9/11 coverup of Defense Dept. itnesses testimony

catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
yeah, that high up...,you can see the wind blowing the smoke....
I think it got hot enough for the top to come down.

Was it enough weigh to collapse the rest of the building all the way down, and #7?

seems a little fishy on that part.

There need be a full investigation, that never happened.
Something is definitely being covered up, but What?, is the question.

I don't think Bush had anything to do with it.
 
G

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
catocom said:
yeah, that high up...,you can see the wind blowing the smoke....
I think it got hot enough for the top to come down.
Click to expand...

That is impossible. Jet fuel is refined kerosene called Jet A which is what airliners use. Jet A is used in steel wall heaters! It cannot melt steel.

catocom said:
Was it enough weigh to collapse the rest of the building all the way down, and #7?

seems a little fishy on that part.
Click to expand...

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) - Source
Click to expand...

This should have happened but it did not.

catocom said:
There need be a full investigation, that never happened.
Something is definitely being covered up, but What?, is the question.

I don't think Bush had anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

catocom, a lot of revelations is in this documentary.
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
Gotholic said:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
Click to expand...

I think their "assumptions" like this one are wrong....
Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.
Click to expand...

Their description of "perfectly efficient", and mine are way different.
The windows being blown out would make a whole different factor also.

Also I don't see where other cleaning chemicals, paper, plastics...
are taken into account.
 
G

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
catocom said:
I think their "assumptions" like this one are wrong....


Their description of "perfectly efficient", and mine are way different.
The windows being blown out would make a whole different factor also.

Also I don't see where other cleaning chemicals, paper, plastics...
are taken into account.
Click to expand...

catocom, the architects and engineers talk about the fires/oxygen and other materials in the 3 buildings. I do not recall the specifics.

All of what you seek is discussed here.

I hope you watch it and post your thoughts.
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
Gotholic said:
catocom, the architects and engineers talk about the fires/oxygen and other materials in the 3 buildings. I do not recall the specifics.

All of what you seek is discussed here.

I hope you watch it and post your thoughts.
Click to expand...

The oxygen you refer to, that they refer to, isn't the same that I refer to.
Because people are so-called "architects and engineers" doesn't impress me much.
I have my own experience, and schooling. (not to Totally discount what they say)
I believe they are right when they say the "fuel alone" could not have done it,
but it wasn't alone, even if nothing else malicious was there.

I've watched them before.

On the controlled demo....
There does seem to be something suspicious there.
(we know they tried to blowup and bring down at least one building in the Clinton reign)
There's also something suspect about the black boxes.
 
jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Gotholic said:
There is no need to address the theory that the steel was weakened which caused the collapse since the steel was melted, not weakened. Jet fuel cannot melt steel.

Check out the documentary.
Click to expand...

I never said that the steel was melted. There was no need to melt the steel, only to anneal it so that the structural integrity was lost.
 
G

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
catocom said:
The oxygen you refer to, that they refer to, isn't the same that I refer to.
Because people are so-called "architects and engineers" doesn't impress me much.
I have my own experience, and schooling. (not to Totally discount what they say)
I believe they are right when they say the "fuel alone" could not have done it,
but it wasn't alone, even if nothing else malicious was there.

I've watched them before.
Click to expand...

Other materials in the office buildings cannot melt steel. Here is a history of high rise fires. No steel frame building has collapsed from a fire except the three buildings that supposedly did on 9/11.

catocom said:
On the controlled demo....
There does seem to be something suspicious there.
(we know they tried to blowup and bring down at least one building in the Clinton reign)
Click to expand...

Yes, the thermite/thermate that was discovered is definitely suspicious.

catocom said:
There's also something suspect about the black boxes.
Click to expand...

Especially since the black boxes were officially not found until about 4 years later. The black boxes cannot be linked to the planes since it's serial numbers are mysteriously gone.

catocom, there is so much to learn from "Blueprint for Truth"
 
G

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
jimpeel said:
I never said that the steel was melted. There was no need to melt the steel, only to anneal it so that the structural integrity was lost.
Click to expand...

But since the steel was melted, and jet fuel cannot melt steel, the theory that the steel weakened and caused the collapse is moot.

Jim, I applaud you for watching "Loose Change". However, I believe "Blueprint for Truth" is far greater. I hope you watch it as well.
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
G

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
catocom said:
I was just watching this latest development...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/2...t-philadelphia-international/?test=latestnews

and it got me thinking...
I haven't heard anyone suggest the theory that the terrorists may have loaded
cargo on these planes that contained thermite, or something like
fertilizer, that might have made it burn hotter.
Click to expand...

That idea is not plausible.

Thermite/thermate would have to be well placed within the buildings in order for them to collapse in its own footprint as they did. The notion that they somehow sneaked a bunch of thermite/thermate in the plane and hoped that with some random damage they could take down the buildings is asinine. Also, "Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)" did not happen as it should of happen.

Furthermore, thermite/thermate was dicovered in all three of the buildings, however, Building 7 was not hit by an airplane.

catocom, I am pretty confident if you just watch this presentation then you will be at least given pause. I also think you could be a catalyst and have a domino effect in getting others to watch it as well by posting your thoughts on it.
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
Gotholic said:
Furthermore, thermite/thermate was dicovered in all three of the buildings, however, Building 7 was not hit by an airplane.
Click to expand...

you say that as if they were still buildings.
They were a big spaghetti after they all collapsed.

Although I do still have suspicions on the Way they fell.
I did look really controlled.

Even if it was controlled though, that still doesn't mean it wasn't terrorist,
or that our own gov. had anything to do with it.
 
jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
catocom said:
Although I do still have suspicions on the Way they fell.
I did look really controlled.
Click to expand...

The reason they call it an implosion is because it all gets sucked into itself as the building falls. As it falls the air is driven out of the floors and it then rushes back in holding the mass together.

Have you ever heard the saying "Nature abhors a vacuum?" The low pressure created by the air being displaced by the floors collapsing upon one another held the debris and the column of the building upright.

The only control was the law of physics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top