anyone seen loose change?

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Boswell, 10 Nov 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Boswell

    Boswell Minimodder

    Joined:
    23 May 2005
    Posts:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    5
    donno if this has been brought up... but theres some pretty serious stuff in this film/documentary ("loose change"- incase you didn't read the title) -- to the people who havn't seen it... basicly it prooves how 9/11 is all set up (not by terriosts)
    watch then reply :) theres a torrent file linky somewhere in this thread if you look hard enough
     
  2. cpemma

    cpemma Ecky thump

    Joined:
    27 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    12,328
    Likes Received:
    55
    So now you have to pay $18 to indulge the conspiracy nuts?

    Seems Al Quaeda (or people with close links to) killed Princess Di. Thought as much at the time. And Kennedy. And Elvis.

    Ho hum. Boring. :sigh:
     
  3. .308AR

    .308AR What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    8 May 2005
    Posts:
    752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Elvis and JFK aren't dead. They run a liquor store in Dayton, Ohio.
     
  4. robbins1940

    robbins1940 Banned

    Joined:
    13 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actualy these docs are free to download.
     
  5. robbins1940

    robbins1940 Banned

    Joined:
    13 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you. I seen this doc and others and I no longer beleive the propagranda from our government and the press and TV News stations(that includes the BBC).

    Another doc you look out for is Painful Deceptions(EDIT this one is better).

    9/11 was carried out like a magic trick. The Bin Laden family were flown out of the USA at a time when no one was allowed to travel. FBI went around petrol stations nearby the Pentagon and conificted CCTV that would have shown the offical story to be a pack of lies. Also when those towers collaspped the fires were all but out yet the fire in Madrid that was worse than the twin towers burned for over 18 hours and didn't collasppe.

    I am actually surprised that a nuclear bomb hasn't been set off yet on American soil.
     
    Last edited: 11 Nov 2005
  6. .308AR

    .308AR What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    8 May 2005
    Posts:
    752
    Likes Received:
    0
    If that happens the cries of discrimination will be true. Plenty of us will see to it and more.
     
  7. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,559
    Likes Received:
    1,981
    Somehow that idea really appeals to me. :)

    Oh, that one again... yeah, 911 was one huge conspiracy... :rolleyes:

    Sorry, but no. However I don't feel like going into the technicalities of highrise construction to explain why the Twin Towers collapsed and whatever building in Madrid did not. Ask an architect. The Bin Laden's were flown out after the event when the goverment realised how politically embarrasing it would be if their associations were come to light during the investigation. The rest is just unsubstantiated rumour and hearsay without conclusive proof.

    Sometimes outrageously bad stuff just happens for stupid reasons. Deal.
     
  8. dom_

    dom_ --->

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    3,942
    Likes Received:
    8
    ok i did actually watch this. well the first 30mins then skipped through the rest as it was complete hear say and rubbish.

    i could happily type page after page discriminating this, its not like im biased either. what have i got to loose in agreeing or disagreeing to this?

    anyone who isnt taking in by the hype or isnt simple can see this is bullcrap.
     
  9. robbins1940

    robbins1940 Banned

    Joined:
    13 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Steels boiling point is 2900C and its melting point is 1500C.

    This is an 800C fire.

    [​IMG]

    And this is one of the twin towers.

    [​IMG]

    Look carefully at the glass. Glass explodes when heated. Having recently witnessed a house on fire the glass in the window explodes yet the windows on the towers are intact. Surely if there is raging fires the glass should be broken?
    Explain the conflict please.
     
    Last edited: 11 Nov 2005
  10. robbins1940

    robbins1940 Banned

    Joined:
    13 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    WTC 1:
    An Impossible Collapse

    We are told that WTC 1 collapsed straight down because the core of the building failed.

    The 767 had smashed through the outer wall and hit the inner core directly destroying the fire protection. The intense fire that followed had then concentrated around the core. Two things would then have happened. Floor trusses, softened by the fire, would have fallen away from the core. Without the trusses to hold it firm, the core would have lost crucial support. At the same time, the core’s exposed steel girders, also long softened by the heat, would have begun to buckle under the weight of the tower. The result: another progressive collapse. [BBC Horizon]

    The core of the structurally similar Windsor Building in Madrid withstood an 800°C inferno for more than 18 hours without failing, and since no 800°C inferno existed in WTC 1 it is impossible to believe that heat caused the core of this building to fail.

    A close look at the video below provides a different reason for the collapse.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    This 2.6 MB WMV video of WTC 1 was shot from a tripod and gives a clear perspective the collapse. It can be viewed frame by frame with this software (free demo). Gamma correction has been applied to the two video frames shown below to clarify the images.

    Frame 0 shows the building immediately prior to the collapse, frame 42 shows the building ~1½ seconds later:



    Frame 0 - one frame before collapse.


    Frame 42 - forty one frames into collapse.



