It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Thanks Wecomeinpeace. I guess I'm not enough of a structural expert to make an assumption that both buildings should have collapsed given the damage caused by the falling debris, but HowardRoark is enough of a structural expert to state that they one should have collapsed, and the other should not have.

Boy, I wish I could be intellectually myopic enough to know that my own conclusions are right no matter what, because I'm awesome, and that everyone elses ideas are wrong, because they're not as smart as me.

So HowardRoark, I would like to see your source stating that a comparative analysis was done, and conclusions were drawn as to why tower 6 didn't fully collapse, and tower 7 did. I mean, surely if there is nothing to cover up, the government would have done some sort of analysis as to why Twoer 7 crumpled like tissue paper from fires, and yet tower 6 stayed standing despite severe structural damage.

Or should we just take your expert word for it?

Editted Again for Spelling. Sorry!

[edit on 18-11-2005 by Garden Spider]




posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Are you qualified to compare the two designs...?


Are you?


I am not a licensed strucutral engineer, no, I do however have enough background in engineering to recognize the fact that the two buildings are different. Thus I would not expect them to behave in the exact same way.

In addition, there was enough randomness in the impact of the debris from the collapsing towers that the ultimate effects to the surrounding buildings depended as much on simple dumb luck as it did the specific design of the structures impacted. Engineers call this the “J” factor (or the “Jesus” factor).

Frankly, it seems to me that you are grasping at straws to support your controlled demolition theory.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I am not a licensed strucutral engineer, no,

Then maybe you should stop asking everybody else if they are, or just bow out now. By your own definition and credibility attack tactics, you are not qualified to comment.


In addition, there was enough randomness in the impact of the debris from the collapsing towers that the ultimate effects to the surrounding buildings depended as much on simple dumb luck as it did the specific design of the structures impacted. Engineers call this the “J” factor (or the “Jesus” factor).

Sure, but we're interested in the facts, not what you attribute to the hand of God or "dumb luck". If you want to talk about probabilities, then why don't you calculate the chances that three steel-framed buildings would all collapse in the same day, never before, never since, and one of them in perfect controlled demolition-style fashion?


Frankly, it seems to me that you are grasping at straws to support your controlled demolition theory.

Frankly, your cattiness and moodiness lately speaks volumes. Signs of desperation? Or is it just that time of the month?



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I notice a lot of skeptics of 9/11 theories concentrate on WTC 1 and 2, but what about WTC7? A few 9/11 truth skeptics point to just one picture and footage of grey smoke coming from the side of WTC7, and a quote from some firefighter that says there was a big hole in the middle of WTC7. They also throw out the diesel generator theory.

I was just wondering if there is any solid proof to show that fire brought down WTC7? As so far, next to NORAD, the WTC7 anomaly to me stands out as one of the biggest red flags of the whole coverup.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
WeComeInPeace, i never have thanked you for your eloquent and informative posts. I appreciate your input to this discussion. Very informative.

Some of these posts have given me more than enough information to adequately arm myself with the truth. I am truelly saddened that it hasn't done the same for the naysayers....

Will the naysayers see the truth right in front of their faces and STILL deny? This posts has proven to me that some people cannot see the truth even if you smacked them upside the head with it.

The human race may be doomed after all... Just when it seemed we could redeem ourselves, BAM right smack into the middle of armageddon and half the people who don't even realize it, won't listen if you told them...



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Because many would rather have you believe that they caused minor damage, and factoring in said jetliners makes the demolition argument weaker than when they can ignore it.


Of course they didn't cause only minor damage. What are you talking about? They caused major damage! In fact, they damaged about 11% of the perimeter columns of one tower, and about 13% of the other, and knocked out maybe 2 or so at most of the 40-or-so core columns of the buildings. 11%? 13%? 2 out of 40 some? That is MASSIVE damage!!! And this information is from the government itself, so don't try to refute these incredibly super-high numbers of extreme damage.

