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

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
OK, now to see an image from the document actually referenced. I have no idea where your's came from HowardRoark.


Notice the two lines demarcating the first and second collapse. You see the two BIG spikes preceding the recorded time for the collapse? Let's raise a couple flags there.



Hey Jamuhn, Look again.

Those big spikes don't "precede" the collapses, they ARE the collapses.

Those big spikes are the same signals as is shown in red in the inset of that figure above. Those big spikes are the same signals that I posted previously. Those big spikes are the same signals that are shown in figures 3 and 4 of the above refrenced report.

The only difference is that the amplitude and the time scales of the signals were rescaled to show the details of the acutual signal.

Go back to figure 3 and 4 of the above refrenced report, do you see any "Spike" preceding the signal for the collapse?

No. Because there is none!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a maroon.



Look again at the figure above. do you see the little scale on the left side that reads 0-1600 nm/s?

Look at the big spikes again. how big are those based on that scale?

Look ar the red lines in the inset diagrams that show the details of the impact trace and the collapse trace. Do you see the notes 273 nm/s and 4545 nm/s?

Those are the actual amplitudes of those signals.




Let me repeat it one more time so that it is perfectly clear:

Those big spikes are the signals generated by the collapses of the buildings.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by HowardRoark]




posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Thank you HowardRoark for the graphs and the info.

I voted you for the Way Above award.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
oops, double post

[edit on 19-6-2005 by HowardRoark]


SMR

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Muaddib,
Regardless of where the article is, the interview was conducted by someone who was there.Nothing false about that interview.Even if it came from some geek's blog on the net, it is an interview done by someone who was there.

If that article were to have been done on CNN, FOX, or some other site, perhaps one that you find legit, would the article then be taken for every word? I think it would because that is how some of you work.If the URL of a site looks to be some hack site, rense for example, people just say they are full of crap.
Most of these sites that have this content get it from what members like yourself would call reputable.

On the FEMA report issue.There really is no way I can link to a particualr part in a PDF file, you should know this.Though I will say that I think I got that part wrong.As I have not gone through it all, it may be that I remember seeing that 'molten' issue in the 9/11 commision report.Again, I could be wrong there, but it was in one of those.

Point is, it was noted in one of these 'official' reports and then plastered all over news and informations sites, including 9/11 sites.
I think what most of you are looking for is the words straight from the horses mouth right in your face.But then who knows, you still probably wouldnt believe it.

I gave you a link to an interview by someone contracted to do cleanup and you dont except it.That is not my fault and I dont know what else you want.Perhaps a recorded telephone or video interview would suffice?



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Hey Jamuhn, Look again.
No. Because there is none!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a maroon.


Hey man, no need to get all worked up over this, you'll blow a blood vessel. I just asked for you to explain the graphs to me. I see now that the lines I was confused about were the ones demarcating the 10 minute intervals. There are smaller lines embedded in the spikes noting the accepted time of collapse.

But, to play devil's advocate...There was a +/- 2s degree of error I believe. And if the noted times of collapse were off, well then, those would in fact mark an explosion preceding collapse.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Ok, I appologize for the put downs.

Sorry.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Some one ask about hot spots, this is the best I could find sorry,
it's was only taken by NASA. oh well


Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001

The accompanying maps are false color images that show the core affected area around the World Trade Center.



Five days after the collapse on Sept 16, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) use Airborne Visible / Infrared Imaging Spectrometer ( AVIRIS ) to locate and measure the site's hot spots.

Dozens of hot spots were mapped, the hottest being in the east corner of the South Tower where a temperature of 1,377 degrees F was recorded.
This however, is less than half as hot as the molten steel in the basement.





Fires in the Rubble That Persisted for Months

American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn is the source of a story that "molten steel" was found in the foundations of the Twin Towers and Building 7 weeks after the collapses. According to Bollyn, Steve Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack


Ground Zero's fires still burning

thermal hot spots 911

Letsroll911 Bittorrent -Torrents Services

And From the US Government

FEMA - World Trade Center Building Performance Study

The 9/11 Commission Report Pdf format 585 pages

USGS Spectroscopy Lab
Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center area after the September 11, 2001 attack






[edit on 19/6/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Which proves what, exactly? That there were still fires burning in the rubble 5 days after the collapse?

I don't really see your point. So, what.

The picture from 9/23 only shows a couple of "hot spots" and it is entirely possible that those are related to the clean up activity.

Do you know that there are underground coal fires that have burned for over 100 years?



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Muaddib,
Regardless of where the article is, the interview was conducted by someone who was there.Nothing false about that interview.Even if it came from some geek's blog on the net, it is an interview done by someone who was there.


The only place where we have evidence that this interview took place, and where supposedly this man, who we have no idea if he is who he claims to be, says all these things, is from a site which has theories that have already been debunked....probably the only place you will find that story is from other sites like that one. That is no corroborating evidence.

Those "wild thories" do not stand to reason when thinking them through. They, and you, are claiming that there were pools of hot molten steel which were in that molten state for 5 weeks with no heat source at all, which would have to be strong enough to maintain it that way for weeks....

Then you are claiming that there was a demolition job and that the steel could not have been molten by the fuel from the aircraft, so my guess is that you think your "alledged explosion" was the cause for the steel melting..... That's bs right there, there is no explosive powerful enough to melt steel into "pools of hot molten steel".... It is possible for some of the steel, and alumminum which melts at about 800 degrees, to have melted by the fires, but not to make pools of steel that stay in a molten state for 5 weeks...

The engineering code for buildings require that they can withstand one hour of fire, after that steel weakens if the fire continues, and this compromises the entire structure more so when the fire is that large. Also, in a large fire in a building such as the WTC, the fire is not uniform, but the intensity of the fire varies all over, this creates even more stress on the metal which was also weakened in the initial explosion from the planes crashing into the building. All of the above, plus the weight from the plane and the weight from the floors above the fire made the towers collapse.



Originally posted by SMR
...............
I gave you a link to an interview by someone contracted to do cleanup and you dont except it.That is not my fault and I dont know what else you want.Perhaps a recorded telephone or video interview would suffice?


What you gave is a link to a bs story that does not stands to scrutiny.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by Muaddib]


SMR

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   
How is it BS? Because of the URL it is at? I rest my case. Because it is not at a URL that suites you, it is concidered BS.
I really doubt it is lies since a persons name was used.You cant just type a real persons name and company and tell lies.Create a false story.There are repercussions you know.I am quite sure they can be busted for such.

I dont think I will ever be able to show you what you want to see.I give links and articles, yet they are not good enough for YOU.
I have been given articles that show I have been wrong in some areas and I correct myself.I admit when I am wrong and it shows in my posts.
All the info you need for what we have been talking about is right in this topic.It is you who needs to read them carefully as I did and come to your conclusion.Perhaps you already have and we just differ in what happened.

I though do not have a blind eye.I do not try and tell myself there is a reasonable explanation the entire time when in reality, it isnt there anymore.

Forgot to add:



That's bs right there, there is no explosive powerful enough to melt steel into "pools of hot molten steel"....

Are you SURE about that?
Ever heard of Thermite?
Thermite [from Thermit, a trade name], mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide. When ignited it gives off large amounts of heat. In wartime it has been used in incendiary bombs. A method for welding using thermite (invented by Dr. Hans Goldschmidt, a German chemist) is variously called the Goldschmidt process, the thermit process, or the aluminothermic process; it is used in welding large parts, e.g., castings, shafts, pipes, and steel rails. In the process the thermite, contained in a crucible, is ignited, e.g., by a strip of burning magnesium ribbon. The aluminum reduces the iron oxide to molten iron and forms a slag of aluminum oxide on its surface. The reaction is very exothermic; temperatures above 2,500°C (4,500°F) are often reached. Typically, the molten iron is poured into the joint to be welded, providing both heat for fusion and filler metal. Excess metal may be removed when the weld cools. Because thermite reacts with explosive violence once ignited, it cannot be heated as a mass to its kindling temperature (about 1,550°C/2,800°F); Goldschmidt was first to find a method for igniting thermite without explosion. He used a similar method to prepare various metals, e.g., chromium, manganese, and uranium, from their oxides.

A thermite reaction provides a credible explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction) found in the collapsed buildings.
Ever heard of Cordite?
Put the 2 together and it is very possible.Steel melts at 1500°C (2700°F)

[edit on 20-6-2005 by SMR]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   
The following quote is snipped from www.wnbc.com...
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.
Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.
Various links can be found to the following quote by NBC Reporter Pat Dawson, from the morning of 9-11:
...The Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York told me that...er...he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact was, he thinks, may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building...er... so that's what we have been told by...erm...Albert Turi who is the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he told me that just moments ago.
Food for thought?



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   
I want to commend some of you for your efforts to educate here. You are fighting an impossible battle against those ignorant of common sense.

SMR, Sauron etc. Thanks for your contributions and dont feel too bad about how some users here have responded. If they dont like what they are being told i.e. their government is lying to them. They will viciously lash out and try to debunk you with increasingly irational arguments.

I actually dont blame them really. I wish our governments were not responsible for 9/11 and other attrocities as well. If all the debunking could change the fact that we have the Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads then I probably would be doing it as well. But, alas, denials of bare faced proof only strengthens those truly responsible for these acts.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by anila
The following quote is snipped from www.wnbc.com...
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.
Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.
Various links can be found to the following quote by NBC Reporter Pat Dawson, from the morning of 9-11:
...The Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York told me that...er...he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact was, he thinks, may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building...er... so that's what we have been told by...erm...Albert Turi who is the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he told me that just moments ago.
Food for thought?



Please note the use of the word "speculates". This was being said AS EVENTS WERE OCCURING so they were under a lot of stress, and reacting to what was going on around them. There could be other reasons for secondary explosions in a fire. A jet engine after a crash of this type could keep running after impact, and overheat and explode. All of a sudden you have a secondary explosion. There's no evidence either way that I've seen. There has been lots of "speculation" (there's that word again) but I haven't seen anything to sway me from the official explanation, that jetfuel caused the buildings to come down. It was said that steel melts at 2700F, jetfuel can burn at up to 3000 degrees, and it does NOT burn off in a few seconds when you have the quantities that those aircraft were carrying. And it doesn't have to melt it right away, just weaken it enough so that it warps, and the weight of the building will take care of the rest.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I want to commend some of you for your efforts to educate here. You are fighting an impossible battle against those ignorant of common sense.

