Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

9/11 (TV3 - September 2015)

Options
135678

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    omnithanos wrote: »
    That link doesn't deal with Any of the points I made in my post. I made no reference to the building in front of the building and I was talking about the right side wing going behind the smoke and the side of the tower not the left side wing.

    Please bring this back to the Conspiracy Theory forum where it belongs. Oh you can't because they banned you. That speaks volumes.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Please bring this back to the Conspiracy Theory forum where it belongs. Oh you can't because they banned you. That speaks volumes.

    About the Agenda on the Conspiracy Theory board?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    omnithanos wrote: »
    About the Agenda on the Conspiracy Theory board?

    So, you have a conspiracy theory about the CT board. That's pretty good. I think that was foretold in an episode of Bonanza in 1969.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,520 ✭✭✭Tea 1000


    omnithanos wrote: »
    The program champions an untested theory which doesn’t explain how an aluminium explosion could have destroyed the central steel columns. It also falsely claims that only the presence of aluminium can explain the multiple explosions heard prior to the collapse of the towers which directly contradicts an earlier statement in the program that controlled demolition could have brought down the steel structures in the manner we see. Building 7 fell without allegedly having been hit by any plane therefore aluminium was not a factor. Explosive charges could have easily been planted in the buildings by the company run by the then President’s brother, Marvin Bush, who were engaged in upgrades at the towers and who turned off cameras and electricity there the week before 9/11.
    But why, if they did decide to do an inside job and demolish those buildings, did they bother with building 7 at all? It's irrelevant in terms of getting people on their side, which is obviously the plan if it was a conspiracy. Really - why bother at all with it? If they did plan it, then they'd just do the towers, the pentagon, and some other fluff about some planes. Surely no one would pipe up "oh, we better level that building 7 also...".
    The program doesn’t explain how the aluminium wings of a plane can slice through concrete and steel. How did the planes fly at around 500 miles per hour which is well above the structural limit of such aircraft at these low altitudes when the maximum speed is accepted to be at best 365 miles per hour?
    Well, if playing cards and toothpicks can become embedded in a tree from a tornado, which has wind speeds of between 200 and 300mph, surely a rigid aluminium structure at over 300mph could easily go through concrete. And it might only have gone through the outer leaf before completely destructing, no one is claiming it sliced through everything.
    Another anomaly is that the plane engine recovered from Murray Street is exclusively designed for 747’s or 737’s and is not large enough to propel a 767 which is the plane model that allegedly hit both towers.
    No, at least one was a 757, which is only a little larger than a 737. Also, a 747 engine is fairly similar in size to a 767 engine, but a decent amount bigger than a 737 engine, so your source for that info is 100% incorrect, regardless of the reality.
    1 - It was claimed that when one floor gave way the entire destruction of the building was inevitable due to the momentum of the falling top floors, and some mathematical models were discussed that apparently demonstrated this. This 'pile driver' theory is pure nonsense. The top floors would obviously attempt to follow the path of least resistance and attempt to collapse away from the internal core columns which are still there and perfectly capable of resisting load. Maybe if you dropped the top part of the building from a few kilometers above it would completely demolish the floors below. Just think about it yourself, you have any steel frame structure, you go up to 80 percent of its height, you remove a 1 percent cross section, what happens? What doesn't happen is the top 19 percent suddenly completely destroys the bottom 80 percent.
    But what is the path of least resistance? Slide off the top? there isn't enough force acting laterally to push it off. Half a remaining floor won't support 20 or so above it. Regardless, have you ever seen pictures of a building wired for demolition? If you have, then you'll know that they couldn't have done that to the twin towers, it would have taken many months to set it up, and no one would have been able to work in the buildings during that time.
    Fepper, it was an interesting program, very well made and good at presenting a slice of the evidence in a very particular way. But I think what they don't say in it says so much more than what they do say. Why ignore all those other open questions, for example, completely ignoring that three steel frame buildings had complete structural failure leading to total collapse, and there were only two planes. Surely, that would be one of the very first things you would address?