What makes those numbers even more incredible is the fact that the towers were both designed, as all skyscrapers, to support much more than their own weight in case of accidents like this. The weight was simply redistributed to other columns that were designed to take on the extra load, and so would've done so very easily. Then you have fires, which are notoriously bad at bringing down skyscrapers. In fact, they never have.

So what do we say when we are reminded once again that the idea of fires bringing them down is ridiculous? We say this:

You forget about the enormo-massive damage represented by figures of 11%, 13% 2 out of 40-or-so, etc., that were so insanely harmful to the buildings that it's a miracle they didn't fall immediately straight down in a demo-fashion while breaking laws of physics (assuming the official story is true, anyway
)! Combine that silly damage with the silly fires and suddenly we can pretend the official story doesn't seem so silly anymore.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Bsbray

You can throw around 11 percent and such small figures all you want.

The fact remains that the planes hit the buildings at high speeds and caused instant multi story fires.

Insisting that it was minor reminds me of the Knight in Monty Python's Holy grail who saw his arm cut off and said it was only a flesh wound.

Keep in mind that without any proof of the means or opportunity to plant explosives, the planes caused so much "minor" damage, that both buildings collapsed.

You have said that the "how" of the demo theory isn't important. Should we then assume that the "how" of the official story doesn't matter?


On to the wreckage at ground zero.

Here is the testimony of the head of the ASCE who actually had plenty of time to investigate the wreckage.

www.house.gov...


Simultaneous with the efforts to assemble the team and organize the supporting coalition, work began to collect data and information pertinent to the study. A significant part of this data collection phase was holding a meeting of the team in New York City to examine the wreckage and the surrounding buildings impacted by the collapse. On September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas which were determined to be extremely hazardous. To aid the team in this intense 6-day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less that 8 blocks form the WTC site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis.



During this time period, team members also examined structural debris at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and at the two recycling yards in New Jersey. Samples of structural steel were obtained and have since been subjected to laboratory analyses. Under the guidance of selected team members, numerous professional engineers who are members of SEAoNY are continuing this work on the team’s behalf and have been visiting recycling yards and landfills regularly since the beginning of November. Additional samples of the structural steel have been obtained and are presently being stored at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland for use in future studies.





There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.


They and others had plenty of time and access to the steel and wreckage. The steel wasn't even completey removed from ground zero until May 2002. 8 months later.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Fire Engineering Magazine

Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation"
[...]
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.
[...]
Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
[...]
The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

Firefighters, this is your call to action.

(source)


Daily News 3/7/2002

An inquiry into exactly what caused the twin towers to collapse after they were hit by hijacked jetliners may have been undermined by the hasty recycling of steel wreckage that could hold vital clues, experts told Congress yesterday.

About 80% of the structural steel from the World Trade Center was scrapped without being examined by even one fire expert, mostly because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage as evidence, the experts said.

... "The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse," said Glenn Corbett, a fire science expert from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan who testified before a House Science Committee inquiry into the collapse and the ensuing investigation.

(source)



NY Times 3/7/2002
Mismanagement Muddled Collapse Inquiry, House Panel Says

By ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, March 6 - Members of Congress today criticized the investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center, saying it had been mismanaged, far too slow to start and hampered by a lack of cooperation by New York City and other government agencies controlling the disaster site.

(source)

[edit on 2005-11-19 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Bsbray

You can throw around 11 percent and such small figures all you want.

The fact remains that the planes hit the buildings at high speeds and caused instant multi story fires.


So I can throw around facts and figures all I want but you'll still want to believe the damage dealt was incredibly supermassive? That's what I'm getting out of this.


Insisting that it was minor reminds me of the Knight in Monty Python's Holy grail who saw his arm cut off and said it was only a flesh wound.


Except all that cut off flesh would've been a little more than 11 or 13 percent, and all over his whole body, too, and not just a region.

This is another example of your remarkable ability of throwing facts aside just so you can continue with a certain way of thinking.


