|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 26, 2006 23:18:02 GMT -4
By the way, it did stop well before the bottom, at least 7 stories above the ground, Exactly what i mean by cutter charges placed at key points.
|
|
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 Oct 27, 2006 8:17:46 GMT -4
By the way, it did stop well before the bottom, at least 7 stories above the ground, Exactly what i mean by cutter charges placed at key points. IIRC Phantomwolf is mistaken, the pile of debris was about 60 feet tall ( about the height of 5 floors ) but all that was left of the lower floors were a few columns mostly from the perimeter. In any case how is that proof of cutter charges? You have yet to explain your 40% figure can you cite a qualified structural engineer who backs this theory? Since the collapse was gaining mass and being accelerated by gravity its force would have increased rapidly while the strength of the floor systems and the floor – column connections would have been the same top to bottom. It almost certainly would have been increasing faster than the cross section of the columns which IIRC is the main factor determining their relative strength. Edit - To fix a typo
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 27, 2006 15:35:25 GMT -4
Exactly what i mean by cutter charges placed at key points. IIRC Phantomwolf is mistaken, the pile of debris was about 60 feet tall ( about the height of 5 floors ) but all that was left of the lower floors were a few columns mostly from the perimeter. In any case how is that proof of cutter charges? These steel pillars cut at an angle If a "progressive collapse" is required the beams are cut at opposite angles: www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_cutter2.jpgwww.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermiteonwtccolumns.jpgMore details www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html[ You have yet to explain your 40% figure can you cite a qualified structural engineer who backs this theory? Since the collapse was gaining mass and being accelerated by gravity its force would have increased rapidly while the strength of the floor systems and the floor – column connections would have been the same top to bottom. It almost certainly would have been increasing faster than the cross section of the columns which IIRC is the main factor determining their relative strength. Edit - To fix a typo But the pillars steel columns are more thicker all the way down. This imply more resistance than the pillars near the impact point. Edited typo
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 27, 2006 15:55:43 GMT -4
These steel pillars cut at an angle If a "progressive collapse" is required the beams are cut at opposite angles:
Ya know, we’ve been through this before.
Look at the slag remaining around the cuts. Those columns cut by torches in the process of cleaning up the site.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Oct 27, 2006 16:05:06 GMT -4
Except that the better pictures of them show evidence of them having been cut by a torch, such as was seen happening in the cleanup operation. True, the lower columns would be stronger roughly in proportion to the mass above them, but due to material from the destroyed floors becoming part of the collapse the falling mass and therefor energy would increase at roughly the same rate as the columns got stronger.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 27, 2006 21:20:44 GMT -4
IIRC Phantomwolf is mistaken, the pile of debris was about 60 feet tall ( about the height of 5 floors ) but all that was left of the lower floors were a few columns mostly from the perimeter.
I guess you'd have to ask the guys that survived the collapse of Tower 1. I thought they said they got them out about the seventh floor, but it may have been the fifth.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 28, 2006 9:17:56 GMT -4
Conspiracy theorists often use quotes from fire fighters and other witnesses of the WTC collapses who said "it sounded like a bomb went off" as evidence that there were bombs in the buildings. I was reminded of this today after a highway overpass in Quebec collapsed (possibly killing at least two people) and witnesses described the sound it made the same way. My point? Just because it sounded like a bomb doesn't mean it was one. I agree, in the way you describe it. But I think most are aware that earwitness testimony would only be considered one point of an overall larger "body of evidence" for establishing a convincing argument. That is, it's not meant - or claimed to be - an isolated entity, which alone is considered solid enough evidence to prove that controlled demolitions were done. It's just one piece of the puzzle for those building an argument for CD's. Alone it isn't of any great significance. But interwoven within all the other elements and points of evidence, it can help to establish a convincing argument .
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Oct 28, 2006 9:37:04 GMT -4
Once again...
When were the charges planted? By whom? How were they placed on the structural beams without tearing out office walls and such? We're talking about a LOT of demolition charges here...
I've never gotten an answer to this...even Avery responded with an "I don't know". You guys sure give these "dark forces" of the government an awful lot of capability..."X-Files" was NOT a documentary for cryin' out loud!
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 28, 2006 12:17:36 GMT -4
It's just one piece of the puzzle for those building an argument for CD's. Alone it isn't of any great significance. But interwoven within all the other elements and points of evidence, it can help to establish a convincing argument .
If there are so many pieces of a puzzle to assemble into a convincing argument for controlled demolition, why is it no one has done so? It sounds like you are sorting through the pieces looking only for those parts that help your predetermined result.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 28, 2006 19:56:55 GMT -4
Plenty of pieces....pity they all seem to be from different puzzles.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Oct 28, 2006 20:06:35 GMT -4
It's just one piece of the puzzle for those building an argument for CD's. Alone it isn't of any great significance. But interwoven within all the other elements and points of evidence, it can help to establish a convincing argument . A good point, but sadly, from what I can see there is NO additional compelling evidence for CD beyond the mined quotes and testimony taken out of context used by CTs. I mean really. "Pull it"? So, instead of 'helping establish a convincing argument', it just makes one dubious of the entire movement.
|
|
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 Oct 28, 2006 22:00:25 GMT -4
It's just one piece of the puzzle for those building an argument for CD's. Alone it isn't of any great significance. But interwoven within all the other elements and points of evidence, it can help to establish a convincing argument . A good point, but sadly, from what I can see there is NO additional compelling evidence for CD beyond the mined quotes and testimony taken out of context used by CTs. I mean really. "Pull it"? So, instead of 'helping establish a convincing argument', it just makes one dubious of the entire movement. Indeed often the “pieces” contradict each other: - bin Laden was a CIA asset / bin Laden had nothing to do with the attacks or similarly - Atta etc received military training and visited strip clubs in the US / no Arabs were on the planes, Atta called his dad after the attacks, - it’s suspicious that the towers collapsed into their own footprints, this can only be explained by CD – it’s suspicious that so much debris was ejected so far from the towers this can only be explained by CD, - the US was warned by the Mossad and ISI/ the Mossad and or ISI were involved
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 29, 2006 3:48:55 GMT -4
Once again... When were the charges planted? By whom? How were they placed on the structural beams without tearing out office walls and such? We're talking about a LOT of demolition charges here... I've never gotten an answer to this...even Avery responded with an "I don't know". You guys sure give these "dark forces" of the government an awful lot of capability..."X-Files" was NOT a documentary for cryin' out loud! The reason you get a response of "I don't know", is because the "when" and "who" can only be speculated on at this point. That's to be expected, considering there has not been any actual investigation in that direction - certainly nothing more than some individuals trying to look into it on their own. We do have accounts from workers inside the building that said there were power downs, entire floors made inaccessible to maintenance people, from which they heard sounds of heavy machinery being moved around. The towers were essentially unoccupied at night, consisting of normal day-to-day business offices. Only WTC security would or could prevent unimpeded access to the entire structure for several late-night hours on weekdays, and weekends. And it just so happens - by what some deem to be merely a "coincidence" - that security was run by a company which had Bush's brother, and later on, Bush's cousin, as principles.... According to two articles in the Progressive Populist written by Margie Burns, from 1993 to 2000, Securacom had contracts to provide security for Dulles International Airport (the airport from which American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, originated), United Airlines, and the World Trade Center in New York.Bush served on the board of Securacom (since renamed Stratesec). The chairman of the board of Stratesec is Wirt D. Walker III, a cousin of Marvin and George W. Bush.You likely noticed some other "coincidences" above - Securacom (and then Stratasec), also provided security for Dulles Airport and United Airlines, both of which were also principle entities of 9/11. So if you want to chalk up all of these links as nothing more than "a series of coincidences", that's your prerogative. To me, it raises more red flags that should and need to be looked into as part of an overall new investigation into 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 29, 2006 4:01:12 GMT -4
It's just one piece of the puzzle for those building an argument for CD's. Alone it isn't of any great significance. But interwoven within all the other elements and points of evidence, it can help to establish a convincing argument . A good point, but sadly, from what I can see there is NO additional compelling evidence for CD beyond the mined quotes and testimony taken out of context used by CTs. I mean really. "Pull it"? So, instead of 'helping establish a convincing argument', it just makes one dubious of the entire movement. I disagree that this is the only evidence, or even the only witness evidence, that supports the argument.. Witnesses inside the WTC also reported hearing explosions while the floor shook underneath them (Rodriguez et al) seconds before they heard the plane hit the building high above. Others saw flashes emanate from inside the building at the same time they heard explosions. Firefighters gave first-hand accounts that they were sure that they specifically heard bombs going off inside the buildings. Other aspects have been mentioned before, so I won't go over them in detail. But when we look at the "evidence" for the official CT, the alternative theory more than matches up with evidence and links pointing to an inside job. That's why it needs to be investigated.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 29, 2006 4:54:47 GMT -4
Indeed often the “pieces” contradict each other: - bin Laden was a CIA asset / bin Laden had nothing to do with the attacks or similarly - Atta etc received military training and visited strip clubs in the US / no Arabs were on the planes, Atta called his dad after the attacks, - it’s suspicious that the towers collapsed into their own footprints, this can only be explained by CD – it’s suspicious that so much debris was ejected so far from the towers this can only be explained by CD, - the US was warned by the Mossad and ISI/ the Mossad and or ISI were involved These points do not necessarily contradict each other. - bin Laden could still have been a CIA asset but not involved in 9/11. The former does not contradict the latter in any way. - Atta could have been a "stooge" or "patsy" for 9/11, as part of the cover story (to later become the "official" story). If there truly were the 19 "hijackers" as claimed, they would easily be able to prove it by showing us the airport surveillance videos. All passengers of commercial airplanes departing from public airports, are routinely videotaped by surveillance cameras prior to boarding. Dulles and Logan Airports were certainly no different in that regard on 9/11. So where the @#$ are these videos? Don't you consider it curious? - Material can (and did) pulverize and eject outward (ie: outside the footprint) as the main structure collapses essentially straight down largely into its own footprint. Both of these features of the collapses can be the result of CD's. One feature does not exclude the other feature from co-existing in order for it to have been a CD collapse. - If ISI/Mossad did pre-warn the US of 9/11, does that - or should that - automatically exclude them of any possible involvement? These are foreign intel groups we're talking about. Is it not viable this could be disinfo/ misinfo/ red herrings, to create the false impression that they acted like benevolent good samaritans, who tried valiantly but in vain to warn the US of the impending attack? Our actual knowledge of the complete 9/11 story barely amounts to the "tip of the iceberg".
|
|