The Star Wars Beam Weapons

by HoratioTarr Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:36 am

First topic message reminder :

The American Government maintains that the Twin Towers were each hit by aircraft and the subsequent fires weakened the steel in the upper stories, initiating a gravity-driven "pancake collapse," as illustrated in Figure 30. There are many problems with this hypothesis. The most obvious problem with it is the near free-fall speed of the destruction of these buildings (see Billiard Balls). A second problem is the paucity of remaining material. Where are the concrete floors? Where is the office furniture? Where is the office machinery? Where are the filing cabinets? Where is the wall board? Where are the bookcases? They were not there, so most of it appears to have turned to dust.

It was widely reported that a substantial amount of WTC steel was sold as scrap, put on barges, and shipped to China to be melted down. But Figure 33 shows how little steel was on the ground shortly after destruction of the WTC towers. There is evidence that steel was transported to Fresh Kills Island to be stored. This steel may or may not have been subsequently shipped to China. But it could not be a large amount of steel.

Why did steel columns turn to dust in mid air?

The Star Wars Beam Weapons - Page 2 Image42

The Star Wars Beam Weapons - Page 2 Image42

So....has America developed a weapon to disrupt the molecular bonds of matter?

http://www.drjudywood.com/

by HoratioTarr Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:23 pm

Didge wrote:The steel beams did not melt in the Twin towers

Nobody has claimed this happened, its 9/11 truthers, that get this inherantly wrong

Steel loses 50% of its strengh in fires around just 590 decrees

They expand and sag, until they eventually snap

Watch and learn please from 4 minutes

I'm more inclined to believe the many structural engineers who claim that there's no way a building of this construction can just collapse in ten seconds. Not some chemist from Middlesborough. They do admit that steel weakens and sags. But not that it melts in this way. There are claims that the aluminium cladding was what melted but again, experts have been baffled by this and the debris contained thermite.

by HoratioTarr Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:34 pm

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:53 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:The steel beams did not melt in the Twin towers

Nobody has claimed this happened, its 9/11 truthers, that get this inherantly wrong

Steel loses 50% of its strengh in fires around just 590 decrees

They expand and sag, until they eventually snap

Watch and learn please from 4 minutes

I'm more inclined to believe the many structural engineers who claim that there's no way a building of this construction can just collapse in ten seconds. Not some chemist from Middlesborough. They do admit that steel weakens and sags. But not that it melts in this way. There are claims that the aluminium cladding was what melted but again, experts have been baffled by this and the debris contained thermite.

Is that why other buildings have collasped due to fire? Where the twin towers were also damaged by the impacts.

https://www.jensenhughes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/White_Paper_Historical_Survey_Building_Collapse_NIST_JBeitel-NIwankiw_OCT-2006.pdf

Well a chemist knows a lot more about chemicals than an engineer, do they not?

Where there claims is based around Thermite and dubiously, off some few samples and how they came to them is skeptical to say the least. Or how these samples are intact, if used to burn through steel. That is a massive problem from the engineers claim. Hence it pays to be a chemist.

What matters here is facts

To claim it collapsed in 10 seconds, proves they are either being inherantly disingenious, as it took longer than 10 seconds to collapse or they are not very good engineers. I even posted the video to you, where it even goes off this major gaff claimed

It proves you never even watched the video did you?

Watch from 8 minutes in the one you just replied to

You see another glaring example of again people getting things very wrong

Nobody claimed that steel melts and there is no evidence that any steel did melt. That claim comes from guess where? The conspiracists and again their claim to this, is some small molten metal seen in a clip. As if that then proves steel melted. No it does not prove that it did and we know the fire was no more than 900 degrees. So it thus could not have melted steel and none of the steel was melted

What about all the alluminium from the actual planes?

Hence that is the likely molten metal seen

I mean think about the claim it was steel melting? What heat source was causing the steel to melt?

Are you claiming thermite? Long before the building collasped? How much thermite do you think would be needed?

Are you going to actually watch these on this?

So you post a video of a Fireman claim he saw molten steel?

Is it possible he has mistaken this as steel and not alluminium?

Would he know the difference?

by eddie Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm

h

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:I’ve seem it. I’ve seem everything you’ve put up, and yes, I can find one to debunk every one of your debunks but really, what’s the point?
I’ve been down this road and back many, many times in many, many debates.

People will believe what they choose. It’s simple.

I prefer to remain open like so many people are doing now. The mood of believing totally in the official story is waning by the year.

It’s why I don’t bother anymore. Ive already got embroiled enough as it is on here lately!

You dont bother, because you lied claiming you watched the video. If you did, you would see how scientifcally many claims maybe by the truthers are inherantly flawed and wrong

You post 4 minutes after I put the video up and its nearly 20 minutes long

Its simple to easily show flaws in the many hyposthesis put foward by conspiracy 9/11 addicts like you

When one is easily shown to be flawed, like above from Horatio. Claiming the steel melted in the Twin Towers when it never did. We then see you and others move onto other claims. This comes from a claim seeing molten metal falling from the building where the plane crashed. neglecting the very fact that the planes are made of aluminum. Which does melt under tempretures of burning fuel.

The onus is on you to prove your hypothesis and so far you have failed to prove any

Its like I say, when one is easily disproven. The truthers do not admit this and then move onto the next claim

You have just done that very thing

Now if you were being honest Eddie and watch the 7 videos by Miles, you might actually see how easily people like truthers come to so many poor and wrong views on 9/11

I’ve seen them before. Those and many others like them.
I wish you actually knew what people meant. It’d save you a lot of time.

I know you like to believe what you believe, but I prefer to listen to the accounts of people who were there.
And all experts say different things, don’t they? It just depends who you beleuve didge!

What part of any of that, can’t you seem to understand?

No worries I’m done on this thread now.

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:11 pm

eddie wrote: h
Didge wrote:

You dont bother, because you lied claiming you watched the video. If you did, you would see how scientifcally many claims maybe by the truthers are inherantly flawed and wrong

You post 4 minutes after I put the video up and its nearly 20 minutes long

Its simple to easily show flaws in the many hyposthesis put foward by conspiracy 9/11 addicts like you

When one is easily shown to be flawed, like above from Horatio. Claiming the steel melted in the Twin Towers when it never did. We then see you and others move onto other claims. This comes from a claim seeing molten metal falling from the building where the plane crashed. neglecting the very fact that the planes are made of aluminum. Which does melt under tempretures of burning fuel.

The onus is on you to prove your hypothesis and so far you have failed to prove any

Its like I say, when one is easily disproven. The truthers do not admit this and then move onto the next claim

You have just done that very thing

Now if you were being honest Eddie and watch the 7 videos by Miles, you might actually see how easily people like truthers come to so many poor and wrong views on 9/11

I’ve seen them before. Those and many others like them.
I wish you actually knew what people meant. It’d save you a lot of time.

I know you like to believe what you believe, but I prefer to listen to the accounts of people who were there.
And all experts say different things, don’t they? It just depends who you beleuve didge!

What part of any of that, can’t you seem to understand?

No worries I’m done on this thread now.

No you havent Eddie

I doubt you have watched any, as like i say, they would allow you to be skepitical of the very claims you believe in. The fact that you do not look at them skepitically, proves you have not watched any of the videos.

Like I said, its like a religious following

I look at the evidence Eddie, so its not a case of belief

Take for example again Horatio claiming the building collapsed in 10 seconds. It clearly was longer. Hence that claim of 10 seconds is utterly wrong. So once you have a point wrong, it then renders many others wrong, as they are based off this false claim.

The truthers will claim the two towers fell at free fall speed and to them, this proves that explosives helped take the towers down.

