Federal Grand Jury To Hear Evidence - World Trade Center 9-11 Was Controlled Demolition.

a reply to: neutronflux

No

As this video evidence fact shows, the core structure came down first. Control Demolition is now a probable cause and as this in total contradictory to skeptic.com, they should revise their statement on the matter.

a reply to: democracydemo

Yes or no. There are still core columns standing after the complete of the floor system for WTC 1 and WTC 2 in the video evidence.

Sad to see you blatantly lie concerning the video of for WTC 1 and WTC 2.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Some connections broke as the bolts snapped, leaving many panels randomly scattered.[48] Significant parts of the naked cores (about 60 stories for the North Tower and 40 for the South Tower) remained standing for a few seconds before they also collapsed.[44]

www.skeptic.com...

And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

a reply to: carewemust

Maybe they can get Scott Forbes to tell about what he saw the day before (9/10/01) in the WTC. www.youtube.com...er down and crews entering restricted areas:

a reply to: neutronflux

Parroting quotes on this issue will not change de facto, reality.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Parroting quotes on this issue will not change de facto, reality.

Yes or no. There are still core columns standing after the complete collapse of the floor system for WTC 1 and WTC 2 in the video evidence.

You cannot answer truthfully because that will that ruin your delusion.

a reply to: neutronflux

No

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

No

Are you saying the visible core columns are not the last part of the twin tower’s to finally collapse in the linked to videos below.

WTC 1 core collapse
m.youtube.com...

Visible core columns
www.dailymotion.com...

World Trade Centre Core Collapsing
m.youtube.com...

9/11 Footage shows core of both towers standing; Debunks Basement BombsTheory
m.youtube.com...

Are you saying the quoted sources below are not correct in stating there were large sections of core columns still visibly standing after the complete collapse of the floor systems, and those sections of the core were last to collapse of the Twin Towers.

Mechanics of Twin Towers' collapse

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The lower portions of both buildings' cores (60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the initial collapse before they too collapsed.[44]

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

True or False. For WTC 1 and WTC 2, after the complete collapse of their floor systems, there were still core columns standing?

I'm going with True

This post seems to show parts of the core columns still standing after the complete collapse of the floor system? Is that false?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

No

Sad to see you have total disregard for the truth.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

True or False. For WTC 1 and WTC 2, after the complete collapse of their floor systems, there were still core columns standing?

I'm going with True

Um, just one? They should ALL be standing if only floors fell. .

Because you say so?

a reply to: carewemust
Obviously, you can see what some of the posters are up to on 9/11 threads . ALWAYS denying and/or NEGLECTING most if not all evidences presented and yet their "evidence" is truth and yours is bs, or saying " well, prove it to me" when you already linked to... or " a blatant lie".
Some people have some growing up to do still... or have some other ideas... guess which one it is...

Makes me laugh when people fall for that kind of stuff.
Btw, I'm the type who would call a spade a spade...

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: carewemust
Obviously, you can see what some of the posters are up to on 9/11 threads . ALWAYS denying and/or NEGLECTING most if not all evidences presented and yet their "evidence" is truth and yours is bs, or saying " well, prove it to me" when you already linked to... or " a blatant lie".
Some people have some growing up to do still... or have some other ideas... guess which one it is...

Makes me laugh when people fall for that kind of stuff.
Btw, I'm the type who would call a spade a spade...

Ok. Then provide credible proof the WTC was brought down by one of the below truth movement “theories”, more like pseudoscience fantasies.....
-fizzle no flash bombs
-thermite paint
-thermite ceiling tiles
-holograms with missiles and or lasers
-nuclear bombs in the bed rock
-dustificatin

The truth movement, a bunch of hacks and charlatans.

Again, has nothing to do with fire related collapse being the official narrative. It has everything to do with the WTC controlled demolition having zero evidence.

For the twin towers, there is video of the WTC columns bowing inward then buckling to initiate collapse.

By all means, provide the video showing WTC columns actual being cut to initiate collapse.

a reply to: openedeyesandears

Please go in to detail on what caused the Twin Towers to collapse. What do you think is the most credible truth movement fantasy?

a reply to: carewemust

It's just impossible for it not to be a controlled demolition. How does a plane fire weaken the crucial points for the buildings to fall. There were survivors at point of plane impact. There's no way it would cause a buildings crucial structural points to weaken. Also, if one plane got lucky to weaken the crucial points on the building, it would be nearly impossible for the second plane to do so.

Why does a fire so high up cause the entire building to collapse? I mean maybe a partial collapse, but the whole thing? No way, just not possible.

How the hell did those arabs find the twin towers? Doesn't seem likely they just looked out the plane window. It's really hard to pilot a jet liner like that.

Basically, there were TOO MANY PERFECT EVENTS:

1 - the muslims just happened to be expert pilots, better than real pilots (even real pilots would have a hard time pulling this off -- let alone twice -- yet two inexperienced muslims did so within minutes of each other)

2 - muslims in both planes found the twin towers from cockpit view (kinda hard to find landmarks like that up from the sky and having narrow view from cockpit)

3 - muslims managed to expertly crash both planes into the twin towers (it's a really chaotic ride down, you would really have to understand how a plane descends, to perfectly nail this ... twice [it would be a miracle if one muslim pilot pulled it off, but two muslim pilots within minutes of each other? ... not possible])

4 - BOTH the twin towers magically fell in perfect downfall when no fire ever brought a building like that down, but this happened TWICE in one day. It would make sense if one tower partially fell over to the side, but BOTH fell down in perfect freefall. WTF?

5 - tower 7 magically fell in perfect demolition ... why the hell did it fall? It was nowhere near tower 1 or tower 2

a reply to: EraTera2

Have you even examined any close up photos of the impact zones in the towers? The amount of damage was immense.

Also the towers structural integrity came from the exoskeleton and the inner core.

The building were not a solid mass and the connections are not made to withstand a kinetic downward load of such force and mass.

It really is that simple. The buildings were subjected to forces outside of their design specifications and to be honest it is quite a engineering feat that they stood standing for that long.

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: EraTera2

Have you even examined any close up photos of the impact zones in the towers? The amount of damage was immense.

Also the towers structural integrity came from the exoskeleton and the inner core.

The building were not a solid mass and the connections are not made to withstand a kinetic downward load of such force and mass.

It really is that simple. The buildings were subjected to forces outside of their design specifications and to be honest it is quite a engineering feat that they stood standing for that long.

The people who designed the twin towers -- accounted for planes crashing into them. I remember reading the docs. Maybe the planes got a little bigger since then, but it still doesn't explain the entire building collapse.

The amount of damage could not have been that immense, if a 9/11 official TV documentary video described live survivors at point of plane impact.

Even if the building was not a solid mass, it doesn't explain why the entire thing fell. If anything were to "fall" it would have been just the top parts, but not the whole thing.

Even if the towers structural integrity came from exoskeleton or inner core, the planes flew into the top parts of the buildings, it doesn't explain how this weakened the crucial lower points for the building to fall.

a reply to: EraTera2

You ignore the effects of fire.
Have you forgotten the expressway that collapsed a few years back?
It was burning wood underneath that weakened the steel.
Down she came.
There are many examples of steel warped by fire.
It's well known that fire fighters will not enter a burning Walmart type building due to roof collapse.

Yes the designer claimed the buildings could withstand a direct hit from an airplane.
But he did not say they could withstand both planes and thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel.

This whole topic has been beat to death for 19 years.
You have no more proof than the previous 100 keyboard warriors.

a reply to: EraTera2

Really.

One. The collapse of the towers were initiated at the areas of the jet impacts. The impacts and fires made it impossible for any CD system to initiate the collapse of the towers as witnessed and recorded.

Two. The remaining floor trusses in the area of jet impacts heated up. The floor trusses still boxed in by the core columns and outer vertical columns tried to expand while being heated. With no room to expand, the floor trusses were forced to bow downward or droop.

Three. The drooping floor trusses cooled and contracted, pulled on the out columns to result in inward bowing. See video in link below.

www.metabunk.org/the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Four. The bowing became great enough the outer columns buckled. This resulted in the building above the areas of the jet impacts falling into the building below.

Five, the falling upper portion of the buildings stripped and sheared floor connections from vertical columns as the growing falling mass crashed through the floor systems.

Six, the core columns fell after the collapse of the floor systems.

Seven. The twin towers did no fall through the path of greatest resistance. The path of least resistance was through the floor system connections. The core columns only toppled once the lateral support of the floor systems were destroyed.

Eight. I can link to video of columns bowing inward and buckling. Please post video of columns being cut to initiate collapse.

