University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

Who Could Have Planted Explosives in the WTC Pre-9/11

Every where you look overwhelming amounts of evidence. I find this an interesting angle.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Every where you look overwhelming amounts of evidence.

Every where you look overwhelming amounts of SPECULATION.

You should ask yourself if this evidence would stand up in court.
Most times not.

Most of the 911 videos have no identifiable author.
They wouldn't make it through the court house front door.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Unlike YOU scifi man I work in construction industry on a technical basis I have had the pleasure over the years of testing various building components and materials sometimes to destruction. I know how the towers were constructed and how they differ from many other high structures and I am not just talking about their size.

The floor slabs were suspended between the outer walls and the core walls they could DROP INTERNALLY we even see evidence for that.

Also what are you on about by saying implosion is that DUE TO YOU INEXPERIENCE.

As for building 7 if you look at the debris photos the elevation of the building we see on the collapse video the lower part of it ends on top of the debris pile picture below.



As for your comment re explosion ANY loud noise that day could be confused as an explosion.

What do you think 900 ton floor slabs falling sound like.

Oh by the way my when I left school my first job was the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company before becoming a technical advisor on building sites.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Thanks for that interview with Kevin Ryan. I had heard some of that, but not all.

It's very easy to understand how the towers could have been rigged. Ryan keeps things in perspective, though he seems to be unaware of how hard and long Mayor Rudi fought the city council to have the OEM put in WTC7 instead of elsewhere.

a reply to: wmd_2008

So with all your so called expertise. If some of the bottom pieces of the the 47 story skyscraper may have ended up on top of the 20 ft debris pile. You consider that proof that it wasn't an implosion?

As for your comment re explosion ANY loud noise that day could be confused as an explosion.

Oh riiiiiiiiiight. Confused for an explosion. It wasn't an explosion when the lobby explodes after the plane strike and before the collapse. Think about it.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Oh riiiiiiiiiight. Confused for an explosion. It wasn't an explosion when the lobby explodes after the plane strike and before the collapse. Think about it.

Exactly what did these two fire fighters says that proves controlled demolition ?
All I heard them talk about is secondary explosions.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

It's a lot higher than 20 ft and it shows that the drop wasn't perfectly straight down and YOU should really stop making assumptions because what YOU think with limited experience way not be what happens !



You see sometimes in a fire TIMBER survives better than steel would you expect that.

Large structural members when they fail can make a LOT of noise under the confusing of the events that day many noises will be called explosions even if they were NOT

a reply to: Doctor Smith

So with all your so called expertise. If some of the bottom pieces of the the 47 story skyscraper may have ended up on top of the 20 ft debris pile. You consider that proof that it wasn't an implosion?

Look around the room ......

Most of the volume is AIR !!!

Squeeze out the air, compress everything else down and wind up with a very small volume

a reply to: firerescue


Ok. Show me an example of another skyscraper building in history that has collapsed like those on 911 for any reason other than demolition. Nobody has been able to produce an example that even comes close.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: firerescue


Ok. Show me an example of another skyscraper building in history that has collapsed like those on 911 for any reason other than demolition. Nobody has been able to produce an example that even comes close.

Show me an example of a skyscraper building over 50 stories brought down by controlled explosivedes demolitions. Show me a building demolished by explosives, setting them off only above the 60th floor. It never has happened, so using your logic it impossible. At least we can agree the twin towers were brought down by fire.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Oh riiiiiiiiiight. Confused for an explosion. It wasn't an explosion when the lobby explodes after the plane strike and before the collapse. Think about it.

Exactly what did these two fire fighters says that proves controlled demolition ?
All I heard them talk about is secondary explosions.

If their was explosions down in the lobby blowing out all the windows after the unrelated impact. Pretty much proves bombs were in the building. Doesn't take a great leap of faith to see the buildings were rigged to blow months in advance.


Plus the testimony of a CIA asset who was held without charges for 10 years.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

The question is show me another skyscraper building above 50 stories brought down by controlled explosive demolition. It's your logic, it had to happen before to be possible.

