Over 10 tons [of nano thermite] have been estimated to have been found in Manhattan near the site. While thermite can be bought by anyone for welding (which produces iron), the nano process is performed by and for military uses only.
More here...
http://www.newschief.com/article/20090812/NEWS/908125031/1014/OPINION?Title=Cause-of-destruction-of-WTC-discovered
According to former Mayor and 911 trademark owner Rudy Guiliano, those involved in the chemical testing and analysis process 'clearly never heard of my newly implemented 'Thermite Tuesday' Program'...whereby homeless people carrying sacs of thermite rush about the sidewalks, while simultaneously trying to avoid bumping into other homeless people balancing blasting caps on their heads.
Unfortunately, that was the first and last day of the Program, Guillano lamented.
Regards...
When a building collapses with today's sophisticated chemical analysis technology, you can probably find anything you want in the debris. It is all just a question of the relative proportion of what you are looking at compared to the whole.
So the WTC collapsed because terrorists flew fuel-laden passenger planes into the towers. Various explosions heard and whatnot are all factored in to the fact that this was an event essentially without precedent. The explosions that were heard could have been due to pockets of jet fuel vapour exploding, or metal and concrete failing due to the uneven stresses, etc.
If you recall for the Oklahoma City bombing, there was conspiracy theory about that one also. They tracked it down to two people with "extreme fringe political views" or "psychos", depending on your point of view.
The WTC conspiracy theory is comparable to the conspiracy theory that Man didn't land on the moon in 1969. Did you see the clip of Buzz Aldrin punching the guy in the nose? lol
Just keep it simple most of the time.
MileHigh
Gee i didn't realize you were a chemicals expert too, MH ;)
I am not, but i understand that it is a unique compound with a unique spectrography analysis signature, that is not found in building CONstruction (sprinkling highly corrosive & combustive materials on load-bearing steel beams is generally frowned upon in most circles), only DEstruction.
Where else would such a unique material be found in a "normal" building?
The paint? No.
The Glass? No.
The insulation and fire proofing? No (but lots of the "bad" kind of asbestos was).
The office and hallway dry wall? No.
The inner non-load bearing wall frames? No.
The office materials and furniture? No.
The electrical/electronics office equipment? No.
The building's wiring, plumbing, restrooms? No.
The fire safety sprinkler system & water tanks? No.
The ceiling tiles? No.
The elevators, stair wells, fire doors? No.
The lobby's decorations? No.
The restaurant kitchens? No.
The parking lots? No.
The foundation? No.
Maybe they were selling thermite in the stores of the Mall there ("Inside Jobs R Us", or "Treason Locker")?
Hmm.. Can't think of anything in a building which uses tons of military-grade explosives of unique compounds. Except military-grade explosives.
Jibbguy:
I am no chemical expert at all. A thought experiment that runs through my head is that if thermite is so close in chemical composition to the compounds used in the welding process, and assuming there was tons and tons of welding done when buildings of that size were built, would it be possible to find thermite? I don't know. Were there any tenants in the buildings that may have had thermite for legitimate reasons, samples, R&D, stock room stock, etc? I don't know.
As far as I am concerned it's like an "O.J. is innocent" argument because you couldn't account for some blood samples.
I saw an awesome PBS documentary with full computer simulation of the planes slicing through the superstructure, etc.
MileHigh
The most logical explantion for all that nano-thermite is still Shrewdy Rudy's 'Thermite Tuesday' theory.
After all, although it sounds kinda wacky, Mohammed Atta's plastic ID card was found atop the ruble...right next to a pristine stretcher bullet in a bag dated Dallas 1963 which had also somehow appeared there...according to the FBI.
Regards...
David Koresh's spirit enacted revenge on the NWO and the WTO...
The WTC was the building that "could not" be destroyed...
Empire State Building incident
On Saturday, 28 July 1945, at 0940 (while flying in thick fog), a USAAF B-25D crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building, hitting between the 79th and 80th floor. Fourteen people were killed â€" 11 in the building, along with Colonel William Smith and the other two occupants of the bomber. [7] Betty Lou Oliver, an elevator attendant, survived the impact and a subsequent accident with the elevator. It was partly because of this incident that towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft.[8]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hawk914/201598637/
Your rational theories that a 12,000 Ton aircraft could destroy millions of tons of steel and concrete are just stupid...
Wake up...
Building 7...what better place to Headquarter a securities fraud investigation into Bush and Cheney's activities...
Hey z...good to zee you back.
Regards...
Hey Cap...
You have to remember that if you could be on the scale of the building like Godzilla or something, if you touched it with your finger it would crumple like it was made out of snowflakes. Yes I am exaggerating but you get the point. Buildings are only strong enough to hold themselves up. So the plane crashes caused local cave-ins that then smashed their way through the snowflake structure creating an avalanche.
Another analogy would be a passenger jet. Besides the ribs in the wings and the jet engines, the rest of the plane is about as strong as a balloon, if you switch yourself up to the scale of the plane.
The bigger things get, the more fragile and delicate they become if you imagine yourself being on the same scale.
MileHigh
Milehigh, obviously you are a n00b. GTFO...
Structures such as the tallest building in the world are super over-engineered to make sure they remain the colossal super structures that they were DESIGNED to be. DUH!
Even if the plane caused a massive hole in the building, the building would not TOTALLY collapse in a symmetrical pattern where the entire contents of the building lands in the basement of the building.
This was a military grade demolition, pure and simple...
Snowflake structure ??
Are you not aware of the concrete and steel flexible cores in those towers ?
Does that mean you are ready to accept what really happened ?
If not, you have do better than that or I can't respond further.
Never mind conflicting burn temperature issue.
Regards...
I think that storage of explosives in a high rise office building would be both highly illegal, and highly insane ;)
Welding uses welding rods. Otherwise, it melts the existing steel. Welding rods are not explosives; if they were, that would be a more dangerous job than being a fisherman in the North Pacific or Bering Sea (or being a Free Energy Inventor, the most deadly job of all by factor of about 20 from what i saw several years ago somewhere... Although the number of deaths seems to have slowed down considerably in the last couple years).
The buildings were completed by 1970, i think i remember hearing (or about then). More than twenty years after construction, is there still tons of welding residue "loose" in them ? Remember the great majority of the steel scrap from the collapsed buildings was suspiciously carted away immediately, sold to India and China (... and so it conveniently can't be tested in a wider sample now). Was this residue forcibly ejected from off the steel, while covered in paint and the asbestos fireproofing material, and into the atmosphere so it could land in the surrounding area (...just like an explosive would be)? This is what much of the data is based on: Airborne debris from the collapse.
BTW: Did you ever see any simulations on TV of how Bldg 7 fell? Or even hear about it much 1 day after the event? Most American don't even know it existed.
These aren't simulations, but actual footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw
This one shows the BBC reporting on the fall of Bldg 7 ("Salomon Bros. Bldg"), which was NOT hit by any airplane, TWENTY-TWO MINUTES BEFORE IT ACTUALLY FELL. You can see the building, still standing, behind her left shoulder (our "right"). The BBC was pretty embarrassed about this, of course, and later said they got the report from the U.S. government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s
Earlier this year, a high-rise hotel in Beijing China of steel construction, and very close in size to Bldg 7, caught fire from a fireworks display and burned for over 2 days... With flames hundreds of feet high coming from it (lol compare that to the puny flames in Bldg 7). It did not collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBsCRrrp6Lc
High-rise steel buildings do not collapse from fire (other recent examples in Brazil and Spain as well)... Except for the 3 separate -alleged- WTC examples on 9/11 .
But they do of course collapse, into their own foot prints, at near free-fall speeds... From controlled demolition.
And proof of military-grade thermite permeating the surrounding area is a very damning find; that when combined with the reams of other evidence, points to certain rigorous criminal investigations, new Congressional hearings, and increased public awareness from mainstream media reporting....
...Oh wait, this is America... Scratch that last paragraph.
Look, think of what would happen to an aircraft carrier if it slammed into a dock at one mile per hour. The metal of the ship hitting the dock would bend like soft butter. The building was designed to withstand wind stresses and earthquake loads and support the "payload", the occupants and all their furniture and equipment. On the scale of the building, in a very simplified sense, the metal girders are like soft butter.
If it was an "old school" building built with bricks and mortar and girders and all that, it would be much stronger. However, modern buildings "have all of the extra juice" sucked out of them and they are only as strong as the spec calls for. The whole idea is to eliminate extra materials to reduce cost and this has become a fine art. So all modern skyscrapers are "snowflake" structures with all of the extra "building life force" lol sucked out them. They are empty husks just strong enough to meet spec. They were not designed for a catastrophic whack on their heads when 6000 tons of material falls 12 feet and lands on the floor below. All of the juice has been sucked out of that floor by the architects and building engineers in a never-ending quest to get more performance with less materials for less cost. In that sense they are almost like modern (and I stress modern) Formula 1 racing cars and we all know what happens to one of them when it crashes.
MileHigh
jibbguy Rox!
Milehigh Rong!
Aircraft Carrier hitting dock is massive structure hitting tiny structure.
Airplane hitting WTC is tiny structure hitting massive structure.
Your argument is invalid...
I have a pet theory about Building 7. When the two towers collapsed, they created fairly strong localized earthquakes. That motion disturbed the big main support beams set in their concrete plugs that go down to the bedrock. The support beams were shocked and partially damaged, the metal was partially sheared right were it connects to the concrete plugs. It's like the ankle bones for the building we partially shorn. Eventually one beam had a catastrophic failure and that set off a chain reaction that resulted in multiple main support beam failures and the building came down exactly as it would have if a professional demolition job was done on it.
