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 Feb 22, 2007 7:02:35 GMT -4
|
|
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 Feb 22, 2007 7:03:06 GMT -4
ditto
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 22, 2007 17:37:10 GMT -4
These are supposedly the same people who set off charges on all 110 floors of each tower over a period of 8.4 – 16 seconds precisely enough that the buildings collapsed with out any noticeable pauses. If we calculate for the most commonly cited time 10 seconds it comes to an average of 0.09 seconds per floor and since the collapse was accelerating the interval between floors at the end would have been close to 0.04 seconds.
I'd point out that video of the collapse (both inside and out) shows that the collapse of Tower 1 took 16-20 seconds
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 17, 2007 11:00:33 GMT -4
1 – Rodriguez’s story doesn’t make sense.Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 AM and the building collapsed from the top down almost two hours later at 9:28. I and other skeptics have asked “inside jobbers” on a few forums how setting off explosives in the basement fits into the scenario of a top down CD 102 minutes later and why the plotters would have set off the charges just before the impact. The best explanation I’ve seen is ‘maybe they screwed up and accidentally set the charges off early’. These are supposedly the same people who set off charges on all 110 floors of each tower over a period of 8.4 – 16 seconds precisely enough that the buildings collapsed with out any noticeable pauses. If we calculate for the most commonly cited time 10 seconds it comes to an average of 0.09 seconds per floor and since the collapse was accelerating the interval between floors at the end would have been close to 0.04 seconds. Any destruction of structural supports in the basement serious enough to facilitate a later collapse would presumably have made the towers unstable yet there are no reports (that I have seen) of either rocking or swaying except in the immediate aftermath of the impacts. Nor has anyone else AFAIK reported a pre-impact explosion, a few of his co-workers joined his RICO suit none have backed this part of his story. This is all nonsense. The basement explosions could easily been timed to go off at the same time as the plane impact, and they were mere seconds apart. The author claims that doesn't "fit in" with a top-down collapse an hour later. His claim isn't substantiated - he just asserts that it doesn't "fit in". CD pros boast that there are thousands of variations and combinations possible in CD's, such as varying the sequence, the initiation point, and the time between detonations. Just because the explosions don't "fit in" to how the author thinks they should be, does not make it so. The "rocking or swaying" that the author claims would have been reported by those inside the tower is yet more rubbish. Maybe he can explain why the plane impact damage - so massive it's said to have severed many columns - would not cause the section above the impact to rock and sway as well, if he claims the basement explosion certainly would have? It's something he should know the answer to. We were all told about it years ago. It's never even been a point of contention between the CT's and GCT's, either. The structures re-distributed the load. As they were designed to do. As is standard practice. As noted in both the FEMA and NIST reports. The towers quickly stabilized after the impacts. They didn't continue to sway or rock or teeter. The only story that doesn't make sense is the author's. His version is contradicted by Mike Pecoraro who was in the 6th subbasement Rodriguez was in the 1st said he thought the explosion came from the 2nd or 3rd. He makes no mention of him or his co-worker feeling even a vibration when the 767 struck the top of 1 WTC, his coworker but not Pecoraro himself noticed the lights flicker. . As you recently said yourself, witness accounts will vary. But I don't see how this contradicts Rodriguez's account whatsoever. 2) It differs substantially from earlier accounts he gave of what happened that morning and there are contradictions between his various retellings.He gave one of his most recent and most embellished retellings of what happened that morning at a “truther” event organized by Alex Jones on June 25, 2006 he said: “As I was talking to a supervisor at 8:46 like chitchatting and all of a sudden we hear PAAH very strong BOOM!!! An explosion so hard that it pushed us UPWARDS, UPWARDS!!…The explosion was so hard that all the walls cracked the false ceiling fell on top of us, the sprinkler system got activated and when I was going to verbalize it was a generator we hear BOOM! All the way at the top" However when he was interviewed over the phone live by Aaron Brown on CNN at 1:30 PM, September 11, 2001 he gave a very different much less dramatic account of what had happened only a few hours earlier: “RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.” I'd like to hear the actual interview of this, but AFAIK, there is no audio clip online, only the transcript at CNN. But let's take it as an accurate and complete transcript, for the time being. The author is pointing out that the "big rumble" is later described as a "BOOM!". But isn't the author also saying that jet fuel poured down the elevators and exploded in the basement? Wouldn't that sound like a "BOOM!"? More than it would a "big rumble"? And wouldn't that also make Rodriguez's later description - "BOOM!" - more accurate than his earlier "big rumble"? Sure it would. The author accuses him of "embellishing" his story, largely citing this example as proof. But it's not embellishing if it simply makes his account more accurate. That isn't the only problem with the accusations made by the author. Picking apart someone's comments made just hours after a horrifying experience to find any differences with their later comments is a pretty slimy and shoddy method to attack Rodriguez's personal character. I'll address the other points later...
