• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Wtc 7, It Own Story Of Controled Demolition And Cover Up.

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member

  • [*]Probing disturbing questions that beg for a response from the Christian community, distinguished scholar of religion and popular writer David Ray Griffin provides a hard-hitting analysis of the official accounts of the events of September 11, 2001.

    [*]A tireless investigator, Griffin has sorted through enormous amounts of government and independent data and brought to the surface some very unsettling inconsistencies about what really happened. In this, his latest book, he analyzes the evidence about 9/11 and then explores a distinctively Christian perspective on these issues, taking seriously what we know about Jesus?life, death, and teachings. Drawing a parallel between the Roman Empire of antiquity and the American Empire of today, he applies Jesus?teachings to the current political administration, and he explores how Christian churches, as a community intending to be an incarnation of the divine, can and should respond.

    [*]Other books and DVDs available by David Ray Griffin here are:
    9/11 & the American Empire DVD,
    9/11 Flights of Fancy: Truth & Politics DVD,
    9/11, American Empire & Christian Faith DVD,
    The New Pearl Harbor Book,
    and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions & Distortions Book.

    [*]By David Ray Griffin

    [*]Paperback, 208 pages​
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Ryan2065 said:
I mean its the first major organized attack on United States soil by non-americans in a very long time... There wern't any in the 1900's... not sure if there were any in the 1800's.

You don't count Pearl Harbor for the 1900s?

As for the 1800s -- there was the War of 1812 with the Brits. Shoot, the Brits took D.C. If they hadn't been distracted by Napoleon on the Continent, and sent their 3rd stringers of generals here, they quite possibly would have regained the US as part of the Empire. The only Battle the Brits lost was New Orleans, which was actually fought after the peace agreement.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Ryan2065 said:
Hrm... I have a quick question here...

Why would the government wire the twin towers with exposives when they are crashing planes into the towers? For one the planes alone would do enough damage to promote their war on terror... For two there is too great of a chance the "wired explosives" would no longer work after a huge plane hits the building they are in.

Its too much of a chance to wire the building with explosives when hitting planes into the buildings would do what they wanted... I mean its the first major organized attack on United States soil by non-americans in a very long time... There wern't any in the 1900's... not sure if there were any in the 1800's.

According to the conspiracy theory, the plane will not bring down the tower (the expert in the Government conspiracy team knew) down. At the most, damage will be injuring around dozen of people and killing one or two. To make the effect dramatic to achieve the effect of 'The Pearl Habour', thermite explosive were planted at strategic point by expert demolisher to get the job done. Remember the building has been bombed before, and nothing happened.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Actually around this critical time with five year anniversay approaching, BBC is attempting to diffuse the conspiracy theories by repeating some of the old story favorably to the US Government story, but never repeat their own report of several of the 19 Arab plane hijacker still living happily:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/americas/2006/11_september_five_years_on/default.stm
Guide to how hijacked planes caused the twin towers to collapse
ffffff.gif

o.gif

o.gif

How the four plane hijackings unfolded
Timeline: Al-Qaeda
9/11 report: Key findings
9/11 Commission report (7.4MB)
o.gif
Where is Osama?
A guide to some of the key suspects in the al-Qaeda network
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Matt said:
I have personally seen large metal columns melt in fires that didn't even contain jet fuel at all. I work in one of Australia's main defence buildings and i happen to know that there is a great deal of difference between a bomb hitting a structure, and a commercial airline hitting a structure.

Are you looking at aluminum metal columns or are you looking at steel column?

May be you are looking at thermite source of heating and not jet fuel.

Or may be you are looking at blast furnace type of system?

The temperature that can be attained is dependent on both the amount and the rate of combustion as well as the supporting media of oxygen, and the amount of diluent inert gas (in this gas Nitrogen of the air). It is just like oxy-acetylene flame, with the proper adjusted flame, you can attain very high temperature.
In the case of the 9/11 tower, black smoke implied insufficient oxygen burning, and this will be very difficult for even the fuel or the furniture to burn to reach the temperature that can soften (not even talking about melting) the steel, that is lowering the yield point of the steel by a rise in temperature.

