View Full Version : What brought the towers down???
gunner
06-10-2006, 02:27 AM
Good job, thanks.
No problem :five:
slvrbugjim
06-10-2006, 02:30 AM
what I mean is we love America, but we do not like these persons that are destroying America, For a fact.
I just wish to continue my life, why is this a problem?? why is this a situation, ??
Out
Large Sarge
06-10-2006, 08:00 AM
I never got why the towers had to be rigged at all, or why a missile had to be involved, etc.
If there is some shadowy organization that wanted to stage an attack on America, all that's required is devoting some time and expertise to some rather militant extermist groups.
Why make the problem more complicated than it needed to be?
Why plant explosives all over the Murrah building in OKC? When you had a big truck bomb in the street just outside?
Why place all those puts on the airlines just days before the attacks?
Why find pools of molten metal 6-8 weeks after the attacks from jet fuel/diesel fuel?
You are asking some pretty poor questions, not as bad as Halo's obvious trolling and lack of integrity.
you need to follow the evidence, not follow your own opinions on why and what should be done, if the evidence points to certain things then you examine it, just because it does not fit what you would do, does not mean it is not possible. I hope you would not murder 3,000 people. obviously these people would, and did.
runcible
06-10-2006, 11:16 AM
Scenerio 1: US secretly wires up 8,600,000 square feet worth of office space (WTC 1&2) for demolition, as well as 1,868,000 sq feet worth of space in WTC 7, but skipped wiring WTC 6, 5, 4 & 3, which were nearer to the twin towers. Then they blame it on a group of mostly Saudi Arabian hijackers.
Scenerio 2: Some three-letter acronym agency infiltrates an extermist group, suggests the idea, and funnels some money their way. Perhaps they even supply a few hints about weaknesses in US security.
Oh wait, I guess there is a video tape supporting the first scenerio. Movies never lie, of course, since the only incentive to release a movie would be to reveal the truth. Well, except Michael Moore's movies, of course, he's only in it for the money and the attention. But everyone else is honest!
bigjon
06-10-2006, 11:36 AM
Scenerio 1: US secretly wires up 8,600,000 square feet worth of office space (WTC 1&2) for demolition, as well as 1,868,000 sq feet worth of space in WTC 7, but skipped wiring WTC 6, 5, 4 & 3, which were nearer to the twin towers. Then they blame it on a group of mostly Saudi Arabian hijackers.
Scenerio 2: Some three-letter acronym agency infiltrates an extermist group, suggests the idea, and funnels some money their way. Perhaps they even supply a few hints about weaknesses in US security.
Oh wait, I guess there is a video tape supporting the first scenerio. Movies never lie, of course, since the only incentive to release a movie would be to reveal the truth. Well, except Michael Moore's movies, of course, he's only in it for the money and the attention. But everyone else is honest!
Obviously you were too stupid to be put in charge of this op.
Each charge has its own wireless addressable node, that way when the remote controlled planes crash into the buildings the sequence can be modified to make it look as if the collapse started at the point of impact.
They planned this for years and they had months to go through trial runs to make sure all the nodes were accessable and online.
Obviously you were too stupid to be put in charge of this op.
Each charge has its own wireless addressable node, that way when the remote controlled planes crash into the buildings the sequence can be modified to make it look as if the collapse started at the point of impact.
They planned this for years and they had months to go through trial runs to make sure all the nodes were accessable and online.
Don't let these cons get to you. Pretty hilarious. There are plausible calculations to support what happened without explosives. I've yet to hear anyone say they helped wire, saw people wiring, or saw the said explosives.
bigjon
06-10-2006, 04:10 PM
Don't let these cons get to you. Pretty hilarious. There are plausible calculations to support what happened without explosives. I've yet to hear anyone say they helped wire, saw people wiring, or saw the said explosives.