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 17, 2007 11:12:14 GMT -4
The basement explosions could easily been timed to go off at the same time as the plane impact, and they were mere seconds apart. How could they possibly have known right down to the second when the planes would hit the towers? The planes could have been delayed taking off, there could have been a strong headwind that slowed them down or a tailwind that sped them up, there could have been resistance from the planes crew and passengers... there are many things that could cause the time of impact to vary by minutes.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 17, 2007 16:46:36 GMT -4
Much as I hate to help out the CT's, timing the basement explosion would be simple. I can think of a number of ways right-off, including impact fusing, radar detection, acoustic detonation. And that's not counting the options you get if you allow something to be wired into the plane! Actually... a fairly simple accelerometer attached to a radio would do...strap the gadget down in the rear of the passenger compartment.
On the other hand, I still don't know what use the explosives in the basement are. They seem far too small to actually achieve anything. And the speed of sound being what it is, there is no timing you could possibly use that would not make it an audible "double" explosion to a large number of observers. So they wouldn't be well hidden, either. Only timing that makes sense is to set off these basement charges as part of the collapse of the rest of the building.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 18, 2007 0:17:37 GMT -4
Much as I hate to help out the CT's, timing the basement explosion would be simple. I can think of a number of ways right-off, including impact fusing, radar detection, acoustic detonation. And that's not counting the options you get if you allow something to be wired into the plane! Actually... a fairly simple accelerometer attached to a radio would do...strap the gadget down in the rear of the passenger compartment. Absolutely true - there are probably dozens of alternatives besides the good ones you've already mentioned. On the other hand, I still don't know what use the explosives in the basement are. They seem far too small to actually achieve anything. And the speed of sound being what it is, there is no timing you could possibly use that would not make it an audible "double" explosion to a large number of observers. So they wouldn't be well hidden, either. Only timing that makes sense is to set off these basement charges as part of the collapse of the rest of the building. I was mulling this over yesterday, and the simplest possible reason came to me - IT WAS A TESTThe Kingdome underwent just such a test... ...a test to see how Kingdome concrete would react to a small punch of gelatin dynamite.
Information from the blast will help demolition experts calculate the fire power needed to implode the 110,000-ton stadium on March 19 or March 26.
If not enough explosives are used, for example, the Dome may not collapse with ease; if too much explosives are used, parts of the Dome could hurl beyond expectation.
So like a life-sized litmus test, yesterday's explosion (which actually was a series of small blasts timed so close together -- over the course of 100 milliseconds -- they sounded as if they were one) left demolition experts confident of one thing: Come the big day, they will have the right dose of explosives to weaken the Kingdome, and let gravity deliver the final blow.
"This test shot is like a diagnosis a doctor gives before the operation," explained Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., the Maryland-based firm hired to do the implosion. "If you get the wrong diagnosis, the operation is not going to go well."
After yesterday's blast, Loizeaux surveyed his concrete "patient" and offered his prognosis: "This was a success."
Tom Gerlach, vice president of Turner Construction, which is overseeing demolition of the Dome and construction of the new football/soccer stadium at the same site, said, "Knowing more gives us a better sense of control.
"Predictability," he added, "is important."
Yesterday, the proof was in the ruins. Loizeaux and Gerlach showed reporters some of the eight concrete columns where crews yesterday had set off the explosives. Some of the columns were outside; others were inside.
In one exterior column, supporting the north section of the Dome, two holes each contained two-thirds of a pound of explosives. The detonation blew portions of the column to smithereens, revealing thick rebar, about 3 to 4 inches thick.
"We actually can reduce the (level) of explosives," Loizeaux said, realizing the amount of explosives had taken quite a bite.
Consider this engineering feat: Kingdome engineers had to make concrete ramps and walkways strong enough to carry the weight of millions of visitors but flexible enough to endure a strong earthquake.
Yesterday's explosives tore concrete away from the concrete columns. In doing so, engineers were delivering a cruel trick: essentially reducing the columns to their pre-concrete, early construction state.
"If we weaken parts of it," Gerlach said of the Dome, "gravity will do the rest."
His words tidily summed up "implosion" -- a word that contrary to the pyrotechnic imagery it invokes, is actually more like high-tech acupuncture; crews ply dynamite sticks instead of needles to bring down a structure, with safety and precision.
In addition to information gleaned from yesterday's test blast, CDI and the contractors have plenty of blueprints and structural plans of the stadium from which to draw. So they know the building -- its strengths and weaknesses -- as if it were an old spouse. seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/boom24.shtmlThe only difference is that the Kingdome test was done before installing the rest of the explosives. Obviously, they could not do this with the WTC, so the test was ingeniously done under the "smokescreen" provided by the plane impact - the only window of opportunity available to them. Also, note that the Kingdome test did not compromise the structural integrity enough to cause problems for the subsequent demolition, just like the test done with the towers. The WTC basement detonation may have provided further information - such as the integrity of the remote sensors. I haven't heard this theory being proposed before. But it makes perfect sense, imo. It's diabolically clever.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Mar 18, 2007 0:30:06 GMT -4
That's the goofiest thing I've heard yet.
Have you contacted Loizeaux or Gerlach about your theory?
