the twin towers were pulverized on 9/11..energy used=volcano

[mason-free party]

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=57

[mason-free party]

CB_Brooklyn Posted: Jun 11 2007, 04:47 AM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Member No.: 55
Joined: 5-June 07



QUOTE (david @ Jun 10 2007, 08:31 PM)
Great post!

Btw, what do you think was used to do this?

Mini-nukes + Thermate?


David, there was no thermate. That's disinfo by government plant Steven Jones!

While nuke technology may have been used in addition to directed energy weapons, DEWs take into account more of the data.

malaprop aka izzy Posted: Jun 11 2007, 09:56 AM


New


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 104
Joined: 11-June 07



The FACT that there was insufficient rubble is one of the most telling, yet simple to understand, pieces of evidence that SOMETHING very unconventional happened here.

One doesn't need a Phd in physics to understand that the official fable is ridiculous.

People answser that question with "all the concrete" floated away......but the towers really were mainly constructed of steel beams.......the only concrete I can think of is horizontal-- the 4" thick slab floors that were poured over reinforced steel rods. The verticals were all steel, not concrete.

The point being, is what is mostly missing is steel beam from the pile of rubble.


Just like a 200 ton aircraft should have 200 tons of wreckage, so should a bldg. that came down by gravity only, should have the same amount of volume/mass at the bottom. Probably talking about a rubble pile 15-20 stories tall, IMHO....

Yet the rubble barely covered the ground.......how could two huge towers be reduced to so little?



hapax Posted: Jun 12 2007, 08:02 AM


New


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Member No.: 114
Joined: 12-June 07



Great info. Love the pics of the cop car and fire truck.

Maybe this is an invalid comment (and I've got no ax to grind either way), but all these "pyroclastic flows" involve the release of huge amounts of energy, as you say. But there would have been a very large quantity of potential energy "stored" in the twin towers just by the mere fact of keeping that huge mass of material up there in defiance of gravity. Each tower weighed around 500 000 tons. Could the collapsing tops (100 000 - 250 000 tons, I guess) have been enough to release the heat and pressure needed for pulverizing the concrete and melting the beams without needing thermite/ explosives/beam weapons/nukes etc.?

Has any concrete expert or metallurgist commented or come up with any proper figures concerning any energy released by the falling material itself?

If we knew the amount of released potential energy to a reasonable level of accuracy, we could figure out whether nukes or something else would even have been needed to provide any extra energy for the "pyroclastic" effect.

Either way, the Government did it. For what it's worth, I'm in the following camp:

Empty "drone" planes (passengers still in Israeli jails);
Mossad "spotters" (the high-fivers) in that van;
Remote-control teams operating from helicopters and WTC7;
No thermite or explosives in the twin towers;
WTC7 controlled demolition;
Silverstein et al. foreknowledge;
Government Zionists did it to make war against Israel's enemies in the Middle East - and pocket a bit of money into the bargain.

John Gault Posted: Jun 12 2007, 05:00 PM


New


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Member No.: 116
Joined: 12-June 07



CB -

Nice to see a site which doesn't look to be censoring.

Congrats to Killtown and others for putting this together.

Now, about those photos...

The demolition photo listed below the heading "Does this look like a collapse?" which is an aerial view from the northeast, has a serious problem:

The image of the white building with the terraced roof in front of WTC7 is a fake.
The top of the roof (highest terrace) shows six round "fixtures" yet this building (in reality) does not appear that way.
See-- http://maps.live.com/ -- (go to aerial view and zoom in)
Also, the oval shaped structure (lower on the roof) is not casting an accurate shadow. The shadow should extend from the right edge, yet it does not (see aerial view for more on this).

Who created this image? How? When ? Why?

If they included doctored images of buildings, what does that suggest aboout the rest of the image?

I believe DEW may have been used, but many of the images are suspect and most likely designed to "poison" the valid evidence. In our efforts to "solve the riddle" we must avoid the temptation to include images which appear to support our position but which are in fact, manufactured composites.

You continue to do great work in exposing the lies, I just wanted to make you aware of these problems and remind everyone to examine all 9/11 images very carefully before presenting them as "evidence".

Best Regards,

JG


(tried to attach my screenshots of the aerial views but was unable to include them)


CB_Brooklyn Posted: Jun 12 2007, 06:08 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Member No.: 55
Joined: 5-June 07



QUOTE (John Gault @ Jun 12 2007, 01:00 PM)
CB -

Nice to see a site which doesn't look to be censoring.

Congrats to Killtown and others for putting this together.

Now, about those photos...

The demolition photo listed below the heading "Does this look like a collapse?" which is an aerial view from the northeast, has a serious problem:

The image of the white building with the terraced roof in front of WTC7 is a fake.
The top of the roof (highest terrace) shows six round "fixtures" yet this building (in reality) does not appear that way.
See-- http://maps.live.com/ -- (go to aerial view and zoom in)
Also, the oval shaped structure (lower on the roof) is not casting an accurate shadow. The shadow should extend from the right edge, yet it does not (see aerial view for more on this).

Who created this image? How? When ? Why?

If they included doctored images of buildings, what does that suggest aboout the rest of the image?

I believe DEW may have been used, but many of the images are suspect and most likely designed to "poison" the valid evidence. In our efforts to "solve the riddle" we must avoid the temptation to include images which appear to support our position but which are in fact, manufactured composites.

You continue to do great work in exposing the lies, I just wanted to make you aware of these problems and remind everyone to examine all 9/11 images very carefully before presenting them as "evidence".

Best Regards,

JG


(tried to attach my screenshots of the aerial views but was unable to include them)


JG, I'm not sure which building you're referring to, but there's several pictures from multiple angles of that area here:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt1.html

The only photo sources I see are from freehostia.com

I zoomed in but don't see any buildings with six round fixtures. Could you be specific about which building you mean?

[marky 54]

again if steven jones is wrong what caused the "thermite" reaction on the outside wall?

you and j.wood may seem to believe that you need to search for a weapon that can account for everything. you will be searching forever, because there is no single weapon that can account for everything. the main problem is that everyone thinks its black and white and only one thing can be true.

if you lot want to restrict yourselves to one weapon/method then fine, i will not make the same mistake, i will look at what the evidence suggests and look for things/weaponS that account for everything rather than the most.

thermate/thermite did'nt pulverise the buildings but it dos'nt mean it was'nt used to strat of the failure in order to try and make the start of the collapse look like a normal and natural failure at the collapse zone.

then watch explosive reality, there are numerous examples of seperate flashes and explosions, even the witnesses recall numerous seprate explosions, google search explosive reality and watch it.

now you may be correct that thermate/thermite does not account for all the pulverisation and cars etc. but that dos'nt mean that the information gathered on explosives/CD is wrong unless your the type who thinks only one weapon or method was used that accounts for everything at once(which is impossible as there so many things). energy weapons might account for pulverisation and cars but even CB brooklyn addmits it dos'nt account for all on its own, when he says it accounts for the most.

i am certain more than one method was used to get these very strong buildings down, some of the evidence points to explosives and some of the evidence points to something much bigger why you all think it can only be one or the other is beyond me, as far as i can tell the evidence suggests both or more than one method.

but if you can get both sides convinced only they can be right, yet more than one method was used then you can create infighting whilst ensuring no one can explain fully what happened.

thinking only one method was used is where i think everyone fails, but hey i don't have a degree so i must be wrong right?