World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

[Glaucus]

What I find strange, I distinctly remember interviews on the day of the attacks and the following day where they (IIRC building owner, mayer and someone from the fire dept).

No they said "pull it". In demolition world that means blow it up. However it was a fireman saying it and it means pull all personnel out the building. They never said anything about brining it down with explosions.

What inconsistency?#
what explosives?

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

What I find strange, I distinctly remember interviews on the day of the attacks and the following day where they (IIRC building owner, mayer and someone from the fire dept) clearly said they made a decision to purposefully bring down WTC7, then suddenly a few days later they claim it came down from the fire alone.

I don't buy into any conspiracy theory with WTC7 I believe it was purposefully demolitioned for safery and convenience but the inconsistancy is one of the things that makes me question everything else that day.

And there was NO miscommunication at all on the day or the day after following the attack and everyone who talked to the press had all of their facts straight. Come on MAN! Use your noggin!

 

[Rroff]

I don't know if this has been mentioned as I haven't read the whole thread.

I remember a guy who was a janitor at the trade center who was on talksport a few year ago saying there was an explosion in the basement before the plane attacks.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=william_rodriguez

An explosion from the lower levels (as part of any conspiracy theory) makes no sense in context of that day.

I guess its not impossible that when the plane impacted the damage caused subsequent failure in generators or similiar equipment below as power cables were shorted, cooling or heating pipes disrupted, etc.

One thing you will find is that in sudden, extreme events like these its not uncommon for peoples' memories of events can be out of sync with the real timeline.

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

I officially give up, people seem to want to believe a government wants to slaughter 2 thousands of its own people..

Some governments do but democracies are not in that habit.

 

[chumpit]

Some governments do but democracies are not in that habit.

i did a whole post on the physics but unfortunately some people wish to blame governments for anything.

 

[Rroff]

And there was NO miscommunication at all on the day or the day after following the attack and everyone who talked to the press had all of their facts straight. Come on MAN! Use your noggin!

Sure theres going to be some miscommunication, I've allowed for that.

I distinctly remember the conference where the major and I think police chief or fire chief used the words along the lines of "at this point we decided to bring the building down" as well as the building owner and a fireman saying they decided to pull it, for whatever translation that was.

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

Sure theres going to be some miscommunication, I've allowed for that.

I distinctly remember the conference where the major and I think police chief or fire chief used the words along the lines of "at this point we decided to bring the building down" as well as the building owner and a fireman saying they decided to pull it, for whatever translation that was.

What does it matter if they decided to pull it or bring it down?

 

[Rroff]

It doesn't, but the switch to saying it came down because the fire destabalised it and nothing else causes many CTs (which I don't believe in context with this buidling) but if they did purposefully demolish WTC7 it would give rightly or wrongly more credibility to the CTs about WTC1 and 2.

 

[gillywibble]

I don't know if this has been mentioned as I haven't read the whole thread.

I remember a guy who was a janitor at the trade center who was on talksport a few year ago saying there was an explosion in the basement before the plane attacks.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=william_rodriguez

http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion

No they said "pull it". In demolition world that means blow it up. However it was a fireman saying it and it means pull all personnel out the building. They never said anything about brining it down with explosions.

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

Source.

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

It doesn't, but the switch to saying it came down because the fire destabalised it and nothing else causes many CTs (which I don't believe in context with this buidling) but if they did purposefully demolish WTC7 it would give rightly or wrongly more credibility to the CTs about WTC1 and 2.

It gives no credibility to the CT about WTC1 and 2. WTC7 is known to have been severly damaged by falling debris. The decision was made that it was no longer structually sound and needed to be brought down. How is that at all linked to WTC1 and 2?

As for the change in story. Like I said, severely damaged, burning building. The building was probably falling down the entire day piece by piece due to the fire and damage. It was the fire and damage that was bringing it down but the firefighters et al who finished it off.

Do you actually think about any of the stuff you read online? I mean serious thought while at the same time applying common sense? Just because some website or video say that WTC7 is linked to 1 and 2 doesnt make it so.

 

[deuse]

@acid read this I think you will like it(or not)

http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/wtc.html

This guy puts what Nist says and what NCSTAR report says
a very good read for all

 

[Rroff]

It gives no credibility to the CT about WTC1 and 2. WTC7 is known to have been severly damaged by falling debris. The decision was made that it was no longer structually sound and needed to be brought down. How is that at all linked to WTC1 and 2?

