04-08-2009, 06:31 PM
|
 | V.I.P. Club Member | | Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Pennsylvania republic
Posts: 3,581
Downloads: 2 Uploads: 1 | |
 World Trade Centers -> Controlled Demolition
911 was an Inside Job. http://www.infowars.com/sept11_archive.htm Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra  And yet you're willing to accept the claims made in 1973 that the WTC could withstand a collision with an Boeing 707, which was also based on simulations. | That are supported by physics. Here is what the experst have to say:
Quote:
[Frank A. Demartini:] � The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it . That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.� Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. [8]
Sept 3-7, 2001�just before 9/11
�The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. [Leslie] Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. [Robertson] concluded that the tower would remain standing.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sep..._after_911.htm
| Emphasis added.
NIST should allow its bogus simulation to be all examined by independent engineers, scientist, pilots, firefighters, political leaders, scholars, and the public.
Quote: NIST admits that it didn't even attempt to model the undamaged portions of the building and only modeled a portion of each tower in any detail -- its "global floor model" which consisted of "several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers. NIST provides no evidence that its model even predicted "collapse initiation".
WTC Blueprints Leaked by Whistleblower
| Emphasis added.
What is the reason for keeping this information secret, unless it doesn’t hold water?
Quote:
Structural Engineers strongly criticized the final NIST report on WTC collapses: New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualization of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra It boggles the mind that, IF there was a conspiracy to fake the plain crashes, make the original planes disappear, sap the WTC with internal explosives, etc., - a conspiracy that would have required at least a hundred participants - not one of those person said "Why are we doing it this way? It's obvious that a jetliner cannot bring down a skyscraper!" | There have been many insiders that have come out.
[...]
Still, it is well known that the military compartmentalizes all of their top-secret projects. Who would argue that 9/11 would not be such a project? Who would not think that the government would not run drills as a cover for any such project, such as, Tripod II, 'Vigilant Guardian' and other such operations to confuse the issue in the mind’s of most of the participants? The government has pulled off many such admitted False Flag events, for example, 1953 Iran coup, or the U.S.S. Liberty attack, so on and so forth.
Steel doesn’t begin to lose its integrity until the temperatures reach about 2800F. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence that tempretures reached much higher levels, based upon many eyewitness acounts: first responders, firefighters ("it looks like a foundry"), victims, photos (see below).
Quote:
FEMA discusses mysterious sulfidation and oxidation seen on some WTC7 steel beams in Appendix C:
"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visiable in the near-surface microstructure.... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual events. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."
| Remember, WTC-7 was not hit by any jet! Oops!
Quote: |
Originally Posted by reenie Those jetliners did not bring down those buildings. Most of the jet fuel burned off outside the buildings. | People were walking around.
Quote:
Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94th floor).
Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
| YouTube - CrossTalk on 9/11: Whodunit?!
911 was an Inside Job.
http://www.suijurisclub.net/end-amer...lition-20.html
| http://www.suijurisclub.net/end-amer...ed-terror.html Quote:
The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
1.Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2.Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3.Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4.Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5.Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6.Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7.Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8.1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9.Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10.Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11.Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12.Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13.Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14.No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1.Slow onset with large visible deformations
2.Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3.Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4.High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”
AE911Truth Heats up the 9/11 Truth Choir in Sizzling Tucson
| Emphasis added.
Last edited by BOBT12; 07-29-2010 at 06:36 PM.
|
Similar Threads 
Linear Mode
