Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 157
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: Scientist: Twin Towers collapse was controlled demolition using Thermite

  1. #16
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,439

    Default

    THANKS FOR POSTING THIS GRIMM (I'm sure you already know how I feel about this subject), unfortunetely this isn't new news to me

    may the innocent victims souls haunt Bush and his cronies and all those involved till they die and into eternity!

    I know I asked this before and I think Gator or someone else explained it to me but does anyone know how to make Thermite?! thanks

  2. #17
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    I believe wikipedia has an entry
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #18
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,439

    Default

    oh shit! who knows what i'll end up with i follow that site worth a looksy though thanks!

  4. #19
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Airplane fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel girders.. aluminum struts, yes. Steel, no.

    The steel doesn't have to be melted, it only has to be weakened. That's how WTC 1 & 2 collapsed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    So was the bay of pigs invasion, the gulf of tonkin incident that started vietnam (arranged by Bush's buddies Wolfowitz and cheney)..
    Cheney and Wolfowitz arranged Gulf of Tonkin while they were in college? Wow, they ARE good. Not that either of these have to do with what we're talking about.

    Um, ever consider that this was planned in advance and the charges planted beforehand?
    So they could then wait for terrorists to fly planes into two nearby building before denonating?


    building 7 pancaked into the ground after suffering scant damage.
    It actually suffered rather severe damage and was on fire before collapsing.

    In order to what? Hello? Bush was a Preznit without a cause.. he was flagging in the polls, was going nowhere, and had corporate buddies to enrich, not least of which is Cheney (former head of Halliburton) and Condomzkeeza (big oil chick). Oil reserves, political control, power.
    Yeah yeah yeah, that's all true. I'm no fan of George Bush and I'm not about to defend him. In fact, if I were to say what I really thought of him, the FBI would probably be knocking on my door. However, that doesn't explain what was it about WTC7 that they would want to blow it up. What were they trying to hide by demolishing WTC7?

    For the record, my comment about being cynical and tinfoil-hat wearing was not directed towards you. It was directed towards that nutcase Stephen Jones and others in the media (like Rosie O'Donnell) who support this theory. I hope you didn't take it that way, and I apologize for not pointing that out earlier.

    LOL right.. like the Popular Mechanic's spread they did attempting to debunk everything and getting it all wrong.. not tomention PM is owned by a neocon thinktank umbrella group
    It's actually owned by the Hearst Corporation. Would you like to point out in what ways it was wrong, because it all sounds rather reasonable to me.

  5. #20
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by purewine View Post
    The steel doesn't have to be melted, it only has to be weakened. That's how WTC 1 & 2 collapsed.
    Considering the steel was covered in fire resistant coating, designed to withstand an aircraft and subsequent fuel burn, and again, airplane fuel doesn't burn hot enough to even make them glow, i doubt they were 'weakened' in any way.


    Cheney and Wolfowitz arranged Gulf of Tonkin while they were in college? Wow, they ARE good. Not that either of these have to do with what we're talking about.
    Cheney and Wolfy are in their 70's, that would put them in their 30's back during Vietnam. At any rate, I'm mistaken.. they came into play during Nixon's reign, organizing the semi-secret bombing of Cambodia.. McNamarra was responsible for gulf of tonkin.

    It's an EXAMPLE of how the US government has, in the past (and present) fabricated incidents to push public opinion and military action in one direction or another.. ie: Jessica Lynch, Bay of Pigs, etc..

    So they could then wait for terrorists to fly planes into two nearby building before denonating?
    No, they'll just trigger the thermite right then and there without an excuse to cover their tracks.

    derrr.

    It actually suffered rather severe damage and was on fire before collapsing.
    Building 7 was a hardened facility designed to withstand fires, bombs, and whatever else you might throw at it.. that's why Giuliani headquartered his anti-terror base there after the 93 attempt on the WTC. Secondly, buildings don't just pancake into the ground if they're so severely damaged by some internal calamity. They crumble, fall over, and do all sorts of things besides collapse in a column which is impossible without a controlled demolition at play.

    Yeah yeah yeah, that's all true. I'm no fan of George Bush and I'm not about to defend him. In fact, if I were to say what I really thought of him, the FBI would probably be knocking on my door. However, that doesn't explain what was it about WTC7 that they would want to blow it up. What were they trying to hide by demolishing WTC7?
    Indeed, what were they trying to hide? What did building 7 house?

