See other 9/11 Articles
Title: View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed
Source:
www.serendipity
URL Source: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/soldier5.htm
Published: Oct 22, 2006
Author: anonymous Finn
Post Date: 2006-10-22 12:30:26 by robin
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 9095
Comments: 275
View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's. Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions. In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (see above) burned for over 20 hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped. The impossibility of a gravitational collapse is closer seen in other documents. A collapse would produce large pieces, and does not explain reports of fine dust from concrete, huge amounts of dust and pieces of steel ejected outwards. Destruction of the towers by explosions is clear according to the photographs and reports of the eye witnesses. In the picture below, a range of cutting charges have just exploded in the down left sector and a typical white cloud is formed outwards from the wall. Down right, explosions are seen as well. Even a flame is seen. In video tapes taken of the so-called collapses of the WTC, more explosions of these cutting charges can be seen. The explosions advance quickly, with a gap of a couple of floors, cutting the strong steel pillars in the outer wall. The explosions are timed so that it appears that the tower collapses occur in the same timing as in a gravitational collapse. The explosions are not completely synchronized in timing, probably a few charges are triggered by radio, and other charges explode out of the impulses of one of these charges (infrared, pressure wave). More challenging problems to the demolition men, however, were the central cores of the buildings and the 47 steel pillars more robust than the ones on the outer rounds. The pillars of the central cores were made of steel even 100 + 100 mm thick, thicker than the side armours of a battle tank. Cutting those, even with explosives, is extremely difficult. One would need to surround the whole pillars, every single pillar on every floor intended to get blasted, with powerful cutting charges. These charges would have needed to be placed in such a way that the users of the skyscrapers could not notice these preparations. As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb. In the picture below, a hydrogen bomb explosion, the bomb having been placed in the cellar and directed to the core, has reached the roof of the tower and the upper parts of the outer walls. On its way up the waves of fire pressure partially penetrated about 100 floors of concrete and steel. Over ten million degrees of heat caused by a hydrogen bomb sublimised all water within the concrete in a moment. Water exploded extremely quickly into 24-fold volume and totally pulverized the concrete. Even people and computers that were in the buildings disappeared turning into heat and light. That is why almost nothing of them was found in the ruins. Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F). In the pictures down below, super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure wave, are sublimized. They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding heat as quickly as possible. Bursts upwards, even visible in the picture below, are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges which are used horizontally. In the upper picture the explosion is in theory 100 times stronger than in the picture below, but in practice the difference is only four times due to the capability of direction of the small hydrogen bomb. In the picture at the right, the brown shades caused by a hydrogen bomb are seen, while the top of the tower that is already collapsing is breaking down and the posture straightens up as the hydrogen bomb pulverized the core and it lost all its resistance. The piles point the blasts of the cutting charges. (Gehue plate 12) Extremely hot, sublimating pieces are not created with many methods. For comparison, pictures of subterranean nuclear explosions where the explosion is blasting onto surface and into the air: Ess1.2 Kt WTC 2 Banberry 10 Kt underground Radioactivity in air creates shades of brown. (The subterranean nuke in the picture on the right is 10 times stronger than the small nuke on the left.) This is the reason why the FBI did not search the crime scene. Ground zeros of nuclear weapons are a health risk and belong to the FEMA. Poster Comment: For the rest of this: Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11 Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11 Written in spring 2005, a modestly language-corrected version Corrected by another person than the original author. The photographs attached in this non-profit distribution are for securing volatile, important evidence on 9/11 for discussion and education. Author hereby grants full permission to reproduce the drawing 'The Bombs in the WTC' and his writings. You are encouraged to mail, publish and mass produce these documents or your enhanced versions of them. Due to concerns for his personal safety, the author has chosen to remain anonymous. And a glance at some of what he's fighting for (to keep it fair and balanced): 
Storax Sedan 104 Kt shallow underground
Steel pillars are turned into dust. 
The author has chosen to remain anonymous so I'll post this photo of a Finnish soldier. Why? Well because I like looking at Finns, even with green faces.
/9_11/$FILE/9_11.jpg)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#1. To: robin (#0)
Uhhhhhhhhhh...
Hey, he might be. What do you find wrong with his conclusions? BTW, there are other links I listed above the silly photos.
Uhhhhhhhhh.
Do you really believe the official govt story about how the towers "pancaked" and fell?
Is that not what the second picture from the top looks like? You say - explosives did that? How did the wires and detonation initiating devices survive the fire to allow them to be set off? And if they did plant explosives they were damn good in placing the explosive charges just where the plane hit to make it seem the plane did it.. Occam's Razor tares that argument a new ream hole.
You still haven't answered any of the questions I asked on the other thread. The speed at which the towers fell, the center core not still standing, the buildings falling within their own footprint, the squibs, Larry Silverstein's remark to "pull it", the odd activity reported by surviving tenants prior to 9/11, etc.
I did - you did not like the answer. In fact I proposed several theories - some very much implicating the govt - you on the other hand are a bot, robin. Americans on forums tend to be 'bots - some are pro bush-bots others are bots for other causes. The govt may very well be connected to 9/11 - but I discount the nutty notion of demolition charges in addition to plane strikes being the reason for the fall of the towers. In your nutty mind that is not enough. In fact to your nutty mind I must be pro govt even when I say the govt may be responsible somehow for the events of 9/11!! You strike me as a person who would be perfect for the inquisition - it is not enough you accept there is a god but that you view god like I view god. You mention you do not agree that the towers fell top down - then you provide a photo showing the top o f the tower falling down first - and you posted lots of pictures showing the structure tear itself apart from the top down. If you won't accept that the picture we are both looking at shows a top to down fall then we can never come to an agreement - it seems you types try and shoe horn all evidence into your notion. Gravity throws things downward - no surprise that the building would fall like a peeling banana - down with an arc. Not exactly a fall on the footprint. But I understand - America does not produce the brightest of people these days - which is probably why they elected a president that speaks his mind on a grade school level.
#13. To: Destro (#11)
So now you are dishonest too. No, you did not answer my questions. You did not answer how the buildings fell at the rate of a free fall w/o demolitions. You did not answer why the center core was not still standing if the buildings fell because they "pancaked" (there are no floors in the steel center core). You did not answer to any satisfaction or credibility why Larry Silverstein said to "pull it" for WTC7. Nor why only his buildings fell that day. Nor how he made so much $$ on the whole deal. That was a 3 part question.
But I understand - America does not produce the brightest of people these days Neither does the country you are from. Gravity throws? Without gravity there wouldn't even be a concept of up and down.
Some force, other than escaping air from the building collapse, propelled those huge sections of steel away from the building, in order to achieve an arching trajectory. What force is reponsible for that? Gravity pulls down, not sideways.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestView of a Military Expert:
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
(Edited)
#3. To: robin (#2)
What do you find wrong with his conclusions?
#4. To: Cynicom (#3)
#8. To: robin, Cynicom (#4)
Do you really believe the official govt story about how the towers "pancaked" and fell?
#10. To: Destro (#8)
#11. To: robin, Cynicom (#10)
You still haven't answered any of the questions I asked on the other thread.
Replies to Comment # 11.
#82. To: Destro (#11)
Gravity throws things downward
#214. To: Destro (#11)
no surprise that the building would fall like a peeling banana - down with an arc.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.