"Pancake collapse" proven possible

page: 13
8
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by starchildtesla
yes it did buckle because the core columns were evaporated by thermite causing a deceptive looking collapse

That is absolutely false. Where did you get this information?




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
becuase from the video shot we can see the eutectic mixture of molten iron/sulfur at 980c cutting through steel beams indicitive of thermate whose molten byproduct is molten iron and sulfur.

Dr steven jones has found the previous molten iron to be thermate , we all know this ?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Anything is possible when you run the country, your point with this thread is????????????.

Great example here.......

G.W.B. `The public want an official enquiry`.

Advisor.. `Give them one`.

G.W.B. `But i`m a *Snip*, I will give the game away for sure, plus there`s so much to ahem, hide!!!`.

Advisor `Dear oh dear Sir, you are teh man, before we do it change some rules, you know, then just organize it in a fool proof way`.

G.W.B. `Including bending the laws of Science?`.

Advisor `We are the laws of Science, muhahahahahaha`.

G.W.B. `Muhahahahaha, mmm there`s 500 plus 1st responders that heard our.. *cough* uhm explosions`.

Advisor `Like I said Sir, it`s your show, don`t invite them`.

G.W.B. `I can do that?`

Advisor `Yep, right, okay Sir, here`s the plan, you will be next to Cheney, if there`s any complex question like what`s your name, let him answer for you, okay`.

G.W.B. `Okay, got that, how the hell will we explain WTC Seven?`.

Advisor `WTC What?`

G.W.B. `Ah ha, I like your style, what we need is a scapegoat fronting what appears to be a legitimate and complex investigation, with some form of bribery via a solid promotion etc, etc, who do we have in NIST?`.

Meanwhile over at Sector Seven G.

Government Official.. `Gross hey`.

Catch my drift, matters not if it was a pancake, structural failure, someone left the gas on, when you are the government pulling the strings on agencies like NIST and FEMA, it can be anything you want it to be.



[Mod Edit - snipped profanity]
Do not circumvent the sensors.

[edit on 7/8/2009 by Sauron]


LOL,LOL
Damn son, do I need your permission to take this quote to other threads?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Any help here?
If you loaded these babies with all kinds of snap crackel and pop.
Then remote joy stick them into the interior of the towers?
Search Tom Flocco.com for full story.


Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon

Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon

Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks

by Tom Flocco

Fort Collins, Colorado -- May 26, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com --
According to two civilian defense contractor employees working at commercial corporate facilities at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (left), in the months before the September 11 attacks U.S. Air Force defense contractors brought in A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft under cover of darkness to be completely refitted and modified at the small civilian airport in Colorado.

The revelations are important evidence for a reportedly ongoing secret 9/11 probe because widely available Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) photographs taken during the attacks clearly show that the few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon belonged to a small jet very similar to a modified A-3 Sky Warrior--not the American Airlines Boeing 757.

It is not known whether all members of Congress are aware of the under-the-radar-screen grand jury proceedings, who has already testified, and whether the probe is purposefully being kept from public knowledge, according to government intelligence sources.
The two witnesses say that separate military contractor teams--working independently at different times--refitted Douglas A-3 Sky Warriors (above) with updated missiles, Raytheon's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders, and radio-radar-navigation systems--a total makeover, seemingly for an operation more important than use as a simple missile testing platform for defense contractor Hughes-Raytheon.



The employees asked not to be identified for personal safety reasons and fear of job retaliation; but both told 2008 independent presidential candidate Karl Schwarz (left) "the Air Force brought in separate teams to do top-secret military work unrelated to commercial aviation at our airport, and we were told by our bosses not to discuss what we had seen with anyone."

The witnesses were quite fearful about several recent "suicides, car wrecks--mysterious deaths--directly related to the aviation experts" working on the systems that were installed on the A-3’s at Fort Collins-Loveland--having breached the government-blocked information flow at great personal risk, according to Schwarz--but providing more evidence for a New York 9/11 investigation.

Schwarz, a former Republican from Arkansas now living in Georgia and running as an independent to clean up government corruption and crime told TomFlocco.com that he met with the employees for about an hour in February to discuss the issue.