Nine. There is zero evidence of columns cut to initiate collapse at the WTC. No evidence in the video, audio, nor the seismic record. No evidence of a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. No demolition shrapnel recovered from near by buildings, the street, cars, from the human remains, not from the injured.

Example: Royal Canberra Hospital implosion.

INQUEST INTO THE DEATH OF KATIE BENDER ON 13TH JULY 1997
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

www.courts.act.gov.au...

The fragment travelled approximately 430 metres at subsonic speed and struck Katie Bender about 3.1 seconds after it was launched killing her instantly. The fragment broke into a shape that could be expected when an explosive charge is placed against steel backing plates and columns in the fashion used by the explosive subcontractor, Mr. Rod McCracken of Controlled Blasting Services. The impact velocity, calculated by Dr.. A. Krstic of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Department of Defence, Salisbury, South Australia was 128 – 130 metres per second. The associated kinetic energy was 8.172 kilojoules.

originally posted by: EraTera2
a reply to: carewemust

It's just impossible for it not to be a controlled demolition. How does a plane fire weaken the crucial points for the buildings to fall. There were survivors at point of plane impact. There's no way it would cause a buildings crucial structural points to weaken. Also, if one plane got lucky to weaken the crucial points on the building, it would be nearly impossible for the second plane to do so.

Why does a fire so high up cause the entire building to collapse? I mean maybe a partial collapse, but the whole thing? No way, just not possible.

How the hell did those arabs find the twin towers? Doesn't seem likely they just looked out the plane window. It's really hard to pilot a jet liner like that.

Basically, there were TOO MANY PERFECT EVENTS:

1 - the muslims just happened to be expert pilots, better than real pilots (even real pilots would have a hard time pulling this off -- let alone twice -- yet two inexperienced muslims did so within minutes of each other)

2 - muslims in both planes found the twin towers from cockpit view (kinda hard to find landmarks like that up from the sky and having narrow view from cockpit)

3 - muslims managed to expertly crash both planes into the twin towers (it's a really chaotic ride down, you would really have to understand how a plane descends, to perfectly nail this ... twice [it would be a miracle if one muslim pilot pulled it off, but two muslim pilots within minutes of each other? ... not possible])

4 - BOTH the twin towers magically fell in perfect downfall when no fire ever brought a building like that down, but this happened TWICE in one day. It would make sense if one tower partially fell over to the side, but BOTH fell down in perfect freefall. WTF?

5 - tower 7 magically fell in perfect demolition ... why the hell did it fall? It was nowhere near tower 1 or tower 2

Way to go mate, I couldn't have said it better

a reply to: openedeyesandears

the muslims just happened to be expert pilots, better than real pilots (even real pilots would have a hard time pulling this off -- let alone twice -- yet two inexperienced muslims did so within minutes of each other)

It takes an expert to crash a jet already up in the air by flying the jet straight into some of the tallest buildings in New York at the waters edge?

Is it false the 9/11 pilots had flight training, and some of them actually had a pilots license?

2 - muslims in both planes found the twin towers from cockpit view (kinda hard to find landmarks like that up from the sky and having narrow view from cockpit)

What? Again hard to find some of New York’s tallest building at the edge of the ocean? From a cockpit used to help visually line up on runways?

3 - muslims managed to expertly crash both planes into the twin towers (it's a really chaotic ride down, you would really have to understand how a plane descends, to perfectly nail this ... twice [it would be a miracle if one muslim pilot pulled it off, but two muslim pilots within minutes of each other? ... not possible])

Or use their flight training to level the jets out over the shorter building in New York to fly straight into the tallest buildings in New York.

4 - BOTH the twin towers magically fell in perfect downfall when no fire ever brought a building like that down, but this happened TWICE in one day. It would make sense if one tower partially fell over to the side, but BOTH fell down in perfect freefall. WTF?

How many steel structures minimizing concrete usage are hit with jets on the same day taking out core and vertical columns with sprinkle systems damaged by jet impacts?

And the towers did not “fell in perfect downfall”

5 - tower 7 magically fell in perfect demolition ... why the hell did it fall? It was nowhere near tower 1 or tower 2

However, WTC 7 was damaged by the collapse of the twins towers and caught fire because of flaming debris. And WTC 7 also had no fire water, and minimized concrete usage.