|
Post by nomuse on Mar 2, 2007 17:54:42 GMT -4
Skin theory. Buildings are characterized sole-ly by their outer surfaces. A building is not experiencing a significant fire unless that fire is coming out the windows. A building is not collapsing until the facade is in motion. Nothing that happens a few feet inside the building is worthy of discussion. It's all about surfaces.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 2, 2007 23:09:57 GMT -4
The videos of the collapses were taken from a great distance for obvious reasons. Sound diminishes by the inverse square law. The sound of the collapses would cover up the sound of the squibs. But you don't believe eyewitnesses so why believe a video?No, some of the video was taken right next the buildings and INSIDE the buildings, I even have previously posted a phone call that was occuring inside Tower 2 when it collapsed. Go and watch a few real CD's and then say that the camera's where too far away. It's obvious you have never bothered to do so or you'd know that you're talking a load of rubbish. Firstly, the 9-11 collapses were not typical CDs. They were designed to look spontaneous to the casual observer, not that any other steel frame building ever collapsed like those 3 did. The large holes in the support columns that the EMT saw could have been done with thermite which is virtually silent. That is consistent with his observation of large amounts of molten metal everywhere... There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it. ...and with the video evidence of white smoke rising from the ground before the collapse started. Thermite would be the obvious choice for weakening the immense support columns in the basement prior to the controlled demolition. Then let gravity and momentum of the upper levels do the rest. The noise of the synchronized detonations which started on the upper floors, would be almost completely masked by the sounds of the building crashing down from above. All anyone would hear from the ground would be the sounds of the building collapsing.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 3, 2007 0:56:09 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Mar 3, 2007 4:14:40 GMT -4
3speed:
The melting temperature of aluminum is less than 1000 degrees Kelvin, Copper melts at around 1300 K. The maximum possible temp for jet fuel is 2300K. Dry wood burns at 2100 K.
So even if the supposed rivers of melted metal were really seen, they could easily be copper and aluminum from the wiring in the building, suspended ceiling hardware, conduit hardware, and maybe even the flaming airplane illegally parked upstairs.
9:IJ -
are you going to trot out again? Didn't we already go over that?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 3, 2007 4:17:06 GMT -4
They're starting to come forward, it's only been five years though for goodness sake. "Only"? You're kidding, right? Actually, from a purely psychological standpoint, the longer it takes a witness to come forward, the more suspect their story. As for the experts . . . you know, it doesn't really take most people five years to say, "Hmm, that looks fishy. I should look into it." Also, I fail to see how "subject of a documentary on the History Channel" is at all the same as "hidden from public view."
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 3, 2007 4:30:33 GMT -4
They're starting to come forward, it's only been five years though for goodness sake. "Only"? You're kidding, right? Actually, from a purely psychological standpoint, the longer it takes a witness to come forward, the more suspect their story. As for the experts . . . you know, it doesn't really take most people five years to say, "Hmm, that looks fishy. ...(snip) Maybe he his now retired ....so he is not at risk of loosing his job. That is why he talk now.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 3, 2007 6:44:41 GMT -4
You're short one plane, no evil box cutter weilding muslim oil hoarding terrorist parked a steel melting airplane in WTC7.
These buildings must have been totally unfurnished, had all the copper and aluminium removed just prior to the attacks, by Jove you're onto something. The weight of the furnishings and light fittings was enough to push building 7 past it's redundancy. It's all clear to me now.
Especially when you consider who a civil engineers main clients would be in the area of the US where he works.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 3, 2007 8:36:28 GMT -4
Why do you think the penthouse doesn't qualify as part of the overall global collapse? It's an entirely separate, preliminary event. The arrow indicates the east mech. penthouse... It was not an integral part of the main structural framework, only a small rooftop add-on. Here we see it collapse..... Afterwards, the structure remains unchanged for six more seconds. Then, the entire building collapses to the ground in just 6 or 7 more seconds. A small housing on the roof collapsed, but it did not progress or continue. This was the first event. Six full seconds elapsed after this event. Then the main event began - the entire structure's initial failure led into a progressive, global collapse. If the east penthouse collapse was the initiating event of a sequential, progressive collapse, it would not have a gap of six seconds. Another important point - the global collapse did not progress from the top down. It began with the rest of the penthouse collapsing, but an instant later - almost at the same time - the main structure collapsed from the bottom floors. What if the east penthouse collapsed, but the building stood for another six hours afterwards. Then it collapsed in the same 6 or 7 seconds. Would it be reasonable to say that the building collapsed in six hours? There were sections of the towers that remained standing for days after they collapsed. Is it reasonable to say that the towers didn't collapse in seconds, but rather that they took days to collapse? The obvious answer to both of the examples above is no. It may be considered technically correct, in terms of how much time it took for the entire structure to collapse from start to finish. But we are talking about the time it took for the global collapses - that is, the main, overall structural collapse event.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 3, 2007 8:41:41 GMT -4
Ah, yes....mechanically unconnected and INFINITELY COMPRESSIBLE. It just magically turns into dust, or scurries into the nearest lift and rides down to the street. Nothing to do with the structure under it. Exactly the way I am quietly retreating through the floor of my apartment right now....what, there's no hole in my floor, why do you ask?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 3, 2007 9:13:06 GMT -4
Ah, yes....mechanically unconnected and INFINITELY COMPRESSIBLE. It just magically turns into dust, or scurries into the nearest lift and rides down to the street. Nothing to do with the structure under it. Exactly the way I am quietly retreating through the floor of my apartment right now....what, there's no hole in my floor, why do you ask? It does almost seem to "magically turn into dust", doesn't it? Then - six seconds later - the rest of the penthouse seemingly turns into dust. Not caused by the first structure falling down onto it, mind you - it was beside the first structure that collapsed! Almost at the same time, the entire building crumbles from the ground floors. Again, not caused by the first two collapses - those were at the top! Magical doesn't even begin to describe it. There are much more fitting words.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 3, 2007 10:39:16 GMT -4
As to the main topic of this thread....
