A question about controlled demolition.

[cigsandcoffee]

I am a MIHOP skeptic, to say the least. In other forums, I have been pretty brutal to people who believe 9-11 was a government conspiracy, because I find it insulting to my intelligence, my country, and the people who are going to have to clean up the mess Bush has made while addressing the terrorist problem that pre-existed him. But because I think that way doesn't mean I don't respect people who disagree - I just don't find them convincing against what I watched that morning with my own eyes and what I know about intense and prolonged heat vs. building materials.

Anyway, one of the most amazing theories I hear about is controlled demolition. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but over the years I have seen quite a few builings taken down this way, as they always seem to make the news. Each one of these that I've seen has been pretty spectacular, and all of them have consisted of a series of metered explosions that are both audible and visible, followed by the tumble of the building on top of itself.

This brings me to my question:

Why are there no reports of a series of metered explosions and/or flashes directly preceding the collapse? To bring down a building such as the WTC with charges, you'd need some pretty heavy duty explosives - and these are going to be extremely loud. How did the conspirators manage to conceal these? (If I've missed such a report from a credible source, I'm happy to be illuminated).

A note: It's late, and this is kind of a hit and run post. But I will address any points in the morning, and do appreciate replies.

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. I'm With You

I was watching DSC the other day and learned that each and every floor of the WTC towers was ACRES in size cubically and that EVERY FLOOR had a four-inch layer of concrete poured over the "foundation" of that floor.

I'm no expert at building a skyscraper. In fact, my ignorance of such things could fill an encyclopedia. I'm guessing though, that whatever a few acres of 4" concrete (plus the steel floor supporting it), falling at whatever speed such weight would gain in kinetic energy after traveling 12 feet is HUGH (misspelling and sarcasm intended). What it might do to the floor below it on its way down is incalculable.

I've tried to wrap my mind around that, looked on the NET for something that would help me understand the kinetic energy of it all, and have found nothing.

My take on what some say proves explosives were in the building due to the outward push of smoke and flame when the buildings started to collapse? Have you ever heard of a billows? Push two surfaces together when a fire is burning between them and poof; you have what the CT's are calling proof of a controlled demolition-type explosion blasting through the outside surfaces of the building - Fire and smoke forced outward.

[petgoat]

2. c-prog, consider the fact that the considerable theoretic kinetic energy

of the concrete was unavailable to the collapse. The concrete was turned to dust
before it hit the ground. There was no concrete after the collapse, only dust
spread over lower Manhattan 2 inches thick.

Have you ever heard of a billows?

Certainly I've heard of what you're talking about. When I first saw the squibs,
I supposed they must be photoshop hoaxes. Then I believed those squibs
emerging from floors far below the overt collapse zone must be from air ejected
through elevator shafts. When I realized I could concoct no mechanism for
compressing air in elevator shafts, nor channeling it out to a couple of windows,
I gave that idea up.

They're far below the visible collapse zone, and they emerge from only a few windows,
not the entire set of windows (as you'd expect from collapsing floors).

[TheWraith]

9. Uh, that's completely wrong.

"The concrete was turned to dust before it hit the ground. There was no concrete after the collapse,"

That's just wrong. Only a small percentage of the total concrete was pulverized in the collapse. What do you think that giant pile of rock left behind afterward was?

"They're far below the visible collapse zone, and they emerge from only a few windows, not the entire set of windows (as you'd expect from collapsing floors)."

A demolition would blow out an entire set of windows, too. I'd bet that the small blowouts were the result of backdrafts from fires that had gotten into the ventilation shafts, after the system's fireproofing was compromised by the plane's impact. Those shafts would make an easy way for the fires to spread to the floors below the impact zone, as seen in the photos taken just before the collapse.

[petgoat]

12. What pile of rock is that? The only concrete intact after the

collapses is in the basement levels. I've seen no photos of any rock pile.

A demolition would blow out an entire set of windows, too.

Not necessarily. The force of an explosion is constrained by its surroundings
in its early stages. Thus an explosion in the core area could be channeled by
surrounding walls in particular directions, and exit from just a couple of windows.

Air pressure, by contrast, is exerted on all directions. Press on a balloon
and it expands everywhere.

I'd bet that the small blowouts were the result of backdrafts from fires that
had gotten into the ventilation shafts

That's certainly an imaginative theory. I suppose liquid fuel running down the
ducts could spread fire downward, but since ventilation ducts are by their nature
open to the air, I don't see how you'd get the oxygen starvation necessary to
create a smoke explosion. And if you did I don't see how it would be localized to
just a couple of windows. Also, we have multiple occurances of these squibs.
It's hard to believe the conditions were repeatedly right for backdraft phenomina.

[TheWraith]

30. Look again.

See the flat grey slabs, broken off in pieces? Those are concrete. Likewise most of the small grey debris chunks that they're walking on.



Another photo of concrete debris, showing the remains of one of the towers' cores, surrounded by slabs.



Many large and small pieces of concrete.



It would take far more than even the estimated 1.4 terajoules of energy caused by the towers collapsing to pulverize that much concrete. While a large amount was destroyed, there was still a lot left.

As for the small blowouts, backdrafts are one theory. I can imagine there being a variety of unstable conditions that might cause a small spot explosion, such as burning fuel reaching chemicals stored in a maintainence area, or other potential fuel source. Even some forms of plastic can become extremely flammable at high temperatures. For that matter, there's also the possibility of temperature changes--a rapid spike in the temperature of a mostly sealed room could cause the increased air pressure to blow a window. I'm spitballing here, as I'm not really a fire expert, but those are ideas which come to mind.

[petgoat]

36. The bottom picture is definitely the basement.

The top picture is probably very low down.
The middle picture--okay, so they forgot the blow up the core in the
bottom three stories.

The concrete was completely pulverized.

As to the non-explosives explosions, it is not believeable that these
would take place ahead of the collapse, in top to bottom sequence, in
places directly in a vertical line. One might happen. Multiple times,
no.

[TheWraith]

49. Sigh.

Do you even hear what you're saying?

"The top picture is probably very low down."

Uh, the entire rubble pile is "low down," what the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you expecting concrete to miraculously hover in midair?

"The middle picture--okay, so they forgot the blow up the core in the
bottom three stories."

No, the bottom of the core didn't collapse because there was nothing under it to collapse in turn. All the kinetic energy directed into it went into the ground.

"The concrete was completely pulverized."

And that big pile of mysterious gray rocks and slabs is made of...?

Are you really serious, or are you just screwing with me?

"As to the non-explosives explosions, it is not believeable that these
would take place ahead of the collapse, in top to bottom sequence, in
places directly in a vertical line. One might happen. Multiple times, no."

There's absolutely no evidence that anything like that happened. Quite the opposite--all reports are of scattered and intermittent explosions, not at all like a demolition.

If, perhaps, you're referring to loud noises moving down as the towers collapsed, just perhaps that's the sound of massive steel columns fracturing? Hmm?

[petgoat]

52. "the entire rubble pile is "low down,""

No, the top picture is in a dip in the rubble pile. That suggests to me
that it's late in the excavation process. I don't see any concrete slabs there.

Are you expecting concrete to miraculously hover in midair?

No, I'm expecting it to fall to the ground and leave recognizable shattered slabs.
I'm NOT expecting it to turn to dust 800 feet in the air.

that big pile of mysterious gray rocks and slabs is made of...?

It's made of your imagination. There is no such pile. The bottom picture
shows basement slabs relatively intact. Where are the tower floor slabs?

There's absolutely no evidence that anything like that happened.

You need to watch Loose Change, or other videos that feature the squibs.

[TheWraith]

58. Are you even looking at the photos?

"No, the top picture is in a dip in the rubble pile. That suggests to me that it's late in the excavation process. I don't see any concrete slabs there."

