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.

 

Nice footage of skyscraper demolision..

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded


707's are bigger than a 767.



Not according to airliners.net:
Boeing 707-320B 130' 10" wing span
Boeing 767-200 156' 1" wing span

Boeing 707-320B 152' 11" length
Boeing 767-200 159' 2" length

Boeing 707-320B 42' 5" height
Boeing 767-200 52' height

Boeing 707-320B 146,400lb empty
Boeing 767-200 164,800lb empty

The 200 model is the smallest of the 767's. The 320B is the largest 707.




posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
opps, my mistake.

Not much to say on that but opps.

Sorry for misinfo guys.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I ask all of you to watch Zeitgeist-a 2 hour movie-and maybe then those who do not believe in conspiracy created by the gov. will open their eyes and realize how the US exploits our rights to "freedom" granted to us by the American Constitution.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Hmmm...first google search.



ICF Fire Resistance

Fire Resistance

Ever seen concrete burn? Me neither. In tests where ICF walls were subjected to temperatures of up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for as long as four hours, the ICF walls never failed structurally. By contrast, wood frame walls typically collapse in less than an hour. When considering a wood frame home for your next house, consider the countless fire fighters who have died when a wood frame structure collapsed prematurely.


Source: www.concrete-home.com...

Bolded by me. Hmmm....2,000 F? That's 1093 degrees C. Which is much higher than in the WTC fires. After four hours.....never failed structurally.

Still going to claim I'm wrong?





AFTER THE FIRE
Inspection of fire-affected structures is based on
a visual check and comparison with similar cases.
Any concrete exposed to temperatures above 300°C
is removed and replaced.


Source

Emphasis mine.

It's a good read. Actually learned some new things and they even have their email at the bottom if one was so inclined to ask the questions on how the fires on 9/11 affected the concrete in the towers.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Anyone trying to prove the WTCs didn't collapse because of CD is trying to prove black to be white. There is so much hard evidence pointing to CD, you just can't disprove the facts.

-Molten steel under WTC 1, 2 and 7.
-Rapid collapses at almost free-fall speeds.
-Many explosions heard by many witnesses.
-'Squibs' seen in all videos of both collapses.
-Flashes seen in videos.

Yes, there were flashes recorded in the South Tower collapse-by ABC to be precise. I haven't been able to find the video alone, but it is shown in Richard Gage's DVD, "9/11: Blueprint for Truth - The Architecture of Destruction".

I direct this mostly towards Samblack, if you have not watched the above DVD, I recommend you do. You can find it here or on many torrent sites.

Here is a screenshot from the DVD, showing the flash:



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Niobis
Anyone trying to prove the WTCs didn't collapse because of CD is trying to prove black to be white. There is so much hard evidence pointing to CD, you just can't disprove the facts.


Actually there is no evidence to suggest it was a CD.


-Molten steel under WTC 1, 2 and 7.


Please take the time to read this.
But again this begs the question, What does finding "molten steel" 6 weeks later have anything to do with a CD. If you can find me a CD where there was molten metal 6 weeks after the event, please by all means enlighten us.


-Rapid collapses at almost free-fall speeds.


Define almost in this context. Here is a video of WTC 1 collapse. Use the clock at the bottom to judge time.



Again this video time it yourself. As a side note if you are wondering what that bird noise is in the background after he cuts away from the collapse, it is my understanding that these are sensors that all firemen carry and it goes off after the sensor picks up no movement for a certain amount of time. (Correct me if I'm wrong)



In this video, notice how much faster the debris falls in comparison to the building collapsing



Even better view here




-Many explosions heard by many witnesses.


Again refer to the first two videos and compare it to this



And this




-'Squibs' seen in all videos of both collapses.


The question you should be asking is why do all these "squibs" after the building has begun to collapse.


-Flashes seen in videos.

Yes, there were flashes recorded in the South Tower collapse-by ABC to be precise.


Please post it if you do find or please narrow it down as to where it is in Richard Gage's presentation. I have already watched it once two weeks ago I believe. I will look again tomorrow.


