Holographic Planes & Blue Beam

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

I'm not a structural engineer either...
But those holes in the towers were quite obviously made by bombs, not planes.

I don't think that's obvious at all.
Are you a demolition expert? How many holes in buildings have you inspected?

[zorgon]

I don't think that's obvious at all.
Are you a demolition expert? How many holes in buildings have you inspected?

Okay so no bombs  no planes What made the hole?



WHY is the core still intact behind Edna

WHY is it not hot enough to fry her?

Where is even a small scrap of the hull of the plane?

WHY does no one ever address those questions

[Pimander]

WHY does no one ever address those questions

It may have been mentioned in this thread already but...

The Pentagon explosion footage released by CNN looks like a charge exploding and not a plane.  The fires in the Pentagon also do not look like kerosine fires.

Zorgon, get a copy of this video for the website.

[Sinny]

I don't think that's obvious at all.
Are you a demolition expert? How many holes in buildings have you inspected?

Only a handful admittedly 

Bombs or no, the holes don't match up with the planes ....

I've been putting shapes through holes since 1 year of age.

[ArMaP]

Okay so no bombs  no planes What made the hole?

Some people saw and heard the planes, are they all lying or wrong?

WHY is the core still intact behind Edna

Is that really the core?

WHY is it not hot enough to fry her?

Why should it be? There are no signs of high temperatures near her.

Where is even a small scrap of the hull of the plane?

I think that any plane debris would be near the opposite side of the tower, not on the side the plane entered the building.

WHY does no one ever address those questions

I don't know if anyone did, but from what I have seen in the last few posts I wouldn't be surprised if someone did but was ignored.

[thorfourwinds]

Regarding Zorgon's 'molten metal':

There are numerous photographs and eyewitness testimonies to the presence of molten metal at the WTC, both in the buildings and in the rubble.

No legitimate explanation has been provided for this evidence other than the exothermic reaction of thermite, which generates the temperatures required and molten iron as a product.

The fires at Ground Zero could not be put out for several months.

Despite the application of millions of gallons of water to the pile, several rainfall events at the site, and the use of a chemical fire suppressant, the fires would not subside. Thermal images made by satellite showed that the temperatures in the pile were far above that expected in the debris from a typical structure fire.

Only thermite, which contains its own oxidant and therefore cannot be extinguished by smothering it, can explain this evidence.



A visualization of how the building was constructed.

How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."


Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

And then there's this:

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

Regarding Zorgon's 'molten metal':

There are numerous photographs and eyewitness testimonies to the presence of molten metal at the WTC, both in the buildings and in the rubble.

No legitimate explanation has been provided for this evidence other than the exothermic reaction of thermite, which generates the temperatures required and molten iron as a product.

The fires at Ground Zero could not be put out for several months.

Despite the application of millions of gallons of water to the pile, several rainfall events at the site, and the use of a chemical fire suppressant, the fires would not subside. Thermal images made by satellite showed that the temperatures in the pile were far above that expected in the debris from a typical structure fire.

Only thermite, which contains its own oxidant and therefore cannot be extinguished by smothering it, can explain this evidence.



A visualization of how the building was constructed.

How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."


Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

And then there's this:

After drilling down into the link provided, here are your 'experts'.

Who We Are

9-11 Research is a research consortium consisting of just a few individuals volunteering their time and resources to the effort. The principal contributors to the site are:
•Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor
•Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor
•Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator

Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.

Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.

Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the  National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the  D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.


So we have a 'background' in software, mechanical engineering?....no degrees? Oh I forgot 'scientific visualization'?
Then we have a 'technical writer', business analyst with a bachelor's degree in phychology? Oh yeah one more.....'earlier education in "hard" sciences'???

And last but not least a graphic designer.

These are the 'experts'?...

Pretty Pictures though....

[zorgon]

Some people saw and heard the planes, are they all lying or wrong?

"Some people"  WHO  Do you have NAMES?   I cannot find any witnesses who are on record that they saw planes.

Yes they are all wrong  It is easy to fool people  It all happened so fast and few people ever question what they are told. Just look at facebook  make a comment. say some scientist said something and everyone accepts it as true... what scientist?  doesn't matter... where are the lab reports?  who cares... the story sounds good...

