News:

Welcome to the Astral Pulse 2.0!

If you're looking for your Journal, I've created a central sub forum for them here: https://www.astralpulse.com/forums/dream-and-projection-journals/



What do you guys think of these pictures?

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Was 911 an inside job?

Yes
19 (47.5%)
No
14 (35%)
Dont know
7 (17.5%)

Total Members Voted: 32

BadCookie

This butt hole Larry Silverstein gets the world trade centers insured two weeks before the attacks for 9 billion $ this guy needs to die

"They pulled it" Larry Silverstein

We are told that the WTC buildings came down due to the heat of the fires melting the steel inside the bulidings. So this woman has come from (I assume) 'above' the impact area (coming down to get out), heat rises (science 101) so how the hell does a woman get there? The fact is, the buildings were "Pulled" due to controlled demolition! and i expect that the explosives controllers were on the 23rd floor of WTC building 7! Now discuss this, ill try and answer questions. (been looking into it all)Fire fighters made it to the floors where the plane hit people where still alive this is the fist time building have colapsed from fire





Thermite was used on the world Trade centers  :cry:  Short Video about Thermite  :evil: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1837033714967622806&q=Thermite+WTC&hl=en



http://www.chem.psu.edu/ncs/Halloween%20Show%202003/Thermite.jpg











NO way LOL they take us for blind sheep which many of us are

its so pathetic





"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

thesickmoon

"Chair-swiveling is an old and honorable avocation for any accomplished and self-respecting villainous personage."
--Ronald D. Moore, March 12, 2005

MisterJingo

#2
If one leaves the propaganda spread by anti-establishment, anti-American proponents, and looks into the true science of the events, then one will see it was a tragic event. Not the biggest cover up in history by a nation who can't even keep secret their presidents' affairs or Governments corruptions.
I'd be interested to hear your critque of the points made here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

BadCookie

Quote from: MisterJingo on September 08, 2006, 04:21:46
If one leaves the propaganda spread by anti-establishment, anti-American proponents, and looks into the true science of the events, then one will see it was a tragic event. Not the biggest cover up in history by a nation who can't even keep secret their presidents' affairs or Governments corruptions.
I'd be interested to hear your critque of the points made here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Its anti establishment and anti American to want to now what happend >? Govement is not your friend, this is most evident through there forghen police.  :? I consider my self more patriotic, and we must hold goverment accountable for there actions the whole point of govement or at least a democatic one is to serve the people not the corperations
"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

BadCookie

I find this pic carzy i mean a plane just came cashing in and people where still alive in the building at the floors where the planes hit. Death at the world trade center for this lady must of bin a horible thing. This is makes me angly the media is controled  :cry:

Ruhbert Murhdock must die  :lol:
"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

BadCookie

#5


WTC towers and WTC 7 are the first iron building to crash down becouse of fire .... this is so disgusting
"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

no_leaf_clover

#6
Anyone see where NIST has recently, and very explicitly, backed away from "pancake collapse" theory?

This government agency is the only one that had some access to the construction drawings, which are under lock and key, and is also keeping 1000's of photos and videos confiscated by FEMA at Ground Zero.

So now there apparently is no official explanation for how the Twin Towers collapsed to the ground. NIST has attemped to explain how each collapse started, but even structural engineers (ie Charles Pegelow and three other SE's with Scholars for 9/11 Truth) have been risking credibility to come out and demonstrate how NIST's conclusions on the initiations are based upon unsupported data. And as I've said, they've just recently stated that they do not support pancake collapse theory. They also have not defined any other global, meta-floor collapse mechanisms that can demonstrate the observed collapse features.

So how they collapsed to the ground as they did, from the standpoint of the only organization with the hard evidence, is just a big question mark at this point in time, some five years after the fact. They even had to outsource for WTC7. The 9/11 Commission Report wouldn't even mention that building.
What is the sound of no leaves cloving?

