A Structural Engineer Explains How Covid was a Coverup for the 911 Attacks
In this video our long time friend, Joe Olsen speaks with Vincent James from the Red Elephants about how he realises the 9/11 attacks were faked and how covid fits into this grand design.
Olsen realised the 9/11 attacks could not have happened the way the media and government presented using his knowledge as a structural engineer. Looking at the blueprints of WTC1 & WTC2, we can see they use the same basic structure. It is also important to note that asbestos was outlawed in 1972 because WTC1 had asbestos partially in the structure while the upper floors did not and neither did WTC2 or 7.
Olsen explains how the 9/11 attacks were actually a controlled nuclear demolition. The evidence for this has been well documented over the years but most are only just waking up to this information. From images and videos of the building collapse, it stands out to many in the field of engineering that the buildings didn’t react the way they should have if hit by an aircraft.
Source: Bitchute
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
VOWG
| #
Good grief.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Is Principia-Scientific intentionally turning itself into ‘tin-foil hat’ silliness?
This guy, Joe Olsen, is insane.
The towers collapsed, not because floor joists weakened, but the vertical columns got heated to over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit by burning jet fuel. Steel yields at high temperatures, like any metal.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Tunrning?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Have found a summary of your article of Dec. 27,2015. What I read sounds interesting but I am unable to down load it or link it.. I have never read you referring to it. Why?
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
i don’t remember. What was the title/subject of the article?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
“This paper introduces a theoretical breakthrough: H2O molecules collectively neutralize their own polarity ” hydro-bonding of water molecules
Have a good day,
Reply
James McGinn
| #
https://youtu.be/-cLI_nlEbJ4
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Thank you for the link. I understand what you stated and agree with it. However,you . However, you frequently use the word “anomalous”. “deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected.” Which because I what I have observed about solid water (ice). For in ice water molecules are ‘bonded’ to another by covalent bonds (shared pair of electrons between two positive nuclei of two molecules of water (four water molecules of water sharing four pairs of electron with the nuclei of the central (the 5th) water molecule.
I consider ice because I often asked my chemistry students what are the two different water molecules in an ice cube? Because liquid and solid water are condensed matter there is always molecules on the surface which cannot be bonded to four other water molecules (or atoms in the case of metals).
And there is a critical word I have never read you using “resonance”: .”5 Chemistry the state attributed to certain molecules of having a structure that cannot adequately be represented by a single structural formula but is a composite of two or more structures of higher energy.” In ice the two structures are a pair of electrons are between a hydrogen nucleus and an oxygen nucleus or the pair of electron are between the same hydrogen nucleus and an adjacent oxygen nucleus without any assume movement of the two much more massive (than the hydrogen nucleus) hydrogen nucleus and the twooxygen nuclei.
I do not pretend that someone who has not tried to ‘imagine’ how it is the solid water (ice) floats on on liquid water as it is seen the ice cubes do float in liquid water. That solid water floats on-in liquid water is unique but not anomalous.
But it is a fact that one must accept the fundamental idea of quantum mechanics that an electron, with a negative change, can behave as a wave with no rest mass.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: . . . in ice water molecules are ‘bonded’ to another by covalent bonds . . .
James: No, Jerry, this is not even remotely possible.
Jerry, at the beginning of this last post you stated you do understand and agree.
But
Jerry: (shared pair of electrons between two positive nuclei of two molecules of water (four water molecules of water sharing four pairs of electron with the nuclei of the central (the 5th) water molecule.
James: No, all bonds are Hydrogen bonds.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
FSI readers, if there are any who have read James’ and my discussion, you are my witnesses that I tried to inform James what Linus Pauling wrote about in his book: ‘The Nature Of the Chemical Bond’. James, have you ever read his book? Do you know the simple, but critical, difference between an intramolecular bond and an intermolecular bond?
Have a good day
(Corrected your e-mail error) SUNMOD
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Uh, so Jerry, as the number one expert in the world on hydrogen bonding in water, It appears to me that you are too convoluted to distinguish between a covalent bond (which does involve shared electron pairs) and a hydrogen bond (which does not involve shared electron pairs).
Did you read that book? Ever?
Maybe you should.
