JasonC SBB

I challenge you to go through this presentation and not think that explosives is the more likely cause of the 3 buildings' collapse on 911 than the planes and the ensuing fires. The physical evidence does NOT say people in the government did it, it says explosives brought the buildings down. The complicity of certain people in gov't is ANOTHER TOPIC.

NO stupid comments unless you've gone thru the presentation please.

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_web/slideshow.php

It is from this site:
http://www.ae911truth.org which is set up by architecs and engineers, not by a bunch of amateurs.

Ben

iTrader: (33)

ugh not this again, and no chance I'm going through this 300+ page presentation. For every engineer who swears it was explosives, there are 10000 that say it was not.

How could the buildings be prepped for demo in a totally undetected way? It would take thousands of pounds of explosives, wiring, det cord, etc. The pulls would be obvious. And there would be evidence after the blast.

One member here is actually an engineer that is uniquely qualified (he does disaster modeling) to levy an expert opinion. Perhaps he'll chime in.

There's a reason why you guys are called "paultards"

JasonC SBB

Ben, both theories (planes+fire, and explosives), have unanswered questions. But the evidence clearly leans towards explosives.

Show me an engineer who says "it's not explosives" after looking at the evidence.

This presentation is relatively new.. I've never seen a lot of this stuff before.

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

Theres another sucker born every day.

Do some research on why the federal building in OK city collapsed. It wasn't "blown up" with a bomb, the bomb damaged a supporting beam and the building fell in on itself. Put a hole the size of a ******* 747 in a building with 40,000 gallons of JET FUEL and tell me it'll hold together. I've seen hundreds of reports and believe 100% with out a doubt the buildings were destroyed by damage caused from the aircrafts.

Trent

iTrader: (11)

This thread failed to deliver. I was expecting Porsche material.

joeyb

the least we can do is to keep an open mind and subject official pronouncements to critical thinking. this is all that jason is trying to remind us to do. i, for one, laud his efforts.

keep it up, jason!

Mach929

iTrader: (3)

if they were brought down with explosives, then why bother flying planes into them? fly them into something else without explosives in it

bryantaylor

iTrader: (5)

+1

then there would be no-one to blame

JasonC SBB

You need to go through the presentation.

The building's designer has specifically said the building will hold up to a 707 sized hole in it, no problem. The outer skeleton is like a mosquito net. You punch several holes in it, it won't collapse. If the OK city building blast knocked out a support beam, then yes part of it would collapse. But the whole building DIDN'T come down, unlike the towers and building 7.

The ensuing fire in the 3 buildings would not be enough to make the steel hot enough to yield - in the same way a steel grill in your fireplace doesn't melt.

JasonC SBB

The possible explanation is that it was a false flag event:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

Ben

iTrader: (33)

Jet fuel burns at 1500° F. Steel looses half its strength at 1100°F. It doesn't have to melt. It just has to buckle.

JasonC SBB

More facts:

NIST didn't model the "global collapse". They only modelled the collapse of the burning floors. They made it a foregone conclusion that the rest of the building would collapse. Many vehemently deny this. NIST *refused* to release their computer models of the collapse of the burning floor.

See page 22 of the pres'n to see a building demoltion gone wrong - the first floor blew out, the building fell vertically 10 feet, but stopped. It didn't continue pancaking.

Steel beams were ejected >300 feet horizontally. The calculated exit speed was 55 mph. Steel doesn't collapse this way, and air pressure cannot cause that ejection.

The concrete was pulverized. Only explosives can do this. When a building collapses in earthquake, very large pieces of concrete and twisted networks of steel beam remain. In contrast, the towers and building 7 had truck sized pieces of beam, and the largest piece of anything else was palm sized.

There were traces of thermate in the initial FEMA report, and the EPA studying enviro issues much later. Thermate is used to cut metal by building demolitions experts.

The ends of the broken beams did not show shearing failure - they were cut by heat from explosives.

There is much much more.

JasonC SBB

The first building that collapsed burned for a much shorter time than the other one, despite the fact that most of the fuel burned in a fireball OUTSIDE the building because the plane hit the corner at an angle.

When metal gets hot enough to yield, it will slowly sag, not collapse with acceleration equal to gravity.

soflarick

iTrader: (8)

I thought this would be about some kind of Porche 911 thing, oh well. I used to work in one of the towers. Security was extremely tight. To get a mess of explosives through would have required a tiny bit at a time, and hopefully not set off the explosive sniffing devices they used.

paul

iTrader: (21)

why isn't this **** banned yet? god i would anally rape this guy with the ban stick if only i had the power. just for one day. and i'd put explosives on the tip of it too.

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

People also forget that there were gourmet kitchens on every few floors. (Usually with stoves powered by natural gas) Also pockets of air coming in contact with fire creates intense back drafts that are much hotter than the original flame.

There is usually a simple solution for complicated questions.


and for the traces of thermite.... it can easily be made from iron/aluminum shavings +intense heat. (Pretty much stuff that can be found in an airplane and building.)

bryantaylor

iTrader: (5)

the buildings also fell at free fall speed, that wouldn't happen if they were "pancaking"

Ben

iTrader: (33)

Here's sisemic readings





So all the explosives must have gone off at the *exact* time the planes hit?

The plane hit, the floor failed. It collapsed down onto the floor below, causing another failure. Which in turn collapsed to the floor below, and so on until the building fell.

Any explosives involved were jet fuel and natural gas.

JasonC SBB

Guys you need to go through the presentation.
I was hoping to not have to answer questions if you guys just went through it.

The collapse of the buildings occured at FREE FALL speeds. This violates Newton's 2nd law, invalidating the "pancake theory".

Instead of banning me, how about everyone chill and anyone who wants to comment, go through the presentation?

My main point in this thread is to make people aware of the presentation.

JasonC SBB

No, the explosives were used to bring the buildings down.