Not looking in the right places are you?
http://goldismoney.info/forums/t38167-powerhouse-collection-of-911-controlled-demolition-quotes.html
Not looking in the right places are you?
http://goldismoney.info/forums/t38167-powerhouse-collection-of-911-controlled-demolition-quotes.html
Explosives, not explosions.
slvrbugjim
06-10-2006, 05:11 PM
Don't let these cons get to you. Pretty hilarious. There are plausible calculations to support what happened without explosives. I've yet to hear anyone say they helped wire, saw people wiring, or saw the said explosives.
Hmm, so what is the pausible explanation and "calculation" for building 7 collaping faster than free fall speed?? The only plausible explanation is Controled Demolition.
Hmm, so what is the pausible explanation and "calculation" for building 7 collaping faster than free fall speed?? The only plausible explanation is Controled Demolition.
It didn't collapse faster than free fall.
Large Sarge
06-10-2006, 05:54 PM
I suspect some of these posts are by paid pentagon trolls, newbies to the forum, asking redundant questions, trying to steer folks onto the Govt propaganda.
its sad that because no one on the 6 O'Clock news has come and said "Its true, 9/11 was an inside job", that people still question it. So many glaring inconsistencies with reality and the official story, a physics professor even did a peer reviewed paper on it, saying the Govt is lying, and NO ONE CAN PROVE HIM WRONG!
it appears, most folks worship the television & the Govt, brainwashing at its finest.
until dan blather or elizabeth vargas say's it, it will not be true.
Sad really.
great use of your minds. way to think for yourself and use logic.
I suspect some of these posts are by paid pentagon trolls, newbies to the forum, asking redundant questions, trying to steer folks onto the Govt propaganda.
its sad that because no one on the 6 O'Clock news has come and said "Its true, 9/11 was an inside job", that people still question it. So many glaring inconsistencies with reality and the official story, a physics professor even did a peer reviewed paper on it, saying the Govt is lying, and NO ONE CAN PROVE HIM WRONG!
it appears, most folks worship the television & the Govt, brainwashing at its finest.
until dan blather or elizabeth vargas say's it, it will not be true.
Sad really.
great use of your minds. way to think for yourself and use logic.
Making lots of assumptions about people that don't fall in line for your con stories. There are glaring inconsistencies and assumptions on the con side as well. If I agreed with all you say just because you think it is true, I sure wouldn't be using my mind or the logic based on what I've read and concluded for myself. Maybe you just always jump on the anti-government bandwagon irreguardless. That would be sad, really.
Large Sarge
06-10-2006, 06:38 PM
Making lots of assumptions about people that don't fall in line for your con stories. There are glaring inconsistencies and assumptions on the con side as well. If I agreed with all you say just because you think it is true, I sure wouldn't be using my mind or the logic based on what I've read and concluded for myself. Maybe you just always jump on the anti-government bandwagon irreguardless. That would be sad, really.
here you go Dude,
since you seem to be so up on your science and what really happened on 9/11, peruse this at your leisure, and let us all know when you find some faults in it. you can start a new career as a physics professor, instead of a part time troll on GIM
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
lots of good info there. should keep you busy for days.
please be sure and let us know when you find some egregious errors or miscalculations in his paper, we will all be waiting breathlessly for your stunning rebuttal to Dr. Jones Paper.
here you go Dude,
since you seem to be so up on your science and what really happened on 9/11, peruse this at your leisure, and let us all know when you find some faults in it. you can start a new career as a physics professor, instead of a part time troll on GIM
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
lots of good info there. should keep you busy for days.
please be sure and let us know when you find some egregious errors or miscalculations in his paper, we will all be waiting breathlessly for your stunning rebuttal to Dr. Jones Paper.
I read the Jones paper already
I have pulled one sample item of interest that Jones made and debunked what he claims to be true below. I won't continue on each point because your mind is already made up, if you really believe Jones. Jones is passing a lot of bad information. If you don't see it, sad, really sad.
A Jones clip:
Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability.
My clip debunking Jones:
Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of it's journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. This substance is grayish. Dare I say SILVER? One thing it's not, and that's black.