Why Part of Meteorology is Delusional and How Anyone Can Determine This For Themselves
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/7eEjg9nH1yb
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Reaaders and James,
I call this link (https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Chemical_Bonding/Fundamentals_of_Chemical_Bonding/Covalent_Bonds) to your attention because I did not write It. And I consicisely describes the generally acce[pted ideas about covalent bounding. So if one is not familiar with this understanding of covalent bonding, this is a better review than I could write.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Dear Jerry,
You got nothing, you vague nitwit.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
“Although the Greeks had working planetaria, the first orrery that was a planetarium of the modern era was built in 1704 by clockmakers George Graham and Thomas Tompion. The name of the instrument came from Charles Boyle, 4th Earl of Orrery, who commissioned one of the earliest models. Orreries became very popular at this time and were used both for teaching purposes and, for those who could afford them, recreation in the home. Their popularity was boosted by an enthusiasm for the work of Sir Isaac Newton whose universal theory of gravity had provided an explanation for the orbits of the planets.” (https://www.hsm.ox.ac.uk/orrery)
To see examples of “orreries” one needs to go to the above link. And the reason I draw these machines to one’s attention is that the positions of the moon relative to the inclined earth during their year motions is impossible for me to imagine (reason). But I know that all this complex reasoning was done by the inventors who designed these machines; so I want to know the actual positions (relative to the earth) of the moon and sun, whose “gravities” cause the oceans’ tides. For I have begun to question if Newton’s explanation of semi-diurnal tides is correct. For I am well aware that ocean tides, relative to each other, can be diurnal and semi-diurnal and vary significantly in the range between high and low tides. There are few observations (measurements) that can be considered “regular” to one another.
Plus, we know that Galileo refused to accept that the shape of the earth was ellipsoidal after he risked his life proving that it did not standstill but rotated about an axis with a period of one day. So he ignored the centrifugal effect of this rotation. At times most all humans have made mistakes without being conscience of their mistake.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Since Galileo had died long before Newton, I doubt if he knew of Newton’s work. Newton was not questioning the shape of the Earth but the orbit of the Earth around the sun and Galileo still believed the sun orbited the Earth.
You are blaming your mistaken beliefs on your idols.
Herb
(E-mail error corrected) SUNMOD
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Gallileo knew the Earth orbited thesun. My mistake.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You need to review Galileo’s, Brajes’s, and Kepler’s history.
have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Galileo died before Newton was born so it is hard to blame him for not knowing about forces and inertia which are concepts that Newton created.
Herb
(Corrected your e-mail AND your name error) SUNMOD
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Thanks SUNMOD. My eyes (cataracts) are getting worse and at the end of the day I tend to see what I think I wrote instead of what was written.
Herb
Jerrry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, PSI Readers, and James,
James just wrote: “You got nothing, you vague nitwit.”
I had come to PSI this morning with the thought: There are two distinct types of humans in the world, one type who cannot admit their mistakes and the other who do. James has just illustrated the first type.
And luckily I read further and found Herb’s recent comments, A coincidence which seems a normal part of my life. Clearly Herb is different than James.
So I do not need to call attention to this link.
and I believe this link
(https://www.orrerydesign.com/tellurion-orrery.html). But I do since I believe it is the best I have ever written as it rambles from one seemingly unrelated topic to another..
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Dear Jerry,
Bending words to fit your beliefs is not a scientific method.
This video got 7,000 views in 4 weeks:
Earliest Years of Human Evolution
https://youtu.be/Z7TwiVul7F0
James McGinn / Genius
Kevin Doyle
| #
I don’t know what you mean by the term “Tunrning”? Is that some Scandinavian dialect?
James McGinn, obviously you have never worked in the metal trades. Heat causes metals to ‘deform’ far before they ‘melt’. When a steel column gets hot, it gets soft, then deflects because of the pressure of the stuff above it.
Please, go back to basic engineering school?
You really are over your head in basic engineering and metallurgy. Yet, people listen to your crap.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I meant “turning?” and I was referring to where that word was used in the previous message. I agree about PSI tin-foil hat silliness. I just disagree that it is something new. What we see from Joe Olson and Joe Postma is as bad or worse than many of the AGW whackjobs.
