WTC2 Obvious new explosions seen below the level of collapse

[demodewd]

Good German website with comprehensive array of WTC1 and WTC2 pics.http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

[spooked911]

1. A skeptic would say that is just from the floor collapsing beneath the

main point of collapse. However I think it is highly likely that the towers had pre-packed explosives that caused the collapses.

What is needed is someone to come out with real evidence explosives were planted in the WTC.

[demodewd]

2. two observations

The photo on the left...I see an orange flame area above the squibs indicating that the floors above are still intact?

Photo on the right...to me it's a no brainer...plainly obvious..the squibs are well beyond the point of collapse. Right?

[Lerkfish]

4. having been right next to a building as it imploded....

I don't find the picture on the right that unbelievable. There's an amazing amount of wind concussion that travels downwards and outwards on floors below the main collapse.

I got in good with a demolition crew and got a great vantage point of the implosion, about 4 stories higher and able to see the whole facade.

I Know that's not the same thing as the WTC, but I DID witness blowouts on lower floors as the builiding imploded...similar to the photo on the right.



(keep in mind I still believe in MIHOP--I just don't feel convinced the WTC was rigged with explosives)

[demodewd]

10. You saw a?

You saw a video of a demolition that was similar to what we see here?

Why the consistent amount of blown out in each squib across the entire floor? Is this consistent with wind concussion?

[Lerkfish]

11. no, I saw a real implosion realtime...but like I said...

I was not suggesting the two incidents were on equal footing.
I was not watching a video but being an eyewitness to an implosion.
I saw a roughly equal amount of "blowout" from every window on floors below the collapse.
HOWEVER: that was a controlled implosion, so the physics would be different.

I was ONLY saying I saw something similar in a nonsuspicious setting, so I wouldn't necessarily be suspicious of this image.

I DO however, think they made it or allowed it to happen. I have more trouble believing the towers were rigged with explosives. I do not deride those who do, I just don't buy into it just yet...

sorry for the confusion.

[MercutioATC]

3. ...or at least a trace of explosives in the debris...

Remember when they did testing to see how harmful the dust from the debris was?

What didn't they find when they analyzed the debris? Any trace of explosives.

[demodewd]

8. reference please

Please give reference to your claim. Thank you.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

13. Cmon truthseeker

Exactly which tests should have been performed to ensure that no explosives were planted by Osama and his pious henchmen? Can you provide the negative results for these tests??

[stickdog]

15. So they (who?) specifically tested for traces of explosives but found none

whatsover in any of the hundreds of fastidiously performed and publicly documented forensic examinations they (who?) conducted?

I must have missed that day in LIE-BM (let it explode -- by mistake) class, Merc.

Link?

[vincent_vega_lives]

17. Ground zero air quality testing

EPA air quality report
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/reports/2003/WTC_report_20030821.pdf#search='testing%20air%20quality%20at%20ground%20zero'


http://www.atlenv.com/new.html#1004

Atlantic Environmental, Inc. made about 30 separate Air Quality surveys around Ground Zero after September 11, 2001. Our first survey was on September 13, 2001 and we are still doing surveys; from across the street up to about 5 blocks away from the site. Most of these surveys were on behalf of both business and residential tenants, but we have also worked for building owners and insurance companies. We performed a wide variety of tests, including vehicles that were within 5 blocks of Ground Zero, depending on the clients’ needs and our recommendations.

The following is a list of the analyses we performed. Not all of these were tested for at each location. Some were tested for only 1 analyte:

Asbestos
Concrete dust
Calcium chloride
Lead
Heavy metals– all
Mercury
PCBs
Volatile Organic Compounds – scan
Fiberglass
Total dust
Molds and bacteria
Radiation
Dinking water tests for metals, vocs and inorganic chemicals.


Chemical Analysis of a Disaster, by Louisa Dalton, C&EN Washington, Cover Story, October 20, 2003

Volume 81, Number 42, CEN EAR 81 42 pp. 26-30, ISSN 0009-2347

http//pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/print/8142aerosols.html

There was quite detailed tests done of dust at ground zero.

[demodewd]

18. a test for..??

I don't see a test for the components of demolition explosives.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

19. who put the EPA in charge

of a thorough criminal investigation into the possibility of secondary devices being used?

Are you saying that the EPA has the equipment, the personnel and the necessary protocols to do testing for a wide range of explosives? Evidence gathering? Chain of custody? etc etc etc

[AZCat]

21. They have the ability

I think the EPA is the organization that determines what test will work for specific materials, and writes out the procedures for the tests. Obviously they do testing for this sort of stuff - for contamination analyses. But since this is DU, I will provide links (below).

