What brought the WTC Towers Down? FOOLS

[cherokeeprogressive]

If you've ever seen an "airborne explosive" you'd know that the "signature" (the visual/audio/video) isn't A HUGE ORANGE CLOUD. I've seen Naval weapons detonate from a distance of less than 1 mile. If you doubt that what I've seen is credible, I challenge you to travel south on US95 about 15 miles south of Fallon, Nevada. There, you can actually SEE Naval Aircraft dropping BOMBS (mk 82's; 500 lbs---mk 83's; 1000 lbs-and mk 84's; 2000 lbs bombs on the bombing range. I've had the good fortune to see those bombs hit their targets from less than a mile away.

THEY GO BOOM (MK 82). (there is NO orange fireball) THEY GO FUCKING BOOOOOMB(MK 83)! (NO FIREBALL) AND THEY GO BOOOOOOOMMMMBBBB (MK 84) IN SUCH A WAY AS TO SHAKE THE "SCORING SHACK" TO THE POINT THAT YOU'RE AFRAID THAT IT'LL COLLAPSE.

My point here is that "high explosives", "TNT", "controlled demolition devices" DO NOT LEAVE LARGE ORANGE FIREBALLS. That is the signature of a PETROLEUM explosion/fire.

Explosives didn't bring down the WTC towers.

Get Over It.

Stop making us look like fools.

Go see for yourselves what HIGH EXPLOSIVES look like when they detonate. YOU'LL BE SHOCKED.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. So in other words, if there were big fireballs

when the collapse started, that would indicate a fuel air bomb was used?




You can see in the picture WTC2 is already gone. This picture is from the start of the collapse of WTC1.

[quickesst]

2. I believe....

you won't find much argument on either side that the orange fireball seen on impact is due to the jet fuel. His OP has nothing to do with the effects of controlled demolition. Another "great" OCT analogy.:sarcasm: Thanks.
quickesst

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. The fireballs in the picture above happened at 10:26 AM

when WTC1 started to collapse.

They are not the same fireballs that occured when the planes hit the towers.

[canetoad]

4. First, son

You need to settle down and stop going boom boom.

Next you need to point out where anyone said there were 'high explosives' at the impact sites.

Then, and most importantly, you need to tell who 'us' are. As in 'Stop making US look like fools.' I've seen many crappy posts here but this would be in the running for the most childlike.

Ed; Typo

[Sinti]

5. Are you ok? Personally, things that really bother me, I just stay away

from... I know, some people would accuse me of confrontation avoidance, but hey, why should I irritate myself, right? I think the same approach might work for you here. We know, planes make big orange fire when they hit stuff, no one is suggesting the orange fireballs came from bombs. Seriously, be more kind to yourself, confrontation avoidance is not the worst thing in the world.

[Nozebro]

6. Except for POSTS so compelling, you just HAVE to say something about?

nt

[Sinti]

7. If conversations about 9/11 bothered me I'd stay out of 9/11 forum

and I certainly wouldn't post an OP complaining about the 9/11 forum people making me look silly. What are you trying to say here?

[bagrman]

8. As our booming expert would know you can't use energy twice.

many, many photos show huge beams being ejected from the building, and we can all agree that the concrete that was in the building was pulverized to dust. Now with those knowns in hand, you can either cause the building to collapse upon it self or you can have what we all have seen the energy being expelled out the sides of the building. If the energy was expelled out the side of the building then the building could not have fallen at the rate of free fall.

Latr
Bagrman

[Sinti]

10. When I see the towers "fall" it reminds me of Hollywood movie-style

destruction scenes, like when two cars crash head on and blow up, flying into the air and flipping about. This does not happen in real life. When two cars crash at high speed all you generally get is a lot of twisted metal on the highway. There's very little there to go boom, but it makes for good entertainment. Same thing with the towers, WTF? Directly into the path of most resistance, crushing everything to dust and throwing it up and outward with great violence simultaneously... weird.

I would expect big slabs to fall, weakest places break first and the whole thing follows the path of least resistance, but I'm not a structural engineer, what the hell do I know. :dunce:

I really should watch more TV, my sense of reality is apparently off-kilter.

[DemInDistress]

9. here boomer...check this video clip ... tell me what you see

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

then explain to me the flash see here below. this explosion was 12-15 floors above the impact site.

[William Seger]

11. Right

It's scientifically impossible for THIS to have any effect at all on the structrual integrity of the building:



The ONLY way to bring down the building is like this:



Yes, to bring down the building, you need to locate what controlled demolition experts call the "key column" and put a cutter charge on that sucker. (I'm talking about the REAL CD experts, of course -- not those hacks you see on the Discovery Channel putting charges on ALL the columns.)

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. I believe that WTC7

could have been taken down with three cuts on the 5th Floor and the fuel and system to ignite it was installed when they built Rudy's Bunker.

[William Seger]

15. Yes, WTC7 had three "key columns"

... or three truss towers, to be more exact, carrying massive transfer girders that carried most of the weight of the building. I wouldn't be surprised to see the building collapse if you took out just one of those towers. And, as I said in a posting last month, if you really must have a conspiracy theory about WTC7, there is no requirement that all conspiracy theories need to be completely nutty -- just put some cutter charges on that one tower that structural engineers believe failed first.

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. Did you know about the pressurized fuel lines

that they run around the 5th floor directly under these trusses and support beams?