I have no dispute with anything you’re saying. Another thing these 911 whacko’s don’t take into account is that jet fuel is the least of what was burning.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Kevin,
My problem is that I wrote: April 11, 2023 at 5:18 pm “Hi PSI Readers, Did you study the Header? It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Does one believe this? I do. What does one see? I see two towers burning; one with flames and without much smoke and the other with no flames and a very dense BLACK smoke. Did you question what I did; why flames without much smoke and no flames with the dense black smoke? If one doesn’t question what one is seeing., the picture has no purpose and it’s not worth a single word’
James seems to be the only PSI commenter who refers to the “hydrogen bonding” between water molecules which gives water its unique property that ice is clearly less dense than even the impure ocean water’s on which it floats as large icebergs . Of which I assume you and other PSI readers are familiar. As I wrote, as we look at the header of the two towers we see dense black ‘smoke’ rising from one but not from the other where we mainly see flames..
But do all you commenters not know what liquid organic compound produces black smoke if you lite a beaker of it. Surely, a fire-person must be taught this.
Please someone tell us what class of organic compounds naturally burned while producing a dense black smoke.
Have a good day
April 11, 2023 at 5:18 pm | #
Hi PSI Readers,
Did you study the Header? It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Does one believe this? I do. What does one see? I see two towers burning; one with flames and without much smoke and the other with no flames and a very dense BLACK smoke. Did you question what I did; why flames without much smoke and no flames with the dense black smoke? If one doesn’t question what one is seeing., the picture has no purpose and it’s not worth a single word.
April 11, 2023 at 5:18 pm | #
Hi PSI Readers,
Did you study the Header? It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Does one believe this? I do. What does one see? I see two towers burning; one with flames and without much smoke and the other with no flames and a very dense BLACK smoke. Did you question what I did; why flames without much smoke and no flames with the dense black smoke? If one doesn’t question what one is seeing., the picture has no purpose and it’s not worth a single word.
Reply
denis dombas
| #
Kevin, to me you sound more like someone with “tin-foil hat”more then anybody else.Jet fuel can produce only at 1577 F and steel melts at 2777F, encased in concrete needs double that?
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
I have been repeatedly Red Pilled since 1972 > https://bit.ly/JoeOlson2
Structural Engineering classes i completed: Statics, Dynamics, Mechanics of Solids, Strength of Materials, Indeterminate Structural Analysis, Soils Mechanics, Steel Design and Concrete Design. I have been Registered Engineer for 40 years and worked in hundreds of multistory buildings in 20 states. For more info go to BitChute.com and search “Joe Olson, Twin Towers”
https://BitChute.com/video/qsSdSIWX9Jxl/
Reply
Frank S.
| #
My next-door neighbor’s BF worked in the South Tower, and was there to witness the planes hitting the buildings, the burning jet fuel, the smoke of burning office furniture. What weakened the buildings’ structure was when the girders’ rivets softened from the heat. The collapse occurs when any tall structure “pancakes”. As the upper floors combine their weight and momentum, they transfer this to the next one.
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
Girders with rivets haven’t been used since welding was perfected during WWII. I was in Salzburg Austria on 911 and watched on a 19″ TV the South (?) Tower nuclear charges implode on each floor while sucking in the hot gases. And can you account for WTC Building #7. C_I_A and Mu-sad sabotage.
https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/03/9-11-and-the-covid-19-hoax-in-the-installation-of-governance-by-emergency-measures/.
Reply
Tom
| #
After the last 3 years of forced tyranny over a fake pandemic where nothing is proven fact, I won’t dismiss the possibility of our government murdering thousands during 9/11. What are they doing now? Using poison mRNA injections to murder thousands. And trying to force end-of-all-freedom tyranny upon us with WHO medical dictates and the coming CBDCs.
Reply
Robert
| #
I have watched many video’s of the collapse of the towers . Look at the smoke there is no evidence of a high temperature fire. There is black smoke which is evidence of an over fueled fire lacking oxygen. As the towers collapse you will see dust and some smoke shoot out from the pancaking floors exit to the side of the building and then it just stops in mid air almost forming visual vertical line as the floors collapse. This is visual effect is caused by a vacuum inside the building as the result of conventional explosives going off . These explosives would have been placed into drill hole in the concrete support structure in each floor. Timing between individual charges would have been around 15 millionths of a seconds any longer and there may have been problems with what we call cut offs in Blasting . They would have used very reliable detonation cord to link each charge. There would been too much risk of a failure with electric methods and timing or remote devices as they would not be able to rule out an accidental detonation that would have blown there whole narrative out of the water. As one floor is falling the floor below is detonating . This is not rocket science. when explosives detonate they creating a vacuum which helps prevent flying debris out the sides All of the individual charges are well placed and stemmed also preventing shotgun debris. The individual charges do not have to be that large if well placed and stemmed any professional knows this. This took many months of planning and execution as well crews would have been working in there with drills months previous. Or hammering tools. And there was witness testimony I watched of crews working and hammering inside the building in months previous. Also every report I heard from people who were just there described an explosion. Lastly I would think a nuclear device would generate enough heat there would an obvious updraft of very white smoke and gas that I have never seen. But My expertise is with conventional explosives so that is what I will limit my comments to.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
I have never heard of an explosion as creating a vacuum. An explosion is where matter is converted to a gas and heat, creating an expansion and high pressure which blows thing outward, hence explosion versus implosion.