Keep in mind that without any proof of the means or opportunity to plant explosives, the planes caused so much "minor" damage, that both buildings collapsed.


Why? There is no proof that the buildings collapsed by their own means, either. You're wielding a double-edged sword here.

And if you'd like, you can show me all the evidence that proves the buildings collapsed of their own means. Haven't seen any yet.


You have said that the "how" of the demo theory isn't important. Should we then assume that the "how" of the official story doesn't matter?


It matters; it just doesn't make sense. That's the whole problem.

Dude, for Christ's sake just post some freaking evidence to disprove the squibs or the angular momentum problem. No - not even disprove either of those. Just provide theories that make more sense objectively: no bias, but only going with what makes the most scientific sense (ie, just because it fits your favorite theory doesn't make it correct). Air is not magic in the WTC, and neither does that Eager interview relate in the least to angular momentum. If the official story is so freaking bullet-proof then why can't you at least do that much?



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
From 911research.wtc7.net
911research.wtc7.net...


This photo was taken sometime in the afternoon of September 11, before Building 7 collapsed. Building 7 is the skyscraper in the upper right of the photograph. The partially crushed and burned-out remains of Building 4 are in the middle of the photograph and Building 5 is the dark object to the right. The fact that fires are no longer visible in these buildings suggests it is the mid- to late afternoon.

The southwest facade and southeast-facing wall of Building 7 are visible but there are no signs of fire.


Prof. Jones made at least one mistake, I assume he blindly copied a photo with subscript from that website.
www.physics.byu.edu...


Original subscript from prof. Jones :
"WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall sky-
scraper in the back-ground right. Seen from WTC 1 area."

What we however see here, is a picture taken late morning, presumably around 11:30 a.m.,
just check that with the shadow of that car. And we see the east side of WTC 7 in the sunlight.
Taken at the corner of Church St. and Cortland St. So not seen from the WTC 1 area,
but looking from a point to the right of the collapsed WTC 2, looking through the
gap between WTC 4 and WTC 5 towards WTC 7. You clearly see the small corner
in the roofline of the east side of WTC 5.
See also this picture from wecomeinpeace :
img398.imageshack.us...
Photo taken from a place near the right top of that picture.

If we mirror Jones' picture in Paint on the horizontal level, then it seems afternoon, but then it
shows totally wrong positioning of all buildings.
I am only amazed that one hour after the last collapse the dust had already settled so fast.
That means that most of it must have been relatively heavier cement dust.

One other comment: where is that immense gap in the south center face of WTC 7.?
I don't see it from this viewpoint with that shadow and bit of smoke.
I'm quite sure that NYPD helicopter has taken quite a few more sharp pictures of the damage
of the South face of WTC 7. Why they don't release them remains a mystery.

I have to make one other comment :
I do understand why Bsbray confused that smoke collumn in this picture below, with the cement dust cloud
from the 2 other collapses. Can it be, that a thermite reaction on many floors was in process while this photo
was taken, and floors were collapsing in the center of the building already,and thus a lot of cement dust was
propelled into the air outside already?
img466.imageshack.us...


------------------------------- BOMBS BOMBS BOMBS etc.

And now I need to urgently advice you, to go see that impressive website which ..?.. guided us to :
911eyewitness.com...
911eyewitness.com...

:
BOMB Audio Signature

:
Numerous Explosions BEFORE COLLAPSE

:
Close-up analysis and timecode counters let you, the viewer, see for yourself what the mainstream media failed to show you and what the "evil doers" didn't want you to see.

:
This program illustrates for the viewer, how original raw footage was analyzed to clearly show that indeed massive explosions occurred before each tower fell.

:
The distance to Rick's camera was 1.8 miles across the Hudson River creating a 9.2 second sound delay. The sound of massive explosions could be clearly heard across the water.

:
A light colored dust detonation zone progresses down the side of the tower while the corner section remains intact, indicating that the floors are not "pancaking" but being blow-out in a downward cascade. The freefall speed of the explosive cascade is far too fast for a genuine collapse and can only be generated by a computer controlled demolition sequence.