There is a timestamped version of the report, confirming it was over 20 minutes before the collapse occurred. It was a false report, no question.
Who gave them the false report? It must have been from a source they considered reliable.
Why would they repeatedly mention the false claim? That further suggests that they accepted the report as completely factual..
Is the BBC the only media source that mentioned this false report? No, they are not. Aaron Brown of CNN said the building "..has either collapsed or is collapsing.." over an hour before it actually did collapse!
So the BBC and CNN have both made a false report.- the very same false report. Were the BBC and CNN each given a script - the very same script - and both reported it before they were supposed to?
It's either that, or we dismiss the reports as simple human error - two coincidentally identical examples of over-eager reporters spouting off too early, in anticipation of an inevitable, impending event. The BBC was 26 minutes too early, and CNN was about 1 hour and five minutes too early.
It's like so many other issues about 9/11, the GCT's will treat it as an isolated, separate event. Option one - it's a script - is summarily dismissed. Option two - it's a simple case of simultaneous media errors - is instantly accepted.
Silverstein saying "pull it" - Option one - a CD - is summarily dismissed. Option two - a case of misinterpretation - is accepted.
Bush saying he saw the first tower get hit - Option one - Bush saw it on a private video feed - is instantly dismissed. Option two - a dumb mistake - is accepted.
Bush again saying he saw the first tower get hit - Option one - confirmation that Bush saw it on a private video feed - is instantly dismissed. Option two - the exact same dumb mistake was made - is accepted.
Norman Mineta testifying to the 9/11 Commission about Cheney -
I never did get any explanation for that one.....
The first options all point to and support the same argument - an inside job.
The second options are all excused as isolated cases of human error and mistaken interpretation.
The problem is that new thorns keep surfacing, and using the same excuses over and over is starting to wear mighty thin.
|
|
|
Post by gorgonian on Mar 3, 2007 16:19:09 GMT -4
Except that there were instruments on the building measuring it as it moved well before the collapse, so "has collapsed or is collapsing" is not necessarily false.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 3, 2007 16:30:31 GMT -4
Don't we know exactly where Bush was at all times that day? I mean, what was he doing at the exact moment the first plane hit? I thought he was in public view; how would he be able to watch a "private video feed" in front of a group of schoolchildren? I mean, I'm willing to be told I'm wrong about this, if there's some evidence I am. Maybe he hadn't started dealing with the kids yet?
What's more, I guess you don't remember that day as clearly as I do. There was a lot going on. There were a lot of unconfirmed stories making it on the air, simply because no one was sure what was going on. I watched at least six hours of news that day, and I didn't get up until at least 11 AM Pacific time. I couldn't tell you now when I knew what, though, because it all rather blended together. They showed the same things over and over, and there were a lot of stories involving the words, "We don't know quite what's happening."
On Univision, a woman called in and was telling the anchors about her husband, who worked fairly high up in one of the buildings. (Even if she said which, I didn't necessarily understand; my Spanish has decayed a fair amount since high school.) Neither anchor wanted to tell her what we all knew--that her husband was dead. Do you think they would have let that hysterical woman on the air at all if they'd known she was being lied to? I mean, how often does the news allow just regular people to call in and tell them things on air?
Someone needs to explain to me what the point would be in telling the BBC about the collapse in advance, because I'm not getting it. It doesn't make sense to me. Surely, even if TPTB knew what was going to happen, there was no reason for them to let the media know in advance. After all, it's not as though there weren't a few cameras there already, so people would've found out about it eventually; there was no need to notify anyone in advance.
In fact, it would be just about the stupidest thing they could do--if it weren't for Watergate, would Woodward and Bernstein be a quarter as famous as they are? Every reporter in the world is just looking for the story that will make them that famous--that will make them half that famous, and being the one to expose evidence of a plot this big, or Apollo, or government conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, will make the one who does it about the most famous reporter in history.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 3, 2007 17:30:37 GMT -4
Don't we know exactly where Bush was at all times that day? I mean, what was he doing at the exact moment the first plane hit? I thought he was in public view; how would he be able to watch a "private video feed" in front of a group of schoolchildren? He was in his limousine watching a very special closed circuit TV. The U.S. has a branch of the Defense Department not many folks know of, the Defense Information Systems Agency, or DISA. These are the folks who make it possible for generals to see live battlefield images and nosecone videos in real-time from around the globe via satellite. They are also responsible for bringing images of this type to POTUS. Here is their mission statement: The Defense Information Systems Agency is a combat support agency responsible for planning, engineering, acquiring, fielding, and supporting Global Net-Centric Solutions and operating the Defense Information System Network to serve the needs of the President, Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and the other DoD Components, under all conditions of peace and war. Enjoy! 911blimp.net/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 3, 2007 17:38:41 GMT -4
Heh, Watergate would be like stolen hubcaps compared to that story.
Yet CTs with a straight face tell us that the all-embracing, all-powerful, utterly ruthless and murderous conspiracy not only told the news media ahead of time that the building had collapsed - insurance in case they didn't notice it, I supposed - but broadcast a countdown to the demolition in the clear - presumably because they were concerned about nobody getting hurt, or something like that.
It's good for a giggle, but it's a horrified giggle that people could really be that desperate to believe it.
|
|