The temperature does not need to reach the melt point of steel to compromise its strength. With today’s shaped steel girders it only takes a small force in the wrong direction to compromise a structure. A hollow tube will withstand a vertical stress similar to a solid steel bar but will be much weaker when horizontal force is applied.
I am no expert but I would think any fire burning in a confined space for an hour would provide enough heat to damage the integrity of the structure.
Herb
Reply
Geoffrey Thomas
| #
Where’s the massive pile of debris ?
That’s the question Dr Judy Woods asks so pragmatically. Frame by frame she analyzes the 911 videos showing steel columns turn to dust before your eyes ! She clearly demonstrates how the current explanations are impossible or only partly correct.
Her answer : Scalar Weaponry – the only technology that could turn a building to dust . Her presentation is meticulous and deserves serious consideration .
This is the How it was done . Is not the real issue Why ? . . . ..the justification for an egregious war on terror for over 2 decades resulting in the sacrifice of thousands of American lives , over a million Iraquis & the loss of individuals privacy arouund the globe .
This was the first step in the Cabal’s New World Order, the Plandemic genocide is the second . 5G, another RF weapon iis their final kill switch for humanity that must be stopped .This is the Global 911.! Please see Dr Robert Young’s work & stop the kill towers before its too late ! Accolades to Principia ….Truth of real science prevails !
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Did you study the Header? It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Does one believe this? I do. What does one see? I see two towers burning; one with flames and without much smoke and the other with no flames and a very dense BLACK smoke. Did you question what I did; why flames without much smoke and no flames with the dense black smoke? If one doesn’t question what one is seeing., the picture has no purpose and it’s not worth a single word.
After questioning what I saw, I began reading the words. In the second paragraph I read: “It is also important to note that asbestos was outlawed in 1972 because WTC1 had asbestos partially in the structure while the upper floors did not and neither did WTC2 or 7.” I ask: What is the purpose of this statement? Did you ask any question about this statement? I asked: What was the purpose of the asbestos?
PSI exists so people can state their options and understandings where other people can read it and possibly give their opinions and understandings about the article and about the comments of other readers just like them. If one does not question what one reads, one is wasting one’s time.
I consider the prime purpose of PSI is to have discussions about the differing opinions and understandings which I can read here. I ask my question because as a SCIENTIST and am curious, and have found that, if I try to answer my questions, I sometimes am satisfied with my answers.
So I stop here to allow other readers opportunity to answer the question I have asked myself before giving any possible answers. For I have found that that other have seen some things which I had hot. So I don’t what to bias anyone’s possible answers to my questions..
Have a good day
Reply
Robert
| #
The vacuum is why explosives make noise. the expansion wave causes a vacuum behind the noise is when the air slams back together . Like thunder When you have multiple charges timed in milli second this happens repeatedly through out the blast. .
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
The ear is designed to react to an increase in pressure not a decrease. When an increase in pressure due to increasing altitude occurs you stretch your mouth to break the seal between the ear drum and ear canal.
When a rocket launches a satellite, it produces a loud noise but no vacuum. The noise from gun fire is from the projectile exceeding the speed of sound, not a vacuum forming. The theory that thunder is the air closing may mot be right. It could be from the energy of ionized air molecule8s neutralizing.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
“The theory that thunder is the air closing may mot be right.”
Like a spark plug, static on a hairbrush makes small snapping or ticking noises. Lightning is a massive step up, so the bang is a massive step up, with reverberation isn’t it?