Index to EPA Test Methods

I will use RDX as an example. If I go to the N-Se section of the alphabetical Chemical/Name index, it tells me that RDX in Soil and Water by Immunoassay uses testing method #4051, and they provide a link to the EPA source (SW 486 Ch 4.4) and they list the section of the CFRs(40 CFR Part 61, Appendix B) where the methods are defined.

If we go to the link, we see that the http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/main.htm">test methods are online and we can go to method #4051 (warning - pdf) for RDX. I just quickly scanned it, but it talks about using a particular test kit and then has lots of other info that I haven't read yet.


Ok - so the EPA knows how to test for RDX, but have they in the past? I searched the EPA website, and found this article (below).

EPA ORDERS EXTENSIVE CLEANUP OF MASS. MILITARY RESERVATION ON CAPE COD
Contact: Amy Miller, EPA Press Office (617-918-1042)

For immediate release: January 7, 2000; Release # 00-01-05

BOSTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today for the first time unilaterally ordered a military base to clean up and remove unexploded ordnance. In a precedent-setting administrative order issued today , EPA-New England directed the National Guard Bureau and the Massachusetts National Guard to remove unexploded ordnance from the 14,000-acre Camp Edwards training grounds at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) on Cape Cod.

The National Guard agencies were also directed to clean up contaminated groundwater, as well as contamination in soil that has not yet reached the groundwater, but threatens the aquifer.
<snip>
An ongoing study of the effects of training on the aquifer has already found RDX in 20 monitoring wells, and above federal health advisory limits at 18 monitoring wells. RDX is a highly hazardous constituent used in explosives and rat poison. Metals above the allowable levels for drinking water were detected in 40 monitoring wells and herbicides and pesticides were detected in 31 wells, in one case above federal health advisories.
<snip>
To date, dozens of live unexploded ordnance have been uncovered simply through DOD's efforts to site monitoring wells associated with the water quality study. In addition, more than 1,000 mortar rounds (primarily inert) were discovered at the only range where an unexploded ordnance investigation has been conducted to date.
</snip>


From what I can gather, the EPA didn't actually do the testing in this case - they ordered the DOD to do it. Now this might just be the case here because the DOD is "special", so what happens when a private individual/organization is being investigated? That is proving difficult for me, because most of the RDX-related investigations have to do with the military - either DOD or DA (Department of Army). I will continue looking.

[Warpy]

5. This skeptic says both shots are cement dust

and blown out glass from the shock wave of the explosion, later the collapse.

This skeptic marvels at the prescience needed to determine exactly where airplanes would fly into the buildings either the next day or years down the road.

Spare me.

[Abe Linkman]

9. You are hereby "spared". Please return the favor.

You seem to have a number of issues from which you "need" to be spared.
May I recommend that you exercise your right to leave. That way, YOU would be spared, and so would WE. Fair enough?

[BarbinMD]

6. Oh please!

On 9/11, I talked to a metallugist friend of mine (okay, I have weird friends ;)). He told me that he and his co-workers had figured that the buildings would collapse within X amount of time based on the heat of the burning jet fuel and the steel structure of the towers...they were nearly dead-on in their calculations...and they weren't factoring in explosives.

Silly stuff. Next thing you know, you'll be saying a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. :P

[demodewd]

7. OH, PLEASE!

And when the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses from burning jet fuel and compromised steel,it goes into free fall,meets no resistance at all to slow it down,collapses in a symetrical fashion(even when the top part of the WTC2 was tilting 20 degrees) and everything is done in 10 seconds. OH,PLEASE!


Please explain to me what exactly is happening with WTC2 when the top part starts disintegrating before it hits the base. What causes the base to immediately begin pulverizing when there is no "hammer" from above.?

[LARED]

12. new explosions ?????????

This is the same crap you've been humping for three years?

Give it up already.

[tngledwebb]

16. And the same to you and yours.

N/T

[demodewd]

14. Eric Hufschmidt

From PAINFUL QUESTIONS by Eric Hufschmidt pg 75

Photographs show ribbons of dust coming out of both towers as they collapse. Two suspicious aspects of these ribbons are:

1) The dust comes from a floor while that area of the tower still apears structurally intact,rather than forming at the location where the tower is in the process of crumbling.

2) The dust comes out very precisely . Specifically,almost the same quantity of dust comes out of each window.and only along one floor at a time,as opposed to appearing haphazardly in different windows along different floors.

[Dancing_Dave]

20. This is quite an Enlightening site!

And it seems a bit more finished than last time I saw it, a year or so ago. Thanks for bringing it to everyones attention. :yourock: