|
Post by jaydeehess on Dec 21, 2005 1:13:49 GMT -4
Turbonium said: Yet the first main point in the report you linked to said: The report offers at least four scenarios of how the collapse occurred, all based around fuel being pumped out of damaged pipes. Given the obvious presence of fires in the building, which continued to burn for several hours, why are these scenarios so hard to accept? Which shines a light on what the real significance is of the damage to the south side for NIST or FEMA. That is, a route by which damage could be done to the fuel piping system and not strictly structural damage. What structural damage that would be most significant would be to the interior core and cantilever truss system but even there it is the fires and the role that unrestrained fuel flow to vulnerable structural components would play in causing those fires to further weaken the core supports of the building.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Dec 23, 2005 2:53:56 GMT -4
Nothing that you said gave me the impression that you didn't believe those "reports" of explosives placed in the WTC during construction. If you were (as you now claim) simply telling us about rumours that you have heard then you should have made that more clear. You said "explosives are the most logical explanation" followed by the rumours that eyewitnesses reported secret work on the WTC. How am I to differentiate between your "most logical explanation" and "just some rumours I've heard" when you mention both in the same paragraph? I never said that I believed explosives were planted at the time of construction. It was one of several things I hypothesized (along with power-downs in the weeks preceding 9/11, etc.) as to when it could have been possible to plant charges without being witnessed by others. None of the methods I brought up were stated as something I believe to be factual or the most logical explanation, only that they were suggested in some reports. I posted this back on July 7, almost six months ago. If anyone, including Lunar Orbit, was under the impression that I was mentioning this as something I claimed was true or that I believed in to any degree, then why wasn't it taken that way and disputed as unproven, and that these are simply rumours? Or at least, why wasn't I questioned about whether I believed it to be true or not? Is it possibly because everyone actually understood the post in the manner in which I wrote it and was meant? To wit, that nobody assumed that because I believed that explosives were the most logical explanation, also meant that I believed explosives planted during construction were the most logical explanation or method of installation? The points were not raised as anything other than rumour or theory. This is the main reason I try to avoid replying to hypothetical "how could it have been done?" questions.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Dec 23, 2005 10:05:46 GMT -4
I never said that I believed explosives were planted at the time of construction. It was one of several things I hypothesized ... as to when it could have been possible to plant charges without being witnessed by others. None of the methods I brought up were stated as something I believe to be factual or the most logical explanation, only that they were suggested in some reports. I posted this back on July 7, almost six months ago. If anyone, including Lunar Orbit, was under the impression that I was mentioning this as something I claimed was true or that I believed in to any degree, then why wasn't it taken that way and disputed as unproven, and that these are simply rumours? Or at least, why wasn't I questioned about whether I believed it to be true or not? Is it possibly because everyone actually understood the post in the manner in which I wrote it and was meant? To wit, that nobody assumed that because I believed that explosives were the most logical explanation, also meant that I believed explosives planted during construction were the most logical explanation or method of installation? The points were not raised as anything other than rumour or theory. This is the main reason I try to avoid replying to hypothetical "how could it have been done?" questions. Even from your reply it's not clear if you believe that "theory" is credible. Do you or don't you believe this is a possible explanation? To me it still sounds like you think this is a possible albeit not the most possible explanation. I think the main reason that you and others who believe that the 9/11 WTC collapses were controller demo, " avoid replying to hypothetical ;how could it have been done?" is that all the proposed explanations have so many holes in them they hold the proponent up to ridicule. While you claim the official story has numerous inconsistencies you avoid discussing a critical part of your hypothesis for which there are no good answers. In a similar vein David Healy who believe the Zapruder film was fabricated avoids answering questions like how the "forgers" managed to fake and switch the Z film in the few hours it was in Zapruder's possession until he gave the original and copies to Life and the Secret Service. This fits with CTists tendency to avoid discussing the main logical inconsistencies of their theories while making much ado about any perceived abnormalities in the "official" version of events. If you want to propose controlled demo as the most rational explaination you CAN'T avoid the critical question of how it was done.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 6, 2006 2:36:03 GMT -4
Easy enuf lenbrazil. The owner/manager of the property, along with military/government types planted the explosives before 9/11--it was a planned attack and a planned demolition. Has any steel skyscraper anywhere in the world ever collapsed due to fire? No.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 6, 2006 2:45:50 GMT -4
