9/11 Crime Scene Investigators channel 5 now
13-09-2010, 12:19 PM
#121
and look at both sides of the story. its hard to rule out the possibility that MAYBE, given all the evidence, that it could have been an inside job. they say there is no crime, without evidence, this case, there is a LOT of evidence.
I dont believe those people (IF they existed) were the CIA or similar though.
You could dedicate your entire life to trying to find out both sides of the story and you would NOT succeed in doing so, I have no wish to waste my life chasing a ghost thats of no real interest to me.
Discretion is the better part of valour and in this case I am looking at the problem "decide who really destroyed the twin towers and how" and am making the decision I dont have the ability or information or time or inclination to solve the problem so im not trying.
as for whacko fucktards, architects, police officers, firemen, government employed officials, scientists, people, from each category, have there doubts, and agree its not as it seems, and as a collective group, i wouldnt call them fucktards, or whacko, infact, you need to be super intelligent to do some of those jobs 
I dont beleive that the individual firemen on scene were doing anything other than concentrating on rescueing people and I dont think that any of them gathered enough evidence to really form a valid opinion so yes I think they are "whacko fucktards" if they are now saying they did simply cause thats what a big group of people want to hear.
13-09-2010, 12:28 PM
#122
I think that the first few floors probably did go towards one side to a certain extent, but each time they crashed into the floor below it acted to level out the impact across the structure by transmitting the load, and that then each floor below got hit harder and more evenly than the one before until the load was so massive that it very quickly overcame the minimal resistance the next floor was capable of mustering.
As for if they were free fall speeds or not, I cant comment as I dont know what speed they reached and I dont know what the freefall speed of a building is. But if you compare the people that were jumping out of the windows they seemed to come down more quickly than the building did and I would expect them to have a lower freefall speed not a higher one as they were less dence and covered in flappy clothes that mess up aerodynamics etc, by being completely solid a brick is a lot more aerodynamic than a shape which has soft edges that flap about like clothes do.
So yes it certainly came down quickly, but then with that much mass involved I would expect it to, but Im not qualified to comment beyond that in detail as I dont have enough data or education available to me to do so.
13-09-2010, 01:17 PM
#123
10K+ Poster!!
now that, is an answer upto your usual standard, detailed, and intelligent, that, i have no argument with, just by your usual standards mate, the elvis and whacko fucktards reply, made you sound like some arrogant, narrow minded, dick head, which as ive said, i know, is not the case.
13-09-2010, 01:31 PM
#125
Twistin me melon man
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cambs UK
Posts: 1,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they do have to design sky-scrapers to fall down into their own footprint to minimise damage to adjacent buildings. one of them had more damage towards the corner, as it fell the top section was on the piss but it seemed to straighten as it went down (impossible to know for sure because of the dust cloud) so it seemed to perform under collapse as it was designed to by the original engineers.
there are several anomolies and gaping holes in the official story which has fuelled the conspiracy theorists, and the FPI with-holding certain info (like CCTV footage from the petrol station near the penagon) only added to the theorists. whether or not these anomolies are simply cock-ups in the investigation by dozey buggers (of which i'm sure theres quite a few working in USA authorities) or its an inside job.
i used to think there was some truth in the pentagon and Building 7 theories but as time goes on the debunking of those theories becomes more sensible and the theorists seem to lose credibility by running out of ideas and arent coming up with much better evidence.
the main thing is its unlikely something that big could be covered up due to the amount of dosh one person involved could make from leaking it to the press.
there are several anomolies and gaping holes in the official story which has fuelled the conspiracy theorists, and the FPI with-holding certain info (like CCTV footage from the petrol station near the penagon) only added to the theorists. whether or not these anomolies are simply cock-ups in the investigation by dozey buggers (of which i'm sure theres quite a few working in USA authorities) or its an inside job.
i used to think there was some truth in the pentagon and Building 7 theories but as time goes on the debunking of those theories becomes more sensible and the theorists seem to lose credibility by running out of ideas and arent coming up with much better evidence.
the main thing is its unlikely something that big could be covered up due to the amount of dosh one person involved could make from leaking it to the press.