Please record their laughter for the rest of us to enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 18, 2007 0:46:00 GMT -4
I'm laughing myself silly. So they then run around and in forty-five minutes, in a burning building in the middle of a mass evacuation, plant the real charges?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 18, 2007 3:10:47 GMT -4
I'm laughing myself silly. So they then run around and in forty-five minutes, in a burning building in the middle of a mass evacuation, plant the real charges? What did I say in my post? Let's see if bolding helps you out... The only difference is that the Kingdome test was done before installing the rest of the explosives. Obviously, they could not do this with the WTC,A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 18, 2007 3:21:05 GMT -4
That's the goofiest thing I've heard yet. Have you contacted Loizeaux or Gerlach about your theory? Please record their laughter for the rest of us to enjoy. You mean, they won't admit to demolishing the buildings? Your profound insight is beyond admirable. Please enlighten us on other issues. If this is an example of what to expect in the future, we're really in for a treat!
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 18, 2007 3:25:38 GMT -4
Are we using "test" in a different sense than what is usually meant? What exactly is the gain in setting off a "test shot" after you've already wired the rest of the building? You are already committed! It's like testing your new brake job by going out on the freeway.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 18, 2007 4:33:47 GMT -4
Are we using "test" in a different sense than what is usually meant? What exactly is the gain in setting off a "test shot" after you've already wired the rest of the building? You are already committed! It's like testing your new brake job by going out on the freeway. No, it's not the same thing. First of all, it's obvious that if they wanted to conduct such a test, this was the only point in time when they could do the test. Being committed to the task does not mean tests cannot be done, nor that tests can't be of any benefit at this stage. "This test shot is like a diagnosis a doctor gives before the operation," explained Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., the Maryland-based firm hired to do the implosion. "If you get the wrong diagnosis, the operation is not going to go well."The only choice on 9/11- either do 1-3 test shots an hour before the demolition, or don't do any test shots at all. Given that, it seems entirely reasonable that any information possibly obtained through these tests is preferable to none. If the doctor had to choose between making a diagnosis an hour before he operates, or not making a diagnosis before he operates, we know what he would choose. Put yourself in the control room. You can fire off a test shot, or a few shots, an hour before the big event. Maybe to check the detonator response time. To confirm locations were programmed correctly. Or just to know that the damn thing works exactly the way you planned - at least - so far, so good. There could be several reasons you'd want to test in this situation.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 18, 2007 5:33:09 GMT -4
He recounted his actions up to the point he took cops and firefighters up to the 39th floor and made no mention of hearing any other sounds or explosions though he would later claim he heard “many explosions” including one so strong he “thought it was an earthquake” and heard strange noises like people “moving heavy equipment and furniture” (gee where have I heard that before?). CNN posted a story the next day in which he gave a very similar account. He said nothing about sprinklers going off or walls cracking or ceilings falling. It is interesting to note that even in the complaint for his famous RICO suit filed October 21, 2004 against the Bush Administration, PNAC, the 9/11 Commission and numerous other defendants nothing is ever said, either in the part where his actions that day are described or in the outline of the “evidence” against the defendants, about an explosion from below pushing him upward, cracking the walls, setting off the sprinklers or causing the false ceiling to fall etc. In fact there is no mention at all of what he experienced at the time of the impact. Nor is anything said about his testimony before the commission. Ok, back on topic... There is only one other issue the author repeatedly makes out to be a problem with Rodriguez's account. A few of those are mentioned above. "He did not mention..." , "Nothing is ever said...", etc. This has to be one of the weakest points of the author's entire argument. What is the author's point, anyway? That we should expect Rodriguez to include each and every detail the same way for each and every interview or statement? I can imagine the author's mindset.... "His 2 minute interview better not leave out anything he said in his two hour interview!!" Not including details that are said later does not make one a liar. And it does not mean the person has changed his story. The author is on a witch hunt. Too bad his witch is the creation of a self-induced paranoid delusion.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 18, 2007 7:04:48 GMT -4
Think about it.
If the test show that your assumptions were correct, then you go forward. And it happens as predicted by the test. The only time you learn anything is if the test does NOT support your original assumptions. You then know the plan is not going to go well.
In which case you do what? Fire off the explosives that you now know are going to fail? If you were going to do that in the first place, why test? The "test" is that you set off explosives, and you got the predicted result (aka the building fell down.)
Perhaps the assumption is that if the test fails, you can now abort. Oops. Planes already hit. Explosives are already planted. And now you've got hundreds of rescue workers punching holes in your building and crawling around every previously-secret corner. You can't call it off without being discovered.
Or is this your scenario, properly re-spun? That the "test" would be to decide if they had calculated the amounts correctly, and the intention was to abort the firing of the rest of the explosives and to come up with some terribly clever way to keep anyone from finding all that untouched explosive? Oh, perhaps your black ops can just infiltrate among the rescue workers and sneak the stuff out under their turnout jackets.
Actually, I have a better idea. You want a "test shot" that did definite but non-critical damage, that was thoroughly analyzed, that is far enough before 9-11 to actually give you time to learn from it and adapt your plans? Try February 26, 1993.
|
|