|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6098
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:25 am Post subject: WTC - Molten Metal |
  |
|
Reply to this topic with general evidence about the alleged
Molten Metal at the WTC Site after the collapses.
-------------------
S U M M A R Y
-------------------
A summary of the thread will be updated here as evidence
is presented in this topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DeepLogos
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A few photos and some comments regarding the alledged pools of molten metal at the WTC-site:
Possible Molten Iron From A Possible Thermite Reaction, On Cedar Street At Ground Zero, Likely From Collapsed WTC 2 , With 90 West Street Building In Background, 9/11/2001
I don't think these are the "pools" eluded to, but to me it looks like there was very hot metal on ground level too, if it indeed is metal we are seeing in this picture
USGS Spectroscopy Lab: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html
| Prof. Steven E. Jones wrote: | Introduction
We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7. A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv . The photographs below by Frank Silecchia show chunks of the hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble on September 27, 2001 (according to photographer's aid). Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal -- this tells us much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition, as we shall see.
 
(...)
The following photograph has become available, evidently showing the now-solidified metal with entrained material, stored (as of November 2005) in a warehouse in New York:
The abundance of iron (as opposed to aluminum) in this material is indicated by the reddish rust observed. When a sample is obtained, a range of characterization techniques will quickly give us information we seek. X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) will yield the elemental composition, and electron energy-loss spectroscopy will tell us the elements found in very small amounts that were undetectable with XEDS. Electron-backscattered diffraction in the scanning electron microscope will give us phase information; the formation of certain precipitates can tell us a minimum temperature the melt must have reached. We will endeavor to obtain and publish these data, whatever they reveal.
(...)
Peering into the yellow-white hot “core” under the WTC rubble. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1858491.stm
|
From: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
911 Myths has a different take on this though:
| 9/11 Myths wrote: | First, there’s no proof here other than the caption of when and where this was taken. [refering to the first two pictures in S. Jones' presentation posted here]
Second, whatever’s glowing red here clearly isn’t isn’t “molten” in the sense of “melted”.There may possibly be something dripping off one end, but we don’t know what that is.
Third, there seems an odd lack of conduction amongst the materials being picked up. We can see that the excavator has picked up a considerable amount of nearby material that presumably was very close to the same heat source, and it looks like glowing metal, but it’s completely black. There’s no orange -- bright red -- dull red transition across the materials, it’s just a straight orange to black. Steel isn’t a good conductor of heat, it’s true, but is that enough to explain the photo?
And fourth, we know there were underground fires at the site for some time. How hot could they get? Depends on the materials and the supply of oxygen, but in some cases the temperatures can be surprisingly high:
Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams...
The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm
Coal fires produce higher temperatures than we’d expect from the debris pile, but then Steve Jones suggests we only need 845°C to 1,040°C to explain our glowing steel (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html). Could that be produced with the materials available, and oxygen filtering in from above, or from the subways connected to the WTC basement level?
There’s a clue in the results of this fire test intended to simulate conditions in a timber frame building:
Peak temperatures in the living area of the fire flat reached approximately 1000°C and remained at this level until the test was stopped at 64 minutes...
Despite average atmosphere temperatures in excess of 900°C for 30 minutes...
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/Timber/default.htm
The Structural Fire Engineering department of the University of Manchester tells us that adding plastics to the mix can make things hotter still:
The standard fires do not always represent the most severe fire conditions. Structural members having been designed to standard fires may fail to survive in real fires. For example, the modern offices tend to contain large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels in decoration, furniture, computers and electric devices, in forms of polymers, plastics, artificial leathers and laminates etc. Consequently, the fire becomes more severe than the conventional standard fire.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm
Office fires can be severe, then. What temperatures are achievable? The same page details four different fire types, and shows their temperature range over time.
Figure 1 shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximate 22 minutes. Whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm |
From: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
YouTube clip:
-DL-
_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elbowdeep
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does anyone know the origins of this photo?, which is ALWAYS used as "proof" that Thermite was used in WTC1&2.
I am particularly interested in WHO took it, WHEN (very important), and WHERE.
