Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: 911 Revisited: Were explosives used? yes or no?  (Read 7231 times)

b0rg13

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 651
911 Revisited: Were explosives used? yes or no?
« on: September 20, 2008, 02:48:16 AM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU

yes or no?.

please stick to topic, the reason im asking this is because of the MASSIVE clouds of dust, ive NEVER seen it from a normal building * fire*..have you?.


professor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Re: 911 Revisited: Were explosives used? yes or no?
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2008, 06:13:28 AM »
Speculations were thatThermite was used,which would explain the recorded high temperatures that could not be achieved by the Aircraft fuel billowing black smoke , an indication that it was lacking oxygen.Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of aluminium powder and a metal oxide which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. ...it is not controlled under the Explosives Act, the Railroad still uses it to fuse their rails together.
Professor


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU

yes or no?.

please stick to topic, the reason im asking this is because of the MASSIVE clouds of dust, ive NEVER seen it from a normal building * fire*..have you?.



khabe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: 911 Revisited: Were explosives used? yes or no?
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2008, 02:35:33 PM »

Yucca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
Re: 911 Revisited: Were explosives used? yes or no?
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2008, 02:44:30 PM »
YES

Squib ejections can clearly be seen in video. How else could such a large building fall into its own footprint. If a plane crashes into a building then you will inevitably get an asymetric damage pattern which in the case of the twin towers would not even lead to a collapse, it was designed to withstand such an impact, if it did collapse then it would be an asymetric collapse, i.e. it would topple over like a felled tree. Make no mistake, this was a very professional demolition job involving thermite on the support columns followed by high explosives, possibly even micro nukes judging by the peculiar burnt metal bodies of cars nearby whilst wooden billboards weren't even charred, looks like massive electrical inductive damage due to nuke to me.

So many holes in the official story that ony a dunce would entertain it. On the BBC they even reported that tower 7 had fallen before it actually had, they got a little ahead of themselves and read the script to eagerly the fools.

z.monkey

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1660
    • Scientilosopher's Domain
Re: 911 Revisited: Were explosives used? yes or no?
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2008, 02:56:22 PM »
Howdy b0rg13,

Obviously, one of the planes hit the corner of the one of the towers.  IF the jet fuel was sufficient to generate enough heat to penetrate the concrete casing, and then melt the massive steel rebar in the structural support only that corner would have collapsed and the impact would have blown out that corner.  There were still another 5 main supports that would have held the rest of the tower up.  Even IF the top of the tower collapsed there is still no reason the rest of it would have fallen all the way to the ground.  There is absolutely NO possibility that all four corners and the center supports would ALL have melted precisely at the same moment in time so as to make the tower collapse straight down.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY!  This was demolition pure and simple...

From a physics standpoint this is glaringly obvious.  Sure a 757 weights 100 tons, the World Trade Center tower weighed MILLIONS OF TONS!.  The effect would be like firing a cannon ball at my brick house.  Sure it is going to cause some damage, but it is not going to level the house to the ground.

It also seems obvious that the charges were set to fire as the upper level collapsed onto the next layer down.  The collapse of the uppermost level, ignites the level underneath it.  This cascades down the tower until it reached the lowest basement.  If you notice from the after math most of the debris is in the basement, how convenient.  Almost no collateral damage, except for WTC7 which was purposely "pulled" later that day.  Another convenient unexplained anomaly...

Jet fuel could be used to cut steel if it was mixed with pure oxygen and used as a torch.  Burning in the atmosphere it cannot attain the temperature needed to cut steel.  The large clouds of gray smoke were the concrete structures being blown to dust by demolition explosives.  I have seen it many times in controlled demolitions...

Blessed Be...

khabe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: 911 Revisited: Were explosives used? yes or no?
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2008, 03:36:29 PM »
Architects and Engineers

I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened. This is just a claim, because they have nothing to show for their allegation that it could not have happened the way it did. You won't find any calculations that show how the NIST Report is wrong. On this site, you will find many structural engineers - those who actually know what they are talking about - explaining why the towers collapsed the way they did. So feel free to look at all the information I have gathered about the research done on the collapse on the towers. The research has been published in numerous engineering magazines and all over the internet on engineering sites (See the links on the right side of this site).

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?



Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack

http://wizbangblue.com/2007/06/21/911-crash-simulation-animation-video.php

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

regards,
khabe

khabe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: 911 Revisited: Were explosives used? yes or no?
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2008, 03:39:30 PM »
A computer simulation of the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, posted on YouTube by Purdue University researchers, shows how hijacked planes crashed through the twin towers, stripping fireproofing materials from the steel columns and eventually leading to their collapse.

cheers

z.monkey

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1660
    • Scientilosopher's Domain
Re: 911 Revisited: Were explosives used? yes or no?
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2008, 03:57:31 PM »
Howdy Khabe,

What, do you work for GeeDub or what?  You sound like a debunker.  First of all I am a member of IEEE and I do question the NIST report.  As for the rest of those people you mentioned have you interviewed each and every one of them personally?  Do you know FOR SURE that all of them accept the "official" version of what happened.  I believe that you cannot speak for all these people.  NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  Why would their report on 911 be relevant here?  They maintain standards.  They are not a failure analysis lab.  Why would they be able to explain the actions of state sponsored terrorists?  Why would they be able to explain why the secret government of America would directly attack America and kill innocent civilians?  If anything it is their job to distract people from the TRUTH!.  I go to the source of truth and light to ask questions.  My source does not lie to me.  You can access this same source and ask him directly if what you believe is the truth.  Should I have to spell this out for you?

Blessed Be...

Cap-Z-ro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: 911 Revisited: Were explosives used? yes or no?
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2008, 04:05:11 PM »

And similarly, I am convinced building 7 came down as a result of the mysterious and little understood 'Bowling Principle'...whereby the last pin falls seemingly on its own.

Regards...


khabe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: 911 Revisited: Were explosives used? yes or no?
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2008, 04:22:04 PM »
Howdy Khabe,

What, do you work for GeeDub or what?  You sound like a debunker.  First of all I am a member of IEEE and I do question the NIST report.  As for the rest of those people you mentioned have you interviewed each and every one of them personally?  Do you know FOR SURE that all of them accept the "official" version of what happened.  I believe that you cannot speak for all these people.  NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  Why would their report on 911 be relevant here?  They maintain standards.  They are not a failure analysis lab.  Why would they be able to explain the actions of state sponsored terrorists?  Why would they be able to explain why the secret government of America would directly attack America and kill innocent civilians?  If anything it is their job to distract people from the TRUTH!.  I go to the source of truth and light to ask questions.  My source does not lie to me.  You can access this same source and ask him directly if what you believe is the truth.  I should have to spell this out for you...

Blessed Be...


No, of course I do not work for GeeDub or similars ... not because Im far from US  - I just use my logic and ... I have no Paranoia ::)
My understanding about engineerings and  physics coincides lets say 99% with official report about collapse, for me this is the best possible thruth. Yes, in some details I disagree but ... its de minimis,
Regards,
khabe

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: 911 Revisited: Were explosives used? yes or no?
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2008, 04:26:00 PM »
Yes, there were explosives used.

It was a controlled demolition with explosive charges inside the inner elevator tubes.

That is why you see outside only the explosion squibs but no real flashes
of the explosion.
The mission was to explode the inner strong steel collums near the elevator tubes,
so that these would collapse.


User khabe does not have glasses or has not looked at all the youtube videos
where you can see the explosion squibs and the
eye witnness reports of the firemen saying the explosions
have taken out floor by floor.

Khabe, this is the last warning !

If you try to twist the facts you will get banned.

Topic closed.