What in fuck do you call the pieces of concrete that make up the rubble pile? Is concrete not supposed to break apart when it's dropped from a thousand feet in the air? You expect the floor slabs to be lying there intact?

"No, I'm expecting it to fall to the ground and leave recognizable shattered slabs.
I'm NOT expecting it to turn to dust 800 feet in the air."

Good, at least we agree on one thing. And it didn't all turn into dust--the cloud that came out of the buildings was only a fraction of the total mass of concrete, mixed heavily with ash.

Do you have any conception of how much explosive force would be needed to powder all that concrete before it hit the ground? There wouldn't be a rubble pile at all, because you'd effectively have to vaporize the building.

"It's made of your imagination. There is no such pile."

This has got to be a new low for you guys.

"The bottom picture shows basement slabs relatively intact. Where are the tower floor slabs?"

Lying on top of the basement slabs. All the sublevels of the buildings would have been filled by debris, leaving the rubble from the highest floors on top of the pile. See all those little broken pieces of concrete? That's what's left of the upper floors. The farther the pieces had to fall, the worse they would be damaged. A few larger segments would have made it, but most would have been turned into smaller, less delicate chunks.

[Carefulplease]

14. Dust and kinetic energy...

c-prog, consider the fact that the considerable theoretic kinetic energy of the concrete was unavailable to the collapse. The concrete was turned to dust before it hit the ground. There was no concrete after the collapse, only dust spread over lower Manhattan 2 inches thick.

Even if all the concrete had been turned to fine dust during the progression of the collapse, that would not have slowed it down one bit. One pound of crushed concrete still weight one pound. Only what gets ejected outside of the footprint does not contribute further to the collapse. There is no evidence that most of the concrete got ejected that way.

During the early stage of the collapse it is mostly smoke from the burning floors and then dust from crushed gypsum wallboard that would have been ejected. The bulk of the energy available to crush much concrete into fine dust was released in the late stage of the collapse when the falling stack of floors hit the ground.

Even if just 10% of the concrete had been dispersed in the form of fine dust during the early stage of the collapse (to say nothing of the other materials), that would still account for a layer of dense dust with an average thickness of one inch covering a *net* area of more than 90 acres (the area of 68 football fields) in lower Manhattan.

Concrete just accounts for a fraction of the weight of the towers anyway.

[Kingshakabobo]

33. There is many more mechanisms for air transfer.....

.....between floors than the elevators. Off the top of my head I can think of several ways air can transfer between floors to cause a billows effect. Stairways, electrical conduit runs, plumbing stacks, havac runs. The elevators and stairways would be the largest offender but those floors were far from totally isolated from each other.

[petgoat]

44. Plumbing and electrical runs are fireblocked. HVAC ducts

couldn't take the pressure and would simply come apart.
The isolated squibs far below the collapse zone can not be explained by
air from the next floor up coming through conduit runs.

[Kingshakabobo]

46. Baloney. Watch the Naudet video....

You can see dust/explosion come out of the top floors immediately as the first plane strikes. To try to prop up your crazy theory by trying to say the building was air-tight from floor to floor is just plain silly.

You contradict your self. You say the pressure would blow the hvac system apart - where do you think the air would go?

[petgoat]

50. I didn't say it was air-tight. I said it was fireblocked. nt

[greyl]

51. Bullshit, you said "couldn't take the pressure"

which means that the building must have been air-tight enough to exceed the pressure the ducts could handle.

[petgoat]

53. The building needn't be air-tight for the HVAC ducts to blow

apart. The highly energetic squibs could not have come from the HVAC ducts
because the ducts would have blown apart before directing high pressure air
to just a few windows.

[AZCat]

54. I don't think you have the information necessary...

to substantiate your claim about the HVAC ducts. Could you be right? Maybe, but you're going to need to provide further explanation if you want the claim to be accepted by others.

[BootinUp]

8. And there is a paper which examines the physics quite thoroughly

The points you raise are some of the findings in the paper as well.

