WTC Collapses: what type, weight, num, explosive, detonation would have to be used?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr. Really

New Member
You don't like the word "pathetic"? Sorry.

The smoke is clearly black and oxygen starved. The second tower was impacted on a corner and most of the jet fuel blew outside. Even by the Commission report, the jet fuel was gone in less than ten minutes. The building came down in an hour. In addition, the WTC had less than half the combustible materials of an average building fire (4 lbs per foot as opposed to 9, look it up). In addition, the fireman who reaches the 78th floor reports two pocket which he can knock down with two hoses. One of the survivors who passed through the burning floors reported flames lapping at the walls but nothing raging. Need more? What evidence do you have that the fires were hot? There are no samples that show any support columns near 1000 degrees.

The claim of 1000000 lbs comes from another staff writer, I was just lumping all you. It was my first visit.

How did the huge center columns break so conveniently, from gravity? Why, when the buildings came down, weren't there 30 or 40 floors of center column still standing. NO HEAT REACHED THEM! What of all the reports of explosions from below?

I detect you are running out of facts. Don't fail me now.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
The potential energy of the building once it got going would have easily taken care of those columns.

The hypothesis being explored in this thread is *if* the columns were demolished by explosives, what would it take to do it?

There are more appropriate threads to question the action of fire.
eg..
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ef...ctural-capabilities-of-steel-structures.2939/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...ator-of-an-oxygen-starved-low-temp-fire.2373/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-short-lived-fires-of-wtc-1-2.1771/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pr...5-weve-got-two-isolated-pockets-of-fire.2079/

Please try to avoid unnecessary jab or taunts, just present your evidence and state clearly what you dispute.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The smoke is clearly black and oxygen starved.

Again.....I have seen this same canard again and again and again, over the last ten years....sorry.

There is a "truth" about the Internet: Anything posted on it, never really goes away. This applies to BUNK....bunk that has been around on a multitude of topics, for many years. The events of 9/11 have generated a LOT of Internet BUNK. I am guessing that you might have fallen prey to some of it. There is also a LOT of actual factual information out there, takes a bit of diligence to be able to sift through.

I've been at this a long time.......
_______________________________________________
ETA: I should mention that I can speak specifically to the aviation aspects of the events of 9/11 (which apparently are not your focus....yet...)....but also, in terms of the buildings, I was actually within the area of the Pentagon attack, that morning. Just under two miles away (on a map)....in my residence at the time. So, yeah....i have a bit of knowledge about those specifics.

BUT, this thread is dedicated to the WTC buildings, and their collapses, so any discussions about other buildings (or the airplanes involved) in other threads, please.
 
Last edited:

BombDr

Senior Member.
You don't like the word "pathetic"? Sorry.

The smoke is clearly black and oxygen starved. The second tower was impacted on a corner and most of the jet fuel blew outside. Even by the Commission report, the jet fuel was gone in less than ten minutes. The building came down in an hour. In addition, the WTC had less than half the combustible materials of an average building fire (4 lbs per foot as opposed to 9, look it up). In addition, the fireman who reaches the 78th floor reports two pocket which he can knock down with two hoses. One of the survivors who passed through the burning floors reported flames lapping at the walls but nothing raging. Need more? What evidence do you have that the fires were hot? There are no samples that show any support columns near 1000 degrees.

The claim of 1000000 lbs comes from another staff writer, I was just lumping all you. It was my first visit.

How did the huge center columns break so conveniently, from gravity? Why, when the buildings came down, weren't there 30 or 40 floors of center column still standing. NO HEAT REACHED THEM! What of all the reports of explosions from below?

I detect you are running out of facts. Don't fail me now.
Mr Really, the whole 911 thing has been covered on here in a lot of detail. The way these forums work is to examine single aspects of any claims and then support them with facts. You raise some good questions, but in a multiple format making it difficult to examine.

So, if for example you claim:

In addition, the fireman who reaches the 78th floor reports two pocket which he can knock down with two hoses.

Then you need to support that with references and then state how one fireman's observations in one part of the building explains what is happening in all the other parts of the building.

Also:

What of all the reports of explosions from below?

You again need to state the reference and then state how these people know that they were 'explosions' and not for example rapid combustions, structural failures, aircraft/building debris falling from hundreds of feet etc. "Explosion" is an often misunderstood term and they tend not to look or sound like Hollywood versions, which are designed for visual and audible effect - and of course to be safe.