MileHigh
Actually, "the two towers" WERE designed to take hits specifically from planes the size of Boeing 707's (the largest airliner of the day). It was LITERALLY one of the design specifications. There was a "History Channel" TV documentary on their building, one of the "Modern Marvels" series, which specifically stated this (..filmed several years before 2001).
And they did take the hits.
But no building can withstand demolition.
Yes they were designed for that on paper and they were wrong. In my opinion they didn't factor in the burning fuel properly. The engineers and architects were wrong, plain and simple. There have been multiple bridge collapses in the past few years.
Or maybe it is a military-industrial complex conspiracy. They wanted a new revenue stream and now they have the Dept. of Homeland Security? I like Ike.
MileHigh
Regarding your theory about Bldg 7, it took a shock several times worse back 10 years previously when the bomb exploded in the parking lot under the complex.
With no damage at all. It was thoroughly examined to make sure.
People do not fuc around with the safety of these buildings... It is the highest form of engineering known in the civilian world. And the strictest.
NWO Bufoons...
Different excitation on those two events Jibbguy. The first case was a single impulse wave, the second case was two fluttering velocity waves at the ankle joints lasting tens of seconds each. The ankle joints were shaken in rag-doll fashion with very high intensity and started to fail. So you are comparing apples to oranges.
Just a pet theory.
MileHigh
If I was the government/president and I wanted to set up a pretense to a war or whatever, I can tell you that I sure as hell would not try to get remote control planes, fake/real identities of alleged victims, fake/real identities of hijackers, plane looks like a missile with phantom but yet accountable passengers going into the pentagon, and don't forget about crashing a plane in the middle of nowhere. After all, no amount of outrage would be complete without that last plane crashing in the middle of nowhere in PA.
What I would do, since I already rigged up the buildings with explosives, is just set off the explosives and blame it on the terrorists. Gee, how simple, and I do not have to make up passenger lists or hijackers or get like 1000 more people involved in this crazy plot.
Or how about a nuke in/near a city?
Poison a city's water supply?
I am sure you guys can think of others.
All that stuff is like 10,000 times easier to pull off and involves far fewer people than the coordinated effort to crash 4 planes into buildings, or wait, 3 into buildings and 1 into the middle of nowhere in PA, no wait, 2 planes into buildings, 1 plane into the middle of nowhere, and one missile-instead-of-a-plane (why not just use a plane like you did with WTC1 and 2?) and then count on explosives to bring the buildings down.
The darkside did it...
I think we need to look at who would of benefitted in the top 10 on the insurance policies for both the buildings and the Gold that was under the WTC buildings.
it was no doubt a very suspicious event. WTC Phone records should be a top priority and company phone records from.
1. Vornado Realty Trust
2. Brookfield Properties Corporation
3. Boston Properties
4. Silverstein Properties
5. The Westfield Group
In 1998, the Port Authority approved plans to privatize the World Trade Center. In 2001, the Port Authority sought to lease the World Trade Center to a private entity. Bids for the lease came from Vornado Realty Trust, a joint bid between Brookfield Properties Corporation and Boston Properties, and a joint bid by Silverstein Properties and The Westfield Group. By privatizing the World Trade Center, it would be added to the city's tax rolls and provide funds for other Port Authority projects. On February 15, 2001, the Port Authority announced that Vornado Trust Realty had won the lease for the World Trade Center, paying $3.25 billion for the 99-year lease. Vornado Realty outbid Silverstein by $600 million though Silverstein upped his offer to $3.22 billion. However, Vornado insisted on last minute changes to the deal, including a shorter 39-year lease which the Port Authority considered nonnegotiable. Vornado later withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on April 26, 2001, and closed on July 24, 2001.
or was it somebody who wanted out of their lease agreement? who knows.
Silverstien...
@ Utilitarian:
If I was planning a traitorous inside job false-flag operation to get us into a war...
> I would choose something that truly terrorizes people, the thought of airliners crashing into their office buildings randomly... Since so many fly now for business (or did before then anyway), it is doubly terrifying.
> I would be sure to attack a military installation beside the civilian locations, as a pretext and excuse for actual war (and to get my own military really angry and ready for revenge, by attacking their headquarters). The Pentagon fits the bill superbly.
> I would keep people from thinking about the ridiculous idea of men taking over 3 SEPARATE airliners with nothing but plastic box cutters, by having a phony heroic moment where one "group of terrorists" was "thwarted in their plans" by "heroic civilian passengers" with the 4th airliner. Wave the flag... And have one moment of glory in the whole horrible mess to make Americans feel good about themselves.
Remember how that was played up? I do.
@MH:
You can't have it both ways:
Either the Towers were flimsy "snowflakes", that COULD NOT transmit the shock to a nearby building because they was too lightly built and instead absorbed the shock themselves...
Or they were rigid enough to transmit the stock... And thus so too strong to fall.
You are just mixing up apples and oranges Jibbguy. The fact that the building on a macro scale is not particularly strong and and can get crushed like a snowflake has absolutely nothing to do with the entire mass of the building collapsing and creating localized intense shockwaves.
MileHigh
MileHigh-R-n00b...
WTC-R-Nuthin' compared to what Obamason do to entire US-of-A...
Zmon:
What is "EE Acid Hardware," etc?
MileHigh
Iz are acronym...
EE ACID...
Electrical Engineer (EE)...
Advanced Certified Interconnect Designer (ACID-IPC)...
I design stuff, professionally...
Ok thanks for the info, sounds interesting.
MileHigh
I think we need an expert opinion on whether a giant bomb blast in the basement is worse than airplanes hitting the neighboring buildings or not.
You know, several of the prime engineers on the project were still alive in 2001. And at NO TIME have they ever been accused of failing in their job... And at no time has there ever been any evidence that those buildings had substandard ANYTHING. The steel tested was the promised and spec'ed grade.
It is a truth that these building routinely sustained loads from wind storms much worse than the momentary shock value of the airliner crashes. 100 MPH winds are a tremendous burden on a building that tall and broad; and this happened several times over the years; especially as winds are often much stronger at the higher stories than at ground level.
And steel buildings are much more flexible than concrete, brick, or stone... They can take sudden shocks; or sustained hurricane-strength winds that can bend them a foot or more in the lee direction, and later spring back with no damage. They are specifically designed for BOTH scenarios.
From what some suggest, Bldg 7 would have been so weak, that it would have collapsed years before of its own weight (as well as the Towers). They were not weak. And they were certainly strong enough to sustain the shocks of the hits. In fact, the NIST reports do not blame the structural damage of the aircraft, it blames fire for all three collapses (...which, "oddly" enough, burned nearly 800 degrees below the point for melting steel).
And another thing about steel buildings: They are not going to fall from the top-down perfectly straight at free-fall speeds.... It is just too strange to expect that all the members failed in exactly the correct time, to allow the building to drop straight down without slowing or falling to one side.... You know, that means EVERY SINGLE VERTICAL MEMBER and connecting horizontal beam had to fail at exactly the correct time, within a couple milliseconds of it's neighbor and opposite on the other side... Over and over and over again, as the stories collapsed one after another... This precise matching side-to-side, happening over a hundred times for each Tower building story, and 47 times for #7. Without slowing the fall at all, and without tilting to one side. Straight down, and within a second or two of free-fall speed.
Because all it would take to mess-up that "perfect symmetry", would be for one of those upper members to fail a little slower than the ones on the other side.. this would cause a skew to one side and help slow the fall; the skew and slowing being magnified as it continued to fall... A topple over to one side, and a partial much slower collapse with the lower stories probably even still standing.
Amazing, that it didn't happen that way huh? And to think... 3 TIMES IN A ROW, in a single day. Must be astronomical odds there.
Oddly enough, this is EXACTLY how demolitions are done. Another amazing coincidence.
An expert opinion would certainly be welcome. But as a lay person you can just make a ballpark estimate of the sizes of the two energy sources. The total gravitational potential energy in the two towers must have been millions of times higher than the total energy in one truck filled with nitrate explosives. I never said that anything was substandard about the buildings. It's not about the shock of the airliners, it's about dropping a 6000 ton object from a distance of 12 feet onto the "top" of each of the buildings. They simply were not designed for that kind of shock. I bet you the cumulative affect of the heat of the fire would soften the steel superstructure, but I have never read that speculation in my readings. I think that the skew would correct itself during the collapse. Also, the free-fall is a myth. There are YouTube clips where there is a more precise timing done and both collapses are short of free-fall speed by about seven or eight seconds.
Anyway, we can all disagree about this, it is like another Kennedy assassination mystery and there will always be people that believe what they want to believe. I just don't think the conspiracy theory is for real from the human factor down. Yes, it was suggested as a political ploy for the very reasons that you suggest during the Kennedy administration and rejected. I just can't believe the conspiracy is true, and what happened to the towers can be taken at face value. When extreme things like this happen, s*it happens. Look, New Orleans and Holland were both flooded in the Modern Era, and the Titanic sunk on its maiden voyage, the Hindenburg went up in a ball of flames, and two 747 jetliners slammed into each other on the ground killing more than 500 people. We only have so much control, and every now and then Man is given a sobering reminder about the human condition and his own frailties.
MileHigh
Mile, first please list your guesses as guesses, you obviously don't work in the area of construction.