Take any 9/11 picture Eddie

The Star Wars Beam Weapons - Page 2 Image017

The Star Wars Beam Weapons - Page 2 Image017

Why is the debris outpacing the building collasping?

Because the building is not free falling, the debris is free falling and outpacing the collapse of the building.

Conclusion, that means that the buildings fell well below free fall speed.

If the building was falling at free fall speed, then the debris and building would have been falling at the same pace.

You see its undeniable facts like I just presented to you Eddie, that completely refute a claim

That does not require any belief to understand the above, does it?

Hence when one claims is easily and scientifically refuted, the truthers move onto the next claim and then 6 months later repeat the same flawed claims they used before.

So you can listen to people all you like Eddie.

That is how religion gained ground in the first place

Do I need to tell you how that pan out and even today, with dogmatic religious beliefs?

Anyway, this debate has been done to death and will just go around in circles

Laters

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:58 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Complete bulldust in your statement there, eddie...

Basic science and engineering disproves the conspiracy theories..

If you decide to support the conspiracy nutters/"truthers", you are simply disputing the science and denying any rational thinking, and instead choosing to believe complete nonsense and outright lies.

Ok wolfie... you want to talk about basics...?

Answer me these questions...

1. What type of planes were flown into the WTC towers...?

2. How fast were they going at this time...? (as of official story/radar/tracking data etc)

3. What is the maximum speed of these aircraft...?

4. What altitude do they need to be flying at to achieve their maximum speeds...?

5. Why is it that they can fly that fast only at very high altitudes, but nowhere near as fast at very low altitudes...?

6. What altitude were they flying at when they hit the WTC towers...?

7. What would be the max achievable speeds of these planes at this altitude...?

8. Compare your Q.7 answer to the answer you gave for Q.2... and explain how they can both be true...?

by HoratioTarr Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:22 am

Didge wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

I'm more inclined to believe the many structural engineers who claim that there's no way a building of this construction can just collapse in ten seconds. Not some chemist from Middlesborough. They do admit that steel weakens and sags. But not that it melts in this way. There are claims that the aluminium cladding was what melted but again, experts have been baffled by this and the debris contained thermite.

Is that why other buildings have collasped due to fire? Where the twin towers were also damaged by the impacts.

https://www.jensenhughes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/White_Paper_Historical_Survey_Building_Collapse_NIST_JBeitel-NIwankiw_OCT-2006.pdf

Well a chemist knows a lot more about chemicals than an engineer, do they not?

Where there claims is based around Thermite and dubiously, off some few samples and how they came to them is skeptical to say the least. Or how these samples are intact, if used to burn through steel. That is a massive problem from the engineers claim. Hence it pays to be a chemist.

What matters here is facts

To claim it collapsed in 10 seconds, proves they are either being inherantly disingenious, as it took longer than 10 seconds to collapse or they are not very good engineers. I even posted the video to you, where it even goes off this major gaff claimed

It proves you never even watched the video did you?

Watch from 8 minutes in the one you just replied to

You see another glaring example of again people getting things very wrong

Nobody claimed that steel melts and there is no evidence that any steel did melt. That claim comes from guess where? The conspiracists and again their claim to this, is some small molten metal seen in a clip. As if that then proves steel melted. No it does not prove that it did and we know the fire was no more than 900 degrees. So it thus could not have melted steel and none of the steel was melted

What about all the alluminium from the actual planes?

Hence that is the likely molten metal seen

I mean think about the claim it was steel melting? What heat source was causing the steel to melt?

Are you claiming thermite? Long before the building collasped? How much thermite do you think would be needed?

Are you going to actually watch these on this?

So you post a video of a Fireman claim he saw molten steel?

Is it possible he has mistaken this as steel and not alluminium?

Would he know the difference?

