 |
search this site: search the web: |
There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building." The mainstream media is ignoring eyewitness accounts of bombs that exploded inside the World Trade Center before the collapse of the Twin Towers. Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media." Twin Towers Demolition Download The Video To see the demolition, press the Play button below! (The explosions will start 40 seconds into the video) Download The Video in this video, focus on the shaped charges that go off on the right side of the Tower. The charges go off at 2 seconds and 4 seconds into the video. This is undeniable proof, and literally a smoking gun. Download The Video Focus on all the shaped charges that go off on the left side of the Tower!!! A Line of Explosives NBC News Audio Clip: FDNY Chief of Safety reported bombs both within the Towers and on the planes. Download The Video --As Tower 2 began to collapse, a CBS helicopter reporter said that he saw a "secondary explosion" go off. As Tower 1 began to collapse, he said the same thing. To listen to the audio clips of him reporting it, please go to this page: BBC
by bigmonkeynuts on Thu May 27, 04 2:07pm
[+]
There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits." --" On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building." On September 11th, an explosives expert said that explosives brought down the Towers. And then strangely, 10 days later, he "changed his mind": l (Note: The updated article is at the top of the page, and the original is at the bottom.) A classic "media blackout" went into effect: The American Free Press --" The mainstream media is ignoring eyewitness accounts of bombs that exploded inside the World Trade Center before the collapse of the Twin Towers. Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media." When the Towers were wired with explosives: On the weekend of September 8th/9th, there was a "power down" condition in Tower 2, because of a supposedly needed "cabling upgrade." This is when Tower 2's explosives were placed.Remember these facts: -Both Towers collapsed in exactly the same way. -After their respective plane crashes, Tower 1 stood for only 42 minutes longer than Tower 2 did.
by bigmonkeynuts on Thu May 27, 04 2:08pm
[+]
Both Towers were hit by planes. -Both Towers had shredded steel in their rubble. Hence, Tower 1 and Tower 2 had to have come down for the SAME REASON. So, it is not as if Tower 1 gave way because of melting steel, and Tower 2 gave way because of a structural failure. The Towers had robust self-supporting core structures--abundantly cross-braced, and anchored directly to bedrock. The steel was shredded into bits and pieces, something that would be impossible for a building that simply collapsed. The Towers' concrete was pulverized....in MID-AIR!--Impossible! You can prove this to yourself by dropping a concrete block from a height of, say, 20 feet. The block may break into several pieces, but it will not turn into powder. Even if you were to drop a piece of concrete from the height of the Towers--1360 feet--it still would not turn into powder when it hit the ground. Rubble falling through the Towers encountered no more resistance than air!--Impossible! 1000 vertical feet of intact vertical structure should have been slowing the rubble inside the footprint of the building! Since the steel structure should have provided hundreds, if not thousands of times the resistance of air, it must have been demolished ahead of the falling masses that were above it. The South Tower (the first one to collapse) had absolutely no reason to collapse. Most of its jet fuel sprayed outside on impact (which would eliminate the melting theory), and the plane did not even touch the center columns. Twin Towers Demolition Download The Video To see the demolition, press the Play button below! (The explosions will start 40 seconds into the video) Download The Video In this video, focus on the shaped charges that go off on the right side of the Tower. The charges go off at 2 seconds and 4 seconds into the video. This is undeniable proof, and literally a smoking gun. Download The Video Focus on all the shaped charges that go off on the left side of the Tower!!! A Line of Explosives f Safety reported bombs both within the Towers and on the planes. Download The Video -As Tower 2 began to collapse, a CBS helicopter reporter said that he saw a "secondary explosion" go off. As Tower 1 began to collapse, he said the same thing. To listen to the audio clips of him reporting it, please go to this page: BBC --" There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits." oli.htm --" On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building." On September 11th, an explosives expert said that explosives brought down the Towers. And then strangely, 10 days later, he "changed his mind":
by bigmonkeynuts on Thu May 27, 04 2:09pm
[+]
from prison planet
by bigmonkeynuts on Thu May 27, 04 3:44pm
[+]
Ok arseholes ,thats a brilliant dismantling of the above.
by bigmonkeynuts on Thu May 27, 04 6:37pm
[+]
w'ell just lock up those witnesses and firefighters as nut balls Or how about I put on some knuckledusters and pound your brainless heads into dust?
by bigmonkeynuts on Thu May 27, 04 6:59pm
[+]
Those guests must not have seen the videos, bmn. I saw them and, yes, they were brought down by explosives. I even said it at the time it happened. "Hey! That building was demolished!", I said as the building was demolished. Airplane fuel? Do me a favour. Watch the video! Now!
