WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Anyways, if you want a response, and proof, it is quite simple.

When there is a fire going on in a building it is not the leasholder who makes decisions as when to pull anything...it is the chief firefighter who makes that decision.... That's why i keep saying that it was probably the chief firefighter and other first responder advisors who said to pull out...




posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
............
Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2] Molten steel was also found at 7 WTC
Burning diesel can't produce enough heat to melt steel, so it certainly can't evaporate it, but thermite can

.............


There were no melted pools of steel found....that's another lie that i keep reading around as if it was proof that something else happened that day....where is the proof? where are the photos in groundzero of these pools of melted steel?.... We all saw videos of the rubble, i don't remember seeing any melted pools of steel....


BTW...melted steel does not stay in a liquid form for weeks unless it is kept in a fire hot enough to keep it melted.... That statement alone should be telling people this is just a lie...

Where are the photos, and or video of groundzero with the melted pools of steel?.... Where is the proof and the reports?... At least one of the news media outlets would have shown evidence of this... where is this evidence?


[edit on 17-6-2005 by Muaddib]


SMR

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
What!?
No melted steel found?Even that lame FEMA report stated that.Nobody said it was still in liquid form either.There were signs of molten steel found.

I was involved in the big San Diego fires in 03' and we had 3 jet ski's burn.All that was left were the fibergalss outlines of the ski's along WITH dried up melted aluminum from the engines.It wasnt in liquid form anymore, but evidence that it was once in liquid form was seen.I have the pieces still, well chucks anyway since the 'pools' were about 8ft long each.

So, just because they found molten steel doesnt mean it was still in liquid form.Just that evidence that it was once in liquid form was seen.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
HowardRoark, how do you explain the speed at which the two towers fell?

One of the towers collapsed in 8 seconds. Thats the speed of free fall with no air resistance. If the tower's floors pancaked on each other wouldnt you expect the floors to cause atleast some resistance? Thus slowing down the fall considerably longer than that of a free falling object from the same height in the absence of air.


How do you know that the tower fell in 8 seconds? Did you see it fall the whole way or was it obscured by dust?

I think that it can be safely said that portions of the exterior walls fell outward and downward with no resistance from anything because they were falling though the air. The same with the dust. While much of the finer dust particles remained suspended, the heavier stuff fell along with the heavy building debris that fell outward.

So, If you are timing the fall of the tower by looking at the speed at which the dust and debris falls to the ground, then of course it will fall in the shortest possible time. There is nothing to impede the descent of the heavy clouds of debris, because they are falling outside the building envelope. Since the dusts effectively obscures the actual decent of the rest of the building, you really can't say for sure exactly hoe long it takes to fall.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Given that there was strong evidence that the aluminum form the plane and the facade melted.

Since the jet fuel spilled down the elevator shafts, I wouldn't be surprized that the molten aluminum did also.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Given that there was strong evidence that the aluminum form the plane and the facade melted.

Since the jet fuel spilled down the elevator shafts, I wouldn't be surprized that the molten aluminum did also.


if ("table_of_mendeljev") = true
{
molten aluminium != molten steel
}

(ps: "!=" means "not equal")

[edit on 17-6-2005 by thematrix]


SMR

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix

if ("table_of_mendeljev") = true
{
molten aluminium != molten steel
}

(ps: "!=" means "not equal")

[edit on 17-6-2005 by thematrix]

I wish I could agree, but I have no idea what in hell that means

Is that like PHP+REBUTTAL=YOUR WRONG? type of code?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Can you actually provide a direct link to this FEMA document where they talk about melted pools of steel?

BTW subz, are you now going to tell us that you are an expert and that the WTC shouldn't have fallen as fast, or as slow as it did?.....so what some invisible hand was pushing down, or up the towers as they fell?.... oooh boy....



[edit on 17-6-2005 by Muaddib]


SMR

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I can only find PDF links to catagories of FEMA report.Located here
Here is something that might tie you over....

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.
Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site.
Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself “the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures.”

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.
AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.

“Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.”
Read it all here - AFP link



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   
damn guys , I can't believe how much confusion there is about

the term pullit and what silverstein meant ! I suppose a face to face or video conference [ with a moderator ] might have cleared things up a bit

and the steel that was found to have been melted ! wtf ? no red flags there ?

bottom line to me is , silverstein said it...and .it inferrs a planned demo

and the melted steel just adds more weight to suspicions I already had


and the gov'ts unwillingness to address the issues and waiving proper forensics adds even more guilt

I'm not even concerned about those rationales given about insulation having flaked off and all that crap . I'd look at that info AFTER ;

they address the melted steel !

they address pulling wtc7

they won't...



