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: 8457
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 # 76.
#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?
Well, Uhhhh is about the most intelligent offering I have. I failed structural engineering but I do not buy that there was extensive termite damage. I could have just given you a ping but there is no humor in that.
Sorry to hear you actually believe the govt version over the Laws of Physics. Have you viewed any of the 9/11 videos?
Have you viewed any of the 9/11 videos? Sorry to hear you actually believe the govt version over the Laws of Physics. Here I am trying to be helpful and am chastised for my effort. I believe NOTHING the government tells me but I did do rather well in physics. For instance, the law of gravity as discerned by Sir Isaac ruled at 9/11. Videos??? Many.. Have listened to endless "experts" from all sides of the argument. When anyone finally drags some poor soul in front of the cameras and he says, "I did it", I will be eager to listen.
Okay, so what do you believe, if you don't believe the govt and you did well in physics? Let's just take the speed at which the buildings fell. Well documented from a variety of sources. I mean no disrespect, I hope you know that. BTW, there are a few new 9/11 videos that are better at explaining this than others. If you should want those links, I can post them.
What do I believe??? I saw what others saw. Aircraft hit the towers, resulting in a breaching of structural integrity, the law of gravity took over and down they came. One structural engineer posed the following question. "Considering that the buildings fell very nearly within their own footprints, why would anyone intent on destruction and slaughter be so careful, why not arrange to have the building topple so as to kill thousands more and cause widespread destruction"... There was no rebuttal.
You heard the govt version and believed it. A govt structural engineer. Not one could explain, nor tried to explain why the center core was not still standing. Furthermore, in a pancake theory, the floor beneath would not be removed BEFORE the floor above hit it, allowing for a rate of speed that is free fall. This was a planned demolition. That is the only way buildings fall this way. One structural engineer posed the following question. "Considering that the buildings fell very nearly within their own footprints, why would anyone intent on destruction and slaughter be so careful, why not arrange to have the building topple so as to kill thousands more and cause widespread destruction"... There was no rebuttal. Planned demolitions fall into their own footprints. The goal was "a new Pearl Harbor" per Dov Zakheim in the PNAC document written in the '90s. They got it. They planned for it and they got it. Why didn't they set off a huge nuclear explosion for that matter? Why not blow up all of NYC? Why not blow up Tel-Aviv?
I saw what happened same as everyone else. The law of gravity ruled.
The law of gravity does not allow for free fall speed w/o explosives removing the floor beneath each floor falling.
In one conversation I heard the term of "weight compression" being used. Being not too bright, I kept my mouth closed so as to not show my ignorance. I did gather it had too do with weight of one floor being lowered to the one below and overstressing the structure.
That's the "pancake" theory. It doesn't work well with the speeds attained. WTC7 is really glaringly so. Unfortunately, there was a steel core that had no flooring. Yet it all came down too. No one govt even tries to explain that. And that Popular Science explanation written by the cousin of DHS Michael Chertoff, what a joke! The best part is, he tried to deny any connection at first. These people are all idiots. I'm convinced of it. And their arrogance allows them to believe they are actually smarter than the rest of us. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are all devoid of any morals that's all.
If the intent was to bring it down within its own footprint, and cause minimal damage, I wonder why they did not blast two corners low down and topple the entire structure and really spread the destruction? Remember death and destruction was their goal?
Was it? Or just a big event, a "new Pearl Harbor" as PNAC wanted. To bring down these buildings in this way accomplished that, gave Larry Silverstein an extremely handsome profit, also allowed him to avoid the expensive demolition required for buildings with asbestos. These buildings were operating at a loss according to the Port Authority. Only Larry's buildings fell that day. Others were damaged. This was catastrophic enough. And so dramatic. All demolitions are.
And who profited from the Pentagon attack? That cost taxpayers a billion dollars. Or was that and the other aircraft diversions?
A mass murder to cover up a massive heist?? In the movies, it's usually the other way around. Calling Perry Mason...
Uhhhhhhhhh...
I was thinking the same thing.
robin does not think my Uhhhh is a very intelligent answer to anything, think I will tell on her. hehehehehe
Now don't go picking on robin. She might not know your sense of humor... :)
People that use the , Uhhhhh. reply are waiting to join the winning or right group, sort of wishy washy.
I know what happened the last time I asked you to pick wishy or washy.. I'm not going to repeat that mistake. :) Turns out, both can be right.
There are no replies to Comment # 76. End Trace Mode for Comment # 76.
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)
#5. To: robin (#4)
Do you really believe the official govt story about how the towers "pancaked" and fell?
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
#7. To: robin (#6)
Sorry to hear you actually believe the govt version over the Laws of Physics.
#9. To: Cynicom (#7)
#12. To: robin (#9)
Okay, so what do you believe, if you don't believe the govt and you did well in physics?
#15. To: Cynicom (#12)
(Edited)
#19. To: robin (#15)
You heard the govt version and believed it.
#21. To: Cynicom (#19)
#24. To: robin (#21)
The law of gravity does not allow for free fall speed w/o explosives removing the floor beneath each floor falling.
#26. To: Cynicom (#24)
#28. To: robin (#26)
That's the "pancake" theory.
#32. To: Cynicom (#28)
Remember death and destruction was their goal?
#33. To: robin (#32)
To bring down these buildings in this way accomplished that, gave Larry Silverstein an extremely handsome profit, also allowed him to avoid the expensive demolition required for buildings with asbestos.
#35. To: Cynicom (#33)
Or was that and the other aircraft diversions?
#61. To: jessejane (#35)
A mass murder to cover up a massive heist??
#62. To: Cynicom (#61)
Uhhhhhhhhh...
#63. To: jessejane (#62)
I was thinking the same thing.
#71. To: Cynicom (#63)
robin does not think my Uhhhh is a very intelligent answer to anything, think I will tell on her.
#74. To: jessejane (#71)
Now don't go picking on robin.
#76. To: Cynicom (#74)
People that use the , Uhhhhh. reply are waiting to join the winning or right group, sort of wishy washy.
Replies to Comment # 76.