    The reduction in the height of the mast indicates the core of WTC 1 has failed. The height reduction also indicates the core has fallen further than the perimeter walls.

    The single-bolt connections in the framework of the World Trade Center popped and fell apart during the September 11 terrorist attacks, causing the floors to collapse on top of each other, according to a new study. The analysis, conducted by a team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), concludes the bolts did not properly secure the towers' steel floor trusses, The New York Post reported yesterday. [CBS News]

    Details of floor trusses & bolts

    [​IMG]


    If the 'truss theory' and the above MIT study were true then all of the single bolt connections above the aircraft impact level would have "popped and fell apart" the moment the core dropped - the descending core would have sheared off all bolts connecting trusses to the inner core. This would have resulted in the simultaneous failure of all trusses in and around the highlighted section of the building, and the perimeter walls would have lost all support.
    "Truss theory" trusses failing


    The perimeter walls were not designed to be load bearing and would have had no strength without the bracing of trusses, therefore the top section of WTC 1 should have visually disintegrated as the roof came down.

    The video shows no disintegration in the top section of WTC 1 as it comes down - the structure is visually solid. It is obvious that WTC 1's structure was nowhere near as weak as we are led to believe.

    So why did the twin towers collapse?

    Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.
    The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

    "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

    Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures. [Albuquerque Journal 9/14/2001]


    The above video indicates that Romero's initial assessment of the collapses was fundamentally sound.

    How could explosives have been planted in the WTC?

    Heightened WTC Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted

    The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY NewsDay]

    Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down

    On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower." [WingTV]

    WTC Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush





    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  11. dom_

    dom_ --->

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    3,942
    Likes Received:
    8
    i will reply properly tomorrow, im just off to bed now.
     
  12. Da_BaCoN

    Da_BaCoN Minimodder

    Joined:
    25 Aug 2002
    Posts:
    1,200
    Likes Received:
    2
    I really would like/need to study up on all of this topic because I hear people talking about it and am curious myself.

    But for now, I'll just subscribe to this thread and watch ya'll battle it out :)
     
  13. .308AR

    .308AR What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    8 May 2005
    Posts:
    752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you people honestly believe George W. Bush was behind 9/11? What on earth would he gain from it? A reason to go to war and get more oil? ########! If it were true
    violent revolt would have been the result.

    How can Dubya be an incompetent fool and a brilliant mastermind at the same time?
     
  14. robbins1940

    robbins1940 Banned

    Joined:
    13 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because he isn't really in charge. He is just a puppet leader. It is the Jewish bankers where the real power lies.
     
  15. robbins1940

    robbins1940 Banned

    Joined:
    13 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try www.infowars.com there is a section there devoted to 9/11. Also www.whatreallyhappened.com
     
  16. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    OMFG Aliens do exist and Roswell WAS a cover up too!!

    Whatever you conclude, whatever you think may have happened, even if some elements are true, conspiricy theorists will just be treated like nutcases and ignored as having watched too much Xfiles and have something, like a lot of people, against the US.

    You cant fight the system from the outside.
     
  17. Will

    Will Beware the judderman...

    Joined:
    16 Jun 2001
    Posts:
    3,057
    Likes Received:
    2
    As a student of international politics, I read loads of books and articles written by academics digging deep into history and investigating events that are often shrouded in controversy, conspiracy theory and conjecture, in a similar way to that which surrounds the events of 9/11.

    Yet I've never read a serious academic assessment of the attacks that give a full and rigorous explanation to some of the theories surrounded 9/11 which are given credence by those who seek to blame the Bush administration for orchestrating the attacks, or to say it was the Jewish bankers, or green alligators from space or however. Is this lack of real research it because nobody is interested in 9/11? I think not! All these theories cite MIT researches or an unnamed, untraceable 'civil engineers', but where are these highly educated people - why won't they put their names to their claims?

    Surely if their research is so solid it would be much more publicised and available for public and academic scrutiny, rather than just being briefly referenced in the odd forum post that crops now and then? I'd suggest its because in fact it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

    The one academic who is named there, Van Romero, have you actually had a look at when exactly his comments were made? 3 days after 9/11, now the guy may know his stuff but he hardly conducted lengthy and methodical research, involving constructing the sort of complex mathemetical models you'd need, before coming to that conclusion - he later withdrew his statements regarding the explosive demolition.

    And then the conspiracy sites just say 'he was pressured to by the FBI!' or quote some un-named attorney as saying 'Although he was made to withdraw his comments, he still unveiled the truth', as though thats sufficient and wide ranging evidence for him to be right.
     