The witnesses told Schwarz that each jet was placed in a hanger just big enough for a work crew and one A-3 Sky Warrior; and "we were under strict orders not to discuss what the military teams were doing or what we saw."

The presidential candidate told us "there are about 150 retired and active U.S. military and federal intelligence officers who will come forward and testify regarding government involvement in the September 11 attacks--but only if there is a serious criminal grand jury."

Small plane evidence moved at Pentagon

The approximate 16-foot entry hole at the outside facade of the Pentagon on 9/11 has been the subject of countless questions by those who say the hole was caused by an air-to-ground missile (AGM) fired from a small military jet rather than an impact from a Boeing 757.

Interestingly, the Hughes division manufactures the AGMs; and the Raytheon division maintains the last few A-3 Sky Warriors in operation save 2-4 Air Force jets--while also manufacturing the Global Hawk UAV remote control systems.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Originally posted by Donny 4 million



LOL,LOL
Damn son, do I need your permission to take this quote to other threads?


Hehe, permission granted
.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


I think you have that backwards as to what beggars belief.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
And what were those excessive explosions visible in the towers? Of all the theories about Building 7, controlled demolition is the most realistic, and was even claimed by Silverstein himself on PBS. They "pulled" it down!

Besides, it had been indeed a pancake collapse would that have disproven that it was an inside job with Israelis from the Mossad dancing around to celebrate?



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MightyAl
And what were those excessive explosions visible in the towers? Of all the theories about Building 7, controlled demolition is the most realistic, and was even claimed by Silverstein himself on PBS. They "pulled" it down!

Besides, it had been indeed a pancake collapse would that have disproven that it was an inside job with Israelis from the Mossad dancing around to celebrate?


It's been said again and again but "PULL IT" doesn't equal "BLOW IT UP". When they use "pull" for demolitions they mean pull it with cables and don't say pull "it" but "pull the building". (Evidence: WTC6 demolition) And why would the fire department be in charge of the doing the demolitions? And Larry even admitted in public it didn't mean to blow it up. Of course you can call him a sick liar or some crap but can you prove it and can you refute the other two points above?

Why can't we hear these explosions, though, in the countless recordings made, especially the ones taken up close to the towers? That there is no audible explosion sound indicates that the thing you're seeing that you want to think is explosions is something else instead.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by mike3]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mike3
 


The funny thing is that I believed it was an inside job before the "pull it" theory and the apparent explosions based on evidence that we can find in abundance on the Internet ranging from Norad to Shanksville to the Pentagon and so on.

The "pull it" line is worth refuting though, as first of all he would not admit on PBS that it was an inside job, and "pull it", as you said, can mean many things...

Still, what did he mean when he said those two words in that case? Is it American slang? (I'm not American)



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mike3
 

Hi all! First post, so treat me gently...

First of all, it's always useful for evidence purportedly against the 'conspiracy theories' to be provided. The physics of 9/11 has to be definitive. Maybes aren't good enough. Which is why expectations for a definitive alternative to the official narrative is naive.

With respect to this video. On first inspection, it is quite impressive. But beware first impressions!

A number of queries spring to mind.
It is claimed no explosives were used. How long were the cameras trained on this building, to catch it just as it spontaneously fell? How was it safely weakened, avoiding demolition workers caught in the collapse? Was any supporting structure removed from the bottom half? The top half appears almost disconnected from the bottom. However, in both the twin towers, more than 90% of the columns were intact. What caused them to simultaneously fail?

Certain claims for this video, such as the non-use of explosives, are not sustainable, for reasons hinted at above. There will be many other red flags.

It's fun finding them!



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by utgardloki
 


Maybe you missed the second post of the thread.

This video proves absolutely nothing of a kind. This building was gutted for weeks ahead of time and was constructed of concrete. All the pillars were pre-weakened weeks ahead of time as well. Explosives were used to blow the top half of the building to fall on the second half. Nice try though but your just making a fool out of yourself.


I have not had the chance to see if what was written there is true but just watching the video was enough to see it was no comparison in any way.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 

I did read that, but the statements were definitive without support (as you recognize). It surely must be as important to identify why the claims made are untenable. Simple statements of fact are the bane of evidential discussion...



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike3
Hi.