:
Sections of the North Tower's outer steel framework, weighing as much as a jetliner when joined together, were shot like missiles roughly 600 feet through the air into the top of the Winter Garden. This feat was accomplished by massive explosions that brought down the north tower at freefall speed and completed the illusion of terrorism to traumatize the unsuspecting public.

:
The top section of the south tower began to lean at a sharp angle early in its implosion. In the seconds that followed, this intact top section turned to dust instead of falling into the street in one large piece. Critics charge implosions always start at the bottom, but this style of mid-level detonation sequence is not uncommon, as seen in Philadelphia in 1999, courtesy of Controlled Demolition Inc.


:
This Law of Projectile Motion experiment illustrates that heavy steel debris was ejected upward and outward in a parabolic arc by the massive explosions in the middle section of the North Tower. A genuine collapse would have occurred much more slowly due to the resistance of supporting floors and all debris would move downward, falling close to the side of the tower.


:
The magnitude of the North tower was 2.3, which corresponds to almost double the amount of seismic energy measured for the South tower at 2.1. Amazingly, the blue ribbon team of experts overlooked this major discrepancy in the seismic data. Given that this is junior high school science, it appears the oversight was intentional, leaving viewers to assume that 2.1 and 2.3 are almost the same. This technique was necessary to maintain the cover story.


:
The Law of Conservation of Energy requires that the standing Potential Energy and the falling Kinetic Energy must be equal. Since both towers were virtually identical, a seismic energy measurement for the North Tower of 2.7 tons of TNT explosives, almost double that of the South Tower, at 1.4 tons, indicates some additional energy source. This additional energy cannot be explained by the official collapse theory, however, it is consistent with explosives used in controlled demolition.


:
The calliflower shape of the dust clouds is characteristic of pyroclastic flows as seen in the eruption of Mount St. Augustine and also at the WTC in NYC. Massive amounts of explosive energy are required to generate these clouds of rising debris. The heat generated by high-power explosives used in controlled demolitions can approximate the heat of a small eruption. The cold tower steel and concrete simply falling to the ground cannot generate the necessary heat or pulverized concrete dust and debris.


:
A computer generated model illustrates the internal mechanism of controlled demolition in sequence with Seven World Trade. Large explosions were recorded by Rick's camera before and during the collapse, confirming that indeed the building was brought down in a typical style of controlled demolition.


:
"We heard this... this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. Turned around, we were shocked to see that the building was ah... well it looked like there was ah... a shockwave ah... ripping through the building and the windows all ah... busted out and, you know, it was horrifying. Then ah... you know, about a second later the bottom floor caved out..."

--------------------------------------------------------


Sleep well, America.............



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
So there is one side that argues that the collapse of the towers had to be a demolition, because the buildings supposedly collapsed into their own footprints and their is another side that argues that the collapse had to be a controlled demolituon because parts of the tower fell 600 feet away from the footprints of the buildings.

Which is it, I'd wish you'd all get your theories straight.



[edit on 20-11-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Bsbray was RIGHT in his assumption that the "smoke collumn coming out of WTC 7" wasn't smoke, but actually the dust-mixed-with-smoke cloud coming round the corner from WTC 5 and 6, and thus WTC 7 wasn't burning that bad.
Which is also already obvious from that photo from prof. Jones, I gave above, which was taken +/- 11:30 a.m., no more than 1 hour after the second tower, WTC 1, collapsed, which collapse proposedly catapulted burning debris in the 8th to 18th floors of the southwest corner of WTC 7, and in the center of that facade, breaking a big hole away in it.
However, we don't see the southwest corner burning, so why should that center hole be burning then? Since we have till now no pictures of that hole, we can't further investigate that.

