9/11 Rare-New Evidence Of Controlled Demo?

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   








next?

oh and one further thing...look at the support beam, sliced diagonally, thats another tell tale sign that its a demo job...

[edit on 2-8-2007 by ZGhorus]




posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Well I was at ground zero (~600ft away) when the first tower fell. I did not hear any explosions nor see any.....it was just one loud llllllllloooooooogg roaring rumble. Since I'm still here and not glowing there definitely was no 'micro-nuke'. Of course after that I did not stay around waiting for the second tower to collapse, though I was outside my office building (25 Broadway) when the senond did fall..........just heard a loud rumble follow-up by a cloud of debris.

Plus to say there was no concrete is inncorrect. The debris field covered 16 acres and was between 5-7 stories (50-70 feet) tall above ground level; this does not include the multiple sub-basements in the towers.

[edit on 2-8-2007 by ferretman2]

[edit on 2-8-2007 by ferretman2]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Squib Question:

Does anyone know what forces it would take to blow out a squib/s that size? It doesn't look like just windows being blowing out. I see a concrete looking dust and that's MANY floors below collapse..

If the force is know, can the "compressed" air achieve these forces at the heights below the collapses shown so FAR away from the elevators? Would air that was being "compressed" have many other places to travel than a straight shotgun blast from random sides? I see it happening just below the collapse as a plausible possibility, but not like shown.

That question I haven't seen answered yet so if anyone has an answer or a LINK to an answer it'd be much appreciated. I see way too much force and content coming from those squibs for it to be anything else other than CD squibs.

b



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Originally posted by ferretman2




Since I'm still here and not glowing there definitely was no 'micro-nuke'.



Thanks for your post ferretman. That's actually a pretty silly statement as radiation poisoning does not cause a person 'to glow'. And you didn't say whether or not you had had any tests or what kind of tests you had for radiation and who performed the tests and under what conditions and what their expertise might have been.

I am not sure that with highly advanced micro-nukes you would have been subject to any nuclear radiation from 600 feet away. You may be thinking of Hiroshima type nukes.

But in any case to make a statement that because you weren't 'glowing' there "definately was no 'micro-nuke'" is without substance or fact. But thanks for the post anyway.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Watching this video, and others in the past - you can see the top 1/3 of the building starting to fall off to the left. The way I see it, it should have kept falling off to the left, way off to the left, but instead disappears into smoke and somehow stops leaning and falls straight to the ground - right on top of a 3000ft building which so happened to fall right on top of itself... But there’s always the possibility those "terrorist" were intelligent enough to figure out how to fly a 757 into the building just right to make it fall perfectly onto itself - and to make parts of the building implode without even touching it... who knows



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Can you provide me with a scientific reviewed paper that shows NIST and FEMA is works of fiction?


Why do I have to keep saying this? The NIST and FEMA reports can never be peer reviewed to begin with. They haven't disclosed their experiments, computer data, evidence etc. to be reviewed by others. The very definition of peer review tells us that these reports have NOT been peer reviewed. Why?

But, anyway. Since they have not disclosed their evidence etc., it would be impossible to prove them wrong. Now I understand why they haven't disclosed their findings yet.

So, please. Enough with the "show me a peer reviewed paper refuting NIST" because there never will be until they disclose their findings and evidence.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
i am changing this due to hind sight...again...


the 9/11 comittee people met with mr bush and the vice pres...secretly...with no notes to be taken, no recording material to be used in any way shape or form...why? if it was this pancake effect...what did he have to hide?

[edit on 2-8-2007 by ZGhorus]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I'm quite sure Ferretman's 'glowing' reference was sarcastic at best, given that even students in a public High School can recognize radiation poisoning wouldn't cause a glow.

Further, unless you plan to support any 'micro-nuke' crap, please refrain from theoretics. Because then I'll bring up EMP. And you'll say, 'maybe it's so advanced it has none!'.
Then I'll bring up the characteristic double-flash.
And you'll say it's so small it had none!
And I'll tell you even a .001 kiloton nuke would blow through multiple floors, and perhaps even the support columns.
And you'd say it was a directional charge nuke!
And I'll cry.

Etc.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
]Originally posted by Iblis




And I'll cry.



Here's a hanky. It was a micro-nuke. Get over it. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
i'm a generally fairly open minded chap and even i find the idea of a micro nuke rediculous...lol@directional micro nuke...



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Please show me the proof that there was molten "steel" at the WTC.



I guess Leslie Robinson (the guy who designed the towers) and Bart Voorsanger (the architect hired for the memorial) aren't enough for you?

The first and 4th pages are the meat of the thread. The video from the first page is worth watching but the fourth page is where I prove that this man in the video was hired by the PA and he is an architect and should know the difference between steel and other metals.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Impressive video.

Can any of the controlled demolition theorists explain why there is no immediate structural failure at the levels where we can see the "squib" explosions?

The upper floors are clearly falling in a cascade effect. When the biggest "squibs" appear, the transition zone between competent structure and crumbling concrete is approximately 20 stories above the "squib" explosions.

Why does the initial cascading failure continue to progress downward with no new cascades originating at the "squib" points?

My belief is because the "squib explosions" are nothing more than blow outs caused by an overpressure condition caused by the collapsing upper floors.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
well lets start with...the size of the building, the size of the squibs and the distinct need to keep them as discreet as possible?



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Just wondering how many campaign groups are there that involve actual families who lost loved ones...I mean families that believe in this conspiracy..
Because the way i see it.......It will be the power and love of the bereaved families that will untimely make a break through...They can't be ignored...They will never stop asking the questions....I remember about 4 months ago..They put a documentary on channel 5 in Britain...It was truly awful...It ignored all the questions that loose change had bought up..and other various films...I remember watching this film on channel 5 and feeling disgusted....But also positive that some force somewhere felt the need to put out a film debunking the conspiracy theories...Right at the end the presenter asked a old widow what she thought of all the stories about the conspiracies...I remember feeling sorry for that women.....She had total trust in what her beloved country was telling her...She would never accept that something so appalling could ever happen..That her own government had killed her beautiful husband.

[edit on 2uThursday07/27/20 by paul76]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Iblis - you are correct........I should have put it as 'glowing'.

John - Though I can still see (haven't been blinded) and if it were a micro-nuke just how small of an explosion would it be? Wouldn't there be any effect on the 'outside' of the towers?



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by ZGhorus





i'm a generally fairly open minded chap and even i find the idea of a micro nuke rediculous...lol@directional micro nuke...




Hmmmmm. OK, well I was going to mention the holograph theory but never mind. Please have a nice day.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Impressive video.

Can any of the controlled demolition theorists explain why there is no immediate structural failure at the levels where we can see the "squib" explosions?


Let me ask. What do you expect to happen if those squibs are for weakening the core to aid in collapse?

My take. If they were to weaken (not fully collapse) the core, then there would be no immediate structural failure (at least that we could see).



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


Really? You have eyewitnesses that were there on 911 AT ground zero that claim to have witnessed the "demo charges?" I would LOVE to see them! Please provide a source.


actually theres some stuff on youtube... that janitor from the WTCs said something about it. ill try and find the link...

and no, i obviously wasnt being serious about my debunk world or warcraft statement... but i like that i made u laugh... you shouldnt laugh about something so horendous!



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
123

[edit on 2-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
There is also the NY Times that acquired like 15,000 interviews(might be less) or something from people on that day via The Information act, and according to some of them, people say they saw flashes and heard bombs going off...


saw flashes and heard "bombs" or "explosions?"
HUGE difference. And even IF they said bombs....what would that prove? Some one SAW a bomb get detonated?





new topics
top topics
 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join