but how could they have planted the explosives??

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

That's all speculated. There is no evidence to support the idea that 10,000 gallons of jet fuel made it to the basement in both buildings, and also caused solid-state diffusion where sulfur was found. That seems like a stretch.

did it float up? the burn evidence proved it not only ran down the building but also flowed into cracks like any liquid would. if you question the amount of sulfur in fuels; where does sulfur dioxide in emmissions come from?

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

Are you sure? You seem to have concluded that the official explanation "doesn't add up". Yet it's the only the official explanation that you seem to question.

Yep, I'm sure. There are many theories out besides the official one. Lots of stuff out there I disagree with. I do question the official one here because so many are so closed minded against even discussing it...it drives me up a wall. But at home I question aspects of the other theories.;) If I don't understand how it could be or it doesn't seem cut and dry to me then I have to ask. I do lean towards the un-official theory but not enough to commit just yet.

rebornFixer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yep, I'm sure. There are many theories out besides the official one. Lots of stuff out there I disagree with. I do question the official one here because so many are so closed minded against even discussing it...it drives me up a wall. But at home I question aspects of the other theories.;) If I don't understand how it could be or it doesn't seem cut and dry to me then I have to ask. I do lean towards the un-official theory but not enough to commit just yet.

I am probably too right-brained, but some of this post is true ... I have trouble with discussions of topics where there is only speculation and circumstantial evidence in the first place. It basically just becomes an exercise in speculation, which can be fun. What irks me sometimes is when people take the speculation as fact.

DarkStar

binauralsounds wrote:

ok, now I feel validated by posting my truths about hezbollah.

Thanks!

i'm not certain of what you are referring to...but glad i could help.

ds

Ahnimus

reborncareerist wrote:

I am probably too right-brained, but some of this post is true ... I have trouble with discussions of topics where there is only speculation and circumstantial evidence in the first place. It basically just becomes an exercise in speculation, which can be fun. What irks me sometimes is when people take the speculation as fact.

Dude, the official theory is speculation. That's why the questions. Or are you saying you question the official theory?

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

did it float up? the burn evidence proved it not only ran down the building but also flowed into cracks like any liquid would. if you question the amount of sulfur in fuels; where does sulfur dioxide in emmissions come from?

I'm not questioning sulfur in fuel. I'm questioning the dynamics of the liquid in a burning building.

DarkStar

dayan wrote:

I hope you aren't taken in by these guys. What they've posted isn't information. It's the fevered imaginings of paranoid conspiracy buffs obsessed with the belief that our own government is the root of all evil.

i'm not easily swayed by bits and pieces of information...or anecdotal evidence. thanks for the concern though.

ds

onelongsong

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yep, I'm sure. There are many theories out besides the official one. Lots of stuff out there I disagree with. I do question the official one here because so many are so closed minded against even discussing it...it drives me up a wall. But at home I question aspects of the other theories.;) If I don't understand how it could be or it doesn't seem cut and dry to me then I have to ask. I do lean towards the un-official theory but not enough to commit just yet.

maybe you should seek out the evidence available and look at it in a cause and effect forum. you can follow a path of science and logic while examining the footage and it clearly unwinds.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not questioning sulfur in fuel. I'm questioning the dynamics of the liquid in a burning building.

look at other events. there has been enough implosions and enough bombing to make an educated conclusion. why didn't the federal building in oklahoma city act differently besides the obvious? if you pour burning liquid fuel into/onto a doll house or other building model; what happens? have you seen a skyscraper before the flooring and cielings are installed? there are expansion cracks all over. where sulfur was found were spots where the fuel would pool. limiting air to the area and causing higher readings. there's a scientific explaination to everything. the problem is most people are not schooled in science so it's hard for them to comprehend.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

look at other events. there has been enough implosions and enough bombing to make an educated conclusion. why didn't the federal building in oklahoma city act differently besides the obvious? if you pour burning liquid fuel into/onto a doll house or other building model; what happens? have you seen a skyscraper before the flooring and cielings are installed? there are expansion cracks all over. where sulfur was found were spots where the fuel would pool. limiting air to the area and causing higher readings. there's a scientific explaination to everything. the problem is most people are not schooled in science so it's hard for them to comprehend.

I suppose you have a degree in structural engineering?

