http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/19-1
finished:
[NOTE: for the discussion leading up to this comment/essay, see bottom of page.]
New previously unpublished comment/essay:
=======================
Thanks. I won't, though. Two reasons: I don't know enough, and the work has already been done by plenty of people who know more than I do.
I refer those interested to the work of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, first of all, although many researchers did a lot of work before AE911Truth eally got rolling.
Listen to interviews: The 9/11 families, The firefighters. Pilots for 9/11 Truth. The speeches of Dr. Bob Bowman. The work of Stephen Jones. There is a movie about him, I forget its name, but it is very good.
The work of David Ray Griffin. The various movies, from the seminal "Loose Change" in its various incarnations, to "In Plane Sight" and some other good ones.
Listen to some of the talks of Webster Tarpley. Or the talks of Paul Craig Roberts. Or the speech Wesley Clark made about his visit to the Pentagon a few weeks after Sept. 11: "Seven countries in five years."
For me, the absolute clincher was found in the area I know something about, by studying the fate of the structure of the Twin Towers.
I worked in construction for over thirty years, although primarily on houses, but steel is steel and concrete is concrete, and one reason they are used, besides their strength, is for their fireproof qualities.
Anyone knows that neither a chunk of concrete nor a chunk of steel can be melted on a stove or in a campfire, which approximate the range of temperatures that were in the Twin Towers due to the kerosene fire and the burning carpets, furniture, and other things.
Also, concrete is not so easy to break up, especially steel-reinforced concrete.
Even though called "lightweight", as the WTC floors were, it is a strong, heavy substance which will crack and break, perhaps, but not be turned to powder, from a long gravity fall, with or without a low to medium temperature fire to heat it up first.
I did many remodeling and building jobs in which steel and concrete had to be cut or broken out of a structure, and it is never child's play. Trust me, concrete does not turn to powder when it falls down or gets heated up by a normal fire.
Steel does not cut or melt itself without strong forces applied to it.
The WTC fires and a gravity fall simply do not qualify as strong enough forces to melt steel and pulverize concrete to powder. Not even close. Explosives were used. A LOT of explosives.
The nearly complete pulverization of some 220 acres of four and five inch thick reinforced concrete, i.e. the floors of both the Twin Towers, is simply not something that could have happened without the use of not just explosives, but a huge excess of explosives.
The Twin Towers both exploded, in very much the same process, and a child could see it, if he only watches the high-quality NIST FOIA releases of the collapsing buildings, which are available for free viewing and even free download on YouTube and at other places.
And of course, Building Seven is a classic controlled demolition.
But the demolition method used on the Twin Towers was highly unusual.
Because of their tremendous height, (over 1300 feet) and their relatively small footprint of only a little over 200 feet on a side, a bottom-up demolition would have possibly caused the towers to topple and go sideways, and destroy other buildings. in the neighborhood.
For safety, then, the demolition had to be set up to work from the top down, and not just to break the building into large chunks, which, falling a thousand feet, would wreak havoc below, but to pulverize it, and everything inside of it almost, to dust, sand, and gravel.
==============================
One of many questions to ponder: Where did the six thousand meter-deep steel bar trusses, and the 200-plus acres of corrugated steel floor pan, go? It was not piled up at the bottom.
(Above: views of a floor in one of the Twin Towers during construction. Note diagonal reinforcement to the exterior wall spandrel- the wide horizontal bands at each floor, connecting trusses to exterior columns- and shear loops.)
===============================
Another question: where did all the bolts go, which connected the outside perimeter columns together at their ends (the "chex" pieces) every three (sometimes two) storeys?
Above: The "chex" pieces, showing joints and access holes for installing or removing the bolts)
. In photos of the rubble, many column ends are seen, but almost none show any of the bolts which held the wall together; yet there is also no sign of their being torn loose or exploded loose. Souvenir hunters? Possible, but very doubtful.
Hint: these bolts could have almost all been removed beforehand, and nothing would have happened to the Towers.
"We're just running some new data lines, ma;am, and have to remove these little access panels"...
It would have been easy to do, as preparation for the floors being blown up; then the whole tower comes down like pickup sticks, in 36 foot lengths of exterior wall panels, suitable for trucking away very quickly. And that is what happened.
The top-down demolition also had the added benefit, to the perpetrators, of creating the tremendous wall of falling powdered concrete and other materials.
This created a sound barrier effect which masked the many explosions.
The waterfall of debris also made so much "white noise" as it fell as to further make it difficult to impossible to hear the many charges going off inside the towers.
Even so, a number of them (that is, demolition explosive squibs) can be clearly seen on the archival videos of the collapses.
A person cannot hear noises very well even through a fog. Even an explosion will not be heard through a waterfall or curtain of falling concrete like what was seen that day.
Only explosives could have accomplished the destruction of the Twin Towers. No way did the planes do it. No way did fire or gravity do it. There were huge amounts of explosives inside of those towers.
There had to have been. All the evidence points toward it, and there is no other explanation, that is actually possible, which has been offered in the twelve years since it happened.
No other explanation comes close to explaining what happened. The official story is absurd; it is the laughable theory, in fact.
.
Explosive demolition, using shaped charges and cutting charges of thermite, thermate, or superthermite (aka nanothermite)had to have been used, to create the effects seen and to create the kind of debris and dust in the aftermath.
