Terry Morrone. Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University. he explains why in physics (not bloated egotistical blathering) how it is not possible that the heat could have been so from fires, and lets dispel that misconception, they were not fires, they were furnaces of molten material. he believes it was explosives though, which I don't agree with. http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf
Haha there's so much absolute bollocks in that post that I can't be arsed ripping it to pieces - it does a fine job of that itself You started by answering my question with you don't know, haha looks like you're undecided I don't know how anyone of sane mind could swallow that bilge, but I suppose it's target audience is total cranks like you, lol
sis, are you cracking up dude? I really don't want to comment about the leukaemia thing as I've not seen any evidence, presented by you or otherwise, that says the rates in NYC are higher per capita than anywhere else post 911.Lung cancer, yes, for undisputable reasons re the dust and burning carcenegins (sp) given off in the fires. But the United-Nazi thing? FFS, I'm sure Tobes will endorse that I'm probably the unfunniest poster on this board, if not this site, but do you REALLY think that post was serious? Am I truly that **** at humour? Mods, please close this post before every ****er on this site feels the urge to comment on just how unfunny I am.
I'm not interested in people taking the piss when all I am doing is providing info and data. You've decided it was a terrorist attack and took the piss Dongo, I am willing to have a discussion about the unanswered questions. You have also committed the classic forum fail I expect on the chav board or the spuds board claiming that I am cracking up You made it quite clear you just do not believe any of this, so I wonder why you even bother reading the thread, is it the need to be right or prove me wrong?. Cracking up? hmm, I want to post stuff and anyone that has a question can ask and I would certainly try answer it, you have just really taken the piss and attempted to debunk parts you can find links for and give them your full weight of belief when they are no more fact than anything I have posted, it is all theory unless we go and dig up wtc, have you got a lend of a shovel? I just don't appreciate the attempts to portray me as some truther ect or others just talking crap "do I believe this pish" or Illuminati or scooby doo references, how should I reply to that stuff? I just find the whole mess of lies hard to swallow, never has a tragedy's explanation been so questioned in the history of mankind. If you wanna take the piss you can do so but without referring to me in some stupid conspiracy nut way, I think that's fair enough I found this, some interesting photo frames. It shows steel turning to dust, these photos or frames of video are not mentioned by Khalesov but it fits in with his theory. The Building in the foreground and to the right is WTC 7. I don't know how anyone can explain that, and anyone who just doesnt believe it was not a terrorist attack will say it is fake please log in to view this image Also a short clip of firefighter videoed accounts and film of molten material pouring out of building 6, 6 weeks after the event there is well in excess of 1000 degrees Also a reference to 2000 degrees heat by an official [video=youtube;Tw4_-4xGuHA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw4_-4xGuHA[/video]
It could also just be the dust shaken off the building as it fell at free-fall speed (another question unto itself).
That is a possibility alright. it even kind of looks that way as you explain it though also it is worth mentioning that it falls as it turns to dust, it is the collapse that makes the pulverised material crumble as it were. Impossible to tell though from that set of pictures removed: too many single images The article I found it on asks if a starwars program beam destroyed the towers
I managed to find this but still not clear but it does look like it just falls to dust please log in to view this image
This I've noticed many times and just never paid attention to it, its actually from a debunking 9\11 site. Why is the core of the building hollow if 140 concrete floors and 170 thousand tons of metal just collapsed into it No one can seem to answer where all of the metal went, only the floors of WTC were substantially concrete, there should have been a hail of metal, all we have ever seen is dust. The walls were steel and aluminum cladding almost entirely and you can see that fact from what's left please log in to view this image More importantly and is not explained by anyone to any believable degree, where is the giant core and it's columns? This was massive and handled the gravity load of the building. This massive thing, pic of it being built, it seems to have just disappeared into thin air in the picture above it, the core is enormous and made of heavy steel, the building fell straight down right so where the **** is the core? Just look at the sheer amount of steel that just disappeared after the supposed collapse, this is what made up for most of the dust in New York, all of that steel please log in to view this image
Two things re cracking up. One was that, despite being told three times to the contrary, I posted that the WTC smouldered for three days when I clearly said it was a back garden bonfire, used to illustrate that even a 'small' fire was still, in effect, in a state of ignition for days. The second was that you, and I sincerely hope it is only you, appear under the impression that because I posted an article about Man U's embarrassing logo cock-up I really believe they are associated with Nazis. This may come as a huge surprise, but I don't really think their piss-poor statue of Ferguson, that looks more like Larry Grayson, IS actually a statue of Juan Peron either. Now, one, or both, of us is cracking up and this thread is becoming surreal. just tell me you have evidence that since 9/11 the radiation levels in NYC have been measured to have gone up by five times (indeed more) than Hiroshima and Nagasaki - or Trinity - did and I'll start listening to your Fred Dinbah Nuke demolition theory.