13-09-2010, 01:33 PM
#126
they do have to design sky-scrapers to fall down into their own footprint to minimise damage to adjacent buildings. one of them had more damage towards the corner, as it fell the top section was on the piss but it seemed to straighten as it went down (impossible to know for sure because of the dust cloud) so it seemed to perform under collapse as it was designed to by the original engineers.
13-09-2010, 01:42 PM
#127
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually dont view it as that strange no.
I think that the first few floors probably did go towards one side to a certain extent, but each time they crashed into the floor below it acted to level out the impact across the structure by transmitting the load, and that then each floor below got hit harder and more evenly than the one before until the load was so massive that it very quickly overcame the minimal resistance the next floor was capable of mustering.
As for if they were free fall speeds or not, I cant comment as I dont know what speed they reached and I dont know what the freefall speed of a building is. But if you compare the people that were jumping out of the windows they seemed to come down more quickly than the building did and I would expect them to have a lower freefall speed not a higher one as they were less dence and covered in flappy clothes that mess up aerodynamics etc, by being completely solid a brick is a lot more aerodynamic than a shape which has soft edges that flap about like clothes do.
So yes it certainly came down quickly, but then with that much mass involved I would expect it to, but Im not qualified to comment beyond that in detail as I dont have enough data or education available to me to do so.
I think that the first few floors probably did go towards one side to a certain extent, but each time they crashed into the floor below it acted to level out the impact across the structure by transmitting the load, and that then each floor below got hit harder and more evenly than the one before until the load was so massive that it very quickly overcame the minimal resistance the next floor was capable of mustering.
As for if they were free fall speeds or not, I cant comment as I dont know what speed they reached and I dont know what the freefall speed of a building is. But if you compare the people that were jumping out of the windows they seemed to come down more quickly than the building did and I would expect them to have a lower freefall speed not a higher one as they were less dence and covered in flappy clothes that mess up aerodynamics etc, by being completely solid a brick is a lot more aerodynamic than a shape which has soft edges that flap about like clothes do.
So yes it certainly came down quickly, but then with that much mass involved I would expect it to, but Im not qualified to comment beyond that in detail as I dont have enough data or education available to me to do so.
The whole 'free-fall' thing is pretty critical - you see whether the building was going to fall down or otherwise, the amount of resistance from beneath should have been great enough to either a) sustain the damaged floors pancking above, B) keep the collapse in check (eg no where near 'free-fall' speed) or C) 'encourage' the mass above to take the 'path of least resistance' - eg more out and down, than straight down through thousands of tonnes of undamaged structural steel.
There isn't much on youtube of building collapses, but even a few examples i found are demolitions gone wrong - not even the pro's can get some buildings to come straight down, and those that aren't planned, topple...
Tom
13-09-2010, 01:49 PM
#128
Tom the buildings you are looking at on youtube are 1960s concerete cancer infested tower blocks, not state of the art modern buildings specifically designed with an impact in mind, so its not a surprise the two act differently, and a "controlled demolition" if done wrongly can exagerate rather than lessen the extent to which they go wayward I would wager.
i wouldnt judge how a modern racecar should corner by watching footage of 1940s cars driven by drunk people, and that seems to be akin to what you are doing and then attempting to draw a meaningful conclusion.
I really do think you are dissapearing up your own arse looking for inconsistinancies which arent actually present by comparing the building to other things that its not designed to be consistant with in the first place.
That would be great, but I doubt is realistic given the forces involved.
Lets say it came down at only 50mph, how would that actually help anyone in it?
I dont think you would thank them for that if you were stood in the street nearby!
i wouldnt judge how a modern racecar should corner by watching footage of 1940s cars driven by drunk people, and that seems to be akin to what you are doing and then attempting to draw a meaningful conclusion.
