IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Normal Thermite Can Cut Vertically Through Steel Proof, Debunkers claims finally destroyed

SanderO
post Nov 21 2010, 03:33 PM
Post #81





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I won't say it because I don't believe it and never have.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 21 2010, 05:30 PM
Post #82





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



You're not persuasive SanderO

Let's face it--the operation was a tremendous display of sleight-of-hand, perfectly executed for the most part.

My guess is that it was planned many years in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 21 2010, 07:09 PM
Post #83





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I am not here to persuade anyone. People need to do their own research and not listen or follow anyone. There have been all sorts of theories floated... all sorts of evidence presented which supports various theories. Lots of this has turned out to be incorrect and it becomes hard to even know what anything about the events. 99.9% of what we all know is through digital media and some testimony. Whatever happened was definitely a "first" and witnesses have nothing historically to refer to. The media flooded people with mis and dis information... emotional pitches and the government proceeded to obfuscate and conceal and essentially fabricated a not too believable explanation.

The truth may be just as hard to believe and that may be the resistance people have no matter what side of the issue they are on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Nov 21 2010, 09:22 PM
Post #84





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



Guys, for Christ's sake.

SanderO has an opinion - and from what I can tell, it's a relatively informed one. I don't necessarily agree with or understand the complexities of his arguments, but I appreciate reading about his point of view nonetheless.

I'm sure the purpose of this forum is not to ostracise people just because they choose to express a more moderate, diluted version of the hardcore AE911 theory. Wilfully blinding ourselves to the potential inaccuracies and inconsistencies of our own personal perspectives makes us less equipped to deal with these issues when rabid debunkers confront us with them. And we all know that they will.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 22 2010, 10:11 AM
Post #85





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Good post Mr. Mitosis, and I agree completely.

I think SanderO has brought something to the conversation, no doubt.

His point about a "natural" collapse is valid, but not profound. Everybody understands that gravity is a force exerted 24/7
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Nov 23 2010, 07:36 PM
Post #86





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



Sure thing, amazed. The events of 9/11 were so unprecedented in so many ways that the task of making sense of it is naturally going to lead to frustration among people who are interested in discussing it. But the reason I like P4T is because it's like a safe-haven from trolls. The issues tend to be fleshed out in a way which is neutral, mutually respectful and well informed. It's a valuable resource to me.

Anyway, in breaking news:

"Termite live of wood, clay and dead organic mater, they do not attack concrete nor steel or plastic.

The WTC where made of steel and concrete as well as plastic not wood, nor clay.

Even if some Termites where introduced, all they could live off would be paper and files or some wood furnishing, nothing that could harm the integrity of the buildings them self.

Even for their nest, termites need wood, clay and or other organic matter. They can not harm Steel nor Concrete.Termite live of wood, clay and dead organic mater, they do not attack concrete nor steel or plastic.

The WTC where made of steel and concrete as well as plastic not wood, nor clay.

Even if some Termites where introduced, all they could live off would be paper and files or some wood furnishing, nothing that could harm the integrity of the buildings them self.

Even for their nest, termites need wood, clay and or other organic matter. They can not harm Steel nor Concrete."


I couldn't resist Ctrl-C/Ctrl-Ving the above comment. I'm not sure if the guy was disingenuous, drunk or just a certified retard plane, but it certainly brightened up my morning.

laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 23 2010, 10:02 PM
Post #87





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



It's not always as civil as it should be... discussion that is. There is a tendency to distrust someone who does not agree with the "truther" main line position. If you don't pass that litmus test you are dismissed as a troll, a dis info agent and worse!

Figuring out 9/11 is a major problem. It was such a huge event, so emotional, and we all experienced it "digitally" except the few who were actually there. Then the evidence has been removed so it can't be studied and we are left with a story and then a commission to explain it which is hardly credible.

Most of the alternative conspiracy case is made from inference and "reading the evidence" which we have access to. And it's been shown that much of that evidence has been played with and so is unreliable. It's almost like trying to solve a fictional murder mystery using real science and logic.

The thermitic material - found in the dust is a perfect example of trying to figure out what the animal looks like from finding a single bone or some DNA.