I've actually watched the video of the WTC being built. So yes, I've seen buildings being built. And I understand very well how the phsyics work. *cough* windsor building *cough*

When I was a kid I played around a lot with gasoline and homemade explosives. I know how this stuff acts.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

I suppose you have a degree in structural engineering?

I've actually watched the video of the WTC being built. So yes, I've seen buildings being built. And I understand very well how the phsyics work. *cough* windsor building *cough*

When I was a kid I played around a lot with gasoline and homemade explosives. I know how this stuff acts.

i spent 21 years as a engineer and always lived on a farm so i have a lot of experience with explosives. we used TNT to blast post holes in rocky ground. and level old buildings. i also had the joy of being at; and involved in; a few implosions. it would take semis full of explosives to bring down that building. look at the 1993 bombing. look at other bombings both accidental and intentional. the evidence is infront of your eyes; should you be inclined to see and not just look at it.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

i spent 21 years as a engineer and always lived on a farm so i have a lot of experience with explosives. we used TNT to blast post holes in rocky ground. and level old buildings. i also had the joy of being at; and involved in; a few implosions. it would take semis full of explosives to bring down that building. look at the 1993 bombing. look at other bombings both accidental and intentional. the evidence is infront of your eyes; should you be inclined to see and not just look at it.

You used TNT on your farm? You are an American aren't you?

Ok, so if one explosive couldn't bring down WTC in '93 then 10,000 can't either?

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

You used TNT on your farm? You are an American aren't you?

Ok, so if one explosive couldn't bring down WTC in '93 then 10,000 can't either?

i can prove that it can. have you ever melted steel or heated it to bend it? working in scale; place metal pillars to hold up a few bricks. now heat the metal and it will bend and give way to the weight above. when you consider that the buildings acted like a furnace somewhat like a blacksmiths furnace; the conclusion is simple. the building acted like a chimney and as the fuel burned; acted like a blow torch.
going one step further; create a similar blast furnace situation placing pillars and bricks stacked in succession. when one brick drops and hits the lower; the shock and weight will collapse the pillars under it. just as dominos knock eachother over.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

i can prove that it can. have you ever melted steel or heated it to bend it? working in scale; place metal pillars to hold up a few bricks. now heat the metal and it will bend and give way to the weight above. when you consider that the buildings acted like a furnace somewhat like a blacksmiths furnace; the conclusion is simple. the building acted like a chimney and as the fuel burned; acted like a blow torch.
going one step further; create a similar blast furnace situation placing pillars and bricks stacked in succession. when one brick drops and hits the lower; the shock and weight will collapse the pillars under it. just as dominos knock eachother over.

I know the official story. It has holes in it you can fly a 767 through.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

I know the official story. It has holes in it you can fly a 767 through.

but if you can do the experiment yourself yet refuse the results; you've made up your mind and nothing will change it.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

but if you can do the experiment yourself yet refuse the results; you've made up your mind and nothing will change it.

Well, I can't do the experiment, because I don't have jet fuel or huge steel columns and tonnes of concrete.

NIST did the experiment and it failed.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, I can't do the experiment, because I don't have jet fuel or huge steel columns and tonnes of concrete.

NIST did the experiment and it failed.

so nist torched a building? and if it did fail; it goes against the laws of physics.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

so nist torched a building? and if it did fail; it goes against the laws of physics.

They took a steel beam similar to the ones at WTC and torched it and it didn't melt or weaken. They had to resort to computer simulations to prove thier theory.

El_Kabong

farfromglorified wrote:

So I should structure my theory around an active ignorance of 66% of the event?

does that mean you can't explain why building 7 fell straight down as fast as the other 2 did?

El_Kabong

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

Yes the third building fell wasn't it building 7? Maybe the fact that two of the worlds largest buildings fell practically on top of this 3rd building, or maybe it was due to the fires that raged out of control for hours, or maybe it was because the foundation were possibly damaged when the trade centers fell and the slurry wall that protected the buildings from the river was severely damaged putting a lot of pressure on those foundations. It just seems that these possiblities are a little more probable then to say it was blown up to get rid of seceret CIA intelligence or whatever was stored in building 3.

it did not fall "on top of" building 7. it was one of the furthest away buidlings, several buildings took far more damage than building 7 did from debris. even it was fire like you say, it wouldn't have fallen STRAIGHT DOWN in a few seconds