  18. robbins1940

    robbins1940 Banned

    Joined:
    13 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Copied from another forum site:-

    and pass it on to the "non-believers"

    http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

    DRAFT

    Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

    By Steven E. Jones

    Department of Physics and Astronomy

    Brigham Young University

    Provo, UT 84604

    ABSTRACT

    In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

    Let’s start with the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never hit by a jet. I ask you to take a minute to look at the collapse of this building as a basis for discussion.

    http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11 Picture1.jpg

    WTC 7: 47 - Story, steel-frame building..

    http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11 Picture4.jpg

    WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall

    http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11 Picture2.jpg


    sky-scraper in the back-ground, right. Seen from WTC 1 area.

    WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint

    Now that you have seen the still photographs, it is important to the discussion which follows for you to observe video clips of the collapse of this building, so go to:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html Click on the three photos at the top of this web-site page in order to see the videos of the collapse of WTC 7. It helps to have sound.

    Then consider a video close-up of the same building (SW corner) as its demise begins:

    http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

    What did you observe?

    Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically) – or did it topple over?

    Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less than 6.6 seconds; time it!)

    Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out of the building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast timing of observed puffs or “squibs.” Note that reference to web pages is used in this paper due largely to the importance of viewing motion picture clips, thus enhancing consideration of the laws of motion and physics generally. High-quality photographs showing details of the collapses of WTC 7 and the WTC Towers can be found in books (Hufschmid, 2002; Paul and Hoffman, 2004), magazines (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005) and at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/collapses.html.

    My reasons for advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are these:

    1. As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.) A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings.

    Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to my arguments:

    The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)

    That is precisely my point: further investigation and analyses are needed, including consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis which is neglected in all of the government reports (FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports). Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01. (Commission, 2004) This is a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened on 9-11.

    2. A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides relevant data.

    Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

    That’s correct – no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete, symmetrical collapses have indeed occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001.

    Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

    The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.

    3. There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

    ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

    The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 13 Nov 2005
  19. robbins1940

    robbins1940 Banned

    Joined:
    13 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

    ‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

    Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.” Further information on the subject is available at http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=11663.

    Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel. However, scientific analysis, using for example X-ray fluorescence, would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the molten metal.

    I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal. The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:

    Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

    None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So I would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available according to scientific courtesy. Any reader who knows of chemical analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author. This could lead to an experiment crucis.

    4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.

    However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side of the building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be observed at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.html. The same site shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.) Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives. Regarding this highly-secure building, a NY Times article entitled “Secretive C.I.A. Site in New York was Destroyed on Sept. 11,” provides an intriguing puzzle piece:

    The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center… All of the agency's employees at the site were safely evacuated… The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they evacuated their own building. (Risen, 2001)

    5. The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the North Tower collapse:

    Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)

    http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11 Picture3.jpg

    North Tower showing antenna (top) at beginning of collapse.


    Yes, we can see for ourselves that the antenna drops first from videos of the North Tower collapse. (See http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html; also http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm.) A NY Times article also notes this behavior:

    The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first… (Glanz and Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)

    But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building (which supported the antenna) to give way nearly simultaneously? That mystery was raised by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2) and the New York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not solved in any official report (FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The odd behavior was not even mentioned in the final NIST report (NIST, 2005), but some of us have not forgotten.

    Could random fires burning office materials in the building account for a near-simultaneous “pulling” of these core supports? Certainly such an event would have exceedingly low probability. Again, use of pre-positioned explosives to cut the core columns first (standard demolition practice) provides a simple yet elegant explanation for the observation, satisfying the “Occam’s razor” test (Jones, 2005).

    6. Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive demolition. Firemen and others described flashes and explosions in upper floors near where the plane entered, and in lower floors of WTC 2 just prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck the tower (Dwyer, 2005). For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:

    There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion.” (De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 13 Nov 2005
  20. robbins1940

    robbins1940 Banned

    Joined:
    13 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:

    [We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)

    And assistant fire commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional insights:

    When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

    Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

    A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory FDNY WCT2 File No. 91 10008; emphasis added.)



    It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such explosions especially on lower floors, and long after the planes hit the buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated: "The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.” (Field, 2005) On the other hand, pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible and simple explanation for the observations, satisfying Occam’s razor (Jones, 2005). Thus, it cannot be said that “no evidence” can be found for the use of explosives. This serious matter needs to be treated as a plausible scientific hypothesis and thoroughly investigated.



    7. The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, provides further evidence for the use of explosives – as well-explained in http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also, Griffin, 2004, chapter 2.)

    http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11 Picture7 (squib1).jpg

    North Tower during top-down collapse.

    Notice mysterious squibs far below pulverization region.


    Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded “top-down” rather than proceeding from the bottom – which is unusual for controlled demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which explosives are detonated. That is, explosives may have been placed on higher floors of the towers and exploded via radio signals so as to have early explosions near the region where the plane entered the tower. Certainly this hypothesis ought to be seriously considered in an independent investigation using all available data.

    8. I totally agree with the urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire Engineering:



    Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.

    Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA… is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

    Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.

    Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, [are considerations] for the… present and future generations… (Manning, 2002; emphasis added).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 13 Nov 2005
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page