I really do think you are dissapearing up your own arse looking for inconsistinancies which arent actually present by comparing the building to other things that its not designed to be consistant with in the first place.
a) sustain the damaged floors pancking above
B) keep the collapse in check (eg no where near 'free-fall' speed)
or C) 'encourage' the mass above to take the 'path of least resistance' - eg more out and down, than straight down through thousands of tonnes of undamaged structural steel.
Last edited by Chip; 13-09-2010 at 01:51 PM.
13-09-2010, 02:20 PM
#129
Although listening to all those conspiracy tapes you are led to believe in certain anomolies, it seems they can be explained.
There are what seem to be 'facts' that cannot be explained by conspiracy theorists though. One major one which has been mentioned already is of course how this hasn't come out yet?
The literally army of people it would have taken to carry this out and pinky promise not to say anything to anyone? If this was a demo job, we're not talking 15 people who can be paid off or killed, you're talking hundeds of people in the know. It's just impossible for it to stay a secret.
If Ricki Hatton gets bused for doing a line of coke, you'd think someone would cough up for planting some bombs wouldn't you?
Saying that there is a cover up of some description the same as there is with every major event, but it's more than likely due to stupidty in dealing with investigation that they don't want to admit to.
There are what seem to be 'facts' that cannot be explained by conspiracy theorists though. One major one which has been mentioned already is of course how this hasn't come out yet?
The literally army of people it would have taken to carry this out and pinky promise not to say anything to anyone? If this was a demo job, we're not talking 15 people who can be paid off or killed, you're talking hundeds of people in the know. It's just impossible for it to stay a secret.
If Ricki Hatton gets bused for doing a line of coke, you'd think someone would cough up for planting some bombs wouldn't you?
Saying that there is a cover up of some description the same as there is with every major event, but it's more than likely due to stupidty in dealing with investigation that they don't want to admit to.
13-09-2010, 02:40 PM
#130
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom the buildings you are looking at on youtube are 1960s concerete cancer infested tower blocks, not state of the art modern buildings specifically designed with an impact in mind, so its not a surprise the two act differently, and a "controlled demolition" if done wrongly can exagerate rather than lessen the extent to which they go wayward I would wager.
i wouldnt judge how a modern racecar should corner by watching footage of 1940s cars driven by drunk people, and that seems to be akin to what you are doing and then attempting to draw a meaningful conclusion.
I really do think you are dissapearing up your own arse looking for inconsistinancies which arent actually present by comparing the building to other things that its not designed to be consistant with in the first place.
That would be great, but I doubt is realistic given the forces involved.
Lets say it came down at only 50mph, how would that actually help anyone in it?
I dont think you would thank them for that if you were stood in the street nearby!
i wouldnt judge how a modern racecar should corner by watching footage of 1940s cars driven by drunk people, and that seems to be akin to what you are doing and then attempting to draw a meaningful conclusion.
I really do think you are dissapearing up your own arse looking for inconsistinancies which arent actually present by comparing the building to other things that its not designed to be consistant with in the first place.
That would be great, but I doubt is realistic given the forces involved.
Lets say it came down at only 50mph, how would that actually help anyone in it?
I dont think you would thank them for that if you were stood in the street nearby!
I think we're done Chip.
Tom
EDIT: the towers were designed in the 1970 - hardly modern state of the art!!
Last edited by the mk1 kid; 13-09-2010 at 02:44 PM.
13-09-2010, 02:51 PM
#131
Oh, and for the record there are plenty of engineers who have gone on record saying that it's entirely plausible that the buildings collapsed the way they did as the tower's were "uniquely vulnerable" to the affects of large fires.
I have a good friend who's an extremely experienced structural engineer. He firmly believes that there are inconsistencies in the stories about how the towers collapsed as the American Government doesn't want to own up to the fact that the towers collapsed due to appalling design flaws, and that there could be many other massive structures equally vulnerable to fire/collapse.