-------------------
Snipped from the Introduction

A good place to start unraveling the mystery of what caused the Twin Towers to
collapse is to investigate the mechanics of the impact and collapse events. This involves
following the energy transfer processes from the initial aircraft collisions, through the
subsequent fires, to the final collapse and crushing of the steel, concrete and other
materials used in the construction of these buildings. In this report we attempt to evaluate
the energetics of the impact and collapse events of the September 11th WTC disaster. In
this way it is hoped to decide if the observed collapse events could have occurred without
the help of explosives or, indeed, without any input from other external sources of
energy.


http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

[Carefulplease]

15. The kinetic energy of it all...

I've tried to wrap my mind around that, looked on the NET for something that would help me understand the kinetic energy of it all, and have found nothing.

F.R. Greening has written a paper that goes into those details. The title is "Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse". I'll post a link if you have any trouble finding it online.

On edit: I see that Jim4Wes has provided a link to this paper in a previous message

One interesting datum that we can get from NIST is that the total load on the 287 columns of WTC1 on the level of the 92th floor was close to 50,000kip. This amounts to 22,680 metric tons. When this falls from the height of just one floor the release in gravitational potential energy is m*g*h = (22,68 * 9.81 * 3,7)Megajoule = 823MJ. This is equivalent to the energy released in the explosion of 434 pounds of TNT.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf
p.242

[petgoat]

3. There are reports of flashes before the collapse in the Oral Histories

transcripts.

Also, I don't think thermate is real loud. Probably more like
a "Pfffffffft" sound.

[treestar]

17. The area must have been very noisy, much more so than usual, too

The planes had just crashed into the buildings.

At a controlled demolition site, people are listening for the booms.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Watch this

9-11 Eyewitness

There are multiple low-frequency but very loud booms that go off before each tower collapses.

This is one of the few videos available of the WTC attack that has a clear shot from across the river and is continuous film. What we saw on TV and the news is pieces of video, then a commentator would come on and talk over it, so that you would have a visual of the attack being broadcast but no audio. 9-11 Eyewitness has both and they are uninterrupted.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness

[DemInDistress]

5. watch this video clip....

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/911.wtc.2.demolition.east.5.enl.slow.2.wmv


want more?

[cigsandcoffee]

22. I reckon so.

Whatever I was supposed to see there, I missed it. It looked like the area that had been hit giving way.

[DemInDistress]

23. watch it again,,,and again this one is convincing..

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/911.wtc.2.demolition.east.5.enl.slow.3.wmv wrong video although you can see the explosive flash 12-15 floors above the impact zone. how'd they do that? controlled demolition I tell you.

[cigsandcoffee]

24. Sorry, but that just doesn't do it. That "flash" could be anything.

And most noticably, it appears the collapse began precisely below where the plane hit. You can't tell me that was organized with the pilot hijackers - to hit a specific level of the tower.

[DemInDistress]

25. looks like a flashbulb...rotf..

did you watch the other video the one in slow motion? yes? no?

watch that again.. see the explosive flashes? here: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/911.wtc.2.demolition.east.5.enl.slow.3.wmv

[cigsandcoffee]

27. I don't know what you think you see there.

But I'm just not seeing it. The videos appear to show the area just under where the plane hit collapsing from a loss of structural integrity - exactly where one would expect the building to implode.

[Kingshakabobo]

34. The top of the building starts to collapse BEFORE...........

......the dust etc. starts to billow out. We could argue over fractions of a second here and I doubt I could convince you but you have to concede that the video is misleading ( I think intentionally ) because it highlights, by reversing and forwarding, the billows effect CLEARLY AFTER the collapse was well under way.

[Sinti]

6. Actually, there were. I have the TV coverage from that morning in full

At least from ABC. There were multiple explosions reported in both buildings in real time that morning, until they fell. Everyone (everyone on the TV that is) at the time thought there were bombs, as well as planes.

I can find a way to get you the video if you'd really like to see for yourself.

