The 9/11 Truth Movement

User info

Welcome, Guest! Please login or register.


You are here » The 9/11 Truth Movement » Demolition of World Trade Center for » Far disappeared steel skyscrapers?


Far disappeared steel skyscrapers?

Posts 41 to 60 of 335

41

I a bit about friend, on photo and video in sight, that steel turns into dust. But can be all, that we saw not fits fact. At all all.

0

42

This too a strong assumption. From strong claims many what should, but their harder to prove or although would justify.
If burn taran plane The Tower can be in advance, making on computer, then do false video fall of The Tower - virtually impossible.

0

43

This to be sure, only assumption, naveenoe reading this Forum. This observation themselves, aircraft not was, video otretushirovano until “I (the impression, that this and not video, and computer model), photos all from one source (the so same akess changes). Destruction buildings at all not behind in reasonable borders. Steel far the withered.
And if suggest, that all images forged, and is real only fact demolition and dust, then picture become a bit easier.

0

44

Ah I for example personally saw in direct live, as fell the second a skyscraper (managed already with work home to come). Previous events, too, could would to see, if would at work TV was. But viewing then not was, was only Internet with text news.
This you not’on youtube.

0

45

Steel not withered and not plavilas - this was would in sight on chambers during.
Its have made extremely fragile, under kineticheskom strike disintegrating in dust.
Here is here there is specific findings, that in dust present a large number of carbon.
lay up there is no
In have become contains carbon on level 1-3%. That if botched pereuglerozhivaniehave become, virtually until fortune graphite!?
Not necessarily even, that this was done in day explosion.
Infa on chemistry

Hidden text:

To view hidden text please login or register.


But here is asthis have done, question.

0

46

#p39360,Kzin wrote:

That here there is specific findings, that in dust present a large number of carbon.
Lay up there is no

Отстоя нет wrote:

11. All previous considerations in the sum lead to conclusion about how, that 85-90% masses the entire dust are chemically a net has carbon in it, and themselves buildings most likely were Vietrese in atomarnyy carbon during breakdown.

This is where such conclusions, from any considerations? This reportgives maximum (2 - 6)% carbon in dust.

#p39360,Kzin wrote:

Infa on chemistry

suggests, that carbon in steel (nauglerozhivanie have become) is mired method amending this carbon in molten steel, raze otherwise (no nuclear reactions). Obtaining more average% carbon steel becomes customers. Increasing the tenacity is declining elasticity. And that? By blowing up cast iron receive in the form of pieces dust?

0

47

#p39357,Musicien wrote:

Nu I for example personally saw in direct live, as fell the second a skyscraper (managed already with work home to come). Previous events, too, could would to see, if would at work TV was. But viewing then not was, was only Internet with text news.
This you not’on youtube.


I so same watched on our televisions 2001 as planes destroyed towers, and then me explanations staged a. But later 14 years found on this forum, where on whoever fills cannibalized video and photo documents. And as me seems convincingly proven, that photo and video as least strongly edited. So I and propose a discuss version of about possible 100% rigging all, that us have shown.

0

48

Val wrote:

"Infa on chemistry" suggests, that carbon in steel (nauglerozhivanie have become) is mired method amending this carbon in molten steel, raze otherwise(no nuclear reactions). Obtaining more average% carbon steel becomes customers. Increasing the tenacity is declining elasticity. And that? By blowing up cast iron receive in the form of pieces dust?

Raze otherwise?

Still times reread phrase:
"Than more term exploitation pechnykh pipes, the more degree of nauglerozhivaniya, camping on E. The depth of layer and concentration of in it carbon. Known cases, when concentration of carbon in layer exposed basket reached 6% (masses. Nauglerozhivanie have become leads to a sharp reduce of plasticity. "

T. E. Pereuglerozhivanie there is not in the, and in ready steel (iron) pipe under natural exploitation, as interaction alloy and CO.