GANAMOHA

Quote from: BadCookie on September 08, 2006, 12:59:33
Govement is not your friend
I found it funny you said that considering the picture you have for your avatar; However I do find the whole rather interesting I mean if the goverment truley did pull this off created everything then how safe are we really? how many deaths will there be before they stop? its all quite depressing :cry:
I stand at the threshold of what could be a new world

BadCookie

Quote from: GANAMOHA on September 08, 2006, 20:03:14
I found it funny you said that considering the picture you have for your avatar; However I do find the whole rather interesting I mean if the goverment truley did pull this off created everything then how safe are we really? how many deaths will there be before they stop? its all quite depressing :cry:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=Alex+jones&hl=en ALex jones for anyone who hasnt seen him
"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

Mydral

Quote from: MisterJingo on September 08, 2006, 04:21:46
If one leaves the propaganda spread by anti-establishment, anti-American proponents, and looks into the true science of the events, then one will see it was a tragic event. Not the biggest cover up in history by a nation who can't even keep secret their presidents' affairs or Governments corruptions.
I'd be interested to hear your critque of the points made here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Sorry Jingo, when looking at this from a purely scientific standpoint it could not have happened. Air plane fuel cannot burn at temperatures to melt reinforced steal (which was used in the construction of WTC). That alone is enough to explain what happened that day.
Buildings DO NOT collapse from fires which burn for a short time, that has been proven over and over in previous fires and explosions.
In somnis veritas

no_leaf_clover

MisterJingo,


There are several criticisms of NIST's related release on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, here: http://www.st911.org/

Included are a critique by a licensed professional structural engineer of 30 years experience, also with a degree in mathematics (Charles Pegelow), as well as the results of an actual experiment by Dr. Steven Jones showing that at least one of the latest NIST claims is patently flase, and demonstrably so. Researcher Jim Hoffman, chemist Kevin Ryan, formerly of UL labs that certified the WTC steel, Dr. Jim Fetzer, and Sean Glazier have also posted rebuttals there.
What is the sound of no leaves cloving?

MisterJingo

I am not saying I have the answers, I simply don't see even half enough evidence to implicate the government in a conspiracy to blow up its own towers. I am open minded to other theories of the towers collapse – just not the rest of the grand conspiracy.

no_leaf_clover

#12
Suggesting this is a government conspiracy kind of suggests a relatively trivial political conspiracy. I don't think this was the case at all. I don't think Bush was an important figure in any of this. I don't think Rumsfeld or Condi were important figures, or any democrats or any other politicians for that matter. The only people that have gained, and gained enormously, are those that head off the corporations that produce for our military complex, and relate to resources located within the countries we are currently occupying as a direct result of the kicking-off of this so-called "War on Terror". These kinds of people have so much money and power in the world that they're effectively a collective monarchy. Fascism is when these groups gain significant influence over a governmental body. I think this is happening now. I don't think government is so much the problem, but military politics as guided by the corporations that make so many billions/trillions off these wars, and have infiltrated/lobbied their ways into influential positions in this country and abroad.

The alternative is that Muslim extremists infiltrated these buildings, and not only planted explosives, but also planted them in a very sophisticated way, and detonated them in an even more sophisticated fashion, which appears to me to have intentionally designed to make the collapses look natural (ie, the explosives are detonating in a progressive wave, and they even appear to have been initiated by silent incendiaries). Adding WTC7 to the equation, not only being relatively insignificant from a terrorists' perspective, but also housing several federal agencies, including CIA offices, seems to make this idea a little more improbable, to me at least. Not to mention the lack of claims of explosives-planting by terrorists if they were really to blame, and the federal reports that seem to intentionally ignore most all of the most key evidences in reaching their conclusions.

My 2 cents.
What is the sound of no leaves cloving?