The fuel lines that Jerome Hauer insisted on putting there even though FDNY told it was not a good idea.

Oh and the two 6000 gallon tanks of fuel, that feed this system, that were found intact but empty of fuel?

[William Seger]

18. Yes, I know, but according to Loose Change, a fuel fire wouldn't do it

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. What if

when you designed the system you wanted to do a little more then supply back up power to the building?

I wasted my youth playing with Barbie dolls, so I don't know a heck of a lot about how these things work, nor do I really want to. However, I think with a big enough fuel supply and a mechanical system in place to deliver it, I could come up with something.

According to the NIST report, the building failed on the 5th floor. Since the 5th floor was a mechanical floor, except for the fuel system, there wasn't that much there in the way of combustibles.

One more 'funny' thing about this fuel system. WTC7 was a sprinklered building, however the 5th floor had very little in the way of fire suppression. Some of the generator rooms had something, but the rest of the floor was open with these pipes running across it. The only thing they did for fire suppression was run a masonry wall down the middle of the building from east to west. So even if there was a fire on one side it shouldn't have spread to the other.

[Nozebro]

17. Wrong. 9/11 was a false flag operation, not a conspiracy.

nt

[eomer]

21. One thing that is known beyond any dispute is that it was a conspiracy.

Ironically.

[William Seger]

14. (Deleted misplaced reply)

[DemInDistress]

29. thanks WS,,, explosives in key locations,, and who is this person

boomer who started this thread then cuts and runs without backing up his bullshit?


Glag you have sense WS?

check out this short clip of WT2 from the south the upper floors you'll see 3 key flashes where charges go off. watch it a couple of times..

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem25/popup.php?url=911.wtc.2.implosion.sw.flashes.high.up.flv



and a page full of videos that never made the NIST report or MSM here:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem25/index.php?url=911.wtc.2.implosion.sw.flashes.high.up.flv&p=1#player

[William Seger]

32. Guess I forgot to add the proper smiley:

:sarcasm:

Sorry for the confusion.

[DemInDistress]

33. wow..you faked me out..nt

[jberryhill]

34. Given that it is right about at the resolution limit..

...what I see could be any number of things, such as something shiny reflecting sunlight.

If you look here:



There's all sorts of debris flying around, and there is one piece near the bottom center that also appears to be reflecting sunlight.

[Norrin Radd]

13. So, what is this? What is causing it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk

[FogerRox]

20. Saw that dripping before, I dunno... Thermate? I dunno

Is that dripping liqiod metal.... 15 seconds before the Tower goes down? I dunno what to think anymore.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

22. there was a foundry on the 81st floor..

;-P

[FogerRox]

23. hmmm, was it used for casting? Would the foundry have been placed at the

corner of the building? .....'cause that looks like molten metal dripping.

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. I don't know about a foundry

but the 81st floor of WTC1 was special. It was a mechanical floor where they installed the dozen 24-ton elevator hoists that moved the elevators. The floor had thicker columns and beams then on floors below in order to hold the extra weight. If you wanted to take down the top of the building, this was the floor that had to fail.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

25. lol.. i was just playing

haven't seen any valid explanations for molten steel dripping out the side of the building..

you'd think that this anomaly alone would be enough to get ppl to demand answers; if anything it's evidence that analytic journalism doesn't exist.

[DemInDistress]

26. not just the 81st floor.. all 3 mechanical floors were not trusses

but heavy duty steel I-beams end to end to hold the weight of the elevators and machinery. Plus everything below the impact floors were cold hard steel. It certainly would have had some resistance to slow the collapse if not stop it somewhere on the lower sections of the towers.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. I thought I had read that somewhere

about 81 not having trusses and that they used support beams instead. Too bad NIST was interested in finding them.

One other issue that the OCT claims is that the weight of the floors collapsing caused the rest of the building to collapse. Wasn't the building getting lighter, since so much material was ejected and thrown off when the top floors blew up? The floors below would have less weight, not more then they already been holding up for decades. The buildings didn't suddenly gain weight.

[DemInDistress]

31. yes DYEW,, you did read that as well as I did and if I can

find it I'll post it. I was pictures of those heavy duty I-beams, they were hugh and ran the length of the floors.
Right again about materials being ejected out with explosive force, so how did the collapse gain speed and crash through those mechanical floors that were heavily supported? Explosives in key locations helped gravity
bring the towers down.


I like your style DYEW, and miranda.. two common sense thinking people, their are others here yes.. one day maybe we'll form a chat room for interested 911 researchers and get rid of the skeptics who constantly trash
many good facts not covered by the OCT.


Thank you.. :hi:

[William Seger]

28. Were they electric elevators, by any chance?

What that video reminds me most of is the time I saw a telephone pole get hit by lightning just as I was driving past. The transformer on it looked just like that when it fried.

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. I'm pretty sure they were electric

But it appears that there was still power to the WTC complex after the attack, even though it was supposed to have been turned off? How convenient.

Unfortunately, even though the main power system for the towers was switched off and WTC 7 had been evacuated, a design flaw allowed generators (designed to supply backup power for the WTC complex) to start up and resume an unnecessary and unwanted power supply.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

Keep in mind the system in WTC7 was not part of the original design. It was installed in the mid 90's when Rudy Giuliani wanted to build his OEM Bunker there.