Second, the conforming explaination of the towers failure is specifically targeted at YOU, the common person. In a world where 99% of people have your level of understanding, if I explain something that makes sense to you, I don't have to care that the 1% of experts, and experienced people know that is BS.
You can not as a lay person ball park anything in regards to these buildings, you have to know and understand the specifics. If you are unwilling to educate yourself, then please stop making conjecture based on very limited understanding.
Dropping 6000 tons 12 feet on the "top" of each building. First, where did you get that figure, is it accurate? or is it a guess.
second, you are neglecting the fact that the steel stucture of the supposed weaken floor, did not disappear. so it would be a friction in your calcs. and it would be of very significant importance.
Do you know the moment load calculated for those floors? Do you know the shear load? Do you know the static load?
Do you know what it is designed for?
If not please list it as an opinion.
The FACT is this, the uppers floors were of lighter weight construction than the lower floors, meaning that each floor has less mass than the floor below it. The fact is that as the upper section fell it would expend its kinetic energy as it impacted a lower floor. It would not speed up in its decent it would deccelerate, and would fall to a path of lower resistance or if such a path was not possible, the falling section would expend all of its energy and come to rest. Given the balancing act that resting would imply I would think that it would fall into free space as the highest probability.
I would bet you anything you would like that you can not heat steel with a hydrocarbon fuel that is naturally aspirated to the point of losing 80% of its static load bearing strength. Which is what you are implying, add in the cooling effect of the steel mass, and non stoich fuel mixture (evident by the black smoke) and you have a better chance of hitting satan with a snowball in hell.
I can respect your opinion that you accept the explaination put forth.
I disagree with it.
The official story is compelling, on the surface.
I would like to pose this question though, do you believe that the most important military building in the US, and proly the world, is so un defended that a relatively slow moving plane could get inside its defenses?
That would mean that if someone really bad wanted to they could get a foxbat, and drop whatever they wanted on it.
I am really not buying that one.
Ever fly into restricted air space? I know people who have, not something you want to do.
On top of all that, have you researched into what happens when a liner flys off course? It does not go unnoticed.
Now if the pent was hit first, and then the towers, I might give that a little more chance, but getting hit third? No I am not buying into that.
If anyone believes that our military, of government just couldnt react fast enough, or properly, then why are we letting them operate any hostile military actions if they are so inept?
Its really incredulous that people are still trying to drag the "debate" back to the time before the presence of nano-thermite was discovered.
Brain dead or bullshitting...which is it ?
Neither is good.
Regards...
Edit:
For those falling behind the rest of the class, a movie tutorial...not that it will make a difference.
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
Cap,
Now don't be too hard on them. After all it is just programming. Our opinions are prefabricated and burned into our brains by the national news networks. I wouldn't know what to do if Gov. Censors didn't form my opinions for me. Man, when the electricity goes out for a while, and I have to think for myself, I get scared. But then the electricity comes back on and I can watch Fox News, and I feel better...
Quote from: z.monkey on August 19, 2009, 06:47:36 AM
Cap,
Now don't be too hard on them. After all it is just programming. Our opinions are prefabricated and burned into our brains by the national news networks. I wouldn't know what to do if Gov. Censors didn't form my opinions for me. Man, when the electricity goes out for a while, and I have to think for myself, I get scared. But then the electricity comes back on and I can watch Fox News, and I feel better...
I see, the religious guy telling us about programming.
It brings a certain amount of order to my world to see that you are still a pompous Ass utilitarian...
I consider myself to be spiritual, not religious...
But thanks for your sideways comment anyway...
Quote from: z.monkey on August 19, 2009, 09:30:29 AM
It brings a certain amount of order to my world to see that you are still a pompous Ass utilitarian...
I consider myself to be spiritual, not religious...
But thanks for your sideways comment anyway...
OK, you keep talking with your invisible friend. Maybe he can tell us what really happened on 9/11.
Could someone please point me to an official reason why Building 7 managed to catch on fire?
We have a terrible place crash in my country not too long ago. The Israelian pilot, in horror, understood that he would not be able to avoid a huge appartment building. Many live were lost, it was a cargo Boeing 747-258F...
Neighbouring buildings is same proportions barely had broken windows though.
Perhaps, to make it realistic, the high-temperature explosive were not used to make a big blasts, but a "controlled" super-hot fire to eventually have selected floor fail, and trigger a demolition-style collapse.
We shouldn't fail to consider that the "controlled" way the buildings collapsed may have been more coincidental than intentional. Who knows, if there was foul play, they may have hoped (the horror...) the towers to each tumble OVER in one direction. This might not have cost "many" more lives, but the anger of a completely distroyed district would likely have been even greater.
MH, It is true that "sh*t happens", certainly.
... But it usually emanates from assho*es. ;)
Meaning that when two 747's collide, one or more persons screwed the pooch royally. Did it matter if they were hung-over and just failed to think properly? Not to the dead, it didn't. They are still dead.
9/11 was not a natural occurrence, as in a flood or hurricane. To try and equate the two is suggesting it was "inevitable". This question if it could have been avoided or not is a whole 'nuther huge topic. But for starters... In the previous year, 2000, airliners that had gone off course had been challenged in the air by US fighters via actual interceptions over SIXTY TIMES... Yet on this day, FOUR airliners were known to be hijacked, and no interceptions AT ALL ??
Anyway, back to the buildings..
(we can "demolish" this first then move on to the other stuff if you like ;) )
The worst example of free-fall speeds from that day is of course Bldg 7, which did fall within 1 or 2 secs of free-fall speed. It is a truly bizarre fall in many ways, and this is why i and many others tend to gravitate towards it over and over; as it really is the "smoking gun" for controlled demolition... As anyone CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES simply by watching the film footage.
Willy Nelson said last year regarding Bldg 7 (he is a Truther):
"How stupid do they think we are??"
Indeed.
But despite the risk of dropping it in such a ridiculously obvious manner, that building "had to go" for several reasons... Which we can get to later.
Now unlike the "Two Towers"; Bldg. 7 falls from the "bottom-up" meaning the lower stories collapse first, although we can CLEARLY see that the central columns ALSO show collapse at the roof line AT THE SAME TIME, within about 1 second of the collapse beginning. This is highly intesting... It shows the center is collapsing NEAR THE ROOF, at the same time the lower stories are collapsing, over 44 stories away. This means there were two , synchononized, simultaneous collapses: One in the central area seen at the penthouse roof line, and one far away down towards the foundations, that allowed the greater mass of the building to fall straight down in a block.
If you understand the building's construction, there IS NO WAY the two occurrences could be linked.... Unless ALL the central columns were shattered simultaneously. Damn, what kinda "sh*t" does THAT ??
A very interesting scenario that WAS NOT addressed by the rather strange NIST report (which was released only last year, was 7 years in the making, and WAS NOT reported on by the mainstream corporate media); which was confusing and incomplete, but seemed to blame LNG canisters used for cooking for collapsing a 47 story steel building... And of course natural gas does not burn hot enough to melt steel either, not even close to the point to "buttering" it (so it would supposedly easily bend). If it did, such tanks WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN BUILDINGS.
And it is important to remember that these beams & members of Bldg 7 had 100% INTACT fireproofing on them, unlike the "Two Towers" that had some LOCALIZED damage to the asbestos coating on the beams near the impact zones; which NIST played-up to the maximum possible extent in the earlier report on their collapse.
N.I.S.T. can't have it both ways, either: The asbestos coating loss was significant, or it wasn't.
Another important aspect of controlled demo is, that the building must fall into itself, so as to not damage the surrounding area. To do this, the center must be made to collapse before the periphery. This is exactly what happened in the case of Bldg #7 .
So many coincidences...
We have some facts that were televised that are hard to contest about 9/11. We saw planes hit two buildings. We saw fireballs. We saw the towers collapse, and we saw WTC7 collapse afterwards.
It is not implausible that the planes caused all this. You guys are making speculations, but without a model and a replication, you will never know for sure. You are clinging to an opinion with some scientific support, but the counter theory has plenty of scientists behind it too.
If you guys want to move your theory forward, you are just going to have to come up with better evidence to convince people. If you are satisfied with being on the far fringe, then you don't have to do anything.
Quote from: Cloxxki on August 19, 2009, 10:29:29 AM
Could someone please point me to an official reason why Building 7 managed to catch on fire?
We have a terrible place crash in my country not too long ago. The Israelian pilot, in horror, understood that he would not be able to avoid a huge appartment building. Many live were lost, it was a cargo Boeing 747-258F...
Neighbouring buildings is same proportions barely had broken windows though.
Perhaps, to make it realistic, the high-temperature explosive were not used to make a big blasts, but a "controlled" super-hot fire to eventually have selected floor fail, and trigger a demolition-style collapse.
We shouldn't fail to consider that the "controlled" way the buildings collapsed may have been more coincidental than intentional. Who knows, if there was foul play, they may have hoped (the horror...) the towers to each tumble OVER in one direction. This might not have cost "many" more lives, but the anger of a completely distroyed district would likely have been even greater.
WTC7 was heavily damaged by debris from one of the falling towers. I believe the theory is that some of the falling debris caused fires to start.
Quote from: utilitarian on August 19, 2009, 01:44:13 PM
WTC7 was heavily damaged by debris from one of the falling towers. I believe the theory is that some of the falling debris caused fires to start.
So, then, that very same afternoon they were able to "pull" the building with all the chaos and death and everything else going on. Yeah Right! It takes months to setup and plan a demolition. As soon a George Jr. took power, and I do mean "Took" they started this operation. This is no accident. This is deliberate, pre-meditated mass murder.