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   
SMR...you are giving a link to the whole report...you are not excerpting and giving a reference to the exact place in the document where the pools of steel are referenced... You are making the claim, you have to show the evidence....

I don't even trust the second site you gave, who in the heck would be monitoring exactly after and before the twin towers fell and corroborate that the "spikes" happened before the towers fell?....

If i remember correctly, the deal with the "spikes" has been already covered in these forums and debunked already by at least one other member. Sorry to dampen your fun, but you have not provided any proof, and neither does the site you gave...

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by toasted
.............
they address the melted steel !

they address pulling wtc7

they won't...




If they do not address those the anwser is quite simple.... because none of those things took place.... If anything, it is possible that aluminum was melted...but not steel...
indeed....



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:23 AM
link   
BTW...one more thing which you obviously have not thought about....explosives do not burn indefinetely, or have enough immediate burning power to melt steel.... unless there is an atomic explosion....are you telling us there was an atomic explosion at the WTC now?....
The only metal that could have melted at the WTC is aluminum.

One more thing, you should have said melted steel and not molten steel, as in the latest the steel retains its liquid form because of a source of intense heat energy... so when you said tehre was molten steel for weeks you were claming that the steel was in it's liquid form for weeks...


[edit on 18-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 04:06 AM
link   
r we playing word games now ? molten vs melted ? oh c'mon....

and , HAD TO of been, aluminum ?

why ?

if thermite was used as suggested , melting steel supports a few inches

may have have been enuf to initiate a collapse , eh ?

I still dunno, but too much important info has just been glossed over in

favor of those creative rationales for why it went down. flaked off insulation/fuel/etc

I did hear an interesting twist to the "PULLING" of wtc7 ,

was that the bldg housed weapons and explosives, and may have been

prewired in case of a national emergency/disaster, in which case, that

would relieve the diabolical perpetration part of this disaster.

there are lots of variables , and we're all coming to conclusions/speculating

based on a partial list of possibilities



I think we are getting closer tho...FWIW...

did anyone hear the round table discussion , coast to coast ? calm guests, raving guests, new info , old info...it was thought provoking and at times a bit maddening..

I only heard part of it, I'll have to return to the website and copy the whole show. anyone ?



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Can you actually provide a direct link to this FEMA document where they talk about melted pools of steel?

BTW subz, are you now going to tell us that you are an expert and that the WTC shouldn't have fallen as fast, or as slow as it did?.....so what some invisible hand was pushing down, or up the towers as they fell?.... oooh boy....

Listen you cretin. Any one that has done high school physics can tell you how a body falls due to gravity.

You dont need to be a damn expert to know how a building that collapses should fall. It should fall a lot slower than a free falling object in a vacuum!

If the building pancake collapsed then all that concrete and steel would severely impede its fall! It couldnt fall to the ground in 8 seconds if there was any resistance whatsoever. I'd call the compression of concrete, steel, people, furniture and rubble "resistance".

If the floor directly below the collapsing section had to compress/pancake before the next floor underneath compressed (simple physics here Muaddib) then the time take for it to fall would be much longer than a free falling object in a vacuum.

Now if the building didnt have to pancake its floors to fall down (i.e. the supporting beams were blown up in sequence) it is possible for it to collapse faster than a free falling body. Because it didnt collapse from a free fall after all!

The only sound explanation that doesnt flout the LAWS OF PHYSICS is that it was demolished. Physics is incontrovertible and you can try your slimey spin manouvers as much as you like with this fact.

8 seconds for a building to collapse of the height of the WTC is impossible! P E R I O D



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Listen you cretin. Any one that has done high school physics can tell you how a body falls due to gravity.

You dont need to be a damn expert to know how a building that collapses should fall. It should fall a lot slower than a free falling object in a vacuum!


If a portion of the building's exterior walls broke free and fell on the outside of the building envelope as the collapse progressed, then those portions would have fallen in free fall, would they have not?

If the density of the debris that fell outside of the building was a continuous spectrum from solid chunks of steel and concrete to extremely fine dust, then one would expect that the front of the debris cloud that fell outside the building would be falling at the speed of free fall. Since this debris cloud obscured the actual progress of the collapse, you have no real proof on how long it actually took the building to fall, now do you, genius?