by cretin_slap on Fri May 28, 04 6:48am
[+]
Hey asswipe What was the theory? I dont know of any theory Dickhead.Its pretty straight forward.Did you see the video Dickhead? What exactly are you refuting?So far youve said nothing and have demonstrated the exact bizarre irrationality whenever anyone says anything like this.It makes it so easy for the elites when mindless arseholes like you are going around spouting crap and u dont know what you are even refuting.Try refuting the bleeding obvious, lock up the firefighters and witnesses as nutballs or fuck off preferably just fuck off
by bigmonkeynuts on Sun May 30, 04 9:50pm
[+]
go through each of the points and refute them There is no "theory " needed and it is further verified by electricians, building contractors and others And you were the one being abusive you stupid prick if youre one of the first two commenters
by bigmonkeynuts on Sun May 30, 04 10:03pm
[+]
Freaked out?Thats how I happen to type You missed the point about the firemen etc.I didnt say they were in a prison.What i was saying was if According to YOU im a nutball then so are they.They are the witnesses and the ones saying it.I didnt make any of this up.And so far Ive stated nothing personally. Let me repeat it again.The points are made at the top .There is more made in the article itself.Go through then one by one and make it clear what it is you are actually refuting.So far youve said the same thing over and over and havent dealt with any of it.So far Im presuming you cant.If you cant refute any of it then youve got nothing to say
by bigmonkeynuts on Mon May 31, 04 10:47pm
[+]
Also , go to the 911-strike.com , see the bit on september 11 and ..... REFUTE
by bigmonkeynuts on Mon May 31, 04 10:49pm
[+]
Congratultions guest. you having nothing to say then Go away
by bigmonkeynuts on Tue Jun 01, 04 9:08pm
[+]
A very good point bigmonkeynuts, I remember when watching the towers collapse and I did notice that they came down exactly in the fashion of a controlled demolition, but I didn't think much of it then until you pointed this out and I have looked at footage of the collapse again and their is no doubt in my mind that this is a controlled demolition.
by Alien_Invader on Fri Jun 18, 04 9:45am
[+]
There is a video of the explosives going off on Rense. com.
by cretin_slap on Fri Jun 18, 04 9:49am
[+]
I notice all the cowardly users hide behide the name anonymous. Now if you feel that you are so correct, then why do you hide?
by Alien_Invader on Fri Jun 18, 04 11:08pm
[+]
I find that interesting anonymous.You have just desribed the mainstream with their hype and Entertainment Tonight style of news.They ask absolutely no questions and those who do are warned and sacked.How many mainstream people have to continually dismantle the hype before it not seen as a fringe "conspiracy theory".Theres tons of regular people who are seeing the bleeding obvious It seems to me the more rationally, calmly and objectively points are made and the more irrefutable it is the more likely there is going to assholes doing an attack. Have a look at the response from all the red guests on this ballot and thats ther reason why shit and delusion becomes Official History.No ultimate inference was made on this ballot but the response it personal attacks , slag offs and absolutely no response to the fucking points.Believe what? Who said they believe anything.Simply explain reasonably the points made or remain a loser
by bigmonkeynuts on Sat Jun 19, 04 1:02pm
[+]
Inference defined in this case as the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
by bigmonkeynuts on Sat Jun 19, 04 1:07pm
[+]
the sky is falling the sky is falling!!! ** karma ** in an interview with the FBI in 1995, Abdel Hakim Murad, an "associate" of Ramzi Yousef, claimed that what he had in mindwas "to board any American commercial aircraftpretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive into the CIA headquarters. There will be no bomb or any explosive that he will use in the execution of the plan. It is simply a suicidal mission he is very much willing to execute". fact or fiction? It certainly appears to have been quite similar to a mission someone was willing to execute. but whose story do we believe? How about the third one?
by bigmonkeynuts on Sun Sep 12, 04 4:37pm
[+]
"You can prove this to yourself by dropping a concrete block from a height of, say, 20 feet. The block may break into several pieces, but it will not turn into powder. Even if you were to drop a piece of concrete from the height of the Towers--1360 feet--it still would not turn into powder when it hit the ground." How about hitting that same concrete block with a plane going close to Mach 1? "Most of its jet fuel sprayed outside on impact (which would eliminate the melting theory), and the plane did not even touch the center columns." Hmm, the plane did not even touch the center columns? The fuel splashed on the outside of the building? Interesting.... considering the massive blast of fire that came out on the far side of the building from where the plane hit, and that pieces of the plane: one set of landing gear (at least) chairs, a wing flap, etc, were all found hundreds of yards beyond the second tower, on the FAR side of where the plane struck. Not only did the plane hit the center of the building, but it blasted right through it. I am perplexed by the lack of common sense here, do you honestly know the damage that is done by a plane of that size, carrying 57,285 gallons of highly flammable jet fuel (in gallons, this is nearly three times the amount you would find in a typical home swimming pool), weighing in at roughly 750,000 lbs, 231 ft feet long, 211 feet wide, 63 feet high, flying at .95 Mach (more than 600 mph). You still want to believe your fallacy? jappy. Even if the plane had flown straight through the central core it still wouldn't fall perfectly straight. Plus you can't refute the video which was taken from the news coverage that clearly shows the explosions going off round the building. Fucking liar.
by cretin_slap on Thu Oct 14, 04 12:15pm
[+]
The third building wasnt hit by a plane The admitted to demolishing it
by bigmonkeynuts on Sun Nov 07, 04 8:09pm
[+]
WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet Fuel Temperatures Kevin Ryan/Underwriters Laboratories | November 12 2004 The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance. Dr. Gayle, Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Browns theory." We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the buildings steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, Im sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and chatter. Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel. 1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/ archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist. gov/media/P 3MechanicalandMetAnalysis ofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/ archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/ media/NCSTACWTCStatus FINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www. forging.org/ FIERF/pdf/ ffaaMacSleyne.pdf Kevin Ryan Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
by bigmonkeynuts on Fri Nov 12, 04 9:38pm
[+]
Poor Kevin Ryan - I heard he was fired only a few days later after this story first came out online.
|