Your argument is invalid...
Perhaps they were really anticipating another airplane? Didn't one fail to take a significant ground target?
I just can't understand why the collapses are so tidy.
It makes not sense:
A- If the fires did it all, why so nice and straight?
B- Why if demo'd, make it so obvious?
B1- I suppose you need only a short tape to seal off ground zero. Just a Tower 1 falling over, say eaching 250m (450m tall) out, would have the explosives be found more easily.
B2- Because Americans really are not that smart, and never even try to be believable.
Debris causing an uncontainable fire, wow...
Look what that means, on scale :
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/wtc_p200003-1.jpg
Seems debris would need to bounce back off the impact more than a football field away. I suppose the planes did not dispose of fuel prior to impact as is standard in non-criminal aviation crashes.
Quote from: Cloxxki on August 19, 2009, 02:44:27 PM
I just can't understand why the collapses are so tidy.
Demolitions collapse into the footprint of the building by design. This is how they prevent damaging the real estate around the demolition area.
Too many coincidences...
Quote from: Cloxxki on August 19, 2009, 02:44:27 PM
Perhaps they were really anticipating another airplane? Didn't one fail to take a significant ground target?
I just can't understand why the collapses are so tidy.
It makes not sense:
A- If the fires did it all, why so nice and straight?
B- Why if demo'd, make it so obvious?
B1- I suppose you need only a short tape to seal off ground zero. Just a Tower 1 falling over, say eaching 250m (450m tall) out, would have the explosives be found more easily.
B2- Because Americans really are not that smart, and never even try to be believable.
Debris causing an uncontainable fire, wow...
Look what that means, on scale :
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/wtc_p200003-1.jpg
Seems debris would need to bounce back off the impact more than a football field away. I suppose the planes did not dispose of fuel prior to impact as is standard in non-criminal aviation crashes.
But what you are saying does not make cohesive sense. If this was an inside job, why would they care if the buildings fell straight? They are already sacrificing so many people. Why damage control at this point?
The other thing I do not understand, is why crash planes into buildings, blaming that on the terrorists, but not blaming the explosives on the terrorists? After all, terrorists tried explosives at WTC before, so why not blame them again? Why risk being discovered demolishing the building?
I mean, what you are accusing the government of doing, this would have to be fiendishly clever, sneaky stuff. Obviously, these guys are so smart and careful, that not a single one of them talked and there is still no smoking gun on explosives, but now you are saying they would take this huge unnecessary risk.
I know you can make a wild speculation as to why conceivably they would do something the way they did it, but it is so unlikely that someone would plan this out ahead of time, given infinite other alternatives that are cleaner and simpler and involve way fewer people.
Example:
If you really want to scare people away from air travel, fine, crash some planes. If you want to blow up some buildings, blow up a building. Do them on same day. Blame both on the terrorists. Why combine the two, where you run into causation issues that someone may find. I know, the ready answer is Americans are stooopid and will not catch on, why even take the risk. Seriously, why risk it when you can do it separately, risk free?
Hmmm...I hereby speculate that...the nano-thermite caused all 3 towers to collapse at free fall speed.
*goes off to locate memorable 'Nano-Thermite' logo or such*
Regards...
Theres no way terrorists could pull off such a controlled demolition, that's why.
It takes weeks of planning and hard work to place all the explosives and wires (and much professional skill), how could terrorists do that?
You maybe could sneak a guy in there for a day, claiming to be a "telephone repair man", carrying a few pounds of explosives... But how to get a huge team, with access to EVERY part of the building, carrying tons of explosives and detonators, without questions being asked, without Security knowing all about it, without it being fully sanctioned by them? They had to gain access to all the service crawl-ways and elevator shafts, all the places close to the main structural members.
As it turns out, there WERE many teams of workmen in the buildings in the preceding months... And many floors and areas were temporarily evacuated during this time (and several times entire buildings had been evacuated for hours-long "Fire Drills"). However, these workers could not have been "terrorists" (...at least not the kind that the government & mainstream media likes to talk about)... Because they were sent there by the building management with their full knowledge.
Who was one of the heads of the company "Securacom" responsible for security at the WTC complex?...
...Anyone know?
George Bush's brother, Marvin Bush.
IKYN.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html
The coincidences seem to grow "exponentially" ;)
Well I finally made it IN with the help of the administrators,,THANKS. now I don't know why but all my menu titles are in "GERMAN, RUSSIAN or something" I am not sure if I am in the posting section of this forum or sending an e-mail to:"Antworten" Anyway nice to be here. I have something to say about the theory of WTC, I think Bush was a PATSY and Chenny was calling all the shots with Rumsfeild being the brains. I don't know anymore and probibly less then most of you regarding this,,,but I know,am sure that Bush had been played into becoming president after his term as Gov here in Texas. I will tell you why, I live in the middle of the permian basin, One of the most lucrative oil fields in this country and just happens to be GW's old home town of Midland.
For the last decade and more this area has been hard hit with low income due to what was cheap oil $16 to $20 abarrel for about 15 to 20 years. Until Bush was ellected people here were patching there own used tires themselves, to save a buck. I don't do oil field work but have had many a job related to someone who depended on it for there income. "What bothersme so much about this dependency for there incomes is they could have re-tooled all the empty industrial buildings to manufacture alternative energy equipment and learned something new in the process,but they didn't" and there savior was elected and all was well for therm once again. Almost everyone here with in a year of the election was driving NEW vehicals from Escalades to BMW's even a few prowler's Porch's and other high enders. Some of the oil field workers "swamppers derrick hands and the like were driving Escalades and had never finished high school,,"for what ever reason".
Not puttin them down, just didn't make any sense to me. But Iraq WAS an OIL supplier to the WORLD! But Bin Ladden was from where,,,Afghanistan and what were the Russiansfighting the Taliban for,,, THE CASPEAN SEA or access to the future pipeline route to bring the oil from the richest reserve in the WORLD,,, the sea floor to a port from which it could be shipped world wide.
Sooooo during the Clinton Administration Plans were stiffeld or put off being that his intrest were for other Policies and he would attempt to use this as a leverage "CHIP" in order to attain his interest, one being healthcare and prescription drugs,,Insurance capps ect. which all seem to have come up again and are at threat to be once more stiffeild by the fear mongering going on by those with the most BUCKS to lose if the happen. Bin Ladden was'nt in Iraq and until General Powell found out how he was being manipiulated by the fabricated WMD's Iraq was to have or have the ability to make he was a go along guy and into Iraq we landed Powel later resigned upon HIS own NEW intelligence. But that war disrupted the only mass producer of OIL other then Saudi Arabia. Hence we all lined the Pockets of Chenny and his men,,,He owns controling intrest in the Hallibuton co's did that will he was working with them by buying shares alittle at a time and then dumpping them to de-value all the stocks and quickly buying all the un-loaded shares way back sometime when Mr. Halliburton was alive. Think there is no conspiracy? GW's GREAT Grand father owned ZAPPATTA OIL and the Bush's have been in the thick of it ever since. Even while creating the CIA. It is VITALLY important that alternative energy forms become reality for the enviroment and the PEACE of the world. TO much power in one spot is not a safe nor good thing,,,and yes I believe, "something" more then we know happened on 911
I didn't know Marv was involved, but it makes perfect sense. But I do know who the puppet master is, could it be Satan? (George Sr.) He's probably got a bunch of his Yale buds from the Skull and Bones Society involved also.
What would be the incentive here. Blow up a national landmark, then blame it on inept Arabs? Why that's an excuse to goto war! Now lets examine this. Who wins wars? This side? Nope too many dead American Soldiers (God bless their brave souls). The other side? Nope, way too many dead Iraqis and Afganis. What about the people who finance wars and build weapons? Massive profits from the booming war business. Yeah, it must me them, they are the only ones that seem to have gained from this situation. Now whose family has massive amounts of money invested in weapons finance and weapons manufacturing? Could it be Satan? (George Sr.) Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner, well not really.
Yep, good old Marvin was in the mix.
Heard he wanted to plant a Memorial Garden on the site, directly over the capped sewage pipes.
They'll call it 'Marvin's Garden'.
Regards...
Quote from: jibbguy on August 19, 2009, 04:39:18 PM
Theres no way terrorists could pull off such a controlled demolition, that's why.
It takes weeks of planning and hard work to place all the explosives and wires (and much professional skill), how could terrorists do that?
You maybe could sneak a guy in there for a day, claiming to be a "telephone repair man", carrying a few pounds of explosives... But how to get a huge team, with access to EVERY part of the building, carrying tons of explosives and detonators, without questions being asked, without Security knowing all about it, without it being fully sanctioned by them? They had to gain access to all the service crawl-ways and elevator shafts, all the places close to the main structural members.
As it turns out, there WERE many teams of workmen in the buildings in the preceding months... And many floors and areas were temporarily evacuated during this time (and several times entire buildings had been evacuated for hours-long "Fire Drills"). However, these workers could not have been "terrorists" (...at least not the kind that the government & mainstream media likes to talk about)... Because they were sent there by the building management with their full knowledge.
Who was one of the heads of the company "Securacom" responsible for security at the WTC complex?...
...Anyone know?
George Bush's brother, Marvin Bush.
IKYN.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html
The coincidences seem to grow "exponentially" ;)
But it does not have to be a perfect demolition job. It does not have to be controlled. It can be terribly crude. Who cares if the building topples?