_________________
One day the cows will sprout wings and fly away...
http://twitter.com/elbowdeep
http://elbowdeep.posterous.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lord Carpainter
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 265
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
The angle cut beam isn't proof of thermite, IMO. It is evidence of the use of a shaped charge, which cuts beams at an angle. A high velocity explosion which matched up pretty well with the sound of a shaped charge blast happened at the WTC, and can be heard here (With comparison): http://youtube.com/watch?v=I84-_hcbtyU
Molten metal is a hoax to cover up the use of DEW, just as DEW-linked Van Romero's scripted and deliberate 'small amount of explosives' statements were: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=60
Molten metal serves as a distraction from the real story. The 'fuming' that continued at Ground Zero, long after 9/11. It also leads people down the Thermite/Thermate road, which distracts from evidence of directed energy weaponry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockDock
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wtf LC, are you some sort of shill for the fuckers who ran the operation?
DEW?
Shaped charges?
How about a plasma cutter in the weeks after the day? No one has ever proven to me the provenance of that photo. I think the photo is a red herring.
So, you proselytize the no planes at all theory, go for the Directed Energy Weapons, and act as Killtown's wiingman.
Do you work for Grumpy's people or somebody else?
_________________
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lord Carpainter
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 265
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RockDock wrote: |
1)Wtf LC, are you some sort of shill for the fuckers who ran the operation?
2) DEW?
3) Shaped charges?
4) How about a plasma cutter in the weeks after the day? No one has ever proven to me the provenance of that photo. I think the photo is a red herring.
So, you proselytize the no planes at all theory, go for the Directed Energy Weapons,
6)and act as Killtown's wiingman.
7) Do you work for Grumpy's people or somebody else? |
1) No, I'm not. Everyone who has a theory different than yours or disagrees with you is not a shill.
2) Yeah, DEW. I think Explosives/DEW were used. You've got a problem with that? Then cut the 'ARE YOU A SHILL??' nonsense and present some evidence already.
3) Yeah, shaped charges. Did you watch the comparison video I presented?
4) Is plasma cutter a possibility? Of course it is. But the comparison video clearly shows that at least one shaped charge detonated at the WTC, so it is also possible that this beam was cut by a shaped charge.
5) I go for NPT yes, and I go for DEW yes. Got a problem with that? I haven't seen you present anything of substance. Blindly calling theories disinformation because of your disagreements with them is not open-minded.
6) 'Killtown's wingman'? I assume you are referring to my defense of him in the "Killtown or Killfake?" post. I know more about the origins and reasons for the 'Stewart Nurick' accusations than a lot of the people in that post. Am I a shill for pointing out that there is no evidence for that accusation and that Genghis6199 is a freaking nutcase? And what did you contribute to that post? All you did was help redirect it to discussion of NPT.
7) No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockDock
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lord Carpainter wrote: |
1) No, I'm not. Everyone who has a theory different than yours or disagrees with you is not a shill. |
I have not claimed that everybody who disagrees with me is a shill. So you are a liar too.
| Lord Carpainter wrote: |
2) Yeah, DEW. I think Explosives/DEW were used. You've got a problem with that? Then cut the 'ARE YOU A SHILL??' nonsense and present some evidence already. |
DEW makes no sense. Why use esoteric weaponary when a 395,000 pound airliner plus a bunch of fuel traveling at close to 600mph is available? None of the links I have followed from your posts have proven anything to me. Other than you are a fan of CB_Brooklyn and Killtown. And Judy Wood. Yes, Judy Wood the credible scientist who is promoted by the likes of Fetzer and Rense. I am not going to rehash OLD DIVISIVE crap with you. You want to wade through the Judy Wood threads on here, go ahead.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=+Judy+Wood+site:breakfornews.com
| Lord Carpainter wrote: |
3) Yeah, shaped charges. Did you watch the comparison video I presented? |
You don't get it. The evidence is gone man. It no longer really matters how it happened, why the towers fell. It likely was a combination of plane crash, fire (yes there were big fires and yes I can get me head around truss flooring giving way and initiating a collapse sequence.
Perhaps too there were judicious use of shaped charges to help it along. Certainly there appears to be weird shit going on in the WTC in the days before 911, with power-downs and "telephone installers". There seemed to be some evidence for that with explosion-like sounds and the squib-like action on some of the floors. Unfortunately, and probably criminally, there were no attempts to find explosive residue in the days following the collapses.
