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 )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Nist Photo Shows Possible Evidence Of Thermatic Rection

SanderO
post Feb 1 2011, 11:01 PM
Post #41





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



KP,

Crazy response. I have been looking at hundreds of videos for hundreds of hours and producing drawings, calcs, spread sheets.

I emailed some to Island Pilot but can't and don't think I'd post them in this site. I don't just offer opinions and long winded responses. I've done a lot of basic independent research... and I try to share it here. I am not parroting any one else... I am verifying what others say... and applying my limited understanding of structure and statics.. which is obviously more than most. I do not engage in technical discussions about things I am not qualified or trained in... such as avionics and aviation issues. Here are some interesting videos... what do you see of interest?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=samGjZ8nKgk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28T0I4jEYsg&NR=1

This post has been edited by SanderO: Feb 1 2011, 11:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobcat46
post Feb 2 2011, 09:57 AM
Post #42





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 27-December 06
From: Hobe Sound, FL
Member No.: 382



In the first video, I am just Amazed at how much horizontal energy a lot of the material had as the building fell. It also seems to appear that some of the debris material also had energy that propelled them upward as well as outward. Many pieces are propelled outward in the very beginning of the collapse, long before the upper material had gained downward energy. This could not happen with a gravity fall.

In the second video, it appears that the core just turned to dust as it fell. I can only assume that what we see are the steel tube core beams that survived the initial fall. Any insulation on those beams would have been stripped off as all the other material fell past those remaining beams, so what created all the dust as they fell? I have never seen steel beams just turn to dust like that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 2 2011, 12:44 PM
Post #43





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



Bobcat,

Steel can and does spring horizontally from buckling.

Your powers of observation are informed by both the limits of your knowledge and in this case what you WANT to see.
The core didn't turn to dust... because the columns of the core are seen in the debris after the collapse.

How 'bout that!

This post has been edited by SanderO: Feb 2 2011, 12:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Feb 2 2011, 08:05 PM
Post #44



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 2 2011, 04:01 PM) *
KP,

Crazy response. I have been looking at hundreds of videos for hundreds of hours and producing drawings, calcs, spread sheets.

Crazy? Right ....

Did you actually watch the video on this thread?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10640

What are the flashes?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 2 2011, 08:36 PM
Post #45





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



Most of the flashes I saw in one video were all above the plane crash...

I have a question about the dripping metal. Assuming it was caused by thermite attacking part of the structure on floor 78.. what was all that melted steel from? Even if it melted a column for three or 4 feet or two of them for that amount... the volume of that steel would only yield 1/10 of a cubic foot and weigh a few hundred pounds at most.

That looks like a "stream" of metal so what was melting. Not the trusses... even less volume.

Any thoughts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Feb 2 2011, 10:16 PM
Post #46



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 3 2011, 12:36 PM) *
Most of the flashes I saw in one video were all above the plane crash...

The other video, the one in the thread I just linked to - below the plane crash, pre-collapse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 3 2011, 02:51 AM
Post #47





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 18 2011, 08:53 PM)
Once you understand the structure, you can understand how it was, or might have been done.



This guy "understood" pretty well.........he designed the Twin Towers.
The towers fell due to something other than an aircraft impact.




And as far as the molten metal goes.........................6 weeks later, still molten





Jet fuel cant melt steel bro..........




Once you understand the structure, the laws of physics and eyewitness testimony,
you can understand how it was.....................
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 3 2011, 02:56 AM
Post #48





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Dr Jones found the evidence years ago.






This post has been edited by aerohead: Feb 3 2011, 02:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th October 2019 - 07:23 AM