What Destroyed The World Trade Centers? - Page 5

notepad · 02-09-2005, 09:15 PM

...nope, none of the above.

Atom · 02-09-2005, 09:38 PM

I figure the demolitions experts must be either dead, or rich.

I am thinking, shouldn't many people have heard the succession of explosions, at least in the beginning?

chaka42 · 02-09-2005, 09:38 PM

my apologies guys, jumped the gun a bit ....

notepad · 02-09-2005, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaka42

my apologies guys, jumped the gun a bit ....

...no problem ...give us a vote when you get a chance.

chaka42 · 02-10-2005, 08:27 AM

you know, i guess those articles would present a good case for the conspiracy theorist or pessimist that would like to believe that the governmnet or some other agency was responsible for the wtc disaster. i have yet to be convinced of what i believe happened.

for some reason, the thought that demolition charges were set off to collapse the towers is a bit far-fetched. plausible to the skeptic, yes, but i'm no skeptic or conspiracy theorist. i find it amazing that these supposed charges would 'only' be placed at the top of the tower and not at the base as most authorized demolitions. or to merely hide the fact that 757s full of fuel hit the towers, which would make them bombs in a sense.

the second article highlighting the idea that the last plane that crashed in pennsylvania was shot down. now, this is more plausible given the fact that government officials and the military were already aware of wtc and the pentagon. no real argument there, but still ...

still, i am getting pretty sick of hearing all of the conspiracy crap and monday morning quarterbacking on these forums that i frequent. it seems as though these guys spend their time trying to pointing out what is wrong with the world and the american government most of the time. do you not have anything better to do with your time? if i get accused of being ignorant than i will happily plead so and live in bliss as ferre likes to accuse ....

gorillaboy · 02-10-2005, 09:14 AM

Nobody forced you to read this thread or the articles referenced in it.

I guess you're just one of those people that likes to get angry.

chaka42 · 02-10-2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Nobody forced you to read this thread or the articles referenced in it.

I guess you're just one of those people that likes to get angry.

what is that about?

gorillaboy · 02-10-2005, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaka42

what is that about?

Quote:

still, i am getting pretty sick of hearing all of the conspiracy crap and monday morning quarterbacking on these forums that i frequent. it seems as though these guys spend their time trying to pointing out what is wrong with the world and the american government most of the time. do you not have anything better to do with your time?

I'm just trying to help you, buddy.

chaka42 · 02-10-2005, 11:21 AM

apparently, i'm not the only one guilty of not reading the 'entire' thread....

Atom · 02-10-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaka42

i find it amazing that these supposed charges would 'only' be placed at the top of the tower and not at the base as most authorized demolitions.

There was melted steel found in the basement that indicated charges at the base as well. It is thought that charges must have been placed along most of it's height because most of the pieces of frame were found in truck bed length sections, and only a few had to be cut in order to fit the truck beds that hauled them away.

"No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire", not even fire from jet fuel.

chaka42 · 02-10-2005, 04:38 PM

Quote:

"No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire", not even fire from jet fuel.

curious as to where you have found statistical evidence for this. and, even statistics of buildings of this size being destroyed by fires fueled by jet fuel.

gorillaboy · 02-10-2005, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaka42

curious as to where you have found statistical evidence for this. and, even statistics of buildings of this size being destroyed by fires fueled by jet fuel.

I thought you weren't a skeptic!

SVB · 02-10-2005, 04:42 PM

"No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire" is from an issue of Fire Engineering Magazine

Atom · 02-10-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaka42

curious as to where you have found statistical evidence for this. and, even statistics of buildings of this size being destroyed by fires fueled by jet fuel.

Please review 'Reopen911_part_1.wmv' in post #44.

"No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire" is a quote by Fire Engineering Magazine.

"recent fire tests by Cardington (The University of Sheffield/structural fire engineering) found that, a steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel." is quoted in part one of the .wmv, along with others.

Additionally, The Federal Emergency Management (and other US gov agencies) have stated that most of the fuel was gone in the initial fireball. (a quote from the part 1 .wmv vid)

chaka42 · 02-10-2005, 09:31 PM

good finds ... now that i can accept. i didn't look at the .wmv files b/c i don't open any video files on forums.

actually gorilla boy, according to webster's dictionary a skeptic is defined as "One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions". according to yours and others active in this thread, you netiher accept or believe in the general public's assertion that the towers were brought down by 2 757s. i am no skeptic in that sense, i simply question the conclusions that a small number of americans have deduced or accepted as true.

i concede, based on the information found in fire engineering magazine, that the steel was not the cause of the towers collapse. yet, it raises the question as to the steel that was found melted. demolitions would provide the same type of ignition as jet fuel, yet you claim the steel melted. how can this be?

now there is proof that, in extremely high temperatures, such as fire caused by jet fuel, would 'melt' concrete that also aids in the support a building such as those of the wtc. what would these steel beams hold if there is no concrete to aid in it's support of the building? it would merely fall to the ground.

everyone that watched the towers collapse that morning, noticed one thing, the buildings collapse from the top down. seems off to me.

also, since the ruins of the buildings were not accessible until weeks after the collapse, would steel, under consistent exposure to high temperatures not melt? i mean, isn't that how it was formed in the first place?

i ask these questions to gain insight on how people can be so sure that government officials or agents, not terrorists, were responsible for such devastation. i am amazed at how easily people accept the most evil and sinister ideas and theories.

Atom · 02-10-2005, 10:05 PM

I wish you would view at least the first vid. so that I wouldn't have to type this, it's a very short vid.. maybe 15 min or something.

I will convey this bit of info for you though:

Jet fuel burns @ 1800 deg F maximum.

Steel melts @ 2500 deg F.

There was melted steel found in the basements of the buildings by clean up crews.

Explosives such as C4, create temperatures of 3000 deg F, and can easily melt steel.

Frankly, these vids are chock-full of important questions that should be answered honestly, but have not been.

"Fire engineering magazine called the investigation a half baked farce".

"The important evidence was illegally destroyed, some before the investigation began."

This is not some wild theory. People really need to view these videos.

Atom · 02-11-2005, 03:40 AM

To answer one question more specifically, "according to Bill Manning, editor in chief of Fire Engineering (a magazine for fire departments), 'Fire has never destroyed a steel building'."

Atom · 02-11-2005, 04:59 AM

I have just finished viewing all 11 videos for the fifth time, and I, at this time, am prepared to state that I concur with the assertion that the nearly 3000 innocent Americans that died in the WTC tragedy, were murdered, and I will continue to believe so until our government starts providing some reasonable answers to some very important questions.

This is a very sad day for me.

Atom · 02-11-2005, 05:40 AM

<edit> I left out a word in post #98 above ..."were intentionally murdered" ...