Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: noto12ious


One possibility, the explosions on the lower levels knocked out the central steel columns, and then cutter charges were detonated below the collapse point of the planes, thus forcing the already weakened central support columns to collapse. Who knows really? The government didn't investigate.

But if you look at the video, the collapse didn't start below where the planes hit, it collapsed above- right were the fire was most intense. After the fire burned for a while, it melted the steel beams to the point that they couldn't support the weight and the building collapsed.

 

[FoBoT]

The firefighters who were in the two towers were not in the least concerned about a collapse, as demonstrated in the fire department?s transcript of their radio traffic. In fact, they stated that the fires were dying out and could be extinguished with just a couple of lines of hose.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: noto12ious


One possibility, the explosions on the lower levels knocked out the central steel columns, and then cutter charges were detonated below the collapse point of the planes, thus forcing the already weakened central support columns to collapse. Who knows really? The government didn't investigate.

But if you look at the video, the collapse didn't start below where the planes hit, it collapsed above- right were the fire was most intense. After the fire burned for a while, it melted the steel beams to the point that they couldn't support the weight and the building collapsed.

That doesn't discredit that the explosions took place. Again, one possibility is there were charges detonated right below the collapse point of the planes...thus forcing the entire weight of the tops of the buildings to collapse downwards.

Also, the steel didn't melt on the upper floors (as admitted by the government). The steel weakened, no mistake about that... so how does one explain "rivers of molten steel" found 6 + weeks after 9/11/01 at ground zero? The government hasn't touched the issue.

 

[FoBoT]

It's easy to rig three office buildings in downtown Manhattan with enough explosives to bring them down without anyone noticing.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

That doesn't discredit that the explosions took place. Again, one possibility is there were charges detonated right below the collapse point of the planes...thus forcing the entire weight of the tops of the buildings to collapse downwards.

It sounds like you're grasping for straws now. Why would these explosives be all over the place if they didn't contribute to its collapse? The building already was pancaking from the floors giving out from the fire. Remember, we're not talking about a normal office building fire, we're talking about one fueled with tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
It's easy to rig three office buildings in downtown Manhattan with enough explosives to bring them down without anyone noticing.

lol :thumbsup:

 

[Ornery]

...it's well documented on the web. You haven't done enough homework...

We're still sifting through the mountain of evidence regarding the fake Apollo Moon Landing!

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: noto12ious

That doesn't discredit that the explosions took place. Again, one possibility is there were charges detonated right below the collapse point of the planes...thus forcing the entire weight of the tops of the buildings to collapse downwards.

It sounds like you're grasping for straws now. Why would these explosives be all over the place if they didn't contribute to its collapse? The building already was pancaking from the floors giving out from the fire. Remember, we're not talking about a normal office building fire, we're talking about one fueled with tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

You're not going to address the molten steel issue?

Grasping for straws? I offered you one possibility, and that's all you come back with? The explosions did happen... you can't refute hundreds of fire fighters / news reporters. Who knows why the explosions were all over the place? They could've been detonating charges periodically so a controlled demolition later on wouldn't be so obvious... they should be investigating those explosions instead of outright denying they occured.

If they have nothing to hide, the Commission would be exploring every possibility for its collapse. So far, they (along with NIST and FEMA) have shut their ears to what all of the witnesses had to say.

 

[FoBoT]

Before the towers were completed New York banned asbestos and the upper floors used an alternative insulation.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
Before the towers were completed New York banned asbestos and the upper floors used an alternative insulation.

I always knew that C4 wouldn't make good insulation. Should've stuck with asbestos.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: FoBoT
Before the towers were completed New York banned asbestos and the upper floors used an alternative insulation.

I always knew that C4 wouldn't make good insulation. Should've stuck with asbestos.

Don't run away from the molten steel issue

 

[FoBoT]

The main planners for the attacks were Khaled Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: noto12ious


One possibility, the explosions on the lower levels knocked out the central steel columns, and then cutter charges were detonated below the collapse point of the planes, thus forcing the already weakened central support columns to collapse. Who knows really? The government didn't investigate.

But if you look at the video, the collapse didn't start below where the planes hit, it collapsed above- right were the fire was most intense. After the fire burned for a while, it melted the steel beams to the point that they couldn't support the weight and the building collapsed.

That doesn't discredit that the explosions took place. Again, one possibility is there were charges detonated right below the collapse point of the planes...thus forcing the entire weight of the tops of the buildings to collapse downwards.

Also, the steel didn't melt on the upper floors (as admitted by the government). The steel weakened, no mistake about that... so how does one explain "rivers of molten steel" found 6 + weeks after 9/11/01 at ground zero? The government hasn't touched the issue.