Pro surplus carbon in red-informal particles that are in need to read with this pages:
http://otstoja.net/st1/31/

Хим. анализ пыли

Slomy red and informal strata in particles that are in from all four samples dust were investigated also with the help X-ray dispersionnoy spectroscopy (XEDS). Forestry spectra shown on Ris.11.6 and Ris.11.7. Four spectrum on Ris.11.6 show, that a grey tier characterized by high bones of iron and oxygen, with small number of carbon. Chemistry composition red strata also well consistent in all four dizainparaugiem (Ris.11.7). Every of them shows presence aluminum, had, iron and oxygen, and also a significant content carbon.

0

49

#p39365,Kzin wrote:

NO otherwise?

Still times reread phrase:
"Than more term exploitation pechnykh pipes, the more degree of nauglerozhivaniya, camping on E. The depth of layer and concentration of in it carbon. Known cases, when concentration of carbon in layer exposed basket reached 6% (masses. Nauglerozhivanie have become leads to a sharp reduce of plasticity. "

T. E. Pereuglerozhivanie there is not in the, and in ready steel (iron) pipe under natural exploitation, as interaction alloy and CO.

Pro surplus carbon in red-informal particles that are in need to read with this pages:
http://otstoja.net/st1/31/


What is the thickness of the this layer? Speech about millimeters, diffusion in have become very slow process. Influence this layer on a common the tenacity year little.

0

50

#p39365,Kzin wrote:

NO otherwise?

Yes, physics process not has changed - carbon from outside introduced in crystallized bars have become, not iron becomes has carbon in it.

#p39365,Kzin wrote:

All types of them shows presence aluminum, had, iron and oxygen, and also a significant content carbon.

This is can be organic carbon (with bodies, for example).

0

51

Val wrote:

Yes, physics process not has changed - carbon from outside introduced in crystallized bars have become, not iron becomes has carbon in it. This may be organic carbon (with bodies, for example).


Val wrote:

Yes, physics process not has changed - carbon from outside introduced in crystallized bars have become, not iron becomes has carbon in it.


I not want quarrel with those to with your words of.
You said that only in they generallyspend carbon. Now southern on backing out - "physics not has changed." Modicum a bit, monitor his, that write.
No one and not offers another physics this world. Can be to assume - structure have become was changed (in an instant or stance).
I wasn argued, that iron have turned alkhimicheski in the other element of?
're twisting words. Write not reading of references, although would for of decency. Carbon from tel% -).
http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1442838357/9ed666ec/9950810_m.jpg
How many on what you want tel something it took for such a number of?

Option transformation structures have become with the help theory Khalezova can and the most likely. Not I and not you not practicing physics nuke specialists. But little is in 75-megaton. In "pies on" all the more. Perhaps was not such a powerful explosion, and not on conceals 75 meters. And explosion less a powerful, but aimed, with controllable redistribution of energy precisely in steel (as the most toko- toplo not least of element of design.)

Last edited by Kzin (Sep 21 2015 15:48:58)

0

52

tort5 wrote:

by the thickness of the this layer? Speech about millimeters, diffusion in have become very slow process. Influence this layer on a common the tenacity year little.


Ah, it is understandable, that in natural conditions this slowly happening. All we from schools remember pro two slice metals under pressure. Apparently have achieved accelerate this process until instantaneously and. This requires an eerie number of energy, a nuclear explosion the most likely its source of.

0

53

I have still there is one big question: That easier, reproduce three times have all on the eyes of unknown official science process turning have become in dust or rig documents under construction (and on fact instead have become - spetssostav, changing structure "on my whistle, guys").

0

54

Why immediately a nuclear explosion, how many there buildings stood, hour? Can all of this time and behaved process turning have become in dust. Made ordinary Army, created panic and launched the main process transformation.

0

55

#p39376,Kzin wrote:

Nobody and not offers another physics this world. Can be to assume - structure have become was changed (in an instant or stance).
I wasn argued, that iron have turned alkhimicheski in the other element of?
're twisting words.

Don’t I, this is fleeing from "nuclear explosion" or another method transformation steel actual structures in something different (dust).

#p39376,Kzin wrote:

How many on what you want tel something it took for such a number of?

How example, can be in as an example take plastic, -SN 2-SN 2-SN 2- or other variations, winding isolation,. Kerosene the same. The entire organics is based on've got some carbon with.

