Aliens & UFOs Among Us/Free the Herd Forum
Aliens & UFOs Among Us/Free the Herd Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?




 All Forums
 Aliens & UFOs Among Us/Free the Herd
 Conspiracy Theories
 9/11 Mysteries
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 7

rich
Galactic Member



Canada
639 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2009 :  1:36:22 PM  Show Profile Send rich a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I was thinking about how the towers fell and could it be that they tried to topple one or both towers on building 7?
Explosives would of been used as a last ditch effort.(inwhich they were.
This theroy makes since,since they would of lessoned the cracks for the conspiracy theorist's to pry apon.Such as the footage of the windows being blown out.


We are not humans seeking a spiritual experience but merely spirits having a human experience.
Go to Top of Page

Google AdSense

USA
Mountain View


Elrick
Galactic Member



USA
5831 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2009 :  1:45:38 PM  Show Profile  Visit Elrick's Homepage Send Elrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I thought you might find that video of particular interest H/A. It does indeed look like the steel support columns turn to dust right before our eyes. What can do that?



"For the devout believer, no evidence is necessary. For the devout skeptic, no evidence will suffice."
Go to Top of Page

Elrick
Galactic Member



USA
5831 Posts

Posted - 12/21/2009 :  07:35:34 AM  Show Profile  Visit Elrick's Homepage Send Elrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So how come we do not know about Hurrican Erin? You would think that a hurricane, possibly bigger than Katrina, on the morning of 9/11 would have been big news. There was nothing else going on that morning before the attack that would have been big news. So why were we not told about Erin? We have had (I think) 3 erin's and one was indeed parked right outside N.Y. on the morning of 9/11. The flight path of this hurricane is rather odd as well. After the attacks, the hurricane seems to go directly east in a straight line for a bit. It is almost like it pulls back out to sea a bit before continue north-east. It is almost like the storm was meeting somebody in N.Y. that morning. So what possible reason could they have to just omit hurricane Erin from the news that morning? What possible connection could there be between a hurricane and 9/11?


I have a little quiz for some of you. You was it who said/wrote that one day we would discover that hurricanes were the result of man's attempts to control the weather? But anyways, what is the connection here, if there is one? Well, after several days of reviewing the towers coming down, I have come to the conclussion that the towers are indeed turning to dust right before our eyes. It would require an enormous amount of energy to break down solid steel. This energy would have had to come from somewhere and as far as I know, there were no reports of power surges or power outages on the morning of 9/11. There may have been, but if so I do not know about them. What if they can use these huge storm as a sort of battery? Do you have any idea the power in a storm, if you could learn to harness it? What if this storm was used to provide the energy source for the destruction of 9/11? I know it sounds pretty far fetch, but I have heard far worse.... So what are your thoughts?

"For the devout believer, no evidence is necessary. For the devout skeptic, no evidence will suffice."

Edited by - Elrick on 12/21/2009 07:39:37 AM
Go to Top of Page

HumanAlien
Galactic Member



USA
3821 Posts

Posted - 12/21/2009 :  11:11:13 AM  Show Profile  Visit HumanAlien's Homepage Send HumanAlien a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I don't think a hurricane could do the damage that happened on 9-11.
It may have knocked chunks of buildings off and maybe twisted some
steel girders but a hurricane by it self could not do the damage that
happened on 9-11.

You may be correct though that the energy from a hurricane can be
harnessed and controlled and if a scalar weapon was used, it probably
needed an energy source.

Never in my life have i ever seen steel girders turn to dust like that
so i'm sure some kind of energy weapon was used.

I hope that video of the girder turning to dust wasn't faked.

------------------------------------------------------------




You Are A Spirit Having A Human Experience!
Go to Top of Page

Elrick
Galactic Member



USA
5831 Posts

Posted - 12/21/2009 :  11:43:03 AM  Show Profile  Visit Elrick's Homepage Send Elrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It is supposedly authentic footage from that day. Judy Wood, as well as others are using this to support their claims so I would imagine that if it was fake, it would have been pointed out by now. Even if that footage was somehow faked, the debree coming off the side and turning to dust before it hits the ground should have been enough. The top of tower 2 tipping forward and then disappearing in the smoke, instead of crashing to the ground, was enough for me. Buildings do not crumble when they collapse. I still cannot believe people buy the official story. This storm connection is quite interesting though. The disturbance in the Earth's magnetic field at the time of the building's destruction, is a curious thing as well.