Jon Cole's work shows that thermitic material can be used to produce some of the effects seen in the recovered steel we were shown. His work doesn't show how it was used, how it could result in the collapse we saw, or how the concrete was pulverized as many claim it was from explosives. (I believe it did not require explosive to pulverize it). But when you claim that only explosives can pulverize or destroy everything in the towers as we saw, you need to show how that is done don't you? I believe that physics and fluid mechanics can explain it, but this is outside my expertise.

There are too many mysteries and we are still waiting for the answers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 24 2010, 10:27 AM
Post #88





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I would say that it is YOU, or anybody else making the claim, that natural forces pulverized the concrete. So far we cannot find the anvil, and are only supposing about the hammer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 24 2010, 11:37 AM
Post #89





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Amazed,

What you have in the gravitational driven collapse thesis is a huge mass impacting on each floor. That impact shatters that floor... not pulverized (guess). But this descending mass of debris is somewhat contained within the exterior and for core and it acts like the material in a tumbler grinding itself into smaller and smaller pieces. The pressure / weight of this mass is enormous. It is NOT in free fall and its descent is NOT accelerating. But like a flow in a tube or like a river it is a turbulent affair with lots of mixing... and 100 major collisions which each slab on the way down.

This certainly is not something which is common or even seen before. It may be hard to conceptualize. But I suspect that the science IS there to explain how gravity would turn a 80 or so floors into pulverized material of fine structure if sufficient mass were present to initiate the runaway collapse and subsequent grinding process which the avalanche would become.

Collisions cause internal stress in materials which depending on their properties will break apart. And so traveling down an 1100 foot chute will provide or can provide the millions or billions of collisions to stress and destroy the integrity of materials which are subject to break up from collisions. We wouldn't expect this to happen to steel, but we would expect it to happen to dry wall, concrete etc. This is a materials science and fluid dynamics problem. I suspect there is enough energy present in the stored gravitation potential energy once turned into kinetic energy to do what we saw. We saw the same level of pulverization in all three towers despite the fact that i and 2 were destroyed from top to bottom and 7 was destroyed by removing support at the bottom of the structure. Both types had enormous crushing falling mass and both turned it to dust and fine grained size material.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 25 2010, 12:10 AM
Post #90



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I don't think I got an answer to a previous post about gravitational collapse. Apologies if I did.Are we to assume that the perps drew up a collapse scenario where they relied on natural physics to "finish off the job" after initiation? That they didn't foresee any problems with this, so much so that they knew 100% that all 3 towers would collapse into their own footprints?They all fell at basically freefall speed. This isn't a diehard "truther" approach. I do take points on board, but the more I watch those collapses, I don't personally believe that gravity alone would explain the progression of @ 7 floors per second.The pulverized concrete we saw, the facade sprayed out the way. Where did this excessive accumulation of weight come from if the mass of the building was apparently sprayed up and away from the centre of gravity?I'm not being pigheaded or confrontational just for the sake of it. These are legitimate questions SanderO. Even from a layman perspective.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 25 2010, 11:54 AM
Post #91





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I understand what you're trying to say SanderO, and you might be right.

OSS makes several points that are valid.

The towers collapsed at a value within about 10% of the precise free fall value. With the biggest hammer we could swing, if there is nothing offering solid resistance to that hammer it will simply knock chunks off. Drywall has paper material clinging to it and holding it together.

I don't know, but I just don't find your explanation to be compelling.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 25 2010, 12:08 PM
Post #92





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



No problem. Let me try to explain what I think happened, but it would take many posts to do this hypothesis justice.

Let me establish at the outset that I can't explain with any level of certainty how the collapse was initiated. Let's just discuss tower 1 for now. We can say that the plane strike or explosion which began the event did not collapse the tower. The loads carried by the destroyed columns on floors 93-99 were redistributed. This is possible because the columns are interconnected with lateral beams which normally support floors (in the core) and provide stiffness to the columns so they won't buckle. Any column is constrained according to Euler's formula regarding the slenderness ratio of unsupported axially loaded columns. When a column is "taken out" its load is "transferred" to adjacent columns via horizontal members such as the spandrel in the facade and the lateral steel in the core. These members are not designed or intended to support axial loads however.