#p39376,Kzin wrote:

Variant transformation structures have become with the help theory Khalezova can and the most likely. Not I and not you not practicing physics nuke specialists. But little.

Don’t need be lit like lanterns in Physics, to match known un. To write off on what we something there not know - this means can be conjuring up all that like it or, "and we the not know, and uchonye thwarted."
On expense theory Khalezova - if there is theory, and in its this not passes although would one thing equation or thesis, can be whether considered entire the famous correct? Here either "YES", either "NO", logical element of "And" / konyunktsiya: If although would one zero - on exit zero.

#p39378,Kzin wrote:

To this requires an eerie number of energy, a nuclear explosion the most likely its source of.

And as is allocated pledged energy from ’? Or again "we the not know the entire physics process."?

Last edited by Val (Sep 21 2015 19:26:56)

0

56

http://funkyimg.com/i/25q5J.png

.
.

http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1449990424/29038d2b/10775646.jpg

0

57

Merely in

#p39383,Dynamik wrote:

Why immediately a nuclear explosion, how many there buildings stood, hour? Can all of this time and behaved process turning have become in dust. Made ordinary Army, created panic and launched the main process transformation.


Any slow processes transformation have become in something isn't structurally sound I would not became view, so as in this case impossible achieve simultaneous turning steel design in dust. No construction not case well plied with evenly, if is faring slow process, snizhayuschiy strength properties properties supporting structure, "is going to break there where thinly" - the building will morph into a dust first in one place, then in another, i.e., process will stadiynym, not odnomomentnym, such a "beautiful" requires breakdown not happens.

If small objects even and can maintain form of, as a already essentially dust, for supporting structure, of the loaded, in the lower parts of, a huge weight just buildings, such impossible. To turn decked steel the building in clubs dust, something should happen immediately and around the entirety material supporting structure, impact should be odnomomentnym and radically change his strength properties properties not more than for couple of seconds.

From known modern Physics can suggest either powerful shock wave of that extends on frame, caused by, likely nuclear bursting of the (steel conducts breath better than any other materials, and shock wave of has the same nature of, that and breath, then and drugoe- this wave of American retrenchment), either some supervozbuditel, zastavivshiy frame buildings resonate with growing amplitude strains fluctuations, until tension in material not outdid limit ruggedness. Analogue here can serve as glass glass, "a gag exploding" from a powerful voices behest of the. On this thought me suggest testimony eyewitnesses, those who have heard some breath directly before being crushed. But for work this "supervozbuditelya" need a supermoschnost, this consideration, too, leads to nuclear blowup as source of energy. Perhaps, that researchers nuclear explosion have found a way to, allowing to channel a significant share of his energy on electrified powerful prepared waves of in Touring-S ™ snosimogo buildings. In this case violations integrity supporting structure contributing an impediment for turning in dust, that may explain the availability of nerazrushivshikhsya fragments that supporting structure, and aluminium interior decoration saved neprochnost its fastening to proceed.

I have no data about details design underground floors, perhaps, they were not are linked with frame skyscrapers and so had, not obtaining prepared waves of.

Last edited by Aleksys (Mar 30 2016 03:20:58)

0

58

Merely in Version not at all a sound conception!
Now I you'll show as burying ONE IN METALLA. Are looking!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgcqjm6 … e=youtu.be
And now, youthful physics, you better count those with what speed stagnated construction themselves shopping center.
Imagine how plastichen metals under such loads.
And industrial pressure of the I can burying 2-3 ton iron in cube than add volume with a small suitcase.

0

59

#p66338,Lampochka boom wrote:

Version not at all a sound conception!
Now I you'll show as burying ONE IN METALLA. Are looking!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgcqjm6 … e =y outu.be
And now, youthful physics, you better count those with what speed stagnated construction themselves shopping center.
Imagine how plastichen metals under such loads.
And industrial pressure of the I can burying 2-3 ton iron in cube than add volume with a small suitcase.

Ponarozhayut on announcements.

0

60

#p66338,Lampochka boom wrote:

Imagine how plastichen metals under such loads.


Not illustrate and in God not believe, tell us figures.

0


You are here » The 9/11 Truth Movement » Demolition of World Trade Center for » Far disappeared steel skyscrapers?