Byner21 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Then you haven't been listenning. You can drag a horse to water, but you can't make him read the posts on an internet blog. Post a specific objection to one of the many explainations already posted... At what point did you explain WTC 7? You made some good points that seemed more pertinent to the two towers that were actually hit by planes. And what do you make of Larry Silverstein's comment? Did you see that clip? I'm genuinely curious about this. Very curious. Please be respectful. I don't take this issue lightly at all, as the Dad of one of my friends was killed in the Pentagon. As of now I still believe the "official story" but I'm looking pretty hard at this contrary information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegeta613 Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 So you believe that some sort of incendiary / explosive agents were used somehow in the attack? Curious, did not watch the video is that what they were implying? I'll leave it to JMS to sort out - once he gets that big brain working... It could make for a long night be forewarned;) This video says that thermite explosives were used Something that only the military has and it burns at 4566 F (high point) It easily melts steel and it is extremely tough to stop once it gets started Which could explain why the debre was still burning at such a high temp 2 months after the plain hit buried under countless tons of debre with hardly any oxygen (thermite contains it's own supply of oxygen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I still haven't heard a decent explanation for why World Trade 7 fell. Have you actually done research on the subject or are you just by going what you see in those videos. WTC7 was much more damaged than the conspiracy sites lead you to believe. Ever consider the context or circumstances of the Larry quote? Why he said "it" instead of "them" is what you'll have to ask Larry (He or the fire chief explained that he was talking about the team that was battling the fires in WTC 7 - I'll find the source in a bit). Regardless of what he said, have you ever wondered why the firefighters would stop fighting the fires claiming it was too out of control? Were they all part of the conspiracy as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegeta613 Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 Have you actually done research on the subject or are you just by going what you see in those videos. WTC7 was much more damaged than the conspiracy sites lead you to believe. Ever consider the context or circumstances of the Larry quote? Why he said "it" instead of "them" is what you'll have to ask Larry (He or the fire chief explained that he was talking about the team that was battling the fires in WTC 7 - I'll find the source in a bit). Regardless of what he said, have you ever wondered why the firefighters would stop fighting the fires claiming it was too out of control? Were they all part of the conspiracy as well? Regardless of how out of control the fires were it still shouldn't be enough to bring the Steel building down No plane hit that building No jet fuel Just fire from debre that caused bush fires within the building As a matter of fact other WTC buildings (other than the two towers) took much more punishment from debre and fire than 7 did, but none of them fell The building burned for what 6-8 hours and fell?? It's not like it was even and intense fire. Just small isolated fires accross different sections of the building Steel buildings accross the world no matter how intense the fires were and no matter how long they burned never came down 7 was the first one in history to fall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 veg, you're getting the reactions here because these threads pop up once every two or three months. it has been discussed over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 If you want the collapse explained by real experts, watch this video: They interview the structural engineer that DESIGNED and BUILT the towers. Not some idiot hobbiest. http://shopping.discovery.com/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?endecaSID=11148D775CE8&langId=-1&storeId=10000&productId=59265&catalogId=10000 Product Detail: When they were christened in 1972, the twin towers were the largest buildings ever built – and they survived 23 years without any major incidents. Discover how the World Trade Center towers were built, how they survived a terrorist attack in 1993 and why they came down eight years later. CGI graphics and eyewitness interviews unravel the split-second events of September 11th in visual detail, explaining the answers to the questions that haunt the American public. If it didn't fall from the first terrorist attack in 1993 and it didn't fall when the planes hit, then why did both buildings eventually crash to the ground? Witness interviews with the men who created these gigantic structures, including structural engineer for the WTC project Leslie Robertson and architect Minori Yama Saki, and hear their answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Ok, I am still laughing at your "fact" post....but how do you explain the Empire State building still standing after being hit by a B-52 bomber? I'll wait for your response.. empire state building is made of concrete the way the WTC towers were made they were designed to with stand high winds with the way the steel was structured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tehhunter Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 In response to that guy who was talking about how its weird that materials were squirted out of the building, well, where were you expecting the air in the floors to go? Squish your hands together right now, now there is little or no air there, as it got forced out. Also, you were stating that it was weird that the WTC site was still burning two months later, so I have an experiment for you. If you have a stone fireplace, the next time you light a fire, check it the next morning and put your hand on the stone: guess what? It'll still be hot. Now imagine a much bigger and much more intense and high-temperature fire spread over many square acres. Doesn't seem so far fetched does it? The fact that any of these 'theories' (though theories generally have to have some evidence supporting them) are given any credence is a total mockery of country. Hell, our government couldn't keep Watergate, a break-in at a hotel, underwraps, and you think that somehow they coerced the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of co-conspirators into total submission and silence? Insane. Personally, I disagree with Bush and the way the government has been run for the last 6 years. However that condition is not an excuse to jump on a bandwagon for weak conspiracy theories. The last thing I'll say: Can any of you conspiracy believers offer me one piece of undeniable proof that proves any of the claims you write of? No, I do not mean some blurry picture of the "missile" (note my sarcasm) at the Pentagon, or saying that it looked like a controlled demolition because of the outward push at the WTC. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So how about instead of believing your theories, you find some reputable undeniable unbiased source material of a conspiracy. Until that day comes, and I know it will never, I will remain convinced that you are all socially inane.* *Note: These last few paragraphs are not intended to flamebait any specific person, just the general group of conspiracy theorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Regardless of how out of control the fires were it still shouldn't be enough to bring the Steel building down No plane hit that building No jet fuel Again, research. According to firefighters there the building was damaged much more than the CTers will have you believe. Just fire from debre that caused bush fires within the building wtf is a Bush fire? As a matter of fact other WTC buildings (other than the two towers) took much more punishment from debre and fire than 7 did, but none of them fell Which buildings are you referring to? The ones in the immediate vicinity were destroyed in the collapse. The building burned for what 6-8 hours and fell?? It's not like it was even and intense fire. Just small isolated fires accross different sections of the building You're basing this on one of those videos right? :laugh: Steel buildings accross the world no matter how intense the fires were and no matter how long they burned never came down 7 was the first one in history to fall Comparing 9/11 to any other event is ridiculous. Edit: I'm stopping now. You almost got me! I stop debating 9/11 about a year ago. It just leads to no where. People will believe whatever they want to believe whether it's logical or not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 This wasn't played down in the video They mentioned this plenty of times The video says the kerisen jet fuel was all burned up seconds after the impact in the flame ball. The video says that the temperature wasn't hot enough to weak the steel in the building based on the color of the flame. The video definitely and incorrectly attempts to use inuendo to gloss over that kerisene jet fuel was hot enough to weaken the jet fuel. At one point the video suggest because kerosene heaters are made of steel, and these heaters run for years without melting; how could kerisene melt the super structure of the buiding!!!... As if their wasn't a difference between the heat from a candle flame and the heat a million candles would produce. If this was the case the buildings should not have fell in 8-10 seconds I don't think so. When the first floor failed. The floor under it wasn't holding two floors; it was holding 32 floors. Once the first floor failed there was nothing left to hold the building together. That's in evidence because the building colapsed roughly the same speed a ball would have fallen to the ground if dropped from the top floor. Literally millions of tons of un planned for stress. You only saw the flame ball for a few minutes and then nothing but Black smoke That indicates that the fire was weak and lacked oxegen Something that was in the video That might be true in a fireplace. when the fire is contained in a 12 inche location. With a building you can't tell anything from smoke. All it means is that along with the steel and karisene paper and other things are burning too. The building was collasping floor by floor within itsself and still blowing debre outward?? What do you think happenned to the air between the floors? It was forced out between the floors with the same force that forced one floor down on top of the other floor. Certainly paper would be forced out along with the air. As for the debree. Think of the force involved in the colapse of that building. It certainly that force applied to some debree could is enough to spray iron beams out like so many tinker toys. So it would offer zero resistance?? The video didn't question it giving way there is no way it would hold up under the weight but no resistance at all is what is in question They stated clearly that if you throw a ball off the WTC it would fall in 9 seconds North fell in 10 second and South fell in 8 If it fell floor by floor it would've had to show at least the slightess bit of Resistance but it clearly didn't It offered lots of resistance. The time in which it fell wasn't representative of the resistance the building offered. The time in which it fell was representative only of the overwhelming force working to pull the building down. after the first floor fell the stress was what 30x by weight and anouther 2x by inertia? 60x the weight the floor was designed to hold. That force only went up as each floor fell. So since you are so hot on the jet fuel defense then explain how in the world the WTC was still burning 2 months after the plane hit Jet fuel does burn at 1800 F and Steel Melts at 2700 F so it is impossible for jet fuel to melt steel but the basement of the WTC was burning at temps as high as 4000 F How in the world do you explain that? Easy. Because there was more than just jet fuel burning in that building. Jet fuel didn't burn for 2 months. Rubber and other materials do however especially in low oxygen environments like in a collapsed building. As for the 4000 F. The only thing that disipates the heat of such a fire is circulation. It makes sense that in a basement with poor circulation the heat would be greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 It wasn't a B-52, it was a B-25. :doh: Ok,I got my numbers mixed up, shoot me. I'm sure that makes it ok then.... I got a few more for ya... Any idea why Rudy did tell anyone about his foreknowledge? http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/090405gotwarning.htm Also.... how about these quotes from one of the designers of the twin towers? “A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”[2] (Between Early 1984 and October 1985): “However, O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”[3] 1993 “[building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”[4] “The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[5] 2001 “Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”[6] [Leslie Robertson:] “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[7] [Frank A. Demartini:] “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.