The floor dead and live loads where attached to the SIDE of the colunns. These floor loads were carried by the floor trusses at 80" OC which then rested on angles which were welded to stand off plates at the facade. The plates were welded to the spandrels which formed the inside web of the facade box column. There were cross trusses which also transferred the loads from one truss to the other making the floor act like a stiffer membrane/plate. The floor itself was remarkably thin being only 4" or so at its thickest point and 2" or so at its thinnest. It was poured into B type of similar corrugated metal decking. Conduits for electrical wires were placed inside the pour as well.

The floor system was designed to carry 100# per square foot with a acceptable deflection at mid span which is typically 1/360 or 1/720th of the span under the design load. When loads exceed the design load the deflection increases until the yield strength is reached and then the material will fail catastrophically. Stretch a rubber band too much and it snaps. All materials will deform elastically under load and fail catastrophically when the ultimate yield strength is reached.

The floors were a composite system which means that it had many different components each with separate structural characteristics. The engineers design it so that the weakest element "drives" the design. So when the floors were overloaded it is still hard to determine what failed because the overloads are not uniformly applied, and each element will have different structural properties. If you don't use enough bolts a connection will fail and the bolts could shear or rip out. If you add more you weaken the material they are bolting together by removing too much material. You can use stronger bolts and so forth. This is a complex "balancing act" to design complex structures.

The floors all had the same trusses though the trusses supported different loads. This is hard to explain without drawings, but again the design would be driven by the truss which had to carry the most load. This makes other trusses somewhat over designed - or the truss seats and so forth. It also means that the over designed elements will fail AFTER not at the same time... they will "hold" more load and last a bit longer. This is only one reason why a pancake collapse is not possible.

When a floor or section of a floor is overloaded past the ultimate yield strength it must fail. It's hard to say what will fail first, but it could be the slab which shatters, or the metal pan which rips like foil, or the truss which has its steel bar webs part or break free of the bottom angles which make up the tension chord, or the tension angles (bottom chord) could part. The failures can propagate as one element fails and is "unloaded" the other elements have to do more "work" a 4" slab cannot span the distances in the towers without the trusses. If a truss fails, the floor are it supports will crack and shatter.

The planners understood that once the safety factor of the elements of the composite floor were exceeded it would fail and that means the floor would collapse and break apart and drop onto the floor below and this would cause the floor below to fail and so on. But remember that to fail the floor or a portion of it the load had to increase PAST the safety factor which in the case of the floors was reputed to be 5 or so. This means that that they would carry not 100# per square foor, but 500# per square foot. More than that, they would fail.

So let's do some basic math here. The floors had concrete which weighed 94#/ cu foot, they had the weight of the trusses and the metal pans, the ceiling materials, ducts and so forth. Let's say the floors weighed about 50# per square foot and the live load - furniture and people and office contents, was 50% of the 100# or 50# per square foot and then there was the dead load of any walls etc at say 10# per square foot. For this exercise the exact weights are not crucial. SO we have the floor and contents weighing about 110# per square foot. If one floor were to be placed on the one below it would add 110# per square foot to its already 50# it was supporting. It's now supporting 160# which is within its safety factor. it might sag but it wouldn't collapse. This is not taking into account the dynamic load which amplifies a static load considerably. When a second floor comes down on the overloaded floor it adds another 110# and the floor now is carrying not 50# but 270#. This is assuming a uniform load distribution which likely was not occurring. Some areas would carry more and some less. The floor would deflect/sag more but hold. Add a third floor to this and now it is carrying 380# and still within the safety factor. Remember that this is NOT considering the dynamic load when the weight is dropped onto the floor from 12, 24 and 36' high. The 4th floor pushes the load right to the safety factor. Considering the dynamic loading it's likely that the floor failed before it had to carry 4 additional floors. It's likely that the failures were local ie parts of the floor failed before others.