As for the change in story. Like I said, severely damaged, burning building. The building was probably falling down the entire day piece by piece due to the fire and damage. It was the fire and damage that was bringing it down but the firefighters et al who finished it off.

Do you actually think about any of the stuff you read online? I mean serious thought while at the same time applying common sense? Just because some website or video say that WTC7 is linked to 1 and 2 doesnt make it so.

That wasn't in the sense I meant it.

 

[aardvark]

afaik it was the way the wtc buildings were designed that helped in their collapse. they didn't have central columns that were protected and bore the weight of the building - the main structural support came from the four external corners. nobody envisioned that a big plane would ever hit them but once they did it was inevitable that they would collapse due to their design.
sure, you can plan for fire situations and design accordingly but who ever designs for a fire with thousands of gallons of external fuel helping it along - nobody could have predicted that - the buildings collapsed because they were never designed to withstand such an event - its no mystery.

 

[mmj_uk]

Whilst we're on the subject of common sense can anyone explain how jet fuel can melt the steel, collapse the building, melt all the terrorists onboard beyond recognition and yet somehow one of their passports survives all this and is found in the local vicinity following the collapses?

Does that not strike anyone as a bit of a setup? ie. planting of evidence.

 

[chumpit]

Whilst we're on the subject of common sense can anyone explain how jet fuel can melt the steel, collapse the building, melt all the terrorists onboard beyond recognition and yet somehow one of their passports survives all this and is found in the local vicinity following the collapses?

Does that not strike anyone as a bit of a setup? ie. planting of evidence.

you do not need to repeat DO NOT NEED TO MELT STEEL TO CHANGE ITS MOLECULAR MAKEUP!!! this has been explained in the last 20 odd hundred posts...
and yes amazing how objects survive it could have been in a depression therefore unable to reach the items..

if you honestly believe 9/11 was staged then you need to be admitted to the local looney bin, what democracy would kill its own innocent people without major whistle blowers???
It wouldnt happen, all people are doing is showing how mentally challenged they are.

building not designed to take the impact of a jet is destroyed who'da fought...


Cue another week long suspension for me...

 

[mmj_uk]

There has been plenty of whistleblowing if you are willing to research it, many people are just too ignorant to listen as they "know" the official story is 'fact'.

Take Aaron Russo for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

Search for a photo of him with his good friend Nick Rockefellar if you think he's just some "looney".

 

[Werewolf]

yet somehow one of their passports survives all this and is found in the local vicinity following the collapses??

Does that not strike anyone as a bit of a setup? ie. planting of evidence.

Read up on a few other aircraft accidents.

Passports are relatively light, high surface area objects, they can/do get thrown/blown clear during the initial impact.

It's not uncommon for them to survive major impacts, and the subsequent fires because of that, same with various other papers/books etc.

 

[Glaucus]

@Acid read this I think you will like it(or not)

http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/wtc.html

This guy puts what Nist says and what NCSTAR report says
a very good read for all

What a load of trollop. No evidence for heat damage. have you seen all the photos of the wavy floors, or the NIST tests on models. It's not just teh structual integrity, it's the expansion of the metal.

yet again, all theory where the evidence does not support the claims.

No explanation of the squibs (puff of smokes). umm what are they on about. the NIST report covers these.. Really where do you find these sites.

and in the case of wtc7 the modelled explosive pattern needed to bring the building down, does not match any of the videos.

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

Whilst we're on the subject of common sense can anyone explain how jet fuel can melt the steel, collapse the building, melt all the terrorists onboard beyond recognition and yet somehow one of their passports survives all this and is found in the local vicinity following the collapses?

Does that not strike anyone as a bit of a setup? ie. planting of evidence.

When steel gets hot it gets softer and weaker. The steel doesnt have to melt for the building to come down.

As for the passport, well that could have been blown clear of the fire by the impact, just like several aircraft parts were found and were identifiable.

 

[Glaucus]

Whilst we're on the subject of common sense can anyone explain how jet fuel can melt the steel

it doesn'ty and has never been suggested.

Steal losses it's strength as it gets hotter, it also expands sheering of the bolts holding it together. Despite what CT sites say, the steel was never tested, temperature resistance. At the time they simply had to survive for 1h30-2hr depending on the use and that was with the insulation in tacked.