9/11 mysteries

[Yusuf!]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+mysteries

interesting.

[Arsalan]

http://www.gawaher.com/uploads/post-2456-1157562046_thumb.jpg (http://www.gawaher.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=1627)

WTC South Tower Floor 78--Kryptonite Elevator Sign That Survived The Fires That Melted 47 Enormous Columns Behind

Courtesy Of: Google Video
RunTime: 48 sec
04-Sep-2006

This elevator sign out performed the core of the building!

The largest of the 47 core columns were 18"x36", with steel walls 4" thick near the base and tapering in thickness toward the top, and were anchored directly to the bedrock.

Making them one of the world's largest heat sinks.

Apparently the heat was too intense for the steel columns and they all melted at the same instant, bringing down the building.

Maybe they should have made the core out of the same material this sign is made of.

Video (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9101989575044001945&hl=enGBIt%20)
<!-- google_ad_section_end --><!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_345852-->

[SeanBen]

I found something that could be of interest.

Please check this out: You need money that was printed between 1996 and 2000 before 9/11

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-6991968099745547024

[THHuxley]

This elevator sign out performed the core of the building!
Oh?

What makes you think that it was even exposed to any fire at all? If it was on the floor where the plane hit, what makes you imagine it wasn't simply knocked off and thrown completely away from where the fires then commenced to rage?

The largest of the 47 core columns were 18"x36", with steel walls 4" thick near the base and tapering in thickness toward the top, and were anchored directly to the bedrock.

Making them one of the world's largest heat sinks.
What can you tell us about the heat conductivity of steel? What do you imagine you are saying when you note that they would act as "heat sinks?" Do you know what that really even means? Or did you just read it somewhere?

Apparently the heat was too intense for the steel columns and they all melted at the same instant, bringing down the building.
Odd. And exactly why do you believe that they "melted?" (Let alone "at the same instant?") I myself am an engineer, and I have also read the study prepared by NIST. This whole "melting column" idea is found nowhere in it.

Do you know what "melt" means?

Maybe they should have made the core out of the same material this sign is made of.
Or maybe they should have made it from the skulls of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. As far as I can tell, they consist of the thickest, most dense material known to man.

[Yusuf!]

ah Huxley as a learned fellow and an "engineer" no less care to explain the free fall colapse of WTC 7. you no the one that wasnt hit by a plane.

here have a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

[Khaiber23]

Building 7 is the smoking gun. Noone can logically explain how it fell. It's obvious whoever did this, there were bombs in the buildings.

[Yusuf!]

Building 7 is the smoking gun. Noone can logically explain how it fell. It's obvious whoever did this, there were bombs in the buildings.

im guessing you wont see huxley in this thread again. :rolleyes:

[THHuxley]

Building 7 is the smoking gun. Noone can logically explain how it fell. It's obvious whoever did this, there were bombs in the buildings.<O:p</O:p
Nonsense.

Your first clue is to examine the condition of all the other buildings around WTC1 & 2 that remained standing, even if just barely. The collapse of the two main towers severely damaged every other building in the complex. Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 (the ones that remained standing) all were unsalvageable and had to be later demolished.

Your second clue is the photographs of WTC7 itself. After the fall of the two main towers (and long before WTC7 itself collapsed) you can see a 10-story gash on the south facade of the building, extending a third of the way across its face and about a quarter of the way into the interior. Since WTC7 was designed with its load bearing outer columns responsible for about 2,000 square feet of each floor, even without a fire the building was already just barely standing after impact by the falling debris from WTC1 & 2.

Your third clue is the progressive collapse of the building that began so long before its final collapse that the firefighters were able to be pulled safely from the building before hand. The news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall well prior to the collapse, starting from the penthouse floors. The building simply did not collapse in a single, deliberately initiated event.

Your fourth clue is the seismographic evidence. There is no signature of explosions (i.e. demolitions) followed by collapse. There is instead a progressive and crescendoing vibration that lasts for almost 40 seconds. That the collapse took this long is also shown by videos of the roof of the building.