The planes crashing into the buildings simply revealed a massive 'issue' with such huge structures, and the American Government can't own up to it, as the cost to make them all safe is literally incalculable.
Last edited by DanW@FastFord; 13-09-2010 at 02:54 PM.
13-09-2010, 02:55 PM
#133
As I've stated, thisI believe would explain some form of cover up. It's not ideal basically openly admitting to the public that they were a crap design and it's certainly not ideal essentially advising terroists of the future that there's an 'easy' way to create a lot of destruction due to these crap designs.
13-09-2010, 03:02 PM
#134
As I've stated, thisI believe would explain some form of cover up. It's not ideal basically openly admitting to the public that they were a crap design and it's certainly not ideal essentially advising terroists of the future that there's an 'easy' way to create a lot of destruction due to these crap designs.
Quite why the conspiracy theorists think the terrorists would want to help the Americans justify a war against them is beyond me.
13-09-2010, 03:11 PM
#135
There is no doubt that the yank government are being shadey with the truth.
The problem is all the people going:
2 the building collapsed from "only a plane crash" + 2 the US government are covering things up = 73 the cia blew it up using a borrowed navy seal team
rather than:
2 the building collapsed from "only a plane crash" + 2 the US government are covering things up = 4 politically it would be bad to admit their "flagship" buildings were flawed
The problem is all the people going:
2 the building collapsed from "only a plane crash" + 2 the US government are covering things up = 73 the cia blew it up using a borrowed navy seal team
rather than:
2 the building collapsed from "only a plane crash" + 2 the US government are covering things up = 4 politically it would be bad to admit their "flagship" buildings were flawed
13-09-2010, 03:16 PM
#137
There is no doubt that the yank government are being shadey with the truth.
The problem is all the people going:
2 the building collapsed from "only a plane crash" + 2 the US government are covering things up = 73 the cia blew it up using a borrowed navy seal team
rather than:
2 the building collapsed from "only a plane crash" + 2 the US government are covering things up = 4 politically it would be bad to admit their "flagship" buildings were flawed
The problem is all the people going:
2 the building collapsed from "only a plane crash" + 2 the US government are covering things up = 73 the cia blew it up using a borrowed navy seal team
rather than:
2 the building collapsed from "only a plane crash" + 2 the US government are covering things up = 4 politically it would be bad to admit their "flagship" buildings were flawed
13-09-2010, 03:17 PM
#138
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's called having an opinion. Chip is entitled to one. If you don't agree then sulking out of the argument makes you the looser
Oh, and for the record there are plenty of engineers who have gone on record saying that it's entirely plausible that the buildings collapsed the way they did as the tower's were "uniquely vulnerable" to the affects of large fires.
I have a good friend who's an extremely experienced structural engineer. He firmly believes that there are inconsistencies in the stories about how the towers collapsed as the American Government doesn't want to own up to the fact that the towers collapsed due to appalling design flaws, and that there could be many other massive structures equally vulnerable to fire/collapse.
The planes crashing into the buildings simply revealed a massive 'issue' with such huge structures, and the American Government can't own up to it, as the cost to make them all safe is literally incalculable.
Oh, and for the record there are plenty of engineers who have gone on record saying that it's entirely plausible that the buildings collapsed the way they did as the tower's were "uniquely vulnerable" to the affects of large fires.
I have a good friend who's an extremely experienced structural engineer. He firmly believes that there are inconsistencies in the stories about how the towers collapsed as the American Government doesn't want to own up to the fact that the towers collapsed due to appalling design flaws, and that there could be many other massive structures equally vulnerable to fire/collapse.
The planes crashing into the buildings simply revealed a massive 'issue' with such huge structures, and the American Government can't own up to it, as the cost to make them all safe is literally incalculable.
As for sulking - have you been speaking to the Mrs!?
Shall i come back and play when i have a 500 or a few thousand posts?
Tom
13-09-2010, 03:19 PM
#139
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting non-bias, non-American, non-knee-jerk paper...
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216
Tom
13-09-2010, 03:20 PM
#140
Interesting non-bias, non-American, non-knee-jerk paper...
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216
I suspect that some people in this thread will prefer to refer to youtube videos stating "facts" instead though
13-09-2010, 03:37 PM
#141
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In short:
''It can therefore be provisionally concluded that these buildings could have collapsed as a result of a major fire event''.
Fair enough.
Alternatively though, charges produced this heat with the same or similar effect. This hypothesis explains the molten steel pooring from the corner of one of the towers, it explains the thermite in all of the dust, the pyroclastic dust flow, the quibs, the ariel on the top of the tower dropping first (well above floors with fires on), it explains the pulverised concrete and pools of molten steel still glowing in the basement for weeks after the last fires had been put out or the fact all 3 buildings fell in such a similar fashion...
Call me a cynic!
Tom
EDIT: no videos!
''It can therefore be provisionally concluded that these buildings could have collapsed as a result of a major fire event''.
Fair enough.
Alternatively though, charges produced this heat with the same or similar effect. This hypothesis explains the molten steel pooring from the corner of one of the towers, it explains the thermite in all of the dust, the pyroclastic dust flow, the quibs, the ariel on the top of the tower dropping first (well above floors with fires on), it explains the pulverised concrete and pools of molten steel still glowing in the basement for weeks after the last fires had been put out or the fact all 3 buildings fell in such a similar fashion...
Call me a cynic!
Tom
EDIT: no videos!
13-09-2010, 06:01 PM
#144
"As for if they were free fall speeds or not, I cant comment as I dont know what speed they reached and I dont know what the freefall speed of a building is" but yet calling people wackos etc
"Tom the buildings you are looking at on youtube are 1960s concerete cancer infested tower blocks, not state of the art modern buildings specifically designed with an impact in mind," - the towers were designed to be hit by the largest plane
"Photos do not document what happened within the interior/core and no one was allowed to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government authorities – primarily FEMA – had it quickly removed. Eyewitness testimony by those who escaped from inside the North Tower concerning core damage probably is unavailable."
"The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ˝ hour lunch fired."
"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia’s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."
"FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order."
Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.
Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("…workers can’t even find concrete. ‘It’s all dust,’ [the official] said").
The debunk theory's have many flaws in them and while they sound convincing to some people if you look beyond them there just not but most people wont really see it as they only know the basic things about 9/11
but yet calling people wackos etc"Tom the buildings you are looking at on youtube are 1960s concerete cancer infested tower blocks, not state of the art modern buildings specifically designed with an impact in mind," - the towers were designed to be hit by the largest plane
"Photos do not document what happened within the interior/core and no one was allowed to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government authorities – primarily FEMA – had it quickly removed. Eyewitness testimony by those who escaped from inside the North Tower concerning core damage probably is unavailable."
"The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ˝ hour lunch fired."
"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia’s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."
"FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order."
Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.
Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("…workers can’t even find concrete. ‘It’s all dust,’ [the official] said").
The debunk theory's have many flaws in them and while they sound convincing to some people if you look beyond them there just not but most people wont really see it as they only know the basic things about 9/11
13-09-2010, 06:19 PM
#145
PassionFord Post Troll
"As for if they were free fall speeds or not, I cant comment as I dont know what speed they reached and I dont know what the freefall speed of a building is" but yet calling people wackos etc
"Tom the buildings you are looking at on youtube are 1960s concerete cancer infested tower blocks, not state of the art modern buildings specifically designed with an impact in mind," - the towers were designed to be hit by the largest plane
"Photos do not document what happened within the interior/core and no one was allowed to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government authorities primarily FEMA had it quickly removed. Eyewitness testimony by those who escaped from inside the North Tower concerning core damage probably is unavailable."
"The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New Yorks Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ˝ hour lunch fired."
"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphias Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."
"FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order."
Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.
Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone (" workers cant even find concrete. Its all dust, [the official] said").
The debunk theory's have many flaws in them and while they sound convincing to some people if you look beyond them there just not but most people wont really see it as they only know the basic things about 9/11
but yet calling people wackos etc"Tom the buildings you are looking at on youtube are 1960s concerete cancer infested tower blocks, not state of the art modern buildings specifically designed with an impact in mind," - the towers were designed to be hit by the largest plane
"Photos do not document what happened within the interior/core and no one was allowed to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government authorities primarily FEMA had it quickly removed. Eyewitness testimony by those who escaped from inside the North Tower concerning core damage probably is unavailable."
"The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New Yorks Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ˝ hour lunch fired."
"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphias Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."
"FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order."
Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.
Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone (" workers cant even find concrete. Its all dust, [the official] said").
The debunk theory's have many flaws in them and while they sound convincing to some people if you look beyond them there just not but most people wont really see it as they only know the basic things about 9/11
13-09-2010, 06:48 PM
#147
While everyone shouts about 'oil' and needing a justification to invade - surely, by now, the terrorists would simply have told the world that the Americans let them do it! That would bring the country to it's knees and the terrorists would 'win'. I hardly think Islam extremists are holding their tongues because the American's told them to keep it a big secret!
Unless I'm being very stupid I really can't see how the American's blowing up the buildings themselves would actually help them??
It's clear that there's a whole lot of 'oddness' going on surrounding the whole situation - no one's denying that - but I've yet to see a compelling (or even semi-sensible) answer as to how it was staged, and ultimately, why?
13-09-2010, 09:16 PM
#148
PassionFord Post Whore!!
13-09-2010, 09:32 PM
#149
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: stoke on trent
Posts: 2,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13-09-2010, 09:35 PM
#150
13-09-2010, 09:36 PM
#151
I couldn't care less what you drive, nor how often you've posted. I saw your sulky post, and saw the need to reply.
Firstly, out of interest, what's the source of those facts? Secondly, what are the sensible answers to why 100s (possibly 1000s) of Americans are keeping quiet about deliberately blowing up the towers, and why would the terrorists decide to help start a war on themselves?
While everyone shouts about 'oil' and needing a justification to invade - surely, by now, the terrorists would simply have told the world that the Americans let them do it! That would bring the country to it's knees and the terrorists would 'win'. I hardly think Islam extremists are holding their tongues because the American's told them to keep it a big secret!
Unless I'm being very stupid I really can't see how the American's blowing up the buildings themselves would actually help them??
It's clear that there's a whole lot of 'oddness' going on surrounding the whole situation - no one's denying that - but I've yet to see a compelling (or even semi-sensible) answer as to how it was staged, and ultimately, why?
Firstly, out of interest, what's the source of those facts? Secondly, what are the sensible answers to why 100s (possibly 1000s) of Americans are keeping quiet about deliberately blowing up the towers, and why would the terrorists decide to help start a war on themselves?
While everyone shouts about 'oil' and needing a justification to invade - surely, by now, the terrorists would simply have told the world that the Americans let them do it! That would bring the country to it's knees and the terrorists would 'win'. I hardly think Islam extremists are holding their tongues because the American's told them to keep it a big secret!
Unless I'm being very stupid I really can't see how the American's blowing up the buildings themselves would actually help them??
It's clear that there's a whole lot of 'oddness' going on surrounding the whole situation - no one's denying that - but I've yet to see a compelling (or even semi-sensible) answer as to how it was staged, and ultimately, why?
daniel, as you still think this is about oil im guessing you haven't stuided the subject at all?
13-09-2010, 09:50 PM
#152
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: stoke on trent
Posts: 2,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13-09-2010, 10:03 PM
#153
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: stoke on trent
Posts: 2,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As for if they were free fall speeds or not, I cant comment as I dont know what speed they reached and I dont know what the freefall speed of a building is" but yet calling people wackos etc
"Tom the buildings you are looking at on youtube are 1960s concerete cancer infested tower blocks, not state of the art modern buildings specifically designed with an impact in mind," - the towers were designed to be hit by the largest plane
"Photos do not document what happened within the interior/core and no one was allowed to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government authorities primarily FEMA had it quickly removed. Eyewitness testimony by those who escaped from inside the North Tower concerning core damage probably is unavailable."
"The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New Yorks Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ˝ hour lunch fired."
"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphias Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."
"FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order."
Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.
Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone (" workers cant even find concrete. Its all dust, [the official] said").
The debunk theory's have many flaws in them and while they sound convincing to some people if you look beyond them there just not but most people wont really see it as they only know the basic things about 9/11
but yet calling people wackos etc"Tom the buildings you are looking at on youtube are 1960s concerete cancer infested tower blocks, not state of the art modern buildings specifically designed with an impact in mind," - the towers were designed to be hit by the largest plane
"Photos do not document what happened within the interior/core and no one was allowed to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government authorities primarily FEMA had it quickly removed. Eyewitness testimony by those who escaped from inside the North Tower concerning core damage probably is unavailable."
"The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New Yorks Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ˝ hour lunch fired."
"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphias Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."
"FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order."
Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.
Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone (" workers cant even find concrete. Its all dust, [the official] said").
The debunk theory's have many flaws in them and while they sound convincing to some people if you look beyond them there just not but most people wont really see it as they only know the basic things about 9/11
and you take this shit in,you want go give your head a good shake
13-09-2010, 10:05 PM
#154
Danneth, yes that was my point the twin towers were designed with a plane impact in mind and not to topple as result. Which seems to be what happened as designed with them withstanding the initial impact well but then fires felled them. And in doing so they well into their own footprint safely for buildings around them.
Where as Tom was saying the impact should have put them sideways like the concrete tower blocks he's seen badly demolished on YouTube.
Did you misread it or something?
Where as Tom was saying the impact should have put them sideways like the concrete tower blocks he's seen badly demolished on YouTube.
Did you misread it or something?
Last edited by Chip; 13-09-2010 at 10:13 PM.
13-09-2010, 10:54 PM
#155
Danneth, yes that was my point the twin towers were designed with a plane impact in mind and not to topple as result. Which seems to be what happened as designed with them withstanding the initial impact well but then fires felled them. And in doing so they well into their own footprint safely for buildings around them.
Where as Tom was saying the impact should have put them sideways like the concrete tower blocks he's seen badly demolished on YouTube.
Did you misread it or something?
Where as Tom was saying the impact should have put them sideways like the concrete tower blocks he's seen badly demolished on YouTube.
Did you misread it or something?
No they was designed not to fall at all be it sideways or in there own footprint that was my point
13-09-2010, 10:56 PM
#156
13-09-2010, 11:00 PM
#157
If you had listened/read ive said many times that nothing everything said i agree with there are a few flaws in both arguements i wouldn't like to argue that a plane didn't hit, but can you really argue with everything else IVE posted
14-09-2010, 07:46 AM
#160
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danneth, yes that was my point the twin towers were designed with a plane impact in mind and not to topple as result. Which seems to be what happened as designed with them withstanding the initial impact well but then fires felled them. And in doing so they well into their own footprint safely for buildings around them.
Where as Tom was saying the impact should have put them sideways like the concrete tower blocks he's seen badly demolished on YouTube.
Did you misread it or something?
Where as Tom was saying the impact should have put them sideways like the concrete tower blocks he's seen badly demolished on YouTube.
Did you misread it or something?
When a building (or anything else for that matter) falls/collapses without 'intentional help' they do so through the path of least resistance. Now seeing as the towers had thousands of tonnes of undamaged structural steel below the damaged floors, you might think the path of least resistance would be something other than straight down.
Tidy demolitions of large buildings into their own footprint come with a very large price tag, and many still go wrong, so the odds of these three buildings all falling so perfectly on the same day is a little, slim, but not totally impossible.
Tom
Last edited by the mk1 kid; 14-09-2010 at 07:53 AM.