What a controlled demolition really looks like.

[stateofgrace]

withdawn

[is]

[stateofgrace]

withdawn

[alkmyst]

is wrote:

[freddie]

I'm not getting into this one as there's so much that can be said - the only thing I'm going to mention for those who believe the official collapse theory is this:

If you believe that it only takes 1 floor to fail (only 10 or so out of the 47 massive steel columns) to produce the collapse that we saw in both towers then you have already ruled out the necessity for a conventional 'controled demolition'. If it only takes a few columns on 1 floor to fail to initiate a total collapse at those speeds then surely it would only take a few explosives or thermite cutting charges to produce the same results.

This means that if you believe the official theory you lose the ground to argue the following:

a) It would take loads of explosives / on every floor which would have been impossible to put in place without people seeing

b) The explosions would have been clearly visable (because according to the official theory it would only take 10 or so central coloumns to be destroyed which apart from the odd squib would be largely unseen)

[stateofgrace]

withdawn

[alkmyst]

SOG,

I have a proposal .... an opportunity to demonstrate that you have something meaningful to contribute by appearing on this forum.

Professor Steven E. Jones, one of the founding members of 'Scholars for Truth', wrote a paper last year titled, 'Why Indeed Did the WTC Towers Collapse'

You can download the paper at the following link:

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

Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to critique this report ... line by line if necessary.

I will be meeting with Professor Jones within the next couple of weeks, so I could have the opportunity to present your comments to him ... provided they are framed appropriately.

Complete this assignment and I would be very happy to retract my observation that your initial postings .... "bear all the hallmarks of a timewasting Troll!"


Al K Myst

[stateofgrace]

withdawn

[alkmyst]

Previously I wrote:

[stateofgrace]

withdawn

[John White]

Good Video

Looked liked the twin towers and WT7 collapse to me, minus the heavy smoke and vast difference in scale masking the charges firing

Thanks for the link!

Funny how we see what we want to isnt it?

(PS: experts: ten a penny mate: Peer review: always suits the reviewers: but which ones blagging it, thats the question...

A: the one who hides his raw data behind "national security"...)

However, back in the "real world" three miracles in one day (three skyscrapers collapsing through fire for the first and only time in history (without or without airplanes), one of which was barely on the go and the other two, even in the offical data, rarely getting over 250 degrees C...)

Yeah of course mate, obviously

Wish I was a salesman, I could flog you anything "stateofgrace"

Want to buy a used moter?

[Andrew Johnson]

We're winning folks!

Plenty more attacks and disinfo and great helpings of insincerity and spin are on the way, so get ready for them!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/180506attacksheen.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/180506moretapes.htm

Isn't it really quite flattering that our little "country" board should attract such an obvious attempt at "decoy, distract and trash" tactics?

Great!

[xmasdale]

[quote="stateofgrace"]Ok ask him why nobody supports him.

[scubadiver]

download "911 Eyewitness" off www.question911.com It analyses footage taken by a guy across the river from the towers who recorded the whole event. the narration is rather dull but it is a must see.

The explosive charges themselves are not clearly visible DURING the collapse but smoke can be seen coming from the bottom of the towers about one minute prior to collapse and weakened the structure at the base.

The explosive charges are VERY CLEARLY audible.

The buildings certainly did collapse on to their own footprint.

Very little dust cloud? Are you kidding? or just blind? All the dust you see is representative of a pyroclastic flow, which can only be demonstrated with extremely high temperatures (ie volcanoes or explosives).

[blackcat]

[Banish]

My brother was a Naval Officer for 10 years, he thought I was bananas when I said 9/11 was an inside job. Not any longer. We have defnitely broken through the threshold.

And I dont believe the Pentagon tape is a "honey trap", that's a convenient get-out clause for the "truthseekers" who refused to believe that there was NO plane attack at the Pentagon - like Rivero and Jones etc. They are furiously back-peddling.

[is]

[orestes]

What bothers me is how often people come on to forums claiming that they are sick of 'bad science' or 'disinformation' and then when they are asked what they have to say to articles by professionals on the subject do two things:
1) refuse to examine the papers and their arguments.
2) link to articles whose contentions are EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED in the articles they refuse to look at.