Here is a screenshot from the DVD, showing the flash:


That flash happens well after the building has started to collapse, as is seen in that picture. But I need to some sleep and will take a look at the video again tomorrow.

Just barely saw this thread 9/11 Television Archive - Pick Your Time and Channel

Niobis I think you should be able to find your clip there

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Niobis
Anyone trying to prove the WTCs didn't collapse because of CD is trying to prove black to be white.

It's their job at the Ministry of Truth to try and convince people that Black is White, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength.

Oh yeah, WTC 7 collapsed due to fire and Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Who told the proles they could think for themselves?!



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Cool Hand Luke
 


With some respect, I think you are one of the "red herring posters" Cashlink is referring to in his thread. Haven't we been over CD before? Or maybe it was "planes". Either way, I know you've presented your disinfo to me before.


Actually there is no evidence to suggest it was a CD.


All 3 WTC buildings fit a CD, perfectly. Of course, the Twin Towers are different because they were blown from the top down, but they still have ALL the characteristics of a CD. And as Richard Gage said, "no building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition, has never not been a controlled demolition."


What does finding "molten steel" 6 weeks later have anything to do with a CD.


It proves thermite or thermate was used. I assumed you would have know that...


Define almost in this context.


It means that if you dropped a ball from 1360 feet it would hit the ground at around the same time either tower collapsed. There was absolutely no resistance-which is the main characteristic of a CD. It is not a characteristic of a pancake type collapse.


The question you should be asking is why do all these "squibs" after the building has begun to collapse.


Do you expect them to be seen before any explosions? Why are they so uniform? If it was simply puffs of air and debris as claimed by NIST, they would not be centralized to just a single ejection. And they definitely would not be as symmetrical as they are.


Please post it if you do find or please narrow it down as to where it is in Richard Gage's presentation.


In the video, two of those flashes can clearly be seen. I posted the screenshot of the second one.

In Richard Gage's DVD they can be seen at(to be exact):
53:47.160 to 53:47.294 or frame 96718 to 96722
53:47.895 to 53:47.928 or frame 96740 to 96741


That flash happens well after the building has started to collapse...


What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? I mean seriously, come on! In a CD, all the explosives are not set off at the same time. They are set off in a sequence to be the most effective.

I did look over your link, and while I did not read the entire article, I search for keywords like "lava" and "firefighters". I was looking for the firefighter accounts that said "molten steel was flowing like lava". They seem to have left that out.


If the Twin Towers were not a CD, where's the 110 stories of steel decking? Where's the 90,000 tons of concrete? Why and how was concrete pulverized? Why was steel beams ejected over 200 feet? Fire and gravity can not explain these things and neither can you if you're trying to prove the BS pancaking theory.

I will not be viewing any of the videos you posted. I have spent countless hours studying the Twin Towers and their collapses, so there is nothing you can show me that will prove those buildings collapsed because of fire.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Cool Hand Luke, look more flashes on the South Tower! This video is also shown in Richard Gage's presentation. These are clearer(as if the others we not clear enough) and much lower than the ones filmed by ABC. I don't think I need to post screens because there are many and they are very obvious.

www.youtube.com...

That alone throws your comment of "no evidence of CD" out the window! You can't deny it any longer!

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Niobis]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Didn't mean to post here.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Niobis
 


You are right! and Cool Hand Luke had a problem with my thread as I recall.

Yep! still up to his old game.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:12 AM
link   

What does finding "molten steel" 6 weeks later have anything to do with a CD.

It also discredits the NIST papers, as they claim that the steel never exceeded 600°c.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Niobis

With some respect, I think you are one of the "red herring posters" Cashlink is referring to in his thread.


Well he has the right to claim what ever wants. If I got under his skin, that was not my intention. His use of the term red herring with regards to his thread are no different than calling members that disagree with the "truthers" "disinfo agents." If he wanted to gain credibility he would have tried to disprove the information presented what I had posted along with other members.

