Explosions that happened before the WTC towers fell

kenny olav

I think it is most likely that members of the U.S. government were behind 9/11 to some degree. However, I have be skeptical of some 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Take for example Brigham Young physics professor Steven Jones (no relation to Alex Jones). He claims he has proven that the WTC towers were taken down by a product used in controlled demolitions called Thermate (made primarily out of thermite).

Not knowing shit about physics myself, I can't exactly take his word for it. And since Professor Jones is also famous for a book about supposed evidence for Jesus having visited the Americas after he rose from the dead, a principal beliefs of Mormons, I have a reason NOT to take his word for it.





http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm

therover

rightondude wrote:

None of the videos are doctored. They are taken from the the original television broadcasts, and looked at closely. Just like crime scene investigators do with evidence when they solve a crime. So why should the process for 9/11 be any different?



Because they were too tall. They couldn't have been taken from the bottom down. They actually DISINTEGRATED - yeah fucking disintegrated! from the top down at the speed of gravity again no doubt. That in itself is insane.

They would have fell like trees and damaged a lot of other buildings, if taken from the bottom up, which would make the disposal i mean "clean up" or "cover up" harder.

Then what is your point with these videos? What are trying to prove?

Yes they did disintergrate, that's what happens when thousands of pounds of steel and concrete fall from a thousand feet in the air. It doesn't prove that charges were used.

sonicreducer

oops,...

rightondude

What strikes me as really odd is the the concrete is vaporizing in mid air as the tower is falling.

look for yourself, the building was blown up as it went down. It's pretty obvious:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3173519241898945782&q=tower+collapse

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7961056561589268281&q=tower+collapse

The towers vaporized on the way down. You have got to be kidding me.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5970646083538768309&q=tower+collapse

depopulationINC

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

the Architects!! they should be arrested and tried right away.

when the buildings went up they said they could withstand a hit from a 707...LIARS!!!

And the way they BOTH disenegrated from the top even though they were hit in the middle?! anyone who builds such shitty structures should be shot on site.

I also think it was a huge error to use demolition explosives as structure supports. they had to think that was gonna come back and bite em in the ass at some point.

I think we've all learned a valuable lesson in not cutting corners.

With the vast knowledge of engineering that I am sure you have, you must realise that the lower the strike, the more detremental.

this is do mainly to strain/stress an heat dterioization. if the planes had been low on fuel, they likely would have stood.

I am sure you realise that the tower design was even stronger than that of the empire state building, which withstood a B25....which was not carrying as much fuel

depopulationINC

therover wrote:

First off, the buildings did survive the impact of the planes. Also, they were 767s, a slightly bigger and heavier plane.

Secondly, if there were dust clouds rising from the street that would tell me that there were ground level explosions. Then why didn't they start falling at the bottom instead of at the point of impact. At least there would have been more of a lean at the top during collapse if support was cut at the bottom. I don't buy it.

applauds

sometimes, things are exactly as r=they seem....why do people want to make this more complex than it is?

rightondude

better yet. Watch this news report with peter Jennings: start watching at 1 min 30 seconds. Right at 1 min 42 seconds you can the see the building exploding all the way as it goes down. Jesus! It's blowing up faster than it's actually falling. I mean come on now!!!

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5061514770009171572&q=tower+collapse

WTC building design - pancake theory impossible:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2724976424725060242&q=tower+collapse

Ahnimus

Hi People,

Just wanted to clearify a few points here about the 9/11 theories.

First of all there is a serious group of level-headed people that are looking at the facts. They tend to think that the buildings were brought down using Thermate as Prof. Jones had discovered. I did some reading up on the oxidization of steal, and looked at some of the photographs Jones presented. It does appear to be what he said. Additionally the same evidence was reported in the FEMA report in the appendices. They said "further investigation is needed" but haven't investigated it. Underwriter Laboratories that certified the steal, would have checked for any sulfurization, they claim the steal met specifications. The evidence Prof. Jones has uncovered implies explosives were used.

In controlled demolitions, self-implosions are done by severing the core columns at the basement level. To weaken the load-balancing infrastructure. The laws of inertia do not allow a buildings top 5 floors to pulverize the bottom 70 floors, without first removing it's main supports. Anyone who has done their research will recall a photo of a firefighter standing infront of a diagonally severed support colum, which molten metal hanging from it.

Historically when planes crash into buildings and the buildings burn, they do not collapse. When burning structures begin collapse, small portions break off. The air resistance is much less than the remaining structure so they tend to be deflected off.

There is irrefutable evidence to support this theory. The questions of who and why are much more open to opinion. The most prominent answer of who is the Bush administration. The why is attributed to control of regions, people or money.

Then you have the crowd that will believe any theory. That little spacepods were floating in the air and projecting a holographic image over the missiles to make them look like jets. Not entirely impossible, but not likely and there is no evidence to support it. I would imagine many of these people think Bush is a reptile. The JFK assassination is a typical conspiracy. Two investigations and trials stated there was a clear conpsiracy. Still the records of the assassination are locked in FBI files until 2039. In this particular case, great care was taken to destroy the evidence. Not much exists that isn't already known, save a confession.

If you have never met a crooked cop or a con man. Then you might think everyone in the government is 100% pure. Unfortunately that is not the case. Realistically speaking, not many of them are even 50% pure in the upper eschelon. Many people have spoken out about crooked conduct. It's happened time and time again. Yet, some people, refuse to believe them.

69charger

Ahnimus wrote:

Hi People,

Just wanted to clearify a few points here about the 9/11 theories.

First of all there is a serious group of level-headed people that are looking at the facts. They tend to think that the buildings were brought down using Thermate as Prof. Jones had discovered. I did some reading up on the oxidization of steal, and looked at some of the photographs Jones presented. It does appear to be what he said. ... The evidence Prof. Jones has uncovered implies explosives were used.

Did you hear where Professor Jones got his 'Thermate' sample? I just watched him on C-Span.

First something to get framiliar with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody

Prof. Jones states that he got the tiny sample from a woman who scraped what she thought to be dirt off of a piece of supposed WTC steel that was to be part of a memorial somewhere. She kept the dirt in a bucket and it wasn't until she became aware of the Professor's research that she came forward.

No folks. I'm not making this shit up! :rolleyes:

Coming from the same guy who wrote this...

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm

Here's what his own colleagues had to say about his 'research'.

The BYU physics department has issued a statement:

"The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

The Fulton College of Engineering and Technology department has also added

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

But don't let this kinda stuff get in the way of your belief.

amentvedder

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8888742751442686831&q=loose+change

rightondude

speaking of collapses, watch this at 50 mins 30 seconds.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2724976424725060242&q=tower+collapse

rightondude

BYU prof:

BYU Physics professor and founder of SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH Steven E Jones presents his presentation on the collapse of WTC Buildings 1,2, and 7 on 9/11. A very informative and scientific presentation that raises serious questions about the official account of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=wtc+collapse

lukin2006

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

the Architects!! they should be arrested and tried right away.

when the buildings went up they said they could withstand a hit from a 707...LIARS!!!

And the way they BOTH disenegrated from the top even though they were hit in the middle?! anyone who builds such shitty structures should be shot on site.

I also think it was a huge error to use demolition explosives as structure supports. they had to think that was gonna come back and bite em in the ass at some point.

I think we've all learned a valuable lesson in not cutting corners.

Yeah, they assumed that a if a 707 was going to hit the towers, the plane would not be full of fuel.

sonicreducer

69charger wrote:

Here's what his own colleagues had to say about his 'research'.

The BYU physics department has issued a statement:

"The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

The Fulton College of Engineering and Technology department has also added

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

they are just protecting themselves. they don't want people to think they are "cooky", because the majority of people don't want to accept that idea.

azwyldcats

give me a fcuking break

69charger

sonicreducer wrote:

they are just protecting themselves. they don't want people to think they are "cooky", because the majority of people don't want to accept that idea.

Whatever floats your boat! Like I said, don't let any info that I post get in the way of your beliefs

Ahnimus

69charger wrote:

Did you hear where Professor Jones got his 'Thermate' sample? I just watched him on C-Span.

First something to get framiliar with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody

Prof. Jones states that he got the tiny sample from a woman who scraped what she thought to be dirt off of a piece of supposed WTC steel that was to be part of a memorial somewhere. She kept the dirt in a bucket and it wasn't until she became aware of the Professor's research that she came forward.

No folks. I'm not making this shit up! :rolleyes:

Coming from the same guy who wrote this...

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm

Here's what his own colleagues had to say about his 'research'.

The BYU physics department has issued a statement:

"The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

The Fulton College of Engineering and Technology department has also added

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

But don't let this kinda stuff get in the way of your belief.

It sure wouldn't be the first time a scientist has done some crazy stuff and been seen as a nut job. The stereotypical scientist portrayed in movies is usually a bit nuts. Why do you think that is? Do you think people thought that Einstein was all upstairs? Well of course he wasn't.

Prof. Jones at least is coherent and takes his time looking at stuff. How do you know his other work isn't correct?

I mean come on. There is no way a huge kerosene fireball made it down the elevator shaft 80 floors and exploded with enough force to knock marble panels off the walls. When you see the jet fuel explode outside of the building it last a mere second. How do you suppose this fireball lasted long enough to make it to the lobby? Avoiding elevators and with very little oxygen. If you believe that, I don't know, you should upgrade your schools.

69charger

Ahnimus wrote:

I mean come on. There is no way a huge kerosene fireball made it down the elevator shaft 80 floors and exploded with enough force to knock marble panels off the walls.

How did you come to this conclusion? What experience did you draw on? What kinds of research was done to disprove this?

Ahnimus

69charger wrote:

How did you come to this conclusion? What experience did you draw on? What kinds of research was done to disprove this?

Umm, experience, if you turn on your lighter. Does the flame extend for 1000 feet? No! Because it's not possible. Do you know how much fuel would be required to make this happen? In both buildings? I mean give me a break. The odds of this happening the way stated by NIST is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 at least. Further more, they admit they can't explain the sulfur in the molten metal. They just pick the first conclusion that enters there minds. They were intent on giving people an answer, not necissarily the right one. They performed model tests and all their tests failed. They had to make a computer simulation and after changing some of the metrics finally got it to happen like it did. They had to use false information. That's not science, that's a cover-up.

69charger

Ahnimus wrote:

Umm, experience, if you turn on your lighter. Does the flame extend for 1000 feet? No! Because it's not possible. Do you know how much fuel would be required to make this happen? In both buildings? I mean give me a break. The odds of this happening the way stated by NIST is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 at least.

I see. So you have no proof and only your experince with a cigarette lighter to come to the conlusion that the NIST report is wrong.

Can you show how you arrived at the odds of "1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 at least."?

Don't feel bad about your lack of actual scientific proof. Prof Jones hasn't done much better than yourself.

"Don't Stop Believing" -- Journey