And your final clue is the idiocy of any conspirators waiting so long after the inital collapse to destroy WTC7 (if that was in fact their plan). The fall of WTC1 & 2 would have crippled any demolitions set up in the building, and made an actual controlled demolition next to impossible.

Your "smoking gun" is firing blanks.

[THHuxley]

im guessing you wont see huxley in this thread again. :rolleyes:
Bad guess.... I guess?

:rolleyes:

[Khaiber23]

<O:p</O:p
Nonsense.

Your first clue is to examine the condition of all the other buildings around WTC1 & 2 that remained standing, even if just barely. The collapse of the two main towers severely damaged every other building in the complex. Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 (the ones that remained standing) all were unsalvageable and had to be later demolished.

Your second clue is the photographs of WTC7 itself. After the fall of the two main towers (and long before WTC7 itself collapsed) you can see a 10-story gash on the south facade of the building, extending a third of the way across its face and about a quarter of the way into the interior. Since WTC7 was designed with its load bearing outer columns responsible for about 2,000 square feet of each floor, even without a fire the building was already just barely standing after impact by the falling debris from WTC1 & 2.

Your third clue is the progressive collapse of the building that began so long before its final collapse that the firefighters were able to be pulled safely from the building before hand. The news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall well prior to the collapse, starting from the penthouse floors. The building simply did not collapse in a single, deliberately initiated event.

Your fourth clue is the seismographic evidence. There is no signature of explosions (i.e. demolitions) followed by collapse. There is instead a progressive and crescendoing vibration that lasts for almost 40 seconds. That the collapse took this long is also shown by videos of the roof of the building.

And your final clue is the idiocy of any conspirators waiting so long after the inital collapse to destroy WTC7 (if that was in fact their plan). The fall of WTC1 & 2 would have crippled any demolitions set up in the building, and made an actual controlled demolition next to impossible.

Your "smoking gun" is firing blanks.

Everything you said here is wrong. WTC 7 was across the street from WTC. Your examples of the WTC 3,4,5,6 are irrelevant since they were at the feet of the twin towers. WTC 7 was not even nearly effected by the falling of the twin towers as the aforemented WTC 3,4,5,6.
http://www11.ocn.ne.jp/~nbbk/911img/wtc7_p22.png
Look how far WTC 7 is from the twin towers. There were buildings right beneath the twin towers that didn't fall.

Show me a picture of the so called "10 story gash". That's a lie.

The building fell at free fall speed, it did not fall progressively. That is also false. lol, what an outright lie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

Another vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qWFVzBdM5s

^Even the reporter testifies that there was hardly any damage done to the building. Your claims are false

WTC 7 had nothing but a few fires on the top floors. The building fell at free fall speed, EXACTLY like that of a controlled demolition.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/wtc-7-small.gif
lol, fires don't do that.

Fire burns buildings it does not make them disappear in 6 second into their own footprints, only bombs do that.

[Yusuf!]

Bad guess.... I guess?

:rolleyes:

well i am shocked by the lies you purport to be truth.

[THHuxley]

Everything you said here is wrong. WTC 7 was across the street from WTC. Your examples of the WTC 3,4,5,6 are irrelevant since they were at the feet of the twin towers. WTC 7 was not even nearly effected by the falling of the twin towers as the aforemented WTC 3,4,5,6. <O:p</O:p
Across the street? Across the street?

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Last time a checked, streets did very little to block debris from anything. Streets are just flat spots on the ground.

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
That you think WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 are "irrelevant" is odd. No airplanes flew into them either, yet they were also severely damaged (actually, they were destroyed) by the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. What could be more relevant that that?

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Look how far WTC 7 is from the twin towers. There were buildings right beneath the twin towers that didn't fall. <O:p></O:p>
The only building "right between" them was the Marriott Hotel (WTC3). It didn't need to "fall." It was already crushed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/WTC1.jpg/250px-WTC1.jpg

There were buildings badly damaged several blocks further away than WTC7.
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Show me a picture of the so called "10 story gash". That's a lie.<O:p</O:p
Go find the pictures yourself. I have no obligation to fill in the holes of your personal ignorance.