Shaped charges like they use to cut structural steel in building demolition would not leave "rivers of molten steel".

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: noto12ious


One possibility, the explosions on the lower levels knocked out the central steel columns, and then cutter charges were detonated below the collapse point of the planes, thus forcing the already weakened central support columns to collapse. Who knows really? The government didn't investigate.

But if you look at the video, the collapse didn't start below where the planes hit, it collapsed above- right were the fire was most intense. After the fire burned for a while, it melted the steel beams to the point that they couldn't support the weight and the building collapsed.

That doesn't discredit that the explosions took place. Again, one possibility is there were charges detonated right below the collapse point of the planes...thus forcing the entire weight of the tops of the buildings to collapse downwards.

Also, the steel didn't melt on the upper floors (as admitted by the government). The steel weakened, no mistake about that... so how does one explain "rivers of molten steel" found 6 + weeks after 9/11/01 at ground zero? The government hasn't touched the issue.

Shaped charges like they use to cut structural steel in building demolition would not leave "rivers of molten steel".

So how else would you account for rivers of molten steel?
Hint: Military thermate.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: noto12ious


One possibility, the explosions on the lower levels knocked out the central steel columns, and then cutter charges were detonated below the collapse point of the planes, thus forcing the already weakened central support columns to collapse. Who knows really? The government didn't investigate.

But if you look at the video, the collapse didn't start below where the planes hit, it collapsed above- right were the fire was most intense. After the fire burned for a while, it melted the steel beams to the point that they couldn't support the weight and the building collapsed.

That doesn't discredit that the explosions took place. Again, one possibility is there were charges detonated right below the collapse point of the planes...thus forcing the entire weight of the tops of the buildings to collapse downwards.

Also, the steel didn't melt on the upper floors (as admitted by the government). The steel weakened, no mistake about that... so how does one explain "rivers of molten steel" found 6 + weeks after 9/11/01 at ground zero? The government hasn't touched the issue.

Shaped charges like they use to cut structural steel in building demolition would not leave "rivers of molten steel".

So how else would you account for rivers of molten steel?
Hint: Military thermate.

You mean thermite.

Cutting vertical steel members with thermite is kinda difficult, shaped explosives are greatly preferred for that kind of work. One of the theories I recall reading is that the fires buring in the rubble pile may have reached temperatures sufficent to melt some alloys.

Edit: my spelling has gone to sh!t, time for bed

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: noto12ious


One possibility, the explosions on the lower levels knocked out the central steel columns, and then cutter charges were detonated below the collapse point of the planes, thus forcing the already weakened central support columns to collapse. Who knows really? The government didn't investigate.

But if you look at the video, the collapse didn't start below where the planes hit, it collapsed above- right were the fire was most intense. After the fire burned for a while, it melted the steel beams to the point that they couldn't support the weight and the building collapsed.

That doesn't discredit that the explosions took place. Again, one possibility is there were charges detonated right below the collapse point of the planes...thus forcing the entire weight of the tops of the buildings to collapse downwards.

Also, the steel didn't melt on the upper floors (as admitted by the government). The steel weakened, no mistake about that... so how does one explain "rivers of molten steel" found 6 + weeks after 9/11/01 at ground zero? The government hasn't touched the issue.

Shaped charges like they use to cut structural steel in building demolition would not leave "rivers of molten steel".

So how else would you account for rivers of molten steel?
Hint: Military thermate.

Have any pictures of these supposed "rivers of molten steel"?

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: noto12ious


One possibility, the explosions on the lower levels knocked out the central steel columns, and then cutter charges were detonated below the collapse point of the planes, thus forcing the already weakened central support columns to collapse. Who knows really? The government didn't investigate.

But if you look at the video, the collapse didn't start below where the planes hit, it collapsed above- right were the fire was most intense. After the fire burned for a while, it melted the steel beams to the point that they couldn't support the weight and the building collapsed.

That doesn't discredit that the explosions took place. Again, one possibility is there were charges detonated right below the collapse point of the planes...thus forcing the entire weight of the tops of the buildings to collapse downwards.

Also, the steel didn't melt on the upper floors (as admitted by the government). The steel weakened, no mistake about that... so how does one explain "rivers of molten steel" found 6 + weeks after 9/11/01 at ground zero? The government hasn't touched the issue.

Shaped charges like they use to cut structural steel in building demolition would not leave "rivers of molten steel".

So how else would you account for rivers of molten steel?
Hint: Military thermate.

Have any pictures of these supposed "rivers of molten steel"?