See page 17 from the FEMA report, www.fema.gov... ,
fig 5-17, and the connected viewpoint arrow to the WTC 1 collapse starting at 10:28:31 a.m., the North Tower, the second collapse. That's the point from which the photographer took that picture, and according to that fig 5-17, it was taken when WTC 1 just collapsed.
Page 17 :



------------------------------- Howard Roark,


Originally posted by HowardRoark
So there is one side that argues that the collapse of the towers had to be a demolition, because the buildings supposedly collapsed into their own footprints and their is another side that argues that the collapse had to be a controlled demolituon because parts of the tower fell 600 feet away from the footprints of the buildings.
Which is it, I'd wish you'd all get your theories straight.


Howard, I'd expected you to counter anything substantially from my above post.
And say something about the 21 video recordings of eye- and earwitnesses of multiple explosions in the Towers I offered you earlier on. There are many more btw.

"Both" theories as you call it, are in fact one and the same, and you know it, after seeing that whole line of descending pictures above. And hearing those explosions which you so vehemently need to deny, to not confront the ugly fact that your Administration is an evil one, who will try to bring Armageddon upon us, the sooner the better in their degenerated minds.
Ofcourse the charges going off were propelling large pieces of debris in a wide arc away from the building, they did not "fell", and most of the time these were the heaviests parts, needing the biggest charges, thus causing so much collateral damage to the surrounding buildings.

For the demolition crew to be able to crash both towers as much as could be, into a convined space between other, no-Silverstein owned, buildings, there had to be pressure triggers and stretch triggers connected to the main core collumns.
Of course they were not sitting there with binoculars on OEM's floor 27 of WTC 7, fingers glued to radio controlled demolition triggers.
These people were pro's, and several levels higher as Controlled Demolition.

The moment the buildings were showing too many signs of material fatigue, f.ex. your much mentioned buckling effects, which means no other than combined stretching on one side of a main core collumn, and crimp on the opposite side, a certain amount of triggers send all their own signals to the main computerized demolition board, and when the preset treshhold of allowed activated triggers was reached, the computer board initiated the demolition sequence, and sent those signals to all the radiographic tuned thermite cutting charges attached to the main collumns on a few strategic floors.
Especially the 2 sets of floors of the Sky Lobbies, where the elevator motors and AC equipment was situated, which were heavily reinforced with much stronger cross beams and reinforced concrete floors, than the other floors by the architects of the WTC.
They cut in no more than a second through the collumns, and then a secondary set of signals were given to the shifting charges, which were all placed on the inner sides of the collumns, +/- 1 meter above the cutters, in the elevator shafts, facing the insides of the shafts and glued in halfmoon formed cut-outs in triangular shaped synthetic supermagnetic-rare-earth blocks, thus directing any light, sound and shockwaves under a 45 to 60 degrees angle downward into the shafts and thus to the inner part of the buildings, and nearly no squibs of high compressed air escaped to the office spaces, but spouted downwards in the shafts. Some did inadvertantly, and blew out a few windows while the shifting charges displaced the cut collumns a few feet away from the thermite cuts.
No more had to be done. Gravity did the rest.
And that was the demolition theory and then gravity let them collapse into a convined space, in the footprint and a relatively small space around it.

PS : Elsevier and Whiley&Sons are about the two top publishers in the world, and I'm amazed that an intelligent figure like you, found it necessary to question their professionalism in this thread with the same name in the Politics forum :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
And there are to this day 387 patents awarded on cold fusion subjects, which has in fact for a long time already another description, but I won't bather you with the details. Prof Jones is in my books a highly regarded person, and I value ANY subject he brings on, he graduated magna cum laude, if that tells you anything. I think it does.
But ofcourse you are entitled to your opinion, just as any other person here. Just show some common respect.
Only in case of certain politicians, I can get carried away sometimes, any other private person I see as a fellow global citizen, which I have to respect, whatever his opinion may be, untill that opinion affects my living space in any negative way.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
That the collapses appear to be controlled and there are reports of explosions as well as heat.

I am wondering though, if any consideration has been given to the use of
DEXPAN
or simular substance as an aid to the whole process?