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Had you not called me a liar, I might have humored you. But since you are so willing to call someone a liar based on what you do not know rather than what you do know, perhaps you might learn something from actually doing research rather than parroting web sites by incompetents.
<O:p</O:p

Here (however) are the descriptions of the damage from the interim NIST report:

<O:p</O:p

• Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) was seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7
promenade structure at the third floor level

• Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18

• Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.

• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground


− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact


− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west



<O:p</O:pSo much for your reporter’s claim of "hardly any damage." <O:p</O:p


The building fell at free fall speed, it did not fall progressively. That is also false. lol, what an outright lie. <O:p</O:p


For starters, how would you know if it fell at "free fall" speed? That film shows only about the top 14 floors of what was a 47 story building. In other words, it shows only one third of the final collapse.

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Second, pay attention to the east penthouse on the roof. You are viewing WTC7 from the south in that film, so it would be the penthouse on the left. Oh.... you can't see it in that film? Why not?

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
That's because the film doesn't show the whole collapse. Why would that be? Oh never mind.

How about your second film? (Ignoring all the special effects of course.)

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Another vid
Note that the penthouse disappears a full 8 seconds before the building itself even starts to collapse. Do you know why that is?

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
This is because the collapse began with a single column on the east side of the building, the one that supported the floors immediately under the penthouse. The eight second delay was the time it took for the penthouse and supporting structure to fall the full height of the building to the 4th -5th floors where they then (because of the construction of those particular floors) caused the vertical failure of that one column to convert the energy of the collapse into lateral energy, blowing out the remaining supporting structures and allowing the entire building to then collapse inwards.

And it did (by the way) collapse inwards.

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
So the catastrophic phase of the buildings collapse lasted at least 15 seconds, or twice as long as "free fall." Of course, the collapse commenced more than 20 seconds earlier with the progressive failure of the support structures for that column, as recorded by the seismic evidence.

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Even the reporter testifies that there was hardly any damage done to the building. Your claims are false<O:p</O:p
A lot of reporters said a lot of things that day. Some of them were even correct.

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
But he is not one of them.

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
WTC 7 had nothing but a few fires on the top floors. The building fell at free fall speed, EXACTLY like that of a controlled demolition.<O:p</O:p
Any collapsing building will fall at something close to free fall speed. Duh! That's what free fall means.

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
But WTC7's collapse was progressive. Only the final catastrophic collapse was "free fall."

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
lol, fires don't do that. <O:p</O:p
How about fires on top of severe structural damage?

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Duh.

<O:p</O:p
Fire burns buildings it does not make them disappear in 6 second into their own footprints, only bombs do that.<O:p</O:p
Actually, no matter what causes a building that size to fall, it can only fall "into its own footprint."

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
That's pretty much a basic law of physics.<O:p</O:p

[THHuxley]

well i am shocked by the lies you purport to be truth.
And you (already pretty much acknowledging that you are clueless as to the engineering of tall buildings) would be able to discern lies from truth... how exactly?

No, my good Yusuf. It is your inability to tell the difference that makes you so useful to the conspiracy theorists. They will tell you anything, and you will believe it.

[myself]

They will tell you anything, and you will believe it.

Man was once a MONKEY. :rolleyes:

[THHuxley]

Well, okay. I guess I was being a bit hasty. Here's that picture of the gash on the south facade of WTC7 you asked for.

http://www.debunking911.com/7wtc.jpg

[Arsalan]

Steve "Spak" need i say more :rolleyes:

[THHuxley]

Steve "Spak" need i say more :rolleyes:
Probably, yes. You do.

[P7BUH]

lol heard to much of this now :torture:

[SeanBen]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/forget.html


stories about 9/11 the media wants your to forget.

[SeanBen]

http://www.rense.com/general75/thrm.htm

[SeanBen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-8U81HBjrg&mode=related&search=

fake bin laden confession

[SeanBen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCkYfYa8ePI&mode=related&search=

this why americans are fighting in Iraq because a small band of zionists Neo-cons know who shallow americans understanding of the world around them.