    I would advise you if you are not sure, just look at some controlled demolitions and then look at the collapse of building seven. Y And if you still don't trust your own eyes, google Danny Jowenko. He was a controlled demolition expert and when shown building seven collapse, he claims it had to be a controlled demolition. On a side note, he died in a car crash.
    There are many other demolition experts to show actual ones willingly to any interested parties. When you see it for real you'll know this couldn't have been organised without many people knowing. They can't pay off tens of thousands of people!
    cerastes wrote: »
    Identical buildings, hit by two different aircraft at not identical speeds in different places and a different outcome for this leads to the buildings falling in the exact same way, and its gravity makes it all happen virtually exactly the same, what are the odds?
    Gravity is constant, the buildings were identical, they fell at different times, one lasted a lot longer, due to it being hit higher up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,520 ✭✭✭Tea 1000


    Damaged yes, completely vaporized no. Again, that is a first, just like so many firsts on 911. And the point is that the same forces that completely vaporized the black boxes left the passport totally undamaged.
    Who said these were vaporised?
    On the passport, I don't know, I've no trouble believing that some hoodwinking went on in the aftermath to gather or allegedly gather concrete evidence to make it look how they wanted us to think it looked, like passport planting etc, but a planted passport does not an inside job make.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    if the video was staged then to produce the effect of the wing going behind the smoke and tower would require the faker to introduce additional layers into the composition. Something you wouldn't do if you wanted the video to appear genuine.

    Also, it is undeniable that something hit the towers. it is much harder to remove something and replace it with something else. The effects you see on the video can be more easily explained if you understand how photography works and how artifacts can be introduced naturally when trying to produce a slow-mo version of an already compressed video.

    Also, your passport theory - read this

    Your ACARS data theory is ridiculous.

    You can see a dark object on the underside of the plane which does not belong on a Boeing 767. This is undoubtedly the object they attempted to hide by introducing a digital plane into the shot.

    They found two of the hijackers passports at the Shanksville site as well.
    An eye witness reported seeing a plane like object about the size of a van flying very low to the ground just before the impact.

    Please explain why the ACARS data is not admissible as evidence?


  • Registered Users Posts: 55,516 ✭✭✭✭Mr E


    Guys this is turning into a standard 9/11 conspiracy thread, so I'll redirect you to the CT forum.

    Thread closed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 55,516 ✭✭✭✭Mr E


    Moved here from TV forum. I've reported to the local mods, so they can decide if they want to open it again or not...


  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Rudiger Glique


    Hi All,

    Firstly, I am new to these boards. I was having an interesting conversation about 911 on one of the forums and it was shut down by an administrator guy called Mr. E.

    He told me that one of the persons on the thread was banned from these forums, which I assume was done for good reason. He had recommended we take the discussion to the CT boards. I asked if he could simply have banned him from the thread we were on as I had some points I never had a chance to respond to but he has yet to get back to me on that.

    Maybe someone could explain the role of administrators and how they get the job? I think I agree that endless discussion about 911 is probably boring to most of the people on these boards, but on the other hand I suppose I am wondering how, as a community, you can ensure that free speech isn't being stifled? I really thought we were getting somewhere with our discussion!

    Anyway, if people are following, here goes! -
    Originally Posted by Tea 1000
    But why, if they did decide to do an inside job and demolish those buildings, did they bother with building 7 at all? It's irrelevant in terms of getting people on their side, which is obviously the plan if it was a conspiracy. Really - why bother at all with it? If they did plan it, then they'd just do the towers, the pentagon, and some other fluff about some planes. Surely no one would pipe up "oh, we better level that building 7 also...".

    Hi Tea, again, this seems like an inversion of the burden of proof. Building 7 did collapse, it was brought down by something. So the burden of proof is on us to figure out how it happened. Its not good enough to say, oh, there was no good reason to bring it down, therefore it must have just fallen down.