This is also a community of reasonable people, many of which are experts in their fields, and are quite clear about their areas of expertise. There are pilots and engineers on here, and I am am and Explosive Ordnance Disposal operator and Combat Engineer. I have 60odd hour of light aircraft flying but do not claim to be an aviation expert. I have built a few roads and temporary structures, but would not describe myself as a civil engineer, even though I have a basic understanding of engineering principles.

Each claim you make, or examine should be backed up, and reasonable discussion is always best using neutral language and without emotion. It can be difficult as my 'Light Sabre" ref above illustrates, but that was written last year while I was in Afghanistan and I was verrrrrrrrry tired...

So, ask your questions, one at a time, and back them up. That way a productive examination of the subject can be had.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
You don't like the word "pathetic"? Sorry.

The smoke is clearly black and oxygen starved. The second tower was impacted on a corner and most of the jet fuel blew outside. Even by the Commission report, the jet fuel was gone in less than ten minutes. The building came down in an hour. In addition, the WTC had less than half the combustible materials of an average building fire (4 lbs per foot as opposed to 9, look it up). In addition, the fireman who reaches the 78th floor reports two pocket which he can knock down with two hoses. One of the survivors who passed through the burning floors reported flames lapping at the walls but nothing raging. Need more? What evidence do you have that the fires were hot? There are no samples that show any support columns near 1000 degrees.

The claim of 1000000 lbs comes from another staff writer, I was just lumping all you. It was my first visit.

How did the huge center columns break so conveniently, from gravity? Why, when the buildings came down, weren't there 30 or 40 floors of center column still standing. NO HEAT REACHED THEM! What of all the reports of explosions from below?

I detect you are running out of facts. Don't fail me now.
Wholly off topic. The topic on this thread assumes that explosive demolition was the cause of this near free fall collapse and asks the very reasonable question of how much explosive would be required, and where would these explosives be.

However, since you decided not to address the thread topic and listed several off topic issues...

As for black smoke, I can start a fire and with various fuels make several interesting colour of smoke, black being one if the most common even in an open air, therefore fully oxygenated, fire.

Jet fuel: what of it? Yes it burns off within the first minutes. So what? Is this the conspiracy meme that asserts that the official scenario is that this fuel melted the steel? That's bunk of the highest order and one would think that by now it would not be getting repeated. What role the jet's fuel did play is that it was spread through the buildings over several adjacent floors then it ignited. That is known as an accelerant. It accelerated the spread of fire in the structure. In a common office fire what happens is that a small fire begins. For instance a waste paper basket, or a single location electrical overheating. That then spreads to nearby combustibles, eventually, over the course of hours, perhaps spreading across an entire floor and to adjacent floors. With the dumping of jet fuel over large areas of several adjacent floors the fires in the towers were, within seconds of impact, large area, multi-floor fires, a condition that would , in more common office fires, take hours to develop. It was the fuel already in the structures that weakened( no official scenario claims steel underwent phase change to liquid state - melted) the structural steel.

Heat effects on steel samples: Tower steel members were labeled during construction such that if these labels were intact and readable one could positively identify the original location of that steel. That is how the steel samples from fire floors were identified. Steel that was in the hottest zones had those identifying marks obliterated and thus no steel samples from fire floors showed extreme heating.
However, fire spread computer simulations, commonly used in forensic fire investigations, were run. This made predictions of gas temps and structural steel temps. The predictions for the locations of the positively identified steel samples is consistent with the temperatures that were determined to have affected the physical samples. That validates the simulation predictions and thus one can be relatively confident in the predictions made for other locations on fire floors.

Columns still standing: yes there was a remanent of core columns of one tower that remained after the outer structure had already collapsed. It fell apart a few seconds later. That is a direct illustration of Euler buckling that states that there is a limit to the ability of a slender column to support itself. This remanent would have suffered extreme buffeting during collapse, connections between members would be far from ideal condition. Its a tall slender structure in the first place and could not support its own weight for long without buckling. In fact had the entire outer portions of the towers magically and instantly disappeared, the core itself would have been incapable of remaining upright. Both tower collapses occurred as interior floors were destroyed by falling debris, this removed connection between perimeter columns to core structure. The perimeter column "trees" peeled off quickly following floor destruction. This left core structure that succumbed to both debris impact damage and Euler type buckling. IOW floor destruction led perimeter destruction which in turn led core failure. The remanent aka the "spire" is evidence of that sequence.
 