The ‘met’ say the noise is rapid heating of the air from the flash, yet I’ve been near a strike, and it was a raw buzzing sound for the duration of the flash. The actual bang appeared to come from above, and caused a shock-wave I could feel some time later.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
It seems tome that the atmosphere is already close to a vacuum having a density 1/1000 that water so there would be very few actual additional collisions when equilibrium was restored. The molecules in the air are always continually colliding, yet they don’t seem to produce a notable noise.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again Howdy,
Since electrons are moving from the ground to the clouds maybe the thunder we hear is due to the expansion of the atmosphere as the water in it is vaporized. A steam explosion?
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Herb,
What I’ve found is that anything at all that is in the path of the flash is vapourised, thus causing changes in the perceived colour. Not sure about that yet.
One would expect to see remnants of such a reaction in the aftermath, yet I’ve never seen anything but light. It was orange/purple and quite wide, lasting a second or so. Surely I would have seen something if dust had such an effect?
The flash buzzed, as if it was an AC arc, not in a single direction upward.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
Dust in a rain storm?
Herb
Howdy
| #
Lightning occurs with no rain too, Herb.
Howdy
| #
“The ear is designed to react to an increase in pressure not a decrease.”
If that is the case, Herb, how does one hear the rarefied negative half of a sine wave?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
The ear rum moves because the pressure in the ear exceeds the pressure in the Eustachian tube. This movement is then transferred into the cochlea which converts it into different nerve signals going to the brain, depending on the wavelength and amplitude of the pressure.
A sine wave just represents deviations from the norm, not necessarily positive and negative
Herb
Howdy
| #
A sine wave is a complete cycle from one state to the other and back to equalibrium, Herb. Observe a speaker playing a low frequency wave, say 1 Hertz, you will see the cone move forward smoothly from it’s static position to max positive, back to equilibrium, before moving backwards the same amount again to equilibrium once per second. This is what defines it as a sine wave. A square wave is much more abrupt in response, but still follows the same forward/back path (assuming the speaker is connected in correct polarity).
The Eustachian tube is open ended, thus a pressure equalization device too. The ear still has to follow the excursions of the wave, both positive and negative.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
A wave is a change in a medium. If there is no medium, like air, there is no wave, like sound. There are wavelengths that other animals can hear that we cannot. The ear drum, stapes, and anvil only transmit in one direction. The sine wave you refer to is the range of wavelengths we perceive, much like we only see visible light, it is not a negative air pressure.
Herb
Howdy
| #
A sine wave is a definition, Herb, not random change. Continuous random changes over a timeline are what you are describing Herb, not actual waves, like an earthquake printout for example.
The notes of a violin are precise waves.
White noise, while still waves, appears as random hissing, or rushing sound. When viewed on a display like a TV screen, it appears as random pixels moving in all directions.
Light needs no medium, yet still transmits sound. The light is a wave.
“much like we only see visible light, it is not a negative air pressure”
Visible light? as opposed to invisible light? I think you are confused, Herb.
If I apply a positive half wave only. of say, a kick drum sound to a loudspeaker I will hear it as the cone moves forward and my ear drum moves inward. If I now play only the negative half wave, I will still hear it, as the cone moves backward and my ear drum moves outward.
The ear drum moves in sympathy to sound impinging on it in either direction, not inwards only.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
The medium light travels in is the electric and magnetic fields.
When you strike an anvil with a hammer it produces a sound. When you pick the hammer up it produces no sound. The ear drum returning to its initial position does not result in sound.
Invisible light is any electromagnetic wave that our eyes cannot detect: x-rays, uv, IR, radio waves.
Herb
Howdy
| #
“The ear drum returning to its initial position does not result in sound.”
The ear drum isn’t returning to it’s initial position of it’s own accord, Herb, it is following a sound input, thus a pressure differential. I explained this in my previous reply, and in the speaker cone example.
T. C. Clark
| #
I remember reading the “pancaking” of the floors explanation…seems reasonable to me….a duplicate of a tower could be built in the desert and a jet flown into it but that’s kinda expensive and the same people who say the moon landing was fake would claim the duplicate was fake. It’s the same people who say Oswald did not shoot JFK…..and the earth is flat.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Herb and Howdy,
“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree” (Einstein)
Have any of you pondered why (how it was) that Einstein stated this?
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Have any of you pondered why (how it was) that Einstein stated this?
No, it’s a simple comparison.
Religions, while being completely different, do lead to the same Deity. That is the only outright similarity. Crucifixion is not related directly to Buddah’s enlightenment, nor is Hinduism’s worship of reproduction.
