|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CB_Brooklyn
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 32
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:03 am Post subject: Where is the Evidence for 20+ Miles of Steel Beams at GZ |
  |
|
Where is the Evidence for 20+ Miles of Steel Beams at Ground Zero?
A challenge to those who think airplanes, fire, or regular explosives destroyed the Twin Towers:
*Each tower was 1/4 of a mile high
*Each tower had 47 massive core columns made of structural steel
*If the towers "collapsed", there should have been two piles of core column steel
*If laid from end to end, this steel would stretch over 20 miles
Kindly show evidence of this steel at Ground Zero after the attacks, but before it was supposedly trucked away.
-----------------------
Full article here:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/123 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
micpsi
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:54 pm Post subject: Re: Where is the Evidence for 20+ Miles of Steel Beams at GZ |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | Where is the Evidence for 20+ Miles of Steel Beams at Ground Zero?
A challenge to those who think airplanes, fire, or regular explosives destroyed the Twin Towers:
*Each tower was 1/4 of a mile high
*Each tower had 47 massive core columns made of structural steel
*If the towers "collapsed", there should have been two piles of core column steel
*If laid from end to end, this steel would stretch over 20 miles
Kindly show evidence of this steel at Ground Zero after the attacks, but before it was supposedly trucked away.
-----------------------
Full article here:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/123 |
Is not the lack of steel girders EQUALLY a challenge for those who believe in controlled demolition? I mean - just blowing up steel girders does not vaporize them in toto, does it, making them vanish into the air. It merely reduces them to smaller bits. However, there is insufficient volume of steel debris - whether whole girders or bits - at Ground Zero, according to available photos. So where's all the evidence even of the smaller bits of the massive 47 columns of the central core that should have remained strewn over the site, apart from girders that were flung onto nearby buildings? The quantity of steel debris that photos show is far less than what one would expect if most of the girders in a 1/4 mile-high building had been merely blown up into fragments in a 'controlled demolition.'
I suggest that, in asking believers in the pancake theory where the piles of steel are, you are simultaneously undermining what most of its disbelievers think really happened, namely, that the steel and concrete was subject to only the explosives of a controlled demolition. If this had been the case, most of the steel would still have been there, albeit in bits, not in pancaked layers as whole girders. Instead, most of it disappeared, according to photos taken before the clear-up. Why? Because most of the concrete and steel girders and columns were vaporized in situ and never fell to the ground, leaving only dust and small bits of the building to fall. No controlled demolition has ever reduced a large building to mostly dust and to chunks as small as those found at Ground Zero.
Only WTC7 was a "controlled demolition." It is no use believers in controlled demolition asking believers in the official 9/11 story what happened to most of the steel, apart from the small fraction that was trucked away, if they, themselves, cannot answer the question! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stallion4
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Submitted by hsgsj on Thu, 02/01/2007 - 7:27am.
Dr. Greg Jenkins, PhD physicist, Interviews Dr. Judy Wood
Everyone who has been following the debate within 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth' are well aware of the divisive nature of speculations spewed forth by Fetzer/Wood/Reynolds faction regarding directed energy beams and the demolition of the WTC towers.
A video interview conducted January 10th, 2007 at the National Press Club by Dr. Greg Jenkins, a PhD physicist, attempts to probe the lone 'scientist' who is the pillar behind these speculations. When questioned about information which is publicly posted on her website, Dr. Wood's responses ranged from evasive to juvenile. During one segment of the interview, Dr. Wood is presented with a photograph, her 'favorite' picture from her website, of the South Tower collapse. Her abysmal lack of analytical ability is clearly demonstrated as she attempts to describe what she observes in the photograph.
Run time is 35 minutes including a 2 minute introduction and a 3 minute ending sequence. Enjoy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017
Source:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5905 |
Be sure to check out the comments at the 911blogger link above, where Uncle Fetzer makes a special appearance to say...
| Quote: | | "Just for the record, Judy's doing the most important research on 9/11, bar none, which makes her a prime target for attacks like these." -Jim Fetzer, February 1, 2007 |
_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
indigitydogdignation
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 313
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017 |
Dizgusting!
Dr. Greg Jenkins was acting a part as well, clearly. It wouldn't surprise me if they ran screen tests at some point.
Steven Jones is the class act in the production we came to know as st911. I'm not looking forward to seeing him come undone in the final act, sinking to those depths. Wood is a must see in this film.
I shudder to think that I was the one who transcribed SJ's first interview with A. Jones. It's still up on prisonplanet.
Honestly guys, it really didn't sound all that bad at the time. Honestly, honestly, no, no, no, please, please, please, aagghhhhh-BLAM! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| indigitydogdignation wrote: | | Quote: | | http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017 |
Dizgusting!
Dr. Greg Jenkins was acting a part as well, clearly. It wouldn't surprise me if they ran screen tests at some point.
Steven Jones is the class act in the production we came to know as st911. I'm not looking forward to seeing him come undone in the final act, sinking to those depths. Wood is a must see in this film.
I shudder to think that I was the one who transcribed SJ's first interview with A. Jones. It's still up on prisonplanet.
Honestly guys, it really didn't sound all that bad at the time. Honestly, honestly, no, no, no, please, please, please, aagghhhhh-BLAM! |
Wood acts just like anyone else would (perhaps better?) after driving 600 miles and being awake for 48 hours. That was an "ambush" interview. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
indigitydogdignation
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 313
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Wood acts just like anyone else would (perhaps better?) after driving 600 miles and being awake for 48 hours. That was an "ambush" interview. |
I'm trying to laugh but it's not coming easy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freedomfiles
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Only WTC7 was a "controlled demolition." |
Can you try to give a plausible scenario, which takes into consideration that preparing a CD takes > 24 hours, and that without a CD at WTC1 and WTC2, there was IMHO no guarantee that buildings 1 and 2 would fall ?
Following the inside job thesis, why would the government have taken the risk that only WTC7 would fall, or how did they make sure WTC1 and WTC2 were guaranteed to fall without CD ?
Following the government thesis of the 9/11 events, who installed the CD in WTC7, prior to the terrorist attacks on WTC1 and WTC2, and why did they do this ?
IMHO the "WTC 7 Only" CD theory can only exist in an inside job scenario, in which those responsible must have been 100% sure WTC1 and WTC2 would fall, either by structural damage, or by an (un-)conventional type of CD ?
Imagine what would have happened if ONLY building 7 had collapsed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| freedomfiles wrote: | | Quote: | | Only WTC7 was a "controlled demolition." |
Can you try to give a plausible scenario, which takes into consideration that preparing a CD takes > 24 hours, and that without a CD at WTC1 and WTC2, there was IMHO no guarantee that buildings 1 and 2 would fall ? |
Can anyone point me to the source that states that preparing the WTC for CD would take 24 hours?
_________________
The only constant in The Universe is change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