As much as I would love to see clear evidence of shaped charges, it is not likely to happen. Damn near all of the steel and debris was hauled away without ever being checked for explosives. It has been six and half year. That "unimpeachable evidence" is unlikely to show up. The grainy fucked-with youtube videos and photographs do nothing to advance the cause. Indeed they muddy the waters.
The more time folks spend arguing about "No planes - yes there were planes" "Exotic weapons - no exotic weapons" "Hijackers - remote controls - NO PLANES" "Steel core - concrete core" the less time is spent on identifying the bastard scum sucking perpetrators who have led the "free world" further into slavery, depravity and slaughter through the handy device of "problem-reaction-solution".
| Lord Carpainter wrote: |
4) Is plasma cutter a possibility? Of course it is. But the comparison video clearly shows that at least one shaped charge detonated at the WTC, so it is also possible that this beam was cut by a shaped charge. |
Sure is, but since we will never know who took the picture - or more importantly when and specifically where in the ruins - it is a useless piece of crap evidence that serves to distract from the fact we live in a fascist regime that is controlled by the corporations who "employ" us.
| Lord Carpainter wrote: |
5) I go for NPT yes, and I go for DEW yes. Got a problem with that? I haven't seen you present anything of substance. Blindly calling theories disinformation because of your disagreements with them is not open-minded. |
Ooo de ooo, I am not "open-minded." Open mind this buddy. If arguing about how the fuck something happened is not resolvable how about give it up and look to who is fucking us over as a result of the towers falling? It sure ain't al Quaeda is it?
| Lord Carpainter wrote: |
6) 'Killtown's wingman'? I assume you are referring to my defense of him in the "Killtown or Killfake?" post. I know more about the origins and reasons for the 'Stewart Nurick' accusations than a lot of the people in that post. Am I a shill for pointing out that there is no evidence for that accusation and that Genghis6199 is a freaking nutcase? And what did you contribute to that post? All you did was help redirect it to discussion of NPT.
|
So you are an "inside" guy with Killtown. | Quote: | | I know more about the origins and reasons for the 'Stewart Nurick' accusations than a lot of the people in that post. |
If that is the case why don't you elucidate? Why do people think Killtown is a weenie and you his bun? Could it be because of statements such as "I know more about the origins and reasons for the 'Stewart Nurick' accusations than a lot of the people in that post."
| Lord Carpainter wrote: |
7) No. |
No you don't work? Do you still live with Mommy?
_________________
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lord Carpainter
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 265
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I have not claimed that everybody who disagrees with me is a shill. So you are a liar too. |
It is the impression I get when you start going "WTF ARE YOU A SHILL" just because it is my opinion that DEW/TV Fakery were involved.
| Quote: | DEW makes no sense. Why use esoteric weaponary when a 395,000 pound airliner plus a bunch of fuel traveling at close to 600mph is available? None of the links I have followed from your posts have proven anything to me. Other than you are a fan of CB_Brooklyn and Killtown. And Judy Wood. Yes, Judy Wood the credible scientist who is promoted by the likes of Fetzer and Rense. I am not going to rehash OLD DIVISIVE crap with you. You want to wade through the Judy Wood threads on here, go ahead.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=+Judy+Wood+site:breakfornews.com |
-Because an airplane can't turn a building into dust.
-I respect the work of those three, yes, and I think they have done a great deal shedding light on what really happened on 9/11.
-I ran a search on Google, and could find no articles on Rense that promoted Judy Wood. The only one I found was a Dick Eastman article on Rense, which attacked Wood and Reynolds: http://www.rense.com/general78/derk.htm
| Quote: | You don't get it. The evidence is gone man. It no longer really matters how it happened, why the towers fell. It likely was a combination of plane crash, fire (yes there were big fires and yes I can get me head around truss flooring giving way and initiating a collapse sequence.
Perhaps too there were judicious use of shaped charges to help it along. Certainly there appears to be weird shit going on in the WTC in the days before 911, with power-downs and "telephone installers". There seemed to be some evidence for that with explosion-like sounds and the squib-like action on some of the floors. Unfortunately, and probably criminally, there were no attempts to find explosive residue in the days following the collapses.