SMR, Sauron etc. Thanks for your contributions and dont feel too bad about how some users here have responded. If they dont like what they are being told i.e. their government is lying to them. They will viciously lash out and try to debunk you with increasingly irational arguments.

I actually dont blame them really. I wish our governments were not responsible for 9/11 and other attrocities as well. If all the debunking could change the fact that we have the Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads then I probably would be doing it as well. But, alas, denials of bare faced proof only strengthens those truly responsible for these acts.


So because I don't believe the same thing you do, and disagree with you I'm ignorant of common sense? I haven't lashed out at ANYONE here or used irrational arguments to debunk anything. I have quoted and posted articles that stated what engineers said, and what they think happened in the building. How is that irrational or lashing out?



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Zaphod58, I was not refering to you.

Just as I am opposed to blind acceptance of what the government tells us, I am also opposed to blind acceptance of anything.

If you can debunk something without resorting to abuse and derogatory comments then great. I commend you for that also



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Some of the most reliable information to come out of any big event will surface in the first 24 hours, before spin can take hold.
Here is a web page with several interesting eye witness accounts.
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
such as,
Edmund McNally, WTC 2 victim, 97th floor

Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me.''

Louie Cacchioli, a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.

I have also been told by retired SAC of the Los Angeles FBI Ted Gunderson that firefighters inside the building had called out saying charges were going off, that might explain why the "theory" of a secondary device was being floated by someone who was in a key position of authority.
Nobody has given me a satisfactory answer for the cause of the explosion at this link, www.cyberspaceorbit.com...
notice a tower still standing?



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
anila, see this post.



Originally posted by anila
Nobody has given me a satisfactory answer for the cause of the explosion at this link, www.cyberspaceorbit.com...
notice a tower still standing?


That has been completley debunked as a photoshoped hoax. Notice the break in the roofline of the near "tower" It is an obvious fake. The dust is from the collapse of the south tower.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
How is it BS? Because of the URL it is at? I rest my case. Because it is not at a URL that suites you, it is concidered BS.
I really doubt it is lies since a persons name was used.You cant just type a real persons name and company and tell lies.Create a false story.There are repercussions you know.I am quite sure they can be busted for such.
......................................[edit on 20-6-2005 by SMR]


By reading the story itself a resonable person can see that it is bogus.

Question...if there were pools of steel that lasted for five weeks, how come this man, which we still don't know for sure he exists, didn't take pictures of those "hot pools of molten steel that were in a liquid state for 5 weeks"?....



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
...................
A thermite reaction provides a credible explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction) found in the collapsed buildings.
Ever heard of Cordite?
Put the 2 together and it is very possible.Steel melts at 1500°C (2700°F)

[edit on 20-6-2005 by SMR]


Not really, first off, where is the proof that any thermite was used in the WTC? Second of all the WTC fell not from the bottom up, but from the top to the bottom, precisely from the floors that were directly affected by the plane crash and subsequent explosions/fires from the planes crashing into the building.

Thermite is used for welding, mostly underwater, the thermite would have to be in direct contact with the steel, which the people who were working that day at the WTC would have noticed the exposed steel beams in the tower....

The explosion created by the plane crash would have destroyed the aluminum metal powder and the rust needed to create the reaction from the thermite...

Third of all, the thermite reaction doesn't last for long and wouldn't account for the molten steel staying in that state for 5 weeks.

BTW....thermite reacts when iron oxide (or rust) and aluminum metal powder, melting the iron from the rust.

If you are going to speculate without providing any evidence at all for your theories we might as well claim that invisible lasers were used from space to destroy the wtc....which i have also heard some people have claimed....


[edit on 20-6-2005 by Muaddib]


SMR

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Bogus how? Please tell me why this is bogus?
All you are doing is assuming because of the URL.You choose not to believe it because of that.Let me ask you this.If that article were on CNN, would you them believe it, or still not because you REFUSE to?

You can deny all you want and keep saying this is all bogus till your blue in the face.You say 'how come this man, which we still don't know for sure he exists' as if they just made it up.
Well here ya go.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y
World Trade Center Recovery & Clean Up LINK
So his this guy fake or what now? Looks to me like the company and the man are very much REAL! I even gave you a direct link to the summery on HIS WEBSITE!



Now lets look at Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.
"AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.
“Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.”
These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC

BTW, this is a family business run by Doug Loizeaux , Frank Loizeaux ( Founder ), Mark Loizeaux, Stacey Loizeaux, Freddie Loizeaux

Their site is located HERE
Though they do not have info on the WTC cleanup.But this goes to show they THEY do exsist!

So what now? Are these guys still a figment of my imagination? DId they lie? Did they ( AFP ) make the interview up?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join