I’ll give him a bit of slack because he’s Pisces, and they can exist between worlds.
Reply
Robert
| #
One of my favorite methods when blasting rock for roads I was building was shooting from the top. It was in my interest to break the rock with blasting so it was 85% usable material for the road I was constructing. This saves time money wear and tear on equipment. I always use this method and variations of it as it became very reliable when detonating relays were developed. Prior to that I used it in smaller blasts with electric caps . Electric caps with built in delays were not reliable in larger blasts as the delay in the the electric caps was not reliable. Basically your shooting one hole at a time at the start of the blast and then multiple surrounding holes in rows into the relief created by the first holes and the shot started in center of the rock cut which caused the blasted holes on each surrounding side to fire to relief top dead center. This pulverizes the rock Just like a
rock crusher Each circle of holes that are firing at each other are delayed. by no more than 15 milliseconds. Like wise if I was blasting a tower I would start top dead center .Or just below where the supposed airliner hit the towers and take out any large cement support structure using the same procedure the cement would be pulverized at the center with all sides following relief to the center. Once relief is created in a blast it the rest of the blasting holes follow relief. So as far as powdering concrete that easy to do. Since I have no knowledge Of the inner structure of the towers I am guessing as to how and where they located the thermite which is the only reliable way to melt steel that quickly and as to the placing of thermite and explosives in each floor .Or just in sections . Thermite is a reliable reaction or method. Since both towers fell the same way with the same speed and with little damage to surrounding buildings we can say that the method used was reliable .There was no screw ups either with the thermite or the explosives . The people that did that job were highly skilled and there was a great deal of planning and preparation .As well months of prep work was done inside those buildings .Each round would follow suit and every floor would be a round and every round is delayed to follow relief created by the previous round and so on .So a building that size had multiple rounds and there is only a few blasting methods and and rapid steel melting methods available that were reliable enough to use at that time. And professionals do not like screw ups because you used a faulty product or a delay did not work or fire or a round did not detonate. In my case every Blast came out of my own pocket and so I focused always on reliable methods that you can reproduce with variation’s over and over again. And yes Herb I know how to blow the air out of a building or an elevator shaft.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
The towers had a different construction than most skyscrapers. Instead of the box steel girder design used in the Empire State building there was central cote containing the utilities and elevators. This was was connected to exterior pillars by steel braces and the poured concrete floors. They were tubes connected by horizontal bracing. What would happen to those horizontal braces if there was thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning under them for an hour +?
In Philadelphia there was a tire fire under an I-95 overpass that required the road to be rebuilt. The overpass was a lot stronger and designed to handle more stress than the floors of the towers.
I find it hard to believe that considering all the witnesses and pictures of the event that people still do not believe that airplanes flew into the buildings. Do you doubt that a plane flew into the Pentagon and think that building was prepped for partial demolition?
Herb
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Steel does not have to be “melted” to lose strength…..it does not even have to be heated red hot to lose some amount of strength. There is a 17 story building in New York that was constructed but never quite finished….it leans about 4 degrees…it has never been occupied ….it is just an ongoing lawsuit over faulty construction.
Reply
Robert
| #
Since there is no physical evidence of an airliner hitting the pentagon . I will say this something may have been fired at the pentagon I do not know what it was. I keep thinking if an airliner hit the towers the wings would have burst on contact surely kerosene would have gotten on the incoming side of building and parts of the wings and tail would been visible somewhere on the street below . I have watched many versions of mayday and in every crash the wings are behind the front wreckage. I have seen enough to know that most of the video’s of the airliners were doctored. And the nose of an airliner would never penetrate one of those towers but the 1 video showed that. Was something shot or flown into the side of the building possibly but . The net result was a demolition of three towers that’s what I see . We know there many people qualified to carry out that work. The most trust worthy witnesses would be the fire man and I would like to see some justice for them. A proper investigation would have provided all the answers. If explosives and thermite were there that could have been investigated and proven false or true . Secondly The large orange flame and the black smoke could also have been done with explosives as well. It seems to me the large orange flame did not burn long enough to account for the kerosene that would have been in a large jet and that makes me think it was not airliner that hit the side of building. Also witness would have been planted there and paid to create the narrative. We all know it was a false flag because the reason to invade Iraq was based on lies and that is now proven.
Reply