Dexpan is a soundless cracking system. As most people know, explosives and other mechanical methods have been used for demolishing concrete
structures and breaking rocks. However environmental pollutions,
such as noise, vibration, flying debris, and noxious fumes are produced as a
byproduct of these methods.
By using Dexpan, a satisfactory solution is available without the above
problems.


Thank you for all the info by the way !



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I posted these pics before in a 911 thread somewhere and it wasn't really picked up on. Now after reading the latest from LapTop, WTC and even Howard ,
( as well as others here, to many to mention ) I have come to the conclusion that what ever was used to collapse All 3 WTC Towers was strong enough to turn it mostly all of it to dust. So imho, I don't think Dexpan was used, people did hear explosions and Dexpan just cracks. but who knows





And another thing LapTop has reminded us of, and has always has stuck in my mind. Is why if the building is fall down on it's self, we see dust and rubble of sorts exploding out in the air?




[edit on 20/11/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
ooops, I missed a few lines of you, Howard, in www.abovetopsecret.com... .


Originally posted by HowardRoark ... Metalurgists have studied the "partially evaporated" steel and have determined that is was caused by a Eutectic reaction. The hot corrosion of the steel was caused by exposure to sulfur, a component of gypsum (drywall).

Where did you find that last, "a component of gypsum (drywall)", part of your quote? I don't see them mention it on that page.

Is it clear to you, that a reaction of dropped down, melted iron, a byproduct of a thermite reaction, (with identical trace-amounts - 0.04 and 0.05% - of sulphur and phosphor in its superhot melt, 2519°C, 4566°F max. when ferric oxide is used together with aluminum powder), could have caused that eutectic reaction, when it dropped on those beams?

What if some really wicked mind would have used a thermite mix of iron oxide and depleted uranium, which could reach a max temperature of 4131°C, 7468°F , the boiling point of Uranium? And ignited the thermite mix with a sparkler.
Since we still have this explanatory problem with all that molten steel found in the deepest basements reported by several trustable sources.



And why do they not specify the kind of iron oxide in this subscript under one of the photo's :
" Eutectic formation (iron oxide-iron sulfide), etched 4% natal." ?
Because ferric oxide ( Iron(III) oxide, Fe2O3 ) is part of a thermite mix?
And why is that report nowhere mentioned after it's published date in 2001?
And do you realize that POM, by means of it's co-author prof Eagar, a fine example of a flip-flopping scientist, did not exactly gain a better reputation lately? He has 3 times now, embraced a new theory, after other, official reports came with new viewpoints on the cause of the collapses. Not one of these reports however, untill now, have come up with a theory of the mechanism of the collapses. They all stop short at the initiating of the collapses. The actual collapse sequence mechanism is avoided as the Pest.

Pythos, an interesting product, but how do you explain the molten steel in the basements then?
And since it is a displacement product for closed spaces, how could it cut totally, so, not -break- a steel column?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
But as an aid. Maybe like fill the sprinker system or building voids. It takes a
while to work, might account for the time delay. It seems that there were
fire sprinkler problems (which is used by "official" story believers to suggest
the melting/weakining of steel members). It could cause tremendous stress
on the structure of the building and would allow less explosive to be used.

Just thoughts.....



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
I posted these pics before in a 911 thread somewhere and it wasn't really picked up on. Now after reading the latest from LapTop, WTC and even Howard ,
( as well as others here, to many to mention ) I have come to the conclusion that what ever was used to collapse All 3 WTC Towers was strong enough to turn it mostly all of it to dust. So imho, I don't think Dexpan was used, people did hear explosions and Dexpan just cracks. but who knows


Where were concrete beams located in the towers?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Where were concrete beams located in the towers?



I don't know Howard is this a trick question



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Anyway LaBTop was speaking to you,

I never said anything about concrete beams

[edit on 20/11/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron

I never said anything about concrete beams

[edit on 20/11/2005 by Sauron]


Then why did you post the pictures of the dexpan?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join