[TheWraith]

10. Do you think that means anything?

In an disaster situation, people can jump to all sorts of conclusions, such as hearing a loud noise and thinking it's a bomb. Human memory is also notoriously suspect when it comes to remembering stressful or crisis situations--that's why eyewitness testimony, though dramatic, in considered inherently unreliable by forensic scientists. People see and hear things differently, they jump to conclusions, and they don't neccessarily remember things the way that they actually happened. Remember, it was also treated as fact for awhile on that morning that there had been a car bombing at the State Department building, and various other reports of bombs in other places, complete with people who said that they had heard these "bombs."

You should also look up information on backdrafts, which are small explosions caused by fire finding a new area of oxygen, and the volatility of various chemicals such as cleaning fluids in a janitor's closet, or many other things that could be found in an average office.

[Sinti]

32. The firefighters, and first responders on the scene told the reporters

on the ground that there were secondary explosions, tertiary explosions and so on. They told the reporters in NY, which was reported back to the TV news people. Included in these people was Chief Turi of the FDNY. I'm pretty sure the FDNY knows what 'backdrafts' are. FDNY knows the dif between a bomb and a spray can exploding. There were multiple secondary explosions all morning for them. I wasn't there, so I have to take their word for it. There has been NO forensic investigation done to prove their concurrent reports wrong. If I am wrong on this point, please point me to the study. Do not point me to the NIST, as it is not a forensic study done to determine whether there were secondary explosive devices present or not.

I thought the State Dept. thing happened much later, and it was a car backfiring in the basement. I never heard that one, if it happened. It's not on my tapes.

FWIW, I was answering an op which inquired:

Why are there no reports of a series of metered explosions and/or flashes directly preceding the collapse?

There were, in fact, reports of a series of explosions in both buildings.

[Kingshakabobo]

35. "There were multiple secondary explosions all morning for them"

Exactly! People were "hearing" explosions all morning. What were they? Clearly they couldn't be part of the controlled demolition. So what were they? Why is it that only the explosions immediately before the collapse HAD to be pre-planted bombs? Why couldn't they be part of what was going on all morning? - if anything.

[Sinti]

37. I agree. OTOH, there is no saying those explosions going on all morning

weren't bombs in the building. Whether there were bombs in the WTC or not, however, does not prove MIHOP or LIHOP in any way shape or form. WTC was not a "controlled demolition" - which is not to say that bombs (explosive destructive devices) could not have been present.

[TheWraith]

45. A secondary explosion is by definition NOT a bomb.

The definition of a secondary explosion is one that is triggered by an initial explosion--for instance, a fire at a gas pump could trigger a secondary explosion in the fuel lines, or a bomb dropped on an ammo dump. A bomb going off is not a "secondary explosion," it's a primary explosion.

I'm sure FDNY DOES know the difference between a bomb and various other types of secondaries. So doesn't it strike you as odd that they never came out and said "Gee, there were all these bombs lying around the building"? All that's on the record is some reports about explosions which were speculated might have been bombs. In reality, secondary explosions are quite common in pretty much any serious fire. They can be caused by gas lines, cleaning solutions, aerosol cans, even things like perfumes, air conditioners, and electrical transformers.

The State Department thing was, as I recall, about concurrent with the towers. My recollection is kind of vague, as I was distracted by the video, but I'm pretty sure that it was during the time that both the towers were burning.

Also, there were other reports being stated as fact of car bombs spread around NY City, and of up to 8 or 10 airplanes having been hijacked. My point is, facts and supposition are often confused and freely mixed in a crisis situation. The FDNY says there are secondary explosions in the towers, some news reporter who doesn't understand what that means assumes that there are bombs involved, reports it, and all of a sudden the FDNY has said there were bombs going off in the WTC before the collapse, even though they never said any such thing.