As much as I would love to see clear evidence of shaped charges, it is not likely to happen. Damn near all of the steel and debris was hauled away without ever being checked for explosives. It has been six and half year. That "unimpeachable evidence" is unlikely to show up. The grainy fucked-with youtube videos and photographs do nothing to advance the cause. Indeed they muddy the waters.
The more time folks spend arguing about "No planes - yes there were planes" "Exotic weapons - no exotic weapons" "Hijackers - remote controls - NO PLANES" "Steel core - concrete core" the less time is spent on identifying the bastard scum sucking perpetrators who have led the "free world" further into slavery, depravity and slaughter through the handy device of "problem-reaction-solution". |
OK, I agree here. While I think finding out the perps' means of deception is important, what is ultimately important is exposing the perps themselves.
| Quote: | So you are an "inside" guy with Killtown.
|
You don't need to be 'on the inside' to know the Genghis accusations are trash. You just had to be going to 911 movement forums at the right time, and followed this drama. At 911movement.org, where I go, and where KT is an administrator, numerous members thought he was a perp because Genghis6199 was telling everyone how strange it was that he's remained anonymous for so many years (Despite the fact that the Internet is full of anonymous people).
The Stewart Nurick crap started when a bunch of people over at Genghis' forum (911Taboo), started going on about how similar KT's voice was to a guy called Stewart, who called in on 9/11. They then said that the KT was Stewart Nurick (Based solely on the fact that the guy on the phone was Nurick, and they had absolutely zero evidence that KT was the guy on the phone, except that they had a similar voice.).
| Quote: | | If that is the case why don't you elucidate? Why do people think Killtown is a weenie and you his bun? Could it be because of statements such as "I know more about the origins and reasons for the 'Stewart Nurick' accusations than a lot of the people in that post." |
I told them what I knew. That the accusations were started by a guy called Genghis6199, based on the fact that one of the guys who called in to the TV station on 9/11 sounded like Killtown. Now, if you go back to that post, I provided evidence that Genghis is insane and has something against Killtown. There is nothing in the 'Killfake' accusations. Anyone who looks into it will conclude the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lord Carpainter
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 265
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I have not claimed that everybody who disagrees with me is a shill. So you are a liar too. |
It is the impression I get when you start going "WTF ARE YOU A SHILL" just because it is my opinion that DEW/TV Fakery were involved.
| Quote: | DEW makes no sense. Why use esoteric weaponary when a 395,000 pound airliner plus a bunch of fuel traveling at close to 600mph is available? None of the links I have followed from your posts have proven anything to me. Other than you are a fan of CB_Brooklyn and Killtown. And Judy Wood. Yes, Judy Wood the credible scientist who is promoted by the likes of Fetzer and Rense. I am not going to rehash OLD DIVISIVE crap with you. You want to wade through the Judy Wood threads on here, go ahead.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=+Judy+Wood+site:breakfornews.com |
-Because an airplane can't turn a building into dust.
-I respect the work of those three, yes, and I think they have done a great deal shedding light on what really happened on 9/11.
-I ran a search on Google, and could find no articles on Rense that promoted Judy Wood. The only one I found was a Dick Eastman article on Rense, which attacked Wood and Reynolds: http://www.rense.com/general78/derk.htm
| Quote: | You don't get it. The evidence is gone man. It no longer really matters how it happened, why the towers fell. It likely was a combination of plane crash, fire (yes there were big fires and yes I can get me head around truss flooring giving way and initiating a collapse sequence.
Perhaps too there were judicious use of shaped charges to help it along. Certainly there appears to be weird shit going on in the WTC in the days before 911, with power-downs and "telephone installers". There seemed to be some evidence for that with explosion-like sounds and the squib-like action on some of the floors. Unfortunately, and probably criminally, there were no attempts to find explosive residue in the days following the collapses.
As much as I would love to see clear evidence of shaped charges, it is not likely to happen. Damn near all of the steel and debris was hauled away without ever being checked for explosives. It has been six and half year. That "unimpeachable evidence" is unlikely to show up. The grainy fucked-with youtube videos and photographs do nothing to advance the cause. Indeed they muddy the waters.