Has any steel skyscraper anywhere in the world ever collapsed due to fire? No. Has any steel skyscraper anywhere in the world ever collapsed due to a combination of fire and significant impact dammage? Yes. Three. On the same day.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 6, 2006 3:29:20 GMT -4
About two-thirds of the way down this page is a link titled "Pentagon Crash Investigation." It's a video that will help you see that WTC7 was brought down by design. It's about a half-hour long and very enlightening. It starts out going over the Pentagon crash, but most of the video focuses on WTC7. As food for debunking, you guys are gonna love this. www.markswatson.com/Audio.html
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 6, 2006 9:34:52 GMT -4
Easy enuf lenbrazil. The owner/manager of the property, along with military/government types planted the explosives before 9/11--it was a planned attack and a planned demolition. Has any steel skyscraper anywhere in the world ever collapsed due to fire? No. Of course they didn't collapse from the intense fires alone, 1 and 2 were severly dammaged by the impacts and 7 by falling debris. -Can you cite any previous cases where a skyscraper suffered such intense fires coupled with such severe structural dammage? --The architecture of the WTC towers was very different from most tall buildings. Can you site a fire of similar scale in buildings with similar architecture? -There have been several cases of partial collapes of skyscrapers from fire, notably the Windsor Tower in Madrid. After an intense fire its steel frame collapsed and only its concrete core remained. -There is also the case of the Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991. Although only a few floors collapsed the fire department and some structural engineers it consulted feared it might suffer a "pancake collapse" . -Several lowrise steel buildings have collapsed do to fire. -steel in all buildings made in the last 100 years or so are fire protected, thats because engineers, architects and metalurgist have long recognize the potential for fire to collapse steel structures. The dammage to fire protection in WTC 1 & 2 has been well documented. Can you explain how the buildings were rigged for demolition without anyone noticing, esp. the outer collumns of Towers 1 & 2.? To be quite honest the points you raise have already been gone over repeatedly. It seems like you didn't even bother to read the other pages on this and the other 9-11 threads. That is typical CT spouting your theories with out looking at contradictory info. Your theory that explosives were pre-planted in the WTC towers doesn't fit with the CT gibberish about Larry Silverstein's "pull" comment from the PBS documentary.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 6, 2006 9:56:31 GMT -4
That has to be one of the stupiest things I have ever seen, it that impressed you it's no wonder you believe all sorts of fool notions. I had to stop it after 12 minutes there is only so much stupity I can take at a time,. I'll have watch the rest in a few instalments. Let us know what exactly in that video was so damning I don't think it will be very difficult to debunk.. About two-thirds of the way down this page is a link titled "Pentagon Crash Investigation." It's a video that will help you see that WTC7 was brought down by design. It's about a half-hour long and very enlightening. It starts out going over the Pentagon crash, but most of the video focuses on WTC7. As food for debunking, you guys are gonna love this. www.markswatson.com/Audio.html
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 6, 2006 10:35:04 GMT -4
Easy enuf lenbrazil. The owner/manager of the property, along with military/government types planted the explosives before 9/11--it was a planned attack and a planned demolition. The typical motive given for Silverstein to want to destroy the buildings is to collect the insurance settlement. No one has shown that he has in fact personally collected this money or that he had any reason to believe that he could personally collect the money. Further it must be shown that he had reason to believe that in attempting to do so the return was worth risking his reputation, his entire business, his liberty and possibly his life if the plot was discovered. That is a pretty high stakes gamble. The buildings were owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, not Silverstein. So this assertion assumes that this agency would simply take the loss of billions of dollars of investment and let Silverstein walk away. Does that seem likely to you? If so, do you care to provide some evidence for it? The companies that provided insurance for the building (including General Electric) would not take lightly to being defrauded of their billions. Is there any reason to think that they simply abdicated their responsibilities and paid out the money without concern for the justification of the claim? Silverstein had partners in the lease on the WTC. Is there any evidence that they were in on the destruction conspiracy too? If not then we have to assume that all the partners just rolled over on their own personal loss. Do you propose that this happened? The major problem with the motive for the destruction is that it make no since in the business world, where while people trust each other, they also make contracts that provide for independent agents to keep each other honest. If your are not fooled by this conspiracy, then why would the management and directors of the Port Authority and the insurance companies also not be suspicious? Has any steel skyscraper anywhere in the world ever collapsed due to fire? No. It doesn’t matter whether any other steel building has collapsed . The WTC 1 & 2 were unique. What matters is what happened to specific buildings on 9/11. That case is pretty conclusive. edited for clarification
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 6, 2006 12:21:35 GMT -4
The owner/manager of the property, along with military/government types planted the explosives before 9/11--it was a planned attack and a planned demolition.
This is one of the dafted things I've heard. If it was preplaned then Goldstien would have had to be in on the plot. Great idea. Top Secret Government plot and they bring in smeone with no secruity clearance at all. Add to that, that the descisin was made quite late, after the building had been burning for 7 hours. How culd they be sure that the fires wuld set offthe explosive early, or damage the detonators or the lines? What abut if the fire crews had gone in and found the explosives? Or the peple just working in the building. Sheeze.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 6, 2006 19:58:04 GMT -4
I finally finished seeing that junk video. The worst part was where he said that a candle releases more energy than a hand grenade! It was typical CT junk "I think things should have been this way but they weren't ahaah that proves it!" It was made by Eric Hufschmidt who is supposed to be one of the leading lights of the "9-11 Truth Movement" I recommend the video for it's humor value, but since it's mind numbingly stupid only in small doses. That has to be one of the stupiest things I have ever seen, it that impressed you it's no wonder you believe all sorts of fool notions. I had to stop it after 12 minutes there is only so much stupity I can take at a time,. I'll have watch the rest in a few instalments. Let us know what exactly in that video was so damning I don't think it will be very difficult to debunk.. About two-thirds of the way down this page is a link titled "Pentagon Crash Investigation." It's a video that will help you see that WTC7 was brought down by design. It's about a half-hour long and very enlightening. It starts out going over the Pentagon crash, but most of the video focuses on WTC7. As food for debunking, you guys are gonna love this. www.markswatson.com/Audio.html
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jan 7, 2006 13:37:53 GMT -4
I finally finished seeing that junk video. The worst part was where he said that a candle releases more energy than a hand grenade! Did he say that it was the energy released per unit time? If not then the statement is probably correct, explosives have a suprisingly low energy content (due in part to them containing their own oxidiser) its just that they release it very quickly. Parafix wax (a common material for candles IIRC) contains 42 kilojoules per gram, TNT contains just 4 kilojoules per gram.
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Jan 7, 2006 15:28:34 GMT -4
Proving that a sufficent number of birthday candles to demolish the WTC's would be smaller than an equivilant TNT-demolition.
Now, what about the energy load of the gravity mass of the buildings? I've found the numbers 278 megawattHOURS per building. That's a lot of energy to dissapate in 7 seconds. Keep in mind that energetically, the buildings would graph out to look like an inverted pyramid: a pound on the ground is less energy than a pound 1000' up.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 8, 2006 14:57:41 GMT -4
This is not a rebuttal, just an article describing a mind-set that is all too prevalant here. This site isn't going to keep any CTs because of the abusive postings of the majority of its members. It's not my job to make you believe what's staring you in the face. I suppose that's why several people have accused some of the members of being gov. disinfos. I could understand why so much ignorant garbage gets posted here if you were just doing your job, but it's probably just a case of your being mind control slaves and there's no cure for that. Have another beer guys. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/070106dyingbreed.htm
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 9, 2006 4:25:56 GMT -4
wow, first you moan about abusive posts and then you call anyone that disgrees with you blind, ignorant, mind-controlled slaves? Pot, Kettle, Black.
Besides, let's be honest here, the real ones that post the igormnce are the one without any scientific training who continually swallow the garbage places like prisionplanet spew onto the net. You willing believe whatever they say without testing it or wanting to hear it rebuted, rather put your fingers in your ears and call anyone that shows reasoned argument to the contray of what you want to believe, a government agent. I'm not sure what government since people here aren't all from the US, in fact most of us aren't from the US, and most of those who are from the US don't support the current administration either.
No, the ones that need to open their minds a little are those that read a bunch of webpages written entirely by laymen and then "know" something that totally contradicts the knowledge of every expert in the field.
It's true irony with people believe that accepting what's written on a webpage because it tells them what they want to hear is being open minded, and it's a terrible shame when they also believe that typing a phrase into Google is research.
|
|