Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

World Trade Centre Blown Up

  1. Jul 5, 2004 #1
    You guys would not believe what I learned yesterday!
    The story goes like this:
    10 months after 9/11 I met girl in Chicago who was in NY days after the towers collapsed,she was so shocked at what happened and she is very patriotic may I ad, that on her return to Chicago area, she took with herself ziplock bag full of dust and rubble from the WTC to remember this day forever---(Women are so sentimental)
    When I met her and she told me what she has done, She started crying and stuff, and I was really attracted to her so we you know went to her place and had hottest sex ever!!!
    That girl told me also that she is studying chemistry at the University of Chicago, so at that moment lights started flashing in my brain.I am not big conspiracy guy ,but i have read all possible explanations why the towers collapsed.Some people think the towers were destroyed by controlled explosions.
    So I asked her many times if she would not be able to make analysis of the dust particles if they not contain any traces of explosive particles .Finnaly after months of begging on her day off she managed to run gas chromatograph or spectrometer analysis(I don't remember exactly) and well...
    Bingo.There are traces of explosives!! :confused:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 5, 2004 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    According to the principle engineer in an interview on NOVA: Based on the conditions the towers lasted almost exactly as long as they should have. The jet fuel provided the heat needed to weaken the steel. The unique exoskeleton structure of the towers then collapsed exactly as it should have. .

    What exactly was detected? Please post the results.
     
  4. Jul 5, 2004 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    So what are you trying to get us to believe here?

    1.)The terrorists also planted explosives in addition to flying the planes into the buildings.

    2.)Someone else planted explosives, but the terrorists in the airplanes got there first.

    If you watch the footage of the buildings, there aren't any visible signs of explosions during the collapse, it appears to be as Ivan said. Have you ever watched footage of buildings that were imploded? You can clearly see the explosions.
     
  5. Jul 5, 2004 #4
    I agree with the exception of building 7 which anybody can tell was brought down with explosives, watch the video. But that is not so important I guess ?

    http://www.thewebfairy.com/video/7down.wmv

    EDIT: There is alot better footage of the demolision floating about and anlyisis, dont know who did it and why though probably never will.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2004
  6. Jul 5, 2004 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The surrounding damaged buildings had to be brought down with explosives.
     
  7. Jul 5, 2004 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Which would mean that even if some girl that Tumor met who claims that she attends the University of Chicago, who claims to have access to sophisticated equipment, and who is almost certainly not qualified to make an analysis, even if she is right, this is probably residue from the demolition.
     
  8. Jul 6, 2004 #7

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yup, or the ever more credible alien occupation theory where aliens planted explosive material to cover up the fact that the World Trade Center Towers were actually living alien life forms that simply looked like buildings (ala Star Trek TNG first episode “Encounter at Farpoint).
     
  9. Jul 6, 2004 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Or that of course. :biggrin:
     
  10. Jul 8, 2004 #9
    lol. this thread is good for a laugh. Ivan is right for the most part. The fire heated the steel enough to fail the connection between the perimeter columns and the floor joists. these joists were providing the lateral support for the columns, so with them gone the columns went next.

    there were no explosives except for the ones used to bring down surrounding buildings in controlled implosions(as others stated). Many of those building were so damaged from the debris that is would be too expensive or dangerous to repair them. (i am a structural engineer btw).
     
  11. Jul 13, 2004 #10

    megashawn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    lol, I needed a good laugh.

    But that had to be the highlight of the article :)
     
  12. Jul 13, 2004 #11

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    I have to admit, that drew me to the rest of the article. The WTC tragedy was no set up. It cant have been. All the evidence and analysis suggests that it occurred due to the crashes.
     
  13. Jul 15, 2004 #12

    Siv

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yeah, what was the point in going through all the trouble of hijacking 2 large planes and flying them into the WTC ... when you were going to use explosives anyway ?!
    Unless there were 2 separate gangs. But timed so right ... come on. :grumpy:

    Besides like jimmy says ... the planes flying into the buildings was impact enough to bring those buildings down.
     
  14. Jul 15, 2004 #13
    I think that someone is working out their fantasies.
    Getting hot sex AND solving the 9/11 mystery all in one? Gosh, aren't you lucky :rofl:
     
  15. Jul 18, 2004 #14
    hmm confused is right

    Let's see the results of the test.

    What exactly was the explosive residue ?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?