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vide...ve/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&...ters+recall+rivers+of+molten+steel+wtc

 

[FoBoT]

George Bush had giant magnets installed in the Twin Towers to attract airplanes.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: noto12ious

That doesn't discredit that the explosions took place. Again, one possibility is there were charges detonated right below the collapse point of the planes...thus forcing the entire weight of the tops of the buildings to collapse downwards.

It sounds like you're grasping for straws now. Why would these explosives be all over the place if they didn't contribute to its collapse? The building already was pancaking from the floors giving out from the fire. Remember, we're not talking about a normal office building fire, we're talking about one fueled with tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

You're not going to address the molten steel issue?

Grasping for straws? I offered you one possibility, and that's all you come back with? The explosions did happen... you can't refute hundreds of fire fighters / news reporters. Who knows why the explosions were all over the place? They could've been detonating charges periodically so a controlled demolition later on wouldn't be so obvious... they should be investigating those explosions instead of outright denying they occured.

If they have nothing to hide, the Commission would be exploring every possibility for its collapse. So far, they (along with NIST and FEMA) have shut their ears to what all of the witnesses had to say.

SHUT UP ABOUT MOLTEN STEEL, YOU ARE WRONG, WRONG WRONG. A RETARDED MONKEY COULD GET IT BY NOW.

Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt it, we know, but the resulting fire from the rubble that burned for days/weeks could easily build up enough heat to do it.

It doesnt even fit into your stupid little theory, demolitions dont melt steel either.

FURTHERMORE, the explosions you bitch about were too far apart to be controlled demolitions intended to take down a building, their own friggin footage shows how its done.

How about the skyscraper IN LOOSE CHANGE that lost muliple top floors to an intense fire that didnt have jet fuel present?

YOU IGNORE FACTS AND REPEAT THE SAME FRIGGIN THING OVER AND OVER. AROUND HERE ITS CALLED TROLLING AND IM SICK OF YOU.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: noto12ious


One possibility, the explosions on the lower levels knocked out the central steel columns, and then cutter charges were detonated below the collapse point of the planes, thus forcing the already weakened central support columns to collapse. Who knows really? The government didn't investigate.

But if you look at the video, the collapse didn't start below where the planes hit, it collapsed above- right were the fire was most intense. After the fire burned for a while, it melted the steel beams to the point that they couldn't support the weight and the building collapsed.

That doesn't discredit that the explosions took place. Again, one possibility is there were charges detonated right below the collapse point of the planes...thus forcing the entire weight of the tops of the buildings to collapse downwards.

Also, the steel didn't melt on the upper floors (as admitted by the government). The steel weakened, no mistake about that... so how does one explain "rivers of molten steel" found 6 + weeks after 9/11/01 at ground zero? The government hasn't touched the issue.

Shaped charges like they use to cut structural steel in building demolition would not leave "rivers of molten steel".

So how else would you account for rivers of molten steel?
Hint: Military thermate.

It doesnt work that way.

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
SHUT UP ABOUT MOLTEN STEEL, YOU ARE WRONG, WRONG WRONG. A RETARDED MONKEY COULD GET IT BY NOW.

Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt it, we know, but the resulting fire from the rubble that burned for days/weeks could easily build up enough heat to do it.

It doesnt even fit into your stupid little theory, demolitions dont melt steel either.

FURTHERMORE, the explosions you bitch about were too far apart to be controlled demolitions intended to take down a building, their own friggin footage shows how its done.

How about the skyscraper IN LOOSE CHANGE that lost muliple top floors to an intense fire that didnt have jet fuel present?

YOU IGNORE FACTS AND REPEAT THE SAME FRIGGIN THING OVER AND OVER. AROUND HERE ITS CALLED TROLLING AND IM SICK OF YOU.

ROFL!

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Comparison of Thermite Reaction Demonstration to Video Footage of Material Dropping from WTC 2 Just Prior to Collapse on Sept 11th 2001:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
Comparison of Thermite Reaction Demonstration to Video Footage of Material Dropping from WTC 2 Just Prior to Collapse on Sept 11th 2001:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm

website is far too slow, in the images though it appears that the thermite doesnt even damage the material its sitting on or the thin metal poles?

As for the side by side comparison, there was jet fuel and any number of other melted liquids that wouldve given off a similar effect, plastics, glass, etc.

 

[Ornery]

Even MORE amazing, is how they got the plane to hit the EXACT same spot they planted the thermite! :shocked:

 

[bradley]

"......but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?"


What kind of 'controlled' demolition or implosion would use the staggered unpredictability of 200 tons of steel, and 10,000 gallons of jet fuel? An even better question might be: are there any actors and actresses left in Hollywood still grounded in reality? No wonder the Oscars have become such a non-plused television ratings disaster.