Korean Job Discussion Forums

[loose_ends]

I�m writing this thread in response to a request for evidence of a government conspiracy of 9/11.

I will not post any evidence for 9/11 government conspiracy.

I will however show evidence for controlled demolition of all 3 World Trade Centers. Who put it there is a different question yet obviosly curious.

Hypothesis: 2 commercial airliners crashed into the WTC towers. Both towers, and WTC7 collapsed due to demolition. Logic follows that demolition was pre-planted due to time needs.

It is first necessary to look at the official story, as reported by NIST in their report of the events that caused collapse

Official Hypothesis: NIST report

�Remaining strictly within the confines of the officially prescribed theory, NIST crafts an explanation for the "initiation of the collapse of each Tower" that avoids faulting the Towers' construction: The aircraft impacts dislodged insulation from the steel, and the exposed steel succumbed to the fires. Sagging trusses pulled in portions of the perimeter walls, causing a rapid spread of "column instability" in perimeter columns, which in turned strained the fire-weakened core columns. The "tremendous energy" of the floors above the collapse zone led to "global collapse."
(summary: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html )

It is important to note exactly what the official report claims to explain.

�The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable� (NIST Report)

The official report of NIST, admits to not explaining the nature of the collapses following initiation. They simply label it as, �Global Collapse�.

This is very curious. 6 years later, 2 major government reports, and no explanation of the character of collapse.

So what? You may ask.

9/11 is unique. We all know. But the fact remains, 3 large skyscrapers collapsed, thousands of people died. The public wants and deserves a documented explanation based in science.

After 1 year of research, architect Richard Gage, argues that the collapse of all 3 buildings in the manner that they did is highly unlikely if not impossible using the official story as the explanation.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, may be a better way to describe the chances.

Explosives were necessary to achieve the effects witnessed.

After a year of research, he launched his website in the spring of 2007 and began giving lectures across North America. He describes the evidence for demolition as being clear, and worthy for court. His website support via signed petition for a new independent investigation is growing daily. Nearly 200 architects and engineers have joined in his cause.
His lectures can be seen on ae911truth.com

So, WHAT�S THE EVIDENCE?


�� the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:

1. Extremely rapid onset of �collapse�
2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone � a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
3. Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)

4. Squibs, or �mistimed� explosions, 40 floors below the �collapsing� building seen in all the videos
5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people � mostly to dust
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

8. Symmetrical collapse � through the path of greatest resistance � at nearly free-fall speed � the columns gave no resistance
9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris � outside of building footprint
10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements � obliterating the steel core structure.
13. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for � 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings�

ae911truth.org


These findings are not scientifically consistent with collapse due to fire/damage and gravity/mass.

It is important to note that great lengths have been made to �debunk� scientific observation. Popular mechanics is most famous for their efforts. It is also important to note that their work has been highly criticized and even challenged by books such as �Debunking 911 Debunking�.

Media Reviews of the book "Debunking 911 Debunking"


"Considering how the 9/ll tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/ll deserve to be investigated and addressed."
-- Howard Zinn

"Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics."
-- Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration

"David Ray Griffin hits another one out of the park by taking on the left gatekeepers and the mass media for the lies and cover-up called 몋he official story of 9/11/01,' which is the greatest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated on the American public. I highly recommend this book for all thinking Americans."
-- Meria Heller, Producer & Host of the Meria Heller Show




I was asked to select 3 pieces of evidence to support an alternative hypothesis to the official story. I will therefore select 3 pieces of evidence I believe to have no other explanation, other than demolition.


1.Concrete Pulverization
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html

Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air
A striking feature of the Twin Towers' destruction was the pulverization of most of the concrete into gravel and dust before it hit the ground. This is evident from the explosive mushrooming of the towers into vast clouds of concrete as they fell, and from the fact that virtually no large pieces of concrete were found at Ground Zero, only twisted pieces of steel. 1 Estimates put the size of the particles, which also included gypsum and hydrocarbons, in the ten- to 100-micron range.

The researcher calling himself plaguepuppy articulated the thoroughness of the destruction and its incompatibility with the official explanation

�The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.
Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.
Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?�


How do we know everything was pulverized?