The more time folks spend arguing about "No planes - yes there were planes" "Exotic weapons - no exotic weapons" "Hijackers - remote controls - NO PLANES" "Steel core - concrete core" the less time is spent on identifying the bastard scum sucking perpetrators who have led the "free world" further into slavery, depravity and slaughter through the handy device of "problem-reaction-solution". |
OK, I agree here. While I think finding out the perps' means of deception is important, what is ultimately important is exposing the perps themselves.
| Quote: | So you are an "inside" guy with Killtown.
|
You don't need to be 'on the inside' to know the Genghis accusations are trash. You just had to be going to 911 movement forums at the right time, and followed this drama. At 911movement.org, where I go, and where KT is an administrator, numerous members thought he was a perp because Genghis6199 was telling everyone how strange it was that he's remained anonymous for so many years (Despite the fact that the Internet is full of anonymous people).
The Stewart Nurick crap started when a bunch of people over at Genghis' forum (911Taboo), started going on about how similar KT's voice was to a guy called Stewart, who called in on 9/11. They then said that the KT was Stewart Nurick (Based solely on the fact that the guy on the phone was Nurick, and they had absolutely zero evidence that KT was the guy on the phone, except that they had a similar voice.).
| Quote: | | If that is the case why don't you elucidate? Why do people think Killtown is a weenie and you his bun? Could it be because of statements such as "I know more about the origins and reasons for the 'Stewart Nurick' accusations than a lot of the people in that post." |
I told them what I knew. That the accusations were started by a guy called Genghis6199, based on the fact that one of the guys who called in to the TV station on 9/11 sounded like Killtown. Now, if you go back to that post, I provided evidence that Genghis is insane and has something against Killtown. There is nothing in the 'Killfake' accusations. Anyone who looks into it will conclude the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hdog
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 77
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="RockDock]
You don't get it. The evidence is gone man. It no longer really matters how it happened, why the towers fell. It likely was a combination of plane crash, fire (yes there were big fires and yes I can get me head around truss flooring giving way and initiating a collapse sequence.
[/quote]
It appears you don't get it. You actually think plane crashes, fire and gravity caused the Towers to destroy themselves, straight down through the path of maximal resistance? And this somehow caused the South Tower cap to lose is angular momentum.
We're supposed to foreget about direct evidence for the use of explosives because you don't understand physics?
And btw, the truss failure theory is officially dead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lord Carpainter
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 265
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whoa, I didn't even read that part. Are you actually saying that planes+fire brought down the World Trade Center? Dude, consider that both buildings were completely dustified. Also note that when the top falls, since the Tower is redundant, it would not have caused global failure. Also, the top disintegrates quickly, so to think that it brought down the building does not make sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bri
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2887
Location: Capacious Creek
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The whole thing may be a trick. Maybe 9/11 was an inside job and it's good to be aware, but it's a perhaps unsolvable crime that while research should be done on the event slowly and carefully. It should not become this major center "issue".
So where did the BEAM come from? A satellite? Building 7?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockDock
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FFS, I don't care how the towers fell. It does not matter. No unassailable proof will ever be found - the Fakes have made sure of that. The steel is gone, what isn't gone apparently has no explosive residue on it. Ooo, must be DEW then. Whatever, I don't care.
There were fires there, fires are hot, steel melts things fall down. Yup, one would think that falling all the way down is fucking crazy and I often think that too. But I am not an architect or an engineer and friends of mine who are say that the NIST explanation can work for them - given the construction methods in the towers and the fact that there are photos of well involved fires on the 80 and 81 floors for instance. Sure seems to be some sagging trusses in some of those photos too.
Regardless, if it works for people I know and trust, it can work for me too, because I value my friends' opinions. Treating the WTC as a red herring allows one to move past it and look to "who benefits."
The towers fell down, our lives were turned upside down and sideways. Got any friends or sons and daughters in Iraq or Afghanistan? They are not the ones who benefited. They are there because the civilian population was "shock and awed" into letting Bush and his puppet masters do whatever they needed to do to "solve" the problem.
Now we are being shock and awed through economic chaos. Are we having fun yet?
cheers
RD
_________________
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lord Carpainter
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 265
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bri wrote: | The whole thing may be a trick. Maybe 9/11 was an inside job and it's good to be aware, but it's a perhaps unsolvable crime that while research should be done on the event slowly and carefully. It should not become this major center "issue".