Marvin's Garden... LOL-Wut?
The insurance covered the WTC. If they damaged the surrounding properties, owned by their privy NWO buddies, they would have to pay liabilities and damages.
You don't want to piss off your NWO buddies...
I thot the game 'Monotony' was played everywhere.
One of the real estate properties to be purchased on the board game is called 'Marvin Gardens'.
Regards...
Quote from: z.monkey on August 19, 2009, 07:34:24 PM
Marvin's Garden... LOL-Wut?
The insurance covered the WTC. If they damaged the surrounding properties, owned by their privy NWO buddies, they would have to pay liabilities and damages.
You don't want to piss off your NWO buddies...
Plenty of heavy republican donors had offices in the two towers, so that theory is out. They clearly had no concern for them.
perhaps they all chipped in to buy the WTC and get a cut of the insurance bux...
My Monotony was different Cap...
No Marvin's Gardens...
" My Monotony was different Cap...
No Marvin's Gardens...
* black_monopoly.jpg (96.63 KB, 683x690 - viewed 6 times.) "
*guffaws*
The funniest ones always have the most truth mixed in z.
Regards...
I was born a poor black child...
Now I R a white LOLCAT...
Yes, i am sure there were Republicans killed, and their offices destroyed.
You gotta understand, that for this to take place in the first place; that they wouldn't give a rats ass if someone is a Republican or not.
... They laugh at those who buy-in to the constant party polarization that is used to divide and conquer us all.
They consider it all a sham anyway... they know it is not really about Democracy or a Republic of Laws and the 2 Party System; it is about 1 group running a plutocracy for their own ends... And scamming the peons into thinking they really have a voice... So they won't bother trying to use it; and just watch TV and go on dreaming about buying more useless stuff.
And i think this is important for you to understand: To see where "we" (many in the "truther" side) are coming from.... When such a situation exists as suggested above, it is not absurd at all that such events as 9/11 would be perpetrated in order for those in power to get what they want. That murdering a couple thousand of your own people, in order to go back to the "happy days" of the cold war and Vietnam, would be an "acceptable" cost... When the result is endless war; with the ability to profit greatly from it all, increase their power, and loot the country to an unprecedented extent.
I am not suggesting all truthers believe all this, but there is a very strong disillusionment with the system, and the near-total loss of faith in our government and institutions. I believe they go hand-in-hand, because when the realization of this monstrosity of 9/11 hits home with a person; such a realization becomes nearly inevitable.
So that is why the idea of saving the property, or even lives, of some private citizen contributers to their political side-show; would hardly be a consideration.
z quote:
" I was born a poor black child..."
Jacko was also born a poor black child...but he grew up to be a rich white woman...among other things
Regards...
Can someone please tell me where the molten metal came from? Ok so the terrorist flew the planes into the towers, the fuel weakened the steel, and the towers fell in a pancake like fashion. Great and wonderful. So why was there molten metal weeks afterwards below the towers. What could possibly be responsible for that amount of energy to be released? The way the concrete was turned to dust this would have smothered any fire. So what is left? The first thing to be considered would be is electrical energy. The arcing of electricity like arc welding can melt metal, but as an electrician I know that the utility companies incorporate an automatic reset breaker. Say a squirrel get between two lines the short makes the breaker trips. It will reset three times before locking out then needing manual reset. So we are pretty sure that it was not manually reset or electrical in nature. Was it chemical? Nuclear? So what could it be? Please, the people that believe that fire weakened the tower and it fell, please tell us where the molten metal came from?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY
Quote from: jibbguy on August 19, 2009, 09:07:43 PM
Yes, i am sure there were Republicans killed, and their offices destroyed.
You gotta understand, that for this to take place in the first place; that they wouldn't give a rats ass if someone is a Republican or not.
... They laugh at those who buy-in to the constant party polarization that is used to divide and conquer us all.
They consider it all a sham anyway... they know it is not really about Democracy or a Republic of Laws and the 2 Party System; it is about 1 group running a plutocracy for their own ends... And scamming the peons into thinking they really have a voice... So they won't bother trying to use it; and just watch TV and go on dreaming about buying more useless stuff.
And i think this is important for you to understand: To see where "we" (many in the "truther" side) are coming from.... When such a situation exists as suggested above, it is not absurd at all that such events as 9/11 would be perpetrated in order for those in power to get what they want. That murdering a couple thousand of your own people, in order to go back to the "happy days" of the cold war and Vietnam, would be an "acceptable" cost... When the result is endless war; with the ability to profit greatly from it all, increase their power, and loot the country to an unprecedented extent.
I am not suggesting all truthers believe all this, but there is a very strong disillusionment with the system, and the near-total loss of faith in our government and institutions. I believe they go hand-in-hand, because when the realization of this monstrosity of 9/11 hits home with a person; such a realization becomes nearly inevitable.
So that is why the idea of saving the property, or even lives, of some private citizen contributers to their political side-show; would hardly be a consideration.
Ok, then why worry about a perfect demolition? Why not let the towers fall where they will?
And hey, if some of their buddies have some buildings next door, they can just insure them, right? That's what you guys accuse Silverstein of doing. So there is not a cohesive theory here. Why did "they" risk discovery by doing their own demolition? Just do a crude job and blame that on the towelheads! After all, the terrorists supposedly tried it just a few years earlier. It would be totally believable.
This is just not a plausible plot to hatch. If the goals of the government are as you say they are, there are so many ways to accomplish them an involve far fewer people. With this, you have to have this coordinated effort from airlines, tv news, military, explosive experts, building owners, fake/real passengers, air traffic controllers, god knows who else. This has to be the craziest plan known to man, and gosh, no one has squealed? For surely there are millions upon millions to go to the first guy who spills the beans. To believe in an inside job at this point is beyond crazy.
And the whole missile instead of a plane thing at the Pentagon. Can you guys imagine the planning stages of this?
So they what, decide the towers are not enough, let's hit the Pentagon. But instead of a plane, like the other times, they decide to use a missile? Why the hell would they use a missile? I mean, they are already committed with planes for the other 3 jobs, why a missile for this one especially. Hell, if anyone gets a glimpse or photo of the missile, that is it. The whole plot could explode and it would be the biggest firestorm ever.
I realize it is easy to say after the fact, that sort of looks like a missile not a plane, and point to some lack of plane parts (though there are photos of a few), but imagine the planning stages. Why the hell would they not just use a plane and be consistent? Why jeopardize the whole plan just to be coy and use a missile and claim it was a plane? This makes no sense whatsoever, but wildly, it does not seem to give anyone even the slightest pause. What the hell?
First , i would ask the people here which story sound more "crazy":
> That FOUR airliners were simultaneously hijacked by Saudis and Egyptians wielding 2-inch PLASTIC knives.... Masterminded by a guy hiding in a cave in one of the most remote areas of the world.
> On a day when there were "coincidentally", at least 3 different Air Force exercises going on, so there were only a hand-full of fighters available for interception for several hours until the others could be brought back from Alaska and other far-flung areas, and Air National Guards & Reserves could be called up (when usually there are several DOZEN protecting the East Coast)... When in the year 2000; U.S. Air Force and Navy fighters had intercepted wayward aircraft SIXTY TIMES... But here there were FOUR airliners KNOWN to be hijacked, and NO INTERCEPTIONS.
> And that only the month before, the entire command of ALL these intercepting fighters had been stripped from the usual Air Force general, and transferred to the direct control of the Vice President of the United States (the first time in History this has happened).
> That an airliner, piloted by a guy who flunked his Cessna training... Flew at over 400 Knots in a precise 180 deg. descending turn, to hit the ONLY side of the Pentagon that had "coincidentally" been greatly strengthened against attack only months before... Flying only a few feet off of the ground after perfectly performing the "180", to hit this particular side.. When all he had to do was plunge directly into the opposite, un-armored side with no trouble. Several professional airliner pilots with over 20 years experience, have stated that THEY could not have made that descending turn with such precision.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
The damage to the building would have been tremendously greater if he had just plummeted straight in to the un-strengthened side (BTW, which "coincidentally" contained the offices of Donald Rumps-felt, the U.S. Secretary of Defense).
> .. Creating a hole smaller than the diameter of the fuselage of the alleged plane... Without the wings and mostly Titanium high-bypass turbo-fan engines (over 8 feet in diameter EACH).. With all that momentum behind them). There is clear photo evidence of the initial hole, it is way too small. This hole was soon greatly increased in size by construction equipment immediately brought in to batter down the outer walls around the hole. There is film of this happening.
I really could go on and on as there are HUNDREDS of points that do not add-up and require suspension of belief to discount (lol and it looks like i will), but you are right, in that this is a question of "plausibility".
And if i were you, Utilitarian, i would not bring up the subject of "crazy conspiracy theory" here...
Lol, many so-called "skeptics" around here are spoiled and think its a panacea solve-all for debate; a cheap and easy way to discount arguments without having to actually answer them.
WRONG.
Because this time, when it is examined objectively and the emotional arguments of "how could this possibly be" are left out... It is pretty clear which side is wearing the "tin foil".
I may be completely wrong with this "speculation"...but could there possibly be a connection between the nano-thermite and the 6 week molten steel pools ?
Regards...
Quote from: Tempest on August 20, 2009, 09:10:52 AM
Can someone please tell me where the molten metal came from?