�Both reports of workers at Ground Zero and photographs of the area attest to the thoroughness of the pulverization of the concrete and other non-metallic solids in the towers. 3 An examination of our extensive archives of images of Ground Zero and its immediate surroundings reveals no recognizable objects such as slabs of concrete, glass, doors, or office furniture. The identifiable constituents of the rubble can be classified into just five categories:
� pieces of steel from the towers' skeletons
� pieces of aluminum cladding from the towers' exteriors
� unrecognizable pieces of metal
� pieces of paper
� dust

In addition, we all remember the dust clouds that blanketed the city.

2.Molten Metal
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html


One of the most curious pieces of evidence is molten metal at the base of the rubble piles for all 3 buildings. It is clear that neither the fire nor the kinetic energy of the collapse could turn steel into molten liquid, burning for weeks.

Where�s the evidence? Cleaning crews said so.

Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble
A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains."

A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel "

there are more reports by witnesses

Is there any physical evidence?


Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

�The "deep mystery" of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson. �

3.Total Destruction
Twin Towers' Steel Frames Ripped to Small Pieces
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/steel.html

A feature of the collapses that is less obvious than the symmetrically mushrooming tops or the vast clouds of concrete dust is their effect on the towers' steel frames.
The only large remnants of the towers standing after the collapses were base sections of the perimeter walls extending upward several stories. Some of these sections were about 200 feet wide by 80 feet tall. Virtually all of the remaining steel was broken up into small pieces:
� There were no remnants of the core structures that rose much above the rubble piles.
� Most of the perimeter walls above the standing bases were broken up into the three-floor by three-column prefabricated sections, and many of those sections were ripped apart at the welds.
� There were no large sections of the corrugated pans underlaying the floor slabs or the trussing beneath them.
If it were possible for the towers to have collapsed of their own weight, they would have exhibited a pattern of destruction very different from this. What would the collapse look like if all structure throughout a tower suddenly lost 95 percent of its strength, leaving the building too weak to support gravity loads?
� The core columns, being thicker than perimeter columns, and abundantly cross-braced, would have deflected falling rubble, and would have out-survived the perimeter walls.
� The accumulation of forces as the collapse progressed would have damaged portions of the outer wall closer to the ground more than higher portions, despite the thicker gauge of the steel lower in the tower.
� The rubble pile would have contained a stack of floor platters, since gravity would have pancaked, not shredded, them.

The complete destruction of the building into small pieces is not explained in any official story and quite frankly defies the law of physics without an energy input. Collapse due to gravity and mass isn�t enough.

These are just a few pieces of evidence, suggesting the hypothesis of collapse by demolition has some merit. For a full lecture, watch Richard Gage describe his scientific research in great detail. Ae911truth.org

I quoted almost all of the evidence from secondary sources. I could have just put the primary sources but that isn�t very user friendly and this isn�t university. Follow the links to the original documents if you want.

9/11 research continues around the world. The truth movement is growing. Do your own honest research and come to your own conclusions.

[safee1980]

OH GAWSH! THIS IS SHOCKING...

[loose_ends]

^I agree....and so do millions more

[blaseblasphemener]

mm2, here's your chance. weigh in when you have a chance. ya-ta, cbc, gopher...

[cbclark4]

BUNK!

[some waygug-in]

That's the best you can come up with CBC?

Tsk tsk.

[blaseblasphemener]

[loose_ends]

come on guys...give them time to collect their thoughts and find evidence that disputes the evidence that was presented in this thread.

Will be waiting...

[riverboy]

Next you will be called a whacko, or a nutjob.

[cbclark4]

OP

The Accusations, Insinuations, Assertions and general Hyperbole expressed in your post have been stripped naked several times in previous threads.

If you continue to repeat your lies eventually they will be perceived as truth, so please continue.

Besides, judging from your post, evidence is not what you are looking for.

For more on this check with Ezekial he was first.

[loose_ends]

[cbclark4]

Do your own research lightweight.

This crap ain't new it goes back a few years.

I got a real Tinfoil hat for sale, no aluminum pure tin.

[loose_ends]

^i have done my own research. i've seen everything you can throw at me. I can post websites that attempt to 'debunk' some of the evidence i have shown. and i can present evidence that debunks the debunkers.

so far, you haven't thrown anything at me. run along you useless troll.

Come back when you learn how to articulate yourself within the scientific method.

[blaseblasphemener]

[jinju]

Didnt a HUGE jetliner crash into each of these buildings and explode?