If the building pancake collapsed then all that concrete and steel would severely impede its fall! It couldnt fall to the ground in 8 seconds if there was any resistance whatsoever. I'd call the compression of concrete, steel, people, furniture and rubble "resistance".


You do realize, that the building is 97% air, don't you?


If the floor directly below the collapsing section had to compress/pancake before the next floor underneath compressed (simple physics here Muaddib) then the time take for it to fall would be much longer than a free falling object in a vacuum.


Compress what? the air? what are you talking about?

Once the first floor collapsed, there was nothing to stop it until it impacted the floor slab below it. at that point, the floor would only offer resistance until it's failure point was reached. Since this point would only be a small fraction of the energy hitting it, the impact of the first floor would only deter the falling mass slightly, thus when the falling mass hit the second floor, it not only had the energy of the 12 foot drop, but it also had the additional left over energy from the first 12 feet, and so on and so on. By the time 5 or 6 floors had failed, the downward energy would have been so much greater than the resistance that the resistance would have quickly become trivial.

A further consideration has to be given to the construction of the building. It is apparent from the photographs that as the buildings collapsed, the exterior walls peeled outward like a banana. This is due in large part to the unique structural design of the building.

The outward pressure of the falling mass on the exterior walls pushed the walls away from the floors, breaking the connections even before the falling mass hit the floors.


Now if the building didnt have to pancake its floors to fall down (i.e. the supporting beams were blown up in sequence) it is possible for it to collapse faster than a free falling body. Because it didnt collapse from a free fall after all!


Man, that is another good sig worthy line, since it makes no sense at all.


The only sound explanation that doesnt flout the LAWS OF PHYSICS is that it was demolished. Physics is incontrovertible and you can try your slimey spin manouvers as much as you like with this fact.

8 seconds for a building to collapse of the height of the WTC is impossible! P E R I O D


Again like I posted above, you have no definite proof that the building collapsed in 8 seconds. You can prove that the exterior debris took 8 seconds or so to fall, but what would that prove, since that is exactly what physics tells us should have happened.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Given that there was strong evidence that the aluminum form the plane and the facade melted.

Since the jet fuel spilled down the elevator shafts, I wouldn't be surprized that the molten aluminum did also.


if ("table_of_mendeljev") = true
{
molten aluminium != molten steel
}


So what happened to the melted aluminum then?
(ps: "!=" means "not equal")

[edit on 17-6-2005 by thematrix]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Listen you cretin. Any one that has done high school physics can tell you how a body falls due to gravity.


Lay off the freaking insults already....unless that's the only argument you can come up with which should already have given you at least a warning.....

You need more than "high school physics" to proclaim that you are an expert and to demand that because you know "high school physics" that you are a better expert than real architects and real civil engineers.....

What kind of degree do you have to proclaim that you know any better and that the building should have fallen at a slower pace?....


Originally posted by subz
You dont need to be a damn expert to know how a building that collapses should fall. It should fall a lot slower than a free falling object in a vacuum!


Yes, you do need to be an expert to know the physics behind a building subz.....if it were up to you high school kids, only with high school physics, should be able to build any sound and safe structure/buildings huh?....


Originally posted by subz
If the building pancake collapsed then all that concrete and steel would severely impede its fall! It couldnt fall to the ground in 8 seconds if there was any resistance whatsoever. I'd call the compression of concrete, steel, people, furniture and rubble "resistance".


What is your experience in the construction and the physics behind buildings?....

You are trying to bring doubt only with your own dellusion that something else must have caused the WTC to fall at a faster pace just because you proclaim that with your high chool physics you know any better...


Originally posted by subz
8 seconds for a building to collapse of the height of the WTC is impossible! P E R I O D


Really?...again i ask, what are your credentials to make such a statement?.... what degrees and experience do you have that makes you an expert in this topic?.....


[edit on 18-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   


American Free Press has learned of pools of “molten steel” found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic “spikes” at the beginning of each collapse.

These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse.

In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of “literally molten steel” were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.


www.americanfreepress.net...

This source is not nearly used enough. The American Free Press is a great website by the way.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
................
This source is not nearly used enough. The American Free Press is a great website by the way.


Where is the proof in that website?....

If it is not used more frequently is because they do not post proof, they just bring doubt and make proclamations that they do not corroborate in any way.


I would trust India Daily more than that website. Which in itself speaks volumes because i have come to realize that India Daily is not really a trustworthy source. Even thou sometimes they do post real news.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join