And all with a patronising tone that implies 'I've sen it all before'.

[John White]

Agreed orestes, thats proper "fruit loop" behaviour that is!

[Spectre]

I am an architect and have worked in the building industry for 20+ years. I have a very good understanding of structural engineering and indeed it was this background and my intrigue at the building WTC 1&2 collapses which brought me into the 9/11 truth exposure movement.

I can tell you without fear of contradiction the following:

Many architects and engineers doubt the official story (especially since the official round-up by NIST etc. isn't too clear what happened itself).

The original WTC architect and engineers have expressed surprise that the buildings didn't survive the plane impacts (to put it mildly).

Had the plane impacts been powerful enough to bring down the parts of the building above the impact zones - the collapse of those sections would have been asymmetric by virtue of the fact the collison points were off centre and near the corners. In reality the section above would have become wonky and toppled over to some extent - either falling away from the building - or dragging part of the lower corner section (below the impact zones) away with it. It certainly would not have collapsed vertically taking everything with it below. It is madness to suggest otherwise. These structures were 20% over compendated in structural terms i.e. they had a 5th of total strength as redundancy built into them. They were very strong, well built, and entirely capable of withstanding the plane impacts. The two towers - or atleast certainly the significant lower sections should still be standing there.

The only thing that could have brought down the buildings so neatly and onto their own footprints is demolition charges, carefully placed at major structural intersections between columns and beams. There is no doubt that the effects of gravity were also employed to bring the total building mass into play to assist with the downward crushing effect. In order to do this a mighty explosion would have needed to have taken place in the basements to weaken the substructural supports - in other words pull the legs from beneath you. This seems to have happened judging from the various seismic readings that were recorded before the collapses started. It also concurs with eyewitness reports from Willy Rodriguez and others.

Simple common sense tells you that 110 storey buildings do not collapse in near perfect vertical descent in less than 10 seconds each. That is eleven floors per second! Inertia and resistence to movement would slow up the downward progress considerably with each successive floor collapse. The supposed pancake theory is ridiculous because the massive central supporting columns would still be standing like accusing fingers pointing up into the sky. You cannot compress thick steel section beams down on themselves. They are not plasticene!

People who pour cold water on our natural suspicions just don't understand building construction or structural mechanics. Believe me the official story is a fairy tale - and not a very good one.

[stateofgrace]

withdawn

[John White]

Well lets start with basics 101 shall we:

Have you ever heard of compartmentalisation?

[is]

state of grace - no reply to any of my points?


The images I posted worked in the first place, does anyone know why they now do not work?

[blackcat]

[orestes]

[alkmyst]

Hey is,

it always makes for good spectator sport when anyone attempts to engage those who say that they post on this forum to 'debate' but actually just use the opportunity to troll out their dogma!

It should be quite apparent by now that SOG is here to promote the 'limited hangout' of an intelligence failure.

I have aways believed that there had to be someone out there who actually believed the BS of The 9/11 Commission Report ... well, it seems that this individual appeared on the nineleven forum last night, in the guise of SOG!

SOG wrote:

[blackcat]

Oh *!! alkmyst - If I had realised stateofgrace was using hegelian dialectic I wouldn't have bothered.

[John White]

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

At this point, I'd say a response from State of grace to Billiard balls is practically mandatory

Tea and Biccies are on hand to help you recover from the shock of being had State of grace...

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Thankyou, state of grace, for the site showing what the controlled collapse of a tower looks like.

Some points worth noting:
1. The initial explosions did not cause squibs of dust to be ejected.
2. The huge cloud of dust occurring the collapse was clearly caused by
the collapse of the building: potential energy was converted to
kinetic energy, and that was sufficient to pulverise the material of which the tower was constructed.
3. The huge dust clouds from the collapse of the Twin Towers are not proof of the use of explosives. From the evidence of this video, huge clouds of dust resulting from pulverisation will occur whenever any tower collapses.

WTC

[brian]