Jones writes:"This is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"
I think at a cooler temperature he's right.
What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911".
The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me. I still wouldn't CONCLUDE it's aluminum. But as I said, the evidence points to it.
The colormeansnothing. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed it's color.
One last thing about the photo. In the NIST report where the photo came from (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf) it clearly states under the photo "Intensity levels have been adjusted". So how can you conclude the color of something from a photo which has been "Adjusted"?
Jones says something I can't help but find incredible..."If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability."
The obvious question is how does he know what condition the floors were to suggest they were flat enough not to pool aluminum near a heat source? I guess this is where we begin to forget again... We are to forget an airliner just rammed into the floors possibly bending/warping them. No? Don't like that? What about concrete, steel columns, steel sheets which held the concrete, airliner parts and office furniture which could have created a temporary dam? In fact I think it's a "high probability" that the floors weren't in pristine shape after the impact of an airliner.
Large Sarge
06-10-2006, 07:16 PM
I read the Jones paper already
I have pulled one sample item of interest that Jones made and debunked what he claims to be true below. I won't continue on each point because your mind is already made up, if you really believe Jones. Jones is passing a lot of bad information. If you don't see it, sad, really sad.
A Jones clip:
Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability.
My clip debunking Jones:
Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of it's journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. This substance is grayish. Dare I say SILVER? One thing it's not, and that's black.
Jones writes:"This is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"
I think at a cooler temperature he's right.
What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911".
The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me. I still wouldn't CONCLUDE it's aluminum. But as I said, the evidence points to it.
The colormeansnothing. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed it's color.
One last thing about the photo. In the NIST report where the photo came from (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf) it clearly states under the photo "Intensity levels have been adjusted". So how can you conclude the color of something from a photo which has been "Adjusted"?
Jones says something I can't help but find incredible... "If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability."
The obvious question is how does he know what condition the floors were to suggest they were flat enough not to pool aluminum near a heat source? I guess this is where we begin to forget again... We are to forget an airliner just rammed into the floors possibly bending/warping them. No? Don't like that? What about concrete, steel columns, steel sheets which held the concrete, airliner parts and office furniture which could have created a temporary dam? In fact I think it's a "high probability" that the floors weren't in pristine shape after the impact of an airliner.
You seem to neglect the 47 supersteel beams in the center of the towers.
Dude, you are not really answering anything. a slight color variation (based on your own questionable vision) of some metal.
How about where did all those main supporting beams disappear to Dude?
instead of these vague answers, I suggest you go straight to the horses mouth,
of course we will ignore the thermate found in WTC samples sent to him,
Here is Dr. Jones Home E-mail account, he checks it frequently, be sure and let us know what you find out. you might be the one Dude, the first to breach the rigorous peer review process, might be an award for this, dare I say it "Nobel Peace Prize" in physics ....
Go Dude Go.
Dr. Jones Home Addy
hardevidence2003@yahoo.com
please let us know what you find out
Large Sarge
06-10-2006, 07:21 PM
oh should I also mention that never in the history of steel frame building has one fallen down from fire, and that day 3 did.
Groundbeaking event.
All those skyscrapers are now at risk from fire. they could suddenly implode from fire. we need to warn everyone we care for, buildings all over the world will soon implode.
look at this building in Madrid, 10 hours of steady HOT burning....
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html
call the fire marshalls, call the engineers, call the building contractors...
Large Sarge
06-10-2006, 07:29 PM
actually, I guess the madrid fire burned for over 24 hours, my mistake, and never collapsed.
COMMENTARY
A 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid. In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing.