This descending process took about 4 seconds for 17 floors and there was some acceleration. That is a separate discussion. But it wasn't at free fall but about 70% of for about a few floor heights of descent. Looking at the video we essentially see the lower floors of the top section "falling into / onto" top floor (92) of the lower section. It took about 1 - 1.5 seconds for 4 floors of descent to deliver 4 floor masses to the 92nd floor. Some of this may have crashed through to floor 91. In the next second or two 4 or 5 more floors came down and this overloaded 92 and the parts of 91 which 92 had collapsed on. This now began the gravitational phase of the collapse in the lower section. The floor mass which had crashed onto 92 and 91 began failing the floors below as more and more floors from above 100-109 dropped over 200 feet onto undamaged floor perhaps somewhere in the 80s. Some of the mass fell over the side of the towers as the facades broke away. We can see them fall over and actually see a few panels lead the heavier than air descending debris plume. By floor 80 the mass represents 30 floors or over 1/4 of the tower's floor mass which was about 200,000 tons. This is about 60,000 tons using the crude and conservative figures above. This chaotic crushing mass was randomly distributed over the 30,000 square feet of each floor. Each square foot or floor was being pounded by 2 tons and it was designed to support a static load of 100#.

But each floor did resist for a brief instant until the yield strength was reached and it failed. Each floor would slow the accelerating avalanche and hold it at about 65 mph or 100 feet per second. The mass would race past the facade which could not contain it and it too yielded and was pushed out. The facade did not have the strength to contain the collapse rubble/debris nor stand alone without lateral support which was provided by the floor system. The facade peeled and was pushed away and toppled over.

The core was assaulted by the collapsing floors. It had only 2 layers of 5/8" gypsum wall board to keep the avalanche out side confined to the floor area. The avalanche also plunged inside the core and ripped many of the lateral beams off the columns leaving them precariously too tall and thin for their immense height. The too tall columns were shaken for the lateral assault and began to oscillate and sway breaking the relatively weak splices which connected each 36' section on to the other.

The core could have stood the full height if all its lateral reinforcing was not stripped off. But it was and so it too came down as Euler's formula predict.

The collapse was not at free fall acceleration. Only the beginning shows acceleration and that is about 70% of free fall. The rest of the collapse was about 65 mph which is about 13 seconds or so. The mass DID accelerate for about 6 stories. A free falling body would reach speeds of 150 feet per second after 3 seconds of fall. The acceleration I believe was clocked at about 70% of free fall and so the mass was moving at ~70% x 150 feet per second and this is about 100 feet per second of 60+ mph.

seconds / ft
0 / 0
0.5 / 5
1 / 16
1.5 / 36
2 / 64
2.5 / 100
3 / 145

The floor debris or what was left of it would of course come straight down much like pouring sand would. Like pouring sand in a weak container it would push against the side as grain does in a silo. In the case of the towers this was enough pressure to break apart the facade and the core gypsum walls.

Seven was a bit different and it was more like an implosion style demolition where the exterior structure is pulled in by the collapse core structure. The floors collapsed straight down and also pulverize themselves. This is what is expected when that sort of mass drops. The pressures are enormous.

No demolition was ever done on a structure taller than 25 stories before or after.

Both designs were able to be taken down using the floor collapse approach because of the long span column free light weight floors outside the core. This was not hard to understand. The trick was to get the tops off column and then gravity would do the rest and quite close to what appears as free fall. Remember by volume the floor part was 97% air - slabs of 4" separated by 11'-8" of air. The fall was 96% through air. No columns were crushed and the stronger columns at the bottom had no part to play in arresting the floor collapse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BADBURD
post Dec 1 2010, 12:18 PM
Post #93





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 83
Joined: 31-December 09
From: Mid-West
Member No.: 4,824



Is this the answer about what pulverized the concrete?

The Komatsu-Dresser mining division operated from 1988 to 1997. In July 1996, it patented a thermite demolition device that could "demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like."

