Explosions underneath the WTC Towers b4 they collapsed

NeedTruth
How can you dismiss the fact that a supposed 'Christian' president partakes in a function that contains strong pagean undertones and pass it off as a frat-boy get together. I dont know of any real 'Christians' that would or are in any gathering of the sort. I know for a fact that if I were to sneak into an area that Alex did and saw what he saw, I would sound a little paranoid also. I would think it was kind of shocking to find out our supposed 'Christian' president partakes in Santanic rituals.

Thank you NeedTruth..

I know we all fall short of the Glory but let me tell you... I find it AMAZING how so many of my Christian brothers are so gullible and are STILL buying into Bush being a "Christian". Out of one side of Bush's mouth he refuses to denounce his past and continued involvement with skull and bones let alone bohemian grove yet out of the other side of his mouth he calls himself a "Christian".

I have a freindly warning for president Bush and anyone else playing the "wolf in sheep's clothing game".. You are NOT a Christian, and areunder a strong dilusion. Just like the rest of us, you will face the Creator Himself in judgement and I promise you, you will be held to the highest accountability mainly because of the position you held while you perpetrated your iniquity and the end result of this judgement will, I promise you, leave you in shock and awe. Also, calling yourself a "Christian" while refusing to denounce your ties with skull and bones? This is laughable.

SOO.. To all the Piankas and the globalists and the Hitler wanna' bes and any other evil person that has there back turned on God.. Your end is not what you think it's going to be and the trap that you are trying to set in the name of the anti christ spirit is going to snap shut on YOU instead. So enjoy this life while you have it because it's ALL your going to have.



[edit on 23-7-2006 by TxSecret]

A reminder folks.


The topic of this discussion is:

"Explosions underneath the WTC Towers b4 they collapsed"

Please keep your contributions On-Topic.


Thank you

I can hear Sound Gardens"Jesus Christ Pose"in my head ,or just my Ipod!No offense Mr Mod!Yes there were "eplosions" under the WTC towers.Were they right before the collapse?No!!!!The largest explosions were heard soon after contact with Jetliners.Not right before the implosions.CD uses large detonation right before implosion on ground floors.Not an hour ahead of time with ,an hours worth of charges being set off.Also they go bottom to top in CD's.Not top to bottom on implosion!Like the WTC Buildings.

"These Are Not The Droids You're Looking For"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 23-7-2006 by Duhh]

My appologies 12m8XXX..

That's a nerve easily struck. Back on topic.. Anyone have anything to say about what I just gassed on about.. (Before my last post)

I mean.. let's say the towers collapse just like the 'official' report said that did.. How on earth did a core system consiting of 47 rather LARGE CONNECTED box collumns just give in? To pancaking? Sorry.. I'm not buying into that one. In my not so humble opinion, if the damage from the planes (supposed starting point, localized damage) is what caused the "complete collapse" then the structure underneath the bulding should have stayed intact and there should have been a partial collapse. I can envision some or all of the uppers floors collapsing and then falling off 'around' the core.. kinda' like a spindle. (Remember, the core system was MUCH stronger than the perimeter structure) Why did this not happen? Lot's of conflicting information I have gotten regarding the construction of WTC 1 and 2 but one thing remains consistent.. The 'core' of the towers was designed to hold up most of the weight of the building while the 'perimeter' was designed to withstand lateral loads such as wind (and plane strikes ) with limited ability to hold up the building. (I believe the perimeter structer did INDEED hold up the buildings momentarity after the core was knocked out from underneath the tower.


Just my thoughts..




[edit on 23-7-2006 by TxSecret]

Originally posted by TxSecret
I'm not buying into that one. In my not so humble opinion, if the damage from the planes (supposed starting point, localized damage) is what caused the "complete collapse" then the structure underneath the bulding should have stayed intact and there should have been a partial collapse. I can envision some or all of the uppers floors collapsing and then falling off 'around' the core.. kinda' like a spindle. (Remember, the core system was MUCH stronger than the perimeter structure) Why did this not happen? Lot's of conflicting information I have gotten regarding the

Except that "engineers" understand the transfer of the load! You do not! Simple as that.The explosion early on in the towers,right down the elev shaft,weakened the main shaft at it's basement core.The mass never fell "straight down" it hit every thing there was!That mass forcing down on a weakened shaft,will crush it with ease.The strength of that support was knocked to less than 20% all over.Not hard to see!

Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 7/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Duhh
Except that "engineers" understand the transfer of the load! You do not! Simple as that.The explosion early on in the towers,right down the elev shaft,weakened the main shaft at it's basement core.The mass never fell "straight down" it hit every thing there was!That mass forcing down on a weakened shaft,will crush it with ease.The strength of that support was knocked to less than 20% all over.Not hard to see!

well, duhh...

are YOU an 'engineer'? (no)
when an engineer weighs in, do you bow down to his expertise? (no, unless it's a government shill)
do you 'see' what percentage of weakening a building undergoes by looking at it? (no, not even engineers can do that)

if your scenario of the FIREBALL weakening the shaft is true, why didn't NIST put it in their 'exhaustive' (NOT!) report? if it's not in the report, why are you preaching your PURE SPECULATION, like it's the gospel?

these are of course, rhetorical questions, because i know who you are, "Common Sense", and i know that it is your JOB to LIE about 911.

just put a link to your HIGHLY ILLOGICAL site, 'debunking911.com' as a 'rebuttal'.

bye for now, 'arthurs'.

the 9/11 eyewitness video is the only unedited footage where you can clearly hear 4 massive explosions before the collapse begins. Its documented and anaylised very well.

video.google.com...

It was filmed across the water at hobboken waterfront, which was a great position to capture the sub frequency sound waves generated by the explosions.

This is sort of interesting for those who choose to read it, view the movies too:

www.prisonplanet.com...

Insolubrious,

That's an awesome video. I had only seen parts of it but now after seeing the whole thing... wow.

The most interesting thing about this video is how they corolated the seismographic data with the video of the buildings collapsing. WOW. I'm just in awe over how this damning evidence keeps getting dismised. (In emphasis.. the peaks well BEFORE the towers collapsed)

Concerning the seismographic data, particularly at -17 seconds.. I'm still trying to rationalize if it was indeed some actual explosive itself or was it thermite induced 'explosive failure' of box collumns in the core.

I'm so tired of the lies, ignorance and obfuscation surrounding this whole thing.. When will the truth come out?

[edit on 5-8-2006 by TxSecret]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by DaRAGE
JEt fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel. But how about bending the steel? Or making it weaker?

What part of 1.2 BILION BTUs don?t you understand?

I will grant you that it is an estimate based on assumptions and ideal conditions, but still, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel produces enough heat to push an airplane across the continental U.S.

And If I see one more person post ?Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel,? I will reach though my monitor, out theirs, and beat some sense into them with a high school chemistry/ physics textbook.

How about the jet fuel being burnt up so quickly?
Like in the explosion...?

Do you honestly believe that the fireball from the impact was 10,000 gallons of jet fuel burning up all at once?

My guess is that the fire ball was caused by a couple hundred, gallons of vaporized fuel, no more than 1,000 gallons max, any more any you would be looking at a massive fuel air explosion. The fireball was big, but it wasn?t that big.

Where is your theory and proof that jet fuel can melt steel, the planes were using special jp-4 developed to not have a a massive fuel air explosion has been used for a long time. What theory are you using to base your opinion on a guess. 10,000 galoons can push a plane across the us in what basis does this impact on the fuel burning in the towers and causing it too fall. The buildings had two steel cores unlike any thing in the world, but it still fell as fast as dropping a rock from the top, a free fall and there were fire balls coming from the edge on every floor
that had to be the bic lighters everyone had also right. Something happened on 911 and no one has the answer right. I have to feel that some type of explosion occurred for that to happen and what about the people that were waving out of the impact site on the building asking for help before it fell. I bet they should have been fried if the fuel was hot enough to melt the steel supports.

Originally posted by TxSecret
Insolubrious,

That's an awesome video. I had only seen parts of it but now after seeing the whole thing... wow.

Indeed it is, anyone who hasn't seen it should. I believe its actually a very important video since the rest of the footage (mostly captured by major news networks and the likes) are cropped in size and length, and also tend to have any original audio muted and replaced with commentary... Still when is anything we see on the news and tv not edited :-)

Concerning the seismographic data, particularly at -17 seconds.. I'm still trying to rationalize if it was indeed some actual explosive itself or was it thermite induced 'explosive failure' of box collumns in the core.

[edit on 5-8-2006 by TxSecret]

I don't really buy into the thermite cutter charge theories, although i do believe its highly likely thermite was present due to a natural reaction from the buildings rust and the aluminum from the plane. I am not entirely sure but wouldnt it to be too difficult, troublesome and even unreliable to achieve and set it all up in the power down time frame at wtc in the weeks leading up to 9/11? I dont think its entirely realistic expectations even for a highly organised criminal gang with the resources to do so.

I do believe however some type of explosives were used, and i am quite enclinded to believe it was along the lines of a mini hydrogen bomb/s as it offers quite a logical and simple explaination to many of the unknown factors around the collapse. There is much evidence to suggest so. I don't have time to type it out here so you need to check it out for yourself, here is a good place to start:
www.saunalahti.fi...

and for those of you who havent seen the 9/11 eyewitness video I suggest you watch it now:
video.google.com...

I found this other interesting little video just the other day, WMD at WTC.. new video coming out on (guess when) september(!)..


video.google.co.uk...