"For the devout believer, no evidence is necessary. For the devout skeptic, no evidence will suffice."
Go to Top of Page

rich
Galactic Member



Canada
639 Posts

Posted - 12/21/2009 :  12:07:05 PM  Show Profile Send rich a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Quite an interesting subject guys!But what gets me so angry is that there are still people who believe that building 7 fell due to the weakening of the steel.If people have eyes and seen the building (7)fall straight down ,isn't that enought evidence to confirm that it was an inside job!?I mean how stupid are thease people? SIGH.....

We are not humans seeking a spiritual experience but merely spirits having a human experience.
Go to Top of Page

Elrick
Galactic Member



USA
5831 Posts

Posted - 03/19/2010 :  08:50:55 AM  Show Profile  Visit Elrick's Homepage Send Elrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Here is just another random vid for 9/11. In this vid, you can clearly see the center support columns turn to dust before actually falling. It starts to fall but then just sort of blows away in the wind. Very interesting.

9-11 Eyewitness Hoboken excerpt - WTC-1
You must be logged in to see this link.


"For the devout believer, no evidence is necessary. For the devout skeptic, no evidence will suffice."

Edited by - Elrick on 03/19/2010 08:51:32 AM
Go to Top of Page

Grey
Galactic Member



Spain
646 Posts

Posted - 03/19/2010 :  2:29:02 PM  Show Profile Send Grey a Private Message  Reply with Quote
That video seems quite misinformed, I'm not moving on this.

Squibs are very small explosives, used in special effects, and are not small enough to cause the explosion. If they acted as a trigger for a bigger explosive, where was the explosive? There isn't really anywhere they could have hidden it, stairwells would have been full, the floors would have been full of people too, and I don't think they could hide it in a cupboard or wall. Also, why would you demolish a building from the top? That would demolish the upper floors, but would leave the building standing.

Also, that is not vapourised steel. It really isn't. Steel vapourises at a massively high temperature, around 3000 Kelvin, or 2727 Degrees, which is hotter than a conventional fire allows.

The physics isn't my area, but I'm currently studying chemistry at a fairly high level at the moment.
Go to Top of Page

Elrick
Galactic Member



USA
5831 Posts

Posted - 03/19/2010 :  2:58:57 PM  Show Profile  Visit Elrick's Homepage Send Elrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Did you mistype Grey? I do not understand some of your statements. Like asking why you destroy a building from the top down, that doesn't make sense. I do not know what you are trying to say there. Or saying that all of that dust is not vulverized steel and concrete when it has to be something and that is the majority of what the building was made from.


You can see the steel column go from what looks like a solid object and then become a smokey cloud. I posted this for the visuals, not the audio. It is not the best clip of it but is just another vid showing it (at around 3:40 and again at 7:00). What is all of that dust then if it is not vaporized or pulverized steel and concrete? It certainly was not smoke. NY was covered in it. The news vids show people walking around covered in this fine powder. A pancake collapse does not produce small particles such as this. We know there were explosions going off. We can see them. Witnesses report it. I do not understand how they brought all 3 buildings down. It likely involved at least some technology the public is not aware of. All I can say for sure, is that it wasn't 2 planes and some burning jet fuel alone that did it. That is clear. Simple put: large rubble w/clumsy collapse = natural collapse ; fine rubble w/high speed collapse = demolition
JMO


"For the devout believer, no evidence is necessary. For the devout skeptic, no evidence will suffice."

Edited by - Elrick on 03/19/2010 3:16:13 PM
Go to Top of Page

Grey
Galactic Member



Spain
646 Posts

Posted - 03/19/2010 :  3:10:38 PM  Show Profile Send Grey a Private Message  Reply with Quote
No, I did not mistype.