Fortunately more and more people are finally starting to look closer and THINK it through... and then it becomes clear that the whole thing was fishy

You can argue all you want, you can dodge around all you want, but that hole was NOT made by any airplane  the visual images do not match the tall tale... you don't need to be an engineer or a bomb expert to see that there is no way a plane disappeared into that hole which clearly shows the intact core behind Edna and the gash for the wings is not open enough for the plane to have entered

If you are convinced a plane made that hole, there is nothing that will change your mind... but you have to toss all logic and reason out that window

Is that really the core?

If you look at the construction the building had a core surround by a shell of metal and glass...  you open the shell and look to the center.... what ELSE would it be you are looking at?  And how did the plane get past that to the other side without leaving scraps behind?

As I said  you have to drop all logic and reason to believe your version

I do find it fascinating that so many people like yourself so easily will do that because the alternative is just too hard for them to comprehend...



Now I will read the back posts and see if anyone did address my question

[ArMaP]

Only thermite, which contains its own oxidant and therefore cannot be extinguished by smothering it, can explain this evidence.

Thermite is not the only material that has its own oxidant, matches' heads also have their own oxidant, that's why I used them to make small aluminium foil rockets when I was a kid.

(before any bright mind implies it, no, I'm not saying the WTC was full of matches' heads)

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Although still below the stated temperature that weakens steel, the final temperature would be higher than the one presented on that site, as they "forgot" that the concrete slabs didn't cover the whole area of any story, as the central core had the elevators' and stairs wells, reducing the amount of concrete that the available energy had to heat to around 78% of the values presented (assuming that the core didn't had any concrete, which is not true, but I didn't find any values for the percentage of the area that was covered by the concrete slabs, I only know that the elevators' and stairs wells couldn't have them), raising the final temperature (according to my calculations) to more than 330º C.

I wonder why they ignore the effect of the impact of the planes on the structure.

[ArMaP]

"Some people"  WHO  Do you have NAMES?

No, but I remember seeing several videos showing people witnessing the event.

I cannot find any witnesses who are on record that they saw planes.

That doesn't mean they do not exist.

Yes they are all wrong

I will remember that. 

It is easy to fool people  It all happened so fast and few people ever question what they are told.

Are you assuming that nobody watched the events happening and only got second hand versions?

Just look at facebook  make a comment. say some scientist said something and everyone accepts it as true... what scientist?  doesn't matter... where are the lab reports?  who cares... the story sounds good...

True, but only relevant if you assume nobody witnessed the event.

Fortunately more and more people are finally starting to look closer and THINK it through... and then it becomes clear that the whole thing was fishy

Unfortunately, it looks like they are thinking like those facebook users you talked about above, someone tells them something based on "facts" and they believe it because they think it's the right thing to do.

You can argue all you want, you can dodge around all you want, but that hole was NOT made by any airplane  the visual images do not match the tall tale... you don't need to be an engineer or a bomb expert to see that there is no way a plane disappeared into that hole which clearly shows the intact core behind Edna and the gash for the wings is not open enough for the plane to have entered

What am I dodging? Be clear, please.

And, if you notice, you are the one talking in absolutes, I only said that I thought that the towers collapsing from the damage resulting from the hits and the fires was plausible, I don't know (and do not have any way of really knowing) what really happened.

If you are convinced a plane made that hole, there is nothing that will change your mind... but you have to toss all logic and reason out that window

I'm not the one convinced of any thing, I said it was plausible.

If you look at the construction the building had a core surround by a shell of metal and glass...  you open the shell and look to the center.... what ELSE would it be you are looking at?

I thought it could be a wall or something like that (I'm not used to that way of making buildings, I'm only used to common (in Portugal) buildings made from reinforced concrete columns with reinforced concrete floors made in one piece, now that I had time to look at some diagrams of the towers I see that it was open space around the core and that the "core" was just a group of stronger steel pillars close together.

And how did the plane get past that to the other side without leaving scraps behind?

The plane didn't enter the building horizontally, it could have passed above or bellow that part we are seeing, I would need to see more photos to try to get an idea about it.

As I said  you have to drop all logic and reason to believe your version

You can say all you want, it doesn't make it the truth.

I do find it fascinating that so many people like yourself so easily will do that because the alternative is just too hard for them to comprehend...

What alternative?

[Pimander]

No, but I remember seeing several videos showing people witnessing the event.

I've seen witnesses who looked pretty confused about what they saw hit the Pentagon.  I've also had it explained to me many times (especially by abovetopsecret.com members) that untrained witness testimony about flying objects is notoriously unreliable.