[8] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Then you haven't been listenning. You can drag a horse to water, but you can't make him read the posts on an internet blog. Post a specific objection to one of the many explainations already posted... So you have an explanation but NIST doesn't? I'm listening... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Have you actually done research on the subject or are you just by going what you see in those videos. WTC7 was much more damaged than the conspiracy sites lead you to believe. Ever consider the context or circumstances of the Larry quote? Why he said "it" instead of "them" is what you'll have to ask Larry (He or the fire chief explained that he was talking about the team that was battling the fires in WTC 7 - I'll find the source in a bit). Regardless of what he said, have you ever wondered why the firefighters would stop fighting the fires claiming it was too out of control? Were they all part of the conspiracy as well? Hey, ever wonder why the BBC and CNN both prematurely said that WTC 7 fell before they fell? I mean the BBC reporter was reporting it with the building burning in the background. JUST FYI, NIST has not been able to explain how the building fell. Don't portray that this is a simple thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 If you want the collapse explained by real experts, watch this video:They interview the structural engineer that DESIGNED and BUILT the towers. Not some idiot hobbiest. http://shopping.discovery.com/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?endecaSID=11148D775CE8&langId=-1&storeId=10000&productId=59265&catalogId=10000 See my post a few posts up to see what they were saying BEFORE 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I think Southpark said it best, "That if 1/4 of the population thinks it was a conspiracy, 25% of the population is stupid". Obviously, we should give the South Park creators the benefit of the doubt when wondering about their agendas, but not the guys who make these types of videos. I mean, come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Just a comment on experts vs experts, because nobody can deny the fact that both sides have undisputable 'experts'- BOTH SIDES. Although, I found it interesting a guy, Mr. Ryan from UL, gets fired for challenging the NIST report. I would like to see the vested interests of each sides 'experts'. I'm afraid I wouldn't like what I find. Very many questions have unacceptable answers in the official story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Hey, ever wonder why the BBC and CNN both prematurely said that WTC 7 fell before they fell?I mean the BBC reporter was reporting it with the building burning in the background. JUST FYI, NIST has not been able to explain how the building fell. Don't portray that this is a simple thing. *sigh* please research....I'll help you along, but I'm not getting into any long debates. This is simple stuff you can research.... 1. You got a source showing BBC and CNN saying prematurely it fell? 1a. Do you know how much stuff was reported that day? Remember the State Department blowing up? Remember the all the bridges on fire? etc.? 1b. So...what? This means both BBC and CNN are in on it too? 1c. You really got to show me that source. If they did say that then that probably means that even they knew the structural integrity of the building was failing. 2. The NIST hasn't released it's main findings yet. They have issued a progress report though. I'll let you research more, for now....the great Wiki: n response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made a three-year, US$24-million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC structures, including 7 World Trade Center. The study drew not only on in-house technical expertise but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[6]NIST has released video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south façade.[1] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[1] NIST anticipates that it will release a draft report in early 2007.[7] NIST released a progress report in June 2004, outlining its working hypothesis, which was that a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure".[8][9] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Just a comment on experts vs experts, because nobody can deny the fact that both sides have undisputable 'experts'- BOTH SIDES.Although, I found it interesting a guy, Mr. Ryan from UL, gets fired for challenging the NIST report. I would like to see the vested interests of each sides 'experts'. I'm afraid I wouldn't like what I find. Very many questions have unacceptable answers in the official story. Both sides do have experts. One side has paid experts though... That should be all you need. Now, think critically for a moment. 47 steel-concrete pillars going down the center of the twin towers. Plan apparently according to official story damages some (not all) of the columns. Fires fueled by Jet fuel weaken the beams connected to the columns and the steel netting surrounding the entire building. Weakened, not melt, they should sagg and not have total failure. If it is true, then a few floors would sagg and maybe drop. Certainly this "pancake" theory would involve a resistance and not be the total free fall that ensued. Now, if you believe the NIST report theory, then what happened to the 47 steel concrete encased columns? Did they just disappear? Shouldn't they still be there? Let's not even ask how the lobby was blown out (there is video) when the firefighers arrived. If you believed Popular Mechanics, they would like you to believe that the fire traveled down the elevators. Problem is, there was no straight shot down to the lobby There was 3 seperate elevator shafts that were staggered. If the fire did do that, it would have to get off of one elevator, then push the button and wait for that elevator, then continue on. Yeah...I would rather focus on what was really going on, bombs going off in the hour prior to collapse. There are dozens of eyewitness reports of this. This, and MANY other reasons, are the essense of why I think the official story is complete crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchgear Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 *sigh* please research....I'll help you along, but I'm not getting into any long debates. This is simple stuff you can research....1. You got a source showing BBC and CNN saying prematurely it fell? 1a. Do you know how much stuff was reported that day? Remember the State Department blowing up? Remember the all the bridges on fire? etc.? 1b. So...what? This means both BBC and CNN are in on it too? 1c. You really got to show me that source. If they did say that then that probably means that even they knew the structural integrity of the building was failing. 