Last edited:

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Here's a very easy experiment concerning smoke colour:

Start a small bonfire and once it's really hot, toss on a bit of Styrofoam, a coffee cup or egg carton for eg. BLACK smoke! Now, if you have bits of carpet, or samples of plastic, try them one at a time, next try varnished wood, painted wood. Want pretty colours s? Soak a rolled up newspaper in heavily salted water for a few days, then let it dry out for a week in a warm dry place. Toss that on your bonfire( colour will be in the flames, not the smoke).
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Oops, missed the 78th floor reference. Yes, this was the only crew that reached the fires of either tower. Tower two was hit lower and thus reached sooner (fire fighters also already on site at the WTC when it was hit, unlike tower 1, fewer evacuees impeding the climb since many in tower two left after the first hit, and other reasons add up to the reaching of this floor in the second tower hit, first). The 78th floor of tower two is the lowest fire involved floor. It is at the extreme of the impact of the port wing of flight 175. It can be fully expected that this floor would have lesser fires as it would not have been in the path of any fuel tanks. The report also states that there were many dead and injured on that floor. In fighting a high rise fire such as this, it would be courting disaster to then send personnel further up to fight the fires there before putting down those on the lower floor(78). The possibility of being trapped is too great. Secondly, the stairs on higher floors were destroyed and/or full of heavy smoke. Thus the FF making the report seems to focus on getting the fires on this floor out before moving up. He says nothing about higher floors because he has not been there and won't even try until escape to the 78th is viable.

It is , to use a term already put forth in this thread, pathetic to try to ascribe to this report, the notion that it can be used to assert that fires on higher floors were small.
 
Last edited:

derwoodii

Senior Member.
Great thread often i have debated with CT'er the effort practicality and weight of the CD WTC claims but without any knowledge on topic i could only guess and here the best answer yet from what I have distilled from thread its

15596.1 KG + 9374Kgs per WTC so ballpark 25 tonnes per WTC = 50 tonnes for both towers & what about Bld 7 my guesstimate as it smaller 10 tonnes PE4
So we are up to 60 tonnes of PE4 plastic. Thats 3 prime movers or 30 small trucks and who knows how many hands and man hours without being noticed to take up though elevator past post 93 attack security and install as the claim goes. Then all this CD pre rigging is not harmed when 2 planes collide explode and burn or following WTC falls on Bld 7 and it burns.
Very hard to convince that this is at all possible practical but its still even harder to get CT'er to even consider their position now implausible.


And as for getting the explosives in the buildings, we all know why that wasn't a problem, don't we?


Then pls tell me how this was now done without invoking S/Fiction mystery demo gear or invisible explosives.
 

Mr. Really

New Member
The potential energy of the building once it got going would have easily taken care of those columns.

The hypothesis being explored in this thread is *if* the columns were demolished by explosives, what would it take to do it?

There are more appropriate threads to question the action of fire.
eg..
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ef...ctural-capabilities-of-steel-structures.2939/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...ator-of-an-oxygen-starved-low-temp-fire.2373/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-short-lived-fires-of-wtc-1-2.1771/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pr...5-weve-got-two-isolated-pockets-of-fire.2079/

Please try to avoid unnecessary jab or taunts, just present your evidence and state clearly what you dispute.

Sorry for the jab. Knowing I am an underdog here has gotten my testosterone going. My last letter has gotten like ten replies, and I will get to all of you so just be patient. For this letter:
I didn't see a building falling on itself. I saw a building blowing out all over Manhattan. A small portion of the top 15% of the building falling a few feet onto the remaining section of building would never run through the structure. Where was the building in the rubble? If most of the building was falling on itself, there would have been more than 11 stories worth of building material "kind of neatly" piled up. NOT THERE. How do you explain what happened to the upper section that begins to fall off one side, and then appears to explode to dust?
 

Mr. Really

New Member
Again.....I have seen this same canard again and again and again, over the last ten years....sorry.

There is a "truth" about the Internet: Anything posted on it, never really goes away. This applies to BUNK....bunk that has been around on a multitude of topics, for many years. The events of 9/11 have generated a LOT of Internet BUNK. I am guessing that you might have fallen prey to some of it. There is also a LOT of actual factual information out there, takes a bit of diligence to be able to sift through.

I've been at this a long time.......
_______________________________________________
ETA: I should mention that I can speak specifically to the aviation aspects of the events of 9/11 (which apparently are not your focus....yet...)....but also, in terms of the buildings, I was actually within the area of the Pentagon attack, that morning. Just under two miles away (on a map)....in my residence at the time. So, yeah....i have a bit of knowledge about those specifics.