    For the record, my comment about being cynical and tinfoil-hat wearing was not directed towards you. It was directed towards that nutcase Stephen Jones and others in the media (like Rosie O'Donnell) who support this theory. I hope you didn't take it that way, and I apologize for not pointing that out earlier.
    Well if hijackers can turn up alive in other countries, buildings can collapse from things they were designed to withstand and most of the suspected steel involved with the 'collapse' was whisked away to some undisclosed location (effectively stealing evidence from a crime scene) it makes one wonder..

    It's actually owned by the Hearst Corporation. Would you like to point out in what ways it was wrong, because it all sounds rather reasonable to me.
    "With high federal offices being given to the wives, sons and daughters of senior members of the Bush administration, the Hearst Corporation executives that publish Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher."

    That, for one, ought to tip you off. Secondly, there are any number of rebuttals online to that piece they managed to scrape together (not too long after the WTC fell too, impressive)
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  6. #21
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Considering the steel was covered in fire resistant coating, designed to withstand an aircraft and subsequent fuel burn, and again, airplane fuel doesn't burn hot enough to even make them glow, i doubt they were 'weakened' in any way.
    I'm not sure if you're referring to the towers or WTC7. The towers were built to withstand an aircraft but not one as big as the planes they were hit by. The steel columns were weakened by the fire which lead to their collapse (a very simplified version of what happened).

    No, they'll just trigger the thermite right then and there without an excuse to cover their tracks.
    So then why didn't they do it “right then and there”? Why wait?

    Building 7 was a hardened facility designed to withstand fires, bombs, and whatever else you might throw at it.. that's why Giuliani headquartered his anti-terror base there after the 93 attempt on the WTC. Secondly, buildings don't just pancake into the ground if they're so severely damaged by some internal calamity. They crumble, fall over, and do all sorts of things besides collapse in a column which is impossible without a controlled demolition at play.
    But that's exactly what happened to the towers – they pancaked to the ground. Given a fire that is hot enough and burns long enough and given enough structural damage, any building is going to collapse no matter what they were designed to withstand.

    Indeed, what were they trying to hide? What did building 7 house?
    I was hoping you would tell me that. Isn't that part of the theory? I vaguely remember reading something - about the FTC offices being in there and Enron – but I can't find it now.

    That, for one, ought to tip you off. Secondly, there are any number of rebuttals online to that piece they managed to scrape together (not too long after the WTC fell too, impressive)
    Well, no it doesn't. That doesn't refute the points they made. I've read some of the rebuttals, some of the conspiracy theorists arguments and much of it is based on conjecture and really bad science. And what do you mean not too long after? It was published 3 and half years later. I think that's long enough for a thorough investigation (if you were implying otherwise).

    Just reading a little more on this – I hadn't realized this theory included the towers, too!! I thought it was just WTC7. Holy mother of god...
    Last edited by purewine; May 23rd, 2007 at 03:18 PM. Reason: It's the FTC not the FEC

  7. #22
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Considering the steel was covered in fire resistant coating, designed to withstand an aircraft and subsequent fuel burn, and again, airplane fuel doesn't burn hot enough to even make them glow, i doubt they were 'weakened' in any way.




    Cheney and Wolfy are in their 70's, that would put them in their 30's back during Vietnam. At any rate, I'm mistaken.. they came into play during Nixon's reign, organizing the semi-secret bombing of Cambodia.. McNamarra was responsible for gulf of tonkin.

    It's an EXAMPLE of how the US government has, in the past (and present) fabricated incidents to push public opinion and military action in one direction or another.. ie: Jessica Lynch, Bay of Pigs, etc..



    No, they'll just trigger the thermite right then and there without an excuse to cover their tracks.

    derrr.



    Building 7 was a hardened facility designed to withstand fires, bombs, and whatever else you might throw at it.. that's why Giuliani headquartered his anti-terror base there after the 93 attempt on the WTC. Secondly, buildings don't just pancake into the ground if they're so severely damaged by some internal calamity. They crumble, fall over, and do all sorts of things besides collapse in a column which is impossible without a controlled demolition at play.



    Indeed, what were they trying to hide? What did building 7 house?



    Well if hijackers can turn up alive in other countries, buildings can collapse from things they were designed to withstand and most of the suspected steel involved with the 'collapse' was whisked away to some undisclosed location (effectively stealing evidence from a crime scene) it makes one wonder..



    "With high federal offices being given to the wives, sons and daughters of senior members of the Bush administration, the Hearst Corporation executives that publish Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher."