Jet fuel can not burn hot enough to melt steel, the rebar support structure of the building. The "nanite" (nano-thermite), Hey Cap there is your logo, would. Once the steel frame work melts and loses it integrity the building start falling. The pressure from the massive tonnage of concrete and steel squeezes the molten steel out of the structure, and also being molten flows like a liquid and would flow to the lowest area and pool there. The mass of the debris acted like an insulator and kept the steel molten for months.
The Pentagon thing was always very suspicious to me. They had just reworked the building with Kevlar nets to prevent a missile penetration. The shape of the hole in the building and the lack of the engines and fuselage of a 757 would clearly indicate that this was a cruise missile. I think it was a test. Which further leads me to believe that this entire event was was planned and executed from the highest levels of the US.Gov and Military.
Unimaginable Collusion...
Edit: You can test the jet fuel theory with welding supplies. If you use a propane torch (analogous to jet fuel) you can heat up a piece of rebar (steel) and it will glow a little, but never gets soft. But if you use acetylene or mapp gas and pure oxygen you can melt and cut through the rebar. If you have ever soldered or welded these things are just common knowledge.
@zmonkey
I have never herd how the "offical story people" explain this. I was hoping to get a good laugh by hearing there theory on this.
I form my own opinions.
I would like to hear their "official" report...
Its probably classified as a secret, sealed, somethin'...
Zmon:
QuoteJet fuel can not burn hot enough to melt steel
Jet fuel in an enclosed space where there is more heat production than heat removal can cause the enclosed space to get hot enough to melt steel. You have heard of "flash-over" in house fires? The temperature in the room from stuff burning gets hotter and hotter until everything in the room just spontaneously starts burning in a flash-over. That's because the heat isn't escaping fast enough. Same thing for a car engine if the water pump fails. Same thing for the core of the impact zone. This is all my opinion.
I am not up for the big debate though. This discusson is a well worn revolving door.
MileHigh
Yes, I know... This debate has been tedious...
The flash over would only affect the volume of the fireball...
The rest of the building should have been stable, like the ESB in '45...
My apologies if I am too intense about this subject...
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance...
*passes water bucket to MH at end of bench*
*laments not sitting him before his last post*
Quote from: z.monkey on August 20, 2009, 06:17:33 PM
Yes, I know... This debate has been tedious...
The flash over would only affect the volume of the fireball...
The rest of the building should have been stable, like the ESB in '45...
My apologies if I am too intense about this subject...
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance...
Blacksmiths have been using coal to melt steel for casting for many centuries. Coal burns at 560 degrees. Hmmmm.
One other interesting fact. Although truthers have banged on about fire never melting steel before, something odd happened on April 29, 2007. Fire melted steel. A tanker truck in Oakland carrying 8600 gallons of fuel crashed on an elevated underpass. Fire raged for a long time, but it only took a few minutes for the span above the flames to collapse. Upon examination afterwards, it turned out that the heat melted the steel. Go figure.
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/us/29cnd-collapse.html?ex=1335499200&en=66ac4765c8c554ce&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/us/29cnd-collapse.html?ex=1335499200&en=66ac4765c8c554ce&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
Of course, thats it!! in chain reaction fashion, the blacksmith's forge must have set off the nano-thermte...and then, 'BOOM', Marv's yer brother.
Regards...
Let's let the cat out of the bag. That was another example of a thermal circuit. The thermal mass of the overpass is modeled like a capacitor. The burning fuel is a continuous source of heat. That is modeled like a current source. This is distinct and different from a voltage source. A current source provides a fixed current with an unlimited voltage potential. Going back to the circuit, there is a resistor in parallel with the capacitor that represents the thermal resistance. The "voltage" is the temperature.
So when the overpass was burning and enveloped with fuel and flames, a continuous "heat current" was being pumped into the thermal capacitor of the overpass itself. With relatively little heat escaping from the structure of the overpass, the temperature had nowhere to go except up and up and up, until the metal in the structure started to melt.
Just imagine you had an ideal one-amp current source on your bench. You connect any sized capacitor to it and put a 1Kohm resistor across the capacitor. Turn on the current source and the voltage will stabilize at 1000 volts and the power will be 1000 Watts. One Megaohm -> 1 million volts.
That's why the metal failed and the towers imploded. Once it got rolling then it transitioned to "snowflake-pancake" mode. I have never seen it in the lay media because I assume it is deemed to be too technical.
This is just my opinion. I betcha' I cud find a reference in power-search mode if ya gave me 60 minutes.
MileHigh
*sets down timer*
I thought that was the bomb timer for Marvin the Martian to make the world go *Boom* for the Galactic Bypass. :)
Actually, the problem with making steel is getting the heat up to the melting point, by injecting incredible amounts of oxygen to the coals at high pressure. So the "800 degrees" figure is not accurate... Try 2,500 to 2,700 Degrees F. (around 1,500 C).
The reason steel was extremely expensive, in small quantity, and only used for swords and the like for two thousand years or so up until the 1870's, was related to solving this problem of blasting the air in to the coal at high enough velocity. Was a "Bessemer Mill" running in the towers perhaps...?
What was the steel grade, what else burned, and what were the bridge beams coated with would be the proper questions to ask about the other; but putting all that side, i guess that can go in the balance along with the high rise hotel in Beijing that burned for over 2 days, with massive flames hundreds of feel in length, that did not fall. Or the office tower in Barcelona that did the same thing. Or San Paulo.
Those extremely tragic photos of the 5 or 6 victims, standing at the gaping hole where the plane had flown in Bldg #2, black smoke billowing out behind them... Was a horror to see. Because we were staring at those who would soon die; trapped there with no way out but to jump.
But, as if their ghosts were calling for Justice from their grave through those photos(...sickeningly, their actual "grave" was a recycling steel mill in India or China), the scenes prove that the temperature in that area which was the true "ground zero" of the impact, allowed for human life... Because the fuel had already burned off.
As the great initial flare and subsequent black smoke also proves.
The WTC towers were huge, bigger buildings, ratio of volume to surface area much higher than a typical skyscraper. It all supports the notion of a true inferno burning in the core of the buildings, relatively unseen. All the office furniture and plastic would soon flash over also, more fuel for the fire.
Anyway, I think I know how Winston Churchill would have handled 9-11.
Yeah but Bldg 7 wasn't (47 stories, close in size to the Beijing hotel and Barcelona & Sao Paulo bldg's).... And a plane didn't hit it.
The color and of the smoke is significant.. Black denotes a lower temperature fire.. Which is exactly what plastic provides. Not hot enough to melt steel by a long shot. The only substance that had a dog's chance in hell of ever melting it in those towers, was the jet fuel. And it burned off relatively quickly... Because those poor souls could not have been on those floors if it hadn't.
And the whole crux of the NIST argument on the towers, was that the impact blew away the asbestos coatings of the steel members in that area (because with the asbestos intact; their whole scenario was "smoke" and broken mirrors anyway).
That dog ain't hunting with Bldg 7. The little bit of flames and smoke we saw coming from it were a joke.
Contrast that to a building that burned with flames literally 300 feet long, that burned for over 2 full days without melting any steel at in Beijing 5 months ago.
Jibbguy:
You know my pet theory for Building 7, we discussed it just the other day.
QuoteBlack denotes a lower temperature fire.. Which is exactly what plastic provides. Not hot enough to melt steel by a long shot
.
If you followed the point that I made tonight, that doesn't matter.
And besides, black smoke? I bet you that the fire was burning "hot" and "cold" at the same time in different places.
MileHigh
So, next time I am commissioned to perfectly implode a 47 story steel building, I only need to wrap a brick in a newspaper, set it on fire, and throw it through a random window? Then, step back 10 feet from the building face, and roast done hog dogs on a long pole as I wait for the imminent implosion?
*sprinkles nano-thermite and mustard on hot dog*
Sorry but your earthquake theory (caused by the towers falling), does not take into account several factors:
> There were several "non-WTC" buildings, just across the street, that were not affected by this in any way (except for relatively light exterior damage from debris coming from the Towers collapses, of course). The WTC did not exist in a vacuum, the entire area is extremely densely populated with high rise buildings... It's Manhattan.
> Besides despite them having horrendous physical damage from the tower debris (and most of them burning brightly with fires MUCH worse than Bldg. 7's), Bldgs. 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the complex (also STEEL buildings) DID NOT collapse. They had to be demolished later by workers ("pulled" with explosives).
> the "perfection" of Bldg. 7's fall, with the central penthouse seen to be dropping in relation to the main roof, at the same time the foundations are collapsing 46 stories below; does not fit the profile of one caused by earthquake. In fact, the only profile it does fit is that of controlled demolition.... Where EVERY main central member is blown out simultaneously, so it "implodes" neatly into its own footprint (which it certainly did).
Another thing about Bldg. 7 ; many have asked why the sprinkler system did not put out those small fires... Then the official story claimed that a water main break a few blocks away was the reason for this... I guess they were hoping that peeps remain unaware of the facts. All high rise buildings have large water tanks near the roof . This is for two reasons: The standard line pressure is not enough to raise water up to the higher stories, and so the sprinklers can use them in emergencies. So their explanation as to why the sprinklers in #7 did not douse the small fires there is hogwash as well. Someone would have had to deliberately disable them.
_________
Changing the subject back to the airliners a bit: One thing that was a sure tip-off to me that something was wrong, was this:
Back in those days, i traveled by air constantly... 4 times a month on average for my job. I've taken off on airliners over 800 times by my estimate... I truly was a "road warrior" for many years. In fact i was in Greenville, SC that day giving a training class.
So when i realized that ALL FOUR airliners were lightly peopled, with relatively few passengers in each... I knew something was wrong. Here's why:
In my experience, if a plane has few passengers, that flight is usually canceled. It is "illegal" to do so... But they have ways around it ;) Their favorite method is to claim a mechanical breakdown. Their favorite one of those is the rear gas turbine "generator" ;) They cancel the flights to save money, especially when they have another leaving in a couple hours to the same destination, ALL THE TIME for this reason. These flights were in this category: All had later flights to the same place. This has happened to me more times than i can count; and i bet others here have had the same experience.
And these "main corridor" flights, with the early take off times, are usually booked solid, as this is the best time for business travel... So how the hell did we have FOUR of them with less than 50% occupancy?
A) They should have been booked solid or close to it; as morning flights to large cities usually are.
B) By my experience, at least 2 of those would have been canceled for phony maintenance reasons (...really to save money). Because the airline had multiple flights to the same destination that day.
Flight #93 had 33 passengers. It's capacity was 188.
Flight #11 had 76 passengers (capacity 165).
Flight #77 had 53 passengers (capacity 188).
Flight #175 had 51 passengers (capacity 165).
It is ANOTHER "amazing coincidence" of 9/11 ... They sure add up; don't they.
Quote from: jibbguy on August 21, 2009, 08:49:46 AM
Changing the subject back to the airliners a bit: One thing that was a sure tip-off to me that something was wrong, was this:
Back in those days, i traveled by air constantly... 4 times a month on average for my job. I've taken off on airliners over 800 times by my estimate... I truly was a "road warrior" for many years. In fact i was in Greenville, SC that day giving a training class.
So when i realized that ALL FOUR airliners were lightly peopled, with relatively few passengers in each... I knew something was wrong. Here's why:
In my experience, if a plane has few passengers, that flight is usually canceled. It is "illegal" to do so... But they have ways around it ;) Their favorite method is to claim a mechanical breakdown. Their favorite one of those is the rear gas turbine "generator" ;) They cancel the flights to save money, especially when they have another leaving in a couple hours to the same destination, ALL THE TIME for this reason. These flights were in this category: All had later flights to the same place. This has happened to me more times than i can count; and i bet others here have had the same experience.
And these "main corridor" flights, with the early take off times, are usually booked solid, as this is the best time for business travel... So how the hell did we have FOUR of them with less than 50% occupancy?
A) They should have been booked solid or close to it; as morning flights to large cities usually are.
B) By my experience, at least 2 of those would have been canceled for phony maintenance reasons (...really to save money). Because the airline had multiple flights to the same destination that day.
Flight #93 had 33 passengers. It's capacity was 188.
Flight #11 had 76 passengers (capacity 165).
Flight #77 had 53 passengers (capacity 188).
Flight #175 had 51 passengers (capacity 165).
It is ANOTHER "amazing coincidence" of 9/11 ... They sure add up; don't they.
First of all, your figures are wrong. You are omitting the hijackers from the passenger lists. They also add to the capacity of the flight. I know it is not a major error, but if you are going to drag up this argument, you may as well be accurate.
But in any case, this type of argument is typical of the conspiracy theorists. OK, so what? There are many things on any given day that you could point to, after the fact, and say, hum, that is unusual. Unusual things happen every day.
So what that the flights were lightly populated? How does that fit into the theory? If the government was going to stage hijackings, why would they care how few or how many people are going to die? They are already committing to killing thousands.
(And I fly on business too. I am on half empty flights quite frequently, so I do not know what you are talking about.)
You guys come up with these "coincidences" but so what? Pretend you are making a case to a jury, in a courtroom. This kind of stuff does not fly. Make a coherent case.
And here, I have an interesting exercise. Those of you who do not believe in the official story, come up with your own, and please be sure to explain every facet of what happened. I am talking about each of the 4 planes and how each crash happened and how the damage to every building occurred.
There are many competing conspiracy theories, from "no planes" to "some planes" to "alien death rays" to "remote control planes" to "hijackers being paid to die" to "fake passengers" to "passengers are all still alive" to "hijackers still alive", I have heard so much different stuff, and frankly, without knowing what your theory is, I cannot address it properly.
*adds a dash of nano-thermite to recipe*
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 21, 2009, 11:10:58 AM
*adds a dash of nano-thermite to recipe*
No one cares about micro particles found near the site. You have not shown that nano thermite was actually used to demolish the buildings. Micro particles could be from anything.
"Micro particles could be from anything."
And the micro particles of govenment grade nano-thermite could be from what?
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 21, 2009, 11:59:36 AM
And the micro particles of govenment grade nano-thermite could be from what?
homeless people carrying sacks of said material...
You are the conspiracy theorist here in this is case, utilitarian... Not me....
You are expecting us to believe in a "terrorist" CONSPIRACY, masterminded by a deathly sick guy living in a cave.
The absurdity of the government's story goes beyond belief in reptilian aliens... because here, we have the ability to see this for ourselves. And suspension of belief because "it just can't be", is about as smart as insisting the earth is flat because the Inquisition Priests say so.... Bldg 7 fell for no good reason; straight down into its own footprint, at free fall speeds. It wasn't hit by a plane. Anyone can watch the vids for themselves, and many folks will come to the conclusion that this was a controlled demolition... And no amount of B-S nonsense will talk them out of what their eyes have shown them.
This latest findings of government-grade Thermite all over the area just ices the case.
Yes i deliberately omitted the hijackers from the passenger numbers, lol... Because the idea is to see what the actual passenger load was; and examine why it was so small. Hijackers are an artificial increase in numbers...
....Or did United and American hire "arab terrorists" to fly around to keep the numbers up lol ?
But you can consider that a major win for your arguments if it makes you feel better, hehehe. You need it.
And i don't have to do a damned thing... Especially explain every minutia of what happened to someone who is getting more desperate and only hoping for a "slip-up" to turn into a "major win" like "the passenger lists don't include the hijackers" LOL.
I don't give a fuc if you or MH agree with me or not....
It is the others here who are reading this, weighing it for themselves, and deciding to look into this carefully and decide for themselves.... That matters. And my experience is that there will be people who read this that will take the time to study it for themselves. And millions already have... And agree with me. Arguments like yours are not going to stop that.
And if you don't like that, too friggin bad; because theres nothing you can can do about it..... As the arguments we have seen so far from the "government's story conspiracy nuts" have shown ;)
You try that "conspiracy theorist" crap with me, and you will be eating it.
Oh, you just did, didn't you lol? Bon Apetit.
Possibly a major oops here guys.
A big mea stupa might be in our future.
It turns out Building 7 was perfectly aligned with the last tower to fall and the Great Pyramid of Giza.
D'oh...how could we have missed it...for all these years ?
I wonder what pyramid the 2 jet engines on the plane that made the round hole in the Pentagon were aligned with ?
Regards...
Quote from: jibbguy on August 21, 2009, 01:57:42 PM
You are the conspiracy theorist here in this is case, utilitarian... Not me....
You are expecting us to believe in a "terrorist" CONSPIRACY, masterminded by a deathly sick guy living in a cave.
The absurdity of the government's story goes beyond belief in reptilian aliens... because here, we have the ability to see this for ourselves. And suspension of belief because "it just can't be", is about as smart as insisting the earth is flat because the Inquisition Priests say so.... Bldg 7 fell for no good reason; straight down into its own footprint, at free fall speeds. It wasn't hit by a plane. Anyone can watch the vids for themselves, and many folks will come to the conclusion that this was a controlled demolition... And no amount of B-S nonsense will talk them out of what their eyes have shown them.
This latest findings of government-grade Thermite all over the area just ices the case.
Yes i deliberately omitted the hijackers from the passenger numbers, lol... Because the idea is to see what the actual passenger load was; and examine why it was so small. Hijackers are an artificial increase in numbers...
....Or did United and American hire "arab terrorists" to fly around to keep the numbers up lol ?
But you can consider that a major win for your arguments if it makes you feel better, hehehe. You need it.
And i don't have to do a damned thing... Especially explain every minutia of what happened to someone who is getting more desperate and only hoping for a "slip-up" to turn into a "major win" like "the passenger lists don't include the hijackers" LOL.
I don't give a fuc if you or MH agree with me or not....
It is the others here who are reading this, weighing it for themselves, and deciding to look into this carefully and decide for themselves.... That matters. And my experience is that there will be people who read this that will take the time to study it for themselves. And millions already have... And agree with me. Arguments like yours are not going to stop that.
And if you don't like that, too friggin bad; because theres nothing you can can do about it..... As the arguments we have seen so far from the "government's story conspiracy nuts" have shown ;)
You try that "conspiracy theorist" crap with me, and you will be eating it.
Oh, you just did, didn't you lol? Bon Apetit.
So I take that to mean you are unable of coming up with a cohesive theory of how all this happened? I would love to hear your version, so I could poke holes in it, like you guys do with the official story.
*pokes huge holes with nano-thermite*
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 21, 2009, 07:28:36 PM
*pokes huge holes with nano-thermite*
OK, have you actually read this report you cited? Seriously, have you read it? Also I will add it is not exactly making shockwaves. A Google news search showed exactly one article on it, the one you cited.
You should read this criticism, which cites many passages:
http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html (http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html)
Some key parts (excerpts in bold):
******
Here's the abstract from the report if you don't feel like downloading/reading the entire thing (which I could hardly blame you for):
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.It's hard for me...or anyone with a modicum of common sense to take this report seriously when the items they based this report on were given to them by residents of Lower Manhattan almost SIX YEARS after the Towers fell. These samples were not kept in sterile environments by any stretch of the imagination and were handled by ordinary, non-scientist New Yorkers.
Referring to these samples, the report itself states the following:
The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sul-fur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wall-
board material in the buildings.So by their own admission the scientists are saying that in SIX YEARS that the samples, which were hanging out in lay peoples' homes they MAY have been contaminated. Wow, really?
The paper also never actually says that material in question is nanothermite or even regular thermite...rather that...
These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhereSo it REMINDED them of a substance that no one aside for 9/11 conspiracy people apparently knows anything about. Can they conclusively say exactly what it is? Well...
We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red chips with known super-thermite composites, along with comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future study....not really. You see they can't really get their hands on this nano stuff because we're not sure it really exists. Ok. And further...
All these data suggest that the thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nano-thermiteHow incredibly conclusive! I have some suggestions of my own. Well at least they're not jumping to any conclusions right?
We make no at-tempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains. Why bother making an attempt to actually identify this substance, right?
Well that's ok, at least we know for sure it's not paint chips right? Well of course not! Because...
we have shown that the red material contains both elemental aluminum and iron oxideOh. I see. There's iron oxide (rust) and aluminum in this mixture. There's no WAY that rust or aluminum could possibly have gotten into the Twin Towers. Except of course that the Twin Towers had tons upon tons of aluminum and every building in history that had iron it also had oxidized iron (rust) in it.
Here is a review of the paper (with the actual paper's PDF available for download)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
Uniform 100 nanometer particles of iron oxide, bonded regularly to tiny layers of aluminium... Is not a "natural" occurrence. This extremely small size of iron particle is the "Nano" part of the name, which allows it to ignite at a lower temp. This material was obviously specifically manufactured. And from the calorimetric tests, it performs as nano-thermite.
The 4 people who collected the dust samples in Manhattan listed the circumstances, gave their names, and signed dispositions. Don't EVEN try to question their honesty unless you are willing to do the same.
As z pointed out earlier, it was the homeless people from Rudy Guiliani's 'Thermite Tuesday' Program who were responsible for all that nano-thermite everywhere...and it was probably 4 of them who provided/sold the nano-thermite samples to the 3 scientists.
And you can bet uncle Rudy has only the best blow/thermite.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 21, 2009, 08:55:09 PM
As z pointed out earlier, it was the homeless people from Rudy Guiliani's 'Thermite Tuesday' Program who were responsible for all that nano-thermite everywhere...and it was probably 4 of them who provided/sold the nano-thermite samples to the 3 scientists.
And you can bet uncle Rudy has only the best blow/thermite.
Regards...
I tell you what, let's revisit this topic when any publication maybe slightly more reputable than some podunk outfit in Florida picks this up and devotes more than say, 2 paragraphs to it. I am still waiting for the "shockwave" from this news story to resonate.
What is the scientific explanation for a large building, which collapses through fire, to sink in its footprint? Too heavy to deviated from it's vertical axis? Too strong, in places where it didn't fail due to fire, and only due to stress? Why does it approach free fall speed when it's so strong?
This RonMossad is from Israeli background. I am not sure this makes him the foremost independant critic to analyse the 911 truth, it being supposed purpetrated by the people still being surpressed by the Jews' colonization of the most fertile strip of land in the Arab world.
I'd be happy to tae seriously his take on other world problems, but stating an upcoming Israeli holiday in the same blog post as critisizing an independant 911 investigation...I'm not falling for that.
The Jews suffered greatly in the second world war, but that didn't make them holy. And they for sure have not used it as a starting point to act holy against people of other beliefs. They are not a grain better than USA founders, invading a country, raising a flag, killing the local inhabitants.
USA-Isreal-Arabs. The latter have been the victims in this triangle, until very recently.
Further to cloxxki's post...we are expected to take seriously a web site with masthead reading. "The whole world is against us, nevermind we'll overcome"
I mean, come on now ??
Especially when 5 Mossad agents somehow knew when the 9/11 attack would occur and had a film crew there...but were released without question ??
Another point...The jewish people were hoodwinked and their religion long ago hijacked by fascist regime, same as thwe US.
The state of 'Israel' was created by these usurpers, and horrific acts perpetrated under a jewish banner...same as the US.
This is all one global outfit at work here, creating the illusion of antagonism between them, in order to hide their plan of global dominance...over 'we the people'.
Regards...
Quote from: Cloxxki on August 22, 2009, 04:47:04 AM
What is the scientific explanation for a large building, which collapses through fire, to sink in its footprint? Too heavy to deviated from it's vertical axis? Too strong, in places where it didn't fail due to fire, and only due to stress? Why does it approach free fall speed when it's so strong?
This RonMossad is from Israeli background. I am not sure this makes him the foremost independant critic to analyse the 911 truth, it being supposed purpetrated by the people still being surpressed by the Jews' colonization of the most fertile strip of land in the Arab world.
I'd be happy to tae seriously his take on other world problems, but stating an upcoming Israeli holiday in the same blog post as critisizing an independant 911 investigation...I'm not falling for that.
The Jews suffered greatly in the second world war, but that didn't make them holy. And they for sure have not used it as a starting point to act holy against people of other beliefs. They are not a grain better than USA founders, invading a country, raising a flag, killing the local inhabitants.
USA-Isreal-Arabs. The latter have been the victims in this triangle, until very recently.
The criticisms speak for themselves. Either they make sense or they don't. The author may or may not have slanted views on other subjects, but I do not see how that is relevant here.
I think the criticisms are valid, and the paper's conclusions are weak. What we have here are "suggestions" of a material that "reminds" the researcher of nano-thermite. Sorry, but that is not exactly a strong endorsement. And the fact that not a single other publication (except one French website which I cannot assess the qualificatins of) has picked up this story (do a Google News search for "Niels Harrit" if you think I am incorrect), speaks volumes about how credible this is in the world community.
Therefore, since this paper is allegedly "peer reviewed", I am happy to wait to see some of these reviews, since I am no expert in nano particles myself, and neither I suspect is anyone here. Let's read some expert peer reviews and see what they say.
I'm all for good evidence. It seems to be lacking, or clouded by doubt, from both sides of the story.
In any case, such non-nano thermite particles, if not prior documented, are well worth investigating, for various applications. Interesting that random NYC residents should be the source for them.
The people carrying thermite was just a running gag between me and z, cloxx.
However the presence any explosive device in that quantity represents only the capstone of incriminating evidence on the event, which includes NYC firemen's reports of numerous explosions.
Whether it be nano or not, the thermite remains in the middle of the room.
Regards...
I didn't see anyone mention the steel building that stood up to the nuclear blast.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vxo5ff5nwhQ/RtZXKVMQYqI/AAAAAAAAAO4/H26-mbp6FKs/s400/hiroshima,%2Bdome%2Bbuilding%2B2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://batesinjapan.blogspot.com/2007/08/hiroshima.html&usg=__YclItk8MNQhLiMp1RDeKi1yCivs=&h=267&w=400&sz=21&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=BsXxA_H48wv0NM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpictures%2Bof%2Bbuildings%2Bafter%2Bnuclear%2Bblast%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
pictured on page above.
And no one explained if it wasn't Nano thermite that took the towers out, how did all that liquid steel end up in the basement.
Interesting link Azorus...I wonder how close that building was to the epicenter of the blast.
Regards...
Better link for the Dome, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_Peace_Memorial, you might want to take notice the actual center of the blast was 490 feet (150 m) away and 1,968 feet (600 m) above ground, but the dome remains mostly intact.
That really makes a bold statement Azorus. Either, in America the Laws of Physics have flown out the window, or there is Unimaginable Collusion happening for unknown reasons. It literally makes me uneasy to be around tall buildings if they fall over so easily (ie jet fuel caused the collapse of the largest buildings in America). Oh yeah, don't forget about building 7, which apparently fell over all by itself. This is what happens when you let an oligarchy of power hungry, sycophants rule your country. Hopefully there is a Visine for that...
I can't seem to find that info on the link Az...is it possible you posted the wrong link ?
Regards...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_Peace_Memorial
Pressure had nowhere to go but out and up? That might have made the dome sit under a shell of air. If the blast occurs on the porch of the building, the effect might be different. I bet it's not about promixity that can save you from the nuke blast, but rather being positioned between it and a large object (earth) at a 90deg angle.
Yes, It was thermite that took the buildings down! But the reason was not what you think!
The buildings were already wired and ready to be demolished and a demo permit was applied for for each of the 2 years prior to 911.
That is why at one point they were yelling "everyone out it's coming down" even before anything happened!
That's when they first found the buildings were wired for demolition.
That is also what took down building #3.
Okay, then why is the offical report saying that the buildings fell due to collapse from strutural damage from uncontrolled fires?
That may very well be, but that doesn't account for the homing device used to direct the 'missles' to the floors housing the 'DNI' Dept of Naval Intelligence in both the Pentagon and the WTC's.
Nor does it discount the witness who discovered them running cables in the dark 2 weeks prior to 9/11.
Also, in my mind, I believe they would have fallen back on that explanation a long time ago, if it had validity.
Regards...
This reminds me to much of the Vietnam cover-ups of secret missions. And if it plays out anything like those you really won't know what the truth is until 20-25 years down the road.
If ever...a lot of secrets die with the perpetrators.
Only when we master some form of time travel will we ever know real truth.
Regards...