I'm quite skeptical of all these 9/11 Bomb theories. Just a short time ago I came upon something which shows that yes, a "pancake collapse" of a large building is indeed possible:

www.youtube.com...

No explosives were used, the building actually crushed itself after that one floor failed, causing the top to drop onto it. The impact of the top falling just ONE FLOOR had enough strength to crush the floors beneath it.

What do you think? Looks like such a collapse really is possible. It just takes ONE FLOOR of fall to start the process, and the whole thing goes down. The whole tower was destroyed. It just doesn't happen, unless someone wanted it too.


Hmm.


Your right, but it also mentions that on that one floor the beams were destroyed, so its still a controlled demolition regardless if any explosives were used or not.

Think about it... 3 buildings collapsed.... 2 planes...... even God himself counldn't create a miracle like that


Russians cant fly their planes 500 miles off the coast of American soil without American fighter jets being present... and im suppose to believe 4 known hijacked airliners flew freely in American airspace for over 40 minutes without a single reaction from our alert forces? Hmmm.

I still cant believe people are buying all the BS they sold us, look at the chain of events and tell me where they once told us the truth?

From 9/11 - We go to Afghanistan to find the person responsible (Osama Bin Laden) - We cant find him so we lable him a minor risk??? We go to Iraq to take down a man who poses a grave threat to the West and is hell bent on launching a nuclear war - We find no WMD, not even a single trail showing us he tried to acquire ANY sort of weapons. In fact everything we find is traced back to what the American government gave him back in the 80's. Throughout that period of time it was one big lie after the other, and what makes it worse is think about all the time and resources they wasted fighting this "War on terror" and then take a quick look at the condition your economy is in.


What a joke, these people/that administration should all be in jail serving life sentences.... they shouldn't be allowed to freely walk our streets and influence our government.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by utgardloki
reply to post by evil incarnate
 

I did read that, but the statements were definitive without support (as you recognize). It surely must be as important to identify why the claims made are untenable. Simple statements of fact are the bane of evidential discussion...


Umm....huh?
Let me try this again.

I will go slowly.

The building in the video was gutted and prepped for demolition.

That is a fact with support.

With me?

That is one good reason why there is NO comparison.

Got that?

I can tell by your reply that you are trying your best to sound really intelligent but truly intelligent people do not need to repeat themselves because they did not come across clearly the first time. I am not sure what you meant to say but it does not make any sense in the context it is in. I gave you supported facts. Apples and Oranges, pal.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by utgardloki
reply to post by mike3
 

Hi all! First post, so treat me gently...

First of all, it's always useful for evidence purportedly against the 'conspiracy theories' to be provided. The physics of 9/11 has to be definitive. Maybes aren't good enough. Which is why expectations for a definitive alternative to the official narrative is naive.


Hmm.



With respect to this video. On first inspection, it is quite impressive. But beware first impressions!

A number of queries spring to mind.
It is claimed no explosives were used. How long were the cameras trained on this building, to catch it just as it spontaneously fell?


I don't know the precise time, but presumably they started the cameras shortly before they initiated the demolition. It didn't fall "spontaneously", this is a planned demo -- see below. I brought it up because of the physics it demonstrates, namely, it shows that the weight of a significant-sized part of a large concrete structure impacting the part beneath it can cause that to fail to, bringing about progressive collapse.



How was it safely weakened, avoiding demolition workers caught in the collapse? Was any supporting structure removed from the bottom half? The top half appears almost disconnected from the bottom. However, in both the twin towers, more than 90% of the columns were intact. What caused them to simultaneously fail?


I haven't been able to get firm, conclusive information on the specifics, but I think it's supposed to involve using hydraulics or some other mechanical mechanism to "pull" out the columns on the floor which gives out. I don't know if preweakening was used or not, though. It would be interesting to find out, however. Though I'm not sure it would be completely necessary, given the sheer weight that would be falling onto the lower floors.



Certain claims for this video, such as the non-use of explosives, are not sustainable, for reasons hinted at above. There will be many other red flags.


Good evidence for the video itself for the lack of explosives is the lack of their distinctive boom sound. This video has audio of the collapse included:



Explosive demolition videos, taken at similar distances, always have audible explosion sounds. This doesn't.



It's fun finding them!




[edit on 26-9-2009 by mike3]



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join