Here is the link to the full article

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090713033854249
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 1 2010, 02:42 PM
Post #94





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



If you describe what you see... you see a tower collapsing down. It is destroyed at first by the top section appearing to collapse into / onto an intact lower section. When the top disappears into / onto the bottom - the bottom begins to collapse, but it seems to be being destroyed from the top down. You see dust and debris shoot out a few hundred feet at the end of the top section disappearing into / onto the bottom. You also see huge sections of the facade peel off and fall away. They mostly land right next to the tower up to as far as 450 feet away. You see the light weight aluminum skin panels which were dislodged from the facade columns flying about in turbulent air turning every which way. You notice the first of the facade panels leads the debris plume to the ground and the destruction of the bottom section is well behind this. You see material come shooting out from the glass areas just ahead of the front of "destruction". There are jets of ejecta which appear a few times (in pairs) on adjacent faces) 10 or more floors below the front of destruction.

The destruction seems to progress whether it is done by some sort of sequenced explosives (I don't think so) or it is a progressive failure and collapse of the floor systems.

There is a continuous thunderous roar as the lower section collapses indicating enormous amounts of collisions of parts of the building coming apart like the rumble of a avalanche of stone, sand etc.

Whatever destroyed everything did it over the period of time that that thunderous roar was heard. That was the sound of it all being destroyed and ground up. That part took about 11 seconds for WTC 1.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Dec 4 2010, 08:59 PM
Post #95





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



Hey look check this out guys at wall st there was a bombing which occured at 12:01 pm on SEPTEMBER
16th THE EXACT SAME MONTH THAT 911 TOOK PLACE JUST FIVE DAYS AFTER THE 911 ATTACKS and
1920 - 2001 = 81 the 81st floor of wtc 2 the south tower where the huge back up batties where installed.
IS THIS ALL JUST ANOTHER COINCIDENCE BY CHANCE?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing

Now i am really starting to wonder what was on the 81st floors, maybe they placed charges on the 81st floors on some of the core columns or placed bombs there that somehow went of and cause the building to slowly sink down making the outer columns bend buckle
and start to bend and bow outwards until the building couldnt hold it weight up anymore because of the missing
columns the collapsed floor. maybe when they took out some of the core columns along the 81st floors slowly cut
throught them with thermate creating angled cuts causing like a 10ft long section of the columns to hang there on just slide
and drop out and the remaining core columns just buckled because of the missing section of core columsn that had been cut
out on the 81st floor and maybe a few floors above it could have been done also and the cutting action of the thermite produced
so much heat it caused other metals around it too melt and flow out the side corner of the building like as seen on the corner of
the south tower and then if anyone found the cut up core columns which i think NIST and the government tried very hard to hide
maybe thats why we dont see hardly any footage of the massive 47 steel core columns because they know they have massive cuts
in them and will not show them to us not now not ever.

Think about it why have we not been shown hardly and footage at all of the massive 47 steel columns that where recovered from
the debris of both towers collapse, the fact that we have NOT been shown many pictures or seen a lot of footage of the massive
47 steel core columns has always left me with a massive amount of doubt about how the towers really came down that day.

whistle.gif whistle.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by Paul: Dec 4 2010, 09:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 4 2010, 09:16 PM
Post #96





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



All the columns were not massive on the 80-83 floor. The columns were 36' long and spanned 3 floor heights. The largest on on 80-82 was 501 and it was 22x28 box column made from 2 1/2" plate. Column 804 was a 12WF161 - not a massive box column but a rolled steel I beam type. 704 was 14WF84... again only 84 pounds per foot and not a "massive box column".

The massive core columns were way down in the building and were 22x52 made from 5" thick plate.

So an "attack" on the core columns was not as much of a "problem" as would be to destroy the columns at the bottom. But as I have suggested, once the mass of the top was "released" and no longer supported by the columns below, it was free to crash and destroy all the floors. And it likely did.

John Cole shows that the columns can be destroyed with thermitic material in a short time. And if this WAS done then the mass would COLLAPSE down by gravity.

There is no reason to cut the core columns if you are not planning to have gravity finish the job. And gravity DID finish the job.

What started it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Dec 5 2010, 01:47 AM
Post #97





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (SanderO @ Dec 5 2010, 10:46 AM) *
All the columns were not massive on the 80-83 floor. The columns were 36' long and spanned 3 floor heights. The largest on on 80-82 was 501 and it was 22x28 box column made from 2 1/2" plate. Column 804 was a 12WF161 - not a massive box column but a rolled steel I beam type. 704 was 14WF84... again only 84 pounds per foot and not a "massive box column".