BUT, this thread is dedicated to the WTC buildings, and their collapses, so any discussions about other buildings (or the airplanes involved) in other threads, please.
Weedwhacker,

I've been at this since a month after they shot JFK.
 

Mr. Really

New Member
Wholly off topic. The topic on this thread assumes that explosive demolition was the cause of this near free fall collapse and asks the very reasonable question of how much explosive would be required, and where would these explosives be.

However, since you decided not to address the thread topic and listed several off topic issues...

As for black smoke, I can start a fire and with various fuels make several interesting colour of smoke, black being one if the most common even in an open air, therefore fully oxygenated, fire.

Jet fuel: what of it? Yes it burns off within the first minutes. So what? Is this the conspiracy meme that asserts that the official scenario is that this fuel melted the steel? That's bunk of the highest order and one would think that by now it would not be getting repeated. What role the jet's fuel did play is that it was spread through the buildings over several adjacent floors then it ignited. That is known as an accelerant. It accelerated the spread of fire in the structure. In a common office fire what happens is that a small fire begins. For instance a waste paper basket, or a single location electrical overheating. That then spreads to nearby combustibles, eventually, over the course of hours, perhaps spreading across an entire floor and to adjacent floors. With the dumping of jet fuel over large areas of several adjacent floors the fires in the towers were, within seconds of impact, large area, multi-floor fires, a condition that would , in more common office fires, take hours to develop. It was the fuel already in the structures that weakened( no official scenario claims steel underwent phase change to liquid state - melted) the structural steel.

Heat effects on steel samples: Tower steel members were labeled during construction such that if these labels were intact and readable one could positively identify the original location of that steel. That is how the steel samples from fire floors were identified. Steel that was in the hottest zones had those identifying marks obliterated and thus no steel samples from fire floors showed extreme heating.
However, fire spread computer simulations, commonly used in forensic fire investigations, were run. This made predictions of gas temps and structural steel temps. The predictions for the locations of the positively identified steel samples is consistent with the temperatures that were determined to have affected the physical samples. That validates the simulation predictions and thus one can be relatively confident in the predictions made for other locations on fire floors.

Columns still standing: yes there was a remanent of core columns of one tower that remained after the outer structure had already collapsed. It fell apart a few seconds later. That is a direct illustration of Euler buckling that states that there is a limit to the ability of a slender column to support itself. This remanent would have suffered extreme buffeting during collapse, connections between members would be far from ideal condition. Its a tall slender structure in the first place and could not support its own weight for long without buckling. In fact had the entire outer portions of the towers magically and instantly disappeared, the core itself would have been incapable of remaining upright. Both tower collapses occurred as interior floors were destroyed by falling debris, this removed connection between perimeter columns to core structure. The perimeter column "trees" peeled off quickly following floor destruction. This left core structure that succumbed to both debris impact damage and Euler type buckling. IOW floor destruction led perimeter destruction which in turn led core failure. The remanent aka the "spire" is evidence of that sequence.


I'm sure you could make black smoke with various fuels, but typically hot office building fires don't burn black. Look online at office fires particularly the South American Hotel that burned for 24 hours (didn't collapse).

The simulations are crap. They were created in reverse (What would have had to happen if the floors buckled and collapsed?) These simulations claim that the Plane hitting the South tower damaged ten center columns. Not possible given the direction of the plane. Many people believe that one column was damaged, hit by the jet engine, maybe. I won't argue against these BS simulations.

The large center columns were completely unaffected by heat. The attachment clips between the center columns and the floor beams, and the floor beams and the exterior columns were examined and it was found that they were not only bolted, they were welded on, and would not have broken free so readily as you imply. Certainly, they would have slowed the collapse to at least 20 seconds, even if your theory is correct.
 

Mr. Really

New Member
Here's a very easy experiment concerning smoke colour:

Start a small bonfire and once it's really hot, toss on a bit of Styrofoam, a coffee cup or egg carton for eg. BLACK smoke! Now, if you have bits of carpet, or samples of plastic, try them one at a time, next try varnished wood, painted wood. Want pretty colours s? Soak a rolled up newspaper in heavily salted water for a few days, then let it dry out for a week in a warm dry place. Toss that on your bonfire( colour will be in the flames, not the smoke).