I am relatively new at posting on ats and specifically the 9/11 threads. I had no idea who believed what and am still uncertain which member believes what particular theory. There are many other "debunkers" who are much much more experienced in these threads than I. As I have said many times before I am more interested in reading than posting. But I figured when someone posted an issue that could be disproven very easily, that I would post my 2 cents.


Haven't we been over CD before? Or maybe it was "planes". Either way, I know you've presented your disinfo to me before.


Again I am new at this, and those videos I posted when I started posting in the 9/11 boards, I thought did a pretty good job disproving some of these myths in a short amount of time.

You claiming any source that is not some how affiliated with the "truth" movement says volumes about your objectivity.


All 3 WTC buildings fit a CD, perfectly.


You can claim away all you want, it does not make it so.


Of course, the Twin Towers are different because they were blown from the top down, but they still have ALL the characteristics of a CD.


Because a building collapses, does not make it contain ALL the characteristics of a CD. One year ago I would have said exactly what you are saying.


And as Richard Gage said, "no building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition, has never not been a controlled demolition."


Is Richard Gage qualified as an expert of building demolition?


It proves thermite or thermate was used. I assumed you would have know that...


How?


It means that if you dropped a ball from 1360 feet it would hit the ground at around the same time either tower collapsed. There was absolutely no resistance-which is the main characteristic of a CD. It is not a characteristic of a pancake type collapse.


Did you take the time to time it yourself with the videos I provided? Or are you going to continue to spout unproven rhetoric. All but one of the videos I post are less than 1 minute long except for one that is still less than 2 minutes.


Do you expect them to be seen before any explosions? Why are they so uniform? If it was simply puffs of air and debris as claimed by NIST, they would not be centralized to just a single ejection. And they definitely would not be as symmetrical as they are.


They're symmetrical?
All I have ever seen is a few puffs of smoke that are anything but symmetrical. Here is a news flash, when you are compressing a gas into a space, the pressure built up will release where there is the least resistance such as an open/cracked/smashed window.


In a CD, all the explosives are not set off at the same time. They are set off in a sequence to be the most effective.


Exactly. And also before a controlled collapse happens, there are a number of charges that go off before the collapse begins.

Here is another question. If the whole building was wired up with explosives, should we not see hundreds of flashes? Why are there so few flashes?


I did look over your link, and while I did not read the entire article, I search for keywords like "lava" and "firefighters". I was looking for the firefighter accounts that said "molten steel was flowing like lava". They seem to have left that out.


Please forgive my ignorance, could you point me towards that quote from the firefighters? Again if you did read the article, it does explain how the temperatures stayed so high and why there was red hot steel. If the fire fighters saw lava like flow of metals, how sure are they that they were steel? There are many metals that melt at much lower temperatures than steel.

Earlier you said that was evidence that thermite or thermate were used. How sure are you of that?


If the Twin Towers were not a CD, where's the 110 stories of steel decking?


It was there and was cleaned up.


Where's the 90,000 tons of concrete? Why and how was concrete pulverized?


Energy. Take a sidewalk block and smash it on the ground, what do you notice? It shatters into smaller pieces. Now drop it from say 70 stories up. What do you notice? Even smaller pieces. Now couple that with thousands of tons crushing it and you have powder.


Why was steel beams ejected over 200 feet?


Where was it supposed to go? Into its own footprint? Thousands of tons of pressure coming straight down is going to push any material in its way outwards. Here is an experiment for you. Build yourself a miniature tower out of popsicle sticks. Now drop a cinder block on it. Which direction did the debris go? Certainly not inwards.


I will not be viewing any of the videos you posted. I have spent countless hours studying the Twin Towers and their collapses, so there is nothing you can show me that will prove those buildings collapsed because of fire.


Its a shame you don't take another look at those videos. They are all less than a minute except one that is still less than two minutes. None of them are debunker vids just video from that day from many perspectives.

Niobis I know that I will never convince you of anything as I have taken a look at your posts on your profile. But I urge to take an objective look, without any bias, and make an opinion.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
Here is an experiment for you. Build yourself a miniature tower out of popsicle sticks. Now drop a cinder block on it. Which direction did the debris go? Certainly not inwards.

Fairly poor analogy. Terrible in fact.

In case you missed the point, cinder blocks did not fall on the towers that day.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by Niobis
 


You are right! and Cool Hand Luke had a problem with my thread as I recall.


When did I say I had a problem with it? You can believe whatever you want to. I only noticed it a few days ago and was tempted to post there. But it would end up the same argument over and over again as I noticed your past postings in these forums.

The reason I stopped posting in these forums for awhile was because I realized how much of a waste of energy it is to debate this subject anymore and am considering not posting in these forums any more. There are literally thousands of threads on ats and other forums that just go on forever arguing the same points over and over again.


Yep! still up to his old game.


My old game?
I care very little about what you believe or any one else for that matter. To each their own. As I have said I am relatively new here and they are many people with much much more knowledge on this subject than I.

However, call it being human or whatever, when you know something, you tend to want to share it. But it also arrogant to think that you can change anyones mind for them. And we are both guilty of that.

The best we can do is present differing points and let who ever reads these points decide what they take from it. That is the only thing we can ask for.

If I can offer some constructive criticism of your posts and some of the other "truthers" on this board. When someone offers a different point of view, stop calling people dis info agents. It does very little to your credibility. Because from an objective observer, the views of the "truthers" is that everyone else in the world "in on it" except for them.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
Here is an experiment for you. Build yourself a miniature tower out of popsicle sticks. Now drop a cinder block on it. Which direction did the debris go? Certainly not inwards.

Fairly poor analogy. Terrible in fact.

In case you missed the point, cinder blocks did not fall on the towers that day.


No but some would suggest energy beams did.


Poor analogy? Sure, but at the same time if you look at the approximate 30 floors that moved independantly on top of the 2-3 floors that initially collapsed, it acted in a similar fashion. This video is a close up of wtc2 collapsing.13 seconds long



14 seconds long




posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

What does finding "molten steel" 6 weeks later have anything to do with a CD.

It also discredits the NIST papers, as they claim that the steel never exceeded 600°c.



"Here PM's counter claim implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF."

That seemed strange to me. They made a point of how steel temperatures are different from the atmospheric temperatures surrounding it, then went on to cite a study and only mentioned the steel temperatures, not the atmospheric. So I went to the website of Corus Construction Co, and found a section in their Research area that said this about the difference in temperatures between steel and atmosphere:

"With regard to steel temperatures, these depend upon the size of the member but for typical unprotected beams and columns these would lag behind the compartment temperatures by around 100°C to 200°C."

So the tests that the conspiracy theorist cited only had atmospheric temperatures ranging around 800-900 degrees, while the Popular Mechanics article (and NIST report) mentions that pockets of the World Trade Center reached 1800 degrees. This would put the steel temperature in those locations at around 1600-1700 degrees, which is far above the 1100 degree mark that steel loses 50% of its structural integrity.

I just thought it was a pretty striking example of dishonesty. The conspiracy theorist site could not have found that Corus study without finding the question on the atmospheric temperature, but left that part out.


Source



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
You can claim away all you want, it does not make it so.


It does make it so because it's fact! All 3 WTC buildings feature ALL the characteristics of a CD. Furthermore, they have no characteristics of a pancake type collapse.


Because a building collapses, does not make it contain ALL the characteristics of a CD. One year ago I would have said exactly what you are saying.


You are right. Just because a building collapses, it doesn't always have the characteristics of a CD. But that's only if it is not a CD. In the case with WTC 1, 2 and 7, ALL characteristics of a CD are present. Again, that is fact.

I would like to know what changed your mind about these collapses. How can you believe they were a CD a year ago, but not now?


Is Richard Gage qualified as an expert of building demolition?


No, he is not and even in his presentation he makes that clear. If you show me a building that has all the characteristics of a CD that was not a CD, I'll believe the official story of 9/11.


How?


Oh my. Thermate produces temperature of about 4500 F. That's more than enough to produce molten steel.


Did you take the time to time it yourself with the videos I provided? Or are you going to continue to spout unproven rhetoric.


I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I don't need to look at anymore videos of the collapses. As I said earlier, I've spent more than enough time researching and studying the collapses of WTC 1 and 2.

By the way, it's not "unproven rhetoric". I'm not claiming they fell at exactly free-fall speeds because they didn't, but it was very close. Meaning there was no resistance below to slow down the collapses. Resistance is something we would see in a pancake collapse.


They're symmetrical?


Yes, they are. They are in the center of each side of the building. That's called symmetrical.


Here is a news flash, when you are compressing a gas into a space, the pressure built up will release where there is the least resistance such as an open/cracked/smashed window.


So under this explanation it means there was only one opening for this pressure to be released. And it just so happened those openings were in the center of the building on all four sides. That's a highly unlikely coincidence.


Exactly. And also before a controlled collapse happens, there are a number of charges that go off before the collapse begins.


Have you seen the Naudet Brother's film? Explosives can clearly be heard in the North Tower after the initial attack. There were also many witnesses to secondary explosions all the way up until the collapses.

"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, and then all of a sudden three big explosions."

Video of that witness is linked here:
whatreallyhappened.com...


Here is another question. If the whole building was wired up with explosives, should we not see hundreds of flashes? Why are there so few flashes?


Are you naturally blind or just by choice? Watch the NBC video of the South Tower collapse. There are many obvious flashes and they resemble the flashes we see in known CD videos.


Please forgive my ignorance, could you point me towards that quote from the firefighters?


With a very quick Google search this is the "I'm feeling lucky page".
tobefree.wordpress.com...

That video was shown in Richard Gage's presentation. Are you sure you've watched it?


Again if you did read the article, it does explain how the temperatures stayed so high and why there was red hot steel.


That article is full of disinfo and I will not allow my brain to be filled with such material.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by Niobis]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
Earlier you said that was evidence that thermite or thermate were used. How sure are you of that?


I was not there, I didn't help clean up Ground Zero, so I'm only as sure as I possibly can be. Steven Jones presents good evidence of thermate.


It was there and was cleaned up.


Yea, it was there, but it had been shredded into small pieces. The official story says they pancaked onto each other so we should see many of them intact, but we do not. They're not in any ariel view of Ground Zero. They're not in any ground pictures of Ground Zero. They're not in any video of Ground Zero. Where's the proof to the 20 gage steel decking?


Energy. Take a sidewalk block and smash it on the ground, what do you notice? It shatters into smaller pieces. Now drop it from say 70 stories up. What do you notice? Even smaller pieces. Now couple that with thousands of tons crushing it and you have powder.


Energy is to blame, but let's use common sense here. How much energy is needed to pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete to dust no larger than the width of a human hair? Thousands of tons of steel simply falling does not have that much force.

Further, the pyroclastic dust going up and out before coming down violates gravity and that can only be explained with explosives.


Where was it supposed to go? Into its own footprint? Thousands of tons of pressure coming straight down is going to push any material in its way outwards. Here is an experiment for you. Build yourself a miniature tower out of popsicle sticks. Now drop a cinder block on it. Which direction did the debris go? Certainly not inwards.


As mentioned, that is a bad analogy. The top part of either tower is not the same ratio of a cinder block to popsicle sticks. A better analogy would be to drop a popsicle stick onto a cinder block, haha.


Not only are the steel beams ejected over 200 feet, they were individualized. Again, that can only be explained with explosives.


Its a shame you don't take another look at those videos.


Again, I wasn't trying to be disrespectful by not viewing your videos in your post, but I have taken another look at the collapses, and another, and another. I spent way too much time looking at them. Hell, I even lost a girlfriend because of my deep interest with 9/11.
lol


I know that I will never convince you of anything as I have taken a look at your posts on your profile. But I urge to take an objective look, without any bias, and make an opinion.


I'm not trying to be bias and I try not to be with any 9/11 material, but I have taken an objective look and I have came to my opinion. In the case with the WTC buildings being a CD, it is a fact and we just can't prove or deny otherwise. We have to deal with it.