See professor Jones explanation:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/prof_jones_refutes_official_911_story.htm
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 oF). We demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite. An electrical superthermite "match" could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal.
"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.
"Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. "The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly... Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research." (Gartner, January 2005)
Based on these and other discoveries, the possible use of incendiary thermites and explosive superthermites on 9/11 should be investigated immediately and vigorously.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
You don't count Pearl Harbor for the 1900s?
Pearl Harbor wasnt a state at the time... It would be like Puerto Rico being attacked today... Wouldnt have that much of an impact
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
gc said:
According to the conspiracy theory, the plane will not bring down the tower (the expert in the Government conspiracy team knew) down. At the most, damage will be injuring around dozen of people and killing one or two. To make the effect dramatic to achieve the effect of 'The Pearl Habour', thermite explosive were planted at strategic point by expert demolisher to get the job done. Remember the building has been bombed before, and nothing happened.
So however many pounds of jet fuel being spilled all over and set on fire would only injure a dozen people and kill one or two? Not to mention all the floors the plane hit...
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
As far as "melting" the steel goes... Why would the steel have to melt? The hotter it gets the weaker the steel gets... It wouldnt have to melt for the tower to fall... just be weakened enough for the floors above it to snap the metal...
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Alright... I went and looked it up. =)
http://www.structural.net/News/Media_coverage/media_fireproofing.html
Unfortunately, unprotected structural steel members lose about &#189; their strength at 1,000oF (538oC) and rapidly loses more strength as the temperature rises. Unprotected structural steel frame collapse happens quickly as compared to cast-in-place/pre-cast reinforced concrete or masonry structures.
A plane running into a building can very well bring the fireproofing off the steel member.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Ryan2065 said:
Alright... I went and looked it up. =)
http://www.structural.net/News/Media_coverage/media_fireproofing.html

A plane running into a building can very well bring the fireproofing off the steel member.

You have to review Steven Jones' research work on all these steel heating and fireproofing materials falling off etc.

Anyway, if Government sponsored NIST report on the failure of Twin Tower is correct, the designer and the government agency approving the building of the tower should be brought to court for professionality failing their duty. Are we going to see that? No. The Government conspiracy stops here. No prosecution. The towers failed is because of the terrorists, no one else is to be blamed other than Osama bin Laden. If you disagreed and go around doing research to prove the case otherwise, you will be quietly advised to back off, failing which, other means will be brought forward to harrass you and to stop you from misleading the American public.:yes:

By the way, even if the Government report on Twin Tower collapse is creditable, the government is keeping very quiet about wtc7:p :p
 

anyscientologist

Active Member
You don't count Pearl Harbor for the 1900s?Ryan:

Pearl Harbor wasnt a state at the time... It would be like Puerto Rico being attacked today... Wouldnt have that much of an impact

Pearl Harbor meant the destruction of the USA Navy, not the physical location.

An atack on Puerto Rico would mean something like Pearl Harbor if the USA Navy were sunk in there.
 

anyscientologist

Active Member
Ryan:

As far as "melting" the steel goes... Why would the steel have to melt? The hotter it gets the weaker the steel gets... It wouldnt have to melt for the tower to fall... just be weakened enough for the floors above it to snap the metal...

Ryan, your thery has never been prooven in all the history of mankind except for the destruction "By Fire" of the two towers and building 7, all of them owned by the same person and fallen in the same day.


There has been actual tests of fires like in the towers and WTC 7 and they didn't fall.
 

BFD_Zayl

Well-Known Member
ok, dude, so your telling me, that 2 fully loaded planes crashing into a building wouldent bring them down? and that the us govt. just happened to have explosives in it at the time it happened? ....man lay off the vicodin.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
anyscientologist said:
Pearl Harbor meant the destruction of the USA Navy, not the physical location.

An atack on Puerto Rico would mean something like Pearl Harbor if the USA Navy were sunk in there.
I meant for the American public. They hear "Hey, Hawaii got bombed... where is that again?" It didn't have the same kick as "They attacked us on our own land!"

anyscientologist said:
Ryan, your thery has never been prooven in all the history of mankind except for the destruction "By Fire" of the two towers and building 7, all of them owned by the same person and fallen in the same day.


There has been actual tests of fires like in the towers and WTC 7 and they didn't fall.
Wait... what... So it hasn't been proven in the history of the world that metal gets weaker as fire heats it?
 

anyscientologist

Active Member
Wait... what... So it hasn't been proven in the history of the world that metal gets weaker as fire heats it?

It hasn't been prooven that weakened metal by fires bring down an iron structure building, except for the 3 owned by Silverstein.
 
Top