    And if you are looking for reasons, well consider this, do you remember Enron? Well, a large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were reportedly destroyed in the collapse of building 7. The Los Angeles Times reported that "substantial files were destroyed" for 3000 to 4000 of the SEC's cases. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were destroyed. 3 Before the attack, SEC investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom were the subject of many news reports -- reports that virtually vanished in the wake of the attack.

    That is worthy of a criminal investigation in of itself, no? I think you have to ask yourself, who gained from the collapse? Also, as has been pointed out, the building was reported collapsed by the bbc before it actually collapsed. Of course, this could be a case of 'fog of war' but maybe it is also indicative of a complex plan that didn't always work exactly according to plan?
    Originally Posted by Tea 1000
    But what is the path of least resistance? Slide off the top? there isn't enough force acting laterally to push it off. Half a remaining floor won't support 20 or so above it. Regardless, have you ever seen pictures of a building wired for demolition? If you have, then you'll know that they couldn't have done that to the twin towers, it would have taken many months to set it up, and no one would have been able to work in the buildings during that time.
    It is good that you are asking these questions. The path of least resistance is not straight through the core structure, that is just a fact. Once you establish that the buildings could not have collapsed without enough additional force acting upon the internal structure to cause it to totally collapse, then you must ask yourself, what provided those additional forces? There are multiple reports of power downs throughout the building, refurbishment work, limited access to stair wells and lift shafts in the days prior to the collapse, and the removal even of bomb sniffing dogs. Its hard to verify any of these things really, but again, the burden of proof lies on us to explain what force brought the building down. Lets have an open public investigation and establish the truth once and for all?
    Originally Posted by Tea 1000
    There are many other demolition experts to show actual ones willingly to any interested parties. When you see it for real you'll know this couldn't have been organised without many people knowing. They can't pay off tens of thousands of people!
    Well, one demolition expert we will never hear from again is Danny Jowenko. If I was a demolition expert and I was feeling like going public, I would have to have a really good reason as the thought of ending up dead in a car crash is something that probably does not appeal to most people. As for your numbers, I doubt you need tens of thousands of people. Maybe to create an atom bomb you need that many people (and they managed to keep that a secret), but to bring down the buildings, no. Only a few people had to know the actual motivation, and then a small group of people who a: think that what they are doing is necessary and right and b: are probably paid quite a lot of money. Black ops people are paid to do these very types of jobs, and they are also paid not to ask questions.
    Originally Posted by Tea 1000
    Who said these were vaporised?
    On the passport, I don't know, I've no trouble believing that some hoodwinking went on in the aftermath to gather or allegedly gather concrete evidence to make it look how they wanted us to think it looked, like passport planting etc, but a planted passport does not an inside job make.

    Well, the black boxes have never been found, so they must have been either vaporized or stolen. And if you think there was planted evidence, then there is a conspiracy going on. Once you accept that, then we can start discussing the depth of the conspiracy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Rudiger Glique


    Oops,

    Just saw the thread is up on this site! :)

    I will repost.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,773 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Ok guys, I've reopened the thread. I would ask anyone who isn't a CT regular to familiarise themselves with our charter before posting.

    Thanks,
    ancapailldorcha

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users Posts: 83,099 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    To confirm what others have said, the previous claim was the planes were completely faked digitally, and that all witnesses were paid actors.

    As for the wing-tip/smoke, just looks like normal video interlacing issues that occur when the plane's tip drives across the smoke, the video blurs it's ability to sharply image the wing tip when that contrast occurs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video#Interlacing_problems

    As for the steel and aluminum, that's probably the best course of open discussion because it can be largely grounded in physics. As for aluminum cutting through concrete, even an egg will plow through concrete at the correct velocities - a tornado can plow a straw through a telephone pole.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Rudiger Glique


    Overheal wrote: »
    To confirm what others have said, the previous claim was the planes were completely faked digitally, and that all witnesses were paid actors.

    Please provide a quote of this claim. I certainly don't remember anyone making it on the post. Otherwise, please retract the statement and apologize for trying to construct silly straw man arguments.