The massive core columns were way down in the building and were 22x52 made from 5" thick plate.

So an "attack" on the core columns was not as much of a "problem" as would be to destroy the columns at the bottom. But as I have suggested, once the mass of the top was "released" and no longer supported by the columns below, it was free to crash and destroy all the floors. And it likely did.

John Cole shows that the columns can be destroyed with thermitic material in a short time. And if this WAS done then the mass would COLLAPSE down by gravity.

There is no reason to cut the core columns if you are not planning to have gravity finish the job. And gravity DID finish the job.

What started it?


look here look at the welded channels that secure the floor connections to perimiter core columns.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html

what if they had of blown most of the inner channel floor connections to the core there would still be
some resistance to the collapse so i assumeand if they blew these floor connection with nanothermite charges or
burnt through some of them using as similar method to what john cole used to weaken them the building would collapse loose
it strength and the cores would still be standing if they didnt cut the core and just cut the floor truss connections
to them we would see standing core columns just like we do in the videos by the way i have no seen footage
of the floor truss connections to the core, the only ones we see are the floors connections to the outer wall perimiter
columns and you can see where the bolt have been torn ripped out from overloading is the reason we dont see the core
and the channel connections, um uh oh i just realised something i have seen pictures of the some of the core columns
but not many of them and where are all the channel connections what happened to them did they cut them blow them completely
off?

Dont worry boys we will just blow through the weak channel connections and let her fall an not cut the core then we can show
everyone footage and pictures of the outer perimiter wall floor truss connections and seats and then they can see where they have
been torn out at the bolts they wont see any demolition cuts there because we will hide the cores we will not show it to them we
not one picture not a single video tape that way they can never know what a dastardly evil thing we did, they can suspect it but no be
able to prove it so then we can be sure that we are safe with hiding and scrapping all the evidnece shipping it over seas.

Ok really so where are the floor channel connection why cant i see them atached to the core can someone show me pictures
of them because if not then that is really big problem, Sander O dont you think the real reason that NIST never showed us the
core columns or only like three percent of them is because thats where they made the cuts maybe not throught the core but
the connections that hold the floors to them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BADBURD
post Dec 5 2010, 03:06 AM
Post #98





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 83
Joined: 31-December 09
From: Mid-West
Member No.: 4,824



Paul, You really need to watch to video from A&E for 911 truth. Many of the the things you talk about are answered in the video. Like how they were brought down. If anybody watched the video they would see how the top did NOT drive it's way down to the botttom. PERIOD! The top section was brought down like a normal CD while the rest was destroyed from the top down. The proof is in the video. It explains Newtons law. SanderO you definitely need to watch also. The top can not pyle drive it's way down. The top is destroyed. There is nothing left to drive it's way down. Just watch their videos!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Dec 5 2010, 04:54 AM
Post #99





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (BADBURD @ Dec 5 2010, 04:36 PM) *
Paul, You really need to watch to video from A&E for 911 truth. Many of the the things you talk about are answered in the video. Like how they were brought down. If anybody watched the video they would see how the top did NOT drive it's way down to the botttom. PERIOD! The top section was brought down like a normal CD while the rest was destroyed from the top down. The proof is in the video. It explains Newtons law. SanderO you definitely need to watch also. The top can not pyle drive it's way down. The top is destroyed. There is nothing left to drive it's way down. Just watch their videos!!!


Does anybody know how to contact richard the good old chap i want to send him a few things does have an e mail address
i need to tell him to upgrade his power point presentation it is getting too old there is heaos more stuff he could add new testomies like
the firefighters from the FOIA request why does he add them hmmmmmmmmmm he needs to use more convincing account thats the towers
where blown to pieces like the firefighters with the bloody nose "You people just dont understand any one of these building could just blow up"
im sure that would get his audience thinking more and asking some more questions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Dec 5 2010, 04:55 AM
Post #100





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



What does the OOST model stand for i dont get it what does it mean?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th October 2019 - 05:13 AM