[ArMaP]

I've seen witnesses who looked pretty confused about what they saw hit the Pentagon.

I wasn't talking about the Pentagon.

I've also had it explained to me many times (especially by abovetopsecret.com members) that untrained witness testimony about flying objects is notoriously unreliable.

No doubts about it, witnesses' testimonies about any thing are unreliable, but it doesn't mean they are all wrong.

[zorgon]

These are the 'experts'?...

You can HUFF and you can PUFF...  but you haven't explained why Edna was able to stand there in that hole supposedly hot enough to melt core beams

You can STOMP and you can SHOUT in RED INK... but you haven't explained why orange hot steel was dug up 6 Weeks after the collapse

What about THESE guys? They all nuts too?

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/about.html

And these guys?

Pilots for 9/11 Truth
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

And these guys?

Scientists for 9/11 Truth
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

[zorgon]

I wasn't talking about the Pentagon.

That is the problem with skeptics They always ignore the whole picture

9/11  planes/no planes has to look at ALL THREE sites... you cannot ignore one to favor your pet theory

No doubts about it, witnesses' testimonies about any thing are unreliable, but it doesn't mean they are all wrong.

It can though  if things happen fast enough and you have a few shills in the area to say "Hey it was an airplane!"    The power of suggestion is a very powerful tool. I have seen a stage full of people walk around clucking like chickens from the mere suggestion of the magician

The human mind easily shuts down when something so horrendous happens that it is beyond their comprehension. They will latch on to any life ring to stop from falling into the abyss

That said  this happened in 2001...  We will NEVER know the truth, just like we don't really know what happened at Roswell or the Kennedy Assassination

Hell we don't even know which God is a real god or if there really is a god.

It is all just what ever you want to believe... and most people once they have made up their mind on which reality to accept... nothing will change their mind

UFO's?  Well those are OBVIOUSLY weather balloons clouds blackops airplanes plasma critters inflated garbage bags flocks of birds, orbs, CIA psyops, lens flares, etc  Did I forget something? Oh yes Alien Spacecraft buzzing around aimlessly by the hundreds

Aliens?  57+ assorted species, channeled GFL angels of the Alien brotherhood that is going to save us all from our folly, interdimensional beings, Lochness monsters Bigfoot  and a myriad of Gods Angels Demons and other assorted possibilities

Megaliths.. well nature cannot make right angles so all natural rock formations are made by some ancient race that left no trace of themselves and they obviously had Alien help. Ural mountain megaliths and Bosnian pyramid as prime examples

And in ALL THE ABOVE  all you need is some glib talked to say  "Scientists have studied the DNA of the skulls and prove they are Alien in origin!"

What study? Where was it done? Who are these scientists? Names?  Lab name? Can I see the report please? Can I have an independent lab check?  No? Ah I see,,,,

But that statement is all it takes to convince thousands of people they they have proof of Aliens

We will be debating this and arguing about it until we have one foot in the grave...

[ArMaP]

That is the problem with skeptics They always ignore the whole picture

That's the problem with believers, they prefer to join all things together so they can change the subject. 

I was talking about the plausibility of the towers collapsing just because of being hit by the planes and of the fire, not about the existence or not of planes.

9/11  planes/no planes has to look at ALL THREE sites... you cannot ignore one to favor your pet theory

I wasn't talking about the planes being real or not.

It can though  if things happen fast enough and you have a few shills in the area to say "Hey it was an airplane!"    The power of suggestion is a very powerful tool. I have seen a stage full of people walk around clucking like chickens from the mere suggestion of the magician

Then you have to apply that logic to all witnesses, not just to ones that are convenient for your point of view. To me, although unreliable, witnesses accounts are always useful, that's why we should listen to all.

PS: when I'm solving some problem, one of the ways I use to do it is to try to split it into smaller problems and try to solve one at a time, following a specific order or not, according to the way they were separated into individual problems. In this case I do the same by separating the different plane hits into independent problems and try to solve each one. If they are too complex (they are), then I try to separate them into smaller problems and see if I can solve those or at least some of those. If there are problems that appear to have a solution then I look into how that solution affects the other problems, as if the solution makes the bigger problem impossible then it's not really a solution, even if it looks like one for a specific smaller problem.

PPS: the above explains why I like to split my answers in specific points, while most people like to bunch everything together.