There was very little combustible material in the WTC. I'm sure everyone can create black smoke, but I doubt if anyone inside the WTC that day was soaking newspapers in salt water. Office structures typically don't burn black. I believe the towers were brought down that day so soon after the planes struck because 1) A piece of the top section was tipping over which would have ruined the "effect" of the collapse. 2) the fires were going to fade out soon.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
I saw a building blowing out all over Manhattan. A small portion of the top 15% of the building falling a few feet onto the remaining section of building would never run through the structure.

Are you aware that one of the incredulous observations by truthers are that the buildings fell 'inside its own footprint'? I'm not trying to be a wise-ass, but I assuming from your statement that you do not think this is the case? If you make an assertion like 'would never', it might be helpful if you suggest what 'should' have happened.


If most of the building was falling on itself, there would have been more than 11 stories worth of building material "kind of neatly" piled up. NOT THERE. How do you explain what happened to the upper section that begins to fall off one side, and then appears to explode to dust?
 

Attachments

  • WTC1debrispile.jpg
    WTC1debrispile.jpg
    232.5 KB · Views: 296
  • tallrubblepile-1.jpg
    tallrubblepile-1.jpg
    38.4 KB · Views: 245

Mr. Really

New Member
Mr Really, the whole 911 thing has been covered on here in a lot of detail. The way these forums work is to examine single aspects of any claims and then support them with facts. You raise some good questions, but in a multiple format making it difficult to examine.

So, if for example you claim:



Then you need to support that with references and then state how one fireman's observations in one part of the building explains what is happening in all the other parts of the building.

Also:



You again need to state the reference and then state how these people know that they were 'explosions' and not for example rapid combustions, structural failures, aircraft/building debris falling from hundreds of feet etc. "Explosion" is an often misunderstood term and they tend not to look or sound like Hollywood versions, which are designed for visual and audible effect - and of course to be safe.

This is also a community of reasonable people, many of which are experts in their fields, and are quite clear about their areas of expertise. There are pilots and engineers on here, and I am am and Explosive Ordnance Disposal operator and Combat Engineer. I have 60odd hour of light aircraft flying but do not claim to be an aviation expert. I have built a few roads and temporary structures, but would not describe myself as a civil engineer, even though I have a basic understanding of engineering principles.

Each claim you make, or examine should be backed up, and reasonable discussion is always best using neutral language and without emotion. It can be difficult as my 'Light Sabre" ref above illustrates, but that was written last year while I was in Afghanistan and I was verrrrrrrrry tired...

So, ask your questions, one at a time, and back them up. That way a productive examination of the subject can be had.

I can't swear to what one fireman reported or if it speaks to the entire fire, but there is no fireman to say it was an inferno, so I win one fireman to none. Several people in the basement of the WTC claim that the first explosion happened in the basement BEFORE the plane it. That rules out everything else. I have a PhD in a research science, so let's not pull rank here. I simply don't have time to reference everything, there are hundreds of you and one of me.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.

Attachments

  • Beijing-TV-Tower-615x512.jpg
    Beijing-TV-Tower-615x512.jpg
    56.3 KB · Views: 259
  • 88030.imgcache.jpg
    88030.imgcache.jpg
    84.9 KB · Views: 457
  • 3978200-3x2-940x627.jpg
    3978200-3x2-940x627.jpg
    60.5 KB · Views: 230
  • burning-skyscraper.png
    burning-skyscraper.png
    782.6 KB · Views: 268
  • 990408-1.jpg
    990408-1.jpg
    15.9 KB · Views: 201

Mr. Really

New Member
Great thread often i have debated with CT'er the effort practicality and weight of the CD WTC claims but without any knowledge on topic i could only guess and here the best answer yet from what I have distilled from thread its

15596.1 KG + 9374Kgs per WTC so ballpark 25 tonnes per WTC = 50 tonnes for both towers & what about Bld 7 my guesstimate as it smaller 10 tonnes PE4
So we are up to 60 tonnes of PE4 plastic. Thats 3 prime movers or 30 small trucks and who knows how many hands and man hours without being noticed to take up though elevator past post 93 attack security and install as the claim goes. Then all this CD pre rigging is not harmed when 2 planes collide explode and burn or following WTC falls on Bld 7 and it burns.
Very hard to convince that this is at all possible practical but its still even harder to get CT'er to even consider their position now implausible.





Then pls tell me how this was now done without invoking S/Fiction mystery demo gear or invisible explosives.