So where did the BEAM come from? A satellite? Building 7? |
I don't know where it came from. If I were the perps, I wouldn't put it in Building 7. It was likely on a high-flying aircraft or in orbit. That's the only way to truly keep it out of view, considering the fact that it would have to have quite a large power source, and would not easily escape notice.
This sounds absurd at first, but the weaponization of space has been talked about for a long time. In the alternative movement, it is constantly talked about how they are planning to use this technology. Is it really farfetched to believe that they used it?
Upon first hearing of the idea of 'energy beams', I chuckled, wondering if anyone really believed it. Three things brought me into the DEW camp.
1) The complete dustification of the Towers and the amount of destruction.
2) Anomalies at the WTC (Melted/Wilting cars, weird holes in buildings, the survival of paper, bent beams, etc.)
3) The fact that many of the leading people who attack DEWT with no evidence have ties to the DEW program. Jim Hoffman, Bob Bowman, Steve Jones, and Greg Jenkins all have ties to the energy department or to DEW. Also, we had Van Romero coming out early saying that "a small amount of explosives" destroyed the WTC. Romero had ties to DEW.
Also, why would they take the time to have engineers go through the entire building, rigging it with thermite/thermate and bombs? Having a complete controlled demolition of these buildings is too much of a risk. As for the built-for-demolition theory, why would they take the risk of someone discovering this somehow? The WTC experienced fires and accidents involving propane explosions before 9/11. Wouldn't the perps anticipate these events, and wouldn't they be worried that the explosive charges they placed in the building would go off prematurely because of events like these?
Some sites have suggested that the explosives were placed during the evacuations Ben Fountain reports, and the massive power-down on 9/9 reported by Scott Forbes. How could they rig two skyscrapers with bombs and/or thermite/thermate in a few weeks and in one day? The 9/9 power down only effected the South Tower.
I am not saying explosives were not involved. Like I said before, there is evidence of shaped charge blasts. I think that explosives were detonated at the lower levels of the complex as a failsafe. These blasts at the bottom would also provide a convenient 'buildup' (Which is why they go off at different times, and not all at the same time, like in a CD) to collapse, so eyewitnesses would think "Well, it's not that strange that the building blew up into dust, I mean after all, it was failing. All those explosions and all..". Also, the 9/9 power down and evacuations in the weeks before would provide enough time for SOME explosives to be planted on the lower floors.
I'm wondering why they would take the trouble and risk to rig these two giant skyscrapers with bombs and/or thermite/thermate on every floor when they had the military power to just break out advanced weaponry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickSMcNally
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lord Carpainter wrote: | It was likely on a high-flying aircraft or in orbit. That's the only way to truly keep it out of view, considering the fact that it would have to have quite a large power source, and would not easily escape notice.
This sounds absurd at first, but the weaponization of space has been talked about for a long time. In the alternative movement, it is constantly talked about how they are planning to use this technology. Is it really farfetched to believe that they used it? |
In this particular case, I think so.
During WWII the US & UK bombers had terrible precision. They could pour bombs over a general area, but had no means of making a high-precision strike. Hence the total destruction of German and Japanese cities like Hamburg and Tokyo. The modern-day electronically-guided missiles have resolved this older challenge for bombing missions, but I don't see how that could be made to apply to energy beams fired from outet space.
What I would expect in the event that some type of outer space laser beam or whatever was used to attack an urban center would be broad general destruction similar to the saturation bombing in WWII. Whatever one may speculate about how the Towers came down, it does seem to have been a fairly precise strike against WTCs 1, 2 and if you like we may count 7 as well.
If one tentatively imagines the buildings somehow being attacked from a high latitude then the relative precision with which they were hit would require some type of plane within the atmosphere able to circle around the target. A satellite of some kind is in constant circular orbit and would have a more difficult time circling around the target to pinpoint the precise building as a target. What's more likely from such hypothetical space-weapons is that the satellite could fire a general salvo of energy beams while on overpass across a general target range. In this case I would expect the satellite to fry Manhatten, but not to pinpoint any specific set of buildings within it. |
|
| 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
|
|
