Top Secret video of WTC explosive controlled demolition on 9/11

POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Monday, March 14, 2011 03:46
VIEWED: 11704
PAGE 2 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

1KIKI

Thursday, March 10, 2011 5:34 AM

The buildings came down because of explosives. Two fully fueled jets crashing into the buildings and the following raging fires never happened. And even if they did they were just pretend. It was all the explosives planted ahead of time just waiting for the random jets to bumble along to provide a good excuse.

HARDWARE

Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Cause the building likely wouldn't have come down - it still might have, but not THAT way, not straight down into it's own footprint, ever so neatly...

Case in point, the Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma was SUPPOSED to come down, apparently as a result of that weakass Ryder truck ANFO bomb, which factually didn't even DO most of the damage - and had the other explosives planted inside the building not malfunctioned, that WOULD have happened - only one of them did go off, and that is what caused most of the damage to the building, not the truckbomb, and in case anyone disputes that I have the freakin radio log intercepts which prove beyond all doubt there were additional explosives, mind you.

But the Murray Building *didn't* come down - now suppose it had, and someone like me who knows a little bit about this sorta thing started questioning how a truck bomb made with low order explosive from across the street did that kind of damage ?

We'd see almost the same situation we have here, where the official story is disputed back and forth by everyone from shills, to experts, to folks with an agenda, all the way down to outright nutters claiming aliens did it.

And that's the problem with holding to an "official story" that doesn't hold an ounce of water - it feeds these kind of things, in part deliberately cause that obfuscates the whole issue and allows persons responsible to stall off or avoid any real investigation or responsibility.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

I'd love to hear those logs. Silly men in black, not using encrypted communications so that anybody could intercept and record your transmissions.

The Murrah building is a classic example of diagonal loading in a concrete slab construction. The explosion didn't shatter the building and dish it out in a neat hemisphere. The shockwave from the bomb, lower and diagonally opposed to the orientation of the floor slabs, lifted them. Once they were lifted by the shockwave from the bomb, (which a nice, slow order explosion like homemade ANFO would have created in a most excellent fashion) then gravity took over and the slabs fell back to their original position. But the momentum that they had accumulated in their short movement was way beyond their structural limits and the columns failed or punched through the slab. The slabs themselves failed in a hemispherical perimeter. Using that hemispherical shape as a guide and drawing converging radii, you can estimate the location of the bomb. Not that you would need to, the truck bomb left a 30 foot crater, pretty well marking where it was.

In fact, if the corner column close to the bomb had failed, McVeigh might have succeeded in dropping the building. That would have induced differential force and might have caused the building to slump fail outside it's own footprint.

No government conspiracy to drop the building and kill 168 people. Explosively dropping a building is a science. It takes a construction crew and weeks of prep. it's messy and not something that can be set up sub rosa.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It has yet to be explained to me (with a rational explanation) why having real terrorists crash planes into the WTC and Pentagon wouldn't have accomplished the exact same thing as the more exotic explanations:

Crashing a plane into the WTC would have just caused damage to several floors. It wouldn't have demolished the entire building and destroyed a beloved landmark.

Quote:
Why do people always insist on fabricating the most convoluted conspiracies possible?

They are not fabricating. They are offering explanations that appear to be more consistent with the physical evidence.

Quote:
If you want to implicate the U.S. government in these things, it makes much more sense to imagine the CIA helping real terrorists (who want to do the job anyway) to get the job done with legitimate means (actual real-life planes) rather than imagining the most complicated scheme possible.

This is indeed one of the many alternative explanations.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BNW:
Nothing will be going sideways when nothing is pushing or pulling sideways.

Why WAS there nothing obstructing the path of the floors above? Could it be because the lower floors were destroyed in advance of the fall, so the fall could come straight down without hitting anything to make it tip over?

That is what demolition crews do, you know.

YOU take a physics class. It's not that hard.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BNW:
Ignorant fucking sods. The buildings fell in their own footprint because they collapsed due to gravity. The earth is down. Straight down. Nothing will be going sideways when nothing is pushing or pulling sideways.

Take a physics class. It's not that hard.

What he said.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The problem is, no one has explained to my satisfaction why the building *had* to come down.

You're speaking of motive. Sure, in naming an alternate suspect, it is good to have motive.

But sometimes, even without motive, it is enough to question the validity of the current suspect based on physical evidence alone. That is the thrust of most truthers, is questioning the physical evidence.

Motive is the area of conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones et al. The best you can do with motive is a series of conjectures like false flag.

In this post, I mean to make the distinction between truthers who don't buy the official explanation, and conspiracty theorists who offer alternative explanations. There is a big difference. I am a truther, but not a conspiracy theorist. See?

ETA: Some popular possible explanations offered for motive for demolition include emotional intensity (total destruction would elicit a more intense response than mere damage), destruction of inconvenient documents/evidence in the buildings (kill 2 birds with one stone), increased chaos, actual or perceived destruction of our economy.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Since the construction was similar to WTC1 and 2, and fire felled them, it is logical to assume the fire also felled 7?

The whole point of the truther movement is that fires do not fall buildings in this manner. In the entire history of buildings on fire, no buildings have EVER been felled by fire in this manner (straight down in near free fall speed).

However, this pattern of falling buildings can be seen most of the time in professional demolitions.

Wherefore the questions about the official story.

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

HERO

Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
It's just the rest of the folks who don't want to consider that possibility chalk us up as crazy.

Its not crazy to think that the US is responsible especially when their talking dog's arguments are so reasonable and that their neighbor is in fact...the devil.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

HARDWARE

Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Since the construction was similar to WTC1 and 2, and fire felled them, it is logical to assume the fire also felled 7?
The whole point of the truther movement is that fires do not fall buildings in this manner. In the entire history of buildings on fire, no buildings have EVER been felled by fire in this manner (straight down in near free fall speed).

However, this pattern of falling buildings can be seen most of the time in professional demolitions.

Wherefore the questions about the official story.

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Ah, as ever the devil is in the details. You're asking the wrong question. At no time in history did a building with similar construction methods as the WTC towers fail due to fire. I've seen videos of a skyscraper in Spain burning for hours and it didn't fall. But that tower had reinforced concrete columns. WTC 1 and 2 had steel support columns. As you no doubt have seen by now, the fireproofing blew off of them in the impacts and the following fuel explosion. What felled the towers was not the fuel burning, that was mostly consumed in the fireballs. The interior of most modern buildings is a petrochemical refinery in solid state. Nylon in carpets, plastic in pipes, foam ceiling panels, wood and glues in chipboard furniture, and of course, paper, reams and reams of paper. All highly combustible. Of all of them, only the carpet is treated to be flame resistant, and not all that much. It will still burn in a fire, it just won't support combustion on its own.

WTC7, which did not have its fireproofing blow off, lasted much longer. But in all 3 cases once the fire caused the structural steel to fail it led to a pancake collapse. Buildings look like big, solid structures, but they are 90% air. When the collapse started, there was no place for the building to go but straight down. In video footage of the tower's collapse, you can see the upper portions of one of the towers begin to twist and sway. This is evidence of a fatigue failure, a few of the columns beneath the top of the building failed, and were forced to one side by the load above, while adjacent columns were still holding the weight above for a few more moments.

The only question that should be asked about the WTC collapses is; how do you create a higher performance fireproofing?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

HARDWARE

Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:45 PM

Double tap.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE