This is clearly a real picture from the 911 event:
To see why the picture is real, and understand what it tell us, we look at the cross section of the WTC perimeter
beam at the yellow arrow.
The WTC beams was thicker at the base and thinner as we move upwards the tower.
This drawing show the details at an intermediate position:
We calculate the steel cross section by:
(Length)x(Thickness) =( 368.3 + 342.9 + 342.9 + 317.5)mm x(12.7mm) = 1371.6*12.7 mm2 = 17419.32 mm2
The joint between the perimeter beams consisted of four one inch bolts, or a cross section of 4x506.7mm2=2027m2.
The beams where also welded. The welding of the beams is argued as follows:
1) On a windy day, if the beams (using only bolts) move due to wind force, the chief engineer will go to history as the man who built the screaming towers of N.Y.
2) Comparing the steel cross sections, it makes sense.
3) The additional construction costs are approx two full-time welders on each tower. This is not very expensive.
4) Archive photo exists that show welding in progress; see "Building the WTC".
On these grounds we add (342.9 + 342.9 + 368.3)x(12.7) = 13387m2 for a total of 15413mm2.
We now look carefully at the end of the beam, shown by a green arrow:
At the green arrow, at the joint, we have 15413mm2 of steel and the beam itself is 17419mm2. We conclude the
the joint is approximately as strong as the beam, so if a force of some kind twist or rip apart the beam,
we would see serious structural failure at the joint (Green arrow). The beam at the green arrow looks straight
and undamaged; then should also the adjacent beam still be attached. Cutting the beam with a shape-charge,
during demolition or afterwards, cannot produce an unconnected beam and is never done in straight angle
relative to the beam. In passing we also add that the strength of the bolts usually is a bit higher for each square mm
compared to the ordinary steel.
The conclusion is that the beam on the picture was never bolted and welded with any other beam
when the tower was demolished. It has been put on the rubble pile afterwards.
The main point is that this hold true independent of demolition mechanism. The most probable (in my personal opinion the
possible) scenario is an intentional controlled demolition by shape-charges. If you fancy the official
licorice-steel-and-fire scenario (completely impossible and also absurd) the picture is still in error.
Look at the picture, at the green arrow, and see how idiotic it really is! If you fancy some UFO style directed energy weapons
demolition (ha!), the picture is still wrong. It still don't go.
So we can conclude that the picture is not from the WTC crash site,
so it was taken at some other site! This hold for all possible,
impossible, or your own favourite demolition scenario!
This is also why the "Planes" simply don't go. If you wish to stretch the entire beam as required to make a dent
into the tower, the stress in the steel during a plastic deformation would be approx 550N/mm2. The trick is that
17419mm2*550N/mm2 = 9.5MN or 976 tons. Approx 10% of this force (the force vector) would be directed against the
"plane". The beam is only 36 cm wide, and the fuselage, or a wing, cannot concentrate 100 tons of force to only 36 cm
width to cut the beam. (Only the engine of the "plane" can do this.)
The WTC towers had a perimeter beam (36cm) for each meter of the tower wall (36cm/100cm). Whenever you see a picture
(video, photo) of the "hole" in the WTC tower, you know the picture is a fake. A plane cannot go through.
Aluminium is a much softer metal compared to steel.
* * * *
We now apply what we have learned on the WTC crash-site photos. Here is a typical photo:
We first check the beams, that we see clearly on the photo. We then proceed with an association technique: We learn to recognise the appearance
of the orange beams with a white border, and from now on, when we see them we KNOW
that it is not the WTC crash site that we look at.
It is some other site set up for photography and video.
It is easy to see that we have the orange beams, or orange/brown beams, also on this picture. The steel thickness of the beams also look
peculiar, they look very thin, and possibly the beams are made of board/wood!?
This picture might be a bit more tricky, but you see the orange beams in the back. There is also
a beam of the typical flat-end type, if you enlarge a hi-resolution version of the picture.
The man on the right; see his brand new helmet
, looks like he only need a price tag to go
on display as a dummy in a shop window.
Some objects are very characteristic. Look carefully at the house or some debris, or the "remaining" WTC façade.
Learn what these items looks like, so you can spot the duplicate crash side from a distance.
We recognise the orange beams; you can also check the minute details and see that the ends of the beams
are like on the fake crash site. Note that there is also "documentary film" taken from the fake site.
The picture of N.Y. is of course a real picture! The crash site; we now know that THIS
crash site was
not the real one. It has been glued into the picture. My personal thought is that the WTC towers was present
when this N.Y. picture was taken, and the towers have been washed away, but I can find no clear evidence for
this. Another alternative would be that only the crash site has been replaced.
Photos from "public_images_WTC Photos.zip.torrent"