Well, if he didn't, he'd a be shit fireman. Firemen don't just point hoses of water at fiery buildings, you know.

by Guest Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:28 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:

Is that why other buildings have collasped due to fire? Where the twin towers were also damaged by the impacts.

https://www.jensenhughes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/White_Paper_Historical_Survey_Building_Collapse_NIST_JBeitel-NIwankiw_OCT-2006.pdf

Well a chemist knows a lot more about chemicals than an engineer, do they not?

Where there claims is based around Thermite and dubiously, off some few samples and how they came to them is skeptical to say the least. Or how these samples are intact, if used to burn through steel. That is a massive problem from the engineers claim. Hence it pays to be a chemist.

What matters here is facts

To claim it collapsed in 10 seconds, proves they are either being inherantly disingenious, as it took longer than 10 seconds to collapse or they are not very good engineers. I even posted the video to you, where it even goes off this major gaff claimed

It proves you never even watched the video did you?

Watch from 8 minutes in the one you just replied to

You see another glaring example of again people getting things very wrong

Nobody claimed that steel melts and there is no evidence that any steel did melt. That claim comes from guess where? The conspiracists and again their claim to this, is some small molten metal seen in a clip. As if that then proves steel melted. No it does not prove that it did and we know the fire was no more than 900 degrees. So it thus could not have melted steel and none of the steel was melted

What about all the alluminium from the actual planes?

Hence that is the likely molten metal seen

I mean think about the claim it was steel melting? What heat source was causing the steel to melt?

Are you claiming thermite? Long before the building collasped? How much thermite do you think would be needed?

Are you going to actually watch these on this?

So you post a video of a Fireman claim he saw molten steel?

Is it possible he has mistaken this as steel and not alluminium?

Would he know the difference?

Well, if he didn't, he'd a be shit fireman. Firemen don't just point hoses of water at fiery buildings, you know.

Really?

You are telling me, the average firemen, know the differnce between molten Steel and Alluminium?

Or that they would ever have been involved with fires that have molten steel?

Seriously?

Maybe you should not take the view of someone religiously, when that person as seen could easily have been mistaken what that metal was.

by veya_victaous Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:49 am

Didge wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_intelligence_before_the_attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories

Wiki is not a 100 percent reliable unbiased source of info. It's often edited and moderated. Also, people can and do go on there to edit it themselves.

Its not a great source, but the later is actually on the conspiracies themselves and what is known about previous intelligence on the attacks

Its simple listing them, as veya made a view on this and hence posted them for him

Yeah but they are never going to admit if they did are they?

the whole reason for doing it, is it's plausible deniability and the simplicity of inaction.

by Guest Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:38 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Didge wrote:

Its not a great source, but the later is actually on the conspiracies themselves and what is known about previous intelligence on the attacks

Its simple listing them, as veya made a view on this and hence posted them for him

Yeah but they are never going to admit if they did are they?

the whole reason for doing it, is it's plausible deniability and the simplicity of inaction.

I very much doubt they would have allowed to happen if they truely knew

As the very fact of them being found out would destroy that persons reputation for eternal history

Bush was all about ego

He was not that smart either.

There is little to no evidence pointing out they knew when and where 9/11 would happen and did nothing.

There certainly was intelligence of something about to occur

They certainly could have increased the security risk levels

by 'Wolfie Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:07 am

Didge wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

Well, if he didn't, he'd a be shit fireman. Firemen don't just point hoses of water at fiery buildings, you know.

Really?

You are telling me, the average firemen, know the differnce between molten Steel and Alluminium?

Or that they would ever have been involved with fires that have molten steel?

Seriously?

Maybe you should not take the view of someone religiously, when that person as seen could easily have been mistaken what that metal was.

Horatio obviously knows less than zero about metallurgy, engineering or building Didge...

It's a waste of time even wanting to argue with arrogant and gullible morons like her, especially one like her who obviously believes she knows more than the engineers themselves..

by Guest Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:52 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Didge wrote:

Really?

You are telling me, the average firemen, know the differnce between molten Steel and Alluminium?

Or that they would ever have been involved with fires that have molten steel?