[ Click Here for A Video Report from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/news_web/video/40823000/nb/40823471_nb_16x9.ram) ]
The media covering this event has been hovering on the edge of its seat, waiting for the building to fall, frequently commenting on the debris falling from the inferno implying that some tumbling sheet rock are an indication of the building's seemingly inevitable downfall. Their headlines reiterate this conclusion: Spanish Skyscraper Fire Subsiding, But Collapse Possible, (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/4193030/detail.html) Fears of collapse as fire ravages huge Madrid office block (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1301828.htm), Madrid skyscraper collapse feared as inferno rages (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12238448%255E2703,00.html). Ignoring objectivism, the reports have been clearly skewed to direct the public to belive in the new post-9/11 laws of physics:
"It is clear the structure has been damaged and has suffered high temperatures, and we cannot be certain that a pillar, girder or some other structural element will not collapse," Javier Sanz, fire chief for the Madrid region, told state radio. [read article (http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/madrid_towering_inferno.htm#biggest)]
The connection between this event and the collapse of WTC building 7 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html) is impossible to ignore and the media are doing everything in their power to subvert reality and spin this event: All they have to do is remind us its going to collapse over and over again until the next news cycle and the event is forgotten in the back pages of the newspaper. At that point it won't matter if the building actually collapsed or not and the world will keep spinning according to the new post-9/11 laws of physics.
You seem to neglect the 47 supersteel beams in the center of the towers.
Dude, you are not really answering anything. a slight color variation (based on your own questionable vision) of some metal.
How about where did all those main supporting beams disappear to Dude?
instead of these vague answers, I suggest you go straight to the horses mouth,
of course we will ignore the thermate found in WTC samples sent to him,
Here is Dr. Jones Home E-mail account, he checks it frequently, be sure and let us know what you find out. you might be the one Dude, the first to breach the rigorous peer review process, might be an award for this, dare I say it "Nobel Peace Prize" in physics ....
Go Dude Go.
Dr. Jones Home Addy
hardevidence2003@yahoo.com
please let us know what you find out
I won't continue answering other issues because you didn't even understand the most simple debunking of what Jones wrote regarding the molten metal. When I first saw it and read what Jones said (must be steel and not aluminum), I said (to myself), what a concoction! Color properties alone couldn't tell you a damn thing. If you can't see through Jones on this, you will never understand my other evidence.
slvrbugjim
06-10-2006, 07:35 PM
It didn't collapse faster than free fall.
Ummm,. Wrong, it collapsed equal to free fall in a vacume
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4322650841860671469
Large Sarge
06-10-2006, 07:50 PM
I won't continue answering other issues because you didn't even understand the most simple debunking of what Jones wrote regarding the molten metal. .
you won't answer anything because you cannot, just be honest.
nothing wrong with telling the truth. even trolls do it from time to time.
Ummm,. Wrong, it collapsed equal to free fall in a vacume
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4322650841860671469
Not what you said.
I would actually like to see the calculations done by someone with better stuff than a stopwatch and an internet video.
you won't answer anything because you cannot, just be honest.
nothing wrong with telling the truth. even trolls do it from time to time.
Once again, making assumptions.
I gave you the opportunity to read what Jones said and what I wrote. No comment? I think it's fairly obvious Jones is caught.
slvrbugjim
06-10-2006, 08:15 PM
Not what you said.
I would actually like to see the calculations done by someone with better stuff than a stopwatch and an internet video.
I would really like to know how someone can watch that video and still protect the government story at all costs, such as you do here. whether WTC 7 fell in 5.6 seconds or 4.5 seconds is really not the issue, the point is that every single verticle support member had to fail at precisely the same instant, for the build to fall the way it did, fires in one portion of the building can not in anyway explain the collapse, in fact the only explaination that makes sense is a CD. I actually met Rick, the guy that filmed 911 Eyewittness, at the Symposium in Chicago last weekend. The first guys that examined the video were scientists in Europe.
But hey dude, you seem to love and trust this government, knock yourself out, go back to sleep little sheeple. :Zzzz:
I would really like to know how someone can watch that video and still protect the government story at all costs, such as you do here. whether WTC 7 fell in 5.6 seconds or 4.5 seconds is really not the issue, the point is that every single verticle support member had to fail at precisely the same instant, for the build to fall the way it did, fires in one portion of the building can not in anyway explain the collapse, in fact the only explaination that makes sense is a CD. I actually met Rick, the guy that filmed 911 Eyewittness, at the Symposium in Chicago last weekend. The first guys that examined the video were scientists in Europe.