2. The NIST hasn't released it's main findings yet. They have issued a progress report though. I'll let you research more, for now....the great Wiki: I admire your persistence, Skins24, but you know how it is with these things. People have made up their minds and will find "facts" to fit their preconceptions. Assuming the NIST report shows that there weren't any explosives on site or government involvment, it will be dimissed as a cover up by people who don't want to believe it when it contradicts them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegeta613 Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 Again, research. According to firefighters there the building was damaged much more than the CTers will have you believe..... How exactly did it get damaged so badly?? Falling debre could only do so much It had no jet fuel in the building so the fire could only burn so hot Reg office materials couldn't burn hot enough to damage the building to the point of collapse wtf is a Bush fire? I was just saying that to indicate a normal fire No burning fuel just a normal fire Which buildings are you referring to? The ones in the immediate vicinity were destroyed in the collapse. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html even after the collapse parts of these buildings still stood You're basing this on one of those videos right? :laugh: ?? I'm losing you here Comparing 9/11 to any other event is ridiculous. Comparing building 7 to other events is far from ridiculous The first steel building to fall from fire alone should be compared to other events since it was newer and built better than some of the other buildings that burned longer and more intense than this one did Edit: I'm stopping now. You almost got me!I stop debating 9/11 about a year ago. It just leads to no where. People will believe whatever they want to believe whether it's logical or not.... Your right about this I guess Some people believe the crap that is force fed down there throats and some dont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Well at least we are not arguing about the Pentagon being blown up by a missle I guess that is progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 *sigh* please research....I'll help you along, but I'm not getting into any long debates. This is simple stuff you can research....1. You got a source showing BBC and CNN saying prematurely it fell? 1a. Do you know how much stuff was reported that day? Remember the State Department blowing up? Remember the all the bridges on fire? etc.? 1b. So...what? This means both BBC and CNN are in on it too? 1c. You really got to show me that source. If they did say that then that probably means that even they knew the structural integrity of the building was failing. 2. The NIST hasn't released it's main findings yet. They have issued a progress report though. I'll let you research more, for now....the great Wiki: Simple stuff huh? You take the easy way out and just listen to the spoon fed info, and I'm taking the simple way....Ok. Here is the BBC reporting the collapse, with the building still standing in the background. Notice they cut here off when the realize the building didn't actually fall yet. Also realize that they probably had no idea (no being NYers) which building it was. The Bottom video on the page is Aaron Brown reporting, turning around and realizing that it is still there (he's a NYer) and stumbling and saying how it was imminent or something... http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/010307Announcers.htm I'm sure they both had their reasons for doing this though. Heck, the BBC actually "lost" the tape of this. Imagine that, the most history day of this century and they lose the tape. Go figure. None of these revelations were broadcast on TV, so I am not surprised that you didn't know about them. ALSO..... How come Gulianni (your next president) didn't tell anyone he somehow knew 15 minutes before the first collapse, that the building would collapse? How could he know? Why didn't he tell anyone? Why were firefighters still fighting the fire? (video) http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...5gotwarning.htm Please, someone let me know why? It is absolutely appalling. I know, he didn't really mean to say that though, right? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Well at least we are not arguing about the Pentagon being blown up by a missleI guess that is progress Not really. When one crackpot theory gets obliterated, they just latch onto some other one all the more tightly, like Wile E. Coyote clinging desperately to the edge of a cliff while Road Runner plucks his fingers from the rock once by one. Blighty Skins ran away with this thread several pages ago. It's all over. As is the conspiracy movement. Turns out, the absence of total information doesn't equal the existence of widespread conspiracy. JFK, Moon landing, Jimmy Hoffa, 9/11, Roswell. Who knew? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Not really. When one crackpot theory gets obliterated, they just latch onto some other one all the more tightly, like Wile E. Coyote clinging desperately to the edge of a cliff while Road Runner plucks his fingers from the rock once by one.Blighty Skins ran away with this thread several pages ago. It's all over. As is the conspiracy movement. Turns out, the absence of total information doesn't equal the existence of widespread conspiracy. JFK, Moon landing, Jimmy Hoffa, 9/11, Roswell. Who knew? :doh: Other than my typo, what exactly have we been owned on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Well at least we are not arguing about the Pentagon being blown up by a missleI guess that is progress SHF- You'llnnot be happy with this, but I actually think there are more unanswered questions there. IMO only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.