Seriously?

Maybe you should not take the view of someone religiously, when that person as seen could easily have been mistaken what that metal was.

Horatio obviously knows less than zero about metallurgy, engineering or building Didge...

It's a waste of time even wanting to argue with arrogant and gullible morons like her, especially one like her who obviously believes she knows more than the engineers themselves..

To be honest, Horatio is not an idiot, just gullible.

This video really dumbs down for the truthers what happens to strengh of steel within a fire.

Now they should picture the steel structual supports in the Twin towers under intense heat after also structual damage from the planes crashing into the building. Its not even rocket science to see what happened to the buildings and yet they cannot understand some basica science lol

What gets me, is with this claim to molten steel. I mean what source and how much was used to melt so much steel?

Its a point they run away from, as it goes into the realms of ridiculous

I have lost count how of how many claims made here have been easily refuted.

They forget the onus is on them to prove their hypothesis.

Everytime they fail to do this, and with each one shown to be flawed and wrong they, move onto the next load of unscientific crap.

by HoratioTarr Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:12 am

Didge wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

Well, if he didn't, he'd a be shit fireman. Firemen don't just point hoses of water at fiery buildings, you know.

Really?

You are telling me, the average firemen, know the differnce between molten Steel and Alluminium?

Or that they would ever have been involved with fires that have molten steel?

Seriously?

Maybe you should not take the view of someone religiously, when that person as seen could easily have been mistaken what that metal was.

You think the Fire Service doesn't know the difference between steel and aluminium? What are their ladders made from? Are you suggesting that fire fighters are unaware of the melting or flash points of building materials?

And no, perhaps they haven't been involved with molten steel that often, because it never melts in burning high rises or buildings.

by HoratioTarr Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:38 am

Didge wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Horatio obviously knows less than zero about metallurgy, engineering or building Didge...

It's a waste of time even wanting to argue with arrogant and gullible morons like her, especially one like her who obviously believes she knows more than the engineers themselves..

To be honest, Horatio is not an idiot, just gullible.

This video really dumbs down for the truthers what happens to strengh of steel within a fire.

Now they should picture the steel structual supports in the Twin towers under intense heat after also structual damage from the planes crashing into the building. Its not even rocket science to see what happened to the buildings and yet they cannot understand some basica science lol

What gets me, is with this claim to molten steel. I mean what source and how much was used to melt so much steel?

Its a point they run away from, as it goes into the realms of ridiculous

I have lost count how of how many claims made here have been easily refuted.

They forget the onus is on them to prove their hypothesis.

Everytime they fail to do this, and with each one shown to be flawed and wrong they, move onto the next load of unscientific crap.

I watched that video. I'm sorry but how can you compare an inch thick rod of steel with all those steel supports in the TT? He's heated it to 1800 degrees? C or F? The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). So obviously he means Celsius. Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius
or 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This guy is saying he's heated that rod to 1800 degrees which is above the melting point. The steel should be liquid, shouldn't it? He emphasis that it's not. And if he means Fahrenheit and not Celsius then the temperature is only 982 Degrees C.

The fires in the TT didn't reach the temperature he's melting that steel at. I notice too that he's disabled comments. I wonder why? I'm still waiting for you to find some footage from structural engineers and other experts here, to sway the balance for me...not some hick blacksmith.

All the structural engineers and experts agree that the steel would soften in the heat generated in the TT. But it wouldn't melt. Nor would it collapse the whole structure in the way it did. All the floors and steel below the burning part of the TT were sound.

I'm really open to this, Didge. But I'm not seeing anything so far that is really convincing me that buildings of this construction and the TT7 should collapse in this way.

by Guest Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:15 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:

To be honest, Horatio is not an idiot, just gullible.

This video really dumbs down for the truthers what happens to strengh of steel within a fire.

Now they should picture the steel structual supports in the Twin towers under intense heat after also structual damage from the planes crashing into the building. Its not even rocket science to see what happened to the buildings and yet they cannot understand some basica science lol

What gets me, is with this claim to molten steel. I mean what source and how much was used to melt so much steel?

Its a point they run away from, as it goes into the realms of ridiculous

I have lost count how of how many claims made here have been easily refuted.

They forget the onus is on them to prove their hypothesis.

Everytime they fail to do this, and with each one shown to be flawed and wrong they, move onto the next load of unscientific crap.

I watched that video. I'm sorry but how can you compare an inch thick rod of steel with all those steel supports in the TT? He's heated it to 1800 degrees? C or F?
Clearly F
The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). So obviously he means Celsius.
Well it was clear to me, so why did you ask?

Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius
Really? Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F) .
This guy is saying he's heated that rod to 1800 degrees which is above the melting point.
As seen his was 1800°F) Hence he stated, his was slightly higher than 1500 °F..
The steel should be liquid, shouldn't it? He emphasis that it's not. And if he means Fahrenheit and not Celsius then the temperature is only 982 Degrees C.
No it should not be liquid at the tempreture used
The fires in the TT didn't reach the temperature he's melting that steel at. I notice too that he's disabled comments. I wonder why? I'm still waiting for you to find some footage from structural engineers and other experts here, to sway the balance for me...not some hick blacksmith.
That did not sway you? Seeing what happens to steel when its heated up, that it dramatically
weakens?

All the structural engineers and experts agree that the steel would soften in the heat generated in the TT. But it wouldn't melt. Nor would it collapse the whole structure in the way it did. All the floors and steel below the burning part of the TT were sound.
All of them agree it would not collaspe?

Really?

I dont think so

https://www.jensenhughes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/White_Paper_Historical_Survey_Building_Collapse_NIST_JBeitel-NIwankiw_OCT-2006.pdf

Would love to see where all the world structual engineers agree on this. Do you have a link?

More like a small minority that think so

The petition can be found on the website architects & engineers for 9/11 truth. The people who signed this petition are demanding a new investigation to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11 - specifically the collapse of the world trade centre and building 7, as they believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify reopening the 9/11 investigation.

Although 1,500+ people may sound like a lot you have to remember that this petition has been open for 11 years in both America and Canada who have population of over 311 and 34 million respectively. But at least they have 1,500+ qualified architects and engineers, or do they? It turns out that they are allowing students to sign their petition who by definition are not qualified. The deception does not stop there as they allow a good number of Chemical Engineers, Biomedical Engineering, Electrical Engineers, Electronics & Communication engineers and Computer Engineering to come onboard and sign. But at least they have engineering in the title. However, when you find out that they also allow Physicists, Chemists and Mathematicians to sign then you realise how small a number 1500 actually is. When you read that they allow people with bachelor of Fine Arts to sign then you realise how much of a joke this website and the people who use it in an argument are.

Don’t believe me? Check out the website yourself..

I'm really open to this, Didge. But I'm not seeing anything so far that is really convincing me that buildings of this construction and the TT7 should collapse in this way.

Well considering they were damaged structually by planes crashing into them and then for nearly two hours under instense heat is going to effect the structures, which were already damagaed at the point of impact. Then all it took was a matter of time.

I mean how do you explain how building 5 was destroyed, if not by fire?

How other buildings have collasped due to fire.

by nicko Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:44 pm

The heat from the fire caused the Steel Beams to bend in the middle, thus causing the ends of the Beams to pull out of the walls and send the floors crashing down onto other floors below. The weight of the rubble thus increased with every floor that collapsed. Simples !

by HoratioTarr Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:27 pm

nicko wrote:The heat from the fire caused the Steel Beams to bend in the middle, thus causing the ends of the Beams to pull out of the walls and send the floors crashing down onto other floors below. The weight of the rubble thus increased with every floor that collapsed. Simples !

That was the general consensus 15 years ago. And a plausible one for most people. Since then, questions have been asked, and answers demanded, and more insight revealed. Thermite was found in the rubble. NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

Because the only loads present on 9/11 after the impact
of the airplanes were gravity and fire (there were no high
winds that day), many engineers were surprised that the
Twin Towers completely collapsed. The towers, in fact,
had been designed specifically to withstand the impact
of a jetliner, as the head structural engineer, John Skilling,
explained in an interview with the Seattle Times following
the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: "Our analysis indicated
the biggest problem would be the fact that all the
fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building.
There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would
be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be
there." Skilling went on to say he didn’t think a single
200-pound [90-kg] car bomb would topple or do major
structural damage to either of the Twin Towers. "However,"
he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied
explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could
not do a tremendous amount of damage…. I would imagine
that if you took the top expert in that type of work
and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings
down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
In other words, Skilling believed the only mechanism
that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled
demolition.

NIST sidesteps the well-documented presence of
molten metal throughout the debris field and asserts that
the orange molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2 for
the seven minutes before its collapse was aluminum from
the aircraft combined with organic materials (see Fig. 6)
[6]. Yet experiments have shown that molten aluminum,
even when mixed with organic materials, has a silvery appearance—thus
suggesting that the orange molten metal
was instead emanating from a thermite reaction being
used to weaken the structure [12]. Meanwhile, unreacted
nano-thermitic material has since been discovered in
multiple independent WTC dust samples

As for eyewitness accounts, some 156 witnesses, including
135 first responders, have been documented as
saying that they saw, heard, and/or felt explosions prior
to and/or during the collapses [14]. That the Twin Towers
were brought down with explosives appears to have been
the initial prevailing view among most first responders.
“I thought it was exploding, actually,” said John Coyle, a
fire marshal. “Everyone I think at that point still thought
these things were blown up”

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

I'm having to go here with the experts at the moment. Not what certain factions would have you believe.

by Guest Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:09 pm

Oh dear, experts you say?

Is that a peer reviewed these views by Steve?

No

He also makes the same mistakes, by comparing this to only buildings destroyed by fire, when this had also another major factor, being as the buildings were hit by planes

Anyway, he is also being disingenious

No steel structure has ever collapsed dud to fire”

One of the arguments that the 9/11 truthers repeatedly mentioned was that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were the first steel-framed structures to collapse because of fire. Ignoring the fact that these buildings where damaged by planes crashing into them and falling debris, are they the only ones to collapse because of fire alone? A little bit of research shows that actually, in the past, many steel-framed structures have collapsed from fire alone. These include: Dogwood Elementary School; Windsor Tower; Faculty of Architecture Building; etc, etc. But these examples can take a while to find, so what if there was an example of a steel structure collapsing after being weakened by fire, that was much easier to track down. Like say, World Trade Center 5.

Yes, believe it or not truthers, there was a World Trade Center 3, 4, 5 and 6. All had to be demolished because they were damaged beyond repair after the attacks. If you were to Google‘World Trade Center 5′, you will learn that it was a nine-story building that stood east of the north tower. The building was the least damaged of the complex, but suffered partial collapse due to impact from steel and debris from WTC 1, and collapse due to fire damage. Four floors inside part of the building collapsed when some of the connections between the structural steel beams failed. It amazes me that 9/11 truthers say that steel structures can’t collapse dure to fire alone when there is one that partially collapsed at the World Trade Center complex.

In conclusion, I believe that in this era of information, it is inexcusable to make these kind of mistakes; mistakes that only take one quick Google search and some common sense to correct. On a more positive note though, in a city of 8.2 million, only around 30 truthers turned up. This is mostly likely down to sites like Google, where people can do the research themselves, and analyse these theories as being the ridiculous, unscientific bullshit they are.

You want to read some real experts on this Horatio

Then knock yourself out on these experts

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

by Sponsored content

The Star Wars Beam Weapons

The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons

Re: The Star Wars Beam Weapons