Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
This web page has very convincing information that what bush and everyone else is telling you are lies. The information on this page willl shatter your beliefs of the stories told in the news. It gives insight on what really happen on sept.11.
"Explosions in the World Trade Center Twin Towers"
From: PRCenter@webtv.net (Tom), Sun Sep 16, 2001 There have been several reports on the news that after the plane crashes there were several "explosions" inside the building at lower levels. One (or more) eyewitness reported hearing a series of at least about "five" explosions "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom,..." in at least one of the buildings just before it came down. I did a little research on the construction of the twin towers... it seems the structures were supported by an approximately 100 x 100 foot square (79ft x 139ft) concrete and steel column running up the center of each building.
The scenario that the "heat" from jet fuel "melted" this central support column within minutes seems unlikely to me for various reasons:
The central support collapsed very suddenly and totally going into what has been described as "free fall". This is exactly what would be expected if the central support column were demolished with explosives but not what you would see with a so-called gradual "melting" from top to bottom as the building burned. Heat rises.... How could the fires at the tops of the buildings "melt" the support column composed of concrete and steel very far below the point at which the towers were struck, if at all? The building has (had) an internal fire safety feature that automatically seals (sealed) off various sections and levels of the building subject to fire, cutting off the air supply. Visually... it appeared that after the initial impact and explosion of jet fuel mostly OUTSIDE THE BUILDING... (and on a few floors inside where windows were broken). There was a great deal of smoke but relatively little flame and certainly no major inferno at lower levels INSIDE. in fact people were seen not very far below the point of impact hanging out of windows trying to escape the (smoke?)... but apparently alive and not subject to the thousands of degrees temperature that could have melted steel (and concrete?). At lower levels it has been reported by some survivors that they were inside watching the events (plane crashes) on TV when they decided it was time to get out... Again they had no indication of fire at these lower levels that could have "melted" anything. I am no demolitions expert by any means but having grown up in a family of contractors and builders I do have lifelong construction and some demolition experience. The explanation provided to the public that the buildings sudden collapses were due to the "melting" of the supporting steel makes about as much sense as saying that a candle could suddenly "collapse" from "melting" due to the flame at the top. The supporting columns of concrete and steel were sunk into groves cut into solid bedrock far below ground level. It makes more sense to me to say that it would have taken a considerable amount of well placed explosive to demolish this structure and send it into "free fall" than to say that it simply "melted" from the heat of the jet fuel burning (or smoldering) at the top of the building. I think in the very least... whats left of the supporting columns should be examined to see if they were subject to explosives before all the evidence is carted away and disposed of somewhere.
I am not trying to develop a government conspiracy theory here. Whoever did this had a long time to plan it and possibly set bombs inside the building. I am not by any means anti-democratic or anti-American. But the demolition by bombs inside the building seems credible and obvious as an explanation as to why the two buildings suddenly collapsed. and this is supported by eyewitness accounts of explosions at lower levels as well as the absence of any fire at lower levels capable of "melting" anything.
By contrast, in my opinion, the "melting" theory make little if any sense at all and has little if any evidence to support it.
If the supporting structure at or near the point(s) of impact "melted" causing the top of the building(s) to fall several stories and come down... like big wrecking balls.... It seems these section(s) (tops) of the building(s) would have come up against some resistance at some point on the way down when they ran into the un-melted portion of what was left of the 100ft square steel and concrete support column(s)... they didn't... perhaps for the reason that these columns were already destroyed by explosives?
Finally... anyone who saw the buildings come down saw the obvious... it simply LOOKED LIKE a professional demolition job. Why not at least investigate this obvious explaination for what everyone witnessed?
[additional question by Ralph: why did the second tower, which was hit 18 minutes later, collapse BEFORE the first one, even though the plane did not hit the core of the building structure?]
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil 510 topic views. 4 members, 1 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]