Do you know who ran security for the WTC? Enough said.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
I can't swear to what one fireman reported or if it speaks to the entire fire, but there is no fireman to say it was an inferno, so I win one fireman to none.

No, that is an assertion. You make the claim, please support it.

Several people in the basement of the WTC claim that the first explosion happened in the basement BEFORE the plane it.

Define 'explosion', please add a reference, and if these people saw, heard, or felt an 'explosion'.

I have a PhD in a research science, so let's not pull rank here. I simply don't have time to reference everything, there are hundreds of you and one of me.

So please enter your footnotes in a manner that does not appear to be 'I read it on the internet'.
 

Mr. Really

New Member


Really? One is house fire, one is getting water poured on, and the others didn't collapse so they must have been cool. Cool photos though.
 

Mr. Really

New Member
No, not enough said: Explain why you think this is relevant please, but maybe start a new thread.


Securicom, the company that ran security right up until 9-11, had as directors the lesser Bush brother and a Walker cousin. For me that's enough said.
 

Mr. Really

New Member
Could you provide some evidence for this? Why wouldn't it?


It's called physics. If a sports car doing thirty miles an hour runs into the back of a truck and in the next instant the truck and sports car were headed down the road together, you would be surprised. Same principle.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Really? One is house fire, one is getting water poured on, and the others didn't collapse so they must have been cool. Cool photos though.

Office structures typically don't burn black.

You asserted that office fires typically don't burn black. Here are pictures of buildings burning black. I'm struggling with your point: WTC was different, or these other buildings are atypical?

The collapse is irrelevant to your point about smoke.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Securicom, the company that ran security right up until 9-11, had as directors the lesser Bush brother and a Walker cousin. For me that's enough said.
I'm a Boeing shareholder: So what?

You have not explained the relevance of the Bush ownership. Make a claim or disregard. (Suggest new thread)
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Knowing I am an underdog here has gotten my testosterone going. My last letter has gotten like ten replies, and I will get to all of you so just be patient.
You don't have to reply to everyone. Really though you should be making your posts in this thread only about the actual topic.
Feeling overwhelmed by responses is a bit unavoidable when you are challenging accepted wisdom here, so you should be thorough and not just make assertions without evidence.
You can select text in a post and it will be added to your reply so you can quote and respond to multiple posts in the one reply.

Many of the points you raise are discussed in much detail already on other threads, check the parent forum and browse some of the threads which might concern your particular points. https://www.metabunk.org/forums/9-11.28/
You can start your own thread to discuss a specific issue, but it should conform to the guidelines, see here - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
It's called physics. If a sports car doing thirty miles an hour runs into the back of a truck and in the next instant the truck and sports car were headed down the road together, you would be surprised. Same principle.
Oh @Jazzy 's going to love you.
I will just say, I don't think so. I'm not the person to school you though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
T What's the best popular account of the WTC collapses? 9/11 421
Oystein Wayne Coste's new hypothesis for WTC1+2 collapses: nano-thermite propellants! 9/11 23
Cube Radio What is this woman hearing as WTC7 collapses behind her 9/11 40
aka How does this Domino Tower Collapse relate to 9/11 Collapses 9/11 75
Mick West The Various Physical Models Used in Demonstrating Ideas regarding the WTC collapses 9/11 5
solrey Debunked: Dutchsinse - Bayou Corne Sinkhole Collapses Into Aquifer General Discussion 1
Cube Radio Use of Scale Model or Full Sized models for investigating 9/11 collapses 9/11 959
Credible theorist 9/11: Flashes before the tower collapses 9/11 134
Mick West A "cruise missile type of thing" spotted by AA2292 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 62
Leifer Can the admins here, see our unposted ideas as we type them ? Site Feedback & News 8
James Adams Rectangular building type objects on the surface of the moon [Like the Triangle] General Discussion 3
derrick06 Explained: Snow on a Slide Curls Up Like a Blanket [A type of Snowroller] General Discussion 11
cloudspotter What Type of Plane Is This? [Too small to tell, maybe MD80] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
PCWilliams What type of argument ... ? General Discussion 14
Mick West Debunked: "Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism" Quotes Debunked 154
LilWabbit The Scientific Weight of Eyewitness Testimony UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 62
Mick West Cody's Lab: How Weight Changes With Location and Velocity Flat Earth 35
MikeC Aircraft weight and balance in the real world Contrails and Chemtrails 5
JFDee BBC: "Too much weight to fringe views", says review Practical Debunking 4

Related Articles

Top