I don't understand what is wrong with people in this nation who refuse to see it, or who ridicule people who point out the scientifically verifiable obvious.
I got so discouraged, and was ostracized and shunned and laughed at, for bringing it up, and was shamed into not talking about it most of the time; people will not hear it. Americans do not want to know. At least, that is my conclusion.
So in lieu of an article for CD which they wouldn't accept anyway, here is this long comment for food for thought for anyone who still doubts explosive demolition.
I say, everyone do their own research. It is easy to do, and free.
Start with AE911Truth and listen carefully to what is said. For a start.
Also, the new documentary "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor (Italian, five hours, three parts) is really, really excellent.
---------------------------------
draft
Thanks. I won't though. Two reasons: I don't know enough, and the work has already been done by plenty of people who know more than I do. I refer those interested to the work of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, first of all, although many researchers did a lot of work before AE911Truth.org really got rolling. The 9/11 families, the firefighters. Pilots for 9/11 Truth. The speeches of Dr. Bob Bowman. The work of Stephen Jones. There is a movie about him, I forget its name, but it is very good. The work of David Ray Griffin. The various movies from "Loose Chage" in its various incarnatins, to "In Plane Sight" and some other good ones. The talks of Webster Tarpley. The talks of Paul Craig Roberts. The speech Wesley Clark made about his visit to the Pentagon a few weeks after Sept. 11.
For me, the absolute clincher was found in studying the fate of the Twin Towers. I worked in construction for over thirty years, although primarily on house, but steel is steel and concrete is concrete, and one reason they are used, besides their strength, is for their fireproof qualities. Anyone knows that neither a chunk of concrete nor a chunk of steel can be melted on a stove or in a campfire, which approximate the range of temperatures that were in the Twin Towers due to the kerosene fire and the burning carpets, furniture, and other things.
Also, concretre is not so easy to break up, especially steel-reinforced concrete, even though called "lightweight", as the WTC floors were, it is a strong, heavy substance which will crack and break, perhaps, but not be turned to powder, from a long gravity fall, with or without a low to medium temperature fire to heat it up first. I did many remodeling and building jobs in which steel and concrete had to be cut or broken out of a structure and it is never child's play.
So the nearly complete pulverization of some 220 acres of four and five inch thick reinforced concrete, i.e. the floors of both the Twin Towers, is simply not something that could have happened without the use of not just explosives, but a huge excess of explosives. The Twin Towers both exploded, in very much the same process, and a child could see it, if he only watches the high-quality NIST FOIA releases of the collapsing buildings. And of course, Building Seven is a classic controlled demolition. But the Twin Towers were unusual. Because of their tremendous height, and their relatively small footprint of only a little over 200 feet on a side, a bottom-up demolition would have possibly caused the towers to topple and go sideways and destroy other buildings. For saftety, then, the demolition had to be set up to work from the top down, and not just to break the building into large chuncks, but to pulverize it, and everything inside of it almost, to dust, sand, and gravel. Where did the six thousand meter-deep steel bar trusses go?
The top-down demolition also had the added benefit, to the perpetrators, of creating the tremendous wall of falling powdered concrete and other materials. T
his created a sound barrier effect which masked the many explosions. The waterfall of debris also made so much "white noise" as it fell as to further make it difficult to impossible to hear the many charges going off inside the towers. Even so, a number of them (that is, demolition explosive squibs) were shown on the archival videos of the collapses.
A person cannot hear noises very well even through a fog. Even an explosion will not be heard through a rain or waterfall of falling concrete like what was seen that day.
Only explosives could have accomplished the destruction of the Twin Towers. No way did the planes do it. No way did fire or gravity do it. There were huge amounts of explosives inside of those towers.
There had to have been. All the evidence points toward it, and there is no other explanation, that is actually possible, which has been offered in the twelve years since it happened.
No other explanation comes close to explaining what happened. The official story is absurd; it is the laughable theory, in fact.
.
Explosive demolition, using shaped charges and cutting charges of thermite, thermate, or superthermite (aka nanothermite)had to have been used, to create the effects seen and to create the kind of debris and dust in the aftermath. I don't understand what is wrong with people in this nation who refuse to see it, or who ridicule people who point out the scientifically verifiable obvious.
I got so discouraged, and was ostracized and shunned and laughed at, for bringing it up, and was shamed into not talking about it most of the time; people will not hear it. Americans do not want to know. At least, that is my conclusion.
So in lieu of an article for CD which they wouldn't accept anyway, here is this long comment for food for thought for anyone who still doubts explosive demolition. I say, everyone do their own research. It is easy to do, and free. Start with AE911Truth and listen carefully to what is said. For a start. Also, the new documentary "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor (Italian, five hours, three parts) is really, really excellent.
=================
Lead-up comment discussion related to the above:
Read the book " Where Did The Towers Go? Fascinating theory that some sort of frequency weapon or microwave type weapon destroyed the buildings. 'Dustification'is a word she used. The rubble pile would have been much bigger if it was dropped like a typical demolition. Thermite was also ruled out, would have been evidence. This expert sticks with the evidence..interesting read. Text book glossy pages many pictures, sad day.
ReplyDelete