9/11 Truth v BBC (court case 25/2/13) - Tony Rooke Doesn't pay for his TV license and goes to court and says because the BBC had prior knowledge of the events that he under a law, which he states the exact law, he would not pay it because he would not fund terrorism. He was not convicted and an investigation was started by the police, obviously one that will go nowhere and he was ordered to buy a TV license. He refers to the BBC as full of **** rings [video=youtube;7MoIQ3Ic0CE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MoIQ3Ic0CE[/video] Related to this video shown by the BBC which I earlier posted. Live report on WTC 7 collapsing 20 minutes before it did collapse and suddenly in the middle of the interview they "have technical issues" and lose the live feed. The BBC have never explained what happened and have also released two propaganda documentaries one of which categorically states that the WTC7 did not free fall even though in 2008 the NIST report admitted it did free fall though engineers have proven their report on how to be complete bollocks but doubt it could be totally incompetent but rather just lies. And so much for BBC impartiality Live BBC report WTC7 collapsed but WTC7 is in the background and then they lose the live feed due to "technical difficulties" 5 minutes after BBC lose the live feed building 7 collapses [video=youtube;6mxFRigYD3s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s&feature=player_detailpage[/video] How can this not be evidence that BBC had prior knowledge of the collapse of WTC7? Meanwhile Cameron says he is going to ban anyone from publishing whistle blower reports.
Global intelligence expert Andreas Von Bülow says that the 9/11 attack was run by the highest levels of the US intelligence apparatus using WTC Building 7 as a command bunker which was later demolished in order to destroy the crime scene jesus these "conspiracy nuts" seemed to have the kind of jobs that you wouldn't expect a tin foil hat wearing nut to have eh.
Von Bulow a "Global intelligence expert" because he's written a few conspiracy books! Reminds me of how Ralph Renee described himself as "particle physicist" and Bill Kaysing said he was a rocket scientist in various moon-landing conspiracy crankcase 'exposes' - when neither of them has any scientific or engineering qualification between them. [video=youtube;cX1DyKZ7spE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX1DyKZ7spE[/video] Or the condensed version: [video=youtube;87zuDncr6yg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87zuDncr6yg[/video] Command centre my arse. Would have been like Bomber Harris controlling the raid on Dresden from a crypt in its cathedral. I was going leave this alone, but I had continuously asked you what on earth was the importance of destroying WTC7. The best they can come up with is a "Command centre".... "They" could organise all this with super hypnotic missiles and nuclear demolitions that don't give off radiation - yet they can't furtively move documents from a building when they 'know' that the Twin Towers are going to be attacked on 9/11. Or better still, why didn't they fly one of those Thunderbird 1 cruise missiles that look like 767's into it? Considering how much trouble they'd gone to elsewhere (even presumably manufacturing all the on - plane phone calls and eye-witness reports of a crashing plane(flight93) into a Pennsylvania field - why did they do that when they had the power to fly this, in reality, cruise missile, into the White House or Congress?), what was one more plane/missile to cover up the non-radiation-emitting demolition? The more the conspiracy theory is held up to the same level of scrutiny that any official version is, the more it falls to pieces on logical, scientific and engineering bases. Yet whilst the conspiracy theorists are often held up to scorn and ridicule, the debunkers, as can be seen in this film, are attacked and vilified, and in some instances downright threatened. Utterly hysterical (not you Sis, the professional conspiracy religion). And that, as it says in this video, is what it's become. It's like trying to argue evolution with born again Creationists - you are just met with a barrage of circular logic. There is nothing I can say now that will change your mind. This time I will stick to my guns and not comment any further, but I will keep reading your stuff. And you have opened my eyes somewhat to the furtive espionage and chicanery that led up to 9/11, and the cynical opportunism that followed. No wonder many Americans don't trust their government. Still, if any of this ever did lead to Blair being indicted and tried I'd support it all the way: even though you wouldn't hang a dog on this evidence. Now maybe if we got the FA to prosecute and had Goulding as the judge...