Alright, if it's for the visuals, then explain to me what vector, other than Jet Fuel could superheat a fire to such a high temperature as 3000K? I believe that the solid object was not vapourised, but was obscured by concrete dust.

I'm not debating that there was obviously a very large amount of concrete dust, but I'm fairly sure steel would not vapourise. Gaseous metals, such as gaseous iron, and gaseous steel would vaporize other substances, and as it's heavier than air, fall to the ground.

Why were there not clouds of vapourous steel at ground level?

I guess this is my button, lol.
Go to Top of Page

Elrick
Galactic Member



USA
5831 Posts

Posted - 03/19/2010 :  3:28:58 PM  Show Profile  Visit Elrick's Homepage Send Elrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Jet fuel cannot reach anywhere near that hot either, nor could anything that was know to have been in the building, so the question is mute. Something else had to be the source. This was not even a hot fire. It was smoldering. Ok, so you think the columns did not turn to dust but simply fell....ok, then where are they on the ground in the photos? Such high support columns should have been everywhere, leaning into neighboring buildings even. Instead we find smaller pieces flung with tremendous force into neighboring buildings. All 3 collapses were far too perfect. That does not happen by accident. If you think it does, you are fooling yourself. I could accept maybe 1....but all 3? Never happened before, never happened since. Come on, that as big of a stretch as it being a demolition project, if not more.


"For the devout believer, no evidence is necessary. For the devout skeptic, no evidence will suffice."
Go to Top of Page

Grey
Galactic Member



Spain
646 Posts

Posted - 03/19/2010 :  3:37:42 PM  Show Profile Send Grey a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm fairly sure the reason there weren't any high support columns is due to stress and buckling, the heat will have weakened the steel, not vaporized it, causing the girders to buckle, bend and break. The reason they may have been flung, may have been due to the tension in the columns, like a compressed spring.

As I said, physics is not my subject.

The vaporization of high strength steel would have only occurred in very specialized circumstances, as one would find in a foundry or lab, not in a fire with fuel. There is no vector in either the building or the plane which would cause the metal to completely vaporize.
Go to Top of Page

Elrick
Galactic Member



USA
5831 Posts

Posted - 03/19/2010 :  8:13:14 PM  Show Profile  Visit Elrick's Homepage Send Elrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I can agree with that. Nothing in the planes or the buildings should have been capable of causing such destruction. Fire alone (no matter the temp) is not going to cause a steel building to drop that fast. There was virtually no resistance applied to the above floors as they crashed into the lower floors. That in itself is impossible. Those floors had help getting out of the way. To deny this is simply denial because of personal beliefs not allowing you to see what is right in front of you. We have to first drop the notion that this is not a possibility simply because it is too horrible to be true. That should have no factor if you are to be truly objective. This is like religion, people are so grounded in their beliefs that they will not see it any other way. Exploring the possibilities, starts with acknowledging them and disgarding all previous preconceived notions. Preconceived notions color future experiences. You have to drop those to see what is really there.

All of this attempted scientific dismantling of 9/11 to prove one way or another, is not even necessary. Simple logic or common sense is all that is required. It doesn't matter if you know what temp steel melts at. We do not even have to factor in Building 7 (although that should be a major red flag). None of the "numbers" matter. The simple fact remains that both towers were NOT hit in the exact same spot. Nor did they suffer the same amount of damage. I would have found it very strange if they had and wondered how they were able to pull that off. So lets look at just the simple facts. Both buildings did not suffer the same damage yet they fell exactly the same way. A third building suffered very different damage (significantly less btw) yet fell the very same way. If we are truly this ignorant and believe that coicidences just happen that way, then perhaps humanity really is doomed to wallow in its own stupidity. Perhaps they even deserve it but it is not for me to judge.

I have to just come out and ask Grey because I want to understand this. Understanding what and why people believe what they do is why I created this place, originally. What is it that keeps you from believing that those buildings were demolished? When you compare the footage, that is exactly what it looks like. The collapse is almost freefall for all 3 buildings and there is no video footage of any building (steel framed or not) in history that has collapsed with such speed without purposely being torn down. And we have been building large structures for a very long time. It is illogical for me to accept that 3 buildings, suffering significantly different damage, would fall in the exact same manner. So if this has all the hallmarks of a demolition in appearance....what is it that keeps you from accepting it? If it is not your cage (meaning personal beliefs) that is preventing you from seeing it, then what is it? I have to understand this. Where is the flaw if it is in my understanding? What am I missing? Can you help?


"For the devout believer, no evidence is necessary. For the devout skeptic, no evidence will suffice."

Edited by - Elrick on 03/19/2010 8:58:55 PM
Go to Top of Page

HumanAlien
Galactic Member



USA
3821 Posts

Posted - 03/20/2010 :  12:50:14 AM  Show Profile  Visit HumanAlien's Homepage Send HumanAlien a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Don't forget, the first explosion started in the basement. A man that
worked as a janitor was there at the time of the explosion and it
burned all the skin off of his arms and face.

As the man made his way to the lobby, to exit the building to seek
medical attention, the lobby blew up. It blew out the walls and
the staircases.

This happened just seconds or minutes before the plane hit the tower.
I'm not sure what it tower it was at this time but i think it was
the first tower.

Now we are finding out the the 9-11 commission was warned not to cross
the line on their investigation or else something might happen.

You can be assured that these planes didn't hit the towers just by
chance and in my opinion, there never were any hijackers that
flew the planes into the towers.

My belief is that these plane were flown by remote control from
building 7 and once they crashed into the towers and after the towers
fell, then building 7 was demolished to hid the evidence.

I don't know if Grey really did any research into 9-11 but if he
didn't, i suggest that he does.

This was a false flag operation, carried out by our government to
have a reason to go to war with Afghanistan.

There is talk in the air that america may attack iran next so look
for another false flag attack in the usa again.
Go to Top of Page

Grey
Galactic Member



Spain
646 Posts

Posted - 03/20/2010 :  07:12:26 AM  Show Profile Send Grey a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Wow, I feel outnumbered here.

To Elrick:
"To deny this is simply denial because of personal beliefs not allowing you to see what is right in front of you." I'm not simply in denial, I've said before that I hold all possibilities in my mind, and choose one to believe. I believe that it was a terrorist attack. I have always said, on this forum too, so I don't know what happened to that, that someone should always hold all possibilities as possible, and choose one to believe, but never rule out the other possibilities.

You say about being blinded to other possibilities, but it goes for both groups. I know a few people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, who would not believe that it was a terrorist attack, even if you got an engineer or architect to tell them that.

"All of this attempted scientific dismantling of 9/11 to prove one way or another, is not even necessary." That's just the way I think. Science proves many things, looking at in detail often reveals things as true or false, as I am attempting to do here.

"A third building suffered very different damage (significantly less btw) yet fell the very same way." Well, perhaps the building was less stable to start with. I am not an engineer, and so cannot argue about that.

Why do I believe it? Through my own deduction, I have chosen to believe that it was a terrorist attack. That is the only reason, it is simply what theory I choose to be most likely, and thus, the one I choose to believe. As I have said, I still hold the other theories as a possibility, just not the one I choose to believe.

To H/A:
"Don't forget, the first explosion started in the basement. A man that
worked as a janitor was there at the time of the explosion and it
burned all the skin off of his arms and face." Can I please have a link to that? I haven't heard that before.

About it being a false-flag operation:
It is possible, but I think that there have been wars in the past without public backing, so why would any government need it now? For example, see the British Public's response during the lead-up to the War in Iraq. When it was being decided whether to go to war or not, almost everyone I know didn't think we should go to war, and yet the government still decided to invade with the US. Just proof that governments don't need public backing to go to war.

Misc: I don't want to cause any offense with my beliefs, and I hope that I didn't.

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 7 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Aliens & UFOs Among Us/Free the Herd Forum © 2002-2013 Aliens & UFOs Among Us Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000
RSS Feed 1 RSS Feed 2
Powered by ForumCo 2000-2008
TOS - AUP - URA - Privacy Policy
ForumCo Free Blogs and Galleries
Signup for a free forum or Go Banner Free