eye witness testimony i saw, where they talked about no walls in the basement, and a 40 ton something or other disappering,

This is the article. Read it and it is clear that the fuel from the plane spilled down and caused the damage in the lower levels.

And before you get your shorts all in a bunch over the "40 ton something or other" this is what he was refering to:



It is a 40 ton hydraulic press that is common in machine shops.

Originally posted by AdamJ
well this is the problem. everyone theorize what caused what.
If you dont think there was a cover up then presumeably you accept the NIST report, which states that the aircraft impact and whatever damage it did was not the cause of the collapse.
NIST say that the fires weakened the components in the towers, casuing the floors to sag, dragging in the perimiter coloums inwards and a collapse ensued.
So saying anything else is a conspiracy theory isnt it? i mean if you dont accept the NIST report, They made a reconstruction and decided that the aircraft impact wasnt the cause. So there you have it, pictures of pentagon damage or not.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by AdamJ]

If you aren't even going to bother to read the NIST report, why are you participating in this thread?

Here's an ex-CIA man also showing that 9/11 could'nt have been anything but an inside job. www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Here's an actual building demolition so you can see how different it would look when charges are set.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

Comparing one demo to another demo of different type structures does not equate any type of "should look like this".

A building is felled in a manner directly related to the type of building it is, and its immediate surroundings. Comparing the WTC (tall & slender) to the building you posted (short & fat) is akin to comparing the process of raising two dis-similar type structures and say those processes are the same.

Comparing how an action "should be" needs objects of similar features and tolerances

Misfit