BadCookie

#13
Quote from: MisterJingo on September 09, 2006, 11:18:49
I am not saying I have the answers, I simply don't see even half enough evidence to implicate the government in a conspiracy to blow up its own towers. I am open minded to other theories of the towers collapse – just not the rest of the grand conspiracy.
:lol: LOL the mind control of the media has worked well on you

Wake the hell up, Look at the patriot act the goverment wants to know what we look up on the net ! MSN and Yahhoo gave info to the goverment good thing google didnt  :evil: . Rember what bush sed if your not with us then your agenst us
"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

MisterJingo

Quote from: no_leaf_clover on September 09, 2006, 12:05:20
Suggesting this is a government conspiracy kind of suggests a relatively trivial political conspiracy. I don't think this was the case at all. I don't think Bush was an important figure in any of this. I don't think Rumsfeld or Condi were important figures, or any democrats or any other politicians for that matter. The only people that have gained, and gained enormously, are those that head off the corporations that produce for our military complex, and relate to resources located within the countries we are currently occupying as a direct result of the kicking-off of this so-called "War on Terror". These kinds of people have so much money and power in the world that they're effectively a collective monarchy. Fascism is when these groups gain significant influence over a governmental body. I think this is happening now. I don't think government is so much the problem, but military politics as guided by the corporations that make so many billions/trillions off these wars, and have infiltrated/lobbied their ways into influential positions in this country and abroad.

Most people who are advocates of such 9/11 conspiracies usually do put the blame at the governments door. This is why I posted as I thought this thread was coming from that direction too.
I can't deny some people have gained enormously from these events. But that is not proof enough to link them.
I'm not really a believer in the whole NWO conspiracies, as once again I see tenuous links trying to tie everything together. With the information floating around in today's world it's possible to link anyone to near anything tenuously.
I agree the War on Terror in a worrying thing, and although it seems to have been set off by 9/11 – I think it would have happened anyway under the current American government. 9/11 just happened to be a good excuse – another would have been found in it's absence.

Quote
The alternative is that Muslim extremists infiltrated these buildings, and not only planted explosives, but also planted them in a very sophisticated way, and detonated them in an even more sophisticated fashion, which appears to me to have intentionally designed to make the collapses look natural (ie, the explosives are detonating in a progressive wave, and they even appear to have been initiated by silent incendiaries). Adding WTC7 to the equation, not only being relatively insignificant from a terrorists' perspective, but also housing several federal agencies, including CIA offices, seems to make this idea a little more improbable, to me at least. Not to mention the lack of claims of explosives-planting by terrorists if they were really to blame, and the federal reports that seem to intentionally ignore most all of the most key evidences in reaching their conclusions.

To be honest, this hasn't really been of enough interest for me to look into it in detail. To make a proper conclusion as to if explosives were used at not, I'd need to look at everything. What floor the collapse started from, what floor these 'sparks' came from, how long after they appeared did the building collapse, where there any explosive noises prior to them appearing? If so how long before? etc. Also, I'd have to question where the explosives were placed (surely at the core structure?) and how that led the incendiaries to leak out of a window at the side of the building instead of filling any number of internal cavities, or falling down internal voids etc.
A lot of theories are stating the fact the building fell as it did (rather than toppling over) was proof of explosives,  yet others are saying the fact it fell how it did is proof sophisticated placements of explosives were used (hence stating terrorists couldn't have done such an act) – yet the buildings were built to fall how they did.
I just feel we haven't got all the answers – so we can't really make any definite statements.
If terrorists did plant explosives, perhaps there is secrecy around it because the government hasn't got all the answers yet.
I just find the prospect of certain American figures blowing up these towers, and only fringe elements challenging them with dubious evidence as unlikely as the prospect of terrorists planting bombs. I really do sit on the wall, but lean towards it being a tragic terrorist event – with the government not divulging all details. Unless some radical evidence presents itself to counter this, I'll sit where I am.

MisterJingo

Quote from: BadCookie on September 09, 2006, 12:14:35
  :lol: LOL the mind control of the media has worked well on you

My mind is my own (as far as that can be said of mind). Blindly believing vast conspiracies on the evidence of a few photos and not reading anything but conspiracy theories into this event is being controlled in my opinion.

Quote
Wake the hell up, Look at the patriot act the goverment wants to know what we look up on the net ! MSN and Yahhoo gave info to the goverment good thing google didnt  :evil: . Rember what bush sed if your not with us then your agenst us

We have similar in the UK. I'm very much against the whole biometric ID cards and centralised DB – and I will leave the country if it ever comes into effect. What I do not do is read new world orders vying for global dominance into these ideas. I see them as very misguided ideas of a government out of touch with its populace. Such ideas usually have their roots in revenue than anything else – those in the UK look into Browns ideas for selling information for the proposed centralised DB to marketing companies etc.