See, now you are changing the narrative. Still show me a demolition with explosives used above the 60th floor. Simple questions.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Double post

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Doctor Smith

The question is show me another skyscraper building above 50 stories brought down by controlled explosive demolition. It's your logic, it had to happen before to be possible.

See, now you are changing the narrative. Still show me a demolition with explosives used above the 60th floor. Simple questions.

You've never gave the example I asked for. I don't feel obligated since you have failed to show a building implode from damage or fire.

Controlled demolition can bring down any size building. This building is the second largest. 30 stories. Close enough to building 7 size.

So by your logic your saying fire and some damage can implode a super tall building but explosives can't? Absurd. LOL.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

WTC 7 debris pictures

The elevation you see on collapse videos



The other side



Didn't drop straight did it.

The preparation for the Landmark Building in the video.

To pull the walls in and properly direct the collapse during implosion, 98 steel cables were used. This required several thousand lineal feet of steel cable ranging in size from 3/4-inch to 1-3/8 inch. The first floor of the Landmark Tower was surrounded by steel cables and nets to contain glass and aluminum. Steel cables were put in place on the first,
second, third, fourth, sixth, eighth, 10th, and 12th floors to assist in the direction of fall.

To
break structural steel, 369 linear shaped armor-piercing charges were required. Concrete columns were broken with the larger charges of RDX ranging from 2 ounces to 12 ounces at a density of 600 grains to 4,000 grains per lineal foot.

Yet nobody saw any preparation for 9/11 if the demo theory was true

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Simple question, what skyscape building over 50 stories has been brought down by controlled explosive demolition? You say the twin towers could not have been brought down because a building over what size never collapsed due to fire. So you do acknowledge what has occurred on a smaller scale can occur on a larger scale? If steel is impregnable to fire, why does it need time rated fire proof insulation by code?

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Doctor Smith

WTC 7 debris pictures

The elevation you see on collapse videos

The other side

Didn't drop straight did it.

The preparation for the Landmark Building in the video.

To pull the walls in and properly direct the collapse during implosion, 98 steel cables were used. This required several thousand lineal feet of steel cable ranging in size from 3/4-inch to 1-3/8 inch. The first floor of the Landmark Tower was surrounded by steel cables and nets to contain glass and aluminum. Steel cables were put in place on the first,
second, third, fourth, sixth, eighth, 10th, and 12th floors to assist in the direction of fall.

To
break structural steel, 369 linear shaped armor-piercing charges were required. Concrete columns were broken with the larger charges of RDX ranging from 2 ounces to 12 ounces at a density of 600 grains to 4,000 grains per lineal foot.

Yet nobody saw any preparation for 9/11 if the demo theory was true

Because you have nothing but pseudo science and depend on truther talking points. It's obvious you don't reason for yourself. YouTube SCIENCE good. Engineering societies held to academic standard bad. You are sooooo backwards. And I like when you post paragraphs worthy of ignoring that are ignited by a few sentences....... might stop by again in a few days?

One last thought, truthers claim remains of explosives never were found do to inadequate investigation of WTC debris. Yet, how many bone fragments of victims were recovered? I think investigators went as far as using DNA to determine who the remains belonged too. Truthers never mention the site and debris had to be protected from morbid souvenir seekers. Just a thought?

a reply to: neutronflux

The site was combed over for months by police, firefighters and investigators from
number of agencies This included members of bomb squads from NYPD and ATF

Debris was collected, shipped to recovery site at Fresh KIlls and them sorted and examined in detail

Nobody saw anything resembling detonators, delay tubes, wiring associated with demolitions

Shaped charges leave distinct pattern on steel. Yet nobody notices this .......

Not to mention members of my local sheriff department bomb squad were there for weeks assisting in recovery

I have talked to several of them.... More than can be said for truthers and their Youtube video "proof"

a reply to: firerescue

It's sad they don't realized the hard work and service of the people they accuse of being co-conspirators. Revered Memorial Day.