    I was discussing the TV3 program and the manner in which the buildings collapsed and how, if the tv program was correct, could the passport have survived the aluminium melting, explosive inducing fires only to land undamaged on the street? I think the general consensus was that it couldn't and would have to have been planted, but maybe others disagree?


  • Registered Users Posts: 83,099 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Please provide a quote of this claim. I certainly don't remember anyone making it on the post. Otherwise, please retract the statement and apologize for trying to construct silly straw man arguments.

    Here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95333358&postcount=84

    Don't backseat moderate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Rudiger Glique


    Overheal wrote: »
    Here: [/url]

    Don't backseat moderate.

    Oh ok, so you are commenting on a claim that was made in an entirely different thread than this one by someone other than me? Fair enough. If you had been clear about that I wouldn't have responded.

    To clarify then, this thread is about a TV3 program which discussed a theory about the manner in which the Twin Towers collapsed. That is the context by which I made my last comment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,520 ✭✭✭Tea 1000


    It is good that you are asking these questions. The path of least resistance is not straight through the core structure, that is just a fact. Once you establish that the buildings could not have collapsed without enough additional force acting upon the internal structure to cause it to totally collapse, then you must ask yourself, what provided those additional forces? There are multiple reports of power downs throughout the building, refurbishment work, limited access to stair wells and lift shafts in the days prior to the collapse, and the removal even of bomb sniffing dogs. Its hard to verify any of these things really, but again, the burden of proof lies on us to explain what force brought the building down. Lets have an open public investigation and establish the truth once and for all?


    Well, one demolition expert we will never hear from again is Danny Jowenko. If I was a demolition expert and I was feeling like going public, I would have to have a really good reason as the thought of ending up dead in a car crash is something that probably does not appeal to most people. As for your numbers, I doubt you need tens of thousands of people. Maybe to create an atom bomb you need that many people (and they managed to keep that a secret), but to bring down the buildings, no. Only a few people had to know the actual motivation, and then a small group of people who a: think that what they are doing is necessary and right and b: are probably paid quite a lot of money. Black ops people are paid to do these very types of jobs, and they are also paid not to ask questions.



    Well, the black boxes have never been found, so they must have been either vaporized or stolen. And if you think there was planted evidence, then there is a conspiracy going on. Once you accept that, then we can start discussing the depth of the conspiracy.
    But you've obviously never seen a building rigged for demolition. Seriously, google it. It's not possible to walk through a building when it's like that. It would take months to do that to the twin towers, during which time, especially at the end, people would not have been physically able to walk around. The cables and explosives and detonators are all linked together. It's a complete no-go area. Yet thousands of people were working in there as normal up to the point that they fell. Friends of mine were visiting them on the look-out deck at the top only days before hand. You can't bring down a building by hiding a few explosives.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,558 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Tea 1000 wrote: »
    But you've obviously never seen a building rigged for demolition. Seriously, google it. It's not possible to walk through a building when it's like that. It would take months to do that to the twin towers, during which time, especially at the end, people would not have been physically able to walk around. The cables and explosives and detonators are all linked together. It's a complete no-go area. Yet thousands of people were working in there as normal up to the point that they fell. Friends of mine were visiting them on the look-out deck at the top only days before hand. You can't bring down a building by hiding a few explosives.

    You will now get the following replies.

    • The explosives were planted in the lift shafts at night under the guise of life maintenance
    • They used radio controlled detonators to set off the explosives.
    • It would only take a small team of "black ops" demolition experts a few days/weeks to set these explosives
    • they used shaped charges so they didn't need as mush as normal demolition experts
    • They used super new explosive technology (Super de doper thermite) to do all of this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,434 ✭✭✭fepper


    Saw another documentary on ch4 last night and watching the towers fall and looks like the top of them fell in and pulled everything down with it,simple collapse really


  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Rudiger Glique


    You will now get the following replies.

    • The explosives were planted in the lift shafts at night under the guise of life maintenance
    • They used radio controlled detonators to set off the explosives.
    • It would only take a small team of "black ops" demolition experts a few days/weeks to set these explosives
    • they used shaped charges so they didn't need as mush as normal demolition experts
    • They used super new explosive technology (Super de doper thermite) to do all of this.

    Thanks Timberrrrr! :) And if you think Thermate cannot be used to cut through steel just google '9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate'. Then just google '9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel'. Now explain all the eye witness and video evidence of molten steel within the context of fuel and office fires and ask yourself, why did NIST ignore it completely and why did NIST and the establishment claim Thermate could never be used to cut steel?
    fepper wrote: »

    Saw another documentary on ch4 last night and watching the towers fall and looks like the top of them fell in and pulled everything down with it,simple collapse really

    So all three building lost complete structural integrity completely collapsing on the same day in a manner that very much resembles controlled demolition, but controlled demolition wasn't involved, just new and untested theories about explosive aluminium, and in the case of building 7 office fires and partial damage from material ejected (again what forces?) from the twin towers? This is in the context of passports turning up undamaged to help identify the terrorists involved and plane black boxes vanishing into smoke.

    I suppose, some audiences are genuinely fooled by magicians. The same principle must apply to all events.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,558 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Thanks Timberrrrr! :) And if you think Thermate cannot be used to cut through steel just google '9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate'. Then just google '9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel'. Now explain all the eye witness and video evidence of molten steel within the context of fuel and office fires and ask yourself, why did NIST ignore it completely and why did NIST and the establishment claim Thermate could never be used to cut steel?


    Do you have evidence that it is molten steel seen in the video? Is it not more prudent to realize it is molten aluminum?


    So all three building lost complete structural integrity completely collapsing on the same day in a manner that very much resembles controlled demolition, but controlled demolition wasn't involved, just new and untested theories about explosive aluminium, and in the case of building 7 office fires and partial damage from material ejected (again what forces?) from the twin towers? This is in the context of passports turning up undamaged to help identify the terrorists involved and plane black boxes vanishing into smoke.

    I suppose, some audiences are genuinely fooled by magicians. The same principle must apply to all events.

    Well there was the force of two massive buildings collapsing around it, were you ever in NY before 9-11? Have you ever witnessed exactly how big those buildings were and the proximity to building 7?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Do you have evidence that it is molten steel seen in the video? Is it not more prudent to realize it is molten aluminum?





    Well there was the force of two massive buildings collapsing around it, were you ever in NY before 9-11? Have you ever witnessed exactly how big those buildings were and the proximity to building 7?

    Molten metal was found in wtc7 as well no plane did hit that building

    According to NIST the debris of the twin towers had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC7


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,558 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    weisses wrote: »
    Molten metal was found in wtc7 as well no plane did hit that building

    According to NIST the debris of the twin towers had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC7

    Molten metal does not = molten steel. Also what temperature does "metal" melt at and what temperature were the fires?


  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Rudiger Glique


    Do you have evidence that it is molten steel seen in the video? Is it not more prudent to realize it is molten aluminum?

    Look at the video, there are many many eye witness accounts of molten steel. Not only that, but there is video evidence of concrete fused with steel. There is also video evidence of steel beams that have fused into each other due to melting. Why completely ignore that evidence? I certainly cannot ignore it. I need to explain it and I am looking for theories. Maybe you think everyone who witnessed it was wrong? And the video evidence of beams fused and molten concrete and steel was made up or altered or something?

    I really don't know what you have to believe to be able to ignore it to be honest.

    Well there was the force of two massive buildings collapsing around it, were you ever in NY before 9-11? Have you ever witnessed exactly how big those buildings were and the proximity to building 7?

    Not sure what you mean by 'the force of two massive buildings collapsing around it'. Are you saying this force ejected steel beams into building seven? I am not sure what theory that fits into.

    OK, lets take the theory about the exploding aluminium, for all its flaws and inability to explain other pieces of evidence (molten steel). NIST still claims it was brought down by fire after a serious of highly improbable events which even NIST admits 'had a very low probability of occurring' the way they described.