    That, for one, ought to tip you off. Secondly, there are any number of rebuttals online to that piece they managed to scrape together (not too long after the WTC fell too, impressive)
    Those of us here in NY are quite aware that the fireproof foam coating on the steel beams had disentegrated years ago....and while the buildings were designed to withstand a jets impact, it was a jet from the 1960's when the buildings were designed...not the much larger jets that actually hit the buildings....

  8. #23
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    The buildings went up in 1976, at the time the 747 had already been flying for 7 years. The fire-resistant coating on the beams had to be renewed every few years on load bearing structural supports for it to pass code.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  9. #24
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Construction began 1966. Construction was completed for WTC1 in 1970, WTC2 1972. The Boeing 747 was first flown commercially 1970. The towers were not designed to withstand a 747 but a DC-10 (??).

    The fireproofing on the beams were damaged by the impact of the planes exposing the beams to the heat of the fires.

  10. #25
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,439

    Default

    exposing the beams to the heat of the fires.
    ^ im sorry but that just doesn't make logical sense! it just doesn't. it doesnt add up to me.

  11. #26
    Elite Member Mariesoleil's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Canada baby!
    Posts
    6,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by purewine View Post

    I was hoping you would tell me that. Isn't that part of the theory? I vaguely remember reading something - about the FTC offices being in there and Enron – but I can't find it now.
    It housed the U.S. Secret Service as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Thousands of files were destroyed when the building collapsed such as those of WorldCom

    Tenant
    Salomon Smith Barney
    Internal Revenue Service Regional Council
    U.S. Secret Service
    American Express Bank International
    Standard Chartered Bank
    Provident Financial Management
    ITT Hartford Insurance Group
    First State Management Group, Inc
    Federal Home Loan Bank
    NAIC Securities
    Securities & Exchange Commission
    Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt

    http://www.intellnet.org/resources/c...terTenants.xls

    Tenants
    Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq. ft. (64% of the building) including floors 28–45.[7][5] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft).[7] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft), and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft).[7] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management, NAIC Securities, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group, Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[7] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared floor #25 with the IRS.[5] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as well as the bottom 6 floors and part of floor #7.[5][8]
    Last edited by Mariesoleil; May 23rd, 2007 at 06:05 PM.
    "Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counsellors, and the most patient of teachers."

  12. #27
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AliceInWonderland View Post
    ^ im sorry but that just doesn't make logical sense! it just doesn't. it doesnt add up to me.
    Why doesn't that make sense to you?

    Mariesoleil, thank you.

  13. #28
    A*O
    A*O is offline
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! A*O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Being Paula
    Posts
    31,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by purewine View Post
    The towers were not designed to withstand a 747 but a DC-10 (??).
    The towers were hit by 737s, not 747 jumbos. A DC-10 is larger than a 737.

    There are plenty of architects, engineers, scientists out there without any kind of political agenda who have major problems explaining how the towers were so catastrophically damaged that day.
    If all the women in this place were laid end to end, I wouldn’t be surprised - Dorothy Parker

  14. #29
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,439

    Default

    b/c fire + metal doesn't = total annihilation w/in the time frame given. Its just ridic ok.
    I couldnt believe what was happening when i watched it 6 years ago and i dont believe it now.

  15. #30
    Elite Member suede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,580

    Default

    You really need to think about how the building was constructed and the internal/external structure of the building, if we were all to agree for a moment that the temperature of the fuel weakened the steel structure - it still would not mean that that was the cause the building's collapse. The floor trusses were the bridges between the exterior columns, the interior columns and the core of the building. The engineering of this building - in its time is brilliant (IMHO) - anyway back to what I was saying...

    So lets say that the steel columns were weakened - it was the breakdown of the floor trusses, the break in connect from column to truss to column to core that weakened the structure (steel cage or skeleton of the building). The weight of the floors collapsing one on top of another while pulling away from the structural columns is why the building pancaked straight down - the design of building dictated that not how the building was hit, burned or otherwise.

    At this point it's almost futile to argue semantics, heat verses temperature, type of fuel or steel - if anything I'd like to know why there wasn't more attention placed on the airspace in and around the city after the first plane hit.

    But that's just me.
    He who knows does not speak.
    He who speaks does not know.
    Lao-tzu

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Britney Spears' New Years collapse might cost her $400,000
    By teforde23 in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: January 8th, 2007, 11:24 PM
  2. Scientist says Dolphins are dumber than Goldfish
    By SVZ in forum Pets and Animals
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2006, 01:41 PM
  3. Baghdad starts to collapse as people flee
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 17th, 2006, 04:02 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 8th, 2006, 03:23 PM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 23rd, 2006, 07:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •