emarine

Stevo... There are more than reasonable answers... like massive overload of the floor truss supports & steel loses load carrying capacity with heat... these are not only reasonable... they are facts... here are some more facts... http://app.aws.org/wj/supplement/WJ_2007_09_s263.pdf ...I know facts are boring but one can only tolerate so much hearsay & conjecture...read up its easy to understand & well written... or remain uninformed & play with this guy...

I have bomb

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You're sure about that? Your reliance on photos as evidence of anything is about as unscientific as you can get. It would be futile to suggest you study Thermodynamics regarding conditions that melt physical objects, such as concrete or metals. It would also be futile to provide you with a couple of forensic analyses of the melted "pools" under the tower debris. Such information would directly contradict your cockamamie ideas about "massive explosives and incendiaries." Real science scares the living shit out of you. Probably because you don't know a damned thing about it.

If we were to calculate the amount of the various types and kinds of explosives that you have attributed to the overall disaster, we'd have enough BOOM to blow the whole of lower Manhattan into the Hudson river, maybe even out to sea if we include your mini-nukes.

Steve700

Unlike you, I am not out to prove I am right, but to find truth. Unlike you, my ego is not involved. Admittedly they are primary experts but I gave you good reason for my doubts about anyone involved with Implosion World Magazine. Also the fact that the vast majority of demolition experts not associated with them agree that that the takedown of those buildings certainly seem to be OBVIOUS planned demolitions like what was implied by the statements of both Larry Silverstein and George Bush. Even to a simple common sense man like myself, it is obvious that buildings just don't come down so perfectly like that without pre-planned demolition. Although most are questionable I admit you have some points or indications for your point of view, but I don't see that any of them rule out planed demolitions or that no airplane strikes at all ever happened at the Pentagon or in that field. The evidence that it was an inside job is overwhelming with hundreds, do you hear me, hundreds of questions that have no answers other than that 9/11 was an inside job. You have nothing, NOTHING that there is no other answer to, other than that the government's version is accurate, true and correct. Are you too simpleminded to understand that fact or can you give me some examples to prove that I am wrong??? Like I said you lost the argument 100 pages ago and only making a fool of yourself with stupid assertions that ceiling tiles, desks and plastic computers and copy machines in a few localized fires can melt 4 to 6 inch thick steel.
.

I would like to pit this worm against you in an IQ test and see who comes out ahead.

Steve700

I don't see any of your points rule out planed demolitions or that no airplane strikes at all ever happened at the Pentagon or in that field. The evidence that it was an inside job is overwhelming with hundreds, do you hear me, hundreds of questions that have no answers other than that 9/11 was an inside job. You have nothing, NOTHING that there is no other answer to, other than that the government's version is accurate, true and correct. Are you too simpleminded to understand that fact or can you give me some examples to prove that I am wrong???

Try, TRY Really Hard and see if you can have more Common Sense then this Stupid Monkey

emarine

Nice monkey Stevo... maybe you could try & focus on one issue @ a time ... we were concentrating on the twin towers when you blessed us with your many opinions... I have spent a fair amount of time on the towers construction & played with the math enough to know there was no foul play involved with the failures & collapses... I provided you some real data from welding experts on the tower collapses.... review it & comment... for every one person who claimed hey heard explosives there are 100 who did not... the plane impact made a huge explosion from Kinetic energy... jet-A burns ... its flammable not combustible...the big boom did not come from the flame front it came from the impact... this is an example of a Kinetic energy explosion...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9nwIrvs3to

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You'll have to offer some verification on your claim that you know "the vast majority of demolition experts not associated with them agree that that the takedown of those buildings certainly seem to be OBVIOUS planned demolitions." I've been looking for these guys. Haven't found any.

BTW: The jet liners that struck the Pentagon and crashed in Pennsylvania were both Boeing 757s.

If you have hundreds of questions "that have no answers", how the hell does this lead to the conclusion that 9/11 could be nothing other than an inside job? Maybe you should get those questions answered before you assume what the answers should be. Sounds like a really piss poor way to seek the truth. About anything.

Since we are on the subject of questions. I must first ask why, whenever I, or anyone else, asks a 9/11 truther a question you never provide an honest and direct answer. Instead, what we get is a long rant about watching truther videos or we are personally attacked for even asking. I have yet to ask any truther on this forum a direct question and receive a direct and honest response. I was always hoping but never expecting that one of you could provide an intelligent response in your own words rather than screaming about watching another truther video or getting slammed for even asking.

So, here's a question:

First of all we have the truther claim that explosive detonations are occurring at every floor at the collapse front--as the tower collapses, debris is being blown away from the building, flashes of light are supposedly seen, squibs are predetonating far below the collapse front, people hear explosions and so on.

This suggests that a WTC tower was rigged, bottom to top, with explosive charges on every floor--some say "high explosives", some say "powerful explosives", some include thermite charges in addition to the compound explosives. (Some even suggest there were mini-nukes in the basements, but we won't go there.)

I will ignore the question of how this massive demolition project was planned, the buildings prepared and rigged.

A controlled demolition matrix includes, wiring, electronic relays, switches, sequencers, radio receivers, det cord, detonators, shielding, explosive charges and charge attachment mechanisms.

A demolition matrix involving every floor in a 110 story building would be highly complex and very expensive. Even a smaller project like bringing down a 10 story hotel requires weeks of planning and prep before explosives are even brought on site and the demolition system, once in place, is fairly complex.

For a controlled demolition system to function as planned, the integrity of the entire matrix must be intact, circuit continuity, whether hard wired or radio controlled, cannot be broken, the firing sequence must be calculated to within a fraction of a second and programmed into the firing computers, hard wired or radio controlled. To ensure this integrity and circuit continuity in a matrix involving every floor in a 110 story building, would be a formidable project all on its own. The entire system must be checked and checked again.

Now we come to the question of the aircraft impacts and how these obviously random events were somehow figured in to the overall plan. There is no question that the jets were flown by live pilots (the radio controlled aircraft argument is too far fetched to even consider, even though this would make no difference to the effects the impacts would have on the demolition system.)

The aircraft impacts into the towers were extremely violent events, the penetrations and fuel explosions caused massive damage inside the towers. These impacts would have certainly destroyed or detonated some or all explosive charges directly in the path which would have immediately destroyed the integrity and continuity of the entire demolition system. So, how did your inside jobbers pull that off? How did they manage to coordinate the aircraft strikes so they wouldn't destroy the demolition matrix? And, why did the trigger men, wherever they were hiding, wait for an hour or more before pushing the buttons? Why not just pull the triggers right after the impacts?

The North tower was hit at 8:46am and collapsed 1 hour and 48 minutes later. The South Tower was hit at 9:03am and collapsed 56 minutes later. Even though the South Tower was hit 17 minutes later than the North Tower, it collapsed close to a half hour before the North Tower came down. Why did that happen? Could it be that there was twice as much weight above the impact area in the South Tower as that in the North Tower?

Finally, no detonation of an explosive device, other than a nuke, completely vaporizes all the bomb components. There are always parts and pieces of the device found in the area of the blast--wiring, circuit boards, pieces of detonators, even unexploded det cord in the case of multiple charges. Had the twin towers been rigged from top to bottom with an extensive explosive system detonating on every floor, there would have been literally thousands of bomb parts and pieces in the rubble. Why was nothing of this kind ever found anywhere in entire area of the WTC?

Fair questions, Steve.

Steve700

I've been quite clear, But you seem to have a serious reading comprehension problems. Let's try again: The evidence that it was an inside job is overwhelming with hundreds, do you hear me, hundreds of questions that have no answers other than that 9/11 was an inside job. You have nothing, NOTHING that there is no other answer to, other than that the government's version is accurate, true and correct. Are you too simpleminded to understand that fact or can you give me some examples to prove that I am wrong???

Again, I have proven over and over again in many ways that the government story just doesn't ring true, (in fact can't be) but all is answered by 9/11 being an inside job. where is your story or proof that the government narrative IS true, (you can even prove that it could be true, much less IS true)

Steve700

I've been quite clear, But you seem to have a serious reading comprehension problems. Let's try again: The evidence that it was an inside job is overwhelming with hundreds, do you hear me, hundreds of questions that have no answers other than that 9/11 was an inside job. You have nothing, NOTHING that there is no other answer to, other than that the government's version is accurate, true and correct. Are you too simpleminded to understand that fact or can you give me some examples to prove that I am wrong??? --- You are going on to other subjects and other areas. What I have just said here totally invalidates any possibility of you proving anything. ------- Again, I have proven over and over again in many ways that the government story just doesn't ring true, (in fact can't be) but all is answered by 9/11 being an inside job. where is your story or proof that the government narrative IS true, (you can even prove that it could be true, much less IS true)

payne1000

The twin towers had about the same ratio of air space to solid mass as other skyscrapers so the point you are attempting to make is invalid.
The photos you show are all taken when the towers were under construction.
After all the interior walls were added, the appearance changed entirely.
Those interior walls which blocked light from passing through the towers also would prevent floor slabs from collapsing on each other.

.

Before interior walls were added.


After interior walls were added.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Yeah, you leftist conspiracy morons have hundreds of questions and you claim there is only one answer to them all. You just can't deal with reality. I asked you some fair questions that do have specific answers, but you can't get out of the conspiracy bubble and make an intelligent attempt to answer or refute them. IOW, you are all mouth, you can talk a long line of bullshit, but you can't back any of it up. You haven't proven anything, all you have done is swallowed the conspiracy hype, you bought that bullshit hook. line and sinker.

FYI: I don't why you brainwashed liberals keep throwing "the government narrative" or the "official story" in our faces. Neither the government nor the news media are the only sources for information on the tragedy of 9/11.

emarine

The twin towers had about the same ratio of air space to solid mass as other skyscrapers so the point you are attempting to make is invalid.
The photos you show are all taken when the towers were under construction.

The WTC Tower had 10 million square ft. of floor space compared to the Empire State building with 2.7 Million square ft...so you're not very close... the WTC towers used 40% less steel than other skyscrapers also... so your statement is untrue... just like your sheetrock stopping a massive gravity collapse... most of your nonexplosive debris cloud is powdered gypsum ... you should think before you post...

payne1000

Where is the source of your claim that the Twin Towers used 40% less steel than other skyscrapers?
Your theory of the collapse of the Twin towers always starts after 10 to 15 floors have allowed the collapse to reach crushing speed.
You have never explained how the 287 vertical steel columns could all collapse straight down at the same time. The fires were small and random and did not cover any floor entirely.
The fires did not burn long enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse. The only forces which could have caused the towers to fall as they did are cutting charges and high explosives.
All the photos and videos show the existence of explosive debris clouds. Do you realize how ridiculous it is for you to argue against explosive demolition?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

There were very few interior walls built in the office spaces of the towers, and those that were did not extend throughout the entire acre of floor space. Interior walls were definitely not constructed on every floor in the buildings, many of the floors had no walls at all. Even if there were walls on every floor, they could not possibly have withstood the collapses. The graphic you photoshopped showing a layout of interior floors is just more of your bullshit.

payne1000

You have no sources to back up your lies. Why am I not surprised?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

I do have sources, lots of them, but they mean nothing to a hard core conspiracy loon. What sources do you have that say otherwise?