FIVE QUESTIONS: The Twin Towers and a Controlled Demonlition: HOW?

Originally posted by gravitor
You do not have any justification for stating what I believe, I think for Myself.
I do not simply repeat what others say.
The steel was the critical evidence in determining what occured, those who organised however much was removed need to be jailed as accessories to murder.

It is so blatendly obvious that a very well organised coverup of the truth was undertaken , and that in itself reveals that there was a need to do such.
There will be a very close estimate of the overall weight of metals that was involved in all of the demolished towers, and every inch should have been weighed and examined.
SHAME on America for been so wrapped up in a blood lust for revenge whilst the real truth was removed and destroyed.
pieces of papers saying certain weights are not the real stuff.

The method of demolishing these towers lies in a transmutation process, and that is what this thread is about.
HOW.
Not how You want to believe.
gravitor

You, in turn, have no say in what I believe. I think it was a conspiracy, just not demolitions or vibrational energy beam. There just isn't enough evidence to convince me.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by UB2120
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

Look up Dr. Judy Wood. She has a very interesting theory.

It is an interesting theory, yes, and Wood tries to do her research, but she falls for the process of having your answer and then choosing stuff to fit it. She thinks the spire after collapse "dustified," even though from other angles you can see that it simply fell straight down, and the settled dust on it went into the air. The burned cars were hit by burning debris, not hit by a beam of energy. That's why other cars weren't burned in the same areas, and that's why people were not burned by the cloud. There's nothing pyroclastic about the cloud if people survived being immersed in it.

Please supply a link to the other angle that shows the spire just fall. Every video I can find shows it turn to dust.

reply to post by ProudBird


Still waiting for a reply for the below

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by ProudBird

 

You have a bit of knowledge about planes, can you please answer me this?

My theory:

Given they have technology that you seem to think they do not have available, there's then no reason to disbelieve that they used superior technology to bring the WTC Towers down.

Once they're using 'superior' technology then they have any number of ways to complete said task.

Maybe the people who are getting sick from digging for survivors and firefighting are an 'unfortunate' consequence of the use of it.

I trust peoples perception, you don't just see a plane flying into a building everyday. You remember details and those details go against the official story, given on live TV by witnesses.

OP, I've lit Thermite with a Magnesium strip. I don't believe that was very loud at all. A lighter.

edit on 7-12-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by UB2120
Please supply a link to the other angle that shows the spire just fall. Every video I can find shows it turn to dust.

I suppose it is somewhat subjective, but it is a fact that after the initial collapse, dust settled on the spire. From the videos, especially this one (at 00:55), you can clearly see it falling before the dust goes into the air and obscures it. I'm certain that if you put a bunch of dust loosely on top of something, and then dropped it, the dust would disperse into the air.

www.youtube.com...

And actually, in that same video if you watch the next clip, you can still see the solid outline of the spire falling under the cloud of dust. I'd say that's fairly busted. The spire fell.

Here's my take on it lads...

1.
IMO a plane didn't hit the building, more like a cruise missle and then the TV studio worked their CGI magic.

Thats the stance im coming from so in regards to Q1, TPTB knew what floor the impact would occur on and so had the charges pre wired/set, be it thermite and/or high explosive on the structural steel columns. Demo techs can remotely detonate these no problem. The famous vids of the molten steel dripping from the tower is a sure sign of thermite IMO.

A guy on youtube recreated the use of thermite on structural steel, see link below...



The reason it was accomplished so precisely is because TPTB knew exactly where the impact would be.

2.
I think the technology used in this event is more than what the average person can even imagine so theres no knowing what advanced tech was employed to bring these buildings down. I would imagine the charges were made to be robust enough to withstand the initial explosion and resulting fire. Detonation mechanism would be either by remote or a timer. I would think a timer would be more reliable in this scenario as it would contain less vulnerable electronic components as opposed to a device with a remote acting capability, but i may be wrong.

In the above posted youtube vid, the guy uses a very robust case for his thermite device, although crude and made of structural steel, i would think a pro manufactured device would be very capable of withstanding the multiple stresses encountered within the towers.

3.
In this vid you can hear a definate explosion at the moment just prior to collapse...



* NB: Note flash at 0:20 seconds at bottom of picture. This to me is a charge detonating

With thermite, there is no loud bang, just a fizz. So the thermite, used in conjunction with explosions, and with the overall ambient sound/noise of the day, alot of the sound from the charges would be drowned out/softened

4.
IDK. But the fact the towers fell at free fall speed means something unnatural occured that day. A building falling at free fall speed, also seen at WTC 7, can only occur when core structural elements are weakened/removed throughout the building, meaning that the weight of the building above, meets no resistance on the way down. An event which can only occur in a controlled demolition scenario.

5.
Im sure TPTB had counter measures/back-ups planned for anything that went wrong. This whole event would have to have been planned for many years in advance so im sure they may have got everything planned as perfectly as humanly possible. With technology and science at the stage it is at now/and then, then may have been able to run mock scenarios of the impact, resulting fire and demoltion and tweeks their plans accordingly.

Gibonz

Originally posted by Varemia
I suppose it is somewhat subjective, but it is a fact that after the initial collapse, dust settled on the spire. From the videos, especially this one (at 00:55), you can clearly see it falling before the dust goes into the air and obscures it. I'm certain that if you put a bunch of dust loosely on top of something, and then dropped it, the dust would disperse into the air.

www.youtube.com...

And actually, in that same video if you watch the next clip, you can still see the solid outline of the spire falling under the cloud of dust. I'd say that's fairly busted. The spire fell.

I'd love some explanation from you as to how the core even collapsed in the first place.

NIST didn't explain it.

All we ever hear is 'the core couldn't stand without support from the floors' nonsense. No evidence of that claim, just an assumption based on logical fallacy. A misunderstood statement that the floors laterally connected the core to the outer mesh.

But regardless, you can make all the excuses you want, we all know the core collapsed before the floors did.
It is the only logical explanation for the complete destruction of the towers.

Originally posted by ANOK
All we ever hear is 'the core couldn't stand without support from the floors' nonsense. No evidence of that claim, just an assumption based on logical fallacy. A misunderstood statement that the floors laterally connected the core to the outer mesh.

Not a logical fallacy at all. Every text on the towers shows that the outer panels and trusses were meant to resist the wind, and it allowed for a core construction focused almost entirely on resisting vertical loads only. Once you remove the shield, the wind wobbles it too much, and very quickly, it collapses just as we saw.

I'm not sure why this is such a complex thing to look at. It was damaged, and you could SEE, literally SEE it wobbling before it fell. This is not me making stuff up. I'm not just saying this. You can see it yourself. Stop being obtuse.

Originally posted by gravitor
The method of demolishing these towers lies in a transmutation process, and that is what this thread is about.

What was transmuted and what was it transmuted to? The entire 'dustification' concept is the result of a strong desire for a demolition conspiracy coupled with a scifi explanation made necessary by a complete lack of evidence for any known demolition method.

reply to post by MaxJohnson


Link








Hat-Tip Dr. Fubar.

reply to post by Varemia


The primary reason for the core to collapse is the damage as result of the rest of the building collapsing on it. This makes the question if the core could stand on its own and if so under which weather conditions and for how long completely irrelevant.

reply to post by LightAssassin


This has to be repeated so often, it is amazing.

Video #1, clips from "In Plane Site" (spelling??) and Video #2, clips from "Loose Change".

Video #1 uses selective examples from a few who are certainly not "expert" witnesses, and their "testimony" consists of their impressions immediately after the events. These are poor representations of very bad personal opinions. This phenomenon (terrible eyewitness accounts) is commonplace in every complicated event, and when ALL evidence is taken into consideration, then the true facts are revealed, and the incorrect "witness" statements can be properly assessed.

Video #2 is the same tired old crap that spews from Dylan Avery and his scruffy associate, as the "film makers" of Loose Change. Their assertions have long ago been shown to be without merit, on multiple levels.

Finally, as to the bottom of the United 175 fuselage, it is usually when they (whomever) use the worst resolution photos and horribly compressed videos that the attempt to "argue" this nonsense is made.

In fact, all that s shown is the design of the paint. In that particular scheme, the dark blue portion on the bottom half of the fuselage does not continue all the way, there are strips of bare aluminum down there, several feet wide.

Here are some links to the images from airliners.net that show that same paint scheme as United 175 was sporting in 2001 (Note, the new paint scheme being adopted is the old Continental design, since the merger):




Can you see the underside of the fuselage there? It's not the best angle, but I chose it for the view of the other "bumps" under neath, where the Main Landing Gear retract.

Here's another angle, this time with the Gear retracted (but, the flaps and slats still extended, they are in the typical position for takeoffs):



.

reply to post by ProudBird


How did 44 generators turn to dust?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Varemia

 

The primary reason for the core to collapse is the damage as result of the rest of the building collapsing on it. This makes the question if the core could stand on its own and if so under which weather conditions and for how long completely irrelevant.

Yes, but remember that we're responding to people who think that the collapse should have just stopped and the trusses be able to hold up the mass from above, or allow it to slide off to the side. Even though the core was severely damaged before it collapsed, you have to treat it as if it was completely intact or else these guys will ignore you. Course, they will ignore you either way, so I guess there's no winning scenario here.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by ProudBird

 

How did 44 generators turn to dust?

Prove that they did turn to dust. Prove it, right now.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by ProudBird

 

How did 44 generators turn to dust?

Prove that they did turn to dust. Prove it, right now.

Down boy, stop humping my leg.

I'm the one who is saying they were never there to begin with. The problem you're faced with is explaining what happened to this sort of contents, and why you can't point to a single one of the 44 in any of the damage photos, and that's not counting their ducting, or their electrical cables or connections, not to mention the rest of the contents.

The pictures give perspective as to just what should have been seen ejecting from the building instead of the gigantic clouds of cement dust (no, it wasn't spray on insulation and gypsum board).

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed

 

There were no planes hitting WTC..

Utter nonsense. There are videos, and photos and EYE witnesses!!!

.

ACARS confirmed in many posts here on ATS, and other forums, the planes were still flying long after the second tower

And that claim is a lie, based on a deceptive interpretation of certain facts, and those misinterpretations are being mis-used to make invalid claims that are complete rubbish.

There is an "agenda" afoot on this topic. And, the so-called "truth" organizations are oxy-moronic.

EYE witnessesamyass!!! Only those who is pushed forward on the gov.mediacontrolledTV

Many fancy words... Read and judge. The only rubbish here is your claim that this is false accusations...

pilotsfor911truth.org...

reply to post by septic


They didn't. They, like everything else in the buildings got crushed into the debris pile. Your continued insistence that the buildings were empty is laughable.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

They didn't. They, like everything else in the buildings got crushed into the debris pile. Your continued insistence that the buildings were empty is laughable.

Hogwash. There would be huge generators then, crushed perhaps, but still there. You can't find any proof of your claim they were crushed. I have more proof that they weren't there at the time of the demolition.

Is it not standard practice of controlled demolitions to strip the buildings of all such contents?

reply to post by septic


Oh this is rich. You have absolutely NO proof the towers were stripped. Whereas, there were thousands of people, at their jobs in the towers, thousands of tourists going up to the Ob Deck the weeks prior, hundreds of businesses at work........

Oh yes, I forgot....they were all in on it...............

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

Oh this is rich. You have absolutely NO proof the towers were stripped. Whereas, there were thousands of people, at their jobs in the towers, thousands of tourists going up to the Ob Deck the weeks prior, hundreds of businesses at work........

Oh yes, I forgot....they were all in on it...............

Oh don't be a simpleton. All it takes is one lie about thousands of people to start the rumor. Not thousands of people in on it, just one. Not thousands of liars, just one.