But hey dude, you seem to love and trust this government, knock yourself out, go back to sleep little sheeple. :Zzzz:
As I said earlier, there are lots of inconsistencies on the con side as well - - which implies that there are government inconsistencies, IMO. The fact that the government has not even commented much on WTC 7 implies something fishy. Once again, lots of assumptions and marginal reading comprehension.
I've got issues with the US government. Wouldn't do any good to explain to you, reading comprehension, you see.
Mercury Rising
06-10-2006, 09:55 PM
keep fighting! thats what they want....fight fight! brilliant.:wink:
runcible
06-10-2006, 11:34 PM
oh should I also mention that never in the history of steel frame building has one fallen down from fire, and that day 3 did
Actually, steel frame buildings have collapsed due to fire.
McCormick Place Fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place) is one example.
Halophyte
06-10-2006, 11:41 PM
Hmm, so what is the pausible explanation and "calculation" for building 7 collaping faster than free fall speed?? The only plausible explanation is Controled Demolition.
You have convinced me of one thing .... you don't have a clue.
Halophyte
06-10-2006, 11:55 PM
As I said earlier, there are lots of inconsistencies on the con side as well - - which implies that there are government inconsistencies, IMO. The fact that the government has not even commented much on WTC 7 implies something fishy. Once again, lots of assumptions and marginal reading comprehension.
I've got issues with the US government. Wouldn't do any good to explain to you, reading comprehension, you see.
The most obvious point I see in the discussion is the Explosive CT's pulpit pounding that there is only two sides to the issues, pro gov/TPTB and red pill awareness. They fail to see any third party interlopers that insist the status quo of over-stated durability of building design.
As a matter of fact, the Explosive CTs will only parrot the engineering status quo but won't hesitate to question any other engineering source that debunks the official Explosives theory.
Double standard political BS is what I call it.
.
slvrbugjim
06-11-2006, 01:50 AM
Halophyte
Your repeated references to "CT's" is a dead ringer for a government shill, just so you know that we know, your attempt to defend this government and those that carried out this attack does not go un noticed either.
azxcvbnm321
06-11-2006, 01:57 AM
More to the point is that these conspiracy types look at one or two details that they don't like and use it to expand on a huge theory that just doesn't make any logically sense. They ignore ALL the other facts that point to the other way and just focus again and again on these small details while ignoring the big picture.
What about all these suicide bombers? Surely these people aren't killing themselves just to help some CIA/World Government plot? Surely no person would give up their own lives just to help others gain power?
It just doesn't make any sense how Zarquawi was anything other than a terrorist. Why would anyone work for an agency who will just kill him sometime in the future? Who would be that dumb? Yet, we're supposed to believe these geniuses set up this elaborate conspiracy, but are stupid enough to go along until they are killed off. I would never work for an agency that kills off its own members as soon as it becomes convenient--I could be next. I don't know of any person with half a brain who would. Yet all these people gladly go and set up this conspiracy, and help it out until they can die?
This is worse than a bad movie plot where the bad guys kill off each other, yet the remaining people stay loyal until they get killed off. Who in reality would be that stupid? Why not just say **** it, I know I'm next so I'm not going along anymore and I'm going to blow this conspiracy to hell by exposing it?
Sure, just ignore all the logic and keep on focusing on your foolish videos of how the Towers fell. Ignore the suicide bobmers. Ignore Zarquawi's death and the videos of Bin Ladin praising Zarquawi and encouraging the killing of Americans. This is all a conspiracy whose members will gladly die to help out George Bush and his cronies. Dude, your theories are so bad that they couldn't even make a hollywood script out of it. People would leave in the middle of the movie laughing and demand their money back.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.