MisterJingo

Quote from: Mydral on September 09, 2006, 05:01:00
Sorry Jingo, when looking at this from a purely scientific standpoint it could not have happened. Air plane fuel cannot burn at temperatures to melt reinforced steal (which was used in the construction of WTC). That alone is enough to explain what happened that day.
Buildings DO NOT collapse from fires which burn for a short time, that has been proven over and over in previous fires and explosions.


Quote
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


BadCookie

#18
"In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of crediblity, since the great mass of people will more easly fall victums to a great lie than to a small one" - Adolph Hitler  (Mein Kapf)

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."  Hermann Goering, a Nazi leader who was prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials 

These Quotes are very telling  8-)
"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

BadCookie

Quote from: MisterJingo on September 09, 2006, 13:21:17
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.

It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.

The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?

Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.

Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.

This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.

The arguments presented in the article have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down.

One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes.

A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.

The article was released before analysis conducted by BYU physics Professor Steven Jones discovered traces of thermite in steel samples taken from the World Trade Center.

"Using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate," said Professor Jones.

The article regurgitates pancake and truss theories yet fails to acknowledge the comments of WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini (below) who before 9/11 stated that the buildings were designed to take multiple airliner impacts and not collapse.

The article also completely fails to answer why pools of molten yellow metal were found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.

The classic crimp implosion of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, is glossed over as the piece again tries to mislead its readers into believing that over engineered steel buildings collapse from fire damage - an event unprecedented in world history aside from three examples in one single day.

Commenting on his own interview for the magazine piece, Alex Jones said that initially he thought it was a fake interview or a crank call. Jones has given hundreds of TV and print interviews and thousands of radio interviews but his experience with Benjamin Chertoff was like no other.

"People from school newspapers sound more credible and serious," said Jones.

Jones had to call Popular Mechanics' office and verify that Chertoff actually worked for them. In the course of doing so he was erroneously told by Editor in Chief James Meigs that the story was not going to be a hit piece and that it was simply intended to explore the different theories surrounding 9/11.

In addition, Popular Mechanics highlighted an article that Jones had posted on his website about incendiary devices in the World Trade Center.

Jones' websites feature a cross-section of mainstream and alternative media articles. An article written by Jones himself is clearly labeled as such.

The magazine had contacted the individuals featured in the article who told them that they had never spoken to Jones. The article was clearly attributed to its orginal author - Randy Lavello - and not Alex Jones. When Jones asked Popular Mechanics if they were going to contact the individuals again and ask if they had spoken with the original author, they dropped the subject.

As part of a PR campaign to sell its newly packaged dross, the book 'Debunking 9/11 Lies,' Popular Mechanics' James Meigs appeared on the O'Reilly Factor (watch below).

Meigs and O'Reilly need to be reminded that constantly parroting the word "fact," without presenting any actual evidence, does not make something a fact.

Meigs contradicts himself completely in claiming that, "No one had ever seen a one hundred plus story building collapse to the ground before," and yet less than two minutes later agrees with O'Reilly's comment that nothing unexpected about the impact of the planes or the collapses surprised analysts.

Meigs concurs that it's an unprecedented event and yet claims that analysts knew exactly what was going to happen. How could they have known the ins and outs of an event that had never happened before?

Meigs calls the WTC implosion, "The most closely studied collapse in world history," yet fails to address the fact that 50,000 tons of steel from the WTC, a supposed crime scene, was shipped to Asia and a further 10,000 tons to India, preventing a detailed analysis.

Meigs, citing opinions of engineers, bizarrely states that, "The real surprise is that the building stood up as long as it did."

In February 2005, The Windsor building in Madrid (pictured) burned for over 24 hours as shooting flames engulfed almost the entire structure and yet the building did not collapse. The core of the WTC was exponentially more robust than the Windsor building. So we have one building that burned incessantly for over 24 hours and did not fall, compared to two buildings which were structurally far superior, burned briefly from limited fires, and yet both collapsed within an average time of 79 minutes - and Meigs claims they should have collapsed sooner!

Meigs claims that Popular Mechanics' investigation is "not political," and yet the foreword to their book is written by none other than GOP darling Senator John McCain.

In the foreword McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly as the government claims it did.

"We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks McCain.

Afghanistan is now a failed narco-state run by tribal warlords and ex-Taliban kingpins, nowhere outside of Kabul is secure, malnutrition amongst children is the highest in the world outside Africa, and opium production is at record levels. Bellicose statements about chasing Al-Qaeda around the globe are somewhat contradicted by the fact that Al-Qaeda-Iraq links were proven to be fraudulent and outgoing CIA director AB "Buzzy" Krongard told the London Times that Bin Laden should stay free. Couple this with President Bush's view on Bin Laden - "I truly am not that concerned about him," and McCain's rhetoric falls flat on its face.

McCain also uses the callous tactic of saying that questioning the government's version of 9/11 insults the victims and this is also parroted in the Popular Mechanics magazine piece.

Let's hear what Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members has to say on this subject.

"If you want to believe what they want to snow you under on like the 9/11 Commission - that's a total fallacy," said Doyle.

"It looks like there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 if you really look at all the facts - a lot of families now feel the same way."

Doyle said that half of the family members - relatives of the 9/11 victims - he represents thought that the US government was complicit in 9/11.

Despite the efforts of Popular Mechanics to whitewash government complicity in 9/11 via a front page feature story and a new book, recent polls clearly show an increasing trend towards a rejection of the official version of events.

If we are to set aside the 30% of Americans that do not even know the year in which September 11 happened, then we are left with figures of around 36% who agree that the government was involved in the attack and only 34% of Americans who actually know in which year the attack took place that still think it was carried out solely by a rag-tag group of 19 incompetent morons who couldn't fly Cessna's at the behest of a man on a kidney dialysis machine.

Popular Mechanics are sure to make a tidy sum of money from their latest publication, but their credibility is certain to dwindle in light of the fact that they are willingly acting as collaborators by aiding the cover-up of a crime that resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and untold more to come as a result of how the attack changed US foreign policy.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm
"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

no_leaf_clover

Quote from: MisterJingo on September 09, 2006, 13:11:02
What floor the collapse started from, what floor these 'sparks' came from,

The molten metal in question is from WTC2. WTC2's collapse initiated on the same floor the metal was pouring from.

Quotehow long after they appeared did the building collapse,

It first showed up just a few minutes prior, and at some point a pretty steady stream began. Then the building began collapsing.

You can see the molten metal is still pouring from the same place as WTC2 collapses in the image below:



It's dropping from the corner most facing the camera.

Quotewhere there any explosive noises prior to them appearing?

Yes, and no.

Thermite does not make explosive sounds, and its initiation is silent.

However, explosions were reported constantly throughout the fires, during the collapses, and even just seconds prior to impact in a basement explosion, shattering concrete, reported by several janitors working there at the time. A thread in the news media section links to a video clip of two explosions recording at least after the collapse of WTC2.

QuoteAlso, I'd have to question where the explosives were placed (surely at the core structure?) and how that led the incendiaries to leak out of a window at the side of the building instead of filling any number of internal cavities, or falling down internal voids etc.

A structural engineer I know and speak to regularly thinks that incendiaries would only have to be placed in the core structure on the mechanical floors, which were reinforced, and provided the above floors with more stability. You may come across engineers describing the WTC Towers as three buildings stacked one on top of another. When you see the light, windowless bands on the WTC Towers, those were the reinforced mechanical floors where each new set of floors would be "stacked" (more like solidly welded across multiple floors; very rigid cores, and very flexible perimeter/truss systems).

QuoteI just find the prospect of certain American figures blowing up these towers, and only fringe elements challenging them with dubious evidence as unlikely as the prospect of terrorists planting bombs.

