|
Post by turbonium on Dec 19, 2005 3:26:15 GMT -4
You haven't read the reports then have you. The theory is not that the south wall failed first but that the damage to the south wall supports the idea that damage to critical interior core supports was caused by falling debris from WTC 1 and that continued fires near that area eventually weakened the support directly under the penthouse structure and that column failed, the penthouse falls tearing away support under the west penthouse area which also falls. The loss of support under the center line of the building caused it to collapse central core first. The walls could not support themselves and were pulled inward. I know that's the theory, and what a theory it is! No evidence exists to support it. No photos, no videos, no steel. They simply created a diagram, based on one person's description, that shows a Grand Canyon-esque size crater supposedly caused by flying debris. Sure, I have no problems with that! Sorry, but I remain unconvinced and unimpressed to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Dec 19, 2005 13:55:45 GMT -4
Well there is certainly more evidence to support this model than there is to support the idea of surreptiously pre-planted explosives, a theory of which I remain quite unimpressed and unconvinced.
|
|
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 19, 2005 14:53:15 GMT -4
Well there is certainly more evidence to support this model than there is to support the idea of surreptiously pre-planted explosives, a theory of which I remain quite unimpressed and unconvinced. Wait, didn't Silverstein order the NYFD to demolish WTC? In that case we must suppose that unlike the Towers where the explosives were pre-planted firemen rushed into 7 while it was on fire and quickly and surreptitiously installed explosives in order to 'pull' the building. Thus they were willing participants in a conspiracy that only a few hours earlier had killed hundreds of their colleagues and thousands of their fellow citizens. C'mon jaydeehees can't you keep those far-fetched CTs straight!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Dec 19, 2005 16:21:52 GMT -4
Well there is certainly more evidence to support this model than there is to support the idea of surreptiously pre-planted explosives, a theory of which I remain quite unimpressed and unconvinced. Wait, didn't Silverstein order the NYFD to demolish WTC? In that case we must suppose that unlike the Towers where the explosives were pre-planted firemen rushed into 7 while it was on fire and quickly and surreptitiously installed explosives in order to 'pull' the building. Thus they were willing participants in a conspiracy that only a few hours earlier had killed hundreds of their colleagues and thousands of their fellow citizens. C'mon jaydeehees can't you keep those far-fetched CTs straight!!!!! Actually , less stable people than turbonium or metamars have told me that all high rise buildings have demolition explosives loaded into them at the time of construction in order to make the inevitable demolition later(at the end of the building's life time) easier. This, I am told, is why no one saw any explosives being loaded since they had been in place for decades already.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 19, 2005 16:38:58 GMT -4
Actually , less stable people than turbonium or metamars have told me that all high rise buildings have demolition explosives loaded into them at the time of construction in order to make the inevitable demolition later(at the end of the building's life time) easier. This, I am told, is why no one saw any explosives being loaded since they had been in place for decades already. You mean like this? First thing to accept is that explosives are the most logical explanation for what happened. I haven't convinced you of that yet, and that's the part with lots of evidence available. The method used to install the explosives is based on eyewitnesses to unauthorized people and equipment, power-downs that weren't scheduled, and even reports that there was work done at the time they were built! that was closed off from, and not done by, the regular contruction workers for the towers.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 19, 2005 18:07:30 GMT -4
I assume that none of these "Eyewitnesses" were union brothers -- if there were, it wouldn't be quietly ignored. Or agents of the investors. Or city, state, or federal inspectors from any of the alphabet soup of agencies that get involved on a major construction project.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Dec 19, 2005 19:23:58 GMT -4
Actually , less stable people than turbonium or metamars have told me that all high rise buildings have demolition explosives loaded into them at the time of construction in order to make the inevitable demolition later(at the end of the building's life time) easier. This, I am told, is why no one saw any explosives being loaded since they had been in place for decades already. You mean like this? First thing to accept is that explosives are the most logical explanation for what happened. I haven't convinced you of that yet, and that's the part with lots of evidence available. The method used to install the explosives is based on eyewitnesses to unauthorized people and equipment, power-downs that weren't scheduled, and even reports that there was work done at the time they were built! that was closed off from, and not done by, the regular contruction workers for the towers. Oops, strike the word "turbonium" from my previous post ;D
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Dec 19, 2005 19:32:02 GMT -4
I assume that none of these "Eyewitnesses" were union brothers -- if there were, it wouldn't be quietly ignored. Or agents of the investors. Or city, state, or federal inspectors from any of the alphabet soup of agencies that get involved on a major construction project. There's a good point. You don't want Tony Soprano coming around making trouble for the gov't spooks on the construction site. ;D
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Dec 19, 2005 22:01:21 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?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 19, 2005 22:28:12 GMT -4
Because they don't involve Bush being a mass murderer attacking his own country for nothing but monatery gain, thus proving that the US Govt is a massive evil and must be destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Dec 20, 2005 2:11:05 GMT -4
Actually , less stable people than turbonium or metamars have told me that all high rise buildings have demolition explosives loaded into them at the time of construction in order to make the inevitable demolition later(at the end of the building's life time) easier. This, I am told, is why no one saw any explosives being loaded since they had been in place for decades already. You mean like this? First thing to accept is that explosives are the most logical explanation for what happened. I haven't convinced you of that yet, and that's the part with lots of evidence available. The method used to install the explosives is based on eyewitnesses to unauthorized people and equipment, power-downs that weren't scheduled, and even reports that there was work done at the time they were built! that was closed off from, and not done by, the regular contruction workers for the towers. Talk about wrongly attributing claims! Read it again, I said (and with an ! mark) that there were even reports about this - exactly what jaydeehess said - that he has been told about this. Don't twist my words to try and belittle or ridicule when what I clearly stated is that this was what others have said!
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 20, 2005 3:03:28 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?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Dec 20, 2005 8:51:50 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? Perhaps not turbonium, but to many CTs, "most logical explanation" and "just some rumours I've heard" are exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 20, 2005 23:40:34 GMT -4
From Turbonium's post above, "computer model" and "this story we made up" are the same as well. He still desires the smoking gun...to be shown A spot where A beam was heated until it failed.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Dec 21, 2005 1:02:44 GMT -4
The method used to install the explosives is based on eyewitnesses to unauthorized people and equipment, power-downs that weren't scheduled, and even reports that there was work done at the time they were built! that was closed off from, and not done by, the regular contruction workers for the towers. Sorry turbonium, if you consider the idea of explosives installed during construction to be as idiotic a notion as I do then you would not have included it in that paragraph. your exclamation mark is at the end of the sentence which contains all of the methods of installing explosives that you list. You have included no inkling that you do not subscribe to the notion that any of them are patently false. If you now state that you find the idea of installing explosive in buildings under construction then simply now say exactly that please.
|
|