    This is in the context of other questions though, like why plant the passport? Why did the black boxes disappear? Why ignore evidence of molten steel? And the list goes on and on and on. How many highly improbable things have to have happened that day to fit the official narrative against how many improbable things to fit the controlled demolition narrative? How much evidence do you have to ignore to fit the official narrative? There is one narrative to 911 that remains consistent with the facts, and it is not the official one.

    Anyway, I cannot say with a hundred percent confidence what happened. But I also cannot allow myself to ignore or forget pieces of evidence (like that video about molten steel). I just could not do that. If you can ignore it, then that is fine.

    Oh, if anyone wants some lite relief, I suggest you go to theonion (I can't post links here). They have a very funny advert for subway :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 83,099 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Molten metal does not = molten steel. Also what temperature does "metal" melt at and what temperature were the fires?

    What type of steel? There are hundreds, really depends on the foundry and process.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,558 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Overheal wrote: »
    What type of steel? There are hundreds, really depends on the foundry and process.

    Exactly!

    Yet these lads can claim that fire does not melt metal/steel/whatever because........


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Molten metal does not = molten steel. Also what temperature does "metal" melt at and what temperature were the fires?

    You claim it was molten aluminium
    Is it not more prudent to realize it is molten aluminum

    No plane hit building 7 so explain the molten metal (aluminium) in building 7 due to office fires ?!

    And what process can keep it at that temperature for weeks ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,558 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    weisses wrote: »
    You claim it was molten aluminium



    No plane hit building 7 so explain the molten metal (aluminium) in building 7 due to office fires ?!

    And what process can keep it at that temperature for weeks ?


    Aluminium melts at 1218 (f) or 659 (c)

    How hot do you think the fires were? Why would the fire need to have been caused by a plane crash for it to melt aluminium?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Aluminium melts at 1218 (f) or 659 (c)

    How hot do you think the fires were?

    Not that hot

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542

    It is clearly visible in the link the fires extinguished by them self
    Why would the fire need to have been caused by a plane crash for it to melt aluminium?

    The lack of aluminium present in wtc 7 maybe

    And what process can keep it at that temperature for weeks ?

    If aluminium melts at 1218 (f)

    what was measured at ground zero reaching 2800 Fahrenheit ?
    Bechtel engineers, responsible for safety at Ground Zero, wrote in the Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers: “The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.”

    And to put your aluminum theory to rest
    The extremely high temperatures contradict the official story. Office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air (~500° to 1,500° F) cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts (2,700° F). This was even acknowledged by NIST’s Co-Project Leader, John Gross, in the same public talk where he stated regarding the phenomena of molten steel, “I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses that said so, nobody that’s produced it.” Yet there is abundant proof of the molten metal, which subsequent tests reveal to be iron, in the debris piles. Furthermore, NIST itself performed extensive fire tests to establish the temperatures reached by the WTC office and jet fuel fires. The temperatures established are far below the temperatures required to produce all of the above phenomena – which occurred both before and during the destruction and at Ground Zero

    FEMA concluded
    FEMA documents in their Appendix C of its May 2002 WTC Building Performance Assessment Team study, for sample 1, “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting.” A “sulfur-rich liquid” containing “primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” “penetrated” into the steel.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,664 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    So what's the theory then??

    Someone in the weeks leading up to the attack, under the guise of a elevator upgrade, planted Thermate charges on the steel frames the entire length of both towers?

    Then flew two planes, drones, missiles (take your pick) into the towers to create a scapegoat and then after a period of time remotely detonated the charges on isolated floors - cause the videos suggest that the collapse happened from top to bottom, expertly demolishing both towers vertically to reduce damage to surrounding infrastructure - TWICE???

    Then in another building (Building 7) did the same thing?

    Even if there were plans to execute this plan in secret, it would take thousands of people years to plan, and even then there would be no guarantee of success let alone the ability to cover it up. No one on the planet could plan this. It is without precedence and the theory suggests using techniques that have never been put into practice - especially on building this tall.

    Sometimes things are just what they are.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 83,099 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I don't think eyewitness accounts of secondary explosions are present for all 3 building collapses but I could be wrong.


Advertisement