The amount of scholars coming out against the official report is actually pretty staggering, in my opinion. Some 75 professors alone are on board with Scholars for 9/11 Truth alone, and that organization is even lacking the membership of a lot of other relevant people that agree with them, like the structural engineer above that I know personally (he isn't a member of S9/11T for reasons of not wanting to put his job at risk for his opinions -- understandable I suppose), a mechanical engineer that I know (that also isn't a member), researcher Jim Hoffman, LP SE Charles Pegelow, etc.   S9/11T lists its members and their expertises here: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
What is the sound of no leaves cloving?

BadCookie









All peaces of the puzzle dont fit in the offical story , its truly disgusting the media is totaly owned by the illumnati the only way to reach the masses. I hope google does not give the govement what then want  8-)
"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

Mydral

#22
Jingo please explain to me what other "stuff" is stored in an office building so that it will burn at those temperatures. I never heard of rugs, curtains and paper burning at those temperatures.....
Get some steel, bang it up a bit, then put some cloth and paper over it. Then put gasoline over it. Then put it into a confined space (so the heat will get even more intense). Light it up and keep the fire going with more "curtains, rugs and paper" for the time the WTC burned.... guess what the steel won't melt  :-o :roll:

Oh and just listen to eye witnesses..... there was an explosion coming down the elevators, there was an explosion in the basement, etc.

I know the arguments against this are also strong... but there is more then just that event. Look at the Ibn Laden confession tape, its not even him on it.
In somnis veritas

no_leaf_clover

The steel wouldn't have to melt, theoretically, but at the same time, even weakened steel won't just up and fail instantly, across a whole floor. Even if a whole floor of columns were heated to 600 C, it probably would not collapse. This is because steel structures are typically over-engineered with safety factors of more than 200%  (for example, the perimeter columns of the WTC had ratings of 500%, and the core columns had ratings of 225% -- could hold 5x and 2.25x their max expected loads without failing, respectively), and yet steel only loses half its strength at even 600 C. So even if all the columns lost half their strength, they were still over-engineered massively enough to hold all of their loads, or at least should have been.

600 degrees Celsius is a very high temperature for structural steel to reach from hydrocarbon fires. Both NIST and British Steel have done tests in the past where steel members (smaller than the WTC columns if I'm not mistaken) were covered in so much hydrocarbon material that insane amounts of heat were put out, something like approaching half a million watts or something ridiculous like that, and in a very short amount of time. The steel heated to over 600 C, but would go no further. It appears furnace-like circumstances must be produced (ie, extremely confined space, pre-heated air being pumped in, etc.) for steel to be heated much above 600 C.

It's also useful to remember that open-atmosphere hydrocarbon fires will burn at a maximum of around 825 C depending on altitude, with perfect fuel-to-air ratio. The WTC fires were producing very sooty smoke most of time, giving good indication that this temperature was not sustained. Let's say the fires burned at around 700 C. Temperature is one thing, heat is another. For example, you can melt part of a beam with extreme temperatures, but unless you have similarly extreme gross heat output, the rest of the beam is going to be fine because the total energy available is not enough to take out the whole column. It's like a candle versus a campfire: candle will probably burn hotter, but the campfire will put out MUCH more heat. Not because it's hotter (temperature), but because the total energy being radiated (heat) is much greater.

At 700 C, the heat being radiated would not only be absorbed by steel (which is itself an excellent heat sink), but also carried away in the smoke and absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere, the concrete slabs, even office materials, and laws of thermodynamics state that energy is always lost in transfer. In this case it probably would have been considerable when we're only looking at the steel, because the steel columns were far from the only masses around to absorb heat from a 700 C or so, sooty fire.


NIST, in its report, states that no samples of steel from the WTC were found that were heated to more than 250 C. The steel that did reach 250 C consisted of two sections of core columns, out of couple hundred samples or so. This seems pretty in line with the above, but NIST also goes on to assume that most all of the steel on a given floor was heated to 600 C or above nonetheless. This is despite the fact that 600 C steel glows dull red in broad daylight, not to mention that they hadn't found a single sample indicating such heating the first place.

So, just some commentary on heating steel. Again, it wouldn't have to melt, but steel structures are still very resilient against fires anyway.
What is the sound of no leaves cloving?

BadCookie

#24






:cry: Son of a grump


[/img] did the steel in the one melt too  :lol:
"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin