Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

a reply to: DoUrResearch

I believe they did but on there own I just don't see them colapsing the towers how they did...

Basically speaking, the collapse occurred in the same manner it happened in Santa Monica, CA., where a small jet slammed into a steel frame hangar and started a fire that resulted in the collapse of the hangar..

Private jet crashes into hangar at California airport, sparks inferno

A multimillion dollar private jet crashed into a hangar at a California airport creating an “unsurvivable” inferno on the ground, a fire official said. Santa Monica Fire Department Captain John Nevandro told NBC Los Angeles that the crash was "unsurvivable.” He added: "The building actually collapsed and wrapped itself around the plane."

www.nbcnews.com...

Exposed steel cannot withstand the effects of fire. I know, because I have annealed steel at temperatures as low as 1000 degrees F. where I formed it into complex shapes.

.

a reply to: DoUrResearch

The fact that they found iron balls (which is a bi-product of thermite use) in the massive debris piles was another indicator.

According to the RJ Lee Group, the company that conducted the WTC dust sample investigation, have stated that the microspheres were formed by fire and in some cases, by torches used during cleanup operations.

Steven Jones had duped many 9/11 conspiracy theorist into thinking that thermite was responsible for the microspheres, but we also have to remember that Steven Jones was the same person who managed to convince a number of 9/11 conspiracy theorist that a photo of a flashlight reflection was molten steel. I had to post the video of the actual site that proved that Steven Jones had managed to mislead many people on that photo, which I might add, was later found to have been doctored.

No one found evidence of molten steel, but there was a lot of evidence of molten aluminum.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Basically speaking, the collapse occurred in the same manner it happened in Santa Monica, CA., where a small jet slammed into a steel frame hangar and started a fire that resulted in the collapse of the hangar..

Basically speaking, comparing the structure of the twin towers to
the lightweight gaged steel used in airplane hangers? Shows a complete
lack of any sense at all.

a reply to: hellobruce

And, huge amounts of thermite would have lit up the WTC buildings in huge firework displays and yet, no one saw anything that remotely depicted blinding flashes of light that thermite is well-known for. In fact, it would have been impossible to place that much thermite without drawing a lot of attention, but then again, thermite is not used by the demolition community because it is not very effective against tall steel frame buildings.

Another reason is, it is not timely enough to be used to drop tall steel frame buildings.

a reply to: randyvs

Apparently, it doesn't make any difference. You can take a steel railroad track and place it over a wood fire for an hour and with the help of a few good men to lift the steel track, you will be able to bend the steel track by hand, and I might add, it has been done.

a reply to: Informer1958

Funny you say that, I have not seen their science debunked, but only ridiculed.

Which side claimed explosives took down the WTC building without a sound? That is not the way the laws of physics work.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: randyvs

Apparently, it doesn't make any difference. You can take a steel railroad track and place it over a wood fire for an hour and with the help of a few good men to lift the steel track, you will be able to bend the steel track by hand, and I might add, it has been done.

People, I rest my case.

a reply to: Informer1958

It is to believe the WTC had remote controlled explosives in place, perhaps months in advance.

Even remote controlled explosives leave behind lots of evidence,and once again, there is no sound of demolition explosions nor evidence of demolition explosions in the seismic data.

a reply to: samkent

The smart plan would be to wait 4-5 seconds after the impact then hit the button.

Who says that wasn't the plan?

a reply to: brancolinoxx

There have been many fires in skyscrapers, none have ever collapsed,

How many of those buildings were hit by B-767's at over 500 mph? None. How many of those buildings had their steel frames encased in concrete, unlike the WTC buildings? How many of those buildings had their fire protection intact, unlike the WTC buildings?

What caused the steel outer structure of the Windsor building to collapse in a heap of burned and twisted steel beams? Fire! What cause the steel frame buildings in Thailand to collapse within two hours? Fire!

What weakened the steel structure of an overpass, which caused the overpass to collapse? Fire! What caused the condition of steel beams in the following photo?

Photo: Fire Weakened Steel Beams

a reply to: randyvs

Who says that wasn't the plan?

It wasn't, because no evidence of explosives was ever found and you don't wait hours to conduct such an event..

a reply to: DoUrResearch

The explosions/explosion sounds could have been a result of any thermite and or thermate that was neatly packed away in the structure.

False. Thermite is not an explosive and thermite reactions generate extremely bright flashes of light, none of which was observed at ground zero. I might add that thermite is not effective in dropping tall steel frame buildings and that is another reason why thermite is not used in such a manner.

a reply to: randyvs

People, I rest my case

Let's take a look here, which incidentally, proves my case.

a reply to: skyeagle409

What caused the condition of steel beams in the following photo?

They aren't beams, they're up right columns and I see no evidence of
fire in that photo that seems to be as recent as 1961.
Are you joking?

a reply to: randyvs

Nope, and we can take a look here.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

And once again, you don't wait hours to blow up buildings and that is not how demolition implosions are conducted.

I believe the towers collapsed from structural failure due to heat and internal damage. Building 7, however, is a totally different animal and should stay in it's own thread(s).

This biggest concern I have are the reports of aircraft debris that some say are not from the same type aircraft that purportedly hit the towers, and also the rather weak video analysis that shows some other structure under the aircraft. In this theory, other explosives or napalm were brought into the building, which could probably cause much more damage than kerosene. Is there any consensus out there that this is a viable scenario, or it it properly debunked? I have not seen a good enough counter argument to rule it out yet.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Let's take a look here, which incidentally, proves my case.

Proves your case? Maybe in a building made out of railroad ties.




If there is no difference in what gage steel is used why do they have different
gages of steel?

a reply to: skyeagle409

And once again, you don't wait hours to blow up buildings and that is not how demolition implosions are conducted.

You don't wait hours? Hours from what?

And a demo implosions expert to boot.

What a joke!

a reply to: Azureblue

To ensure the viewing audience all around the world was maximised and for maximum effect on the maximum number of sheeple.

All the network cameras were trained on WTC from the moment the first plane hit.
The same amount of cameras would have been used in an instant collapse.
Coverage would still have been all day non stop.
Do you think less people would have tuned in by blowing the building immediately?
The mere thoughts that there were as many as 10,000 people killed in seconds would have kept people riveted to the screen.
Watching the second plane hit with instant collapse would only solidify the terror.

And actually an instant collapse would instill greater terror in people.
The thought that you have zero chance to escape any building hit by a plane is terrifying.
Right now most people figure you have about a half hour to get out.

a reply to: samkent

No, that logic just doesn't sit well with me. If I was a criminal mind and wanted to do this, I would wait till just before noon or right after lunch. Doing it first thing in the morning is counter productive.