Scientific proof that the three towers on 9/11 were brought down by controlled demolition: This demonstration also debunks the blacksmith video which compares a small metal rod to the...

payne1000

This demonstration also debunks the blacksmith video which compares a small metal rod to the steel in the towers.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/248-news-media-events-debunker-debunked-blacksmith.html

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

payne1000 wrote:

This demonstration also debunks the blacksmith video which compares a small metal rod to the steel in the towers.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/248-news-media-events-debunker-debunked-blacksmith.html

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall....Humpty Dumpty had a BAD fall...
All of the kings horses and all the kings men...could not put poor Humpty back together again....

It was a MUSLIM conspiracy...a joint effort between Muslims and a PLANE hitting the towers.....Scientific PROOF!

payne1000

America Only wrote:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall....Humpty Dumpty had a BAD fall...
All of the kings horses and all the kings men...could not put poor Humpty back together again....

It was a MUSLIM conspiracy...a joint effort between Muslims and a PLANE hitting the towers.....Scientific PROOF!

Extreme ignorance has a way of rebutting itself.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

payne1000 wrote:

Extreme ignorance has a way of rebutting itself.

So what does that have to say for you. Your believing that it was downed by detonations is incredibly ludicrous. Planes were seen flying into the buildings. The heat of the fuel weakened the supporting structure and with the weight of the upper floors collapsing downward put such a terrific load on the floors underneath that they could not support the weight falling upon them. That is a physical impossibility to have that much stress on a structure without it failing. I hope that is not to much for you to take in at this time.

payne1000

Louie27 wrote:

So what does that have to say for you. Your believ... (show quote)

Louie, go back to your shill training manual and come up with something better than that. No steel-framed skyscraper in history has ever fallen from fire damage. If one could fall from fire damage it would take much more fire than suffered by any of the WTC towers.

Could this much fire which burned for less than an hour-and-a-half bring the North Tower down?

This much fire could not bring the Windsor tower down even though it burned for more than 20 hours.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

payne1000 wrote:

Louie, go back to your shill training manual and come up with something better than that. No steel-framed skyscraper in history has ever fallen from fire damage. If one could fall from fire damage it would take much more fire than suffered by any of the WTC towers.

No large airliner has ever hit a skyscraper with that amount of fuel before either. If the heat is pumped into the steel faster than it can be pumped away the temperature of the steel rises above the temperature of the fire and that would lead to the softening of the steel and at that point the steel would start to deform and then the weight of the building, above, would collapse upon itself from the sheer weight. Jet fuel burns at approximately 920 degrees and that would be enough to start the reaction.

payne1000

Louie27 wrote:

No large airliner has ever hit a skyscraper with t... (show quote)

Louie, as a shill, you are a rank amateur. Here's the science knowledge you are missing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvuKUmK9eB0

Abel

If you desire clarity concerning "controlled demolition" and "burning jet fuel" and government spin on why the WTC buildings went down, read "Where Did The Towers Go? by Dr. Judy Wood. The government spin fails the laws of physics in more ways than you could imagine. The planes may have hit WTC 1 and 2, but they didn't hit the other WTC buildings that went down, and they didn't take WTC 1 and 2 down nor did they cause the fall of the rest of the buildings. Very interesting reading, particularly if you have an interest in physics.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

payne1000 wrote:

Louie, as a shill, you are a rank amateur. Here's the science knowledge you are missing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvuKUmK9eB0

I bet that you have never worked on a building while it is under construction and have had conservations with engineers about such things. Therefore would not know anything about it except what you see on youtube.

payne1000

Abel wrote:

If you desire clarity concerning "controlled ... (show quote)

Most in the truth movement believe Dr. Judy Wood is a misinformation agent who throws out outrageous theories in an attempt to discredit the truth movement.

payne1000

Louie27 wrote:

I bet that you have never worked on a building while it is under construction and have had conservations with engineers about such things. Therefore would not know anything about it except what you see on youtube.

I've been working with architects for 15 years. I've accumulated a lot of knowledge about building construction. But no other knowledge is needed to know that the towers were blown up with explosives than what this photo provides:

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

payne1000 wrote:

I've been working with architects for 15 years. I've accumulated a lot of knowledge about building construction. But no other knowledge is needed to know that the towers were blown up with explosives than what this photo provides:

The explosiveness of jet fuel confined in a certain area. I believe that the area shown in your picture is about the level where the plane hit the building. That is where the fire started and weakened the steel supports which in turn caused the upper stories to cascade down onto that area and the additional weight started the collapse of the building. Also to get that much blowout the explosives would have to have been set near the outside of the structure and that would have made them visible to the people on that floor. Just my opinion.

payne1000

Louie27 wrote:

The explosiveness of jet fuel confined in a certai... (show quote)

The photos and videos show most of the jet fuel burning up outside the building. The jet fuel that did get inside burned up quickly. Look at the photo below and see that the fire has already burned out in the hole made by the airliner.
You said, "to get that much blowout" . . . You're admitting there was tremendous blowout . . . where could that have originated except for very powerful explosives?

The explosives were installed in the elevator core in the center of the towers. They were powerful enough to take out the 47 massive steel columns in the core while also blowing apart the outer wall sections which were bolted and welded together. This is the only sensible answer to what happened to the twin towers.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

payne1000 wrote:

The photos and videos show most of the jet fuel bu... (show quote)

You must have been looking at a different picture than the one shown here. I see no fire outside the building and just smoke exiting out through the top of that building and with the plane going as fast as it had to stay airborne it most likely continued to the center of the building in which the elevator shafts were located. That is where the most of the fuel would have ignited and could have damaged the center core of the building to cause the upper floors to collapse downward. As far as the core the elevator shafts are constructed with rebar surrounded by concrete and approximately 30 inches thick. With a force of a plane impacting that type of structure it would be damaged. Your conspiracy theory has been put forth by Islamists and other radical groups just to confuse this issue.

payne1000

Louie27 wrote:

You must have been looking at a different picture ... (show quote)

You failed to address what caused the "blowout" shown in the photo. Force of gravity is straight down. If you haven't watched this then please do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvuKUmK9eB0