[Sinti]

57. There is a video of them saying exactly that, thank you very much

A fireman himself saying, and I paraphrase, "clear the area there are bombs in the building." The reason why everyone thinks there were bombs, is because we were told there were bombs that day. The State Department thing is not on the hours-long video I have from that day. :shrug:

Again, the question was asked: Why are there no reports of a series of metered explosions and/or flashes directly preceding the collapse? I answered it with, there were many reports of explosions, which is the truth. I never stated what those explosions were, just that they were reported. All of this, "people don't know what they were hearing, it could have been hair spray cans or perfume bottles" is just obfuscation on your part.

[Bushwick Bill]

7. Some videos.

I am agnostic on demolition, but here is some food for thought.

Scroll to the 10 minute mark and hear William Rodriguez talk about explosion(s) in the basement before the plane hits.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294

This movie, especially minutes 45-60, makes me think twice.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8989407671184881047&q=9%2F11+What%27s+The+Truth
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=95

I haven't watched this, but some people are raving about it.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-999558027849894376
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1162851149755261569

Here are a few other movies.
9/11 Revisited.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939
9/11 Eyewitness.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness

[TAM]

11. Here is what you have to accept to believe it

yes, if you are to believe the collected, cut and pasted parts that add up to the CT version of the "controlled Demolition" of WTC1 and 2, here is what you must admit...

1. That Thermate or Thermite was used (only way to explain absence of conventional sequence of 100+ detonation explosions and accompanying flashes), despite the fact that it has NOT been used for the demolition of a building anywhere.

2. That they used a previously untried form of controlled demolition, where you initiate the collapse from the floor of plane impact, and have it collapse from the top down. This, also, has never before done in "controlled demolition".

3. That someone was on the ground or in a building nearby with a remote control, waiting to see which floor the plane would hit, so that he could detonate the "Thermate" on that level first, providing us with the "Top down" demolition we observed.

4. That there was enough time and secrecy available that teams of demolitions people could plant these "Thermate" explosives on the Steel columns, requiring removal of the walls, then planting the explosives, then redoing the walls, so noone would notice (polyfilla not gonna do it). Knowing that the Landmark tower, a 30 storey building brought down by conventional "controlled demolition", took 4 months of unlimited access to the building to rig, it is likely that to rig two 110 storey buildings, we are talking years of continuous access, or decades of weekends and nights...

5. That noone of all the people who would have planted the explosives would ever breath a word of it to anyone.

Shall I go on...

TAM

[petgoat]

13. You are inventing imaginary complications.

Thermite...has NOT been used for the demolition of a building anywhere.

So what? Do you have any doubt that if you sever the core columns of a hundred story
tower, it will collapse? Besides, there was the fail safe of the explosives. Redundant
systems were employed.

That they used a previously untried form of controlled demolition, where you initiate
the collapse from the floor of plane impact, and have it collapse from the top down.

What exactly do you anticipate going wrong? Do you have any doubt that if you explode the
top of a hundred story tower, and five seconds later you explode the middle, and five
seconds later explode the bottom, that it will come down?

someone was on the ground or in a building nearby with a remote control, waiting to
see which floor the plane would hit

If the planes homed in on radio beacons placed in the towers, then the impace zone could
be predicted precisely. What about radio control do you find implausible?

requiring removal of the walls, then planting the explosives, then redoing the walls

How often are the elevator shafts inspected? What walls need be removed? There were many
vacant floors. Have you ever seen how much space there is above the suspended ceiling of
an office building?

That noone of all the people who would have planted the explosives would ever breath a
word of it to anyone.

Dead men tell no tales, and pro spooks are rarely chatty about their work.

Shall I go on...

You'll have to do better than what you did.

[TAM]

20. Ok...you win

forget it...there is no convincing anyone who believes the crap anyway...believe what you want. It is funny though, that the supermastergeniuses who were able to pull all of that off, and so much more that day, couldnt plant a few WMDs and labs in the entire country of Iraq. How much easier their life would be...how much more sure of a win in 2008 they would be if only they could have planted them...but no...they couldn't...they werent good enough...but they could plant explosives in 3 buildings, fly remote controlled planes into them, shoot crusie missiles into the pentagon, immitate voices in real time...cause that stuff is easy compared to dropping a few guys down into Iraq to set up a couple of labs and chemical weapons...yup.

TAM

[petgoat]

28. "believe what you want."`

IOW, you won't even try to defend your arguments.

the supermastergeniuses who were able to pull all of that off, and so much
more that day, couldnt plant a few WMDs and labs in the entire country of Iraq.

Such WMDs and labs would have been subjected to the scrutiny ofthe Int'l community.
Such scrutiny is sharper than that of the domestic community, and the fake would
have been detected.

What makes you think 9/11 was done by supergeniuses? In fact they screwed up big time!

NORAD had to sit on its hands for 100 minutes! Bush had to sit on his ass for 20 minutes
after being told the nation was under attack. They used way way way too much explosives
in the towers, and WTC7 had to be demolished without the benefit of its airplane crash
cover story.

9/11 was conceived and executed by lunatics, and it shows.


they could plant explosives in 3 buildings

How difficult is that?

fly remote controlled planes into them

Remote control is perfectly feasible. Raytheon landed a remote controlled
727 6 times in the desert in 8/01.

shoot crusie missiles into the pentagon

how difficult is that?

immitate voices in real time

Are you sure it was real time? Voice morphing software is available.

[wildbilln864]

29. Tam, you are...

ill informed!
They did try to plant WMDs in Iraq but those doing it were killed by friendly fire by mistake! Google CIA plant WMD and it's there!
And as far as explosions go, thermate is an incendiary as I understand it. Not an explosive. It's already used to cut steel support berams in the demolition industry. And bTW adding sulfer increases the temp and speed of the reaction I understand. Hence, "high temperature sulfidation of steel left behind and still very hot weeks after the event as reported ans studied by Dr Jones.

[TAM]

38. I guess they were once bitten twice shy...

So they tried once, got hit by friendly fire, then said...ah f&*k it, we wont bother? come on.

And I don't suppose the sulfidation couldn't have come from the sulfur in the gypsum of the drywall.

I did not say that the chain of requirements to believe the "truth" movement story for CD was impossible, no I suppose it is "possible", but it is certainly, by far, the more complex and unlikely, IMO, and I could care less what you think. The entire group of CT wingnuts cant even come up with a unified theory on what happened that day, just a bunch of "what ifs" or "It coulda been this".

It is amazing how with all of the "SOLID EVIDENCE" the CTers have, the DEMOCRATS wont take it upon themselves to try to have the "PNAC villians" tried then executed...oh but wait, most CTers believe the DEMs are Mollock worshipping NWO NEOCONS also...right. laughable.

See I am really, for the most part, done arguing with people who cannot be convinced, and dont give me the "show me the evidence" and I will believe crap, cause thats a crock of shaite.

So from now on, I will just be the thorn in the CTers side, making sure the naive and the fence sitters get both sids of the story, everywhere I turn.

Tat Ta for now. name call away. insult away.

TAM

[wildbilln864]

40. Well first, I won't name call like your side does, so sorry to disapoint..

As far as the attempt to plant WMDs goes.
Well that's the only time that it's been reported. I won't assume it's the only attempt or speculate as to why they gave up trying if they did.

How did this sulfer from the drywall as you say, get inside the molten steel left weeks after? The steel had to be melted I would think. What was the heat source hot enough to accomplish this?
And I searched the web and I don't believe there even is sulfer in drywall. Do you have evidence otherwise?

And please, what is this SOLID EVIDENCE you speak of?
And I could be convinced if there was solid evidence. But it's not SOLID! There was no investigation! Only speculation after the evidence and crime scene was destroyed!
Thank you for the responses.

[AZCat]

41. Drywall is gypsum sandwiched between paper.

Gypsum is CaSO4-2H2O (calcium sulfate dihydrate). The "S" stands for sulphur.

[TAM]

42. Drywall has it in there

drywall - gypsum - sulfur.

http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/Wallboard/

Look up why they don't incinerate drywall in california on this site.