By the way, I wasn't calling you a disinfo agent. I was just saying that the link/s you posted and have shown me are disinfo.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by Niobis]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Niobis

It does make it so because it's fact! All 3 WTC buildings feature ALL the characteristics of a CD.


It is not a fact. They have none of the characteristics of a CD. And certainly Dr. Jones's hypothesis is not fact, it is merely speculation.

Just to clarify, what are the characteristics of a CD?


I would like to know what changed your mind about these collapses. How can you believe they were a CD a year ago, but not now?


After a while I realized that the CTs did not add up and were not based on reality. I started to realize to believe these theories you have believe that tons of explosives were put into that building with nobody saying anything or anybody noticing.

Also look at the collapses. All the flashes happened after the had started collapsing. And given the shear size of the building, we should have seen thousands of flashes, and heard thousands of loud explosions prior to and during the collapse. But we do not hear or see these things.


Oh my. Thermate produces temperature of about 4500 F. That's more than enough to produce molten steel.


Why do we not see molten metal spewing from more locations other than the one and only spot which just happens to be where a good portion of the aluminum plane wreckage was?


Resistance is something we would see in a pancake collapse.


And in fact you do see it. Again compare the debris falling to the rest of the building. 15 seconds long




Yes, they are. They are in the center of each side of the building. That's called symmetrical.


They are not symmetrical. If you can find me a video where they are symmetrical please post it.


So under this explanation it means there was only one opening for this pressure to be released. And it just so happened those openings were in the center of the building on all four sides. That's a highly unlikely coincidence.


You are talking about the puffs of smoke that came out after the building started collapsing but were a few floors down from where the collapse was happening. The pressure from the top 30 floors crashing down on the building below it had not reached those points yet. In many of the videos you can see the structure buckling in the lower floors from the shear force of the 30 floors crashing down.

By the way this is also another reason not to believe the CD theory. If explosives were used, should we not see uniform "squibs" all around the building and on each floor?


Have you seen the Naudet Brother's film?


Not yet but I will now. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.


Explosives can clearly be heard in the North Tower after the initial attack. There were also many witnesses to secondary explosions all the way up until the collapses.


There are many things that could have exploded or sound like explosions like the elevators crashing, jet fuel falling into lower floors, transformers exploding, generators exploding, and just pieces of concrete crashing.


Video of that witness is linked here:
whatreallyhappened.com...


Perhaps you should stop going to websites that quote mine and take quotes out of context. Do you wonder why all these conspiracy websites only show one or two sentences of an interview?

Here are all those firemen's interviews in full and in context.


Watch the NBC video of the South Tower collapse. There are many obvious flashes and they resemble the flashes we see in known CD videos.


Why are all the flashes after the building has started to collapse? Why were none seen to initiate the collapse?


That video was shown in Richard Gage's presentation. Are you sure you've watched it?


Yes I did watch and thank you for finding that link. It's just I needed my memory jogged. Yes many people saw molten metal. But what does that have to do with thermite or thermate? Those reactions happen pretty quickly. Again to be the CD theory you have to believe that thousands of pounds of explosives were put into the towers without anyone noticing.

Again if you did read the article, it does explain how the temperatures stayed so high and why there was red hot steel.


That article is full of disinfo and I will not allow my brain to be filled with such material.


Not being very objective are we?


Energy is to blame, but let's use common sense here.


Yes lets do that. 3500 lbs. of concrete dropped from 40 ft.


Now imagine concrete crashing down from 70 stories up along with thousands of tons of steel with it.


Thousands of tons of steel simply falling does not have that much force.


Really? Care to prove that?


Further, the pyroclastic dust going up and out before coming down violates gravity and that can only be explained with explosives.


Absolutely not. Look at the collapses again. Thousands of pounds of pressure crushing drywall, concrete and other material that was pulverized have to go somewhere. The debris has to shoot outwards. The lighter material will be pushed out and upwards.

If you are looking to see whether or not it was an implosion, would you not ask the experts on the subject? The very people that do CD for a living? Here are their thoughts on why it is not a controlled demolition.

Thank you for being civil and giving your honest opinion. I do really appreciate it



[edit on 17-8-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join