Sulfur Dioxide

trust me, it is in there.

TAM

[hack89]

48. Some thermite facts:

1. thermite cutting charges don't exist(at least no one has yet to provide any proof when I have asked in the past) - thermal lances do exist and are used for demolition cutting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermic_lance

2. While sulfur is added to thermite to create thermate, it is only 2 percent sulfur. That amount of sulfur is tiny compare to all the other sources of sulfur - gypsum from sheetrock is the largest source. The rubble pile was awash with sulfur so it is not proof of thermite.

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

[CabalPowered]

16. I have a similar question I'm hoping somebody can answer

What is the current thinking on the extreme temperatures found in the rubble weeks afterwards? Has this been explained?

[hack89]

18. Fires as the millions of pounds of combustibles burned.

the pile emitted combustion byproducts for months.

[FoxOnTheRun]

19. The molten metal under wtc 7,1 and 2 ?

Probably the thermate.
Thermite carries it's own oxygen in form of iron-oxide and can react underneath the rubble.

[hack89]

39. You are kidding, right?

Those hot spots were huge - just how many tons of thermite were there?

And you are aware, aren't you, that thermite is a fast reaction? It would have been consumed before the buildings finished collapsing.

[vincent_vega_lives]

43. For a few minutes

Thermite burns very rapidly.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. If anything remained heated up after the collapse

Let's say a steel beam that was in the fire and got up to 100-250 degrees and then a bunch of stuff falls on it, it could reignite and start a new fire. Lot's of reasons for the pit to stay hot once new fires started.

[savemefromdumbya]

26. some links

read these but keep an open mind

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/military.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/2/soldier2.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/4/soldier4.htm

[DoYouEverWonder]

31. WTC 1 & 2 were not controlled demos

They were blown up, not down. I'm not sure how they did it but it was not a CD. Wiring and charges aren't necessary if you use a weapon or a big enough bomb. My guess is some sort of thermobaric weapon(s) that uses fuel. They could have been delivered the morning of the attack, via the freight elevators which you could drive onto with a truck or a van.

In regards to WTC 7, that is another matter entirely. This building fell like a classic CD, however once again wiring and setting charges was not necessary. The building had been remodeling after 1993 attack, when Rudy Giuliani decided to install his OEM bunker in the building. At that time, diesel fuel storage tanks were installed in a sublevel with a pressurized fuel line system that covered most of the 5th floor to feed the day tanks and a number of generators that were also installed on the 5th floor.

The pressurized fuel lines on the 5th floor run directly under the trusses and transfer beams. On 9-11, when the building was evacuated and abandoned to the fire, no one bothered to turn off the back up power systems. When the electric went off, the generators kicked in. When the days tanks ran out, then the pressurized system kicked in pulling fuel up from the tanks in the sublevel of the building. It would not have been difficult, especially if the system was rigged to begin with, to open up these fuel lines at key points to either ignite a fuse at just the right time, or to just burn and melt a few crucial connections that could bring the building down.

[rman]

55. Blown up on purpose, at a particular time, in a particular way

To me that spells "controlled" and it definately did demolish the towers - just not in the way that classic CD is done. But that's to be expected, since otherwise it would be to obvious that it doesn't fit the official story.

WTC7 is the odd-one-out, which is why even after 5 years many people haven't heard of it.

[rman]

47. the government is not your country

"never, ever trust the state"
-- Noam Chomsky, and now also Phil Donahue (took him some time to realize what Chomsky was saying)

There are reports of explosions preceding the collapses.
http://www.911eyewitness.com/

[FourScore]

56. DoYouEverWonder and Bushwick Bill

I watched the videos you provided links for. They were fabulous. I had not seen them before.

Quite frankly, I was also wondering why there were no sounds of demos going off in the buildings. Your video links clearly show that there were. That sealed it for me. Those buildings were demolished. Why, though, don't we hear the bombs during the Naudet film? Does anyone know the answer to that?

Excellent thread, by the way!